Scribleriana

280 little, a push-me-pull-you). Furthermore, signaling a commitment to traditional Christian principles, the label also indicates a desire to change and improve, and as such might suggest a Christian modernity as opposed to the secularized modernity that Ingram eschews. Related to this, the chapter on the Enlightenment suggests that Mr. Ingram is dealing with a particular, and perhaps rather old-fashioned, view of the Enlightenment . He is clearly right to portray Secker as a staunch defender of orthodox Christianity against heterodoxy, and he convincingly shows how he promoted orthodox scholarship. Nevertheless , Secker himself, with his medical training and his willingness to work, at times, with dissenters and even Catholics , would not have been out of place in parts of Roy Porter’s understanding of the Enlightenment, and the theologically literate so favored by Secker were, as Ingram himself acknowledges, often part of a clerical Enlightenment. In other ways, Secker’s obsession with accurate information has affinities with aspects of Enlightenment thought and practice. All this indicates that the heterodox , who were the target of Secker’s concern, should not be used as a substitute for the Enlightenment, which could be absorbed more readily within even orthodox reform than Mr. Ingram sometimes seems to imply. The parallels Mr. Ingram draws between Secker and John Henry Newman are unconvincing. It is unlikely that the second Vatican council, or the doctrine of development, are really useful analogues to what Secker was doing, or to his mindset, and, in my view, these parallels tell us more about Mr. Ingram than they do of these Churchmen. In the Preface, Mr. Ingram relates that the writing of the book coincided with his own conversion to Roman Catholicism; this no doubt explains his references. Mr. Ingram acknowledges that Newman ’s understanding of the Church-State relationship was radically different from Secker’s, making the Cardinal rather an anachronism in a book about the eighteenth century. But these are quibbles. This fascinating study sets the bar for writing about a somewhat neglected archbishop and his period. Jeremy Gregory University of Manchester SCRIBLERIANA Alexander Pettit (University of North Texas) is rejoining us as a Contributing Editor . The Scrib is fortunate to publish his playful riffs again. Special thanks for this issue go to W. B. Gerard (Auburn University at Montgomery), Melvyn New (University of Florida) and Beverly Schneller (Millersville University). We also appreciate the valuable help of J. Alan Downie (Goldsmiths College, University of London), J. Paul Hunter (University of Virginia), Matthew Binney (Eastern Washington University ), Melissa Carden (Auburn University at Montgomery), and Daniel C. McCloud (Millersville University). And our thanks to Lacy Marschalk (Auburn University) and Melanie Brkich (University of Florida) for saving us from our own errors. Later in the year we will publish our Bib- 281 liography and Index: 2003–2008. With 1,271 entries, it is indispensable to teachers and scholars. It can be ordered through R. Wolper, The Scriblerian, Dept. of English, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122. Or by email: rwolper2@comcast.net. Its low price is $15 for individuals, $20 for libraries. Volume XLII, No. 1 (Autumn 2009) of the Scriblerian is out of stock. We need copies. If you have this issue and would return it to us (c/o the Temple University office), your subscription will be extended one year. We sadly note that Arthur S. Sherbo and Bernard A. Goldgar recently died. Prolific and distinguished scholars, both are ubiquitous in our indexes. Among Arthur’s studies are books on George Steevens, Christopher Smart, Isaac Reed, Richard Farmer, Samuel Johnson, poetic diction, and sentimental drama . We remember his extraordinary allusion gathering in The Rape of the Lock, The Dunciad , and Trivia; our review of one of his exhaustive surveys ended: ‘‘Mr. Sherbo’s research and generalizations are the top of an important iceberg.’’ Unforgettable is the note he wrote for us: ‘‘John Gay: Lightweight or Heavyweight?’’ (8, Autumn 1975). Bernard was also exceptional. He had a superb study of Swift’s relationship to Addison and Steele, and he edited The Covent Garden Journal and A Plan of the Universal Register Office; reviewing it for us, Pat Rogers wrote that it was ‘‘up to the highest standards of the...