A few years ago, an attempt was made by myself and others to collect some information about the _Cheap Repository_ (see _Notes and Queries_, 3d Series, vi. 241, 290, 353; _Christian Observer_, Dec. 1864, pp. 944-49). It appeared that after the Religious Tract Society had existed more than fifty years, a friend presented it with a copy of the original prospectus of the _Repository_, a thing the existence of which was not known. In this prospectus it is announced that from the plan "will be carefully excluded whatever is enthusiastic, absurd, or superstitious." The "evangelical" {193} party had, from the foundation of the Religious Tract Society, regretted that the _Repository Tracts_ "did not contain a fuller statement of the great evangelical principles"; while in the prospectus it is also stated that "no cause of any particular party is intended to be served by it, but general Christianity will be promoted upon practical principles." This explains what has often been noticed, that the tracts contain a mild form of "evangelical" doctrine, free from that more fervid dogmatism which appears in the _Village Dialogues_; and such as H. More's friend, Bishop Porteus[439]--a great promoter of the scheme--might approve. The Religious Tract Society (in 1863) republished some of H. More's tracts, with alterations, additions, and omissions _ad libitum_. This is an improper way of dealing with the works of the dead; especially when the reprints are of popular works. A small type addition to the preface contains: "Some alterations and abridgements have been made to adapt them to the present times and the aim of the Religious Tract Society." I think every publicity ought to be given to the existence of such a practice; and I reprint what I said on the subject in _Notes and Queries_.
Alterations in works which the Society republishes are a necessary part of their plan, though such notes as they should judge to be corrective would be the best way of proceeding. But the fact of alteration should be very distinctly announced on the title of the work itself, not left to a little bit of small type at the end of the preface, in the place where trade advertisements, or directions to the binder, are often found. And the places in which alteration has been made should be pointed out, either by marks of omission, when omission is the alteration, or by putting the altered sentences in brackets, when change has been made. May any one alter the works of the dead at his own discretion? {194} We all know that readers in general will take each sentence to be that of the author whose name is on the title; so that a correcting republisher _makes use of his author's name to teach his own variation_. The tortuous logic of "the trade," which is content when "the world" is satisfied, is not easily answered, any more than an eel is easily caught; but the Religious Tract Society may be _convinced_ [in the old sense] in a sentence. On which course would they feel most safe in giving their account to the God of truth? "In your own conscience, now?"
I have tracked out a good many of the variations made by the Religious Tract Society in the recently published volume of _Repository Tracts_. Most of them are doctrinal insertions or amplifications, to the matter of which Hannah More would not have objected--all that can be brought against them is the want of notice. But I have found two which the respect I have for the Religious Tract Society, in spite of much difference on various points, must not prevent my designating as paltry. In the story of Mary Wood, a kind-hearted clergyman converses with the poor girl who has ruined herself by lying. In the original, he "assisted her in the great work of repentance;" in the reprint it is to be shown in some detail how he did this. He is to begin by pointing out that "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked." Now the clergyman's name is _Heartwell_: so to prevent his name from contradicting his doctrine, he is actually cut down to _Harwell_. Hannah Moore meant this good man for one of those described in Acts xv. 8, 9, and his name was appropriate.
Again, Mr. Flatterwell, in persuasion of Parley the porter to let him into the castle, declares that the worst he will do is to "play an innocent game of cards just to keep you awake, or sing a cheerful song with the maids." Oh fie! Miss Hannah More! and you a single lady too, and a contemporary of the virtuous Bowdler![440] Though Flatterwell be an {195} allegory of the devil, this is really too indecorous, even for him. Out with the three last words! and out it is.
The Society cuts a poor figure before a literary tribunal. Nothing was wanted except an admission that the remarks made by me were unanswerable, and this was immediately furnished by the Secretary (_N. and Q._, 3d S., vi. 290). In a reply of which six parts out of seven are a very amplified statement that the Society did not intend to reprint _all_ Hannah More's tracts, the remaining seventh is as follows:
"I am not careful [perhaps this should be _careful not_] to notice Professor De Morgan's objections to the changes in 'Mary Wood' or 'Parley the Porter,' but would merely reiterate that the tracts were neither designed nor announced to be 'reprints' of the originals [design is only known to the designers; as to announcement, the title is ''Tis all for the best, The Shepherd of Salisbury Plain, and other narratives by Hannah More']; and much less [this must be _careful not_; further removed from answer than _not careful_] can I occupy your space by a treatise on the Professor's question: 'May any one alter the works of the dead at his own discretion?'"
To which I say: Thanks for help!
I predict that Hannah More's _Cheap Repository Tracts_ will somewhat resemble the _Pilgrim's Progress_ in their fate. Written for the cottage, and long remaining in their original position, they will become classical works of their kind. Most assuredly this will happen if my assertion cannot be upset, namely, that they contain the first specimens of fiction addressed to the world at large, and widely circulated, in which dramatic--as distinguished from puppet--power is shown, and without indecorum.
{196}
According to some statements I have seen, but which I have not verified, other publishing bodies, such as the Christian Knowledge Society, have taken the same liberty with the names of the dead as the Religious Tract Society. If it be so, the impropriety is the work of the smaller spirits who have not been sufficiently overlooked. There must be an overwhelming majority in the higher councils to feel that, whenever _altered_ works are published, _the fact of alteration should be made as prominent as the name of the author_. Everything short of this is suppression of truth, and will ultimately destroy the credit of the Society. Equally necessary is it that the alterations should be noted. When it comes to be known that the author before him is altered, he knows not where nor how nor by whom, the lowest reader will lose his interest.
