صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

illud, quod dicit, concludere debebat, ut rectius adversativa particula usura fuerit, ἀλλὰ μή με κρύψης τοῦθ ̓, ὅπερ μέλλω παθεῖν. Vide vero miram ad hunc locum scholiastæ adnotationem: λέγουσι δὲ ὅτι, ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι, ταῦτα καὶ γενήσεται. Quæ quid aliud, quam facit, ut suspicari debeamus, interpreten istum, quum versum illum in margine adscriptum videret, pro sententia eum nescio cujus habuisse, et proinde, additis verbis λέγουσι δὲ καὶ ὅτι, commentario suo inseruisse. Nam ut taceam, versum illum omnino dignissimum esse Eschylo, quid vel gravius hoc loco, vel accommodatius ad nexum orationis scribi potuit, quam hoc: ΠΡ. τὸ μὴ μαθεῖν σοι κρεῖσσον ἢ μαθεῖν τάδε.

ἃ δεῖ· νέσθαι, ταῦτα καὶ γενήσεται.

ΙΩ. μή τοι με κρύψῃς τοῦθ ̓, ὅπερ μέλλω παθεῖν.

Jam enim et recte concludet Io, et duobus hujus versibus totidem versibus Prometheus respondebit.

In Agamemnone hæc leguntur v. 599.

καί τίς μ' ἐνίπτων εἶπε· φρυκτωρων διὰ
πεισθεῖσα, Τροίαν νῦν πεπορθῆσθαι δοκεῖς ;
ἢ κάρτα πρὸς γυναικός, αἴρεσθαι κέαρ.
λόγοις τοιούτοις πλαγκτὸς οὖσ ̓ ἐφαινόμην
ὅμως δ ̓ ἔθυον.

Nihil est in his, quod desideretur. Non inepte tamen suspiceris, poetam scripsisse :

λόγοις τοιούτοις πλαγκτὸς οὖσ ̓ ἐφαινόμην,

πεισθεῖσα τῷ φέροντι θέσκελον φάτιν.

Addit enim hunc versum scriptor Christi patientis v. 75. qui, quod satis mirum est, solam ex Æschyli fabulis Agamemnonem videtur cognitam habuisse.

Possem his addere alia. Veluti in Persis divinari, nisi fallor, locus potest, ubi versus ille exciderit, ex quo scholiastes Hermogenis, citatus a Bastio ad Greg. Cor. p. 241. vocabulum ὑπόξυλος affert. Pariterque, quæ ex eadem fabula ab Athenæo p. 86. B. commemorantur corruptissima verba, τίς ἀνήρει τὰς νήσους ἀναριτοτρόφους, quorum tamen ultimum recte in codice scriptum est νηςιτοτρόφους, neque ad Phrynichum, neque ad Epicharmum, neque ad alteram Æschyli Persarum editionem pertinere, sed ex ea ipsa, quam nunc habemus, editione, excidisse veri simile est: quod ubi factum videatur, nunc quidem iis quærendum relinquam, quibus minus, quam mihi, difficilis videtur hujus poetæ emendatio. Sed unum tamen ex illa fabula locum attingere placet. Est is a v. 537.

πολλαὶ δ ̓ ἀπαλαῖς χερσὶ καλύπτρας
κατερεικόμεναι, διαμυδαλέοις
δάκρυσι κόλπους

τέγγουσ ̓ ἄλγους μετέχουσαι.

αἱ δ ̓ ἁβροχόοι Περσίδες ἀνδρῶν
ποθέουσαι ἰδεῖν ἀρτιζυγίαν,
λέκτρων τ ̓ εὐνὰς ἁβροχίτωνας,
χλιδανῆς ἥβης τέρψιν ἀφεῖσαι,

πενθοῦσι γόοις ἀκορεστοτάτοις.

Senserunt critici, duas hic feminarum classes commemorari, quarum secunda uxores Persarum complectitur, prima autem quæ sit, ex verbis poetæ tam parum colligi potest, ut potius omnes Persicæ mulieres intelligendæ videantur: quod tamen repugnat sequentibus. Itaque Bothius, videns lectionem quorundam librorum araλais in grandævas mulieres quadrare, de his et recte quidem, sermonem esse intellexit: sed quum, emendare locum volens, Toλhaì in woλial mutavit, canos nobis capillos pro canis mulieribus exhibuit. Rectius Schützio visus est versus excidisse. Eamque suspicionem egregie confirmat unus quidem, sed optimæ notæ codex, Vitebergensis, in quo post verbum xaтegeixóμevaι luculentis litteris additum est payvád, ut pene incredibile sit, negligi hoc a Zeunio in collatione hujus codicis potuisse. Hæc vero quantumvis corrupta vox, si compendia scripturæ in codicibus usitata in auxilium advoces, non magno negotio optimam lectionem præbebit : πολλαὶ δ ̓ ἀταλαῖς χερσὶ καλύπτρας κατερεικόμεναι μαῖαι γονάδες διαμυδαλέοις δάκρυσι κόλπους

τέγγουσ', άλγους μετέχουσαι.

Mala enim secundum Hesychium matris honorifica appellatio 'est. Idem etiam alterum vocabulum, ex hoc ipso fortasse loco sumptum, tuetur: yovádes, unτépes. Et ita hic locus similis fiet iis, quæ supra dicta erant v. 64.

τοκέες τ ̓ ἄλοχοί θ ̓ ἡμερολεγδὸν

τείνοντα χρόνον τρομέονται.

Cæterum in eamdem conjecturam incidit, jussus a me ipse videre, quid lateret in illa codicis Viteb. lectione, unus ex iis, quorum hic vitæ subjiciuntur, Chr. Tr. G. Hildebrandus, juvenis optimæ indolis.

VOL. XXXVIII. Cl. Jl. NO. LXXV.

E

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

AFTER a long interval, which, I dare say, has been equally painful to us both, I wait on you again according to my promise.' Having dispatched the Greek manuscripts, I proceed to the examination of those versions of the New Testament which contain the Catholic Epistles. You, who with a happy facility contrive to turn the balance in your favor, however the particulars may make against you, tell us, p. 205, 206. that, of the five ancient versions, the Italic, the Vulgate of Jerome, the Syriac, the Armenian, and the Coptic, three, the Italic, the Vulgate, and the Armenian, contain the disputed verse, 1 John v. 7. Pray, Sir, where is this Italic version to be found? Not in Mss., for you say, that there is not a single Ms. of it now certainly known to exist in the world, p. 90. Why, then, must this version be pressed into the service? Because it is cited by the writers who lived before Jerome, This version, therefore, ultimately resolves itself into the authority of those writers; and the number of ancient versions shrinks into four, unless, to fill up the vacancy, you will accept my gracious offer of the Sclavonian version, to which you ought to have no objection, considering that you have also enlisted that into the orthodox army, p. 92. 206. Leaving, therefore, the examination of your quotations from Tertullian, Cyprian, &c. to another letter, I shall endeavor at present to treat of the Vulgate version with all possible brevity. In order to pave the way to this subject, I desire the reader to ask himself the following questions:

Gent. Mag. Aug. 1789, p. 697.

1. Does the Vulgate always closely follow the Greek, particularly in scrupulously guarding against interpolations?

2. Do all the Mss, of the Vulgate agree in retaining the three heavenly witnesses ?

3. Do all that retain the seventh and eighth verses of 1 John v. represent them in the same manner, without any important alterations, omissions, or additions?

4. Have the orthodox Mss. the verse from the hand of the first writer, without rasures, interlineations, or marginal insertions? 5. Are they generally the oldest and best?

[ocr errors]

Unless these questions can be answered in the affirmative, the main prop and pillar of your cause will be in a very lane and tottering condition. For I need not tell you, Sir, because you must deny, nor need I tell the learned, because they cannot but know, that the chief support of this contested verse is the authority of the Vulgate. But whoever has inquired with the least share of diligence into the state of the Latin Mss. knows, that not one of these questions can be answered in the affirmative.

I allow you in advance, that a great majority of the Latin Mss. are on your side. Perhaps for one that omits the three heavenly witnesses, forty or fifty may be found that retain them. I searched, I confess, a long while without finding any others; and, that my readers may be as wise as myself, I will give them a collation of fifty Mss. or more, that I had the patience to consult.

1. Of this number thirty-two omit the final clause of the eighth verse; eighteen retain it, but one has it in the text underlined with red lead, two in the margin, one from the first, the other from a second hand.

2. One omits the final clause of the seventh verse.

3. Two read filius instead of verbum; with which two French Mss. sold by Messrs. Leigh and Sotheby, May 29, 1789, agree. (le fils.)

4. Two omit the epithet sanctus.

5. Nine change the order of the verses; but of these nine one begins the eighth verse with et, and the seventh with quoniam; on the other hand, one Ms. that preserves the common order, begins the seventh verse with et, and the eighth with quoniam.

6. The Mss. that retain the clause of the eighth verse read invariably either et tres unum sunt, or et hi tres unum sunt.

7. One adds the heavenly witnesses in the margin from the same hand; another is so fond of them as to insert them in the text, both before and after the others.

8. En terre is wanting in one French Ms. and in terra in a Latin Ms. at Ulme, quoted by Mr. Griesbach, p. 229.1

With most of these variations some Mss. or other, collated by editors and critics, agree. One Ms. at Toledo, collated by Blanchini, adds in Christo Jesu in the eighth verse; which is added

in the seventh by the author De Trinitate, published, together with the writer against Varimadus, by Chifflet under the name of Vigilius Tapsensis. You seem, Sir, to acquiesce in Chifflet's judgment. But if you shall hereafter choose to make them two distinct witnesses, my candor is such, that I am determined to have no objection.

The same faithful and judicious writer1 against Varimadus quotes for the earthly witnesses in the eighth verse, aqua, sanguis, et caro; and so reads the margin of a Colbertine Ms. quoted by Simon. If this reading had become fashionable, it would have prevented an objection which the heretics have made against the double mention of the spirit.

2

The addition in Christo Jesu I take to have at first belonged to the eighth verse, and to have been written by some pious person who meant thus to explain the verse; that the spirit, the water, and the blood, concur in bearing witness to Christianity. But when the seventh verse was framed on the model of the eighth, they whose copies had received this addition, transposed it together with the rest of the clause to the end of the seventh. One of my reasons for this opinion is, that some of the Mss. of Ambrose add these words at the end of the eighth verse.

I shall take little notice of the trifling omission of in before unum, because I think that it neither affects the sense of the passage, nor the credit of the Vulgate. The Greek Mss. from which that version was made, without doubt omitted eis from the identity of the preceding letters in rpeis. The preposition is omitted from the same cause in a passage of Cyril, and in the Greek Mss. of Euthymius Zigabenus.2

If all these various readings were presented in one view to any person endowed with common sense, moderately instructed in the principles of criticism, and uninfluenced in the present debate by interest or passion, he could not help concluding, that the number and importance of the various readings furnish reasonable ground for a suspicion of corruption. That a passage, which so often adds, omits, or alters particular words; which now precedes, now follows the unsuspected part of the text; which is sometimes seen in the body of the work, sometimes in the margin; sometimes by the same, sometimes by a different hand; sometimes after a rasure; which, in short, changes shapes faster than Proteus or Empusa; that such a passage is exceedingly questionable, whatever shape it assumes; and that, though it were not absolutely omitted by any Ms. an editor might yet hint his doubts, or

2

See the Postscript to this Letter.

Panopl. Dogm. Tit. xii. near the end, fol. 112. col. i. ed. Tergovist. See Mr. Matthæi on the Catholic Epistles, p. 141–143.

« السابقةمتابعة »