the 'Bill' of 1530. At the close of 1534 a convocation under the presidency of Cranmer had agreed to petition the king that he would 'vouchsafe to decree that the Scrip'tures should be translated into the vulgar tongue, by some 'honest and learned men, to be nominated by the king, and 'to be delivered to the people according to their learning?' Crumwell, who must have been well aware of the turn which opinion had taken, seems now to have urged Coverdale to commit his work to the press. At any rate by 1534 he was ready, as he was desired,' 'to set forth' (ie. to publish) his translation, and the work was finished in October, 1535. But up to the present time the place where it was printed is wholly undetermined, though most bibliographers agree that it was printed abroad. Various conjectures have been made, but when examined minutely they are found to be unsupported by any substantial evidence. The woodcuts and type are certainly not those used by Egenolph of Frankfort, to which however they bear a very close resemblance. On the other hand, no book printed by Froschover of Zurich has yet been found with more than the two larger kinds of type used in Coverdale's Bible". The question is further complicated by the fact that the title-page and 1 See p. 43. 2 Strype, Cranmer, p. 34 (ed. 1812). It is uncertain whether it was after this resolution (as seems most likely), or not till after the corresponding resolutions of 1536, that Cranmer endeavoured to engage the bishops in a translation or revision of the English Bible [New Testament], of which attempt Strype has preserved an amusing anecdote: Cranmer, p. 48. Strype says that Cranmer took 'an 'old English translation which he 'divided into nine or ten parts...to 'be sent to the best learned bishops 'and others, to the intent they should 'make a perfect correction thereof.' It has been argued that the epithet 'old' can only refer to a copy of the Wycliffite version--as if that were available for such a purpose; but in point of fact the epithet is not found in Foxe's MSS. [Harl. MS. 422, Plut. lxv. E fol. 87], to which Strype refers as the authority for his account. 3 The date is added in the edition of 1550. The words do not imply that he commenced it then. Mr F. Fry on Coverdale's Bible of 1535, p. 32. On this point I have satisfied myself completely. 5 Mr Fry, l.c. p. 28. It is right to add that I am convinced, on internal grounds, that Froschover was the printer, though at present no satisfactory direct evidence of the fact can be adduced. Froschover, it may bẹ added, printed the edition of 1550. preliminary matter were reprinted in a different (English) type', and the five remaining title-pages represent three Dr Ginsburg informs me that he has complete typographical proof that the Bible was printed by Froschover. [See the article on Coverdale by Mr Tedder in the Dict. of Nat. Biography.] [In the Catalogue of the Caxton Exhibition in 1877 the late Henry Stevens of Vermont propounded (pp. 86-90) a theory that the Bible of 1535 was printed at Antwerp by Jacob von Meteren at his own cost, and that the translation was his work, Coverdale occupying the humbler position of corrector of the press. This theory would have been grotesque but for the fact that it was adopted by the authorities of the British Museum in their Catalogue, in which Antwerp is given as the place of printing and Van Meteren as the printer, without a hint that these were in any way doubtful. All this cobweb is spun out of the simple statement by Simeon Ruytinck, in his Leven van Emanuel van Meteren' (E. van Meteren, Nederlandische Historie, 1614, fol. 672), that his father, Jacob van Meteren, had in his youth learnt the art of printing and had shewn especial zeal in defraying the expenses of translating and printing the English Bible in Antwerp, employing for the purpose a learned student, Miles Coverdale by name. This is probably what Ruytinck heard, not quite accurately, from Emanuel; but in a document in the possession of the Dutch Church, Austen Friars, Emanuel himself in 1610 deposes, 'That he was brought to England 'Anno 1550, in King Edward's the 6 'dayes, by his Father, a furtherer of 'reformed religion, and he that caused 'the first Bible at his costes to be 'Englisshed by Mr Myles Coverdale ' in Andwarp, the w'h his father, with 'Mr Edward Whytchurch, printed 'both in Paris and London.' (See Introduction to the Registers of the Dutch Reformed Church, by W. J. C. Moens, 1884.) There is nothing in either of these statements to imply anything so absurd as that the first English Bible was translated by a Dutchman, and the only safe inference that can be drawn from them is that Jacob van Meteren found means which enabled Coverdale to carry out his work of translation at Antwerp. So far the two accounts agree. But according to Ruytinck the printing also was done at Antwerp, whereas Emanuel van Meteren places it at Paris and London. This fact, together with the introduction of the name of Edward Whitchurch, makes it probable that the English Bible with which Jacob van Meteren had to do was rather Matthew's of 1537 or the Great Bible of 1539 and not Coverdale's of 1535. Whitchurch's initials are conspicuous in the Bible of 1537, and he was on intimate terms with Rogers, for it was to his house that Rogers appears to have come on his return to England in 1548. He was also associated with Grafton in printing the Great Bible. In estimating the value of Emanuel van Meteren's evidence, it must be remembered that his knowledge could only have been derived from hearsay, for he was not born till 1535. No trace of Jacob van Meteren has been found among the Antwerp printers.] 1 Probably, as Mr Fry shews, by Nycolson: .c. p. 20、 In the same way the title-page and preliminary matter of the edition of 1550 printed abroad were cancelled, and a new title-page, &c. printed in England substituted in their place. distinct issues, two in 1535, and one in 1536. Two copies1 have a title-page corresponding to the body of the book, dated 1535, and one of them preserves a single page of the original preliminary matter. Another copy3 has a titlepage in English type, corresponding to the English preliminary matter, dated also 1535. The two other title-pages are printed in English type, but with the date 1536. Thus there can be no reason to doubt that the book was issued both with the foreign and English title-pages, &c.", though it may still be doubted whether the English title-page, &c. belong to 1536 or to 1535°. One important difference between the foreign and English title-pages must be noticed. In the former it is said that the book is 'faithfully and truly translated out of 'Douche [German] and Latyn in to Englishe': in the latter the sources of the version are left unnoticed, and it is said simply to be 'faithfully translated into English.' It is possible that the explanatory words taken in connexion with some further details in the original prologue may have been displeasing to the promoters of the edition', and that a new and less explicit title-page, &c. was substituted for 1 [One in the British Museum, imperfect, the other in the Library of the Earl of Leicester at Holkham.] 2 [At Holkham.] 3 [The Marquess of Northampton's.] 4 See App. II. 5 The fragment of the foreign printed Prologue offers only one important variation from the corresponding part of the English Prologue: Mr Fry, l.c. p. 18. It is of course impossible to determine the cause of the suppression of the foreign title-page and Prologue. Coverdale may have explained too much in detail the Douche and 'Latyn' sources from which he borrowed to suit the wishes of his patrons or publishers. The change in the titlepage suggests the conjecture, which is however otherwise unsupported. It is possible (as has been suggested to me) that when some copies of the English title-page had been struck off with the date 1535, corresponding to the imprint, this date was afterwards changed in the setting of the page to 1536 to suit the actual time of the English issue; so that the two title-pages belong really only to one issue. The only difference observable in the facsimiles of the two title-pages is the inversion of one of the ornaments on the side of BIBLIA. the first. However this may have been, the statement itself, as will be seen afterwards, was literally true, and Coverdale describes clearly enough in the existing prologue the secondary character of his work'. Coverdale indeed disclaims the originality which friends and detractors have alike assigned to him. And it is in this that the true beauty and truth of his nature are seen. He distinctly acknowledges that he could but occupy for a time the place of another; nay he even looks to this as the best fruit of his labours that he should call out a worthier successor to displace himself. Though it [Scripture],' he writes, 'be not worthely ministred vnto the [Christian 'reader] in this translacyon (by reason of my rudnes); 'Yet yf thou be feruet in thy prayer, God shal not onely 'sende it the in a better shappe, by the mynistracyon of 'ciher that beganne it afore [Tindale], but shall also moue 'the hertes of them, which as yet medled not withall, to 'take it in hande, and to bestowe the gifte of theyr vnder'stondynge theron".... Yet in the meantime he saw that there was something for him to do. It was a noble end if he could secure that Holy Scripture should be 'set forth' (as he was able to obtain) 'with the Kynges most gracious license.' And so plainly disclosing his motives he says...'whan I cōsydered 'how greate pytie it was that we shulde wante it so longe, ' & called to my remembraunce ye aduersite of them, which 'were not onely of rype knowlege, but wolde also with all 'theyr hertes haue perfourmed y' they beganne, yf they 'had not had impediment......these and other reasonable 'causes consydered I was the more bolde to take it in 1 The supposition that the publication of the work was delayed by the fall of Q. Anne Boleyn is quite baseless. The substitution of the name of Q. Jane without any other alteration in the edition of 1537 is like that of the name of Edward VI for Henry VIII in the edition of 1550. The appro priateness of epithets was not much considered by early editors. Mr Fry has shewn, c. pp. 10 ff., that all the dedications found in copies of the first edition with Q. Jane's name belong to the edition of 1537. 2 Coverdale's Prologe unto the Christen Reader. 'hande. And to helpe me herin, I haue had sondrye 'translacions, not onely in latyn, but also of the Douche '[German] interpreters: whom (because of theyr synguler 'gyftes & speciall diligence in the Bible) I haue ben the 'more glad to folowe for the most parte, accordynge as I 'was requyred. But to saye the trueth before God, it was 'nether my laboure ner desyre, to haue this worke put in 'my hande: neuertheles it greued me y' other nacyōs 'shulde be more plenteously prouyded for with yR scripture in theyr mother tongue, then we: therfore whan I was 'instantly requyred, though I coulde not do so well as 'I wolde, I thought it yet my dewtye to do my best, and 'that with a good wyll'.' Some good indeed he did hope might permanently remain from his work. As the faithful and honest interpretation of one man it might serve as a kind of comment to another version. ...So maye dyuerse translacyons,' he writes 'vnderstonde 'one another, & that in the head articles & grounde of 'oure most blessed faith, though they vse sondrye wordes. 'wherfore me thynke we haue greate occasyon to geue 'thanks vnto God, that he hath opened vnto his church the 'gyfte of interpretacyon & of pryntying, and that there 'are now at this tyme so many, which with soch diligece 'and faithfulnes interprete the scripture to the honoure of 'god and edifyenge of his people......For the which cause '(acordyng as I was desyred)" I toke the more vpon me to 'set forth this speciall translacyon, not as a checker, not as 'a reprouer, or despyser of other mens translacyons (for 'amonge many as yet I haue founde none without occasyon ' of greate thankesgeuynge unto god) but lowly & faythfully 'haue I folowed myne interpreters, & that vnder correcyon. 'And though I haue fayled eny where (as there is noman 'but he mysseth in some thynge) loue shall constyrre all to 'y' best without eny peruerse iudgment...Yf thou [reader] 'hast knowlege therfore to iudge where eny faute is made 1 Coverdale's Prologe. 2 In the edition of 1550 is added 'in 1534 |