304
NOTES AND QUERIES. [9 th s. xn. OCT. 17, 1003.
what for the execution of that Commentary* de
signed by Williams," &c.
10. The writerf of the Introduction to Bagster' 1 English Hexapla,' speaking of errors which hac crept into the editions of the A. V. , published in sue rapid succession after its first issue, says, " Some o these were very important, and others extremely ludicrous ; so that after the lapse of time a carefu correction of the current editions became indis pensably necessary. This important task was firs executed by Dr. Scattergood in 1683."
It is not perfectly clear whether the writer hen refers to a different task from that executed ty Scattergood in the addition of the large number o notes to the ]678 edition, of which we have beer speaking ; primd facie he does. The additiona notes and references appear to have been all copiec in the 1683 edition ; but whether many corrections were made apart from these notes can only be determined by a careful and exhaustive collation of the two editions.
11. Mr. T. Lowndes, in his ' Bibliographer's Manual 5 (Bohn's edit. 1869, vol. i. p. 188), describes "The Bible, Cambridge, by J. Hayes, 1678 folio, published by Anthony Scattergood, D.I)., with the addition of many parallel texts, which are stil] reprinted in the margin of the large Bibles."
Of course the records given by the above writers cannot be taken to be all original, but were in many, perhaps most, cases copied by one from the other. The same must be said of the notices of an edition of 1678 given with more or less of amplification by the following :
Cotton, 'Editions of the Bible in English,' Oxford, 1821 (in my possession), p. 25; Orme, 4 Bibliotheca Biblica,' p. 385, edit. 1824 (Brit. Mus.) ; Eadie, 'The English Bible, 3 ii. p. 308 (1876); Mom- bert, ' English Versions of the Bible, 3 p. 372, foot- note ; Scrivener, ' Cambridge Paragraph Bible,' In- troduction, sec. i. 19 ; Graesse, ' Tresor de Livres Rares et Precieuses' (under 'Biblia Anglica'); and
- See Racket, 'Scrinia Reserata 3 (1693, part ii.
42), " Yet he (Williams) knew, that to expound the whole Scripture learnedly was above the Powers, and Parts of one Man. Therefore he reserved both the filling, and finishing of it, to the assistance of 1 welve, or more, of the ablest Scholars in the Land whom he had in his Eye and Thoughts, and pur- pos d the Recoinpence of a great Stipend. For he hath said it to his Friends, that he would not stick at the sum of Twelve, no, nor of Twenty Thousand Pounds to perfect that Master-piece of Divinity " Id. 44: "And if he would ordain none that were unlearned, what manner of Men were they like to be, whom he preferred to Dignities and
Cures upon his own Collation? Let no more be
named but a Handful, <whom the Bishop gather'd out of one Society, Trinity College in Cambridge and guess at all by their proportion. Dr. Simson the Author of the great Chronology, Dr. Warr Mr G. Herbert, Dr. Meredith, Mr. H. Thornedick, Dr'
i Ct vT' r? r w-?r rn ' Mr ' 4" Du ~ port ' Mr ' A ' ScaW good, Mr. C. Williamson. Tptovrot 6e*a pol Here
are Ten Nestors in one Militia, according to Atra memnon's wish."
t The anonymous writer of the Introduction to the Hexapla ' was, according to the Rev. C. F S Warren of Longford, Coventry, Dr. Temple Che- SffiS M??? Du l?arn from 1865 until his death in 1873 ('Diet. Nat. Biog.').
others, including T. H. Home, ' Introduction,' &c.,
first edit. vol. i. p. 328 ; also sixth edit. vol. ii. ap-
pendix, p. 77.
Home gives the date 1678 in a table which he quotes from Hewlett's ' Commentary,' containing the number of parallel texts in different editions or the A. V., in which he states that Scattergood's 1678 edition contains 33,145 references, while the 1677 edition, also published by J. Hayes, had 25,895 only.* Mombert and Eadie repeat the above statement as to the comparative number of references, with a slight variation, probably due to a misprint on one side or the other.
Of course the additional references would, for the niost part, be copied in succeeding editions, as is, indeed, stated by some of the authorities above quoted ; and the writer of this notice, who possesses copies of the quartos issued by Hayes in 1677 and 1683, is able to testify, from personal examination, extending to several books of both Old and New Testaments, that the increase named above, as having taken place after 1677, cannot be far wrong.
The writer nas, naturally, made diligent search for a 1678 edition, whether folio or quarto, and in so doing has received kind and valuable help from many collectors and librarians ; but without, up to the time of writing, any success.
It may now be affirmed positively that the volume does not exist in the libraries of the British Museum ; the Bodleian ; Trinity College, Cam- bridge ; St. John's College, Cambridge ; Queen's College, Oxford ; Norwich Cathedral ; Peter- borough Cathedral ; York Minster ; Ripon Minster ; Lambeth Archiepiscopal Library ; Sion College ; City of London (Guildhall) Library ; University Library, Edinburgh ; Advocates' Library, Edin- burgh ; University Library, Glasgow ; Mitchell T ibrary, Glasgow ; Trinity College, Dublin ; Chet- ham Library, Manchester ; Dr. Williamson's ibrary, London ; British and Foreign Bible Society's Collection ; nor in those of the late Mr. Fry, the Rev. Mr. Peckover, Mr. H. L. Farmer Atkinson (dispersed by auction, March, 1896), the ate Mr. Dore, of Huddersfield, and Prof. Copinger. The Ashburnham Library (vide 'Book-Prices Current, 3 1897, when it was dispersed) did not Contain a copy, nor is it mentioned in Lea Wilson's ist of his own collection. It was not shown in the Jaxton Exhibition of 1877, and inquiry and adver- isement amongst old booksellers and others have ailed to produce any tidings of it ; and finally here is no record in ' Book-Prices Current' of the )ook having been offered for sale by auction in London during the years 1887-98 inclusive.
The failure to find the 1678 edition cannot mt be considered remarkable, seeing that opies of the many editions of the Bible ssued between 1675 and 1685 are sufficiently ommon. Are we, after all, to come to the onclusion that Hayes's 1683 edition is that, which was edited by Scattergood? The bjections to this view are (1) that the book tself contains no indication that a large
- In another place in the ' Introduction, 3 however,
lorne gives 1683 as the date of Scattergood's edition.
his is probably a mistake ; but Home's words have
een quoted by Lowndes (loc. cit. seq.) and by Dr.
Adam Clarke in the preface to his * Commentary.'
