e in some of the all, perhaps, the rated by too wide et apart from that ould follow it is phen are rightly 11." The remainrefore probably that existing at 12 and 2 were probably made 30 the correct bined with the likely that the of 12 and 2 is e the chance of justing a word of disturbance e in adjusting ay be inferred of the sheet, F, 13 or 17; eceded 13 and 1 in point of printed from is, of course, n apparently One is in the gin the word a lower case 1 fol. ii recto, ric. Here 13 and wythout any leuacion or The other six copies all have and wythout any The omission of the last word is peculiar to 13, and is no doubt the result of an error rectified before the other copies of the sheet were printed. It will be seen by a comparison of the facsimile of 15 that the arrangement of lines in 13 is on the same model, except that the word "vp," which in 15 stands in a line by itself, has been omitted. The absence of the word may have been caused by an accidental displacement of the letters, but as a stop is inserted after "lyftyng," it is perhaps more likely that the word was left out by the compositor, who found that he had not room for another line below that consisting of the word "lyftyng," while to place the word in the same line with "lyftyng" would have made that line too long. The arrangement followed in the other six copies, that of dividing the word "lyftyng" and putting back its first syllable to the preceding line, was probably adopted to secure a satisfactory graduation in the length of the last lines of the page, and to avoid too near an approach to the margin. It resembles to some extent the arrangement found in 16, but the evidence of 13 shows that of 15 to have been the original model.1 In spite of the variation caused by this error and its correction, and apart from the correction in the head-line of fol. i recto, the seven copies of the sheet seem to have been printed from the same setting of the type. The copy which appears in 13 was no doubt struck off before the other six. That of 17 was probably the next in order of time. The others present no indication of their order of printing. 1 It was probably preferred to the arrangement of 16 because the latter, in which the last line but two is partly in italic, partly in gothic type, has a rather irregular appearance. These variations are very slight, but they suffice to bring about the result that no two of the seven copies are in exact agreement throughout. Two (2 and F) are separated from the rest in respect of the four pages peculiar to them, and from one another in respect of the spacing on fol. B iii recto. Of the rest, three (12, 30, and H) differ from the other two in respect of the head-lines of four pages, and from one another in respect of the spacing in the first line of fol. B iii recto.1 The remaining two (13 and 17) differ from each other in the last lines of the final note. No single copy embodies all the corrections made in the progress of the work of printing; 17 comes nearest to doing so, but retains the capital C in the head-line of fol. C i recto. There remain two copies, 19 and 57. Of these the former does not follow any of the other quarto copies, either in pagearrangement or in details of spelling and punctuation. It avoids the more obvious errors which are to be found in 15 and 16, and also some errors of punctuation which have passed from these earlier settings to the later ones; but it has a certain number of errors peculiar to itself. Its spelling is, on the whole, more uniform than that of any of the other copies, but occasionally shows resemblances to 15, with which it agrees in certain readings, and these facts may perhaps suggest that it was printed from a setting of the type in which a corrected copy of the setting represented by 15 was used. As compared with the other copies, it shows a tendency towards ornament; the text has two additional block letters, and the title, though marred by the awkward or careless placing of the blocks which form its border, seems to have aimed at a better artistic effect than that of the other designs. It may perhaps be conjectured that 19 represents a setting later than those from which the other quarto copies were printed, prepared for sale and not for official distribution. If 19 may be said to be an ornamental impression, it is hardly possible to say the same of 57, though it also has a larger 1 In these points Mr. Christie-Miller's copy agrees with 12. number of ornamental letters than any other copy, save 19. Its title is quite without ornament, and the type and workmanship are poorer than those of any of the other copies. Mr. James Parker, noting the absence of printer's name and date, suggests that 57 was perhaps the first copy issued, remarking that certain errors which it contains "seem to show an early impression, as these words are corrected later." He suggests that Whitchurche may have been the printer.' Mr. Maskell thinks that it was "intended for the use of people in the congregation and not for the priest." If so, it was probably issued later than the copies intended for circulation to the clergy; and a comparison with the quarto copies suggests that it is not really the earliest impression. It is apparently set up, not very intelligently, from an uncorrected copy of the impression represented by 16, to which it owes the errors specified by Mr. Parker, and also some others.3 These include mistakes, such as "dyaection" for dyrection," which could hardly have been repeated by a good workman, for the case is not one of merely mechanical reproduction; the spelling of 57 does not by any means exactly agree with that of 16, but shows aberrations peculiar to itself. On the whole, it seems most likely that 57 is a later edition than the others, produced by the aid of a copy of one of Grafton's impressions, but not in Grafton's workshop--in other words, that it represents a “pirated” edition, brought out to meet a popular demand for copies which probably followed on the issue of the Order. That there would be such a demand in England might be expected; but the demand was apparently not limited to England. We learn from a letter of Miles Coverdale to Calvin, written on March 26th 1548, that the book, within little more than a fortnight from the date of printing, was on sale in the fair at Frankfort, where “many persons were desirous of obtaining 1 Introduction to the Revisions of the Book of Common Prayer, p. xix. 2 Ancient Liturgy of the Church of England, ed. 1882, p. lxxiii. 3 Mr. Parker was not acquainted with 16, which was acquired by the British Museum only a short time before the publication of his work. it."1 Coverdale had translated it into German and also into Latin, the latter version being perhaps specially intended for Calvin's benefit. Both versions, apparently, were forwarded to Calvin, together with Coverdale's letter, which suggests that he should take steps for their publication. Whether Calvin acted on this hint or not, we cannot say there is an extant German version which may possibly be Coverdale's; the extant Latin version is apparently not by him, but by Alexander Aless. Both are printed in Appendix II. of the present volume, where some further account of the two versions may be found. With regard to the plan of this edition of the Order of the Communion, very few words will suffice. The copy selected for reproduction (Brit. Mus., C. 25, f. 15) was chosen partly on the ground of its condition, partly because it appeared, from internal evidence, to represent one of the earliest impressions, partly because it had not been used in any existing reprint. The additional plates have been chosen for the purpose of showing the titles and colophons of the various impressions, and of furnishing specimen pages which illustrate their typography and their variations of spelling and punctuation. It has been thought unnecessary to append to the text any explanatory notes, since, while the forms contained in the Order are of such a kind as to need little in the way of commentary, that need is fairly supplied by the existing commentaries on the Book of Common Prayer, and the changes which have been made in the forms in their incorporation in the Prayer Book of 1549 and in the subsequent revisions may be easily traced in Mr. James Parker's First Prayer Book of King Edward VI. The first section of the Appendix contains such a comparison of readings as may suffice to show the more notable variations of the different copies of the Order; the second contains the German and Latin versions. In the third section an attempt has been made to show to readers who may not be very familiar with 1 Coverdale's Remains (Parker Society, 1846), p. 525. the subject the character and order of the service resulting from the combination of the Order of the Communion with the mass for a particular day: the day selected for this purpose is Easter Day, on which the Order was first used. The last section deals with the question of the relation between the forms contained in the Order and those of the Consultation of Archbishop Hermann of Cologne. In conclusion, I would desire to express my gratitude for the kindness and courtesy with which facilities have been given, both by the authorities of the various libraries and by the private owners, Dr. E. Freshfield and Mr. A. H. Huth, for the inspection and use of the copies of the Order included in the list: to Dr. Fowler, the custodian of the Cosin Library at Durham; to Mr. R. E. Graves; to Mr. Francis Jenkinson, Librarian of the University of Cambridge; to Mr. Falconer Madan, of the Bodleian Library, and to Mr. A. W. Pollard, of the British Museum, my thanks are also due for their assistance in dealing with questions relating to various points of detail; and I must once more record my especial gratitude to Dr. Wickham Legg and to the Rev. E. S. Dewick for their unfailing kindness and most valuable help throughout the progress of the work. |