&c. sometimes both the figure and semicircle: Acts i. 26. Yet none of these mistakes are rectified in the errata, where Stephens has been "so painfully accurate," according to Mr. Travis, p. 58. 123. as to set commas and points exactly right. If then these plain and palpable faults, most of which are such as the smallest share of knowlege or attention would be sufficient to detect, if these could escape Stephens or his corrector, how much more easily might they miss the error of this reference, for the discovery of which a good memory, a strong judgment, or a painful attention was necessary?

But supposing that R. Stephens, or any other editor, had affirmed in express terms, that he possessed seven manuscripts of the Catholic Epistles, in which was read the verse, 1 John v. 7, except the words ev rý ovpavy, who would be bound to believe him? This ground is so smooth, easy, and pleasant, that the defenders of the said verse are perpetually pacing it over. After judiciously improving a marginal abbreviation into a solemn and formal asseveration, which must irrevocably decide the character of R. Stephens for honesty and veracity, they deafen us by bawling in our ears old scraps of sermons against the crying sin of uncharitableness. For my own part, I declare, that let any editor affirm, as positively as he will, that he has seven manuscripts of an ancient author, consenting in a certain reading; if a hundred manuscripts of the same author being afterwards collated are found all to agree in another reading, and to contradict the supposed seven manuscripts; whatever may be such an editor's general reputation for veracity, I shall certainly reject his testimony in this particular, either as a mistake, or (if his indiscreet friends will suffer no compromise) as a wilful and deliberate untruth. Yevdoíμnv áíovros á KEV TETÍÐоLEV Åkovýν. In Horace, A. P. 65, "palus" has its second syllable made short, contrary to a known canon, and the constant usage of all good Latin poets. And to render the case quite desperate, Servius and Priscian expressly cite the verse for an example of this extraordinary licence. What says Theodore Marcilius to all this? He produces, if we may take his word for it, the true reading from ancient parchments of Horace and Priscian. On which Bentley observes, "strenue frontem perfricare Theodorum Marcilium," in plain English, that he is an impudent liar. And to Bentley's sentence of condemnation every person will subscribe, except Mr. Travis and his proselytes, whose "literary candor and Christian charity" will suffer them to think evil of none but heretics. "Ego huic testi, etiamsi jurato, qui tam manifesto fumos vendit, me non crediturum esse confirmo." (Mosheim in Horsley's Tracts, pp. 159. 355. 489.) But I have no objection to put the debate on a shorter issue. I will acknowlege the probability of Stephens's margin being right in this place, if another passage in the whole N. T. cau be found, where even three of his manuscripts agree with each other, and differ from every copy since examined.

Twelve years before the appearance of Stephens's first edition, his father-in-law, Simon Colinæus, published the Greek Testament. Both Mill and Wetstein allow that he faithfully followed his manuscripts, and Wetstein candidly vindicates him from Mill's harsh censure of rashness and presumption, rightly observing, that Colinæus had few guides to follow, and that his poverty, not his will, was to blame. These manuscripts, however, whether good or bad, many or few, omitted 1 John v. 7; and consequently Colinæus leaves it out of his edition. If Colinæus borrowed his manuscripts from the royal library, they must have been some of those that were afterwards used by his son-in-law. If they were his own or lent him by his friends, still it is most probable that Stephens knew of them, and endeavored to procure them for the service of his own edition. But if any manuscript of Colinæus containing the Catholic Epistles was afterwards used by Stephens, since that manuscript certainly was destitute of the three heavenly witnesses, it will furnish a new proof, if proof be wanted, of the wrong position of the semicircle, in this memorable sentence of Stephens's edition.

The freedom with which I have treated "that great work" (as Mr. Travis calls it, p. 129.) may perhaps displease some of Stephens's idolaters; but the invidious praises that have been heaped on it by ignorant or interested persons, have extorted these unpalatable truths. The early editions of the N. T. considered as the publications of critics, are for the most part worse executed than editions of profane authors, and owe their chief value either to their scarcity or splendor. But when I pass this censure, I find fault not with the men, but with the times. They did not then possess, nor if they had possessed, would they have known how to employ, the materials that have since been discovered.

Of Beza's edition it is needless to say more. As a critical work it has very little merit. Ignorant of the true use of various readings, he seldom mentions them but to support his own hypotheses; to which godly purpose he warps both text and interpretation. He makes his commentary (as indeed he partly boasts himself) a vehicle for abuse on Origen, Erasmus, and Castalio; especially the latter; against whom he indulges, "without restraint, the exquisite rancor of theological hatred."

I have said that the words in cælo are omitted in no Latin manuscript, though Martin, I know, tells us (Verité, p. 170.) that those words are marked in Hentenius's edition 1547, as wanting in five manuscripts. It seems to be the fate of this "marvellous text,"3

1 See Mr. Griesbach's preface to the second volume of his N. T. pp.

13-29.

to lead both friends and foes astray. For Simon himself, speaking of the edition of 1547, says, that it commits the same error as Stephens's Greek, and marks only the words in cœlo as wanting in five manuscripts, instead of marking the whole verse. Whether Martin was misled by Simon, or coined the error out of his own brain, I know not; but I know, that unless there are different copies of Hentenius's edition, which I hardly believe, Simon's assertion is totally false. For in the copy that I have seen, the whole seventh verse is comprehended between the obelus and the semicircle. Nor could it be otherwise. Hentenius's list of manuscripts includes the very Latin copies that Stephens had collated. Since, then, four of Stephens's manuscripts did certainly omit the whole seventh verse, it is no less certain that, whatever Hentenius's margin may seem to say, Hentenius himself meant to extend his marginal reference to the same quantity of text. Perhaps Simon confounded a republication of the book with the original edition. For the Antwerp edition of 1570 omits both obelus and semicircle; the Lyons edition, 1573, places this mark ], which answers to the semicircle in other editions, after the words in cœlo: the Antwerp edition, 1572, thus represents the text, 'in cœlo, and in the margin has this note '5. But these mistakes are set right in Lucas Brugensis's editions, Antw. 1574, 1583. Martin somewhere says, if I recollect, that Hentenius's edition, 1565, omits the words in cælo, but I believe him mistaken. From these facts it seems to me a certain conclusion, that Robert Stephens might easily misplace his semicircle on this verse, when we see in two other editions the self-same error committed in the very same words. Still, if Mr. Travis wishes to catch at a twig that may save him from sinking, I will be charitable enough to direct him to R. Stephens's Latin edition of 1545, but I expect his thanks for the information. In that edition Robert has printed two versions, which he calls the Old and the New; the Old is the received Vulgate, the New is a translation from the Greek, made by Robert, or by some learned man under his inspection. The Öld, as might be expected, retains 1 John v. 7; the New dismisses it from the text with ignominy, but puts a star after testimonium dant*, and adds in the margin, "Pater verbum et spiritus sanctus et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra spiritus, &c. sic legunt quædam exemplaria Græca." Bengelius referring to this edition says; "Latina Stephani biblia lunulam suo loco exhibent, et disertam in margine habent annotationem: Sic legunt (scil. in cælo Pater, reliqua) quædam exemplaria Græca Britannicus NEMPE codex et Complutensis juxta Hieronymi lectionem. Nul

'N. B. Bengelius's words are printed in the Italic character, as I have here represented them.

lum alium habuit quem citaret." But De Missy (Journ. Brit. ix. p. 63.) taking Bengelius's explanation for Stephens's own words, bewildered himself in hunting for an edition that never existed. Now, if we put this marginal note to the torture, it will speak at last, and confess that some of its master's Greek manuscripts omitted the words in cælo; for, on adding the text and the margin together, they will exactly make up two verses, bating those two words. If Mr. Travis be so cruel as to turn against me the point of the weapon with which I now present him, I must shield myself with Stephens's formal preference of the Greek copies that rejected the verse to those which retained it.

[To be continued.]

On several Passages of Strabo, Plutarch, and Athenæus, concerning the Works of Aristotle. BRANDIS, Professor at Bonn.

By CH. A:

ACCORDING to Strabo, xiii. p. 418, 19. ed. Casaub., Neleus the Skepsian came by hereditary descent into the possession of the library of Theophrastus, which contained as well the works of Aristotle as his own and those of some other writers, which Theophrastus, the first or one of the first collectors of books, (Strabo, i. 1.) had acquired. The descendants of Neleus, an ignorant set, hid the books of Theophrastus under ground, to secure them against the rapacity of the posterity of Attalus, to whom Skepsis belonged; and it was not till some time afterwards that they sold them to Apellico of Tejus, who, although he was rather a bibliomanist than a philosopher, and intent only on filling up the defects which insects and moisture had produced, was instrumental, by the number of copies he spread about, in giving a new impulse to philosophy, and especially to the peripatetic philosophy. For the peripatetics, not possessing any of the works of Aristotle or Theophrastus, except a few exoteric books, had from a want of philosophical matter contented themselves with giving rhetorical ornament to some general propositions; pocopeir рayμATIкws-éσels Anкvízelv. Cf. Schneider. in Arist. de Animal. Hist. i. tom. i. p. lxxxviii.

Immediately after the death of Apellico, his library fell into the hauds of Sulla, together with the town of Athens; and as Apellico had taken a part in the war against the Romans, it was brought to Rome, and the use of it allowed to the grammarian Tyrannio. Negligently written copies were sold by the booksellers, who did not take the trouble to compare them with the originals; as indeed

was generally the case with books that were written for sale at Alexandria or at Rome.

Plutarch, in vita Syllæ, c. 26. p. 468. A. ed. Francof., relates, that but few of the books of Aristotle or Theophrastus were used by the old peripatetics, and those not accurately, because the property of Neleus had fallen into the hands of ignorant people. Sulla found them in the library of Apellico, and brought them to Rome, and the grammarian Tyrannio is supposed (Aéyerai) to have arranged and completed them for the words évoкeváσaoðaι rà molλà cannot mean intervertere, as Xylander translates, nor emendare, as Solanus does: Thuc. vi. 104. uses émiokeváZeiv, of ships repaired. Andronicus of Rhodes afterwards got the manuscripts, and published them, and wrote the catalogues, which became generally known.

Athenæus, v. p. 214. E., mentions, that Apellico had bought many works of peripatetic philosophers, and also the library of Aristotle, but he does not say from whom.

And finally, Diogenes Laertius, v. 52., reports, that Theophrastus left all his books to Neleus as a legacy.

The authenticity of this report is warranted by Strabo, as he was intimately acquainted with Tyrannio, and Boethus the pupil of Andronicus; since the former had been his master, and the latter, Boethus, his fellow-student, with whom he had studied the philosophy of Aristotle. Cicero also, and Quintilian, speak of the successors of Theophrastus, and allow them to have excelled as rhetoricians, although they do not seem to think much of them as philosophers: (cf. Cic. de Fin. B. et M. V. 5. Tuscul. Q. ii. 3. Quintil. Instit xii. 2.) the difference of the esoteric and exoteric works of Aristotle is often mentioned from the time of Cicero; and in addition to all this it is a well-known fact, that it was only from the time when the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus are mentioned to have been recovered, that frequent references to them were made; then only were learned interpretations begun: for it can be proved, that the old interpreters (παλαιοὶ ἐξηγηταὶ) did not live before the time of Andronicus, except perhaps Sotion and Aristo; and it remains doubtful, whether the latter was Aristo Julietes, who presided over the peripatetic school about Olymp. CLX. What Plutarch says of Andronicus is confirmed in several ways, although we cannot prove that he followed Strabo, as Schneider conjectures. It is to be regretted, that both express themselves in so vague a manner. According to Strabo, the elder peripatetics made use of a few, especially the exoteric works of Aristotle and Theophrastus; and Plutarch says, that even these few were not used accurately. The vague assertion of the former, and the timid expression of the latter, who does not distinguish between exoteric and esoteric works, although he must have known the difference, demand a careful examination; and this is justified also by the circumstance,