Reviews of Books

JAMES TAIT
1896 English Historical Review  
of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. VoL IT. (London: published under the direction of the Master of the Bolls. 1895.) IN the interests of English historical scholarship we are bound to point out that the master of the rolls was unfortunate in bis choice of an editor for this important chronicle. A great national corpus such as he directs ought to provide definitive editions so far as existing materials allow, and this can only be secured by employing editors who have made a special
more » ... made a special study of the periods covered. The late Dr. Lumby's edition of Enighton falls far short of this standard, and the work will some day have to be done over again. . The first volume, <wifa».i™ng the earlier and unoriginal half of the chronicle, was rendered almost valueless, as was shown in a notice in this REVIEW (VOL V., p. 172), by the omission to mark by Bmallcir type, according to the plan of the series, the extensive passages borrowed direct or with but slight changes from Hemingburgh and other known sources. In his introduction to the whole work prefixed to this second volume Dr. Lumby tardily endeavours to remedy this gravo rinn l for which he offers the very innnfl^ftiput excuse that he found y the passages in question marked Leycatrensia in the manuscripts. The second ""-If of the chronicle, being more original, presents fewer pitfalls for an editor imperfectly acquainted with the other sources for the period. But even here he has not entirely escaped them. One of the great merits of the most valuable portion of the work (though this part is not by Enighton himself), the account of the first eighteen years of the reign of Bichard H, is its inclusion of the full text of some important documents connected with Richard's struggle with the lords appellants, and especially the powers of the commission appointed by the parliament of 1886, the answers of the judges to Bichard's inquiries in 1887 as to the legality of this parliament's proceedings, and the long indictment of the duke of Ireland and other favourites in the ' merciless parliament' of 1388. It was the duty of the editor to have carefully collated these documents with the official copies on the rolls of parliament, the more so that the French text of the first and third has obviously been much maltreated by transcribers. Dr. Lumby, however, shows no signs of having been aware of the existence of these original copies in the first two cases, and though he gives the reference for the third he has not thought necessary to collate it. If he had done so he would have discovered some important variation, and corrected some obscure forms, such as' seigneur Dandeleigh' for d'Audele (p. 270). The spelling of proper names in our text of Enighton is most corrupt, yet in nine cases out of ten no attempt is made either in marginal analysis or index to identify them. In the former, at p. 8, ' count de Armenak' and ' count de Foy' (' Foys' in text) appear iwgtanfl of ' count of Armagnac ' and ' count of Foil.' The index in this and most other cases contains references only to the corrupt forms of the text. Who is likely to look for Hawick under Fowyk, Fries]and under Frigeland, or Dalyngrngge under Balerynge ? Insteed of making his index a useful analysis of the subject matter Dr. Lumby has supplied only masses of paje references, nor does he ever attempt to correct the dates of his text
doi:10.1093/ehr/xi.xliii.568 fatcat:yfb3xg275jes3foprgjcqzuqui