Lancelot Andrewes's 'Orphan Lectures': The Exeter Manuscript/Introduction

IntroductionThe essay below, by P.G. Stanwood, first appeared in English Manuscript Studies 1100–1700, “New Texts and Discoveries in Early Modern English Manuscripts,” ed. Peter Beal, 13 (The British Library, 2007): 35–46. It is reprinted here in full, followed by a bibliographical collation of three copies of the only printed edition of Andrewes’s Apospasmatia SACRA: or A Collection of posthumous and orphan lectures (1657), with a link to the text on EEBO, and also to the digitised manuscript in full. Three selections from the manuscript are then given, the first of them in a critical edition. thumb|Plate 1: The opening page of the loose leaf accompanying the Exeter Manuscript thumb|Plate 2: Watermark of the loose leaf accompanying the Exeter Manuscript (similar to Heawood 3616, c.1644–6), the same watermark appearing also in the preliminary, detached page thumb|Plate 3: Folio 146v of the Exeter Manuscript, with the beginning of the sermon on Revelation, in the hand of the principal scribe, whose work appears on ff. 2r–228r, the hatchmarks that appear randomly in the margin being a curious feature of this part of the manuscript There has recently come to light an early seventeenth-century manuscript of Lancelot Andrewes’s Apospasmatia SACRA: or A Collection of posthumous and orphan lectures.‘Delivered at St. Pauls and St. Giles his Church’ … Never before extant … London, Printed by R. Hodgkinsonne, for H. Moseley, A. Crooke, D. Pakeman, L. Fawne, R. Royston, and N. Ekins. 1657. For the first and only time published in 1657—some thirty years after Andrewes’s death in 1626—their authorial integrity has ever since been in doubt. In a hastily contrived preface, the notable Laudian Thomas Pierce declared ‘that this Volumne of Notes was only taken by the Eare from the voluble Tongue of the Dictator, as he deliver’d them out of the Pulpit; and so are infinitely short of their original perfection’. Pierce continues painstakingly to discredit these ‘Notes’, which, had he been consulted, would not have appeared. In reflecting and extending this judgement, James Bliss rejects the ‘Orphan Lectures’ for inclusion in the eleven volume edition of Andrewes’s Works in The Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology, noting that ‘there does not appear to be sufficient evidence to justify one in ascribing these sermons, at least in their present form, to Bishop Andrewes’.See Andrewes, Works, vol. 11: Two Answers to Cardinal Perron, and Other Miscellaneous Works (Oxford, 1854), p. lxxvii. But see Arthur T. Russell, Memoirs of the Life and Works of … Lancelot Andrewes (Cambridge, 1860): ‘A careful perusal of the [“Orphan Lectures”] would have led the editor [i.e. Thomas Pierce] … into the full conviction that the substance of the volume was attributable only to Andrewes’ (pp. 382–3). Thus this substantial body of work, comprising of over 700 octavo pages, has remained marginal to most students of Andrewes.But see Peter McCullough’s recent edition, Lancelot Andrewes: Selected Sermons and Lectures (Oxford, 2005), which includes two complete items from 1657: ‘A Lecture on Genesis 2.18 delivered at St Paul’s, 18 October 1591’; and ‘A Sermon on Isaiah 6.6–7, Preached at St Giles Cripplegate, 1 October 1598’. The sermon on Isaiah is one of several on various texts—but not from Genesis—given from 1598–1600. See McCullough’s introduction, pp. xvii–xx, and especially his commentary on these two sermons, pp. 353–65, 378–90. In recounting the early years of Andrewes’s life, Henry Isaacson, his amanuensis and biographer, declares ‘that in S. Paul’s Church … he read the lecture thrice a-week in the term time’ besides often preaching at St Giles’.See Works, cited in n. 2, p. viii. The only record that we have had until now of these lectures and sermons is provided by the ‘Orphan Lectures’, a systematic study and exegesis of the first four chapters of Genesis, verse by verse, as well as a number of homilies on various other texts from both Old and New Testaments. Most of these exegetical or homiletic sections are extensive, carefully wrought, fully coherent, and entirely characteristic of Andrewes’s unmistakable style. The notion that any of them might have been the notes of an auditor is most improbable, though one might accept the possibility that Andrewes considered expanding or revising them.See P. J. Klemp, ‘ “Betwixt the Hammer and the Anvill”: Lancelot Andrewes’s Revision Techniques in the Manuscript of His 1620 Easter Sermon’, Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 89 (1995): 149–82, on Cambridge, Trinity College ms B.14.22. This miscellany contains a copy of the Easter sermon in the hand of Andrewes’s secretary Samuel Wright, much annotated and corrected by Andrewes. The manuscript of the ‘Orphan Lectures’ that I have examined gives unique testimony to the authenticity of this work and firmly corroborates its authorial integrity. Now privately held in Exeter , its present owner took possession of the manuscript at the closure of the Presbyterian College in Carmarthen in the early 1960s, and it has remained with him since that time. How it came to be in Carmarthen is unclear; but two loose leaves, evidently preliminary, offer some glimpse of provenance. On the first, an endorsement, almost illegible, in an early seventeenth-century hand identifies the manuscript: ‘The most lerned [ … two indecipherable words] / Docter Andrewes Sermons in Paules 1591 / when he was appointed to Preach the / Divinitye lecture for 3 yeares together in the 4 Termes // [the numeral ‘4’ was inserted by a different hand, probably much later]. And in St Gyles [parish?] 1597. 1598. 1599./ ’ Below is a later inscription, signed by one ‘Daniel Hollingworth’: ‘This booke I giue unto my Grand Nephew Mr John Cholmeley for ever.’ Below Hollingworth’s signature is yet a further and much later assignment of the book, which begins with the date ‘August 8. 1754. Given by Nicolas Styleman (of Snetsham in Norf.) Esqr. to John Jones’.An additional, but misleading note likely in John Jones’s hand, appears at the bottom of this leaf, probably for his own information: ‘N.B. These Lectures upon the beginning of Genesis do not appear amongst the printed works of Bp. Andrews, nor are they mentioned in the Biographia Britannica, in the account of his Life & Writings there set down, unless they are the Apospasmatia mentioned in Not[e]. H. art[icle]. 16.’ Indeed, there is a mention of the ‘Orphan Lectures’ in the several editions of Biographia Britannica (London, 1747–66, 1778–93, etc.), correctly cited here. This leaf was at some time pasted to the inside of the (now loose) front cover, and its verso has a pencilled date, ‘Jan. 22. 1598[?99]’. The second of these loose leaves gives a fuller statement by Daniel Hollingworth, in his hand: ‘To my Deare beloued Mr John / Chomely the younger my young Nephew / Sir Paule Pinder that was Ambassader / Near xx years in Turkey famose in the / Turkish History had and [Bouand?] this book And / Docter Hacket of St Andrewes in Holdborne hath / Tould mee, Neuer a Devine in England / Could Capp: Sir Paule Pinder in purest Christianitie / And he with his owne hands gaue to the / poure & to Hospitalls & to Churches & / Bulding of Paules in his owne dayes with his owne hands / Fortie Thousand Pounds And had noe / Pictshure in his house But the Pictshure / of Docter Andrewes And hath oft sayd / To mee, That since St Pauls dayes / The Church of God had Neuer / his Fellow. // soe say I think.’ Hollingworth’s name appears below this inscription, but in the hand perhaps of the recipient, who glosses the proper names ‘Hacket’, ‘Andrews’, and ‘Pindar’, quoting from Treatise of Temples, 1638, chap. 25.De Templis, A Treatise of Temples (London, 1638), by ‘R. T.’ Chapter 25, near the end of the book, treats ‘Of the rewards which such receive, who build and adorn Churches’. The quotation from Pindar appears on pp. 230–1. One may reasonably presume that ‘this book’ refers to the manuscript that Hollingworth was giving to his nephew. This single loose leaf might once have been part, not of the present manuscript, but of one that now survives only in four pages (or the two leaves of one folio sheet) of prefatory matter which must have been copied much later—perhaps mid-century—from the principal manuscript under discussion, or else another like it (see plate 1). The reference to Pindar’s having been already in Turkey would place the Exeter Manuscript sometime between 1609 and 1623 (somewhat short of twenty years), the time when Pindar was engaged in his various foreign missions. But of course we do not know that Pindar had ‘this book’ with him when he was abroad, or whether he acquired it after he returned and retained it for years afterward (he died in 1650)—nor do we know how Pindar came to have the manuscript in the first place or exactly how he disposed of it. Yet to judge only from the scribal and orthographic appearance of the manuscript itself, one concludes that it was written within the first quarter of the century, possibly as early as 1600. It would be pleasing to think that Pindar carried it with him on his travels, an unprovable but perfectly credible possibility. The Exeter Manuscript begins with folio 2r, the first folio sheet in fact being the one that contains the earliest inscription, ‘Doctor Andrewes Sermons …’ that forms the paste-down on the inside of the front cover, that is, folio 1r, and with the pencilled date ‘1598[?99]’ on the verso. The leaf in Hollingworth’s hand that describes Sir Paul Pindar’s ownership of the Exeter Manuscript might have become detached and offered as a preliminary leaf to a second manuscript, now lost, that includes only four prefatory pages. The surviving pages (of this one folio sheet) still retain fragments in the gutter of the binding thread. Certainly we do have what seems to be the beginning of a second manuscript; the hand is obviously much later than that of Exeter (see plate 2). Measurements of the Exeter Manuscript (and also of the single loose leaf) are 290 x 195 mm. (pot folio). There are 276 folios; the final one, folio 276r is a paste-down on the end cover. Five leaves have been cut out at 243v–244r. The gatherings are bound up variously, in six, seven, or often nine folio sheets. At the beginning of the manuscript are the lectures at St Paul’s, from f. 2r to 228r; 228v is blank; a different scribe begins at f. 229r, with the earlier lectures at St Giles’, and with some repetition of material that has appeared earlier in the manuscript. Compared with the printed text of 1657, the Exeter Manuscript employs throughout orthography and scribal forms of the earlier seventeenth century. There are numerous variants, chiefly of an accidental rather than a substantive kind; but several sections are unique to this manuscript, or else greatly altered in the printing. Notable amongst these sections is Andrewes’s sermon on the Apocalypse, misplaced in 1657, but remarkable for its author’s discussion of eucharistic doctrine (see plate 3). Comparison with the Printed Version thumb|Plate 4: Folio 229r of the Exeter Manuscript, where a different scribe takes over and continues to the end of the volume (f. 276r), this page beginning the repetition of ff. 141r–146v with numerous minor differences thumb|Plate 5: Watermark of fol. 228r, the paper stock common to the entire bound volume The relationship of manuscript to printed text is complicated, but the following comparison of the two indicates principal differences. The manuscript opens with ‘Knowledge of holy things is Compared by our Saviour Christ to a Keay’, which appears in the Addenda of 1657 (pp. 657 ff.), ff. 2r–v. Then follow the lectures on Genesis, preached at St Paul’s: Gen. 1.1–11 3r–37r 12 37r–v 14 37v–38v 16–30 38v–48r Manuscript and printed text are very different from verse 12 on. There is no manuscript text for verses 13, 15, or 31; but 1657 continues the sequence from verses 12–31 without interruption. Gen. 2 begins at 48r. 1–19 48r–107r 24–24 107r–114v Gen. 2.20 is missing from the manuscript, which continues with Gen. 2.21 through 2.24, where this section ends; but 1657 continues through verse 25, that is, the end of chap. 2. Gen. 3.1–5 144v–125v 6 Omitted from the ms 7 125v–128r 8–14 38v–48r Apoc. 2.7 146v–150v The date ‘9.Aug:1620./’ appears in the margin of 128r, at the beginning of the lecture on Gen. 3.8, in a hand different from that of the scribe, but contemporary with it. At this point, the manuscript ends Gen. 3 with verse 14 (ff. 141r–146v); however, it then gives Andrewes’s lecture on Revelation 2.7 (ff. 146v–150v), which 1657 removes to the concluding section of homilies ‘preached upon severall choice Texts’ (pp. 572–8). Now 1657 continues to the end of Gen. 3 (that is, verse 24). And ff. 229r–276r, in the hand of a different but contemporary scribe, complete these verses of Gen. 3, beginning with (and repeating the discussion of) verse 14. Gen. 4.1-26 150v-228r The lower half of 228r is blank; 228v is also blank. This section of the manuscript is very carefully copied, and the printed text follows it closely, but with many accidental variants. Also, the verse headings are all from the Vulgate; earlier sections are inconsistent in this usage. The manuscript continues with 229r, in a different but similar hand, and concludes at 276r. Folio 229r is headed: ‘Mr. Doctor Andrewes Sermons at St. Giles without Criplegate.’ (see plates 4 and 5) Gen. 3.14[1] 229r–234r [in margin: ‘Junij die 18 1598’] The copy is identical with ff. 141r–146v, the first part of Gen. 3.4: ‘Then the Lord god saide to the serpent because thou hast done this thou art cursed above all Cattaile and every beast of the feild.’ Gen. 3.14[2] 234v–239r [in margin: ‘Junij die 25 1598’] The second part of the verse, appearing also in 1657: ‘Uppon thy belly shalt thou goe and dust shalt thou eate all the dayes of thy life.’ Gen. 3.15[1] 239r–243v [in margin: ‘Julij die 2o. 1598’] ‘I will alsoe putt enmitye betwene thee and the woeman and betwene her seede and thy seede.’ [In 1657] Gen. 3.15[2] 243v–246v [in margin: ‘Aug. 20. 1598’] The second part of the verse, appearing also in 1657: ‘He shall breake thyne head, and thou shalt bruise his heele.’ [The lectures for Gen. 3.14 and 15 have been detached from the regular sequence in 1657, and misplaced at the end of the volume. Five leaves have been cut out from the manuscript between 243v and 244r; only a few lines on Gen. 3.15 remain at the bottom of 243v, but a substantial portion of what may belong to the lecture on Gen. 3.16 remains as 244r–246v. Gen. 3.16 ‘Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.’ (KJV). What remains of this lecture, which is decidedly about the scriptural text, is quite different from what occurs in 1657. Andrewes writes with expansive vigour, in a fashion reminiscent of his lecture on Gen. 2.18, about the creation of Eve. Gen. 3.17–24 246v–276r Apart from conventions of orthography and punctuation, the printed text follows the manuscript closely. Yet 1657 would seem to have been set from a different manuscript (or several manuscripts?). Conclusion The existence of the Exeter Manuscript, a volume, which, as we have seen, contained two different though contemporaneous versions of the ‘Orphan Lectures’, as well as the fragment of still another manuscript in yet a further and third hand, suggests that more manuscripts may yet come to light; for Andrewes’s lectures and sermons of his early career must have enjoyed some circulation—how widely we cannot, of course, know. Of interest also is the fact that 1657 is incomplete, obviously hastily compiled from a manuscript (or manuscripts) that were conveniently at hand, or readily available to Thomas Pierce and such loyal printers as Moseley and Royston. Yet in missing or confusing the sections that do appear in the Exeter Manuscript, the printers cause one to query how else they might have been misled. The sermon on Revelation 2.7, for example, is especially significant; for in it Andrewes is developing his ‘high’ view of the eucharist with considerations ‘suche as may fitly be applied for instruction in the sacrament of the body & blood of Christ’,In this sermon (or ‘lecture’), Andrewes carefully develops the typology of the Tree of Life as a restorative means of grace. See ms f. 146r: ‘though wee be now in the Revelation yet are wee not gone from Gen: 3: wherein wee learned that Adam was sent out of the garden and kept from the tree of life. … [T]here is a great affinytye betwene the tree of life wch god sett in Paradise as a quickininge meanes for the continewance of life in Adam … [for] restitution to Paradise and the tree of life … is performed in this place [Rev. 2.7]’. yet the sermon is relegated to the miscellaneous section following the discourses on Genesis (beginning at p. 515). Clearly, a new edition of the ‘Orphan Lectures’ is needed that will bring together all the material that we now possess. Such an edition should allow full comparison of manuscript to printed text and thus help also to illuminate Andrewes’s own practises of composition and doctrinal belief.A list and description of Andrewes’s known manuscripts appears in Peter Beal, Index of English Literary Manuscripts, vol. I, part 1 (London, 1980), pp. 3–11, currently being revised for the database CELM. See also H. R. Woodhuysen, ‘Manuscripts at Auction: January 1993 to December 1994’, in English Manuscript Studies 1100–1700 6 (1997), p. 253, items 3 and 4 (19 July 1994). A careful comparison of the many and different scribes of all Andrewes’s known manuscripts (not only of the Exeter Manuscript) would probably be helpful in establishing a genealogy of manuscripts and their transmission. But identification of scribal hands is very difficult. My observations are presently limited; but I am quite sure that the examples provided by the Exeter Manuscript do not reveal the hand of such familiar figures as Henry Isaacson, Samuel Wright, or the scribe or scribes of the several sermons in Cambridge, Emmanuel College ms 3.1.13. Note: Peter McCullough (Lincoln College, Oxford) has identified one of the owners of the Exeter Manuscript: Nicholas Styleman of Snettisham, Norfolk (1722–1788; Trinity Cantab; High Sheriff of Norfolk). Through his mother, Armine L’Estrange he was allied with that prominent Norfolk family of royalists (great-great-great grandson of Sir Hamon L’Estrange, 1583–1654, and great-great nephew of Hamon L’Estrange, the theologian and historian, 1605–1660). Cholmely and Hollingworth remain unidentified. Notes