صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

Reformation in Chapter IV., pp. 135, &c., is distinguished by a pro-
fundity and philosophy to which few even of practised writers attain.
At the close of the preface there is a passage on the grant, or assump-
tion, of martyrdom in the case of the Romish sufferers under Elizabeth,
which is quite in harmony with the subject of this paper, and will not
probably disappoint the reader.-The preface is addressed to the
priests, the Jesuits, and their disciples; and he thus appeals to them:
“I call to witness against you those whose testimony God himself hath.
accepted. Speak, then, and testify, O you glorious and triumphant
army of martyrs, who enjoy now a permanent triumph in heaven,
which knew the voice of your Shepherd, and staid till he called, and
went then with all alacrity—Is there any man received into your blessed
legion by title of such a death as sedition, scandal, or any human
respect occasioned? O no; for they who are in possession of that
laurel are such as have washed their garments, not in their own
blood only, (for so they might still remain red and stained,) but in the
blood of the Lamb, which changes them to white."

There is another quotation from another author which I am unwilling to pretermit; because it contains so much deep and practical wisdom, and is so well calculated to be a guide to any scholar who should undertake the work here recommended, that he would be in danger of error should the suggestions escape him. Edmund Bohun, in his English translation of the Apology of the Church of England by Bp. Jewel, has in his preface these observations relative to the representations of Romanists respecting their treatment under Elizabeth : “But there is some all vance to be made for the misinformation of strangers, who, being separated from us by the ocean, were forced to take such accounts as were given them by others ; and 1. being too apt to believe the reports of their own priests, whose interest it was to blacken her," (the church of England,) “what they could ; and 2.

( those of our own fugitives, who made the case much worse than they themselves thought it, that they might obtain the more pity, and consequently the better relief and provision abroad, which is wont to be afforded to all those that fly for religion, amongst those of the same faith ; 3. and also suspecting the fidelity of the relations made by our ministers in foreign courts ; 4. and of all our travellers who stuck to and embraced the religion established by law."

I wish the author of the History of the Reformation in England, and of the Anglo-Saxon Church, or one as well qualified, would undertake the suggested work, and propose to himself the example in all respects of the first of the above-named productions, of which this would indeed be a continuation. a

J. M. P.S. The last Laity's Directory announced a new edition of Dodd's Ecclesiastical History of England.

We shall see how it will be executed, and trust that it will be accompanied by the Apology for it ex, torted by the “Quarrelsome Libel of Clerophilus Alethes" (Constable) a work which cuts through the skin of Jesuitism to the very bone of Romanism itself. Protestants could throw a good deal of light upon the obscure portions of Dodd himself. He has only enumerated some

[blocks in formation]

of the answerers to the polemic heroes of his church. We thank him, how. ever, sincerely, for the information which he has presented, and should have thanked him much more had he presented all that he has sup, pressed. Mr. Tierney will find an enviable opportunity in the proposed republication of rescuing his church from the charge of sectarian partiality, by introducing from the Catalogues of Gee, and more especially Peck, who presents the writers of both sides, the many names of authors and works which were written in opposition to the royally sanctioned productions of Romanists under James II., and which are omitted in the scanty lists given by Dodd. The Editor will do well in his Continuation not to overlook the important statements contained in BERIngton's Memoirs of Panzani, which appeared likewise with a new title. He will probably throw some new light upon the Blue Books, and the opponent sects of V'etoism and Anti-vetoism. Dr. Charles O'Conor will prove an important assistant.

FOX'S ACTS AND MONUMENTS. No. II.

MY DEAR Sır,-In a former letter I gave some specimens tending to prove that the Editor of the new edition, by failing to correct what was obviously wrong, and to explain what must be to most readers unintelligible, had not done justice to his author. Should they be deemed insufficient, I have more which I shall be willing to produce ; but, to avoid tediousness, I proceed to shew that in other cases he has done him positive injustice by attempts at emendation and explanation. Indeed, judging from what I have seen, I cannot but think it a happy circumstance that his attempts at correction have been so few. It may, for instance, be barbarous, and to “general readers” not very intelligible, for Fox to talk of the Archbishop of Turo, or the council of Turon, but it would have been better to let it stand as it is,* than to translate it by Turin instead of Tours. 196, 312. The Bishop of Rennes in Bretagne (Redonensis) is corruptly called Redomonsis in the old edition ; but it is worse to translate him to Retimo in Crete, 272. Few general readers who should find a person saying that he lived “at Aquis, in Arduenna, which is a wood in France,” 192, would suppose that he was speaking of Aix-la-Chapelle; and they might not discover that place in Fox's Aquisgrane ; but to turn that word into Aquitaine, 457, 468, 663, is clearly misleading them. They might not learn much about the native place of our Archbishop Anselm from what Fox tells them; but, surely, if they have any ideas of geography, they will be utterly puzzled by being told that he was an Italian, in

• Or as it does in the third volume, Turnon or Tournon, p. 646, 649, 652, 655, 656, 657. The reader will please to observe, that when I give merely a number, it refers to the page of the second (that is, the first published) volume of the new edition. When the number is in a parenthesis, it refers to the folio edition of 1583, from which the new edition is professedly reprinted; and it is to this that I refer when I speak of “the old edition," or use any such general expression as “ Fox says," as contra-distinguished from what stands in the new edition. "' #

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

the city of Augsburgh, born and brought up in the Abbey of Beck, in
Normandy," 144. To say nothing of the precise locality of his birth,
they will surely wonder how an Italian could be born in Normandy,
and will inquire what the German city had to do with it. Fox, how-
ever, is not so absurd; he says, “ This Anselme was an Italian in the
citie of Augusta borne, and brought up in the Abbey of Becke in Nor-
mandy. (184.) If the editor did not know where to find any account
of Anselm, Ainsworth's Dictionary would have told him that Augusta
was the name of Aosta, as well as of Augsburgh, and plenty of other
places. If he had let Boloine stand at p. 143, some general readers
(though more familiar with him under another title) would have sus-
pected who was meant by “ Godfrey Duke of Lorraine ;" which the
editor does not seem to have done, or he would not have changed it to
Bologna. Fox perhaps did not know what episcopal see was meant
by Monasteriensis, or perhaps he thought it was a long word to write,
and so abbreviated it thus, Mon., but his editor has removed all mark
of abbreviation, added an s, and so erected Mons into a bishoprick at
the expense of Munster. When Fox speaks of the Bishop of Castle,
meaning Castel-a-Mar della Brucca, in the kingdom of Naples, the new
edition has Castile, iii. 438.

In these cases it certainly was not the editor's intention to change
the meaning of his author ; neither was it, I am persuaded, in some
others, where, either with a view of modernizing the style, or making
the matter more intelligible, or for some reason not always obvious,
though I sincerely believe quite harmless, he has in fact altered the
meaning of the text. To what extent this has been done it is impos-
sible to say without collation, a labour which I have not performed.
I have seldom compared the new with the old edition except when, in
a very cursory inspection, something has suggested the probability of
a variation : but what I have seen leads ine to believe that alterations
of meaning are not unfrequent. Some of the following may possibly

.
be errors of the press, but others must be intended for emendations.
Fox represents Lord Cobham (after reciting his creed) as declaring that
he believed “ all the premisses,"—the new edition reads, “all the
mises." iii. 325. In the old edition we read that the Emperor Louis,
having been poisoned, “ went to hunt the beare, whereby through the
chafing and heat of his body to expel the venim,” (374.) In the new
we are told that he“ went to hunt the boar, whereby through the chasing
and heat of his body to expel the venom,” 663. Of course it matters
very little which is right (though I apprehend that there is no pretence
for altering Fox's words); but when one casually meets with such varia-
tions, does it not excite a suspicion that there may be others more im-
portant ? Again, in the epistle of Benno, Fox speaks of the emperor
Henry's being “excommunicated besides the canonical order.” The
editor seems not to have understood this, and to have tried to mend
it by inserting a word on mere conjecture, (at least we may say without
reference to the original,) and we now read that the emperor was
“excommunicated besides of the canonical order," 124. I suppose
that the editor understood and meant to convey the idea, that the em-
peror was excommunicated by some body of men, designated as "the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

It mal,

y inteli

.

uncil of

than to

shop of

pro

is in the

272. he lived

ete,

[ocr errors]

n

ght not ord into ight not m from

graphy,

[ocr errors]

lian, in

19, 612 merely :

volume the folie nd it is neral eredition

canonical order ;” an idea totally different from that which Fox meant to convey by his somewhat odd translation of “præter canonicum ordinem." According to the old edition, too, this same emperor “ suffered this violence with lamentable affliction, upon his bare feete, clothed in thinne garments, in the sharpe winter, which never was used, and was three days together at Canusium made a spectacle,” (178) In the new, the sense (if Fox's translation deserves the name) is quite altered, by our being told that he was “clothed in thin garments, in the sharp winter, to which he never was used," 124. On what ground, and by what authority, did the editor insert these little words ? Might it not have been expected that, coming for the second time in the same document, and on the same page, to an unintelligible passage, he would have had recourse to the original ? Surely he might have made some better emendation of the words, “in the sharp winter which never was used," if he had known that they were the representatives of hieme præter solitum aspera. I have already noticed that, in the Waldensian articles of faith, the editor has altered the sense by inserting and; and the same conjunction, inserted without any assigned reason, is as mischievous to the sense (though the sense may be of less importance) at p. 25:—“ The Danes, according to the old edition, "leaving their strong holdes and castles garnished with men and vitaile : tooke againe shipping," (142;) according to the new, “The Danes, leaving their strong holds and castles, and furnished with men and victuals, again took shipping." One can hardly suppose that Moguntius at p. 462 is meant for a correction of Fox's Moguntinus, under which title some 'general readers' might not recognise the Archbishop of Mentz ; but when Fox called him “Moguntinus Presul” (308), and the editor changed it to “ Moguntine the Presul,” 484, we must suppose that he designedly altered what he did not understand. Indeed, one cannot help thinking that alterations have been sometimes made in an offhand manner, and for the mere look of the thing, without considering how far the sense might be affected. Thus we read, “By this Pope Sergius I. came up the use to bear about candles," &c., 35; where the old edition has, “ By this Pope Sergius, first came up to beare about candels," &c. (146.): In fact, this Pope Sergius was Sergius the Third,

Some readers may perhaps be surprised at these translations of Fox, and may doubt whether I am doing him justice; but the original may be seen in Illyricus's Catalogus Testium Veritatis, p. 325. Fox's accuracy of translation is not at present the subject of inquiry, or I should notice bis rendering “lancis vestibus" by " thin garments;” and “frustra canonicam audientiam imploravit," by “in vain desired he to have the canon read and heard.” Ibid.

+ Review of Fox's History of the Waldenses, p. 22; where I have also, at p. 37, noticed the editor's changing Fox's 'unskilfully' into 'skilfully,' so as to make a completely different sense.

* It is tiresome to enter into such details as are fit only for a table of errata, though the matters to which they refer are not merely a disgrace to the work in a literary point of view, but are often such as to cause uncertainty and embarrassment to the reader. Why could not the editor have at least divided · Arpontacus,' 645, into 'Ar. Pontacus,' or have plainly named his name' Arnald de Pontac? Why not put a comma between • Nauclerus Crantz,'97, and' Laziardus Volateranus,'264, to shew the general reader that they were in each case two persons ? and still more, why omit the comma which Fox placed for that purpose between · Alanus, Herbert and certain

But if in these matters the editor has not done justice to his author, still less has he done it in his notes, which too often prove that he did not know the meaning of what he undertook to explain. Thus, at p. 92, he says that “woodness” means wilfulness," an exposure of ignorance which would have been saved if he had looked at the orgiginal, “asserens insanum fore alienum solum velle usurpare ;"* though even Johnson would have told him that “wood" signifies, not wilful,' but mad. Fox tells us that when John Huss was on his way to Constance, the inhabitants of the towns through which he passed filled the streets, being desirous to see “and gratify him;" the editor gives a note, “Gratify him,' do him a good turn. Bailey's Etym. Dict.- -Ed." iii. 431. Fox says that Thomas Rhedon (as he calls him) when he went into Italy with the hope of finding peculiar piety there, met with nothing but mere dissimulation and hypocrisy—instead of gold, he found nothing but coals," iii. 601. The editor, apparently unconscious of the allusion, and ignorant of the phrase, “pro thesauro carbonem," with which Phædrus would have supplied him, puts a note to explain that “coals" mean “discord.” At p. 437, Fox tells us that the pope gave directions to the provincial of the Grey Friars to execute a certain præcept, “excommunicating all them by district censures of the church who repugned against it." The editor explains that these were censures “confined to certain districts.” As little does he seem to suspect his author's meaning when he says, “ Thus Pope Nicolas the 2. well aunswering to his Greeke name: by might and force continued,” &c. (168.) Not perceiving the play on the pope's name, and apparently ignorant of its meaning, the editor gives a note about « the doctrine of the Nicolaitans,” and explains to the general reader that Fox meant to ascribe to the pope “the grossest kinds of immorality," 99.

More absurd, if possible, is the editor's explanation of Fox's allusion

other of his chaplains,' 242?—while 'Dante, Aligerius,' 705, is made into two persons; and so are · Conradus, Urspergensis, and Hieronymus, Marius' at p. 335; by which means a general reader might be led to suppose that there were four authorities for the astounding assertion in the text, of which it is not to our present purpose to speak, but for which I should be surprised to find any respectable authority, if any authority at all. These things, though individually small, deserve notice, not only from their perpetual recurrence, and from the superabundance of misprints, misspellings, and corruptions of words, but because (to say nothing of the editor and his experienced assistants') a common degree of care in the most ordinary corrector of the press would have prevented a great part of them. As to the extraordinary and careless manner in which the authorities are given, let the reader take the third volume, and compare those in the middle of p. 115, with those at the bottom of p. 123, and their repetition at the top of the next page, and I think he will be convinced. At the same time, it is justice to Fox to say that he is not answerable for some which I have observed. He did not write “ Ex libro Wigornensis,'' jii. 293, but “ Ex libro Wygo.,” (507;) -nor “ Ex Chron. Albanensis," iii. 217, but “Ex Chron. Alban.," (573;)-nor « Ex Chron. D. Albanensis," iii. 221, but “Ex Chron. De Alban.,” (514;)—nor “Ex Chron. Thomas Walsingham,” iii. 645, but “ Ex Chron. Tho. Wals.,” (368;) Moreover, Fox, in borrowing from Illyricus what he says of Petrarch's twentieth letter, (“ Epistola vigesima appellat Papæ curiam Babylonem,” &c. Cat. Test. p. 871) put in his margin "Vide 20 epistolam," (390 ;) and not“ Vide epistolam viginti,” 707.

• Hen. de Knyg. 2340. VOL. XII.-July, 1837.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« السابقةمتابعة »