Billeder på siden

principle, who was always trying to cut the markets of his fellow-publishers, and to reprint their works without obtaining their consent. In many of the early eighteenth century books we come across notes by John Rhyderch, Rogers, or Roderick, all the same person, warning the reader as a buyer of books against the wiles of Thomas Durston; and likewise in Durston's we get similar injunctions against having anything to do with Rogers.

Now it appears that Thomas Durston wished to reprint the Imitatio Christi, but the translation of Hugh Owen was so wretchedly done that he knew it would not find a sale. On the other hand, the translation made by W. M. was in excellent Welsh, but it had only just been issued from the Chester press, and he feared to reprint it word for word from that edition. What was he to do?

Bearing in mind, perhaps, a previous occasion on which he had coolly appropriated John Rhyderch's introduction to Vicar Pritchard's Canwyll y Cymry, and placed it under his own name, he determined to reprint W.M.'s edition and put H. O. (Hugh Owen's) name to it. This he actually did, but he omitted W. M.'s introduction and his translation of the first chapter, introducing in their place the introduction written by Hugh Owen and his translation of the first chapter. He subsequently published at least six editions of the book, but always under H. O.'s name. The credit, therefore, for this excellent translation should be transferred from the shoulders of H. O. to those of W. M., A.B.'

Of recent years considerable attention has been paid to the history of the first editions of the Welsh Bible and Testa1 It is difficult to fix the identity of this W. M. He must have been a native of North Wales, as his dialect proves, and there was one William Morgan, Bachelor of Arts, a curate in Anglesea about this time, but whether he was the W. M. of the á Kempis cannot be at present ascertained.

ment, but no real attempt has been made to produce a correct Bibliography of the Bible, and but little has been. written on the seventeenth century editions with the exception of that brought out in 1620 by Bishop Parry.

It is a curious comment on the state of our critical literature that several editions of the Bible and Testament which never had an existence in fact, are constantly mentioned, and even described, in articles written by wellknown literary students. The best instance is, perhaps, the Bible of 1671, said to have been published by Stephen Hughes and Thomas Gouge. This Bible is referred to in Rowlands, though he does not pretend to have seen the book, and since his time every writer on the subject has taken its existence for granted. However, though 6,000 copies were said to have been printed, not one is to be found in any public or private library that I have searched. This edition is not mentioned by Moses Williams or Dr. Llewelyn, and Stephen Hughes himself, writing in the preface to his editions of Canwyll y Cymry, published respectively in 1670 and 1672, never refers to its existence, although the major part of his introduction is taken up with the question of providing Bibles in Welsh for the Welsh people. In fact, from the tenour of Stephen Hughes's remarks, it is clear that he did not publish an edition of the Bible in that year.

Similar remarks might be made about the editions of the New Testament said to have been published in 1643, 1648, and 1650. It is, therefore, clear that our knowledge of the seventeenth century Bibles is not in a very advanced condition.

But to return to the first edition of the small octavo Bible published in 1630. This Bible is said to be rare, but as far as my experience goes, it is far commoner than the next edition published in 1654, and known as Bibl Cromwell.

I have in my possession two copies of the 1630 Bible, which differ considerably in spacing and spelling, making it clear that they are not the same editions. Both volumes have the Book of Common Prayer, the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha, and the Psalms of Edmund Prys; and the title pages to all these in each case are exactly similar and bear the same date. The only differences between the two editions are found in the first portion of the Old Testament, ending in sheet E, but these differences are considerable.

For instance, the plate at the beginning of Genesis representing Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is totally different, the word llyfr is spelt llyfer in one, llyfr in the other; the first page of Genesis ends with the 24th verse in one, with the middle of the 25th verse in the other; the words not existing in the original are placed in ordinary print within square brackets in one, and are printed in italics in the other. All these distinctions are carried on to the end of the fifth sheet of the Bible, from whence both editions agree in all particulars. The question is whether these two Bibles are to be considered as distinct editions or as one and the same.

Vavasor Powel mentions the fact that he had bought up a large number of a former impression of the Bible, and had caused them to be circulated throughout the Principality. He can only refer in this paragraph to the 1630 edition, and it may be that some sheets had to be reprinted by him. On the other hand, these five sheets may represent an earlier attempt at producing a small pocket. edition of the Bible, which was given up for some reason or other.

It is well known, and it is stated in the Preface to this Bible, that two citizens of London, Sir Rowland Heylin and Sir Thomas Myddelton, bore the expense of publica

tion. Mr. Ivor James, in an article in the Traethodydd some years ago, attempted to prove that the Rev. Rees Prichard, Vicar of Llandovery, and author of Canwyll y Cymry, had the chief hand in bringing this Bible through the press. I do not think Mr. James's arguments in favour of this conclusion are tenable, but in the absence of any positive evidence it is not safe to condemn any theory however far-fetched it may appear.

However, Moses Williams, in his notes (Addit. MSS. 14,982) on the editions of the Welsh Bible, says :-"The Welsh preface to it bespeaks the curator of ye press to be a native of Dyffryn Clwyd, at least to have lived a considerable time somewhere in that neighbourhood." Presumably Moses Williams came to this conclusion from the existence of words or phrases peculiar to the Dyffryn Clwyd dialect in the Editor's preface. I am not acquainted with the peculiarities of that dialect, but such words as diwaethaf, fo ddichon, and fo ryngodd bodd, could not have been used by Vicar Prichard, a native of Carmarthenshire. Moreover, we have no evidence that the Vicar himself ever published a book, as the little tract printed by Hodgetts in 1617, which contains one of his songs, bears no trace of his name, and was probably published by order of some church dignitary.

If it is worth while making a conjecture as to the editor of this Bible, one would be disposed to give the credit to Robert Lloyd, Vicar of Chirk, in Denbighshire, who lived for some time in the vale of Clwyd. He was in London in 1629 and 1630, for in 1629 he published a translation of a sermon by Arthur Dent, and in 1630 the book called Llwybr Hyffordd i'r Nefoedd. It is also probable, from a remark in the preface to the latter book, that he overlooked the printing of Rowland Vaughan's book, Yr Ymarfer o Dduwioldeb, published in the same year.

In 1631 again he was to the front, as he wrote a preface to the book, Carwr y Cymru, the avowed object of which was to impress upon the Welsh people the need of buying the Bible.

It cannot therefore be considered a very bold surmise to suggest that Robert Lloyd was the person, or one of the persons, who had charge of the task of bringing out the Welsh Bible of 1630.

Whether this be so or not, Lloyd deserves a niche in the gallery of eminent Welsh writers, for his style is, perhaps, with the exception of that of Elis Wyn, the Bardd Cswg, the most vigorous in Welsh literature.

It is a striking fact that these early writers exhibit so correct a taste in style, and at the same time so great a command of the Welsh language. Perhaps they took more time than present writers can afford to correct and improve their phraseology, and certainly when one considers the expense and trouble involved in publishing Welsh books in those early days, one can understand a person taking enormous pains to do his work well. One of the most interesting features in connection with the early Welsh books is that each book represents an enormous outlay both in time and money, for the writer would have to leave his secluded valley for the dust and din of London, there to remain till his book was out of the press. The correction of errors was sometimes left to a third person, and this is the reason why we find so many of these early authors complaining of printer's errors; occasionally taking their revenge on the obstinate printer in the manner of Thomas Jones, of Shrewsbury, in his Welsh Dictionary published in 1688, who caused the unsuspecting printer to print these words in Welsh:

"I am extremely sorry that portions of this book, and of my Almanac for 1688, have been printed so abominably,

« ForrigeFortsæt »