Additional note to Chapter XVII. on some of the differences between the Psalter of the Great Bible of 1539 and the Great Bible of 1540.

Attention has already been called to the fact that many small changes were made in the Psalter of the edition of the Great Bible which appeared in 1540. As has been said, it is impossible to say whether they were due to Coverdale or to Cranmer. Long passages indeed of the Psalter may be read in the Great Bible of 1539, which correspond exactly with the text in our Prayer Book. But in many places we see the touch of a revising hand. A few examples may be cited :—

(a) Ps. ii. 1: "Why do the heathen grudge together" (1539) becomes "Why do the heathen so furiously rage together" (1540). Grudge" " in the sense of "murmur," "complain," was not obsolete; and we have it in that sense not only in the Psalter (lix. 15) but also in the Authorised Version (James v. 9). Yet it very inadequately expressed the sense of the original in this place.

(b) Ps. xii. 2: "dissemble in their heart" (1539) becomes "dissemble in their double heart" (1540). The rendering of 1539 might be defended, because "to speak with a double heart" is "to dissemble"; but it was felt probably to be a pity to lose the expression "double heart" ["an heart and an heart": Hebrew]. Luther reads und lehren aus uneinigem Hertzen.

(c) Ps. xii. 5: "Now for the troubles' sake of the needy" (1539); the word "comfortless" is inserted (1540) before "troubles." I will not pretend to say why; though I suspect it was designed to substitute "comfortless" for "needy" (the former giving the sense of the Hebrew better), and that by a clerical or printer's error it got placed as we now have it. "And because of the complaint of the poor" (1539) is much improved (1540) by changing "complaint" into "deep sighing."

(d) Ps. xv. 4. The whole phrase "is lowly in his own eyes" is inserted in 1540. This seems to be suggested by the

Jewish interpretation of difficult language, on the sense of which good scholars are even now divided. Coverdale, writing to Crumwell in 1538, speaks of his consulting "the interpretation of the Chaldee"; and the Targum gives the meaning as "despised is he in his own eyes and worthless."

These may be taken as specimens of the more important changes made in the Prayer Book Psalter. Others of less significance are frequent, such as

(e) An obvious correction in Ps. v. 6: "the Lord will abhor both the bloody, thirsty and deceitful man" into "bloodthirsty," etc.

(f) Ps. vii. 6: "because of the indignations," changed into the singular, "indignation."

(g) Ps. vii. 13: "if man will not turn," into "if a man," etc. (h) Ps. ix. 15: "is their own foot taken"; omit "own."

Many scores of such changes, a few of which have been noted by Mr. Earle (The Psalter of the Great Bible of 1539, p. xlv.), testify to the desire for making improvements, which was so manifest in all Coverdale's work. The subject deserves more close examination than it has yet received. Much valuable aid will be found in the laborious collation of various readings of the Prayer Book Psalter by Rev. Frederick Gibson, D.D., Rector of St. George's Church, Baltimore, U.S.A., appended to Mr. McGarvey's Liturgiae Americanae (Philadelphia, 1895). See also Driver's Parallel Psalter for various examples of later changes that have crept into the print. It may be noted that the extraordinary misprint of Yea for Jah in Ps. lxviii. 4 appears in the Sealed Books of 1662, and is therefore the authorised reading of the Church of England. Though a correction (legally unjustifiable) has been generally made, Yea appears in several printed Prayer Books, the latest being perhaps a 12mo. Prayer Book, Cambridge, 1832.

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE LANGUAGE AND LITERARY STYLE OF THE

IT

PRAYER BOOK (continued).

T is generally agreed that it is to the genius of Cranmer we are mainly indebted for the form, style, and diction of the general body of the Prayer Book. His treatment of the ancient collects and canticles has been already dealt with. With some exceptions the language of the parts that are wholly original is scarcely less deserving of admiration. The addresses to the people are for the most part direct, stately, and dignified; and occasionally, as for example in the longer exhortation of the Commination, they rise to a true eloquence.

As was inevitable in the lapse of time, here and there a word or a phrase has become obscure, or has altered its sense; but the instances which call for change are comparatively rare. The archaic diction, so long as it remains intelligible and not misleading, is to be prized and cherished. There is a fitness in the language of the Church's devotions being distinguished from the colloquial language of everyday life, even as there is fitness in the places of her worship being built in a style distinct from the architecture of public buildings designed for secular

use.

None would desire that our parish churches should be constructed after the model of a musichall or a lecture-room. And what has been said by the late Bishop Lightfoot of the language of the English Bible * may be applied with equal truth to the language of the Prayer Book: "Whatever may have been the feeling in generations past to alter the character of our version, the stately rhythm and archaic colouring are alike sacred in the eyes of all English-speaking peoples."+ Equally applicable are the words of Archbishop Trench (though the original reference is to the English of the Bible in the Authorised Version): "The words used are of the noblest stamp, alike removed from vulgarity and pedantry; they are neither too familiar, nor, on the other side, not familiar enough; they never crawl on the ground, as little are they stilted and far-fetched. And then how happily mixed and tempered are the Anglo-Saxon and Latin vocables. No undue pre

ponderance of the latter makes the language remote from the understanding of simple and unlearned men."+

A more direct testimony to the literary merits of the English Prayer Book will be found in the words of one himself a great master of English style, Dean Swift. Writing to the Lord Treasurer he remarks: "As to the greatest part of our Liturgy, compiled

* It should be remembered that though the date of the Authorised Version, or rather Revision, is 1611, it is in the main given us in the diction of Tyndale and Coverdale. Hence the harmony in language between the Prayer Book and the English Bible.

A Fresh Revision of the English New Testament, p. 170.

On the Authorised Version of the New Testament, etc., p. 33.

long before the translation of the Bible now in use, and little altered since, there seem to be in it as great strains of sublime eloquence as anywhere to be found in our language; which every man of good taste will observe in the Communion Service, that of Burial and other parts."

In an admirable passage on the prose style of Cranmer, Archbishop Laurence sums up his eulogy in the words our Liturgy is "the masterly performance of Cranmer and his associates, which has always been admired, but seldom successfully imitated, and never equalled, which is full without verbosity, fervid without enthusiasm, refined without the appearance of refinement, and solemn without the affectation of solemnity.'

But admiration for the style of the English Book of Common Prayer has not been confined to ecclesiastics of the Church of England. In his own manner (though it may be admitted that it is not the most perfect manner) the late Lord Macaulay was himself, as a writer of English prose, a great master of style-a style, it may be, somewhat florid and artificial, but nevertheless a style of much force and directness. One might readily suppose that the characteristics of the diction and form of the Book of Common Prayer would not have strongly appealed to a literary taste such as his. Yet his admiration finds expression in language of enthusiastic praise. "In general," he declares, “the style of that volume is such as cannot be improved. The English Liturgy

* Bampton Lectures, p. 23.