usque ad Oceanum, Hercules, tantus et tam præsens habetur deus. hine Liber [deus] Semela natus, eademque fama celebritate Tyndarida fratres:] Quod vulgo additur, sed a quibusdam codd. abest, deus, Wolfius uncis inclusit, Davisius et Schützius deleverunt. Scil. tanti et tam præsentes habentur di, hæc omnia intelligenda, non deus. Formam Semela Wolfius cum Davisio posuit pro Semele, meliorum h. 1. codicum in re ambigua auctoritatem secutus.

Cap. XIV. §. 31. quod omnibus curæ sunt, et Maxima quidem, que post mortem futura sint.] Davisius, Wolfius, Schützius pro vulg. maxime ediderunt maxima. Recte, quum Cicero non dicat: hoc mihi magis (vel h. m. minus) cura est, sed potius hoc mihi majoris (minoris) cura.

Ibid. ut ait ille in Synephebis] In aliis codd. legitur, ut in Ernestii editione: ut ait Statius etc.; in aliis ut ait Ennius. Fabula autem Synepheborum Cæcilii Statii fuit, non Ennii. Comœdia fuit ex Græco Comico Latine reddita. Ennii vero paucissimæ fuerunt, si quæ fuerunt, Comœdiæ: Statius in hoc genere regnabat. Dubitatio autem de lectione oritur. Pars Statii, pars Ennii nomeu præferunt. Ubi major aliqua versatur varietas, de utriusque lectionis veritate dubitare licebit. Scilicet quod sæpissime alias fit apud Ciceronem, sicubi versus aliquis laudatur, ut pronomen ille adhibeatur de persona aliqua, id etiam h. 1. statuendum videtur. Atque si ita scripsit Cicero, tale pronomen quasi allicit et ducit post se facillime glossema aliquod. Sequuntur hæc quid spectans, nisi etiam postera sæcula ad se pertinere? Dicit ad se. An igitur Poëta illud spectavit? Nullo modo hoc ferri potest. Igitur vel hac de causa conjectura quamvis audax adamari debet. De Nat. Deor. I. 6. simillimum quid factum est, ad quem locum conf. Wolfium ipsum in Analectis litterariis II. p. 303. At exspectabas: Sero arbores etc. Ille qui in Synephebis illud dixit, haud dubie ita dixerat. Sed hic versus statim pæne in proverbium abierat. Hinc Serit etc.

Ibid. §. 31. quid Adoptationes filiorum] Adoptationes in benis codd. legitur pro vulg. Adoptiones. Atque a verbo adoptandi facile procedit adoptatio. Alia exempla afferri possunt, ubi sola usurpatur formula huic similis; ut afflictatio a verbo afflictare apud Ciceronem legitur, non afflictio. Etiam apud Sallustium, qui plerumque servat antiquiorem formulam, est illud adoptatio Jugurtha c. XI. §. 6, ubi conf. Cortii annotationem p. 455. Jure igitur recepit Wolfius, præeunte Davisio, sequente Schützio.

Ibid. §. 32. num dubitas, quin specimen naturæ capi deceat

ex optima quaque natura?] Male Ernestius cum Lambino et Davisio codicum lectionem deceat mutavit in debeat. Rectius dixeris: specimen artis ex optimo quoque artifice decet capi, quam: specimen-debet. Decet idem est quod consentaneum est, quod convenit; debendi vocabulum domicilium habet in officio. Jure igitur antiquam lectionem deceat revocavit Wolfius, probante Censore in Ephem. litt. Jenens. a. 1792 No. 113, et Goerenzio ad Cic. de Fin. IV. c. XI. §. 28. Recepit etiam Schützius. Deceat defendit jam Wopkens. Lectt. Tull. p. 51, allatis locis similibus, sed non exposito discrimine quod est inter verba decet et debet.

Cap. XV. §. 34. In illo Ennii elogio pro vulg. pinxit jam Bentleius optime tuetur, quam Wolfius recepit, lectionem panxit. Adde quod pingendi vocabulum non solum ad poëma pertinet, sed ad quamcunque narrationem, etiam prosa expositam, ubi coloribus aliquis ornat narrata. Pangere vocabulum apud antiquiores frequentatum, Lucretianum imprimis.

Ibid. Quid enim Phidias sui similem speciem inclusit in clipeo Minerva, quum inscribere non liceret?] Ernestii conjectura, excidisse nomen ante non, speciem habet, non veritatem. Dicimus inscribere aliquid alicui rei, nec minus bene inscribere aliquid aliqua re. Hoc igitur loco verbis quum inscribere non liceret subintelligendum videtur: clipeum nomine suo, Fieri etiam potest, simpliciter Ciceronem dixisse inscribere, ut éxιypáφειν simpliciter nonnunquam est ἐπιγραφὴν ποιεῖν. Legere me memini conjecturam Censoris editionis Davisianæ per Rathium repetitæ in Ephemeridibus Litterar. Halensibus (A. L. Z. a. 1806. No. 73) quem Wolfium non esse facile intelligas ex censura. Ille igitur sic statuit esse legendum: quum inscribere nomen liceret. Scil. Phidiæ non satis erat, nomen addere artificio: etiam effigiem suam tradere voluit posteritati, ut hodie librorum auctores præter nomen nonnunquam imaginem suam æri insculptam libris præponunt. Hæc etiam conjectura speciem habet, non veritatem. Nam aliud est licere, aliud non satis esse; neque certo constat, quod sumit Vir doctus ad conjecturam stabiliendam, imo ne veri quidem simile est, nomen Phidiæ artificio additum fuisse. Saltem apud Plutarchum Pericle c. XXXI. ed. Hutten. T. I. p. 420, qui locus classicus est de illo clipeo, (conf. etiam Auctorem libri de Mundo cap. VI. ed. Kapp. p. 271) nihil est de nomine inscripto. Ceterum de quonam Minervæ signo Phidiaco sermo sit, tirones discant ex Boettigeri nostri libello eruditissime scripto: Andeutungen zu XXIV Vorlesungen über die Archäologie, p. 84-90.

Cap. XVI. §. 38. sed quod litteris exstet proditum.] Ernestii

lectio proditum ne ullum quidem codicem habet auctorem, et sicubi est vocabulum, est probo. Sed ex hoc non sine sagacitate exsculpsit Reiskius, quem Ernestius ne nominavit quidem, proditum, quod recipiendum censuerunt cum Ernestio Wolfius et Schützius.

Dorpati.

CAROLUS MORGENSTERN.

ON THE VARIOUS READINGS OF THE HEBREW BIBLE.

LETTER 1.

THE collation of Hebrew MSS. by Dr. Kennicott forms an important epoch in the history of Biblical criticism. Before the period when this collation took place, an opinion generally prevailed, that the text of the Hebrew Bible had been preserved free from error and defect; and that no various readings of any consequence were to be found, either in the editions, or in the MSS., of the Hebrew Bible. About the middle of the 17th century Cappellus and Morinus maintained a different hypothesis. "Hic sane," says Morinus, speaking of the opinion mentioned above, respecting the immaculate state of the Hebrew text, "Hic sane insolentissima confidentia cum ignoratione maxima conjungitur. Hebraica Biblia sunt sincerissima. Quamobrem vero? Non alia ratione ducuntur, quam quod excusa sibi invicem consentire animadvertant. Idem de MSS. omnium ætatum, quorum ne specimina quidem unquam viderunt, affirmandum esse temere pronunciant. Nec cogitant omnes fere libros editos ex uno et eodem fonte dimanasse; ideo consensum illum non magis admirandum esse, quam editionum vulgatæ versionis auctoritate Clementis VIII. recensitarum unitissimam concordiam." The account of Cappellus's laborious and valuable work I shall give in the words of Dr. Kennicott. "The man who first undertook to bring the printed text of the Old Testament to the test of sound criticism, was the learned and now justly celebrated Ludovicus Cappellus, in his Critica Sacra,

Kennicott's 1st Dissert. on the state of the printed Hebrew text, p. 295.

the work of six-and-thirty years; a work, which, notwithstanding the violence with which the publication of it was (for the space of ten years) opposed by some, notwithstanding the virulence with which it was condemned after publication by many others, (and is condemned to this very day by a few,) and notwithstanding some undoubted mistakes in particular places, will be a lasting monument of the fame of its author." "Cappellus undertakes to prove that various readings may, and ought to be, collected on the books of the Hebrew Testament, on account of the many mistakes in the modern copies, which mistakes have been occasioned by the ignorance and carelessness of transcribers-that one principal means of discovering these various readings is, a careful examination of the ancient versions, and a judicious comparison of them with the present Hebrew text-and that, from the many places in which the printed Hebrew text differs widely from the sense of those ancient versions, and places where the translators could have no reason for varying designedly, we may properly infer that their written copies were in these places somewhat different from our printed copies; consequently that we may safely refer to these versions wherever the present Hebrew text is unintelligible, absurd or contradictory." The new doctrines advanced by Cappellus and Morinus met with great opposition: nor did the subject of dispute between them and their opponents admit of a satisfactory decision till the extensive collation of MSS. and editions of the Hebrew Scriptures undertaken and executed by Dr. Kennicott. This learned and laborious critic states, in the Dissertatio generalis at the end of his edition of the Hebrew Bible, that he at one time thought that the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible differed very little, and in matters of trifling import, from the autographs of Moses and the prophets. He was led by degrees to form a different opinion, in consequence of a request from Bp. Lowth that he would compare the Hebrew text of 2 Sam. xxiii. 8. with that of the parrallel passage, 1 Chron. xi. 11.3 A careful examination of these and other parallel passages convinced him that the Hebrew text had materially suffered from the errors of transcribers, and in a dissertation on 1 Chron, xi. compared with 2 Sam.v. and xxiii, he endeavoured to prove the truth of this position, and proposed an extensive collation of Hebrew MSS. with a view to

1 Kennicott's 1st Dissert. p. 279. 2 Kennicott's 1st Dissert. p. 280. 3 See Kennicott's Dissert. Gener. p. 57.

the restoration of the Hebrew text, as far as so desirable an object could be attained, to its original purity. The sentiments of Dr. Kennicott, though supported with much ability and cogency of reasoning, met with considerable opposition; but happily his plan obtained the powerful support of a prelate, not less eminent for a profound knowledge of the Hebrew language, and skill and acuteness in Biblical criticism, than for a zealous and conscientious discharge of his important public functions; "vir," as Bishop Lowth elegantly describes him, summæ eruditionis, summo loco." The collation of Hebrew MSS. was begun in the year 1761, under the auspices of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, followed soon afterwards by the patronage of the King of England, and of most of the crowned heads in Europe, and the second and last volume was published in 1780. The MSS. Hebrew and Samaritan, collated by Kennicott and his coadjutor Bruns, for this splendid and valuable work, amounted to no less than 600, besides 30 editions: and the facts resulting from this collation have proved to demonstration, that the opinion of Cappellus, Morinus, and Kennicott, as to the state of the printed Hebrew text, is substantially true-that there is no immaculate copy of the Hebrew text at present in existence, and that the same means must be used for correcting the text of the Old Testament, as have already been used with so much success in correcting the New Testament. It is not necessary, nor indeed would it accord with my own sentiments, to vindicate all the conjectural emendations of the Hebrew text proposed by Dr. Kennicott. Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus and we ought rather to be surprised that so many of his critical conjectures have received a strong support from MSS. afterwards collated, than that he has sometimes proposed amendments without sufficient grounds. I will conclude this letter by stating some facts which I conceive to have been fully proved by Kennicott's collation.

Dr. Kennicott's collation has proved

1st. That the MSS. of the Hebrew text differ, in a great number of passages, from the printed text. "Codex hic Mstus.," says Kennicott, speaking of the Bodleian MS. No. 1, continet lectiones circiter 14,000 a textu Hooghtiano diversas." I

2nd. That the printed copies of the Hebrew Bible differ materially from each other. "Monendum est," says Kenni

VOL. XXVI.

1 Diss. Gen. p. 21.

CI. JI.

NO. LI.

E