d

exemplaribus quanta maxima potuimus cura et diligentia collatum minore forma excudimus. Idem nunc iterum et tertio cum iisdem collatum majoribus etiam Regiis typis excusum tibi offerimus. . . . in margine interiori varias codicum lectiones addidimus, quarum unicuique numeri Græci nota subjuncta est, quæ nomen exemplaris unde sumta est indicet, aut exemplarium nomina, cum plures sunt numeri. lis namque placuit, primo, secundo, ad sextum decimum usque, nomina imponere : ut primo Complutensem editionem intelligas, quæ olim ad antiquissima exemplaria fuit excusa, cui certe cum nostris mirus erat in plurimis consensus'. Secundo exemplar vetustissimum in Italia ab amicis collatum. Tertio, quarto, quinto, sexto, septimo, octavo, decimo, et quinto decimo, ea quæ ex bibliotheca Regis habuimus. Cætera sunt ea, quæ undique corrogare licuit.

Now

As Martin grounded a former argument upon an inaccurate expression of Stephens, it is necessary to observe, in the present instance, that nomen cannot be taken in that sense, which would be ascribed to it by a careful writer. For it is natural to suppose, from this passage, that Stephens had given to each manuscript a particular name; but this is far from being true, since their whole titles consist merely in the Greek numbers by which he noted them, and his Latin is here again a too literal translation of what he had expressed better in Greek, των βιβλίων ονοματα σημαίνει.

• The words primo, secundo, &c. are again the effect of hurry and carelessness, as he onght to have written primum, secundum, or a, B. His meaning is that a denotes the Complutensian Bible, 8 the manuscript collated in Italy, &c. which he has more clearly expressed in Greek. Το δε ά βιβλιον εςι το εν Σπανια τυπωθεν κατα τινα αντιγραφα των αρχαιοτάτων και ακριβεσάτων, οπερ τοις ημετέροις κατα πολλα συμφωνες ευρομεν. Το δε β' εςι το εν Ιταλία υπο των ημετέρων αντιβληθεν φιλών. δε γ', δ', ε, ε, ζ, ή, ί, ιέ, τα εκ της το κρατίσει ημων βασιλέως Ερρικα μεγαλοπρεπεςατης βιβλιοθηκης ληφθεντα αντίγραφα ε5ι.

T.

f The reader will here observe that more is expressed in the Latin than in the Greek, which is to be attributed to the same cause, as the impropriety of the other translations.

The name Henrici is expressed in the Greek; but its omission in the Latin has furnished Martin with an opportunity of objecting

Now this is a very inaccurate and imperfect description; for he has omitted to mention where nearly the half of his manuscripts were preserved, and with regard to the Codices Regii, he has given no mark of distinction, by which a subsequent critic could again discover or ascertaim them in the royal library, with any precision. I will not mention the inexcusable fault, that no notice was taken of the antiquity of any one of these manuscripts, since the editor has not even related the books, which they contain. It seems as if the learned Robert Stephens degenerated in this instance to a mere printer, whom pecuniary motives induced to have his edition ready as soon as possible, and who directing his chief attention to the beauty of the types, and the neatness of the impression, neglected the accuracy of a critic, not expecting so severe an examination before the tribunal of the modern literati. Through hurry the manuscripts were badly described, and the description still worse translated into Latin; through hurry only a part of the readings were printed in the margin, and the most important omitted; and owing to the same haste, the errata in the numbers were corrected with so much carelessness, as would have exposed another printer to the charge only of neglect, but Robert Stephens to that of want of fidelity, as he particularly boasts of the correctness of his impressions.

It appears from the preceding accounts,

a) That Stephens collated only sixteen Codices, or at least that he has given no extracts from more than sixteen.

b) His Codex a is the Biblia Complutensia.

c) Therefore properly speaking, he had only fifteen written copies, and Martin was mistaken in augmenting their number to sixteen. For since the Complutensian Bible is noted Codex a, he must have reckoned as far as seventeen, if he had sixteen copies, besides that Bible; but he has neither mentioned in his preface, nor any where quoted among the various readings a Codex,

or

to Le Long, that he quoted manuscripts given by Henry II. whereas those of Stephens must have been given by Francis I.

or 17.

h

Martin appeals to Beza, who in the preface to bis edition of the New Testament, printed in 1582, 1589, and 1598, speaks of seventeen Codices Stephani, whence he argues that Stephens must have had sixteen written copies, beside the Complutensian Bible. But Beza, who had in the two preceding editions spoken of twenty-five Codices Stephani, and gives a very careless and false account of them, can hardly be admitted as an authentic interpreter of the words of Stephens.

d) The above-mentioned Codices Stephani were used for the text of the two first editions, printed in 1546 and 1549.

e) Eight of these manuscripts, namely 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 10. 15. were in the royal library in Paris.

Now these eight manuscripts have been sought there, and discovered by Le Long. His manner of proceeding he has described in a letter to Martin, which is printed in the Journal des Sçavans, Juin 1720, p. 463. He selected, from the readings of each manuscript quoted by Stephens, four, which were peculiar to each respective manuscript: he then sought these characteristic readings among the manuscripts, which had been in the library from the time of Henry II. and consequently might have been used by Robert Stephens. These were easily distinguished by the H with a crown over it; they were eleven in number, eight of which were discovered to be the Codices Stephani, as the characteristic readings above-mentioned were found in them, and in no other manuscript in the whole library. This was an easy and sure method, as it was necessary to examine only eleven manuscripts; but if we had to search among all the known manuscripts, it would be difficult to ascertain them, even if the data amounted to an hundred lectiones singulares 289.

Though Le Long expressed himself with the utmost clearness and precision, yet he was misunderstood by Martin, whose adversaries were guilty of no injustice, in

assert

La Verité du Texte, 1 Jean v. 7. demontrée, Tom. II. ch. iv. p. 147. i See Wetstein's Prolegomena to the first volume of his Greek Testament, p. 148.

asserting that he had a very weak understanding. For he fancied in his Verité du texte, 1 Jean v. 7. demontrée, p. 182-190. that the Codices Stephani were marked in the royal library with the letters y, d,, &c. and by these means were discovered by Le Long: he conjectured also that these marks were made by an impostor. It never occurred to him, that, if the eight manuscripts meant by Le Long were not those which were used by Stephens, the ancient Codices Stephani must have been stolen or removed from the royal library, because no other manuscripts of Henry II. are now discoverable, which could possibly have been used by Stephens

290

But Martin made other objections to Le Long's discovery. He says that Stephens's manuscripts were not from the library of Henry II. but Francis I. because they were used for the first edition, which was published in 1546, during the life of Francis. Now this objection is of no weight, if, during the reign of Henry, the manuscripts of the royal library were marked with a crowned H, whether they were purchased by him, or by Francis I. On this head Le Long should have expressed himself more clearly, as it relates to a point of history that is not easy to be explained, except by one who is resident in Paris. I requested therefore Fleischer, during his stay in that city to examine the subject more minutely, who, in a letter dated December 16, 1764, wrote as follows: 'I have observed that the Codex 2867, or Stephani Codex y, is marked not with a crowned H, but with a crowned F. It is at the same time to be remarked, that a crowned H on a manuscript is no proof that it was not in the royal library in the time of Francis I. For the manuscripts, as well as the printed books, are bound anew, as soon as the old binding is worn out, and on the new binding is marked the name of the king, who reigned at that time. And at this very day a crowned L is very frequently impressed on ancient books, whenever they are new bound.'

His second objection, p. 182. that Le Long found in
VOL. II.

X

the

the royal library the fifteen manuscripts of Stephens marked with the letters, ß, y, d, s, &c. though only eight had been borrowed from it, is to be ascribed to the abovementioned mistake, Martin having imagined, that these 'Greek characters were on the manuscripts themselves. But whoever reads with impartiality, the Journal des Sçavans, p. 650, will perceive that Le Long speaks only of eight manuscripts, which he discovered in the royal library, and that the letters ß, y, &c. as far as 15, are simply those adopted by Stephens, and that they have no reference to the royal library 291.

I pass over the objection, that in the margin of Stephens's Greek Testament it frequently happens, that a manuscript is quoted in favour of a reading, which is not found in the manuscript produced by Le Long as the very satne. For these quotations are to be ascribed to the error of the press, of which there is a remarkable instance 1 John v. 7, where a mark of omission, falsely set, furnished Martin with an opportunity of objecting to Le Long, that the manuscripts which he had discovered could not be the same as those of Stephens, because they omit more, than is marked in Stephens's text. But Le Long himself, through an inaccuracy in his description, supplied Martin with a pretext of making an important objection, though the latter, by an additional mistake, has ruined two-thirds of his own argument. He says, that according to Le Long's account, none of the eight manuscripts in the royal library, contain the Revelation, whereas Stephens has quoted in this book the Codices 12, 18, and 15. Now the first and last of these three manuscripts have no relation to the present inquiry, for Le Long never pretended that they were in the royal library. But his imperfect description of the second, which, according to his account, contains sept epitres de St. Paul, qui commencent par la premiere aux Corinthiens, leads naturally to the supposition, that the Codex has not the Revelation, whereas Stephens very frequently quotes it in that book. It appears, however,