To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Study of the Wycliffite Bible (WB) still works with a simple dichotomy between two versions: these were distinguished in the eighteenth century, their sequence being established by the monumental 1850 edition of the entire text in two forms by Josiah Forshall and Frederic Madden (FM), which has not yet been superseded. The differences between the two are, we are told, between a preliminary, very literal rendering of the Vulgate (Earlier/Early Version, here EV) – Latin ‘Englished’, only intelligible with the Vulgate alongside it – and a complete revision (Later/Late Version, here LV) that produced a free-standing, idiomatic rendering. Anyone who works with the texts can readily identify each of these: a few characteristic constructions and idioms suffice to make the designation of Earlier as against Later a simple choice on which one is very unlikely to be faulted. But with around 250 copies of WB, in whole or in part, are there no other forms, blends, confusions, or muddles? My paper is an investigation of a single manuscript which, I suggest, makes the usual choice a matter of doubt.
Before coming to the manuscript which is the particular focus here, Oxford, New College MS 67, some general points need to be made. The importance of revision to the development of a completed English text was already introduced by the writer of the so-called General Prologue (GP), a work which will be crucial to the discussion later in this paper. The authority claimed by the writer of this poorly preserved document would be hard to challenge, not least since it in general anticipates a modern reading of the manuscripts. One striking feature of the whole translational project that has excited surprisingly little comment is the consistency with which the overwhelming majority of manuscripts persist with either EV or LV throughout their content, rather than mixing the two from book to book (or concocting other, more complicated blends). It is worth briefly considering this point and its implications. The first observation is the easily divisible nature of the Bible's structure.
The years between the early fourteenth and the mid sixteenth century are of considerable interest in the history of the prelate. In some respects, this era might be regarded as a golden age of prelacy, culminating in the appearance of great ecclesiastical dignitaries across much of Europe, such as Wolsey, d'Amboise, Cisneros, Lang and Jagiellon. In terms of their political weight, their grandeur and their wide-ranging cultural patronage, these early sixteenth-century ‘cardinal-ministers’ arguably represented a high point in prelatical influence. Nor should they be regarded as wholly distinct from their clerical contemporaries: recent studies of Renaissance cardinals and the early Tudor episcopate indicate that the next rank of senior churchmen were no less concerned to express the importance and dignity of their office. However, the period c. 1300–c. 1560 also witnessed a developing critique of prelacy – not unconnected with these eye-catching assertions of ecclesiastical status and power – with complaints about senior members of the Church hierarchy a commonplace in the literature and preaching of the day. To these criticisms were added attacks on the very concept of the prelate, which was rejected as unscriptural by John Wyclif and his followers: a critique which would be taken up enthusiastically by sixteenth-century reformers in England and Europe.
Whoeuere desiriþ prelacie in erþe shal fynde shenshipe in heuene, and he þat treetiþ of prelacie, þat is bisieþ hym to gete prelacie, shal not be rikenid among þe seruauntis of Crist.
[B]y þis sentence may men se hou þis prelacye is perelous for it is not fully groundid in Crist ne in oþer of his lawis.
Lollard opinion on ‘prelates’ was overwhelmingly governed by one fact: the term prelatus and its related noun prelatio are not to be found in the Vulgate text of the Bible. Terms that can be found in that text, and whose meaning might be thought close to those, are episcopus and episcopatum. Whatever the obscurity in detail of Wyclif's own conception of the ideals for which the Church in this world should aim, and from which the contemporary Church had so largely fallen away, it is clear that the basis of his conception and that of his followers was the model of the early Church set out in the gospels and the epistles. It is worth pausing on this linguistic point at the start of this discussion. The etymology of prelatus is transparent and unequivocal: it is the past participle of classical Latin praeferre, itself meaning simply ‘to bring forward’ in both material and abstract senses; the past participle as a noun can be traced from a date well before Wyclif in the sense of someone who has been advanced.
This volume has grown out of a conference on ‘The Prelate in Late Medieval and Reformation England’, held at the University of Liverpool in September 2011. All the papers delivered at that conference are published below, apart from those given by Natalia Nowakowska and Brigitte Resl. The volume also includes a chapter by Cédric Michon, offered subsequent to the Liverpool conference. I would like to thank the contributors to both the conference and to the volume, all of whom have been stimulating and good-humoured collaborators throughout this project.
I would also like to acknowledge gratefully the work and expert guidance of all those at Boydell & Brewer and York Medieval Press who have been involved with this volume and especially Caroline Palmer, Rohais Haughton and Professor Peter Biller. The Liverpool conference was funded partly by a British Academy Research Development Award, and partly by financial contributions from the department of History of the University of Liverpool and the Liverpool Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, without all of whose generous support the event could not have taken place. This publication has also been made possible by a grant from the Scouloudi Foundation in association with the Institute of Historical Research, acknowledged here with gratitude.
High ecclesiastical office in the Middle Ages inevitably brought power, wealth and patronage. The essays in this volume examine how late medieval and Renaissance prelates deployed the income and influence of their offices, how they understood their role, and how they were viewed by others. Focusing primarily on but not exclusively confined to England, this collection explores the considerable common ground between cardinals, bishops and monastic superiors. Leading authorities on the late medieval and sixteenth-century Church analyse the political, cultural and pastoral activities of high-ranking churchmen, and consider how episcopal and abbatial expenditure was directed, justified and perceived. Overall, the collection enhances our understanding of ecclesiastical wealth and power in an era when the concept and role of the prelate were increasingly contested. Dr Martin Heale is Senior Lecturer in Late Medieval History, University of Liverpool. Contributors: Martin Heale, Michael Carter, James G. Clark, Gwilym Dodd, Felicity Heal, Anne Hudson, Emilia Jamroziak, Cédric Michon, Elizabeth A. New, Wendy Scase, Benjamin Thompson, C.M. Woolgar.
It is unknown whether there are racial differences in the heritability of major depressive disorder (MDD) because most psychiatric genetic studies have been conducted in samples comprised largely of white non-Hispanics. To examine potential differences between African-American (AA) and European-American (EA) young adult women in (1) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV) MDD prevalence, symptomatology, and risk factors, and (2) genetic and/or environmental liability to MDD, we analyzed data from a large population-representative sample of twins ascertained from birth records (n = 550 AA and n = 3226 EA female twins) aged 18–28 years at the time of MDD assessment by semi-structured psychiatric interview. AA women were more likely to have MDD risk factors; however, there were no significant differences in lifetime MDD prevalence between AA and EA women after adjusting for covariates (odds ratio = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67–1.15). Most MDD risk factors identified among AA women were also associated with MDD at similar magnitudes among EA women. Although the MDD heritability point estimate was higher among AA women than EA women in a model with paths estimated separately by race (56%, 95% CI: 29–78% vs. 41%, 95% CI: 29–52%), the best fitting model was one in which additive genetic and non-shared environmental paths for AA and EA women were constrained to be equal (A = 43%, 33–53% and E = 57%, 47–67%). In spite of a marked elevation in the prevalence of environmental risk exposures related to MDD among AA women, there were no significant differences in lifetime prevalence or heritability of MDD between AA and EA young women.