Note: With this post I begin to present the material about William Barlow's Summe and Substance from my thesis in what I hope is a more readable form. Sections will be posted as they are completed. After the elementary questions about the publication what I believe would be most useful is an annotated edition of Barlow's work, but I am not sure how practical that would be for posting on a blog. Either in that way or some other, the main point of this introduction will be to address the question of reliability that has been raised against Barlow's account.
In quotations the spelling has been modernized for the convenience of the readers.
An Introduction to William Barlow’s
The Summe and Substance of the Conference
Part I
Part I
The Hampton Court Conference ended on January 18th 1604. Then or sometime afterwards one of the clergy who had participated in the confreence, William Barlow, was commissioned to produce an account of the meetings. Working with his own notes and those of other participants, Barlow produced an account which was titled The Summe and Substance of the Conference. It was, he said,
[1]an Extract, wherein is the Substance of the whole; intercourse of speeches, there occasioned, would cause prolixity without profit: what every man said, point devise, I neither could, nor cared to observe; the vigour of every objection, with the sum of each answer, I guess, I miss not:
If it is only an extract, The Summe and Substance is still the longest and most detailed account we have of the Hampton Court Conference. The other accounts which have survived are for the most part private letters, with the exception of the anonymous account from Harleian MS 828, first printed by R. G. Usher in 1910, which at 5,400 words or so is about a third the length of Barlow’s account. The first edition of the Summe and Substance was a quarto volume of about 120 pages, containing a preface, “To the Reader”, the account of the conference, and an appendix of “copies”, that is, other accounts of the conference then in circulation which Barlow asserted were “untrue”.
Although it was long accepted as accurate and authoritative, Barlow's account has been also been accused of inaccuracy and bias. In recent times the latter opinion has gained ground, and other accounts have been put forward as correctives, so that as C. S. Knighton stated in his life of Barlow in the ODNB, “The extent to which Barlow’s summary does indeed convey the substance remains central to the historiography of the conference”.[2] It seems to me that this central question requires a simple and clear study of Barlow’s work, to measure it against the other pieces in the historical record of the conference.
This introduction to The Summe and Substance begins with a note of its publication history. and of the question of justy when it was published.. That leads us to ask who commissioned Barlow to do this work, and why Barlow was the one commissioned. With that groundwork laid the work itself can be examined.
Although it was long accepted as accurate and authoritative, Barlow's account has been also been accused of inaccuracy and bias. In recent times the latter opinion has gained ground, and other accounts have been put forward as correctives, so that as C. S. Knighton stated in his life of Barlow in the ODNB, “The extent to which Barlow’s summary does indeed convey the substance remains central to the historiography of the conference”.[2] It seems to me that this central question requires a simple and clear study of Barlow’s work, to measure it against the other pieces in the historical record of the conference.
This introduction to The Summe and Substance begins with a note of its publication history. and of the question of justy when it was published.. That leads us to ask who commissioned Barlow to do this work, and why Barlow was the one commissioned. With that groundwork laid the work itself can be examined.
1. The Publication of the Summe and Substance
Barlow’s work was entered by the bookseller Matthew Law with the Company of Stationers on 22 May 1604 in accordance with the law concerning book publishing. The entry was “under the hands of” Master Pasfield, Doctor Barlow, the Bishop of London, and the wardens of the company.[3] Law brought out two quarto editions in 1604 and one in 1605.[4] Three further editions of appeared in 1605, 1625, and 1638.[5] After September 1604 Robert Barker, the King’s Printer, issued a French translation, La conference tenuë à Hamptoncour in which Barlow’s account was bound with a translation of the new Canons, which Convocation had approved on June 25th and the King ratified on September 6th.[6] It is not known who made this translation or why; the title page states that it was printed in London, but the STC notes “i,e. France?”[7]
This is as good a place as any to note the early publishing history of The Summe and Substance. In 1655 Thomas Fuller copied Barlow's account almost verbatim in his Church History of Great Britain, though he cast it in the form of a dialogue. Another edition of The Summe and Substance was published in 1661.[8] In 1707 it was reprinted by the bookseller John Dunton in The Phenix, a collection of rare and interesting documents.[9] This reprinting omits the preface "To the reader" and the collection of other accounts at the end of Barlow's book. Edward Cardwell printed the description of the conference from James Montagu's letter of 18 January 1604 in the narrative portion of the History of Conferences, but included Barlow's account in the collection of documents which follows, calling it an "authentic" report. Cardwell did not explain why he made this choice: it may simply have been that Montagu's version of events is shorter than Barlow's. Cardwell included the preface, but not the appendix of anonymous accounts.[10] In recent work, Barlow has often been cited from Cardwell's edition.[11]
Publication Delayed
Barlow began his preface with an apology for the delay in publishing a work that had “been long expected; and long since it was finished.” The conference at Hampton Court ended on January 18th; the book was entered in the Stationers’ register on May 22nd and was presumably then ready for publication. Before examining the explanation Barlow offered for the delay, we must note some confusing evidence. In the ODNB life of Barlow, Knighton states that the draft appeared on 25 May, for which he cites STC 1456. This notes the entry of the book in the register on 22 May, for which “25”might be an error.
It would seem from this that Barlow’s book appeared in late May 1604, three months after the end of the conference, a delay long enough to need some explanation. However, in his important paper on the conference, Mark Curtis suggested that the delay was even longer, for The Summe and Substance “did not come from the press until August.” [12]
This dating appears to rest on the evidence of two letters from Barlow to Robert Cecil, the king’s Principal Secretary. In the first, written on 12 May, Barlow requested Lord Cecil to accept the dedication of the book, which was then ready to the press. He noted that “His Majesty is pleased with it”. The second letter, which is undated, is summarized as follows in the calendar:
This is as good a place as any to note the early publishing history of The Summe and Substance. In 1655 Thomas Fuller copied Barlow's account almost verbatim in his Church History of Great Britain, though he cast it in the form of a dialogue. Another edition of The Summe and Substance was published in 1661.[8] In 1707 it was reprinted by the bookseller John Dunton in The Phenix, a collection of rare and interesting documents.[9] This reprinting omits the preface "To the reader" and the collection of other accounts at the end of Barlow's book. Edward Cardwell printed the description of the conference from James Montagu's letter of 18 January 1604 in the narrative portion of the History of Conferences, but included Barlow's account in the collection of documents which follows, calling it an "authentic" report. Cardwell did not explain why he made this choice: it may simply have been that Montagu's version of events is shorter than Barlow's. Cardwell included the preface, but not the appendix of anonymous accounts.[10] In recent work, Barlow has often been cited from Cardwell's edition.[11]
Publication Delayed
Barlow began his preface with an apology for the delay in publishing a work that had “been long expected; and long since it was finished.” The conference at Hampton Court ended on January 18th; the book was entered in the Stationers’ register on May 22nd and was presumably then ready for publication. Before examining the explanation Barlow offered for the delay, we must note some confusing evidence. In the ODNB life of Barlow, Knighton states that the draft appeared on 25 May, for which he cites STC 1456. This notes the entry of the book in the register on 22 May, for which “25”might be an error.
It would seem from this that Barlow’s book appeared in late May 1604, three months after the end of the conference, a delay long enough to need some explanation. However, in his important paper on the conference, Mark Curtis suggested that the delay was even longer, for The Summe and Substance “did not come from the press until August.” [12]
This dating appears to rest on the evidence of two letters from Barlow to Robert Cecil, the king’s Principal Secretary. In the first, written on 12 May, Barlow requested Lord Cecil to accept the dedication of the book, which was then ready to the press. He noted that “His Majesty is pleased with it”. The second letter, which is undated, is summarized as follows in the calendar:
The clear meaning of this letter is that the book which accompanied it had already been published, not that it was simply “ready to come from the press”. Barlow tells Lord Cecil not that he “was about to” publish the book but that he “has [already] sent it abroad.”.He purposed the dedication of the accompanying book to Cecil, who required sight thereof before the edition; but was inhibited access to him, and it was called upon to the press, and was, after a thorough view by Sir Thomas Lake, allowed by my Lord of London. He would not take any other patron but Cecil, and therefore has sent it abroad without patronage. If it had been printed with Cecil's name, he trusts his carriage therein is such that Cecil would not have found dishonour by the book, or discredit by the compiler.[13]
That this was in August 1604 seems to be deduced from fact that the letter is dated in the Calendar, “1604, before August 20”. By itself that might suggest that the letter was written sometime in August 1604, but this idea is weakened by closer examination. It appears that there are many letters in the calendar are dated the same way and for the same reason. On August 20th 1604 Robert Cecil, who had been created Baron Cecil of Essenden on May 13th 1603, was made Viscount Cranborne; undated letters addressed to “Lord Cecil” are calendared as "before August 20.” As evidence for the publication of Barlow’s book, then, this date is a red herring. There is no reason to suppose that it came out much later than the end of May.[14]
One reason for taking note of the date of publication is that Curtis deduced from it the “chief purpose” for which Barlow had been commissioned to prepare an account of the conference, which was so that it would appear after the adjournment of Parliament and Convocation and so provide “an argument for compliance with Bancroft’s own scheme of ecclesiastical reform as that had been embodied during the summer in the Canons of 1604.”[15] If the publication was not delayed so long as that, such an interpretation needs to be reconsidered, at least. Another reason for questioning it is that it assumes that a semi-official account of the conference was Bancroft’s idea, a claim that there is reason to question.
Notes
[1] William Barlow, The Svmme and Svbstance of the Conference, which, it pleased his Excellent Maiestie to haue with the Lords, Bishops, and other of his Clergie, (at which the most of the Lordes of the Councell were present) in his Maiesties Priuy-Chamber, at Hampton Court. Ianuary 14. 1603 Contracted by William Barlovv, Doctor of Diuinity, and Deane of Chester. Whereunto are added, some copies, (scattered abroad,) vnsauory, and vntrue. (London. John Windet (and T. Creede) for Matthew Law, and are to be sold at his shop in Paul’s Churchyard, near St Austin’s Gater, 1604), Sig A3 recto.
[2] ODNB, 3.940-942, 941
[3] A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London 1554-1640 AD, edited by Edward Arber (London: privately printed, 1876) iii.110. “Master Pasfield” is Zacharias Pasfield, later a prebendary of St Paul’s.
[4] Short Title Catalogue, second edition: 1456, 1456.5 (both printed by John Windet and T. Creede), and 1457 (printed by Valentine Simmes)
[5] STC: 1457-1458.
[6] E B. Fryde et al, Handbook of British Chronology (London: Royal Historical Society, 1986); Gerald Bray, Anglican Canons, 1529-1947 Church of England Record Society (Woodbridge, Sussex: The Boydell Press, 1998) pp. lv-lix.
[7] STC, 1459, “A Londres [i.e. France?] : par Robert Barker, imprimeur de la tres-excellente Majeste du Roy, l’an 1604.”
[8] Short Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England ... 1641-1700, compiled by Donald Wing, second edition, B847.
[9] John Dunton, The Phenix, or a revival of scarce and valuable pieces from the remotest antiquity down to the present times, being a collection of manuscripts and printed tracts, nowhere to be found but in the closets of the curious, by a gentleman who has made it his business to search after such pieces. (London: for J. Morphew, 1707), pp. 139-180.
[10] Edward Cardwell, A History of Conferences and other proceedings connected with the revision of the Book of Common Prayer... 3rd edition (Oxford: University Press, 1849), pp.138-141, esp. p 138, note k, 167-212.
[11] As for example in Fincham and Lake, "The Ecclesiastical Policy of James I" and Collinson, "The Jacobean Religious Settlement".
[12] Mark H. Curtis, “Hampton Court and its Aftermath”, History: The Journal of the Historical Association XLVI (1961) 1-16, 4
[13] Historical Manuscripts Commission, Calendar of the Manuscripts of the most hon. the marquis of Salisbury, xvi (1933), 95, 242
[14] This is an opportunity to correct an oversight in my doctoral dissertation [The King’s Own Conference: A Reassessment of Hampton Court 1604 (Trinity College, Toronto: 2006), 150 -151], where without carefully examining Barlow’s second letter I had simply accepted Curtis’ statement that The Summe and Substance was not published untill August.
[15] Curtis, 3.
[3] A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London 1554-1640 AD, edited by Edward Arber (London: privately printed, 1876) iii.110. “Master Pasfield” is Zacharias Pasfield, later a prebendary of St Paul’s.
[4] Short Title Catalogue, second edition: 1456, 1456.5 (both printed by John Windet and T. Creede), and 1457 (printed by Valentine Simmes)
[5] STC: 1457-1458.
[6] E B. Fryde et al, Handbook of British Chronology (London: Royal Historical Society, 1986); Gerald Bray, Anglican Canons, 1529-1947 Church of England Record Society (Woodbridge, Sussex: The Boydell Press, 1998) pp. lv-lix.
[7] STC, 1459, “A Londres [i.e. France?] : par Robert Barker, imprimeur de la tres-excellente Majeste du Roy, l’an 1604.”
[8] Short Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England ... 1641-1700, compiled by Donald Wing, second edition, B847.
[9] John Dunton, The Phenix, or a revival of scarce and valuable pieces from the remotest antiquity down to the present times, being a collection of manuscripts and printed tracts, nowhere to be found but in the closets of the curious, by a gentleman who has made it his business to search after such pieces. (London: for J. Morphew, 1707), pp. 139-180.
[10] Edward Cardwell, A History of Conferences and other proceedings connected with the revision of the Book of Common Prayer... 3rd edition (Oxford: University Press, 1849), pp.138-141, esp. p 138, note k, 167-212.
[11] As for example in Fincham and Lake, "The Ecclesiastical Policy of James I" and Collinson, "The Jacobean Religious Settlement".
[12] Mark H. Curtis, “Hampton Court and its Aftermath”, History: The Journal of the Historical Association XLVI (1961) 1-16, 4
[13] Historical Manuscripts Commission, Calendar of the Manuscripts of the most hon. the marquis of Salisbury, xvi (1933), 95, 242
[14] This is an opportunity to correct an oversight in my doctoral dissertation [The King’s Own Conference: A Reassessment of Hampton Court 1604 (Trinity College, Toronto: 2006), 150 -151], where without carefully examining Barlow’s second letter I had simply accepted Curtis’ statement that The Summe and Substance was not published untill August.
[15] Curtis, 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment