The Word "after" in the Rubric (Vol. ii., p. 424.).—In the edition of the Latin Common Prayer, published in 12mo., Londini, 1574, which must be a very early edition (probably the fourth or fifth), there is a great verbal difference in the conclusion of the exhortation from the English original. It stands thus:
"Quapropter omnes vos qui præsentes hic adestis, per Dei nomen obtestor, ut interni sensus vestri, cum meo conjuncti pariter, ad cælestis clementiæ thronum subvolent, ut in hunc, qui sequitur, sermonem, succedatur."
Then follows the rubric, "Generalis confessio, ab universa congregatione dicenda, genibus flexis." It would appear from this, that the confession was repented at the same time by the minister and the congregation, and not by the congregation after the minister.
Of the authenticity of this edition there can be no doubt. It bears the royal arms on the titlepage, and is printed "Cum privilegio Regiæ majestatis. Excudebat Thomas Vautrollerius." I have not seen the earlier editions. A Greek version was printed with the Latin, in one volume, one year before; and the Latin was republished in 1584. The edition of 1574 was printed before the Catechism was completed by the questions on the sacraments. In the rubrics of the Lord's Prayer, in the Post Communion, and in the last prayers the Commination Service, the word after is rendered by post.
The difference between the Latin and the English in the exhortation is very remarkable, for it does not make the priest dictate the confession, but repeat it with them; whereas the English services of Edward and Elizabeth, unaltered in any subsequent editions, distinctly make the priest dictate the confession. There can be no doubt about the sense of the word after, when we find it in the rubrics of the Post Communion and Commination translated post. Some of your readers may be able to give an account of the Latin versions, and explain by what influence the alteration was made, and how it came to be sanctioned, while the English remained unchanged.
E.C.H.
Disputed Passage in the Tempest (Vol. ii., pp. 259. 299. 337. 429.).—Allow me to remind Mr. George Stephens, who takes credit for adhering to the "primitive" text of a certain disputed passage in the Tempest, that neither he nor any one else does so; that the "primitive" text, that is, the text of the first folio, is mere nonsense, and that he simply adopts the first attempt at correction, instead of the second, or the third, or the fourth.
Enough has been written, perhaps, on the meaning of this passage; and opinion will always be divided between those who adopt the prosaical, and those who prefer the more poetical reading: but when Mr. Stephens says the construction is merely an instance of a "common ellipsis," I cannot but think it would be an advantage if he would inform us whether he uses this term in its common acceptation, and if so, if he would give the meaning stated at first. If this be a common ellipsis, I must confess myself to be so stupid as not to understand it.
I dissent, too, altogether from the opinion that the comma is of any importance in the construction of this passage. Assuming, as one correspondent says, and as Mr. Stephens (for I don't quite understand his brief judgment) seems to say, that "most busie least" means least busy, the placing a comma between "least" and the conjunction "when" can in no way affect the sense, though, as a matter of taste, I should decidedly object to it.
To show that I am not wedded to any particular interpretation, I have another suggestion to make which has struck me even while writing. Taking "lest" for least, can it have been used for at least, or as some people say, leastwise? The sense would still be the same as I have contended for, expressed something like this: "But these sweet thoughts do even refresh my labours: at least they are most busy when I forget myself in my occupation."