Sept. 27. 1851.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



225 



the highest degree of poetical excellence to the use 

 of this very word. I wish I could believe myself 

 the author of such an improvement ; but I have 

 certainly somewhere seen the line printed as I 

 have given it ; very possibly in Ebenezer Elliott 

 tlie Corn-law Rhymer's Lectures on Poetry, in 

 which I distinctly remember that he quoted the 

 stanza. T. W. 



" notes" on the OXroRD EDITION OF BISHOP 



jewel's works. 

 I send, with some explanation, a few Xotes, 

 taken from among others that I had marked in 

 my copy of the edition of Bishop Jewel's Works, 

 issued by the Oxford university press, 8 vols. 8vo. 

 1848. 



Vol. ii. p. 352., 1. 6., has, in Jewel's Reply to 

 Harding's Answer, Article v., " Of Real Presence," 

 seventh division, the following : " And therefore 

 St. Paul saith, ' That I live now, I live in the flesh 

 of the Son of God.' " To this the following is 

 appended by the Oxford editor : 



" [Galatians ii. 20. ' . . . And the life which I now 

 live in the flesh 1 live by the faith of the Son of God, 

 who loved me, and gave himself for me?' It cannot 

 be denied that Jewel is here guilty, to say the least, of 

 very unjustifiable carelessness.]" 



The true state of the case is, that Bishop Jewel, 

 in the original Reply to Harding, published in his 

 lifetime, 1565, had given the text with entire cor- 

 rectness — " That I live now in the flesh, I live in 

 the faith of the Son of God : " but this, long after 

 the Bishop's death, was misprinted in the editions 

 of 1609 and 1611. The Oxford Jewel, moreover, of 

 1848 does not even profess to follow the editions of 

 1609 and 1611; and it is stated, vol. i. p. 130., 

 tiiat " this edition of the Reply in passing through 

 the press has been collated with the original one 

 ot 1565." Still in this vital case, where the very 

 question was, what Jewel himself had written, it 

 is plain that the early edition of 1565 was never 

 consulted. The roughness of the censure might 

 surely in any case have been spared. It may be 

 noted (vol. viii. p. 195. Oxf. edit.), that Jewel in 

 1568 wrote to Archbishop Parker : " I beseech 

 your grace to give strait orders that the Latin 

 Apology be not printed again in any case, before 

 either your grace or some other have well perused 

 It. / am afraid of printers : their tyranny is in- 

 tolerable." 



In vol. iv. p. 92., 1. 1. ct seq., in the Recapitula- 

 tion of JeweVs Apology, the words of the original 

 Latin, " quid de Spiritu sancto," marked in the 

 following extract by Italics, are omitted in the 

 0.\ford edition : " Exposuimus tibi universam 

 rationem religionis nostriB, quid de Deo Patre, 

 quid de ejus unico Filio Jesu Christo, quid da 

 Sjnritu sancto, quid de ecclesia, quid de sncra- 

 . seutiamus." And in vol. vi. [>. 523., 



mentis 



1. 6., where Bishop Jewel gives that passage as 

 rendered by Lady Bacon, namely : " We have de- 

 clared at large unto you the very whole manner 

 of our religion, what our opinion is of God the 

 Father, and of his only Son Jesus Christ, of the 

 Holy Ghost, of the church, of the sacrament," the 

 following is appended : — 



" [In the Latin Apology no words occur here relat- 

 ing to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.]" 



A similar notice is also given in vol. viii. p. 385. 

 — The fact is, that the words "quid de Spiritu 

 sancto "do occur in the Latin Apology, 1562, which 

 was the first edition of that work, and, so far as I 

 am aware, the only edition printed in Jewel's life, 

 from which too the Oxford reprint professes to be 

 taken, and a copy of which any one can consult 

 in the British Museum. Those words will also 

 be found, within six or eight pages of the end, in 

 the various later editions, as for example those 

 of Vautrollier, London, 1581 ; Forster, Amberg, 

 1606 ; Boler, London, 1637 ; and Dring, London, 

 1692 (which are in my own possession) ; as also in 

 the editions of Bowier, 1584 ; Chard, 1591 ; and 

 Hatfield, London, 1599. The editions of Jewel's 

 works printed in 1609 and 1611, edited by Fuller, 

 under the sanction of Archbishop Bancroft, did 

 not contain the Latin Apology. There is not a 

 shadow of authority for the omission. All the 

 modern reprints too, with which I am acquainted, 

 only excepting a small edition printed at Cam- 

 bridge, 1818, p. 140., give the words in question. 

 It would seem that the Oxford editor must have 

 used the very inaccurate reprint of 1818, for sup- 

 plying copy for the printer* ; and reference either 

 to that first edition of 1562, which the reprint of 

 1848 professes to follow, or to any eai'ly edition, 

 even in this case, where the context clearly re- 

 quires the omitted words, was neglected. 



I have said that the Oxford Jewel of 1848 pro- 

 fesses to follow the Latin Apology of 1562, as a 

 copy of the Latin title, with the date 1562, is pre- 

 fixed to the Oxford edition, vol. iv. p. 1. : but the 

 colophon appended to that reprint, p. 95., is 

 strangely dated 1567. Was there any Latin edi- 

 tion of the Apology printed in that year ? And, 

 if so, why are dilFerent dates given for the title 

 and colophon of the O.Kford reprint ? One can 

 only conclude that the date 1567 is itself an error. 



The following is printed in vol. viii. p. 290., 

 1. 11., from Lady Bacon's ti-anslation of Jewel's 

 Apology, 1564, part il. ch. 7. dlv. 5. : " As touch- 

 ing the Bishop of Rome, for all his parasites state 



* I have observed another error in the Cambridge edi- 

 tion, 1818, p. 115., last line but five, "domum manere" 

 instead of tlie original and classic.il reading, " domi 

 manere." That misprint of 1818 is followed by the 

 Oxford edition of 1843, vol, iv. p. 77. 1.12., Apol. 

 pars vi. cap. 8. div. 1. 



