A19563:1228
An answerAn aunsvvere
An answer by the Reverend Father in God Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and metropolitan, unto a crafty and sophistical cavillation, devised by Stephen Gardiner Doctor of Law, late Bishop of Winchester against the true and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament, of the body and blood of our saviour Jesus Christ Wherein is also, as occasion serveth, answered such places of the book of Doct. Richard Smith, as may seem any thing worthy the answering. Here is also the true copy of the book written, and in open court delivered, by D. Stephen Gardiner ...An aunsvvere by the Reuerend Father in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury, primate of all England and metropolitane, vnto a craftie and sophisticall cauillation, deuised by Stephen Gardiner Doctour of Law, late Byshop of Winchester agaynst the true and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament, of the body and bloud of our sauiour Iesu Christ Wherein is also, as occasion serueth, aunswered such places of the booke of Doct. Richard Smith, as may seeme any thyng worthy the aunsweryng. Here is also the true copy of the booke written, and in open court deliuered, by D. Stephen Gardiner ...
London: printed by John Daye, 1580London: printed by Iohn Daye, 1580
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
And your other translation is no less wonderful, where you turn the virtue of Christs body into the verity.1 And yet to cloak your folly therein, and to cast a mist before the readers eyes (that he should not see your untruth therein) you say that by (virtue) in that place must be vuderstanded verity. First what soever be understand by the word (virtue) your faith in translation is broken. For the sense being ambiguous, yo• ought in translation to have kept the word as it is (leaving the sense to be expended by the indifferent reader) and not by altering the word, to make such a sense as please you, which is so foul a fault in a translator, that if Decolampadius had so done, he should have ben called a man faulty and guilty, a corruptour, a deceiver, an abuser of other men, a perverter, a depraver, and a man without faith. As he might be called that would translate (Verbum caro factum est) The second person became man. Which although it be true in meaning, yet it is not true in translation, nor declareth the faith of the translator.
And your other translation is no lesse wonderfull, where you turne the vertue of Christes body into the veritie.1 And yet to cloke your folly therin, and to cast a mist before the readers eyes (that he should not see your vntruth therin) you say that by (vertue) in that place must be vuderstanded verite. First what soeuer be vnderstande by the worde (vertue) your fayth in translation is broken. For the sense being ambiguous, yo• ought in translation to haue kept the word as it is (leauing the sense to be expended by the indifferent reader) and not by altering the word, to make such a sense as please you, which is so foule a fault in a translatour, that if Decolampadius had so done, he should haue ben called a man faulty and gilthy, a corruptour, a deceauour, an abuser of other men, a peruerter, a deprauer, and a man without fayth. As he might be called that would translate (Verbum caro factum est) The second person became man. Which although it be true in meaning, yet it is not true in translation, nor declareth the fayth of the translatour.
- 1