7. The disputed verse in this manuscript exactly represents the reading of the Complutensian edition; and, 8. Lastly, every one of the sixteen different readings produced by you and Mr. Zoellner may be found in the margin of R. Stephens's edition. In short, every circumstance favors La Croze's determination, that the Berlin manuscript was copied by an ignorant transcriber from the Complutensian edition, with corrections here and there interspersed by his knavish employer from Stephens's margin. If instead of the eloquent paragraph which I have quoted above, you had been content with this short and simple expression, "In every one of these examples, the Berlin manuscript agrees with Stephens's margin," your argument would have recoiled on yourself, the forgery would have stared us in the face, and the indignant reader would have exclaimed with Mr. Griesbach, "Itaque jam tenetur falsarius, manifesto furto prehensus !" The calculation at which I hinted in my second letter, (Cl. Journ. No. LXXII. p. 244.) is, if that be possible, falser and fuller of mistake than the rest of the work. You assert, p. 282, that Wetstein's No. 49 contains only the Gospel of Mark, when Wetstein himself tells us, that it has also scholia on the catholic epistles. Perhaps you think that the reading of the text can never be ascertained from scholia. If such be your notions, why do you not explain them? You would then believe an absurdity; now you assert a falsehood: “No. 56 is no more than a collection of some various readings noted in the margin of a printed book." Is it therefore to be set aside? On the contrary, it is at least a good single authority. A learned mau had collated the catholic epistles with four manuscripts in the Medicean library, and had marked the various readings in a copy of Raphelengius's edition. Since therefore that edition contains the disputed verse, if the collator had been silent, it would not indeed have been certain that any of his manuscripts agreed with the printed text; (though Martin and you would have improved this silence into a demonstration ;) but since Wetstein sets down No. 56, as agreeing with the other manuscripts, he could not act thus but on the actual information of the margin. In the following sentence, Sir, I must desire you to choose between deliberate falsehood and strange misapprehension. "Of these sixty-five Greek manuscripts, Wetstein admits that those marked 34, 44, 48, 51, 57, and 58, do exhibit this disputed passage. Six assertions, and five of them false! Wetstein only admits, that No. 34 (the Dublin Ms.) exhibits the disputed passage." No. 44 signifies Valla's manuscripts; and Wetstein is so far from admitting what you affirm, that he endeavors to prove (as I have done more at large) exactly the reverse. Numbers 48, 51, and 57, he sets down in the list of manuscripts that omit the three heavenly witnesses; and you rightly observe (from Mr. Griesbach) in the fifth line preceding this sentence, that No. 58 is a duplicate of No. 22. If then Wetstein admitted that No. 58 retained the three heavenly witnesses, he would admit that No. 22 retained them. But he has set down No. 22 in the omitting list. Either, therefore, you possess a copy of Wetstein's edition different from all other copies, and in it these important confessions exist; or, in five of your six assertions, " truth and you will be found in two stories; and which are we to believe?" I own that politeness alone would induce me to prefer the lady, even without the magnificent character that you give her, p. 127. 374. "that she is all fair and artless, uniform and consistent, simple and sincere." Who shall hereafter doubt of Mr. Travis's "Christian charity," when we find him thus honestly doing justice to his inveterate enemy? You charge Mr. Gibbon, p. 126. 371. in express terms with forging the authority of Gennadius. If Mr. Gibbon be guilty of one forgery, Mr. Travis is guilty of five: if a defender of Mr. Travis should argue, that it is incredible that Mr. Travis should wilfully attribute to an author opinions, which that author not only never maintained, but which he directly opposed; in the same manner, with equal right, may a defender of Mr. Gibbon argue. "But Mr. Gibbon has wilfully misrepresented Gennadius, because his reference is exact." Truly I am so dull as not to perceive the connexion between the two propositions. Would not the suspicion be more reasonable, if the reference were general and inaccurate? You, Sir, p. 71. 157. make Montfaucon say what Montfaucon never meant; and in the second edition the reference is exact. From your own principles, therefore, I might conclude, that you have "wilfully (for the reference is too exact to allow you shelter under any supposed inadvertence) misrepresented" Montfaucon. But I shall show you more indulgence. I believe that you caught a detached sentence without consulting the sequel. Only remember, that a man who quotes in this negligent manner should be the last to accuse others of forgery. You end your calculation by telling us, that thirty-one manuscripts have the verse to fifty that omit it. What, only fifty? Making all possible deductions from Wetstein's list, I cannot allow fewer than eighty-six that omit the verse. But perhaps you have a new system of arithmetic as well as a new system of criticism. Why did you not rather take Mr. Griesbach's computation? Because it increases the number of heretical manuscripts, and "that way madness lies!" I must try, therefore, myself to substitute a more exact account of all the Greek manuscripts that have been collated on this chapter. I deduct No. 64, one lectionary, and two of Stephens's manuscripts that have disappeared. There will then remain ninety-seven in Mr. Griesbach's list; for I myself have examined No. 63, and testify that it omits the passage. To which add, two of the oldest manuscripts in the Escurial, in spected by Edward Clarke,' a manuscript once belonging to Bentley, (which I have seen in Trinity College library, Cambridge,) another in Casley's Catalogue, p. 3, another in the library at Vienna, lately collated by Professor F. C. Alter, and ten at Moscow (one written in capitals) examined by Mr. Matthæi; the whole number of manuscripts now extant, omitting this "marvellous text," amounts to one hundred and twelve. I shall therefore not hesitate to conclude with Chandler (Pref. to Cassiodorus), Bengelius, Wetstein, Mr. Griesbach, and many others, that this celebrated verse exists in no genuine Greek manuscript whatsoever; and partly with Mr. Gibbon, that it owes its place in our editions to the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical error of Robert Stephens; and the strange misapprehension of Theodore Beza. POSTSCRIPT. 1. I have still a scruple remaining with respect to an incidental question. Simon quotes the note of Lucas Brugensis, which Mr. Travis has so grossly mistaken, as from the edition of 1574. Martin says, that it is in the preface. I have seen several copies of the Antwerp edition of 1574. All these were in octavo; none of them have notes, nor mention this text in the preface. Lucas Brugensis too speaks in such terms (Pref. to his notes dated 1579), as strongly imply that they were then published for the first time. Are there then different copies of the same notes, and did Simon use a copy containing such a note on 1 John v. 7, as he has represented? If that be the case, Lucas Brugensis seems to have been apprehensive that he had not expressed himself with sufficient clearness, and in consequence of that apprehension to have stopped the press, that he might alter his note so as to leave no ambiguity. But I shall be thankful to any learned reader who can explain this difficulty, and either confirm or destroy my conjecture. 2. That I may show my impartiality by correcting errors on either side, I shall observe that De Missy has fallen into a mistake by too much refinement. The word μaprupouvres in the Dublin Ms. has its last syllable written in a contraction, and marked with double points, a circumstance not uncommon in modern Greek manuscripts. But on this innocent circumstance he founded a false accusation against the manuscript, that it meant to proscribe the whole sentence from ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ to μαρτυροῦντα (inclusive), as doubtful or spurious. I have expended so many lines on the identity of the Dublin manuscript, and of the Codex Bri 'Letters concerning Spain, 4to. 1763, p. 133. tannicus, merely in obedience to the canon, that enjoins us not to enlarge the number of manuscripts without necessity. Else I would as readily admit as deny their diversity. For since they both are manifestly translated from the recent and corrupt Latin copies, the authority of a hundred such manuscripts is equal to the authority of one, and the authority of one is equal to nothing. 3. When I say, in the foregoing letter, that Mr. Travis prefers Wetstein's computation to Mr. Griesbach's, the expression is inaccurate. He misrepresents them both. He makes a show of mentioning Mr. Griesbach's additions in these words, " to which Griesbach adds four others." Now, besides the manuscripts which Wetstein constantly uses, he appeals, on 1 John v. 7, to those which were collated by Simon, Burnet, Lami, Blanchini, &c. These make up thirty-one; to which Mr. Griesbach adds eight. These manuscripts, together with the fifty that Mr. Travis graciously allows us, would make eighty-nine. But Mr. Travis, either from hurry or from forgetfulness, or from whatever cause, has totally neglected these additional witnesses. Whatever was the cause, it certainly was no dishonest motive. For "to state autho rities, and to urge arguments on one side of a question alone, is barely tolerable in an hired advocate," p. 125. 370. Take notice, lords, he has a loyal breast, For you have seen him open it. NUGE. No. XXI. [Continued from No. LXXIII.] III. VIRGIL. XVIII. Ecl. iv. 17. Pacatumque reget patriis virtutibus orbem. The jarring nations he in peace shall bind, And thus the line appears to have been universally understood by the commentators. "Pacatum orbem reget: etiam hoc ex aurea ætate, quod in ea pacata omnia sunt: obscurius est, quod addidit, patriis virtutibus, omnino, majorum." Heyne in loc. We question greatly, however, whether such an interpretation can be reconciled to sound Latinity. We believe that whenever regere, in Virgil at least, is followed by an ablative noun qualifying its meaning, such noun will be found to indicate, not the character of the person governing, but the species or method of government; as regere arte, imperio, frænis, &c. We are not sure that Virgil would have written reget virtute; we are confident that he would not have written regit virtutibus. The true order of the words is, reget orbem, pacatum patriis virtutibus; "he shall extend his sway over a world already reduced to tranquillity by the valor of his ancestors;' or, still more exactly, by his valiant ancestors: for virtutibus is not used here to express a variety of virtues, each appropriate to some individual ancestor, but the single attribute of valor diffused among a number; patriis virtutibus being nothing else than patribus virtute præditis, answering to the v Sia Buoy in En. i. 565. Quis genus neadûm, quis Troja nesciat urbem, Virtutesque, virosque ? "the valiant men," the heroes of the Trojan story. (We may take this opportunity of obviating Heyne's objection to the reading exspectata in En. vi. 687. Venisti tandem, tuaque spectata parenti Vicit iter durum pietas? "Ipse quidem Æneas erat expectatus; verum paullo durius pietas ejus expectata venisse diceretur." Tua pietas is tu pius. The line quoted by Heyne after Servius in support of spectata, viii. 151, et rebus spectata juventus, is not parallel.) The construction, too, of the sentence is rendered more Virgilian by the proposed interpretation; at least if a somewhat intimate acquaintance with Virgil, as well as with his more especial followers, may warrant us thus to give our opinion. This kind of implicated arrangement is indeed so frequent in Latin poetry, as to be a characteristic feature of it. The line itself, in its measured pomp, harmonizes well with the rest of the poem. The fourth Eclogue, or at least the more properly prophetic parts of it, contain an unusual number of golden verses,' so called, and others of a nearly similar, construction, in which the leading words of the clause are distributed between the former and the latter part of the line, so as to produce an appearance of equilibrium. Compare vv. 4, 5. 14. 20. 28, 29. 47. This mode of versification was most probably adopted for the purpose of stately effect. Dryden, in his translation of this eclogue, (a noble performance, with all its incorrectness,) has aimed at producing the same result by a more than usual intermixture of twelve and fourteen-syllable Alexandrines. Pope, however, in his Messiah, has approached nearer to the style and rhythm of the Pollio. See Classical Journal, vol. xxvii. p. 285. |