William Cave (1637-1713) and the Fortunes of Historia Literaria in England
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
WILLIAM CAVE (1637-1713) AND THE FORTUNES OF HISTORIA LITERARIA IN ENGLAND ALEXANDER ROBERT WRIGHT Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, December 2017 Faculty of English Abstract WILLIAM CAVE (1637-1713) AND THE FORTUNES OF HISTORIA LITERARIA IN ENGLAND Alexander Robert Wright This thesis is the first full-length study of the English clergyman and historian William Cave (1637-1713). As one of a number of Restoration divines invested in exploring the lives and writings of the early Christians, Cave has nonetheless won only meagre interest from early- modernists in the past decade. Among his contemporaries and well into the nineteenth century Cave’s vernacular biographies of the Apostles and Church Fathers were widely read, but it was with the two volumes of his Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Literaria (1688 and 1698), his life’s work, that he made his most important and lasting contribution to scholarship. The first aim of the thesis is therefore to build on a recent quickening of research into the innovative early-modern genre of historia literaria by exploring how, why, and with what help, in the context of late seventeenth-century European intellectual culture, Cave decided to write a work of literary history. To do so it makes extensive use of the handwritten drafts, annotations, notebooks, and letters that he left behind, giving a comprehensive account of his reading and scholarly practices from his student-days in 1650s Cambridge and then as a young clergyman in the 1660s to his final, unsuccessful attempts to publish a revised edition of his book at the end of his life. Cave’s motives, it finds, were multiple, complex, and sometimes conflicting: they developed in response to the immediate practical concerns of the post-Restoration Church of England even as they reflected some of the deeper-lying tensions of late humanist scholarship. The second reason for writing a thesis about Cave is that it makes it possible to reconsider an influential historiographical narrative about the origins of the ‘modern’ disciplinary category of literature. Since the 1970s the consensus among scholars has been that the nineteenth-century definition of literature as imaginative fictions in verse and prose – in other words literature as it is now taught in schools and universities – more or less completely replaced the early-modern notion of literature, literae, as learned books of all kinds. This view is challenged in the final section of this thesis, which traces the influence of Cave’s work on some of the canonical authors of the English literary tradition, including Johnson and Coleridge. Coleridge’s example, in particular, helps us to see why Cave and scholars like him were excluded lastingly from genealogies of English studies in the twentieth century, despite having given the discipline many of its characteristic concerns and aversions. iii Prefatory Note This dissertation does not exceed the regulation length of 80,000 words, including footnotes, references, and appendices but excluding the bibliography. I confirm that this dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or am concurrently submitting, for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution. I have followed the MHRA Style Guide (3rd edition, 2013). For the most part original spelling and punctuation have been preserved, although in some cases they have been lightly modernised. Dates have been converted to New Style, with the year starting 1st January. Translations are my own unless otherwise indicated. Any abbreviations are explained as they arise in the main body of the thesis. iv Acknowledgements Working on the life of a historian who consistently concealed his debts to other scholars, especially the informal assistance he received from friends and colleagues, has made me sensible of the need to acknowledge my own. First and foremost this thesis would not have been possible without funding from the AHRC for my MPhil and then for my PhD, this time in partnership with a donation from Mrs Kyoko Gledhill. Generous grants at different times from the AHRC, the Cambridge English Faculty, and Sidney Sussex College enabled me to attend conferences in Plymouth and Oxford and to carry out research overseas in the summer of 2016. Elsewhere in Cambridge the Rare Books Room in the University Library has been my base for the past three years: the efficiency and expertise of its staff cannot be emphasised enough, and my thesis would have been considerably poorer without their advice, fetching, and kindness. In the course of my research I have also benefited from visits to farther-flung libraries, and I am grateful to staff at the British Library, Lambeth Palace Library, St George’s Chapter Library, Windsor, the Royal Library, Copenhagen, the Forschungsbibliothek Gotha, the Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg, and the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen. Three archivists in particular deserve special mention. Erik Petersen in Copenhagen was a fount of knowledge about early-modern European scholarship and pointed me in the direction of several relevant manuscript sources, and in Windsor, Kate McQuillian and Clare Rider were unfailingly helpful; I hope they will be gratified to see one of the Chapter’s former members restored to his full importance. Over the past three years I have incurred substantial debts to several other people. Conversations in person or by email with Christopher Tilmouth, Richard Serjeantson, Karen Collis, Kelsey Jackson Williams, Alexander Regier, and Marcello Cattaneo have helped to clarify my thinking. Edward Wilson-Lee and Joana Craigwood made me feel part of the English Literature community at Sidney Sussex and entrusted me with a steady, invigorating supply of undergraduate teaching. Since meeting him at a conference in Cambridge in 2016, Mark Vessey has been a source of encouragement and guidance just as valuable to the completion of this thesis as his published work on Jerome and Erasmus. Two of my undergraduate tutors have also continued to play a role in my work, years later. With his usual generosity Winfried Rudolf let me stay at his flat while I worked in the library in Göttingen, despite being out of the country at the time. Tom Roebuck drew me into the history of scholarship in my second year at Oxford before I realised what was happening, and had an equally decisive impact on my research in the second year of my PhD, realising before I did that my whole thesis needed to be about Cave, not just a single chapter. My gratitude is due next to Nick Hardy, not only for numerous suggestions and discussions, but also for sharing his work with me so freely: it will be clear how much this thesis owes to his book, and any simplifications and misapplications of his research are entirely my own. Kirsten Macfarlane, meanwhile, has been blazing a trail for me to follow since we were tutorial partners as undergraduates. Phil Connell has been a model supervisor after taking me on for the last third of my PhD: my thesis would have been greatly improved if I had had his help from the beginning. It goes without saying that this dissertation would not have been written without the support of my parents and sister, which has been constant. Lastly, I want to thank Adeline: checking over my bibliography was the least of the ways in which she improved things. v Contents Introduction. The Rise of English Literary History? 1 The Makings of a Literary Historian 16 The “Republic of Letters”, Jerome, and the Good Literary Historian 76 The History of Literature as the History of (Commendatory) Letters 121 Saeculum Literarium: Cave in the Long Eighteenth Century 160 Coda. Literary History after Cave 212 Bibliography 215 vi Introduction The Rise of English Literary History? In 1688 the first English literary history was published, with a second volume appearing ten years later. Depending on your perspective or specialism, this date will either seem very late or much too early. John Leland’s De Viris Illustribus, written in the 1530s and 1540s but not published till 1709, or Thomas Warton’s The History of English Poetry (1774-81) are more commonly described as the first English histories of literature. So, to clarify: in 1688 the first book printed in England to call itself a literary history was published. The question is whether this clarification weakens the force of the opening claim. There are too many examples to name of books announcing new themes in their titles but ending up repeating old themes or, on the other hand, disguising real innovation under familiar titles. What was new and different, if anything, about William Cave’s Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Literaria (1688-98)? ‘Clarify’ might have been an inappropriate choice of word because, considered more closely, the title of Cave’s book is anything but clear, at least to modern eyes. In the first place it is hard to tell what it is a history of exactly. Its title has a double object: it is a history of literature (if that is the same as a literary history) and it is a history of ecclesiastical writers. The temptation is to fold these two together and read the title as promising a history of ecclesiastical literature, but this is immediately unsatisfying as a solution, since it fails to capture the historical specialness of either of its adjectives, literary or ecclesiastical.