This is partly a review of the content of William Penn’s book, one of the classics of early Quaker writings, which he wrote in 1669 after having been a prisoner in the Tower of London. In it he exhorts the spirit of Primitive Christianity, a religious perspective holding that the early beliefs and practices of the followers of Jesus were either lost or adulterated after his death, and therefore it was necessary to restore them to their original form. The original is divided into two parts, the first dealing with the importance of self-denial in a Christian life, the second gathering a series of references to men through the ages who have written of the importance of self-denial: “The first testimony comes from those called Heathens; the second from professed Christians; and the last, from retired, aged and dying men; being their last and serious reflections, to which no ostentation or worldly interests could induce them.”
This is also partly a comment on the two versions we have in the library. Copy 1 is Penn’s original; copy 2 is a revised and edited version. As Selleck, the editor of the revised and edited version, says in his Introduction, “Long sentences have been broken into smaller ones. The syntax has been uncoiled, pronoun references clarified and needless repetitions removed. Also, many obsolete words have been changed and simpler words have replaced many of three and four syllables.” As well, the second part of the original has been omitted from the revised and edited version “because,” as Selleck says, “it holds little interest for the general reader,” and because it “would not add much weight to Penn’s argument.” This version, which contains Queries for the Reader and an Appendix entitled “William Penn’s Devotional Reading,” may serve as a simplified introduction to William Penn’s thought, but read Copy 1 if you want not only his complete thoughts, but his own manner of expressing them.
Penn’s Preface begins with “The great business of man’s life, is to answer the end for which he lives; and that is to glorify God and save his own soul.” The revised and edited version leaves out “is to answer the end for which he lives.” I suppose it could be considered redundant, but there is a difference between redundancy and rhetorical emphasis. Later on in the Preface, Penn writes, “Come, Reader, hearken to me awhile; I seek thy salvation; that is my plot; thou wilt forgive me.” The revised and edited version leaves this out. Why? Because it is somehow superfluous? Because it doesn’t speak directly to the argument Penn presents? Perhaps it doesn’t, but it is Penn speaking directly to the reader, explaining why he has written this book.
In the original, Penn writes, “The cross of Christ is a figurative speech, borrowed from the outward tree, or wooden cross, on which Christ submitted to the will of God, suffering death at the hands of evil men.” The revised and edited version gives us this: “The cross of Christ is a figure of speech borrowed from the wooden cross on which Christ submitted to the will of God.” Is it really necessary to replace “figurative speech” with “figure of speech”? And leaving out “from the outward tree” leaves out Penn’s emphasis on the distinction between outer and inner, between the literal and the metaphorical. “Suffering death at the hands of evil men” is also omitted. Would those eight words have made the new version somehow unwieldy?
In the original, Penn asks and answers: “Well: but then where does this cross appear, and where must it be taken up? I answer, within: that is, in the heart and soul; for where the sin is, the cross must be.” The revised and edited version gives us this for Penn’s answer: “Within. For, where the sin is, the cross must be.” This leaves out “I answer” before “within. ” Sure, “I answer” might be considered superfluous, but it is rhetorically emphatical. As are the words “in the heart and soul,” which the edited version also omits.
Why do I point out these revisions and omissions? Because I’m an idealist and a purist at heart. I want to read the complete, unedited, unrevised original, not an incomplete, edited, revised version, for the same reason that I want to read Shakespeare in the complete, unedited, unrevised original versions of his plays. If I can’t cope with Shakespeare’s language, or Penn’s language, then the problem lies with me, not with Shakespeare and Penn. But yes, when all is said and done, I do understand the reason for simplified versions of the original — hopefully, they are stepping stones to the originals. We have both the original and the edited, revised version in our library. Try them both out.
Review by Matthew Manera