Durel's resumption of the translation. Earle as chaplain to the king. In 1665, on the 26th of April, the great Plague of London broke out. In consequence of its ravages the king, queen, and court left the city and Westminster they went to Salisbury on July the 27th, and thence to Oxford; Earle, then bishop of Salisbury, also proceeding thither. Here the Parliament met on the 9th of October; and here, on the 17th of November, Dr. Earle died. the work of translation was first committed to Earle when Earle. As Retirement he was chaplain to the king, it appears probable that Death of at his death his papers relating to the translation were handed over to his successor in the chaplaincy; just as his successor in the deanery of Westminster took Peirson's place upon his retirement. Earle's colleague, Dolben, appears to have had no connection with the translation, at all events after his appointment to the bishopric of Rochester, in the November of 1666, of Dolben. and had, so far as we can discover, no part in the final preparation of the version which Durel undertook for his royal master. Probably one reason for his retirement was that, as his acquaintance Wood says, he was not a man of great learning; he "had much of his [Archbishop Williams'] boldness and confidence in him, but little of his learning." However Submission this may be, in the January of 1667 Durel was left alone Liturgy to in the work. There is a letter from him to Archbishop Sancroft. Archbishop Sancroft among the Tanner MSS. in the Bodleian Library, which we have examined and copied. It reads as follows: "Reverend Sir of a Latin "I send you here as much as I have found of the latin liturgie amongst my papers; I thought I had some sheets more, and I am sure I had two copies, but I find but this one (which therefore I pray, be pleased carefully to preserve) the other having been lost, at the removing of my books when the city was burnt. I send you withal some sheets of my Vindicia, which I beseech you to peruse and to I "Athenæ," vol. iv. col. 869. amend at your leasure (?). I shall waite upon you, after the 30. of January with the other papers you have perused already; "Jan. the 25th 1666 "Your most humble " and most obliged "servant “John Durel.” It will be observed that Durel dates this letter 1666; the Bodleian Catalogue dates it 166: the reason for this is that in Durel's time the new year began on the 25th of March, not on the 1st of January. We may conjecture in passing that the sheets of the Latin Prayer Book here mentioned were Dolben's copy. Earle died, as we have in the November of 1665; the portion of the transThis copy probably lation which he had finished would be handed to Durel; Dolben's. Durel being engaged at this time upon his Vindiciæ, which appeared the year before his Latin version of the Prayer Book, would at the moment place this copy prepared by Earle on one side. In the September of the following year the Fire of London occurred, and it was probably this copy that was lost in the removal of Durel's books. The other copy, which he forwarded to Dr. Sancroft, would then be that which Dolben had sent him, some two months later, on his appointment to his bishopric. This explanation is, of course, conjectural, but there can be little doubt that the two copies were those of Earle and Dolben. Durel would hardly call his own work "the latin liturgie," but "my latin liturgie," as he says further on in the letter, "my Vindiciae;" nor, again, would he be likely to have two copies of his own MS., nor to have forgotten in so short a time how many sheets he had, that is to say, how far he had proceeded in the work of translation. The Latin Liturgy which he sent was therefore, in all probability, Earle and Dolben's version.1 1 Lord Selborne ("Liturg. of the Eng. Church," p. 73) writing of the Latin Prayer Book, "edited " in 1670 by John Durel, and "dedicated to the King, as if translated by public authority," gives the following as a reason for believing that Durel's "may be the same Latin translation which was made under the direction of Convocation, as recorded in its Acts of 26 April, 1662, and 18 May, 1664":— that "it can hardly be supposed, that a version made under such auspices would have been entirely This Latin Liturgy, then, was submitted to Archbishop Sancroft to receive his criticism and elicit his suggestions, before Durel com menced his completion and final revision for the press. Value of No more valuable assistance could be conceived; for, as this submiswe shall have occasion to observe hereafter, it was Dr. sion to Dr. Sancroft who prepared, from Bishop Cosin's copy, now Sancroft. for Durel. in the Cosin Library at Durham, that copy of the English Prayer Book, with suggestions for its alteration, which was produced in Convocation in November, 1661. Archbishop Sancroft appears to have helped Durel on other occasions with his works. Sancroft's For we find in the Bodleian Library, among the Tanner friendship MSS., two other letters from Durel to him. In the first (Feb. 25, 1668) Durel says, "I am exceedingly beholding both to your worthy self and to the worthy judge of the Prerogative (whom I will thank by a letter, etc.), for the trouble you have been pleased to take about my papers, and for the rectifying of my mistakes. . . But here is yet more work for both of you in the inclosed paper which you may peruse more leisurely." The second is dated from Windsor, Feb. 18, 1668, and encloses a chapter for perusal. We must, however, remark in conclusion that, though Durel owed much to his predecessors in the work, to the Sarum Missal, and the Elizabethan versions, yet it must not be supposed that Durel's share in the translation. Dr. Barlow's his own contributions to the translation were so small as to justify the application to him of the title of "Editor," which he so modestly assumes. His cotemporary, Dr. Barlow, who was appointed Librarian of the Bodleian in 1652, and in 1675 was made Bishop of Lincoln, had a very different opinion of the merit of his work. In a copy of Durel's Latin opinion. Prayer Book of 1670, in the Bodleian Library, we find Dr. Barlow's motto, alev ȧploreve, on the title-page, and this inscripsuppressed, and the work of a private translator preferred." On" dedicated" Lord Selborne notes: "The Dedication (signed 'J. D. Editor') says, praestantissimam hanc Liturgiam redditam voluisti; unde merito Augustissimo Nomini Tuo nuncupatur haec Latina illius Versio." He also refers to Gibson's "Syn. Angl.," pp. 230, 239. See also Daniel's "Codex Liturgicus," vol. iii. p. 318: "Melius librum interpretati sunt 1662 John Earle, Decanus Westmonasteriensis, atque J. Pearson." (Cf. the commencement of the present chapter.) 3 He calls Meaning of this term. 66 tion lower down in Dr. Barlow's handwriting :-"Lib: Tho: Barlow ex dono J. Durelli S. Theol: Doctoris hujus Liturgia Interpretis: " "Thomas Barlow's Book presented by John Durel Doctor of Sacred Theology and Interpreter of this Liturgy." Durel "In- What the word "interpreter" meant in those days we terpres." see in the Dedication to Lord Vaux, Baron of Harroden, which is prefixed to "The Life of the Apostle St. Paul . . . . now Englished by a Person of Honour :" London, 1653. This work is in the Bodleian Library, and is bound up with Dr. Sancroft's "Modern Policies." The dedicator there writes, In lieu of Translator, I might beg leave to say Interpreter; for, You have not onely given us in English the things signified in the French, which is the duty of a Translator, but you have rendered the very mentall conception of the Author, which, in Aristotles stile, is the office of an Interpreter." Dr. Barlow's selection of this word to describe Durel in relation to his Latin version shows both how accurately he apprehended the meaning of the term "Interpres," and how fully he understood the position which of Durel's that version was intended to occupy with reference to version with the English Prayer Book. We shall frequently have occasion to remark, in our notes on the Catechism, how Durel often neglects literal translation in order to bring out more clearly, by a periphrasis, the actual meaning and intention of the compilers of our revised English Prayer Book. His version is not, and was not meant to be, a slavish translation of the English book, but its object was to render "the very mentall conception" of the last revisers of the Liturgy into a language which was, as Durel says, familiar to all men of learning throughout the world. Position reference to the Prayer Book. CHAPTER III. AUTHORITY OF DEAN DUREL'S LATIN PRAYER BOOK. "That king that holds not religion the best reason of state, is void of all piety and justice, the supporters of a king."-BACON. B EFORE concluding the historical portion of our subject we must tion. consider the further authority given to the Latin Prayer Book after Dr. Durel's resumption of the work. We have seen that the translation of the revised Prayer Book was Recapitulaoriginally committed by Convocation to Earle and Peirson, and subsequently to Earle and Dolben; that, after the death of Earle and the retirement of Dolben, Dr. Durel resumed their work; and that in his completion of the translation he enjoyed the advice and counsel of Archbishop Sancroft. Two more points remain to be noticed. Firstly, the dedication of Durel's Latin version to the king, and the stamp of authority which is thereby placed upon it; and, secondly, the series of promotions, only stopped by death, which were conferred upon him as a reward for his labours and his loyalty to Church and Crown. The part of the Dedication to the King, in the Latin Prayer Book of 1670, which refers to the book itself, reads, when translated into English, as follows: Further authority of Durel's Liturgia. The Dedica "To the Most Serene and Most Mighty Monarch BY THE GRACE OF GOD, King of Great Britain, France & Ireland; DEFENDER OF THE FAITH. tion to the King. "Sire, Most August and Most Gracious of Kings Through him (God) do Kings rule; through him alone have you recovered your lost kingdoms; so that none of all the Kings can be called King BY THE GRACE OF GOD with better right than your Majesty. Accordingly it behoved to honour with a solemn rite as the author of them all, that 'Or perhaps "yearly," referring to the "special office " mentioned below. |