« PreviousContinue »
In this Edition the General Index has been somewhat altered
and enlarged. A separate Index of all Texts of Holy Scripture quoted in Hooker's Works, and a Glossary of Words strange either in themselves or in Hooker's use of them, have been added. In the preparation of the Glossary valuable help has been most kindly given by F. J. Furnival, Esq., one of the Honorary Secretaries of the Philological Society.
EDITOR'S PREFACE. ULIFURNII.
Successive Editions of the Life of Hooker.
 THE first object of the present publication is, to exhibit the EDITORIS
remains of the great and venerable writer (all, unfortunately, more or less imperfect) in as correct a form as could be attained, by reference, throughout, to the original editions ; and in some few cases, to MS. copies.
1. In respect of the Life of Hooker, by Walton—which has a sort of customary right to appear first in all collections of his remains, and a right, surely, which no one would wish to disturb, who can enter into the spirit either of the biographer, or of his subject-the reader will find some considerable variations from the copy which appears in most former editions: of which the following is the account. The life was first written at Archbishop Sheldon's suggestion to correct the errors of that by Bishop Gauden, which had come out in 1662. The first edition bears date 1665; the date of the Introduction is fixed to the year before, by the expression, “I must “ look back to his death, now sixty-four years past:" for Hooker died Nov.2, 1600. In 1670, it was reprinted, together with the lives of Donne, Wotton, and Herbert, and the collection was dedicated, as the separate life had been, to Walton's intimate friend (if he might not be called his patron) Bishop Morley. It was so popular as to reach a fourth edition in 1675: and from that, which was the last that had the author's corrections, the present reprint has been made. To the best of the Editor's knowledge, the copy of the Life prefixed to the editions of Hooker since 1666, was taken from Walton's first edition. For although there were at least two reprints of Hooker before Walton's death, one in 1676 and one in 1682, (he died Dec. 15, 1683) the Life remained uncorrected : and this circumstance not being observed by Dr. Zouch led him to select for his edition a text which undoubtedly Walton himself
ü Walton's general Correctness : E.cception to it. EDITOR'S had discarded. Dr. Wordsworth in his Ecclesiastical BioPREFACE.
graphy saw and corrected the mistake. It is remarkable that it should have escaped Strype's notice when he inserted his corrections and additions in the reprint of 1705. Some of the principal variations are set down in the notes to the present edition : but without exact collation of the two texts.
The general result, in the Editor's opinion, is favourable to Walton's veracity, industry, and judgment. The advantage he possessed was great in his connection with the Cranmer family, Hooker's near neighbours and most intimate friends. Of this connexion Walton's biographers do not appear to have thought much, if it was at all observed by them; though it was this in all probability which gave the colouring to his whole future life, introducing him into societies and pursuits from which otherwise he seemed far removed. At the same time the Editor has no wish to deny, that which is apparent of itself to every reader—the peculiar fascination, if one may call it so, by which Walton was led unconsciously to communicate more or less of his own tone and character to all whom he undertook to represent. But this is like his custom of putting long speeches into their mouths : we see at once that it is his way, and it deceives no one. Perhaps the case of Hooker is that in which the biographer has on the whole produced the most incorrect impression of his subject. He seems to have judged rather from ancedotes which had come to his knowledge, than from the indications of temperament which Hooker's own writings afford. Otherwise he might perhaps have seen reason to add to his commendation of him for meekness and patience, that those qualities were by no means constitutional in him. Like Moses, to whom Walton compares him, he was by nature extremely sensitive, quick in feeling any sort of unfairness, and thoroughly aware of his own power to chastise it:
1 This marriage of the Archbishop's
rank and education, according to the fashion of that time, there was no reason why she might not become the wife of a country clergyman, though of an old family, and nephew of a member of parliament. Churchman, her father, had been wealthy, and the family bore arms, as appears by the Ho kers' pedigree.