Did John Wycliffe Use the Letter 'j' in His Bible Translation?

Robust research into medieval English literature, as discussed in Millward’s A Biography of the English Language, reveals fascinating insights into the evolution of the English language, particularly regarding the use of certain letters. When examining the Bible translations attributed to John Wycliffe, one intriguing query arises: did he personally favor the use of the letter 'j'? This article delves into this question, exploring historical context, the role of copyists, and the linguistic nuances of the time.

Historical Context and Linguistic Background

In the period during which John Wycliffe (c. 1324-1384) and his associates worked on translating the Bible into English, the English language was undergoing significant changes. At that time, evidently, the letter 'j' did not yet have the distinct character we know today. Millward’s work in A Biography of the English Language elucidates that the letter 'j' was initially an allograph of 'i,' suggesting that both characters were used interchangeably by scribes. An allograph is a variant form of a grapheme, and in this case, 'j' was essentially a stylistic alternative to 'i' in certain contexts.

The Role of Scribes in Medieval Translations

The role of scribes in medieval Bible translations cannot be overstated. According to the information presented in A Biography of the English Language, the translations that bore Wycliffe’s name and were attributed to him were, surprisingly, rarely produced by him personally. Instead, it is more likely that other scribes and translators worked on these translations. This highlights the complex dynamics involved in the medieval production of texts, where the authorship might be attributed to a well-known name for prestige and authority, despite actual participation.

One of the most significant challenges for medieval scribes was the legibility and readability of texts. During this period, the use of language and the representation of letters were subject to various conventions and preferences. The decision to include or exclude certain letters, such as 'j', was often a matter of personal preference or the standards of the scribe.

The Debate on 'ij' vs. 'ii'

The question of whether 'ij' or 'ii' was preferred for readability raises an interesting point. It is suggested that the 'ij' combination was chosen because it was perceived to be more visually distinct and easier to read than 'ii'. This choice reflects the scribes' efforts to make texts clear and accessible, even within the limitations of handwritten manuscripts. The decision-making process was likely driven by the practical needs of readers and the scribes' desire to ensure that the texts were understandable.

Furthermore, the use of 'ij' may have also been influenced by the contemporary spelling conventions and the scribes' own rendering of language. In medieval Latin, different spellings were not standardized, and the letter 'j' did not exist as a distinct letter. The scribes would have had to adapt their writing to the conventions of their time, often leading to variations in the appearance of 'i' and 'j' depending on their preferences and the availability of certain writing materials.

Implications and Future Research

The study of John Wycliffe and the Bible translations of his era offers valuable insights into the evolution of the English language and the practices of medieval literature. The complexity of authorship, the role of scribes, and the conventions of linguistic representation are all crucial aspects to consider. Future research could further explore the linguistic and cultural factors that influenced the development of the English language during the medieval period.

In conclusion, the evidence suggests that while John Wycliffe might not have personally favored the letter 'j', its inclusion in his Bible translations was likely a result of the scribes’ choices influenced by readability and the conventions of the time. This highlights the intricate relationship between language, authorship, and the historical context of manuscript production in the medieval period.