XVII.]

FROSCHOVER OF ZÜRICH.

271

such a man as might be entrusted with a work to be done in secret, and involving probably a considerable outlay. Besides, as Coverdale's version rests mainly on the Swiss-German Bible, printed by Froschover, in Zürich, we may infer that the translator's retreat had been for a period in that city, and from typographical evidence that his translation was completed and printed there.1

The year 1535 was, in one sense, a year of promise. Tyndale was in prison indeed; but Coverdale's Bible was published, and there were also issued these royal injunctions for the University of Cambridge, indicating the dawn of a new era. "In each college and hall there shall be two daily public lectures, one of Greek, the other of Latin. No lectures shall be read upon any of the doctors who have written upon the Master of the Sentences, but all divinity lectures shall be upon the Scriptures."

1 The Bible by Coverdale, 1535. By Francis Fry, F.S.A., Lond. 1867.

CHAPTER XVIII.

SOME peculiar points in the history of this volume may be noted. It has two distinct title-pages, one in the type of the volume, and therefore the original one; the other in the English black letter of the period, and therefore a reprinted one, with dates of 1535 and 1536. There are also two copies with a facsimile of the title of 1535, but with a very important clause left out, while the leaves that come after are in English type. These reprints give the list of Books on the reverse of the seventh leaf-the first title has it on its own reverse. The name of Queen Anne is found in some copies, and the name of Queen Jane in others. Various surmises have been thrown out as to the causes of this early reprint of the preliminary furniture. It has been sometimes argued, as by Lewis,1 Botfield, Walter, and Anderson, that, after the volume had been printed, its publication was postponed on account of the trial and execution of Queen Anne who was beheaded 19th May, 1536. Her name had been in the original dedication, and it was now thought necessary to expunge it. Eight months must in this way be supposed to elapse between the period when the volume was finished, in October, 1535, and its issue in England with Queen Jane in the dedication, 1536. To support this conjecture stress is laid on the copy in the British. Museum, in which "Anne" has been made into "Jane" with a pen; but any possessor of a copy might, if he pleased, effect such a change, and no argument can be based upon it, unless it be supposed that the awkward alteration was introduced into the

1 History, p. 100, London, 1818. Cathedral Libraries, p. 193.

3 Letter to Herbert Marsh, p. 73.

4

· Annals, I, p. 563.

whole edition. The copy at Sion College has Jane printed as part of the original text, and with the date 1536. But the title, as Mr. Fry1 plainly shows from difference of type and from the misprints, belongs to the edition printed by Nycolson in 1537, and by a common trick it was put into an earlier issue, as if to produce a complete copy. In fact, all the "Jane" leaves are from the same edition, the English reprint. All the known copies that have the dedication to King Henry VIII, of date 1535 and 1536, read Queen Anne. There is therefore little doubt that the Bible was issued in 1535, with a titlepage and preliminary matter in the same foreign type as the body or text of the volume. The editions found with the title and following leaves in English black letter, bearing the date both of 1535 and 1536, only show that the first title and prefatory matter had been on purpose superseded, and that very soon after the arrival of the Bible in this country. The reasons of the change in the title-page itself will be afterwards discussed.

Some interesting particulars about this first complete English Bible may be gleaned from itself, and from Coverdale's dedication of his edition of 1550.

And, first, true to his temperament, he was not the originator; but is ever forward to make and repeat this acknowledgment: "To say the truth before God, it was neither my labour nor desire to have this work put into my hand, nevertheless, when I was instantly required, though I could not do so well as I would, I thought it yet my duty to do my best, and that with a good will, for the which cause (according as I was desired), anno 1534, I took the more upon me to set forth this special translation;” and he adds, "I was boldened in God sixteen years ago to labour faithfully in the same." What is more striking, the use of the Douche and Latin versions had been prescribed to him, his singular words about his predecessors being, "whom I have been the more glad to follow, according as 1 The Bible by Coverdale, p. 17, phrase for publishing. The edition &c., London, 1867. of 1537 has, “set forth with the "Set forth" was Coverdale's kynge's most gracious license." VOL. I.

S

I was required." In his first dedication his utterance also is, “Trusting in His infinite goodness, that He would bring my simple and rude labour herein to good effect, therefore, as the Holy Ghost moved other men to do the cost hereof, so was I boldened in God to labour in the same." The persons so referred to are unknown. For prudential reasons their names were not divulged, and probably they did not covet the perilous notoriety. There must have been within the church a party of covert inquirers who might encourage a translation of the Bible as the charter of ecclesiastical liberty and reform. Crumwell, who became Secretary of State in 1534, had been Coverdale's tutelary genius, had directed his studies, and had certainly befriended him in this undertaking. Probably others like-minded, feeling that Tyndale and his work had been proscribed by name, and "all manner of evil" said against them, may have also urged him on, and sympathized with him in his literary labour. It may even be believed that Sir Thomas More knew of the translation, and of its earlier progress. In the letter first quoted,1 Coverdale speaks of "Master Moore's kinsman being ill at ease under fever," and in the second he adverts to a conversation held in his house on Easter Eve, which shows that there must have been some degree of intimacy between him and the Chancellor. More did not wholly oppose translations in theory, but objected to Tyndale's so strongly because it wanted several ecclesiastical terms. Tyndale's Testament had been condemned already, and the higher powers could not be expected to retract their sentence; so that if there was to be an English Bible, it must emanate from a new and untainted source. What would not be tolerated as coming from Tyndale, might be accepted as coming from Coverdale, whose name was new and who had few palpable and compromising antecedents.

But Mr. Froude outsteps all probability when he represents the king as in some way originating this version, and as acting on his own responsibility, "his patience being exhausted" in expectation of providing a Bible for his 1 See page 256.

XVIII.]

ERROR OF FROUDE ON THE SUBJECT.

275

subjects.1 Henry, however, had no hand in the production of the volume, though it was dedicated to him. The dedication, indeed, declares that "Josias commanded straytly (as youre grace doth) that the lawe of God shulde be redde and taught vnto all the people." But the reference is to the royal proclamation, of which Latimer reminded the king in a letter dated 1st December, 1530, written after a meeting of Convocation.2 At the close of 1534, Convocation indeed, as we have seen, petitioned the king for an English translation of the Scriptures, but there is no proof that the petition was laid before him; and if he received it, he certainly took no action upon it. Nor had the first issue of Coverdale's version exposed for sale the words "cum privilegio" on its front, as the historian wrongly asserts. The original title-pages contain no clause of this nature, for "the king's most gracious license" first appeared on the edition printed at Southwark in 1537. Mr. Froude also adduces the frontispiece in proof of his statements, "it being equally remarkable and more emphatic in the recognition of the share in the work done by the king." The eloquent annalist makes here an unaccountable mistake, for the frontispiece described by him, "the Almighty in the clouds, and Cranmer, and Crumwell, in prominent positions on each side," &c., is that of the Great Bible of 1539, and not that of Coverdale at all. Coverdale's is modest in comparison: at the base the king occupies the centre, the royal arms under him, and a square space filled with the title of the Bible over his head, his sword in his one hand, and in his other hand a volume which the bishops are presenting to him, while the peers are looking on; St. Paul is at the one corner with the scroll, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel"; and King David, harp in hand, at the other, with the scroll, "O how sweete are thy wordes to my throte"; at the top are the Hebrew letters representing Jehovah; on the one side are the first transgressors ashamed of their nakedness, and the serpent coiled over their head, with a scroll, "In what daye soever thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye"; on the other side is the Saviour crushing with his heel the serpent's head, with the scroll, "This is my deare Sonne, 1 History, III, p. 79. * See page 261.