Page images

In another quality, also, Scott, more than any other of our great writers, resembles Shakspeare, namely, in the hearty, joyous spirit which pervades both the poems and the novels. It has often been pointed out as one great charm of the works of the great dramatist, and it is equally conspicuous in Scott, reflecting, as it does, his own frank, cordial character. Nor, in the more strictly critical point of view, is this gift one of small importance, since there are few which more contribute to impart a reality and naturalness to his works. We can see that they flowed naturally from his mind, that there is nothing put on or affected in them, and that they represent his own genuine feelings. And thus they excite a confidence in the reader which can never be produced by writings in which the author is seen to be labouring to produce an effect, and to be considering not so much what he himself wishes to say, as what the reader desires that he should say.

To form a correct and adequate estimate of Scott's proper position in the world of literature, we must remember that he is almost the only writer in any language for whom a place in the front rank of both poets and prose authors can be claimed. Dryden was, indeed, a consummate master of a prose style, but the critical prefaces to which he confined his efforts, admirable as they are, cannot be considered as of sufficient originality or importance to entitle him to such a position. Goldsmith's Citizen of the World is, perhaps, the best series of essays in the language. But his poems, exquisite cabinet pictures though they be, are on too small a scale to place him among our great poets. Nor, though the French would undoubtedly assert Voltaire's right to the praise of pre-eminent excellence in both prose and verse, and though they may quote Byron's comparison of him with Scott himself in support of his pretensions, can we think his claim one which will stand a rigid scrutiny. We may, perhaps, rank Zaïre with Athalie or the Cid; but, though we cannot claim acquaintance with the whole of his seventy or eighty volumes, we know of no other of his works which is nearly equal to it; his histories, though smart and lively, are singularly superficial ; his novels, though sparkling with wit and shrewdness, are never placed in the first class; while we have too good an opinion of French taste and judgment to believe that that dreariest of all epics, the Henriade, could find a single advocate; or a dozen even of professed scholars of the present generation who have read it through even once.

1 'Had there not been one Shakspeare, one Voltaire,

Of one or both of whom he seems the heir.'

And, after all, this is as sure a test as most of the highest degree of excellence. Nothing that is not really good is permanently popular. We do not believe that any reader has ever left the Lay, or Marmion, or the Lady of the Lake, Waverley, Ivanhoe, The Abbot, or Woodstock unfinished, or has been content with a single perusal of them. And a further proof of the excellence of the whole may be found in the great diversity of opinion which exists as to which is entitled to the preference. We believe that each of the poems mentioned has almost an equal number of champions. And there are at least eight or nine of the novels, each of which has a body of admirers who prefer it to all its fellows. Of the qualities which have had the principal share in gaining for them this general acceptance, we have already spoken. But they have a further, and we shall hardly be blamed by the readers of this Review if we add a still higher claim to our praise, in the uniformly high tone of feeling and principle which pervades and inspires them, and which they in their turn inspire ; not by any direct enunciation of grand sentiments, or formal recommendations of virtue, but by a silent recognition of truthfulness, courage, and purity as the only legitimate guides of action ; by a branding of the opposite vices, not the less powerful because it is implied rather than expressed. There is no pandering to low tastes ; Scott's principal characters, even when taken from a comparatively low rank of life, are emphatically gentlemen. Reuben Butler could not, indeed, have influenced a Queen with the highbred tact of the Duke of Argyle ; Mr. McMorlan was not regarded by Sir Robert Hazlewood of Hazlewood as an equally fitting companion with Colonel Mannering. Our recollection of the immortal Baillie, in spite of his deprecation of it, is no doubt oftenest connected with his exploits of * fighting a wheen Hielandmen and singeing their pladen,' or his danger when making a queer figure without his hat and his periwig, hanging up by the middle like baudrons or a cloak flung over a cloak pen.' But the innate honesty, the scorn of tricksters and trickery, the warm, disinterested zeal in the cause of others, the consideration for others common to them all, stamp them, in spite of homeliness of manner, as gentlemen in mind and disposition. It is this nobility of mind pervading all his writings which so favourably distinguishes them from the works of the only one of his contemporaries who can claim an equality of genius with him. Byron was, in reality, far from wanting in high and generous feelings, and

he often expresses noble sentiments with a terse and emphatic power which sinks deep into the memory

Not all that heralds rake from coffin'd clay,
Nor florid prose, nor honied lies of rhyme,

Can blazon evil deeds, nor consecrate a crime.' But his Harolds, his Conrads, and his Selims cannot be pointed to as acknowledging such a rule of action ; and, though it is impossible to refuse to his vigorous narrative, to his powerful delineations of passion, the tribute of our admiration, we fear that but a small portion of his works can contribute to the improvement of the reader.

Other writers of the century may have been as high in their aspirations, as pure-minded in their compositions as Scott, but they have wanted the joyousness and liveliness which have made the lessons they would fain inculcate equally attractive, the sauce to make the food they proffer equally palatable. If Horace's doctrine is to be accepted,

'Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci,' few, indeed, are the candidates whose demand for our suffrages rests on more solid grounds.


*NICENE' CREED. 1. Missale secundum usum Ecclesie Sarisburiensis. (Rotho

mag. 1492.) 2. Missale ad usum celeberrime Ecclesie Eboracensis. (Rotho

mag. 1517.) 3. Missale ad usum celebris Ecclesie Helfordensis. (Rothomag.

1502.) 4. The Booke of the Cominon Praier and Administracion of

the Sacramentes and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Churche : after the use of the Churche of Englande.

(London, 1549.) 5. The Boke of Common Prayer and Administracion of the

Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies in the Churche

of Englande. (London, 1552.) THE Creed which is to be found in the present service for the celebration of the Holy Communion 'according to the use of the Church of England' may be fairly described as substantially identical with the Latin Creed that occupied a corresponding place in the unreformed Anglican Missals. There is, however, one curious exception to the general agreement of the two formulas. Where the Missals read, 'unain sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam,' the Order of the Holy Communion reads, 'one Catholick and Apostolick Church.' There is no equivalent to 'sanctam.'

We are not aware that any of the writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, who commented on the Book of Common Prayer, have observed this peculiarity. By those who are best known, such as Hamon l'Estrange, Sparrow, Comber, Nicholls, and Wheatley, it is passed over in silence. Nor do we find any reference to it in the liturgical notes of Andrewes or of Cosin. This, however, is scarcely to be wondered at. The older commentators seldom enter into minute detail, and the omission, though noteworthy, is little noticeable. Indeed, since it could not have been supposed to possess any doctrinal significance, it is not improbable that the change would not have seemed to call for comment, even though it had not altogether escaped observation.

What is certainly more strange is to find in how many versions of the Prayer-Book-some of them possessing more or less of an authoritative character—the omitted word reappears. Ales's rendering of the Prayer-Book of 1549, notwithstanding the ostentatious profession of honesty on the part of the translator, is in so many particulars careless and untrustworthy, that one is not surprised to find this minute variation unnoticed. Haddon, too, or whoever was concerned in the production of the Latin Prayer-Book of Elizabeth, though improving upon Ales in some respects, yet has cer. tainly not given us what strictly answers the description of it in the Queen's Letters Patent, as convenientem cum Anglicano nostro Publicarum Precum libro. It is not to be wondered at

· The other differences (not immediately traceable to such modification as must needs arise in every translation, however close, from one language into another) consist merely of the insertion or omission of “and' in two or three places, the insertion of the word 'both' in the phrase ' both the quick and the dead,' and the twofold repetition in the body of the Creed of the words “I believe.' These minute variations may, perhaps, be sufficiently accounted for by a desire for perspicuity and smoothness in a formula intended for recitation in a popular vernacular service. But see note 1, p. 382.

? We have heard that a controversialist in a northern city recentiy pointed out to his hearers that the Church of England makes so light of holiness that she removed the word "holy' from its place as a note of the Church in the Nicene Creed. Did he ever read the English version of the Apostles' Creed ?


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

that the Creed is simply transcribed from the Missal. А century later (1665) appeared, with royal authority, Durel's version of the new Prayer-Book, intended for the Frenchspeaking subjects of the crown. There, too, the clause in question appears as, “Je croie une Sainte Eglise Catholique et Apostolique.''

Of late years the omission of the word holy' from the * Nicene' Creed of the English Church has attracted some notice. That it should long escape observation after once the careful historical investigation of the sources of the PrayerBook had been commenced, was impossible. Canon Heurtley (Harmonia Symbolica, p. 122) remarks: The Latin Creed recited at the third Council of Toledo has merely In unam Catholicam Apostolicam ecclesiam," omitting “ sanctam.Our own version omits sanctam," and the preposition also, "I believe one .Catholic and Apostolic Church ;” but no suggestion is here offered to explain the omission from our Creed. Mr. Scudamore, in his very full and laborious commentary on the service of the Holy Communion (Notitia Eucharistica, p. 284, second edition) remarks: "Holy” is omitted from the version of Heterius, and in the ancient copies of the Acts of Chalcedon. Nevertheless, its omission with us was, in all probability, an error of the transcribers or the printers; but it is singular that it was not restored in any of the later revisions. The same view is propounded by the editors of the popular manual, The Prayer-Book Interleaved, who briefly declare, 'the word "holy" seems to have been accidentally omitted before Catholick in our Prayer-Book version' (p. 167, ninth edition).

The following pages are intended to show that it is probable that the omission of the word 'holy was not accidental, but the result of deliberate design. The course of the argument will bring into prominence a special feature of the work of revision in 1548 that has not yet, we think, received the

1 The writer has not had an opportunity of examining the extremely rare French versions of the books of 1549 and 1552. Among other and less important versions we may note that in the Greek translation, which Petley executed (1638) at the direction of Archbishop Laud, among other and much greater indications of carlessness, dylay is read; as also, if we remember rightly, in Duport's (1675); and in the late Bishop of Brechin's Greek rendering of the Communion Office of the Scottish Church (1865). Similarly in several earlier Latin versions sanctam appears, and (though since corrected) even in the first edition of what is incomparably the best Latin representative of the English Prayer-Book-Messrs. Bright and Medd's.

2 A not very fruitful correspondence on the subject will be found in the columns of the Guardian for 1866.

« PreviousContinue »