(Vol. iv., p. 365.)
A SUBSCRIBER TO THE ANGLO-CATHOLIC LIBRARY has discovered _one_ fault in
_one_ volume (published in 1844) of a series which now extends to
sixty-three volumes; and on this _one fault_ he builds a representation
which implies, in general, incompetency in the editors, and neglect of
proper supervision on the part of the committee of the Anglo-Catholic
Library. I believe the character of the editions of most of the volumes
sent out in this series is sufficiently known to theologians to render
such a charge as this of little importance as respects their judgment.
But it may not be so with many of the readers of "NOTES AND QUERIES."
The gravamen of the charge rests on the importance of a certain passage
of St. Jerome bearing on the Presbyterian controversy,--on the necessity
for a familiarity with that controversy in an editor of Overall's
_Convocation Book_,--and the consequent incompetency of a person not
thus familiar with it to edit that work without, not the assistance
merely, but the immediate supervision of the committee.
Now the subject of episcopacy is _not_, as the Subscriber alleges, "the
principal subject" of this Book; it occupies 30 pages out of 272: nor is
a familiarity with that controversy in any special way necessary for an
editor of the volume. The subjects of which the _Convocation Book_
treats are wide and varied, and such omnigenous knowledge as a familiar
acquaintance with them implies, is not, nor could be, required in any
editor, nor be expected by subscribers.
The committee of the Anglo-Catholic Library undertook to publish careful
reprints of the works of our old divines; and had they simply reprinted
with accuracy the _Convocation Book_, as published in 1690, they would
have fulfilled their covenant with the subscribers. They did, however,
much more.
It was known that the original MS. copy of this Book was preserved at
Durham. The edition of 1690 had been printed from a transcript made by
Archbishop Sancroft. The committee therefore engaged the services of a
gentleman whose name is well known as an accurate editor of works
existing in MS.
This gentlemen obtained access to all the known MSS. of the _Convocation
Book_; viz. 1. The original copy, and papers of alterations suggested as
it passed through the Upper House, preserved at Durham. 2. A cotemporary
MS. of part of the first book, also preserved at Durham. 3. Archbishop
Sancroft's Transcript, preserved at Emanuel College, Cambridge and 4. A
MS. of the first book belonging to Bishop Barlow, preserved at Queen's
College, Oxford. These MSS. were carefully collated, and the variations,
in many respects curious and interesting, were printed at the bottom of
the pages, and, as regards the 4th MS., at the end of the volume. The
result is a correct edition of the text of this book, with all that can
be learned of its variations--the book so highly extolled by your
correspondent. And I hear no objection alleged against the care and
faithfulness with which this part of the work has been executed: your
correspondent does not appear to be aware of anything of the kind having
been done.
But the editor went still further--he not only gave the subscribers so
much more than they had bargained for, he added full references to the
authorities quoted in the book; and when the passages were important, he
printed them in full, and even added references to works in which the
arguments were more largely handled. Now these references appear to me
to amount to many hundreds. They begin with Josephus, and run through
Fathers, councils, schoolmen, Roman Catholic controversialists,
ecclesiastical historians, and the chroniclers of the Middle Ages: and,
as far as I can judge in looking over the notes, not more than three or
four of these passages have been undiscovered by the editor, and he
honestly says he has not found them; one of these is the unlucky place
of St. Jerome, which your correspondent happens to know something about.
The remarks of your correspondent have led me to examine the book, and I
refer any one who has the least regard for candour or fairness, to do
the same. I would ask them to judge it as a whole, to see the number and
variety of the references, and the care which has been bestowed upon
them; and to say whether--because he missed one passage, and knew not
its importance--the editor can be fairly charged with incompetency; or
the committee of the Anglo-Catholic Library accused of neglect, in
leaving the work in his hands without exercising over him such
supervision as implies the reading every sheet as it passed through the
press; for _assistance_ the editor had, and amply acknowledges that he
received, at the hand of the superintending editor.