Skip to main content

Full text of "Journal of theological studies"

See other formats

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
d iscover the world's books while helpi ng authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at http : //books . google . com/l 

The yournal 


Theological Studies 






Rev. Dr. Ince, Regius Professor of Divinity, Oxford. 

Rev. Dr. Swete, Regius Professor of Divinity, Cambridge. 

Rev. Dr. Driver, Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. 

Rev. Dr. Bigg, Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford. 

Rev. Dr. Barnes, Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge, 

F. C. BuRxm, Lecturer in Palaeography, Cambridge. 

Rev. Dr. Headlam, Principal of King's College, London. 

Rev. Dr. Kirkpatrick, The Lady Margaret's Reader in Divinity, Cam- 

Rev. Dr. Lock, Dean Ireland's Professor of Exegesis, Oxford. 

Rev. Dr. Mason, Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge. 

Very Rev. Dr. J. Armitage Robinson, Dean of Westminster ; late Norrisian 

Professor of Divinity, Cambridge. 
Rev. Dr. Sanday, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford. 
Rev. Dr. Stanton, Ely Professor of Divinity, Cambridge. 
Very Rev. Dr. Strong, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford. 
C. H. Turner, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. 


Rev. J. F. Bethune-Baker, Pembroke College, Cambridge. 
Rev. F. E. Brightman, Magdalen College, Oxford. 






Some recently discovered Fragments of Irish Sacra- 

mentaries 49 

BARNES, Rev. W. E., D.D. 


(and JOHNS, Rev, C. H. W.) Chronicle of Old Testament 305 

A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions (G. A. Cooke) 281 

•Against the Stream' i 

BIGG, Rev. C, D.D. 

The Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin (Tennant 

The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin) 466 

Notes on the Didache 579 

BRADSHAW, H. (the late) 

On the use of the Quicunque vult in the Book of 

Common Prayer 458 


The Lection-System of the Codex Macedonianus . 265 

The Life of Severus by Zacharias the Scholastic 

(Kugener) 469 


The Justification of Wisdom 455 


Further Notes on Codex k 100 

The Early Church and the Synoptic Gospels . . 330 

On Rom. ix 5 and Mark xiv 61 451 

St Mark and Divorce . 628 

BUTLER, Dom E. C. 

Readings seemingly conflate in the MSS of the 

Lausiac History 630 

Chronicle of Hagiographica 147 


The Historical Setting of the Second and Third 

Epistles of St John 357» S'? 

The Interpolations in St Cyprian's De Unitate Ecclesiae 634 




GLADDER, Rev. H. J. 

Strophical Structure in St Jude's Epistle . . . 589 

The Syrian Liturgies or the Presanctified II, III 369, 535 
CRUM, W. E. 

A Study in the History of Egyptian Monasticism 
(J. Leipoldt Schenute von Airipe und die Entsiehung des 
national-dgypHschtn Christentums) 1 29 

Inscriptions from Shenoute's Monastery . . • 55^ 

The Reaction of Modern Scientific Thought on 

Theological Study 16 1 

DERMER, Rev. E. C (Bodington Books &f Devotion) . , * 472 
DOWDEN, Right Rev. J. (Bishop of Edinburgh) 

Notes on the Succession of the Bishops of St Andrews 

II and 111, Addenda et Corrig^enda - . . 115, 253, 462 
ERMONI, Rev. V. 

The Christology of Clement of Alexandria . .133 
FRYER, Rev. A. T. 

The Purpose of the Transfiguration . . . .214 
GAYFORD, Rev. S. C. (Stephenson The chief Truths of the 

Christian Faith) 473 


The Poemandres of Hermes Trismegistus . . . 395 
HAYMAN, Rev. H., D,D. (the late). 

The Position of the Laity in the Church . . . 499 
HOLMES, Rev. T. S. 

The Austin Canons in England in the Twelfth Century 345 
JAMES, M. R., LitLD, 

Some Apocryphal Acts of Apostles 292 

The Scribe of the Leicester Codex . . . - 445 
JOHNS, Rev. C H. W, 

Chronicle of Assyriology and the Code of Hammurabi 310 
See Barnes, W. E. 
JONES, Rev. A. S. D. 

A Homily of St Ephrem 546 

KIDD, Rev, B. J,, B.D, 

Miscellanea (Trevelyan Pr^y^r: and other works) . ♦ 470 
KING, Rev. E. G., D.D. 

The Influence of the Triennial Cycle on the Psalter 203 
LAKE, Rev. K. 

The Greek Monasteries in South Italy, III, IV , 22, 189 

Some Further Notes on the MSS of the Writings of 
St Athanasius ..,.....* 108 
LYTTELTON, Rev. the Hon. E, 

The Teaching of Christ about Divorce . . . .621 




Rebiarkable Readings in the Palestinian Syriac 
Lectionary 437 

MASON, Rev. A. J^ D.D. 

The First Latin Christian Poet 413 

A Modern Theory op the Fall 481 

The Text of the Hymns of Hilary 636 

MILNE, Rev. T. 

St Matthews Parallel Narratives 602 


Clarendon Press Greek Testaments . . . 374, 461 

OESTERLEY, Rev. W. O. E., B.D. 

The Old Latin Texts of the Minor Prophets. I-IV. 

76, 24a, 378, 570 

OTTLEY, Rev. R. L., D.D. 

The Bible in the Nineteenth Century (J. E. Carpenter) 284 


The Earuest Index of the Inquisition at Venice . . 127 
A Monastic Chartulary (Dowden Chartulary of the Abbey 

of Undores 1 195-1479) 397 

POPE, Rev. J. O'F. 

A Plea for Scholastic Theology 174 

SANDAY, Rev. W., D.D. 

The Site of Capernaum 42 

The Injunctions of Silence in the Gospels . . .321 
The Present Greek Testaments of the Clarendon 
Press 279 


Indiyiduausm and Authority (Strong Cod and the Indi- 
vidual ^ and Authority in the Church) .... 399 

SOUTER, Rev. A. 

Reasons for regarding Hilarius (Ambrosiaster) as the 
Author of the Mercati-Turner Anecdoton . . 608 

TENNANT, Rev. F. R., B.D. 

The Philosophy of Reugion (Doraer Grundprobleme der 

Reiigionsphilosophie) 464 


A RefCOLlation of Codex k of the Old Latin Gospels . 88 

Chronicle of Patristica 134 

An Exegetical Fragment of the Third Century . .218 

WATSON, Rev. E. W. 

The Expansion of Christianity (A. Hamack Die Mission 
und Ausbreiiung des Christentums in den ersten drei 

Jahrhunderten) 289 

The Interpolations in St Cyprian's De Unitate Ecclesiae 432 

WILSON, Rev. H. A. 

A Rhythmical Prayer in the Book of Cerne ... 263 
The Metrical Endings of the Leonine Sacramentary . 386 

The yournal 


Theological Studies 






NOTES AND STUDIES (wntinued)-, 

MON Prayer. By ihe late Henry Bradshaw , . . .458 
Romans ix 5 aad Mark xjv 61^ On. By F. C. Burkitt , .451 
Sacramentary, The Metrical Endings of the Leonine. 

By the Rev. H. A. Wilson , . 386 

Testaments, Clarendon Press Greek. By E. Nestle, D.D. 

274i 461 
Psalter, The Influence of the Triennial Cycle on the. By 

the Rev. E. a King, D,D , . 203 


C. Bodington. Books 0/ Devotion. By the Rev. E. C. Dernier 472 
M. Bonnet, Ada Philippi et Acta Ikomae: accedunt Acta 

Bamabae, By M. R. James, Litt D 292 

J, E. Carpenter. The BibU in the Nineteenth Century, By the 

Rev. R. L. Ottley, D.D , .384 

G. A. Cooke. A Text- Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions^ 

Moabite^ Hebrew^ Phoenician^ Aramaic, Nabataean^ Palmyrene, 

Jewish, By A, A. Bevan , , , aSl 

A, Dorner. Grundprobleme der Religionsphilosophie, By the 

Rev, F. R. Tennant, B.D 464 

J. Dowden. Chartulary of the Abbey of Lindores II95'I479- 

By R. L. Poole . . , 297 

A^ Harnack. Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in 

den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, By the Rev. E. W. Watson . 289 
M. A. Kugener. Vie de Severe par Zackarie le Schoiastique ; 

texte Syriaque . . . traduit et cmnot^* By E. W. Brooks . . 469 
J. Leipoldt. Schenute von Atripe und die Entstehung des 

national agypiischen Christentums, By W. E. Crum . -.129 
W. L, ROBBINS. A Christian Apologetic. By the Rev. B. J. 

Kidd, B.D 471 

A. W. Robinson. The Personal Life of the Clergy, By the Rev. 

B. J. Kidd, B.D 471 

G. Schmidt. Die alien Petrusakten im Zusamntenhang der 

apokryphen Apostellilteraiur, nebst einem neuentdeckten Frag- 
ment, By M. R, James, LitLD - 293 

J. Stepkenson^ The Chief Truths of the Christian Faith. By 

the Rev. S. C. Gayford ,..,,... 475 
T. B. Strong. God and the Individual and Authority in the 

Church, By the Rev. C. J. Shebbeare 299 

F. R, Tennant. The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and 

Original Sin. By the Rev. C, Bigg, D.D 466 

W. B. Trevelyan. Sunday, By the Rev. B, J, Kidd, B.D. , 470 
Scholastic Theology, A Plea for. By the Rev, J, O'F. Pope, S,]. 174 
Scientific Thought, The Reaction of Modern, on Theo- 
logical Study. By the Rev. W. Cmimngham, D.D, . * 161 
Transfiguration, The Purpose of the. By the Rev. A. T. Fryer 214 




Ada Apoaiohntm Apocrypha II u 148 

AtUtBarMobeu : set Bonnet (M.). 

Ada Mmiyrum : set Knopf, R., and Gxbharot, O. von. 

AdaPauUtt Thedtu : sh Gebhardt, O. von. 

Ada Petri : see Schji mr, C. 

Ada PkiHppi : see Bonnit, M. 

Ada SanctoTMtn : see Symucarium. 

Ada Thomae : see Bonnet, M. 

Ahbrosiastxr (S08 sqq. 

AtuUda BoOandiana 148, 151 

Aneahta Oxomensia 437 

Bali,J. IfuUx BrUatmiae Scriptorum 138 

Baedimhewer. Geschkhte ekr alichristlichen LiUeraiur . . 150,529 

Barrxbrasits, Greg. Nomocanon ........ 569 

Baudissin. In Hauck ReaUtuydopddie 305 

In CuRTiss Ursemitische Religion 309 

Bidjan. Nomocanon of Barhebraens 369 

BnrziNGER, I. Temple in Encyclopaedia BibUca IV 308 

BiVAN, A. A.: see Smith, W. R. 

Writing in En<ycki>a€diaBiblicalV 308 

BoDiNGiON, C. Books of Devotion 473 

Bonnet, M. Ada PhUippi et Ada Thomae: accedunt Ada Bamabae . 148, 393 

Box, G. H. Temple in Encyclopaedia BibUca IV 308 

Brochmanh, J. H. H. Ltnf og Naade 4 sqq. 

BxutTN, C. For Uberal-minded Christianity 3 

For Kirbe og Kultur 3 

Budge, E. W. Contendings of the Apostles 149 

Buhl, F. Moab in Hauck Realencydopddie ...... 305 

Burkitt, F. C. Texts and Versions in Encyclopaedia BibUca IV . . 308 

Butler, £. C. Historia Lausiaca 630 

Capella, Martianus. De nuptOs Philologiae et MercurH . . . 388 sqq. 

Carpenter, J. £. The Bible in the Nineteenth Century .... 384 

Casaubon, I. ExerdtaHones Baronianae 395 

Casparl Quellen sur Geschichte des Taufsymbols 533 

Cavalori, F. DE. Passio SS. Mariam et Jacobi &c. 150 

Chxtne,T. K. Critica Biblica IV 3o7) 45< 

Ettcydopaedia Biblica 308} 448 

Oarmdon Press Greek Testaments ^74* 4^' 

Oemeni of Alexandria. ^ 133, 138 sqq., 538 



CitmentiH* RecogniHons : sec Hoht, F. J. A, 

C LUG NET, L, Bibliothrque Hagiogmphiqui Oruntalt 154 

CoiiN, G. Die Gesftsi ifammurtibis S^S 

CoMP£Ri4AS5. Ac(a S, CartiH* Cappadocis 151 

CONOER. Tertt Work in Ptiltstine 46 

Conftitatio dogntatutn Arisioltlis . . . ...... 1 44 

Convocation of Canterbury. Rtport cm th* Positton ofiki Laity . . 499 

CooKjS, A, Th€ Laws 0/ Moses and the Code 0/ NammHrabt . . 3,15 

In Thf Guardian , . . , . . * - > • 2t^Z 

Cooke, G. A. A Text-Boob of Narih'Simitk Inscnpiions . . . * aSi 

Corn ILL. Ele*ki€lin Jamsh Emydopaedia V .,..♦. 3*^5 

CoRS&EN, Die Urgtstah der Paulusakttn . , * » . - '5** 

Couture, L, la Revug d^s Questions Historiques iB^i . . * . 3^7 

CuRTiss, S. I. Primitixjn Semitic Religion To-day 3^ 

Cyprian, St. D* UnitaU EccUstae . 43't ^34 

Epistolae 6^5 *<IQ* 

Daiches^ S, Altbabylonische Rfchtsurkundm 31 1 

Dareste, R. : see (famnturatn 

Delehaye. Vita Melaniae JumoHs 1 54 

Dictionary 0/ Christian AniiquHies • 581 

DoRNER, A. Grundprobieftu der Religionsphiiosopkii 464 

DOWOEN, J. Chartulary 0/ the AUtey of Lindons 397 

Drcvis. Id Zeilschr. fUr katkolische Theotogie 18Q8 . . . . . 414 

DmvxR, S. R. Exodus in Jewish Encyclopaedia V 305 

DucHEs?*E, L. Note sur VorigXHe du cursus 3^7 

In BuUetiH critique \ I 4'7 

Emruarjd, a. Die altchrisUitJut LiOeratur und ihrt Erforschung wtn 18^4- 

1900 135 

Encyclopaedia Biblica ...*,.*..•> 3^^ 

FiERDEN, M, J, The Old Tesiament in the Ltght of Modem Bihlical Ristarch 3 

Farrar, F. W. The Bible-, its Meaning and Suprematy . . , . 47* 

Foakes-Jackson, F. J. A Biblical Nistoty of the Hebrews . . » . 307 

Funk, F. X. Patres Aposiolid , » . editio it adaucta et emendata . . - 135 

Gamurrini 4^4 

Gaul, W. Die AbfassungsverheUtnisse der pseudofusHnischen ' Cohortatioad 

Grtucos* .... 143 

Gebhardt, O. von. Au^etvdhlte Mdrfyrerakten und andere UrkundeH . 150 

Die tatfinischen UebersetMUHg§H dtr Ada Pauii *t Theciae . , . 149 
Gibson, M. D, : see Lewis, A, S. 

Glover, T< R. Life and Letters in the Fourth Centuty . . . Hit 4^1 

GoLDZiHER, I. : see Smitk^ W. R. 

GoREf C. The Sermon on the Mount 6ai, 625 

Gospel according to the Egyptians 409 

Gray, G. B. Numbers [Interiiationa! Critical Commentary] . , . 306 

Gregory, C. R. Textkritik des Neuen Testaments , , , . ♦ 265 

Grimme, H. Das Gesels {famnturabis und Moses . . , . . 313 

Grospellier, A, In Revue du Chant Grigorien i^^'j . , . . . 3'^? 

GRtrrzMACHER. Hieronymus 151 

Monchtum in Hauck Rtalentychpddi* ...... 154 

GmDi^ I. : see Clugnet, L. 

Guthe. Negtb in Hauck ReaUMeytlopadie 305 



I ^ mm mm mh i , Codtcf. BAHogmpky 313 

HABWATg. A. Dm Wtam da Ckrislgmhtms 13 

DiodoT vim Tmnms: vier ^stmkjmsimisehe Sekriftem ah Eigmhum 

ZKpdbr* MMd^^nnam (Teste a. Unten. N.F. Ti 4] . ... 144 

Dit Misakm mmdAuabniimmg da Ckrnitmhtmg m dim irstm dtnjakr- 

kamdtrltm 289 

Pamdop^i m mstha in ZnisA. fibr dk N. T. WUamsek, ... 530 

Haukb, J. R. Thg Dio$€mi in llu Ckrisium L^tmds 155 

Furtktr Rgstardus itdo the History ofikg Fmrmr-Gnmp 39, 445 

TheOrigmcftkeLeiasUrCodtx 445 

Haccx. Rakmeydopidk 305 

Havkt, L. La pwnst mAriftu de Symmaqmg tt la mig im s wtAriqua dat 

*air3us* 387 

HxH3i,J. SiimU undErJasmng muk bibtiaektr mmd b§iykmisdttr Aitsrhmmung 31a 

Hymmn und G^beU am Marimk 31a 

Hkoch, J. C ModSirSmmem i sqq. 

Star 149 19 

HiLAKT or PoicnxKS, St. Hymm 413, 636 

HnfiKKTELD, A Die aposiotiackm VMar 136 

Igmmiu Anikxkmi ti Pofymrpi Smyrimti Epishdmi d Martyria 136 

HnmxcHT. H, V. 308 

HocARTH. D. G. Syria in Etuydopatdia BibUem TV 308 

HoRT, F. J. A Noia Jnhvdwtdory to the Shtdy of the CUmeHiim Recogni- 

Htms . 141 

and J. B. Mator. CUmeni cf Alexandria, MiaceUania.Bcob yni 140 

HsojKzrfi-y F. Stameriseh-iabybmiache Mythen von dem GoUe Ntnrag . 31a 
Hcscxs, J. BedurmahrsaguHg bei den Babylomem nock atoei KeHinsehri/Un 

ans der ffamwiurab%zeH 31a 

HunoBy W. H. The Influena of CknsiBamty upon NoHonal Character 
iUnstraUd by the leva of the English Sainta (Bampton Lectures 

1903^ »55 

Jacob, B. Exodns in Jneish Encyclopaedia V 3^5 

JotxxiAS, A Nebo Nergal in Hacck Reaiencydopddie .... 305 

Jbbchias, J. Moaa and ffamnuirabi 313 

Jewish Encyclopaedia 305 

JoHXS, C H. W. Sargon, Sennacherib, Shalmaneser in Encydopaedia 

BOdkaVJ 3^8 

Jcsm Makttb, St. : «r Gaul, W., Habback, A 

KzBBZDT, A R. a SaH, Weaoing'm Encydopaedia BSbUea IV ... 308 

Kkitt, C F. : s«r ffammurabi, 

KmacH : see Chrmdde cf Hagiographiea. 

KukTKBESS, T. For Kirhe og Knitwr 3 

JDagmsSirid 18 

EoangeUetforkyndtfor Nntiden 18 

KuosTZBBAJiB, A Nehenda in Haucx Reakmydopddie .... 305 

Kbopt, R. AnsgewSMU Martyrerakten 150 

K0RI.XB, J. : see ffamnmrabi. 

Kbusch, B. Passiona Vitaeqne Sandorum Aevi Merovingid • 147 

KucKKEB,M.A Vie de Severe par ZaduurieUScholasiiqne\yatt.Oiieat.iLi\ 469 
SseCucemrr, L. 

KuBZK. MarcMs EremOa I5> 

KuTPXBSyAB. BookcfCerm 263 




Lacrang£, M. J. La nttihodi hktorique 307 

Etudes sur its rtitgioMs semifiquis ,,..*., 307 
5W J/atumurabt, 
Leipoldt, J, Schenutt von Atripe und dit EntsUftung dgs nationai'dgypH' 

schm ChrisUnhtms [Texte und Unters. N F, x i] . , . 129^ 15a 
Lewis, A. S., E. NiaTLE, and M. D, GiBaoN. A PtUtstiman Syrian Ltc- 

iionary 437 

LtPSlUS. Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha I48 

Little, In EttgitsA Htstoncal Rrview Oct, 1^03 156 

LutJttt^k Kirketidendg 8 

Mai. Scriptorum viterum nova colUctio X [Nomocanon of Barhebracus] . 369 

Marcoliouth, D. S. EtcUsiasUs in Jtmsh Eneydopatdia V , . . 305 
MAKt, F. : s(e Ifawmuntbi. 

Margoliouth, G. Tht Liturgy of the NfU * ...... 437 

Mayor, J. B. : sti HorTj F. J, A. 

Mmamn 147 

MENARD. Hermes Tn'smegiste , , 397 

MENi>HABt, J. An Index o/pttblished Books ♦ 137 

Mercati, G, Varia Sacra, fasacolo 1 : 1 . Anonymi Chiliasta* in MatthaeMm, 
a. PictoU suppUmtnti agii scritti dei dotiori Cappadod # di S. CirsUo 

AlesjsandriHo 318,608 

Mever, W. In Gottingische getehrie An0iig*n \%^i 387 

MiCHiLET, S. The Old Ttsiament View of Sin 3 

The Old Testament View of Righteottsrtess 3 

Ancient Sanctuaries in Modem Light .*..... 3 
Monumenta Germaniae Htstorica : see Krusch^ B. 

MocQUEREAU, A III Pafeographit MusicaU ..... ^ 387 

Moore, G. F. Saaijke in Emyctopaedia BibUca IV 308 

Morgenbiadet ....,« 8 

MtJLLER, D. H. Die Geseta* ffammurabis und die mosatscJu Gesetmgebung . 314 

Die Prophittn in ihrer ursprHngh'chen Form . . . . . 589 

MuLi.ER» W. Max. Rameses, Shishak^ Tirhahah in Encyeloptrdia Biblica IV 308 

Mydserg. The Biblical Enquirer 5 

Nao. Le texte grec original de la Vie de St. Paul de Thebes [Analect 

Boll. XXJ 151 

Hisioire de Thais [Ann ales da Musde Guimct XXX] . . * 153 

See Clugnet, L. 
Nestik, E. t see Lewis, A. S, 

NoRDEN, E. Die antike Kunstpro^a 387 

Oreixi^ von. Mose in Hauck Reaiencychpadie . . 1 . . . 305 

Patres apo&toHci: see Funk, F. X, Hilgenfeld^ A. 

Peiser^ F. E, : see ^amnturabt. 

Pinches, T. G. Tiglaih Pileser in Encyclopaedia Biblica IV . . . 308 

pREUSCHEK, E. Antihgomena: die Reste der ausserictnonischen Evangelic 

und urchristliciuH Ueberlieferungen 138 

Manchtum und Serapiskult . . 154 

Quaestiones et rrsponsiones ad orthodoxos . ...... 144 

Quatsttones chrislianoruM* ad gentiles 144 

Quaestiones gentiliuwt ad Christianas . . . . . . . . 144 

Ramsat^ W, M •. 44 

Reusch, F. H. Der Index der verbotenen Biicher 117 

Rob BINS, W. L, A Christian Apologetic 471 



RouHSON, A W. Ptraonai Li/»o/ihiCkrgy . . . . . 471 

Rosn, dc Roma SotUrranta 581 

Saiidat, W. Sacred SiUs of ifuGospils 42 

Tht Prtsmt Grttk Tuianunis €^tiu Clartndon Pros . 379, 461 

Schul: ste ffammMtabu 

Schmidt, C. Die alien Petrusakten [Texte iind Unters. ix i] 150, 393 

Suboxnx, RouNDELL Earl ot Andeni Facts and FUHons , 514 
Severus of Antioch in the Nomocarum of Barhebraeus . 371, 375 

SsmxY, A £. Syria in Encydopoidia Bibiica IV 308 

Smith, G. A Trade and Commerce in Encyclopaedia Bibiica IV. . 308 

SnTH, W. R. Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia .... 305 

Salt in Encyclopaedia Bibiica IV 308 

SoDn, H. von. Die Cyprianisdte Brie/sammlung 635 

Stadi, B. Satnuel, Books 0/ Samuel in Entyclopaedia Bibhca IV . . 308 
SriBLiN, O. Zur handsckrifiUchen Ueberiieferung des Clemens Alexandrinus 

[Texte und Untcre. N. F. v 4] 138 

Clemens Alexandrinus und die Septuaginta 139 

SnrriNS, F. LaieitUsdie Paldograpkie 106 

SnPHEXSON, J. The Chief Truths of the Christian Faith • • . . 473 

SiooSjC Das babylonische StrafrKht ffammurabis 313 

Strong, T. B. God and the Individual 399 

Authority in the Church 399 

ShuHtTesti 151,608 

Swm,H. B. Patristic Study 134 

Symuarium Ecdesiae Constantinopolitanae 147 

TwHAKT, F. R. The Origin and Propagation of Sin 481 

The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin . 466, 481 

TnmjLUAN: ««Wait2. 

TexUundUntersuchungen 139* 138) I49> 150, 152 

Toy, C. H. Sirachy Wisdom, Wisdom Literature in Entyclopaedia Bibiica IV 308 

TaivELYAif , W. B. Sunday 470 

TdhtoNjW. H. The Truth of Christianity 473 

Vacandard. Vie de saint Ouen 148 

ValoiSjN. £tude sur le rhythms des bulles pontificales .... 386 

▼andenVeii. St.Jerdmeetlavie dumoineMakhusleCaptif . . 152 

La Vie grecque de St, Jean U Psichaite 153 

yOsAnkmU 151 

^Htiarionts 151 

^Pauli 151 

VoLCK. Micahf Nahum in Hauck Realencyclopddie 305 

^AiTz,H. Das pseudotertullianische Gedicht Adversus Marcionem • . 143 
^AiD, H. : ue Ifammurabi. 

^ttssBACH, F. H. Babylonische Miscellen 3*0 

ViLPERT. Die Malereien der Katabomben Poms 581 

Wilson, C Recovery of Jerusalem 46 

WiHCKiER, H. Abraham als BcAylonier, Joseph als Aegypter . . . 308 

Sinai and Horeb^ Syria in Entyclopaedia Bibiica IV . . . 308 
See ffammurabi 

Wordsworth, J. Old Latin Biblical Texts 88 

WxiDE, W. Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien 331 

Zachariah the Scholastic. Life of Severus 4^9 

ZtMKER, F. K. Die Chorgesdnge im Buche der Psalmen .... 589 

The Journal 


Theological Studies 

OOTOBBB, 1908 


A FRIEND of the writer once entered into conversation with 
a tramp who was reclining at hb ease by the side of the turnpike 
road. The traveller was fairly communicative, gave some of his 
experiences, and told where he had spent the past night. Our 
friend enquired, *And where are you going now?* *I don't 
know,' replied the tramp, * the wind has gone down and I never 
go an3rwhere unless I've the wind at my back.' It is not merely 
on the king's highway that we find people who like to have the 
wind at their backs and who have no inclination for battling 
against the storm and the stream. 

Under the title 'Against the Stream ' a theological controversy 
has been running its course in Norway for a considerable period ; 
and the time seems to have come when it is possible to give 
some indication of its nature, even if it is yet too early to sum up 
all the results. The name Mod Strommen (* Against the Stream ') 
was the title of a book issued by Bishop Heuch of Christiansand 
early in 1902, calling attention to the rationalistic tendencies 
which he attributed to much of the popular theology and 
preaching of the Norwegian Church. The name was at once 
recognized as an appropriate one for the book, and for the 
attitude its author was taking up; and articles pro and con 
appeared under this title in issue after issue of every newspaper 
and magazine in the land. In order to understand the points 
at stake it is necessary to go back a little beyond the year 
of publication of the Bishop's book, and to make acquaintance 
with some of the leadii^ figures in Norwegian theology and 
reUgious life. 

VOL. V. B 


In the early part of the last quarter of last century through< 
Scandinavia the Positivist philosophy, as represented by Brandos 
in Denmark, and in Norway by a host of poets, litterateurs, and 
young scientists, was asserting itself in a wonderful degree. The 
unrest occasioned thereby was possibly felt more in the theo- 
logical world than anywhere else* The need of recasting the old 
dogmas and of modernizing the preaching of the Norwegian 
Church in order to make its theology more biblical and less 
scholastic, and to make its preaching more practical and less 
fruitlessly theoretic, was emphasized by several able men. The 
first pioneer in this crusade was Dn E. F. B. Horn of the Garrison 
Church in Christiania, whose death a few years ago left a blank 
in the Norwegian Church which no one yet has been quite able 
to fill. The graphic and genial biography of Dr. Horn, written 
by the incumbent of Roldal, Johannes Brochmann, is a model of 
what such a book should be, and gives us an admirable idea 
of the man and his gifts, Horn was a thinker endowed with 
a sparklingly original mind, and he let loose a perfect torrent 
of articles, pamphlets, and books that set men a-thinking. He 
might have said with Fr. V, Baader, * I am a seed merchant,' 
His church in the old fortress of the metropolis was crowded 
to the door when it was known that Horn was to preach, and his 
influence on the students and rising clergy was incalculable. 
Amongst other pioneers of progress were Chr. Bruun, also a 
Christiania clergyman, the originator and editor of the thoughtful 
magazine For liberal-minded Christianity^ and for the last ten 
years joint -editor of For Kirke og Kullur (* For Church and 
Culture '), a name which very adequately explains itself. Prof. 
Fredrik Petersen, whose lamented death early this year has left 
another very great blank, had one of the keenest minds in the 
Lutheran Church, and rendered yeoman service in driving back 
the assaults of scepticism and unbelief, and in pointing out 
desirable reforms. Another champion of progress was the present 
Dean of Christiania, Gustav Jensen, who is probably the most 
highly esteemed clergyman in Norway, and has refused the oifer 
of a bishopric at least half a dozen times. To him those in 
authority always apply for information and guidance w-heii 
important questions arise. Jensen is the St. Bernard of the 
Norwegian Church, and it may be said that his influence exceeds 


that of all professors and bishops and ministers of state. Another 
eloquent preacher was J. J. Jansen, formerly of Roken, whose 
influence, until his health gave way, was immense. Then we 
must mention Thv. Klaveness, another of the foremost preachers 
of Christiania and of Norway, founder and joint-editor with 
Bruun of For Kirke eg Kultur^ a man of indomitable energy, 
of marvellous dialectic skill, and of dauntless courage, whose 
equal could not easily be found. Before others get their thoughts 
in order he is on the field of fight with weapons that are keen of 
edge and wielded with a master hand. Some other leaders 
of thought have recently come to the front and must be mentioned 
in a word. Dr. S. Michelet, Professor of Old Testament Ex^esis, 
has written valuable works on The Old Testament View of Sin, 
The Old Testament View of Righteousness ; and a few months 
since he sent forth Ancient Sanctuaries in Modern Lights a series 
of lectures giving a clear and popular account of the acknowledged 
results of Old Testament criticism. Dean M. J. Faerden, of 
Norderhov, has published a volume on the same subject as 
Prod Michelet's, entitled The Old Testament in the Light of 
Modem Biblical Research. Faerden's book is much more radical 
than Michelet's. Probably many will view it with disfavour 
on account of its unqualified acceptance of some of the extreme 
conclusions of modem criticism; but the book gives evidence 
of most extensive reading and expert knowledge, and the author's 
style is the most fluent and charming we have had experience of 
among Scandinavian theological writers. 

The great apostle of orthodoxy in Norway has for a long 
period been Bishop J. C. Heuch of Christiansand. He is not so 
much a theol(^ian as a witness for Christ, deserving in many 
respects of honour and regard. In days gone by he was an 
extraordinary power in the Norw^an Church; but his ultra- 
conservatism of mind has prevented him from advancing with 
the age. The interesting thing is that Heuch was the very first 
vigorous assailant of the Positivist tendency, and he gained great 
laurels in Denmark for his valiant onslaught on Brandes. When 
Heuch was a priest in Christiania he had all the intelligence of 
the metropolis assembled around him, appreciating his realistic, 
practical teaching. No one suspected that behind those sermons 
of his, sparkling with the reality of life, lay hidden the Old 

B 2 


Lutheran dogmatic system. But eventualjy it was discovered 
that his preaching was altogether based on the theological 
paradox-system of his former teacher Prof. Gisle Johnson. 
Heuch never saw its defects or the untenability of the old 
scholasticism in the face of the exegesis and biblical theology 
of modem times. This was very likely due to the fact that he 
never was a theologian in the proper sense of the term, but onlyj 
a very practical pastor and preacher. In most ecclesiastical 
gatherings he was the doughty champion of the Old Lutheran 
confession, which In his early days corresponded with the general 
spirit in the Norse Church and prevailed until Prof. Petersen, 
succeeding to the chair of Systematic Theology in 1876, showed 
the absolute necessity for a reconstruction of the old system. 
But Heuch*s fundamentally conservative theological position and 
tendencies were forgotten under the charm, the vigour and the 
appositeness of his practical teaching, until what has been called 
the * Christ iansand Polemic ' broke out in 1^95. 

The cause of this controversy w^as the publication by the 
Rev. J. H. H. Brochmann, of the Cathedral Church of Christian- 
sand, a brother of Dr. Horn's biographer, of a book entitled 
Lov og Naade ^ (i. e, * Law and Grace/ an abbreviation for * The 
place of the Law in the Kingdom of Grace *). Recognizing, as 
Brochmann says, with sorrow, the impotence of the Norse State 
Church and the dissolution going on within ft, he aimed at 
restoring harmony and power by setting law and duty in their 
proper and recognized place within the Kingdom of Grace. Thol 
question the book sought to answer was— Has the Norwegian 
State Church managed to preserve its heritage inviolate, and are 
its priests worthy preachers of the Law and the Gospel ? or has 
the Law been practically set aside, to the injury of the preaching, 
as the result of an original obliquity of vision, thus distorting, or. 
falsifying, or minimizing the Church's teaching about the LawH 
Brochmann's conclusion is that, from the very first, the theory 
of the Law held by the Norse Church has not accurately 
corresponded with what was intended by Luther and the Re- 
formers ; that the Church cannot attain its purpose without 
revising its standards of doctrine, * returning to the forsaken 
paths of our fathers ' ; ahd that the restoration of the old will 

* Chriatianjii, 1694. 


demand, as is frequently the case, that some portions must be 
rebuilt. Brochmann acknowledged that in Norway from many 
pulpits the Gospel had been preached from full hearts and the 
Saviour's love bad been pictured with earnestness and power^ but 
the result had been disappointing. ' The Word of God is 
preached one-sidedly. Christ is preached, but the people arc 
taught more to contemplate and listen to Him than to do what 
He has commanded.' He holds that in a sermon ' the humbling 
words, the words that go home, are the best and most precious.* 
Brochmann does not deny that the preacher will find a difRculty 
in preaching the Law so as to lead to Christ, and preaching 
Christ so as to secure fidelity; in preaching the Law so that 
it does not interfere with Grace, and preaching Grace so that it 
does not hinder the effect of the Law. There is an apparent 
chasm between the Law and the Gospel; and if the dualism 
is to be removed the doctrinal definition of the Law must be 
recast The book enters most thoroughly and carefully into 
all the questions involved in prosecuting the question to be 
elucidated, and it specially asks for a new statement or definition 
of the Atonement One would have thought that such a de- 
liverance, wisely weighed, calmly reasoned and clearly put, 
could hardly fail to lead to searching of heart in the Norse 
Church, and to proposals for remedying the defects indicated. 
The book, of course, is not free from defects, and the author 
makes a quite uncalled-for and gratuitous charge against the 
Free Lutherans and other Norw^ian dissenters, who in some 
respects seem by their freedom from State control to have been 
able to modify their standards in the directions desired. 

Law and Grace was received at first with almost universal 
favour by the secular press and also by the Church ms^azines. 
But ere long the book was made the object of a vehement attack 
by the author's own superior. Bishop Heuch, who thereby 
originated the * Christiansand Polemic,' which evoked interest in 
every comer of the land. Klaveness, in For Kirke og Ktdtur, 
ranged himself unreservedly on the side of Brochmann. Prof. 
Mydberg, of Upsala, championed his cause most powerfully, and 
his journal Ths Biblical Enquirer carried on the fight in Sweden. 
In Denmark and all through Scandinavian America the con- 
troversy was followed wiUi interest and suspense; but Brochmann, 


omflHng to dispute with his Bishop, left his book to speak 
teeiil One has difficulty in understanding the Bishop s vehemence, 
fib inconsistency and his lack of charity. Underneath the 
controversy lay a great question — Is a Xonvegian priest entitled 
fieety to think about and discuss doctrinal problems, or must he 
have the bishop's pennisston to think and speak and wdte about 
the detuls of the Creed? FteMliy that was the issue that 
roused the Norse clergy, for imdbq b tedly them were many who 
did not sympathize with Brochmann's reasons, although they had 
arrived at hi^ »oni other premises, and they rebelled 

agutnst the U. ..^t. v...,,arrajitcd reading of lessons to abetter 
scholar and abler disccraer of the times tiian himself. 

Bishop Heuch stamped Brochmann as a rationalist and hereticv 
cieskring that he turned Christ into a lay figure to be used only 
htesusc He was there and could not decently be passed by. His 
^ I fc iO f y of justification ' is 'as old as rationalism itself ; it ia ' m 
slUrp contrast to the Churches doctrine/ 'The God and the 
children of God whom Brochmann represents are the old progeny 
of rationalism, to whom he has given new clothes that he may 
daeiKdy p r aM ii t thetn 'ildi-en. He 'converts 

6EMl'teOJi:geiddold - c had never been bom 

it would not have mattered much.' He holds that Brochmanits 
preacfaiiig is quite silent about what we call ' Christ in us/ and 
that this stleiice has gone oft ' Sunday alter Sunday for yeais.' 
' To Brochmann grace in Christ is not ail/ and in his preaching we 
do not learn ' that we in Jesus Christ, our God and brother, have a 
real Saviour who does and sulfersfor us all that we cannot ourselves 
accomplish.' Consequently Brochmann's teaching is non^hristianL 

This was a terrible onslaught by the Bishop on the priest of 
his Cathedral Church, and one is inclined to fancy that th ere 
must be more than the book behind the charges* But it was the 
book that was challenged, and the Bishop had to justify himsdf 
from the book. He ingenuously disarms criticism by saying, 
' I am no scholar and am unable to quarrel with Mr. Brochmann 
for his escegeticai interpretations^ or to examine the whole 
apparatus he has employed to set up his system/ But this is 
just a confession that he is not entitled to criticijse, nor able to 
appreciate the proofs produced, partly from Scriptuie, partly from 
die nature and essence of the Christian faiths which had ted 




Brochmann to the conclusions arrived at. The only justification 
attempted by the Bishop is quite inadequate to convict Broch- 
mann of being a rationalist, or of heterodoxy ; and the two or 
three passages Heuch quotes are severed from the context^ and 
are incapable of bearing the interpretation placed upon them. 

The Bishop writes,* Some may deny me the right to hold that 
Law and Grace contains pernicious heresy, but since I hold that 
opinion I have not been able to act otherwise than I have done.' 
What is expected of a bishop who detects ' pernicious heresy ' in 
one of the clergy in his diocese, especially in the Cathedral Church? 
Is it sufficient that he write a few newspaper and magazine 
articles? If he is watching over the interests of his diocese he 
ought to warn the congr^ation gainst the heretical teaching of 
the priest, and to report the matter to the Church authorities and 
demand the removal of the heretic As a matter of fact. Law 
and Grace gave no warrant for the Bishop's vehemence. 
Brochmann's book shows that he is no rationalist. He believes 
in the Divinity of Christ, the miraculous conception, the resurrec- 
tion of the Lord, salvation of grace through Christ, the second 
advent, the authority of scripture, and so on. The Bishop would 
never have succeeded in convicting Brochmann of heresy ; and 
he seems at length to have recognized the fact, for he neither 
denounced him in the Cathedral, nor reported him to the Depart- 
ment of State for the Church. Heuch gave out that he was 
writing a book fully setting forth his charges against Brochmann 
and others who held views of a similar nature or tendency that 
were deserving of vituperation and condemnation. But Jie wisely 
let the matter drop ; the book did not appear, and Brochmann 
remained in possession of the field. Bishop Heuch now takes up 
quite a gracious and friendly attitude to the author of Law and 
GracCy since he has come to understand what Brochmann from 
the very first had told him, that if he knew him, if he would take 
the trouble to understand him, he would find in him an ally 
rather than a foe. The Bishop, however, was to learn that 
although Brochmann was unwilling to do more in the prosecution 
of his crusade, yet other men were ready to take up the parable 
against the Norwegian Church and its theology; and these went 
further far than Brochmann, and their views were worthy of 
much more scathing denunciation. 



Some two years ago Klaveness set the whole of Norway in 
commotion by a lecture in which he attacked the Christiania 
public for their homage to the Danish poet Drachmann and the 
singer Miss B, Lassen, who had openly transgressed all the ordinary 
conceptions of permissible intercourse between a married man 
and an lanmarried woman. Morgenbiadet, one of the leading 
journals of Norway, and many other newspapers, repeatedly 
attacked him. Even the Luther sk Kirketidende kept him at 
a respectful distance ; and the Bishop of Christiania was induced 
by Miss Lassen s relatives to give Klaveness a public rebuke. 
But other ministers, among them Brochmann, took the side of 
Klaveness ; and in the end he and his co-editor of For Kirke og 
Kulttir won the day* But Klaveness was so exhausted by the 
numerous blows and attacks directed against him that he had 
to obtain a long leave of absence in order to recover strength. 

He had scarcely returned from abroad before he appeared at 
the Conference of Lutheran Clergy, at Lund in Sweden, in 1901, 
and delivered a lecture on ' Modem Indifferent ism and the 
Church/ which gave rise to a most heated discussion both at the 
meeting and following it. 

Klaveness began his lecture by proposing the questions ; Why 
do not our men go to church ? And what must be done to draw 
them ? Men, he says, do not despise religion or deny faith in 
God or Christ ; they do not attack the Church or its doctrines, 
or its service, or its priests ; they let these go for what they are 
worth. But they reserve to themselves the right to do as tliey 
please •, and as they think they have no need for the Church they 
choose to be indifferent. These are men with modern culture ; 
and this modern culture has a wonderful faculty for spreading far 
and wide. This religious indifference of men is at least in part 
a heritage from the free-thinking propaganda of the last genera- 

One great stone of stumbling to which Klaveness directs 
attention is, that Church leaders and priests are often afraid of 
free enquiry and scientific examination of the Bible and its 
dogmas, a fact of which Bishop Heuch's action in the ' Christian- 
sand Polemic ' supplies an instance. Yet it is liberty that has 
brought to Europe and to particular countries such immeasurable 
progress in moral as well as in material respects. Norwegian 


preachers^ in many cases, are not only afraid of progress, but they 
oppose it ; and the most vehement resistance of the truths which 
science has discovered and of the political and social reforms 
which the age demanded has come from the Church. 

These and other causes have exercised an influence ; but the 
main cause of the desertion of the Church by the modern man is 
the preaching. The ' whine and pulpit jargon * (Klaveness never 
minces words), which preachers have inherited from former days, 
will not be tolerated now. And the matter of the preaching is 
not much better ; although the Gospel itself contains all that is 
needed to attract and charm, the attractive notes are drowned by 
notes that repel. 

Now what are these ? Among others he specifies the Trinitarian 
and Christok>gical dogmas as they are set forth in the Lutheran 
Church standards, dc^mas which nowadays no man without 
special theological training is able to understand or accept. To 
modern thought they are unintelligible^ and the modern man is 
a thinker. The modern man has even more difficulty in accepting 
that which occupies most space in sermons, viz. the doctrine of 
the Atonement in connexion with the order of salvation. The 
modem man, he says, cannot reconcile the old dogma of satis^ 
f actio vicaria with his conceptions of law and justice. That is 
bad enough; but it is worse when one minute men hear that 
Christ has d(xie and suffered all in their stead, so that they need 
not do an3rthing except only to believe themselves saved through 
Christ ; and next minute they are warned not to deceive themselves, 
for salvation is not so very simple : in order to be saved one must 
go through a succession of stages linked together — awakening, 
conversion, justification, regeneration, sanctification. Is it strange 
if many prefer in the circumstances to keep away from the church 
where such conflicting doctrines are taught ? 

Practically there is a great gulf between Culture and the 
Church. Culture has gone steadily forward, but the Church has 
lingered behind in the orthodox dogmatism of the seventeenth 
century and the pietbtic ideas of the eighteenth. The Church 
lies stranded in a by-past age, and the modern man will have 
nothing to do with what is wrecked or absolutely out of date. 

Klaveness instances the Inspiration dogma. No scientific 
theologian now holds the old mechanical Inspiration theory. 


SckncepOcnseqiiefiUyciiltiBi^ has qiiite given it lip. But Theology 
has not yiet muDged to fotnwiHr m new theory of Inspiration 
wfakb has met with general acc^vtance. Theology gropes and 
fambies ; and so the eaepioded theory of I n sfi irati on, discarded by 
Tbcology» is taught in the schoois> and is preached from the 
pulpits, inevitably draving apoo the Church the diaige that it 
teaches what it no longer brieves. 

Klaveoess points oat that the ancient Church appropriated 
ancient ctikure,and obtained firoQi it method and form and a fullness 
of thought which it combined with the GospeL Then tt gave 
the age its culture back as a Christian view of the world which 
conquered the age. The Church of the Refonnation did some- 
thii^ the ^me with the Humanism which was the culture of its 
day. The Church of the present day has not risen to the occasion. 
It has made attempts, such as ratioiialism, speculative theology, 
and the Ritschlian theology ; but only rationalism ever looked 
like succeeding. The Church life of the ntneteeoth century has 
been a reaction ; and the reacticHi was wananted and brought its 
blessing, fiut we cannot live on leactioa without sufieni^« 
Life demands progress. Culture has pro g re ss ed ; but the Church 
has not, and so an increasing indifferentism has taken possessioo 
of the cultured throng. 

Now what must the Church do to meet this lodifTerentism 
Klaveness answers that the natural conclusion from hb premises 
is» that the Church should appropnate the culture of the present 
day and give it back to the age as a Christian view of the world 
suited for present needs. But for that a religious genius like 
Augustine or Luther would be required ; and such a genius does 
not come at calL 

He therefore sa>'s: Let the clerg>* preach the Gospel and 
thereby, if possible, change the indifferentism into love for 
Christ. That is a matter of course ; but what else must be done ? 
Modem men will not come to hear. Can we compel them ? It 
will not do to use compulsion* The Church has tried that often 
enough^ and it partly does so stills-compulsory confirmation, 
first commtmion, forced catcchization, to some extent (e g. in the 
case of soldiers) even compulsory church attendance. But it is 
not seemly that the Church should rely on the State ; and the 
Church must do without the aid of the State. 




How is it to be done ? Let the Gospel be preached so that by 
its own inherent power the message will draw the indifferent so 
that they must hear, and then they will be convinced of its truth. 
But it is of no use trying, as so many do, to terrify men with the 
pangs of hell. A sensible man will not be forced or terrified into 
believing. He only believes what his conscience has testified to 
be the truth. And he cannot believe anything else, even with 
hell before his eyes. Consequently the whole style and character 
of preaching must be changed. 

Preachers must place themselves with brotherly sympathy by 
men's sides and enter into their thoughts and feelings. In this 
way they may form some idea of what amount of religious truth 
their hearers can receive, and learn how to preach that it may be 
received. That was how Jesus and the apostles acted. They 
gave the religious truth which their hearers could bear. If the 
pulpit is to win the educated men of the present day it is necessary 
to find their hearts. The modern man feels himself under a 
supreme power, which never fails to return a crop not only of what 
an individual sows but also of what his ancestors throi^h genera- 
tions and the society round about have sowed. Life becomes 
a burden, and men are ever sighing, in secret, for a Father s heart 
on which they can lean and to which they can bring their pains 
and griefs. 

Now what must be preached to such a generation ? Will it 
do to refer to Adam's guilt and sin, and to explain that God 
reckoned Adam's guilt to Christ, and Christ accepted it and paid 
the penalty ; and that we receive the benefit of Christ's sacrifice 
by faith so that God imputes it to us for righteousness ? Such 
a system of imputing and reckoning and appropriating is far too 
involved, to say the least. Christianity must be simple in order 
that men may grasp it and believe. Preaching must be simple 
like that of Christ. The preacher's message should be like this : 

* The Father-heart you sigh for, you children of the twentieth 
century, may be found. The Power which rules the world, and 
whose adamantine consistency you feel, has such a Father-heart. 
However much it may seem so, that power is no blind fate ; it is 
a Father, a holy Father, who wishes His children to become 
perfect ahd who therefore punishes their sins and trains them 
strictly; but yet a Father who forgives the penitent child, 

s£ iiciaac. cr 

'.^ rmr^ SIT I mac se icocsz ic '^ic. xcoi. jc ^siiis 

f iJEjiaMxi -misr be sit: ir zsi^r: ^aa 3k 311 ssLmcuo:. 
3V- ise Zjbm rrsET ine koiwieq^ if sir mms. T 
-msn- iz TFCrx x ixcwieoije ^ sa 25 31 p ~ 

JEW Tf -nry Sid snecz. x jcsscil jt- ' iamL- ^ay txxsl -wSL ace 
zr ivic:xinc;. 

2tiL X js TT 3ir Tsc :ir irvrr Jtsi rnic 3cc ^ Zjcw g gg ' 
jiriiusir^i 3Si:r=Ls lamxcc iuiiL i. Exer rae Saxdes ii? 351- 

me. TPz 3iake "±k l-rv if icixe ifc:^ «~!ie!t ?3ai srxs 
rieLxir is ±fi 'jcn:w*jri§e rr sii» ie sxisbis act ±ac sairt ' 
lames miy by nmui ^ but :35t: :fle Icwwie*^ rjma by a 
ddn^ vbsBL '3e 7 jv ^s^tnrs;. Course >tiu. " rjis in 
msLL ijc lad H*; jEt KIs kxtcts ^ inc iUE 3*r 
CiuntuuBxzLy 5?3iii rie Tulnit ?riff g aw&e. 3^ jcarri x 
T^CKs 2f tie 3xL inc^rvdeas ^^ ssns iw lil t^xic ia Gc»i s w2I 

SEBTi " ^oine ixt "^asas Tsime '•itfi ^jf^^tir irrcK .mi sxiscLkss xad 
iff- sn^nnsi-ss xnii v-m. 'wtii :^5c:av^ -r^ricn; imi -^ ^yhr.K 

Sn^pfeates if 3ns ami rie j:ss»rsaci ^*f sukici.^ . jinx pr^K^iii^ 
anK ^Eve ::&at jSBinaKS. Aait i cia *>c ^war J :m otti^ifc w^ 


let Christ's person and life and death and resurrection explain the 
holy, merdfiily Father-love of God. 

A priest need not confine himself wholly to such preaching as 
has been indicated. If he has more which is his own personal 
experience, and if he is certain his hearers have the power to 
receive more, then he can give more. But the preacher must 
confine himself, if he is to gather round him those who are 
indifieient, to such simple subjects as have been indicated, for 
comparatively few have the qualifications for receiving more. 
And even faithful church attenders are not able to take in much 
more. Our artificial exegesis and complicated dogmatics fiy over 
their heads. They secretly sigh for what is simpler and more 

In fine, preachers must get away from the preaching ' whine 
and jargon,' and begin to speak of God calmly, naturally, and 
directly, as ordinary cultured people usually speak to each other. 
And there must be shown consideration for the modem man of 
culture, who has his very good sides. If he is to be won for Christ 
it will be by setting forth a fuller and simpler Christianity than 
the old. The modem man is here, and the Lord gives the pulpit 
the task to win him for the kingdom of heaven. To win him, 
preachers must love him, love him with all his faults and weak- 
nesses and sufferings and fermenting unrest and doubts. The 
modem man has often been unjustly condemned ; he has often 
been unwarrantably wounded. He must be loved. Preachers 
need a new baptbm of the Spirit. They should pray for the 
fiillness of the Spirit that they may be able to understand the age, 
and feel for it, and find their way to its heart * Oh, for a clergy 
anointed by the Spirit of the Lord to preach the Gospel to the 
diildren of our SLgeJ 

When Klaveness delivered his lecture at Lund, and when 
Jansen reviewed Hamack's Essence of Christianity in a way 
whidi even his friends disapproved. Bishop Heuch again took up 
his pen, considering that now he had something more dangerous 
still than Law and Grace to battle with, and his book was issued 
under the title Against the Stream ^. No religious or theological 
book has caused such a sensation in Norway. It went through 

^ Mad SirS$tumM, Chnstiania, 190a. 



six editions in a single year, and that in a country with only half* 
the population of Scotland ; and it has called forth support and 
opposition in every dale and hamlet of the land. It has been 
followed by Svar (* Rejoinder ') from the Bishop's hand, in answer 
to the attacks nnade on him and his position ; and the controversy 
is only now beginning to subside. Not merely the theological 
and religious press but the daily newspapers and weekly journals 
teemed with articles, reviewing the various phases of the con- 
troversy. Laymen held great gatherings and passed votes of 
thanks to the Bishop for his book ; and even from America such 
a congratulatory address has recently come. Last year Heuch was 
invited to Stockholm to a clerical congress, where he was fdted in 
an extraordinary fashion ; and King Oscar took the opportunity of 
decorating him with the Grand Cross of the Order of the North Star. 

Bishop Heuch's book is uncompromisingly conservative. It 
was called forthj as we have seen, by the lecture of Klaveness 
at Lund, and it deals both with that lecture and with certain 
related modern tendencies. The Bishop skilfully avoids attacking 
Gustav Jensen (the only person he seems to be afraid of), not so 
much because of the views he holds, since Jensen is distinctly 
progressive and outspoken, and his theology is very liberal in 
expression and tendency^ as because of the universal popularity 
and authority of the man. But he hales before his tribunal 
Profs. S. Michelet and Lydcr Brun, with Chr. Bruun, Jens 
Gleditsch, and others. It is even said that, when his former 
friend and colleague Dean Faerden sent Heuch his book on 
T/te Old Testament in the Light of Modern Biblical Research ^ 
the Bishop returned it unread. One interesting fact is that in 
Against the Stream Heuch most significantly avoids Brochmann 
and Law and Grace ; partly, doubtless, because he had burnt 
himself severely in the former controversy, partly because he had 
come to see that Brochmann was after all not so radical and 
certainly not nearly so extreme as Klaveness and the others, 
whose opinions were, as he believed, so flagrantly unorthodox, 
rationalistic, and heretical. 

Heuch is a fearless warrior wielding his sword with a skill and ] 
vigour that many a younger man might envy. However much ' 
we disagree with his treatment of his opponents and his mode of 
setting forth his views, we must admire his evident honesty 


of pufpose^ his v^our of language and his clearness of expression* 
But when he blames his adversaries for want of clearness the 
chaiige returns upon himself; for the lack of understanding is not 
due so much to the obscurity of the writers as to the Bishop's 
inability to look at the questions from their point of view. 
Perhaps, also, he is incapable of grasping the fact that they are 
trying to meet new conditions of life and tendencies of the age 
which he either does not see or does not appreciate, conditions 
and tendencies with which he certainly does not sympathize. 

Against the Stream is controversial from first to last. It is 
directed against the attempts of certain Norwegian theologians, 
some named, others unnamed, to throw a bridge over the diasm 
between the modem consciousness and the Christian faith, between 
culture and Christianity ; attempts which Bishop Heuch thinks 
will only lead to rationalism and freethoi^ht, and are merely 
an echo from extreme German theology. 

In his introduction Heuch tries to show that during the last 
decade the word Christian has gradually gone out and been 
replaced by religious \ that the Norwegian clei^ are seeking 
more and more to ' convert their sermons into religious lectures, 
so stripped of ever3rthing definitely Christian that the preacher 
might just as weU be a Jew or a Unitarian.' This method of 
procedure will make religion more palatable and marketable, 
they seem to think, and ' it is better to get a little sold, than to 
be left with the whole stock on hand.' But this stinting of the 
Christian preaching, until it contains merely universal religious 
truths, is a treason against Christianity. Christianity is the 
perscmal relation to God through faith in Jesus Christ What 
God demands is not that we shall attempt to do as much good 
as possible, but that we shall confess the evil of our utterly 
depraved hearts. Morality, he holds, in multitudes of cases, leads 
only to self-righteousness, and thereby becomes a hindrance to the 
salvation of the soul. ' The full-toned preaching of the Gospel is 
to these moralists a nauseous drink composed of unsalted silliness^ 
unsettled extravagance and mawkish sentimentality, which they 
cannot swallow.' It may be ' very difficult to say what relaxes 
and deadens consciences more, whether a life in vice or the 
ordinary self-righteousness of respectability which satisfies itself 
with always fulfilling something of the law.' 


The * new preaching ' which is demanded by Norwegiaa * theo* 
logical authorities' consists m the attenipt, out of respect to tJat 
great majority in our age who have a weakly developed religious 
sense, to show them a way to heaven ' meantifhik^ without their 
having anything at all to do with Christ, by merely praying th& 
good-natured Universal Father to forgive them their sin because^ 
they are sorry and have good intentions/ These preachers will^ 
according to the Bishop, 'meanwhile* first make the godless ration-^ 
alistsj and thereafter Christians ; although German rational isticr; 
theologians, from whom Norwegian * scientific theologians * have 
derived their novelties, only try to make people rationalists. And 
then they clothe their preaching with some rags of Christian 
precept which conceal what is underneath. The Bishop says that, 
of course, none of the new men deny the Divinity of Christ, but 
all the same they reduce Him to a religious genius, pj-actically 
saying that God has come into the world without serious purpose. 
What really faces us is this : ' Rationalism preached by Christian 
men who know not what they do/ 

In the section on -The Words of the Cross,* the Bishop 
attacks the scientific theologians who try to explain the con- 
nexion and reasonableness of the thoughts which are realized 
in the work of salvation ; but they only manage ' to illuminate 
Mont Blanc with a night- light' Their many theories of the 
Atonement merely serve to make the Christian faith ridiculous. 
Heuch says that according to Klaveness Christ's death on the 
Cross was necessary as a * seal ' of His preaching of God's love. 
Thereby the crucifixion becomes nothing but an ordinary martyr- 
death. If it was nothing more, there was no necessity for God 
to send His Son into the world at all. 

Another characteristic of modern preaching, in the Bishop's 
eyes, is the increasing use of the name ' Jesus of Nazareth/ 
That name was used in the Bible by those who did not believe on 
Him, 'That the German rationalists who deny Christ*s Divinity 
represent Jesus as a mere man is only natural ; to them He is 
but the prophet from Nazareth. But that our transition theo- 
logiansj who assert that they believe on Christ as God and Man, 
and do believe so, can fancy that they may follow the Germans 
here is to me inconceivable/ 

Heuch also discusses the danger which threatens the faith 



from Biblical Critidsin, if it is not properly met. It is not 
through erudite studies we come to certainty about the truth 
of God's word, but through the power of the word itself. It 
would not be a good thing if it should be said, 'This man is 
clever enough to be saved, but that man is not sufficiently 
endowed to attain to a scientific knowlec]^ of the truth.' The 
Church would then be dependent on the shifting views of science. 
* If we are to be the slaves of men, then it would be better to 
believe the Pope than the theologians. For the Pope is only 
one, and his teaching is ever the same ; but the theologians are 
as numerous as the flies in summer and so are their scientific 

The Bishop attacks all who wish progress in theology and 
preaching ; ' not only the new theology, but, in a certain sense, 
all theology even the most orthodox, since I deny its right and 
power to prepare more or less logical theories in defence of God*s 
great works,' Theology has at all times injured the faith, there- 
fore *Away with all theology' is the burden of the Bishop's 
book. Theology, of course, has always had a desperate incli- 
nation to think. The only theolc^;y that Heuch will have is 
a theology that must not think. Immediately there is a conflict 
between faith and thought, the door is slammed in the face of 
thought, and the Bishop cries Cre<io quia absurdunt. The 
theology of every age has been based on reason ; but it is very 
s^nificant that Heuch closes his book by telling us that ratioiud 
is synonymous with raiionaiisHc. 

The Bishop expects opposition to his book, but he does not 
fear the opposition ; nor does he fear defeat. Only, he is afiaid 
that the conflict will challenge the personal relation to God of 
the various individuals mentioned, and he does not wish that ; 
he has only aimed at what they teach, not at what they are. 

Against the Stream is really an assault on theology, and it 
passes sentence on theologians. The assault is vehement, and 
the sentence is the extreme penalty of the law. The Chiu-ch is 
called to arms to rise and defend its sanctuaries. The Bishop's 
strong words are the words of a man with intense convictions ; 
and such a man's words are seldom without effect. But unfor- 
tunately Heuch has laid himself open to charges of unfidmess, 
lack of charity, and even dishonesty ; and as these have been 

VOL. V. C 


broi^ht home to him the case he tried to make out has in many 
respects sofiered if not failed. 

Klaveness has defended himself by dedarii^ that the Biidiop 
has misinterpreted his teaching, and he has published TAe Cam^ 
JUct of To-day'^^ a volume of sermons bearii^ on the points 
^)ecially aimed at by the Bi^iop. In this volume, and in \a^ 
larger and very popular The Gospel far To-day\ he has set:^ 
forth his views plainly and clearly. He wishes all to knov^ 
exactly what he does preach and teach, and why. In manjr 
cases the Bishop has undoubtedly misinterpreted or misunder- 
stood Klaveness, but there are striking blanks blowing diat 
Klaveness does not preach 'the whole GospeL' Yet absence 
of mention does not warrant the charge of denial of the truths ; 
and the burning eloquence and human sympathy manifested 
show the preacher's love for souls and his love for die nxxlem 
man, and quite explain his immense popularity. 

Then again, four of the leading writers and theologians chal- 
lenged by name in Against the Stream subscribed a disclaimer, 
categorically den3rii^ that they held certain of the views attri- 
buted to them, and they maintained that no fidr-minded reader 
could place on the language they had used the construction 
Heuch had given it. In various instances, to make his case 
strong, the Bishop has taken clauses or sentences from dieir con- 
texts, and at least in one important passage he charged a word 
so as completely to pervert the sense and meaning of the author. 
And by his silence, as well as by repeating in subsequent editions 
of his book instead of withdrawing the assertions or misinter- 
pretations complained of, the Bishop has alienated the sympathy 
and lost the support of many who sided iK-ith him in his main 
contention. In Norway, as in other lands, there is a tendency 
to side with the weak and with those unfairly treated whatever 
the r^hts of the case may be. 

The Bishop himself is excessively sensitive to criticism and 
opposition. One is unconsciously led to fancy that his vanity 
has been touched by the opposition he has met. He seems to 
have been popular at school and college and as a minister in his 
pre-episcopal da3rs. But he seems to be afraid of his reputation 

' I D^lims Stride Christttnia, 1903. 

s E»mmgdktfitrkjmdifi»rNw6inL, ^ eiL, Cbristania, 190a. 



now that so many, whom he expected to support him, have 
upbraided him for his unchristian mode of fighting and for his 
lack of charity. 

His health broke down under the strain of the controversy, 
and it was only with difficulty and with the aid of his secretary, 
to whom he dictated his Rejoinder ', that he got ready the book. 
It summed up what he had to say in meeting arguments he 
could not overlook, and it repeated practically without discount 
all he had said about the ' transition theologians ' and the ten- 
dency of the * new preaching ' in Against the Stream^ 

Heuch's main charge against his opponents, then, is that they 
are secret rationalists and are prepared to convert the Gospel 
into nothing but morality. They most indignantly and unani- 
mously deny the charge. Klaveness goes further than any 
other and further than most are prepared to go. But he is no 
rationalist, if his sermons are any criterion of his creed. He 
distinctly maintains the Divinity of Christ, the miraculous Con- 
ception, the genuineness of the miracles, the Resurrection, &c., 
although it must be acknowledged that he makes less of the 
Atonement than is desirable, and his doctrine concerning it is 
not cast in the usual mould. So far as the evidence goes, 
although there are some indications that the waves of rationalism 
from Germany are lapping the Norwegian strand, not one priest 
or theolc^cal professor in Norway is to-day a complete 

The impression as to the main results of the controversy 
which remains, afler perusing carefully newspaper columns, 
magazine articles, pertinent pamphlets, and the controversial 
books, is that there was some reason for the Bishop's protest 
against the neglect of certain fundamental truths, and against 
the emphasis laid on less essential points of the Christian faith 
and life. In Norway, the essence of Christianity, the Atone* 
ment of Christ, may have been in danger of being forgotten 
or lost sight of, and possibly in some quarters there may have 
been a desire to replace Christianity with a universal religion 
based on the first article of the Apostles* Creed. But the 
Bishop's book would leave on one the impression that the preach- 
ing in Norway is far worse than it reaJly is^ at any rate, the 

^ Sfwr, 3rd ed, Christiania, 1903. 



Bethlehem. The weakness in Heuch is that his theology, with- 
out his knowing it, is scholastic rather than biblical; when it 
comes to the point, it is even rationalistic in so far as it is a 
product of human reason, of human thinking, but not faithful to 
revelation, biblical. 

Along with Gustav Jensen and the recently deceased Prof. 
Fr. Petersen, there is no doubt that Thv. Klaveness and Bishop 
Heuch have been the best men of the Norwegian Church for 
many years. Norway may well thank God for them. The 
two opponents, Heuch and Klaveness, have both in a high degree 
• the failings of their virtues ' ; and the one has no right to say 
to the other * I have no need of thee.' Against the Stream and 
the subsequent controversy have led the Norse in every comer 
of the country to think and speak about religious and theological 
questions with results that can only be for the good of the 
Chiu-ch and the benefit of true religion. Klaveness and those 
who support him will doubtless see that Heuch and his comrades 
neither lead Norway back to a cast-iron orthodoxy nor bring 
about a paralysis of theological thought. And Heuch and his 
host will be able to give the opposite tendency, the * transition 
theologians ' and the champions of the ' new preaching,' a forcible 
lecture on reverence for the old doctrines, a lecture which it will 
probably do them no harm to hear. Bishop Heuch will thus 
by his vehement appearance Against the Stream have helped 
to turn the stream into a better channel. 

J, Beveridge. 




The eleventh century was until its closing years a period 
decadence in the Greek monasteries of South Italy. They in- 
creased in numbers during this periodj but their character was 
lowered Probably the older monasteries sent out on every side 
colonies of monks who left the parent house, not from any desire 
to propagate their faith, or to lead a more religious life, but 
from the wish to leave companions whom they disliked. There 
was not much to prevent this* The monasteries were not rich, 
there was no tradition of splendid buildings ; anyone who wished 
could easily start a new monastery. 

Even in the older monasteries the standard of life was going- 
down, if we may judge from the scanty evidence which we 

This is to be found in the Life of S. Philaretus* already 
mentioned, which presents a very different picture to that given 
by the earlier Lives. There is no mention of any especial know- 
ledgCj or of intellectual pursuits ; no mention of the production 
of manuscripts ; manual labour and useless asceticism are the 
features which are prominent. 

Philaretus was first a herdsman, afterwards a gardener in the 
monastery of AuHnas ; he was energetic in these occupations 
and he was renowned for those austerities of asceticism which were 
as fashionable in ancient monasteries as athletics are in a modern 
college. Hence he became famous. He and all the other monks 
of the first half of the eleventh century seem to have lost the energy 

* A. SS. Apr. i p. 605 C 


and spirituality of their predecessors, and retained only the un- 
essential element of extreme asceticism. 

Monasticism therefore was in need of new life at the dawn of 
the Norman period, and it was to a curiously mixed and confused 
country that the Normans came. There were to be found in 
the South of Italy three distinct races — Lombards, Greeks, and 
Arabs. The former predominated in the North, the two latter 
in the South of the district Each had its own customs and 
language, and — the point which is important for our present pur- 
pose — ^there were scattered about over the whole country a great 
number of monasteries of the Basilian order, which, with the rest 
of the Greek world, was strongly opposed to Rome, and looked 
to Constantinople for inspiration. 

There was little order to be found in any sj^ere of life ; there 
was no organization, no real system of responsibility; and to 
introduce order was the first task of the Normans, when once the 
conquest was complete. 

They allowed the customs and titles which they found in use 
to remain. Even so late as the thirteenth century we find 
references to * exarchs,' * strategi/ and * themes.' 

But in spite of this superficial preservation of the old order 
they produced a profound difference, by the introduction of the 
feudal system. It is only necessary here to notice the effect 
of this change on the ecclesiastical side. It may be summed up 
as producing two great alterations : (i) the Latinization of many 
churches and monasteries; (2) the establishment of certain Basilian 
monasteries to control in a new manner the Greek monastic life 
of the districts in which they were planted. 

(i) The Latinization of Greek churches and monasteries. 
There can be no doubt that this process was justified in two 
ways: there came with the Norman conquest a g^reat increase 
in the number of Latin-speaking inhabitants, who looked on the 
Pope of Rome rather than the Patriarch of Constantinople as the 
head of their Church ; and also there was, no doubt, even before 
the Norman conquest, an unnecessary number of Basilian monas- 
teries and Greek churches in a country which, in the Basilicata 
at least, was by no means purely Greek. 

The Latinization of the churches was swiftly accomplished: 



by the beginning of the twelfth century, the four metropolitan 
sees, Reggio, Tarentum, Otranto, and Santa Severina, and many 
of the suffragan sees, were in Latin hands. 

But the process was not pushed beyond the limits of justice* 
In 1096, in appointing a Latin bishop to SquiUace, Roger ex- 
pressly gives as his reason that the bulk of the population i^ 
Latin. *Ego Rogerius/ he says in his charter', * Siciliae corned 
et Calabriae coepi condolere casui et ruinae , , . ubi tanta vigebat 
Nonnandorum copia, pontificalis et Latina nondum extiterat 
ecclesia^ etc/; and so we find that in the Aspromonte, where the 
Christian population must have been almost purely Greek, the 
Greek bishoprics remain. It is not until long afterwards that 
Rossano, Bova, Stiio, Oppido, etc., become Latin. 

As it was with the sees so it was with the monasteries. Many 
of these became Latinized, and passed under the Benedictine 
instead of the Basilian rule. But the policy of the Normans 
effected in their case a further change. Before their time each 
monastery J with but few exceptions, was a separate community. 
It managed its own affairs, subject to the nominal control of the 
bishop of the diocese, and there was no cohesion betw^een the 
different houses. This was abhorrent to the Normans^ and there- 
fore many of the Basilian monasteries %vere given to the great 
Benedictine houses of La Cava and Monte Cassino, 

Such was the fate of many small foundations, which seem to 
have sprung up only in the eleventh century; e.g. Kur*zosimo, 
which was given to La Cava, and is mentioned more than once 
in the Codex Diphnnatiais Cavensis ^, though I cannot find the 
original deed of gift. 

(2) The establishment of new Basilian Greek monasieriis. It 
would at first seem as though this process were the exact opposite 
of the former. But it is not really so. The Normans were not 
so much concerned to banish Greek ecclesiastical life as to take 
away from it its unfair preponderance in districts where the 
majority of the population was Latin, and to introduce in districts 
which were truly Greek a spirit of order which was lacking. 
Obviously in the latter case Latinization would have been both 
unfair and useless. But it was possible to adapt the principles 

* Ughetli, liaHa Sacra^ IX, p, 591 ». 

• e.g. vol. vlii, p« 206, II Gccck chflrter. 


of the feudal system to Greek life, as well as to bring Greek 
life under the operations of the feudal system, already estab- 
lished among the Latins. 

To establish, then, the feudal system in those Greek monas- 
teries which were really necessary, when the unnecessary ones 
had been Latinized, was the object of their policy. It required 
a considerable modification of the existing condition of the 
Basilian monasteries. 

It would be difficult to state exactly what was the rule of the 
Greek Church about monastic property. It is fortunately not 
necessary for the present purpose to attempt to do so, for it is 
at least certain that the Basilian rules never contemplated the 
existence of an abbot who was a kind of territorial lord, such as 
the Norman feudal system made him. 

To modify the existing monasteries in this way seems to 
have been generally beyond the power of the Normans, and they 
therefore established Greek houses in various districts, endowed 
them richly, and put the smaller and older houses into their 

The chief monasteries which were founded in the pursuit, of 
this policy are S. Elias at Carbo, which may be an exception 
to the general rule, and really be an old monastery ; S. John the 
Reaper, at Stilo ; S. Mary of Patira, at Rossano ; and S. Nicholas 
of Casola near Otranto. 

I propose to bring together some of the more important facts 
in the history of three of these monasteries ^ separately, but at 
this point it may be well to show their general importance. 

It will be noticed at once that they seem intended to manage 
the different districts of the country. 

The Greek part of the Norman kingdom may be roughly said 
to have consisted of fotu- districts: (x) the Aspromonte ; (2) the 
Sila ; (3) the district to the north and west of the Sila, which 
runs up into the Basilicata ; (4) the heel of Italy. 

To each of these districts a great convent is allotted. S. John 

> I would have added the story of the fourth, S. John the Reaper, but for the 
fact that, except for a late and untrustworthy life in the ^. 55. and four deeds 
referring to lawsuits in Montfaucon*s PaUuog. Gratca^ there seems to be no material 
for its histoiy. RodoU dismisses it in a few lines, though he says that it was 
acknovdedged as the chief of the Basilian monasteries in Calabria. 



the Reaper dominates the Aspromonte, though it must be noted 
that the little monasteries in the south of the Aspromonte * are 
placed under the great Sicilian monastery of S. Sal vat or, at 
Messina, which was so much nearer to them* S. Mary of Patira 
dominates the Sila and the adjacent valley. S. Elias dominates 
the Basilicata and, roughly speaking, the land north of the SQa, 
a huge district stretching away to the East as far as Ban. 
S. Nicholas of Casola dominates the heel of Italy. 

One is therefore justified in regarding these four monasteries 
as the great Basilian houses of the Norman period, and in seeing 
in their position the result of the Norman policy. 

It is also possible to some extent to see who, among the 
monks, were the instruments of the Norman policy, though 
the sources of information often fail us. 

The most important was Bartholomew of Simeri, At least it 
is of him tliat we have the fullest knowledge, so that we must be 
content to take him as a specimen of the little group of Greek 
monks who carried out the Norman policy. 

Bartholomew* was a Caiabrian, who came from Simeri', a 
small town near Catanzaro, and lived on the banks of a torrent 
called Melitinum, which has not been identified, though, if one 
may judge from the census list of Rossano * in the fifteenth cen- 
tury, there was a monastery * there down to a comparatively late 
date. After a time he moved, quite in the spirit of Ellas Junior, 
to a more desolate district, in pursuit of quiet, but attracted other 
monks to him by the fame of his virtue. He wished to leave 
them*^, as Cosmas and Vitalb left Melicucca, but a vision of 
S. Mary changed his purpose, and he determined to found a 
monastery. This was the turning-point of his career. In order 
to raise an endowTnent for his foundation he went in i ioa-3 to 
Christodulos ", an official of the court of Queen Adelaide and 
her young sons. It w^as a critical moment in the history of the 
Normans, whose power was weakened by tlic death of Roger I. 
They probably felt the need of conciliating the large Greek 
population, and so Christodulus introduced Bartholomew to the 

' e,g. S. Fuundtts of SciU« and S. PhiUrctus of Auliiuie. 

* His life b published la the A. SS. Sept. viii p. 794 fil 

* A. SS. torn. ctt. p„ All B. * L'Aihmym Jt RossamtK p. Itj £. 
s Sometiines also caHeil Trigona. * A, SS. torn. tsL p. 8174. 
^ A. SS, tan. ciL pw S17C. 



court The Royal family received him warmly, endowed him 
liberally, and insisted that he should be made the abbot of the 
monastery. He was ordained by the Bishop of Gunaecopolis \ 
which is said to be Belcastro, and the King (or rather, I suppose, 
Queen Adelaide) obtained a bull from the Pope ^ granting * im- 
mediacy ' to the monastery \ 

In this way, Bartholomew was the agent of the Norman policy 
in founding S. Mary's of Patira, but according to his Life this 
does not exhaust the record of his work. 

About the year iia6, Bartholomew was accused by the Bene- 
dictine monks of heresy*. He was acquitted, and Roger, in 
order to show his confidence, or perhaps because his attention 
had again been drawn to the capable character of the monk, at 
once invited him to foimd a monastery at Messina ", to dominate 
Sicily, just as S. Mary's at Rossano dominated the Sila. Bar- 
tholomew of course assented, and dedicated his new monastery 
to S. Salvator; but it is remarkable that in order to fill his 
monastery he did not draw upon Sicily, but brought a dozen 
monks from Rossano, one of whom, Luke by name, he appointed 
abbot. He obtained from Roger a charter, which gave him not 
merely the supremacy over all the Greek houses in Sicily then 
existing, but also over all which should be founded at any future 

These two foundations, S. Mary's of Patira and S. Salvator of 
Messina, are the only two monasteries which Mgr. Batiffol will 
allow to be Bartholomew's foundations; but his Life tells the 
story of his reorganization of another on Mount Athos ^, which 
was given him by a rich Byzantine named Kalimeris, and was 
known in consequence of his work as 'the monastery of the 
Calabrian.' Mgr. Batiffol rejects this story as apocryphal, chiefly 
on the ground that no such monastery is now to be found on 
Mount Athos. * Aucune trace,' he says, * de Saint-Barth^lemy, 
ni de B. Kalimeris, ni du convent de Saint-Basile dans I'histoire 
de I'Athos ''.' But Mgr. Batiffol has been misled by Langlois, for 

* A. SS, torn, cit p. 818 s. * A. SS, torn, cit p. 819 c. 

' I shall presently give the outlines of the stoiy of this foundation. Here it is 
enough to notice that this privilege of immediacy shows that the Normans were 
working on the Benedictine model, which they knew best 

* A, SS, torn, cit 833 c. * A, SS. torn, dt p^ 834 f. 

* A, SS. op. dt p. 831 c. ' VAhbay dt Roaaano, p. 7i '<• 


just as his did ; and this fact alone is enough to suggest that they 
would prove, if the evidence could be found, to belong to the 
same class as Bartholomew — the class of wise statesmanlike 
monks who carried out the policy of the Norman Court 


(i) S. Elias of Carho *. The history of this great monastery, 
which was first called S. Anastasius and afterwards S. Elias 
of Carbo, is to be found in the Historia Monasterii Carbonensis 
of Paulus Aemilius Sanctorius ^ a book full of information, but 
quite uncritical. To produce an adequate history Sanctorius's 
work must be compared with the Chronicon Carbonense in the 
Vatican archives, and the papers in the Dossier Basiliani^ in 
the same place. 

The foundation of the monastery is obscure. Sanctorius, 
following tradition, attributes it to Lucas of Demena. There 
is no evidence for this in the Life of Lucas, and I think that it is 
a purely mythical story. Lucas was the great monastic hero 
of the Basilicata, and Carbo was, in the twelfth century and 
later, the great monastery of the district, therefore it was natural 
that tradition should join Lucas and Carbo together. Further 
investigations tend to confirm this view. Sanctorius gives the 
following list of abbots, down to Nilus the second founder of the 
monastery : — 

Lucas I. Lucas III. 

Blasius I. Clemens. 

Menas. Nilus (of Grotta Ferrata). 

Stephanus Theodulus. Bartholomaeus (of Grotta Ferrata). 

Lucas 11. Climius. 

Blasius II. Nilus of Rossano. 

This list is very suspicious. Nilus and Bartholomaeus are 
clearly insertions : we can show an cdibi for both of them. They 
were either at Tusculum or already dead *, at the time when 

* I believe that Carbo is the correct form, but on modem maps it is Carbone. 
' All the deeds quoted in this section are taken from this book. 

* If tiie deed referred to below be genuine Blasius II lived in 1077, when Nilus 
had been dead more than seventy years! 



they are supposed to have been at Carbo. Further evidence, 
which does not support the list, is to be found in a deed, the 
earliest of those which refer to the monastery, given in 1077 
to the venerable Blasius by Ugo de Claromonte. According 
to this, Blasius was abbot in 1077, which is hardly conceivable 
if the list is right Lucas of Demena probably died in 993, and 
there are only five names between him and Blasius II ; Nilus of ■ 
Rossano was abbot at least before iioo, if the deed of Richard 
the Seneschal be genuine \ and the list gives five (including the 
two inserted) abbots (and Sanctorius hints at two more) for this ■ 
period. I should not be surprised to find that Blasius II is the true 
founder of the monastery, and that the names preceding him are 
apocryphal. ■ 

Mgr. BatifTol goes even further, and regards Nilus of Rossano 
as the first abbot. He thinks that Nilus was a monk of S. Mary's 
of Patira, who was sent to Carbo by Bartholomew in pursuance I 
of the Norman policy. I have no doubt that Nilus was imbued 
with the Norman spirit, but I can see no reason for making him 
a kind of agent of Bartholomew ; his life is not extant, but he 
seems to have been Abbot of Carbo by the year 1100, unless the 
deed of Richard the Seneschal be a forgery, and this is too early 
to allow us to regard him as an emissary of Bartholomew. More- 
over, was not the Norman policy in action at Carbo at J 077? i 
Unless Mgr, Batiffbl rejects the deed of Ugo de Claromonte ' 
as a forgery (I admit that the indict ion is wrong)^ I do not under- 
stand how he can refuse to recognize Blasius II as a genuine 
Abbot of Carbo. 

Leaving the uncertain subject of the foundation of the convent 
and coming to the documentary evidence of its history, it would 1 
seem that the monastery began to flourish under the patronage 
of the family of de Claromonte ^t and other Norman families who 
lived in the Basilicata. Their donations soon made the monastery 
the most important in the district, and gave it large estates and 
many churches. 

The first estate which was given to it seems to be the one 
mentioned in the deed of Ugo in 1077. This makes no reference 

* See p. 31 infra, 

' Who gave their name lo the little town, close to Carbo, of Claromonte, or, as 
it is DOW spelt, Chiaromonte. 


to any previoos benefactors ; it allows the claim of Blasius to the 
' tenimentnm ' of the monastery, and adds to it another < tenimen- 
turn ' in order that the house may be adequately endowed. 

It is difficult to trace accurately the boundary of this district, 
but it seems to mean, roi^ily speaking, the valley of the river 
Sirmi from Calavra (or Calabra) in the east up to its source in the 
west, with the high ground on each side to the north and south. 

The next great donation to the monastery was made in iioo 
by Richard the Seneschal, who gave Nilus the fields of Scanzana. 
Thb is the district which lies between the valle3rs of the Sirmi 
and the Capone, and includes part of the coast ; it is the second 
great estate of the monastery of Carbo. 

It will be noticed that there is thus left an intervening district 
between diese two great estates, and in 11 35 this district was 
also acquired by the monastery, not however as a free gift, but 
as a purchase which Nflus made for 500 ducats from Richard de 
Claromonte, and Alexander de Claromonte confirmed. 

This purchase completed the great estates of Carbo, which now 
stretched r^ht across the Basilicata, from the mountains in the 
west to the sea on the east ; but besides them Nilus had been 
busy in amassing property far and near. The following is the 
list of his chief acquisitions : I suspect that it is derived from 
the Chromcan Carbonense^ which awaits investigation and publica- 
tion in the Archives of the Vatican. 

(1) In 109a, the Church of S. Zacharias, in the Castrum 
Silicense, given to S. Anastasius of Carbo by Gulielmus Mar- 
chesius, the lord of the place, and Cecilia his wife. 

(2) In 1 105, the Church of S. Lawrence, at Cracum, given by 
Amoldus, son of IsebanL 

(3) In 1 105, the Church of S. Elias, at Bari, by Elias and 
Regnaldus, archbishop. 

(4) In 1 105, the Church of S. Barbara, in the town of Mons 
Albanus, by Robert Fortemannus, the lord of the place. 

(5) In 1 1 12, the Church of S. Peter, at Castrum Pollicori, 
and of S. Nicholas of Pestusa, by Alureda, the lady of the place. 

(6) In 1125, the Church of S. Stephen of Azupa, by Luke, 
Abbot of Rapora. 

(7) In 1 129, the fields of Scanzana, with the Church of 
S. Mary. 


(8) In 1129, S, Nicholas of Tiypa, given by Trotta, the 
daughter of Alureda (the same as the lady in (5) ?), the lady 
of the town of Myramanna (?). 

{9) In 1134, a church at • Castro Novo seu Battabarani.' 

I have not been able to identify all these places, but it is 
obvious that some of them are far outside the limits of the great 
estates of the monastery. Bari, for instance, is a little to the 
north of Brindisi, and Castro Novo ^ is in Sicily, These acqui- 
sitions in distant parts are not to be traced to mere love of pro- 
perty. The custom of the monasteries was then probably much 
what it is now on Mount Athos, and one object of having these 
Hitie dependencies is to provide hospitality for those travelling to 
and from the monastery, and also to use them as collecting-places 
for letters or presents. It was then, as it is still in Turkey, neces- 
sary to have some such helps to communication ; so that any one 
who wished to send a present to Carbo from, for instance, S. Nicolas 
of Casola would have taken it to Bari, just as now the only safe 
way of communicating with Mount Athos is through the repre- 
sentatives of the various convents in Constantinople. 

It will be noticed that in the list of possessions set out above 
mention is made of the gift of the fields of Scanzana in 1 1 29. 
I think the date is probably WTong \ and that this is a reference 
to the deed given by Boemund II in the third indiction (i,e. iiio 
or 1 1 25), confirming this estate and adding to it The fields 
of Scanzana themselves were the gift of Richard the Seneschal, 
which was confirmed by the Claromonti, also in 1125. 

In this way the monastery became rich. It is unnecessary to 
reproduce all the facts given by Sanctorius ; they are of the same 
character as those given above ; but there are certain points 
which are worth noticing. The monastery was not merely 
helped by the local Lords of Claromonte and their like, it also 
was patronized by the Royal house itself. Boemund 11, as 
mentioned above, enriched and protected it ; Roger II gave 
Nflus a charter in 115a, confirming the privileges given by 
Robert Guiscard and Boemund I (what were these?), by Richard 
the Seneschal, and by Boemund IL 



* Unless k be Castro Novo di S. Andreas* which is dose to Carbo. 

* Unless the iodiction is wron^. This seem^ a very cominoa error in the luliaa 


This deed was confirmed by William II, and it is important 
to notice that this monarch appointed the Abbot of Carbo the 
chief of all the Basilian monasteries in the district. It was also 
confirmed by Tancred in ii9iyand was apparently the great 
charter of the monastery. 

All through the twelfth century the house flourished, and 
in the thirteenth century it does not visibly lose ground, but 
there is an absence of any further great bequests, and a period 
of litigation and expensive compromise begins. 

Sanctorius gives many stories of this period ; but the fact which 
seems to dominate everything is the enmity of the family of San 
Severina of Besignano,who coveted especially the fields of Scanzana. 

Ultimately in 1477 they were successful. The monastery lost 
its suit, its abbot was imprisoned as ' litigious and possessed of a 
devil/ and one of the San Severina family became the first comf 
mendatory. Sanctorius continues its history further; but as Mgr. 
Batiffol says, from this point it is the history of a farm, rather 
than a monastery. Some of the commendatories n^lected their 
property, others took care of it and developed it, but it is quite 
unimportant for our purpose which they did. The sole point of 
interest is now the history of the library, to which I shall return 

(ii) S. Nicolas of Casola. Although this monastery in the 
twelfth and thirteenth centuries was the most important home 
of Greek monks in the land of Otranto, very much less is known 
about its history than about S. Elias of Carbo. It was, of course, 
always subject to Rome ; but its affections were nevertheless fixed 
on the Church of the East, and (if Rodota may be trusted) at 
least down to the end of the twelfth century it received fresh 
immigrations of monks from the East. 

The scanty evidence which we have of its foundation and 
history comes from a MS at Turin (ai7 b, iii a7), of which an 
account was published by M. Ch. Diehl in the Milanges d^ArMor 
kgie et d'Histaire of the French school at Rome, in April, 1886, 

The contents of this manuscript are as follows : — 

(i) ff. 1-5, a summaiy of the chief events which concern the 
history of the monastery from J 125 to ^267. There are also 
various fragments of accounts. 

VOL. V. D 







Aooofding to the Turin MS he was an abbot from 
ii53-9^biit Rodolasaysthathefloarishedin i2oi\ He wrote 
works 00 the qnestfons at issoe between the Greek and Roman 
Chnrdies^ such as ihe use of az3anes in the Eucharist, and the 
doid»k prooeasioo, tile Sabbath £ist, and the celibacy of the clergy, 
always takmg the nde of die Greeks ; and to these must be added 
die nnpoWslied Ty^con and Hypotypasis in the Turin MS. 

According to De Ferrariis * (Galatens) he founded the great 
filnary of Casola, sparing no expense, and collecting MSS from 
every part of Greece. I shall return to the history of this library 

In 1179 Pope Alexander III convened the Lateran Councfl, 
and Nectarios (the future abbot?) attended it from S. Nkholas 
id Casola. He made himself the diampion of the Greek Church, 
and v^;orously supported their customs and doctrines. The 
Gredcs were dd^ted, and George of Corfu wrote him a con- 
gratulatory letter * 

Nicholas was succeeded in 1190 by Callinicos, who only ruled 
kx five years ; he was followed by Hilarion, of whom nothing 
is known, except that he was canonised. Hilarion died in laoi, 
and then for nineteen years Nicodemos ruled the convent His 
sD c reyasor Nectarios seems to have been a learned man and a 
poet, but except lor some verses which he wrote about Nicholas 
nodiiDg is known of him. The remaining abbots are unknown 
to fiune. Their names are given by M. Diehl in the M/iofiges 
^ArcMflogie et dHisiaire, sixth year (1886), p. 180. 

The nxnastery, like all the Greek foundations, began to decline 
in the thirteenth century. In the days of Nectarios (i220>35) 
it became dq)endent on the Archbishop of Otranto, Tancred 
(▼. Ughelli, Italia Sacra IX, ooL 77 B), and paid to Rome a fixed 
tribute. In 1267 Charles of Anjon increased the r^^our of the 
dependent state ; he evicted BasO (1259-^7) and sent him to the 
monastery of San Vito del Pizzo near Tarentum, appointing the 
monk James to S. Nicholas of Casola in the name of the Pope, 
and increasii^ the tribute to fsw. ounces of gold and five tars 
yeaily. It is noticeable that it seems to have been only in the 

■ Pnhakfy Rodote has confined lua with anodier awnk wboae name reallj is 
« /V j«te Ufsgi^, p. 45. " Labbe, ComOm, x 1527 (Fun, 1671). 

D 2 



ilK. " WiruMTc 


w sfafum fa^ de 
Toxin MS. 

-fllMilW ''^^^ uK 

fact I cap ttad no isniksu Bt o£ tite &CL It 
lijr -file TitrkE m 14&1, asd jOfliaq^ ft was tAoSi it 
any iiiijKii ima r 

(Hi) ^. Mmry WMf^ff^ix, m- PaHra, at Jtanmn. Ths: oilt 
Inatw i oitb y acoMmt wbidi wc Ittve of the fonnrigtiim of ihs 
jg ronaineg in ^ic Ufe of BiuilidiaHiwr qf Snneal 
Uie is pnfalislTnd in the jcS^At Sg w cftnw lor Sqneniber, 
««Liiffi,3L79cC»£roiii Cod. Ger. a^BlHcasma^ivludh -wns-vatlBB 
JB sjA Smr much ^axSex Ac X& hylf w^ coo^uBod h 
^SSgcxSlt iD fi^r. K^ Bidfflbl si^sgeste ibe end of t^ tivcffii 

An ahBimrtiwc ^-'"■■^ Is ^nen bv Ugbelli ^^ ndiidi 
^K Jbt uA rt J i m te m aauoB Sihis^ wlio is odienrae 
about liK fCBT 3iiAb. Bdfii liie BhThwtos and 
si^ect ^ib as iwyr^Vw The fortner think -duct li is m liBd of 

Tf thir hr Twuf Tlhtiriifl 1w- rti i (|M«ii1 m tm rni pwr if 
cf ^le fluc of liHkiB flf 
aiit 4tf ihe fllihnln rf Elbs cT 

iflfatendencirtDtapf and dnm aoDie land fll 



been in Greek, but Ughelli only gives Latin \ It is such remark- 
ably bad Latin that it is worth transcribing a few sentences : — 

' Bonum et optimum ante Deum est omnes benefacientes et 
quoniam ipse mediabimini, quae midiam habuerunt nos autem 
victantem vir religiosi et sancto pronominato Bartholomaeus 
venerabili abbati desideravimus partem habere in bencficiis Eccle- 
siae Sanctae Dei Genitrix Mariae novam odigitriam, etc.* ! 

It is quite impossible to construe this deed, but the general 
meaning is plain. A certain Framundus had given Roger an 
estate in the neighbourhood of Rossano, and Roger gives this 
to Bartholomew. This estate includes the land of S. Peter's at 
Corigliano and S. Maur of Rossano. 

I doubt the authenticity of this deed. The Roger referred to 
must be Roger II, as Roger I died ifi iioi. He was in 1103 
quite a child, and one would have expected in the deed some 
reference either to Queen Adelaide or to his brother, who was 
associated with him. I suppose, however, that the gift of Fra- 
mundus, or rather of Gulielmus de Losdum, was to Roger per- 

Deeds adding to this estate were given to Bartholomew in 
II 1 1 ' by Bertlia of Loritdlo through Christodulus ; and in 11 22 ^ 
by Mabilia, the daughter of Robert Guiscard, and her husband 
William de Grantmeuil, who granted a rich estate between the 
rivers Crati and Coscili ; and there are several other deeds, a list 
of which is printed by Batiffol*: the general result of them was 
to give the monastery control over the valleys of the Crati and 
Coscili, and much property on the other side of the Sila, especially 
in the valley of the Neto, and even as far south as Isola. 

(a) TAe Period of Litigation b^^n seriously in 1222, when there 
was a lawsuit * between the monastery of Patira, as S. Mary's had 
been called since 1130, by a corruption, it is said, of Trar/x^s, and 
the monastery of S. Julian at Isola, who quarrelled about the 
possession of an estate at Isola. It was tried before the Arch- 
bishop of Cosenza, who could not decide, and referred the litigants 
to Rome or Messina. 

It is significant that Isola is one of the outlying parts of the 

I ItdUa Sacrtty IX, p. 385 a. ' Montfaucon, Paiatograpkia Gnuea, p. 396. 

> liaUa Sacra, IX, p. 387 D. * VAbbayt dt Rosaano, pp. 15-35. 

* Halia Saem, IX, p. 507. 


dbtakt domiaated by the imm i ftrf y of 
tkat to ipokness should begin at that potaL 

I do aat koov the rcsoU of the kwsojt. 

la 1245 a k»g atiiiggie ' began betveen the Ba^itiam c£ Ros- 
sno and monks of the order of Floras, whose head qnaitm wese 
at S Giovanni di Fiocc;, in the hcait of the SOa, and was oi^ 
ffi^ lfd by oompramiae twenty yeais later. The same kind of 
stoty is rqyeated, in deed after deed ; either some piece of pn>- 
pcity is ceded, or a oompromise of aneai^ensivenatDreis made- 

(3) In this way the poiod of litigation passed gndnally into 
dK period of decay. The resources of the m ooas t q y girv 
somBcr, its estates were sold or leased, and the nnmhrr of the 

At what date it passed into ' oommeoda ' I do not kaow, hot 
Rodola ' con^ilains that it does not yield the commendatory ia 
than 0,500 crowns. 


The GfcelcL mooasteries began to decline m the 
oeotnry. It would be a needless and uunteresting ta^ to tnct 
die histofy of thdr decadence in any detail, but certain chid^ 
poiMs ID the process may be pointed out 

The pfhnaiy cause of tibeir decay was the £ict that the geneial 
ciHiitf of hii loi y neoesfiitated the Latinizing or ItallaniziDg of tfi^ 
sooth of Italy and of Sidly. As I have tried to point oat, the 
Hd kp irin g of South Italy was due to special circumstances whkk 
irteiiupte d the Latin life of the locality. When the Normans 
had finally drivea out the anny of the Byzantines^ the natmal 
fm d rncy was a^un in the direction of Latinization^ in ^teech, 
in OHlomiy and in religion. As has been already shown, the 
weie qoite cooscioas of this fact, althoogh they did not 
tile process nnnatnralfy. Indeed the htSbory 
with the Greek population, and c^sectally with 
and monks, is an excellent ob}ect*les80O in 
of a oooqoered nation to loyalty. C o n sc io u siy 
ihcy proceeded on the theory, paradoadcalj 

ftmiia Smewm, IX. p. ^90. 

Graov II. ^ tfS. 


often pfofooadly true, that it is easier to diange essentials than 
af^xaiaDoes. Tbey made no attempt to alter the things which 
appealed to the senses — lai^^uage, ritual, and names <^ officials ; 
but diey introdiiced their own system o[ organization under the 
names of familiar Gfeek officials. 

For a time this added new v^ur to the Gredcs, but gradually 
it had the inevitable ^ect of making them less and less like 
other Gredca. They still used the Greek service and language, 
and a Gredc coming from Greece would at first feel that he was 
amoi^ fellow countrymen, but before loi^ he would find that 
be was really fivii^ under conditions which were new. The 
^ipeamnce was Greek, but the reality had become Latin« An 
almost exact paralld would, I believe, be the experience of a 
Frenchman of to-day gc€ng to live in the French part of Canada. 

Inevitably, then, the Gredc monasteries declined. The process 
of their decay was somewhat hastened by the constant and 
expenave litigation which went on in the thirteenth and fourteenth 
catnries. We have seen how this process gradually sapped the 
vitality of S. Mary's of Patira and S. Elias of Carbo, and their 
cases are no doubt only typicaL The only instance of any 
friction between the Greeks and Romans in which the Romans 
began the quarrel is the accusation of heresy brought against 
Bartholomew in the twelfth century, and this was at once quashed 
by Roger. Of the opposite case, in which the Greeks definitely 
set themsdves against the Romans, and did not suffer for it, two 
instances are especially striking. 

(i) Nectarios of Casola, at the Lateran Council of 1179, ^P~ 
ported the Greeks 00 every point, and was regarded as their 
diampioo. That he was allowed to take this course without 
harm to himself or to his omvent is a remarkable testimony to 
the latitude given to the Greeks of South Italy by the Roman 
Chnrch of the twelfth century. 

(a) An interesting little tract on the order and limits of the 
Patriarchates, which is bound up with three^ MSS of the 'Ferrar 
groi^ ' (all of which beloi^ to the twdfth century, and come from 
Sooth Italy), places the Patriardiates as follows: (i) Jerusalem, 

* Codd, Emm. ^ 54J, 788 ; also in Cod. ail and Mt leaM one otber, both of 
fhtm South Italian MSS. The tract is poblisfaed in fiMsinule trom Cod. 346 in 
Dr. Harris's fkrtktr lUmtnkgg mio the Origm cfihe Fvrmr Gmm^ 



founded by James the Lord's brother. (2) Rome, 'the Apostolic 
throne.' (3) Constantinople, founded by Andrew, the 'first-called.' 
(4) Alexandria, founded by Mark the Evangelist, the son of Peter 
the Apostle, who became a Noripio?. (5) Antioch, founded by 
the Kopv4>alo9 Peter. It is obvious that there is no desire in this 
list to exalt the see of Rome. Moreover, in the list of countries 
which are placed under the control of Rome, only parts of Sicily 
and Calabria are included. The meaning of this limitation, which 
is clearly not geographical, becomes plain when one notices that 
this tract was written by Nilus Doxapatrius* about 1143 ^^^ ^^ 
Use of Roger IL Clearly what Nilus meant was to admit the 
control of the Pope over the Latin churches and monasteries, but 
not over the Greek. One can imagine what an inquisitor would 
have thought of this in the fourteenth century, and of the treat- 
ment which Nilus would have received; but in the twelfth century 
it passed unnoticed, or at least unresented by the Papal and 
Latin authorities. 

But at the end of the thirteenth century, under the Angevio 
rule, all this was changed. The Royal house was devoted to the 
Papacy, and exerted all their power to force the Greeks into 
closer conformity. 

In 1 270 Charles of Anjou ' gave authority to a Dominican monk 
named Matteo di Castellamare, 'Inquisitori haeretice pravitatis 
in justitiariatu Calabriae . . . a S. R* E. constituto' ; and the Greeks 
had (as Mgr. BatifTol puts it) the choice of becoming a sect or 
passing over to Romanism. 

This process of vigorous treatment went on throughout the 
fourteenth century, but in the fifteenth century a change of policy 
was made by the Papacy. It was the time when there was much 
intercourse with the Eastern Church, and the reunion of the East 
and West was greatly hoped for. For this purpose it was clearly 
advantageous to have a living testimony to the catholic and 
extra-occidental character of the Church of Rome. What was 
more fitted for the purpose than the Basilian monasteries ? 

Policy, therefore, suggested a reorganization of the Greek monks 
of South Italy, and the preservation of all their distinctive features, 

• V. Harris, op. dL It has been altribolcd by others to heo tbe Wise, but 
Dr. Harris has shown that this is probably wrong. 

* VjiblnByr dt Ro$aa$tOf p. xxxvj. 





ivhOe the dictates of policy were supported by the genuine love 
of Hellenism which animated Cardinal Bessarion. 

The result was that in 1446 a General Council of the Order of 
S. Ba^l was convoked, Bessarion was appointed General of the 
Order, and a school of Greek learning was established in Messina. 

By this means the Greek monasteries, and Greek life generally 
in South Italy, were resuscitated for a short time. 

It was only just in time : * The Greek monks/ said Bessarion ', 
' are as ignorant of Greek as Italians are. Most of them do not 
know the Greek letters ; a few can read, but without understanding; 
a mere handful can make out the sense with difficulty.' 

For a time the revival was vigorous. Lascaris, whom Bessarion 
brought to Messina, controlled for thirty 3rears a popular and 
successful school. But there was no real life in the movement. 
South Italy was Italian and not Greek, and the revival of its 
Hellenism was artificial. The monasteries rapidly degenerated, 
and when in 1551 Julius III ordered Marcellus Terracina* to 
report on the Basilian monasteries of Calabria, the latter had a 
miserable tale to relate. Only S. John the Reaper was in any 
state approaching to prosperity, and even there the library had 
been n^lected ; most of the convents were nearly empty ; some 
of them were the head quarters of bandits. 

For all serious purposes this is the end of the history of the 
Basilian monasteries of South Italy, except so far as their libraries 
are concerned. With this part of the subject I hope to deal in 
the concluding portion of these articles. 

K. Lake. 

^ In a letter to Eugenius IV, quoted by Mgr. Batiflfol, VAbbayt dt Rosatmo^ 
p. xzxviiL 

* VAbbaye di RossottOf p. 109 £ 

(To be continued.) 



It appeals riglkt that I abonld take aa euiy ogpotlmutf tH 
make pabfic a c&aage of mod oa a point ili^w' i wwnl at some 
length in taj r e ccatly pnhfahaJ book — Saend Sites of ike 
G^sfHu I bad hesftatni a good deal betweeit Ifae two cocnpeting 

n the wlKile ftmnd the greater y***^"«^ of fxtoas with 
topogiapfaers ; but ik seemed as tfaoogb of tate optnioo had 
fs^er been veering rocmd Id KUm MimytJL I was partkuIaHy 
nnp t ggtd hf the ^ct diat Father Bfever, who is in charge of the 
Gorman Hosf^ce on the spot and has been settled there for some 
ycsusi not ooljr htaaseif tnc^nes to tlhe Kk^ Mmjtk site but 
had made a ife ting ni sb ed axnrert in Fro£ voo Soden. I went 
to Palestine with the hope of verifying this opudoo ; but a brief 
▼isit to the site left me still w A«ciiu[^ and daring the months in 
which my book was w ittten and printed I remamcd mnch of the 
same mind, slightly leaning to Khdn Minyek^ but by no means 
confident that I was r%ht in doing so. 

It was not ontil the proofii had finally left my hand that 
a point oc uu ie d to me which I shonki no doubt have thought of 
before^ bnt which, when ooce it was apprdiended» aheied the 
whole balance of the argument. 

I had from the first attached the greatest weight to the 
evid^ce of Josephus. It was contemporary, and it related to fl 
a district that Josephus himself knew and had foii^ht over. 
I read the evidence of Josephus in the tight of the topographical 
features in such a way as to make it point with some deamess 
tovards Kkdn Mimytk. 

I ^laU explain myself best by tnseftmg a roogh sketch of the 

Josephus ^ says expressly that there was a fountain at Caper- 
naum which watered the plain of Gennesaret ; and it is agreed 
DO almost an hands that this fountain is to be identified with the 
copious springs of Mwi et-Tdkigka. Now these springs are a full 
mOe and a half from Tell Hitm and without any apparent con- 




nexion with ft, whereas they are barely three-quarters of a mile 
from Kkdn Minyeh^ with what appears to be an aqueduct 
carrying the water to the back of Khdn Minyeh in a position 
Irom which it could be easily distributed over the plain. 



TeUHunt\ ^ 







^"^ '^ Jm 



A? If 

* i^ 


£ A 


^ /r 


C A 

L I 





Darbishirm S Stanfbrd, Ltd^ The Oxfbfx/ Ctc^ tnstitatB, 

It seemed to me that this argument was primary, and other 
arguments secondary ; though I came to think more and more 
that the balance of those other arguments was rather the other 

Now the point that I had overlooked was that these cities 
or large villages round the Sea of Galilee were not bounded by 
a ring fence, but had each its territory, extending for some miles 
round the place itself. There are data enough to generalize in 
this sense. For instance, Josephus has linnjvii for the district of 



Hippos {B. J. \\\ 3. i) ; aod there is the familiar case of 
Gerasene (or Gadarene) demoniac in the Gospels, In the face* 
this I saw at once that there need not be the slightest scruple 
making the territory [of Capernaum] include V^?« et-Tdbigkai^ 
ancient times Heptapegon) ; and not only so, but the foimtait^ 
would naturally be described as the * fountain of Capernaum.* 

If I had needed confirmation on this head I had it abundai 
a few weeks later in a letter from my friend Prof. W. M, RarasaJ 
on my sending him a copy of my book. This letter is so 63 
pertinent and contains such an excellent lesson in scientifit 
topography that I have asked and obtained permission to print 
it. Dr. Ramsay writes as follows : — 

' From the words in your preface about Capernaum I am 
wondering whether you are going through the same process as 
I did : viz. a first impression in favour of Khdn Minyeh gradually 
giving way to the arguments for Tell H^m. One argument 
seems to me at present, with available knowledge, supremely 
strong. Theodosius came to Heptapegon and, moving on to the 
north, reached Capernaum \ That class of argument is in my 
experience the most unshakable and safe to rest on. The 
arguments for KMn Minyeh are all of the class that assume 
a different aspect with a slight change in the point of view or an 
increase of knowledge, I have known some startling examples 
of such change in the aspect of those general vague arguments. 

• The argument from Josephus seems to me in favour of Tell 
H^m. You say "at Tell HAm there is no fount of any sorL** 
But surely Heptapegon is in the land of Tell Hilm ; and there are 
numberless examples of the use of the town name for the entire 
territory subject to it I have frequently pointed out in my 
Historical Geography 0/ Asia Minor exdimples of error caused by 
our assuming that a name means the actual town, when the 
ancient writer means the whole territory of the town. As to the 
connexion of Heptapegon with Gennesaret, you point out that its 
water was carried by an aqueduct to KMn Miityeh^^nA so, as 
Josephus says, the Capernaum fountain fertilized the plain of 

That, I may say, seems to me quite decisive; and as I had 

» [Theodosius, Di situ Ttrm* Sanctatj 2 {CSEL. vol. xxxbi, p. 138 : or PaUstitu 
Pilgrim Texis^ voL ii, p, 8),— Edd.] 


hitherto rested my support of the KhAn Minyeh site mainly upon 
this argument which I now see to be fallacious, I definitely 
transfer my vote to the other side, which has throughout claimed 
such h^ authorities as Sir Charles Wilson and Professors Socin, 
Schiirer, Buhl, and Guthe. 

As I am upon the subject of Khdn Minyeh and its surround- 
ings, I may take the opportunity to touch upon another point 
that has had some further light thrown upon it. 

I had the good fortune to meet in the early summer the 
Rev. John Kelman, who like myself has recently written about 
Palestine. I communicated to him my change of opinion in 
r^ard to Capernaum, and we compared notes upon that and 
other matters connected with it — ^among them the curious rock- 
cutting represented in PL xxxiv of my book. 

Some days after our meeting Mr. Kelman wrote to me from 
Edinbui^h : * Dr. Torrance of Tiberias was with me the other 
day, and I spoke to him about the rock-cuttings at the Sea of 
Galilee. He is not an expert in these matters, and I am in no 
sense qualified for giving an opinion, but two facts he mentioned 
appeared to me to be likely to interest you. 

(i) He says there is an aqueduct which is certainly of the 
Roman-Greek period cut through the rock at ^bilene in 

(2) That a Roman road runs through W&dy Fejjas to Tiberias, 
and that whenever rock comes in the way, it is cut through. 
This cutting is now definable only on one side of the road.' 

A little later Mr. Kelman wrote again : — 

•I lunched on Tuesday with Colonel Conder of Palestine 
Exploration fame, and propounded to him the question of the 
aqueduct. He at once replied that there was a Roman rock-cut 
aqueduct at Abila (the one I mentioned to you), and that it bore 
the inscription of Julius Verus. He further stated that the sup- 
posed Roman aqueduct at Minyeh is in his opinion certainly 
Roman, but not an aqueduct. There is no trace of cement in it, 
and it is larger than any demand there could ever have been for 
water. He belkves it to have been a road, and he favours the 
Minyeh site of Capernaum. On the other hand he declares the 
present Wasserthurm [i.e. the masses of masonry visible in my 
PL xxxiii] there a quite modem structure.' 


Tins opimoa had been alicad^ cxptemtd bf Cblooel Caokt\ 
m Tnu Ifsri sm PrnksHm (LoBdoa. 1895X p> 29^ >— 

*Revisidi^ tliespot m i»x, ft seemed to me that tiie 
Ticv as to an aqvodDct from ' tftf^r^li^itf to JVn^ 

tiK plain of Genoesaret from the spei^BS in k, fSbam. to hM 
bffcoglit water from it^Ti^k^giMJ 

If jT own first imr"*^: vlien ve stmdc ioto tke nid c H, i < ti igi 
was to regud ft as a road: bat I qmikly gawe vp tfaisideiiic 
that of an aq[DedQct. I can onhr speak from memofy; fad^ 
by the photograph, bm I shonid sa j that the cattmg was nol 
wide enough far wheried tiafic and ft does 
other porpose ft ccold have served : n patfawx 

made ■khum cnrtiag so deepL If thcic was to he wbj 
i ii igjiju B I shodki noc have thonght Ac acak 
TIk coRcnt momber .Jidr. 1903^ of dK Qfmrmfy 
descrtbes and iOnstiates aa an a ln gom 
case in the YI'Arr Kmwtrim^ oeir the wvthem cwd of tike Dead 
Sea. Tbe nc^oedDct there is abcct ha!f a 
a smaCer scale: there is a tonnex in ft three 
feet wide, bd ft ^ceacs to bav« been «mSr nsed to £11 a dstcn^ or 
cJcmr^ whh the wis%r ns^SL It shccjd 

Xo dodbc ft wvcjd be weL r^ hive the poooc xs to 
3BSIB Aqwecact ooce more TeHSed careOKaSr ca the 
ibe pet~=g I 3bx£c be —jds iudawdto 
aad Ary-^ed statesxat of Scr On:^ Wuscm. whkh far the 
bcBieit of tbe rsKkr I wd ^ mgji e to traaBcrflbfc. 

" Westward uag: the siicve of ifiK^ itte. a oEJe aad a half firom 
TnE ^JHB. is the chutac^ cstje bav of ^^ri(7i^r4iLaml 4k great 
whad! is wtthcnc a dcdbc t2ie acwnfiasa of 
by losechie .is ws&era^ ^le p^aa of 
b&y s xbccc h£f JL s£je ktciss. jai cw fts w c &t e tn side 
KC sa by t^ dadf oc A'ftM JCsntiL ^le coiy p^ane at wlwii 
oct^itkeca8aiX^ix.cwe«L IVre ss x sonall tnct 
we oxiid ui m.' roas eoaoesc t^Kisc 



Xbe mills or waterworks. There arc five fountains, all more 
less brackish, and varying in temperature from 73 i** to 86 i* ; 
are small« but the one mentioned above is by far the largest 
ing in Galilee, and was estimated to be more than half the 
of the celebrated source of the Jordan at BdniyiU, It 
to the surface with great force, at a temperature of 86 J"*, 
can hardly be considered warm in such a climate as 
tt of the lake district. Most of the water now runs to 
te, producing a quantity of rank luxuriant vegetation; 
some of it is collected in a small reservoir, and is thence 
off by an aqueduct to a mill owned by a man of Safed^ 
only one in working order of five that were built by the 
Lt chieftain Dhahr el-'Amr [early in the last century], . . . 
sonected with this fountain are the remains of some remark- 
jible works which at one time raised its waters to a higher level, 
conveyed them bodily into the plain of Gennesaret for the 
purposes of irrigation. The source is inclosed in an octagonal 
Ttxrvoir of great strength, by means of which the water was 
raised about twenty feet to the level of an aqueduct that ran 
along the side of the hilL Strong as the reservoir was, the water 
bs at last broken through it, and there is now little more than 
two feet left at the bottom, in which a number of small fish may 
be seen playing about. After leaving the reservoir the aqueduct 
can be traced at intervals following the contour of the ground 
to the point where it crossed the beds of two water-courses on 
arches, of which the piers may still be seen ; it then turns down 
towards the lake, and runs along the hillside on the top of 
a massive retaining wall, of which fifty or sixty yards remain, 
aod lastly passes round the Khdn Minyeh cliff by a remarkable 
excavation in the solid rock, which has been noticed by all 
travellers. The elevation of the aqueduct at this point is suf- 
ficient to have enabled the water brought by it to irrigate the 
^^ole plain of Gennesaret ; and though we could only trace 
^t for a few hundred yards inland, it was not improbably carried 
'"ifht round the head of tlie plain : the same causes which have 
almost obliterated it in the small plain of et-Tdbigha would fully 
account for its disappearance in Gennesaret ' {Recovery of Jeru- 
iakm, 1871, pp. 348-550). 
Among the many excellent descriptions of the Sea of GalilcCj 


I tsrs vidi fioffrii^ puessczc S3 Sor Oaries Wilaoa's in dui 
poocsK. Ii 2» ai'iTrff t^ tbe expeneice of at txaaed obaa v er , 
K ' ^juaf jf,l> E2 hs scznezKXSs. sad i'-:5»?wgh si imMthrrir for 
the vtiSzfi grrss t3 tbe r^is £s ynrri'iir 5acerest,is finee 600 

Tbers s fssc ooc ccer decsfl ca w^dc!l a. v^srd nwr be sud. 
Joeepcs? 3cces ex :i g a s^y t^ar zaie accccsa of Cj^wnmiim 001- 
ufaec ibe Ccrarrr isc: Trrvr- 5? ajsc incod ±. :be JaSt This fed j 

jr^f^.*^ crcncQs 5cia£=z=x .ucizc rvo sad x h&If laSes sooth of 
KiJx JTrrwi wi5ci Ernprs lie irw^r pcctsoK of the pfaui 

bizc 3CC 5= 'AzM iS^r'^JGfi^ '±sc m,k ,-* !> of wbiA aic sud not 
t:? be jci-:2tf i:r i. I 5r 3cc :intk ±511 tiss cscnpaacf h 
snfTirirTC :^ sr.i,Vr cor x'.Trf tl Z3e I'fic cj c£'Asm it-f^^B^ 
wft^ szs^cj^-rj^^ v^jch s arv reasxlT ii,:r^i i inl I sfaonld 
praer rj icrcose rr.t' Jrseccas. -^oc hid sxisr to do with 
T lbclk s £3>i TinrSry i2iKx -vic^ lie 313^ cc :2k kfce aid 

W« Sjlsdat. 




Early Irish UturgUa are so few and so valuable that the discovery 
of any fragment, however small, of an Irish sacramentaiy or other prayer 
book deserves careful attention and publication. The article by 
Dr. W. Meyer in Nachrichten der Kg. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 
(Gdttingen)^ shows how much can be got out of the few pages of one 
of the Bobbio MSS now at Turin, and it may be hoped that the notice 
€i this and similar recent discoveries may induce librarians to examine 
the fly-leaves or any stray pages of their MSS with the possibility of 
coming across early Irish liturgica. We owe the preservation of the 
fragments here published to such careful collection by two librarians : 
the first two were discovered by Dr. A. Holder in the binding of one 
of the Reichenau MSS at Karlsruhe ; the Irish words which occur on one 
of their pages have been published, from a photograph, by Mr. Whitley 
Stokes ', but it had not been hitherto noticed that the Latin text is that 
of an Irish sacramentary ; the third fragment I came across in April 
last when looking through two packets of stray sheets collected by 
Monsignore Tononi in the Archivio of S. Antonino at Piacenza. 

The Reichenau fragments (now Karlsruhe, App. Aug. clxvii) are 
two sheets of parchment, here distinguished as A and B, which probably 
belonged to different MSS, as they do not agree either in size or script 
Sheet A, at present from 235 to 240 mm. long and from 277 to 282 mm. 
broad, formed two pages of a MS, but, as about four lines of text 
have been cut off the top, and more than half the width of one page 
is missing, the pages of the original MS must have been about 30 by 
20 cm. The right-hand side of A r<> (i.e. fol. i ro), the left-hand 
side of A vo (i. e. foL i v®), and the first seventeen lines of the right- 
hand side of A vo (i. e. fol. 2 r®) are occupied by parts of a sacra- 
mentary written by an Irish scribe, who apparently began the first 

^ CC Mr. Warren's notice of this in the previous number of this Journal (July, 
i^oSt p. 610). 

* Zeitackrifi far vtrgUicheruU Spraeh/orsckung auf dem Gibittt der imlogtrmam- 
tdtm SpraduH^ Band zxxi, Neue Folge, Band zi, erstes Heft (Gatersloh, 1889), 
p. 346, and in the second volume of the ThnaHfua palaeokibermcuSf p. 356, now 
being published by the Cambridge Press. 

VOL. V. E 


collect cjf each office OB die top of afresh piigevtet»^I^e» i ^""^ 

1 v« cad with tbe *fv /rafir' of die Canoo, vfatbt i i* has nnder 
this 60 mxBL of pvchmeiit wuchouL asr text. FoL i i* contafm viat 
is probttblr > maas for pfnitrnf\, foL 1 1« & mass for the dettd ; kLif 
did DOC foOov rmrnff^aftfy afcer fisL i i« as its fiot voids aie the 
middle of a pccibce. The lower hilf of iaL a i* and the whole of 
foL 1 v«. left vacant br dke first sczibe, were sdbscqKBt^ filled op bf 
an Indt-ccadneacil writer^ who issezted d&e ggrstfe. gradnal, and ffxgA 
and the i/wJif wbssk fpv ^j ^ t a iu five coQects and & prefine wfaidL 
esteoded over anod&er pofe w^Sch has nx been Jauuvcied. 

Sheet R whxh sxnied two poxes of aaod&er MS^ is at pnaa^ 
252 msL Ico^ and 27$ mm. broai± bcc was caossdeEzblf ledirrd vfaen 
cot np for issertioa into the bcad£=^: we have, huwcvci, fiartnoit^ 

2 sBBall ^tfyp of parccment B* • X2c t h"^ ^.^qc *^^ par t l y 50 wbl, puU|f 
12 mm, brand' w^xh fonaedpart of ooeof d:e ocfinde edges of By Ix^ 
dK paxr put of tbe cccnectn^ portaon 3 lose so that after dK fiot 
three Iizaes of me eiL^niy 3efi asd esiresne r^^rc-hmd nAnmH of dus 
sheet we bare o^w oc!f focr cr ive lieoers on B and tfaiee or' iov 
lectets CD B\ sepBza%d bv a cesscbc zteml cc aboot 55 nan. bread. 
It has thereobre ooc been pcssibiie =? i: e !. tj i ac :'.i i:t wih inlUMJ/tf die 
who&e cf th2s Li g aieuc X3d a rzdier dii&cmCT has been ctnsed by 
a hr^ pcctxc ^,25 x jc cm. cf ccse safe of ic being for 
blank; rcsstbiy jt mstr hare Seen occipied bv 
czased cr lei: tree 9oc one wcjci was sever inaered. 

The nchc-baad saie of B r» Le. ficL 5 r* J=d the whole of B »• 
<L e. C 5T^. 4 ^*^ ccrcirn parts cc i zsssl rrrcubir st .ammamfmiime 
samOanM^ xs Br js ±!e Ftst scksi^- is in ±e rrerocis fiagmeotX but 
with ±e jocifcc cf i boSraj: rraver wtaci scras ract of the Oaoa 
in the Scrwe ^Trssxl : rre sttre cc ±e MS rcMsis ± anpossSbie to say 
wherfsc ±is rnver was liz.'scec cc ±is pBce. bet the feft-hand side 
cf B v» L e> 3cL 4. T* s uissi rp wich V ±e wcks *ia3fci"ar ^im'i k tfit 
et ssars ,j"jmu 9 L jls: ji^mttirm ' wtiich cot^ttt rie wcsSie tc e adth of the 
pave, sad wt:±. JTi as Irsh rtxver cr rrmsrs in rwc ctrcnmss p e imed 

TIte ragmenc 6 s xscz^bed bf Mr. W^itEev Sbckes oo dae inndi 
cencnrr: A bas se m e paJKC^rarcccal sops w^iich ieeni ft> make it 
aQsnswrsic earjis-. bet ±e cacing cf Ir^ MS^ s scH a tek of sach 
(SificsitT rsic cce beigteire^ even »:• baari rt ccimcG.. rscoigh 
caDpeoenc Tnt^es. whe have seen i pfeccxpx^ - c rse isgqzecCr 
it m the ffgnri or n i 'iicrr ceacir y . Dt. L. T^xib^ rr ^ei.liig the liter 


date. The connexion, however, between these fragments and the MS 
(Karlsruhe, Aug. MS dxvii), into the binding of which they were 
inserted, should be taken inta account for evidence as to date and 
place of writing. When two sheets of different sacramentaries are tfius 
found cut up for binding purposes, one of them with the scribblings 
of an Irishman trying to write a continental han^ and the other 
with rough specimens of neums, the prima facie conclusion is that 
when the book was bound, the fragments then used in lieu of boards 
between the vellum sheets which formed its binding', were so out 
of date as to be of no practical value. It only remains to be seen 
when and where the MS was written and whether there are any traces 
of its having remained unbound for some time. The MS is a well- 
known one, usually cited as 'The Karlsruhe Bede*'; a photographic repro- 
duction of one of its pages will appear in a future number of the new 
Palaeographical Society's publications. All writers who have referred 
to it ascribe it to the first half of the ninth century, but the occurrenee 
of the feast of All Saints in the Kalendar on Nov. i suggests some date 
after c. 835, whilst from a mark ., against one of the Kalendarial tables on 
foL 13 ro I venture to assign it to some date within the nineteen years' 
cycle, A.D. 836-855, and more definitely from a peculiar b for bissextilis 
in another table on fol. 15 ro, as well as from the entry on fol. 18 r<> 
noting that the year 848 was 6048 after the creation of the world, 
I think there is little doubt that that was the actual year of its trans- 
cription '. The MS was the work of two apparently contemporary 
scribes ; the one who wrote the Kalendarial tables, referred to above, 
also inserted a lunar table on the inner side of the front binding, and 
as on three visits to Karlsruhe I have failed to discover any evidence 
that the outer sheet of binding is a later addition ^ I see no reason for 

> The parchment binding of this MS, with flap, buttons and string, is a well-known 
Irish £uhion. 

' Cooper's (proposed) Report on ih* Ftmirra, App. A, p. 59 ; Silvestre-Madden, 
Umvtrsai Palaeography (Lond. 1850), p. 610; Zinuner, Glossat Hibenticae (8vo, 
Berolin, 1881), pp. xxiv-zxix; Whitley Stokes, The Old Irish glosses (8vo, 
Hertford, 1887), p; aio ; Stokes and Strachan, Thesaurus palaeohtbemicus (8vo, 
Cambridge, 1903), voL ii, p. 356. 

* It is a strange coincidence that the same year should be assigned as the date of 
another copy of Bede*s De temporum raHone, also written in France, now B. M. 
Vespasian, B. vL 

* It is true that MSS were not always bound immediately after they were 
written ; one of the ninth-century Irish MSS from Reichenau, now at Karlsruhe, is 
still unbound ; but in the case before us, the writing on the inside sheet of the cover 
has every appearance of being subsequent to the sewing up of the two sheets of 
parchment which form the cover, and it is also noticeable that, like the Stowe 
Missal, neariy all the pages of the MS were made square by slips of parchment 
being attached and fastened with thin thongs of the same material, in exactly the 
same way as our fragments were stitched into the binding. 



( Ae Beie «b cnpiBi m lAoa an cnNd 

oTsBaaBCiiiMei^CKCMlapiBr ili H«*4 irTg 

taep M Ifwiifi— , but die 

K il KKted llMfc Abbe^ (the 

b|r s. ■Mbt ImbcQi^ sftd points 

hboBv ■idil. tlic cjMi| 


hid k»t soBie of Aev bRShitsi bf ^e V&B^ aidi (eg. 

BMIMHt to be l lftM,t lBd. t/MdmBItt^ f^**^ CS|XCKMMS QO ttOt IKim 

mtbeangniil puts of tbe MSSs bat bdne bee* added bf luer bawk* 

oot to thor fy%piMt m^pUnia . Tbe io^pestiigttioB of &e t«d:Tie Inb 
aimi m the IMcpdy leads to ao deiote resnil, md the tame of 
*EqgvnOb' abase obit is added oa foL 41* ti too cxnaion to be 
of mj bdlp. TbeR are onlf tao places uagajioned bgr Qmie in the 

mas Mi wbb iBLf ace wamaai ok, as repvB tkc mmm-itfom shrs^ I Mipe aMM 

ttfj Irak or CiKf K^eaatts: Fv. & 3C lit. Kfl^; Roat^ Oo«h^ ^; 

* TW i^ cHay: * I XdL Aml S««* Qf i 1. «mv m^fmt fmf LIT mmmt mk 

^r IftB flMt is ^41. bat t^ cfltvy fleov •» bMc ten c^M fiv iy Iw tlHi4 tflHl^ 

■MdMky ^ba P e r o— L lAfiMMi. A i ■ JTiiaii 1 1. war Sl QMstn. aaar h««e 


MS which can afford any clue; an added Irish notice on fol. 17 yo as 
to the death of Muirchuth, son of Muirledun, at Clonmacnois might 
seem to indicate that great literary centre as a possible mother-house 
of our MS ^ (between the years 826 and 846 it was plundered twice by 
the Danes and thrice by the King of Cashel), but, as Zimmer points out, 
the notice may be simply due to some friendship between the deceased 
and the writer of the gloss in the Bede. The words ' Sancte Trinitatis 
et sancU cronani filii lugaedoHy which run across the top of one of the 
fragments, look very much like an indication of the church or monastery 
which owned the sacramentary, and seem to point to Clondalkin near 
Dublin. This Cronan, son of Lugaed, better known as St Mochua, 
was specially venerated at that church, which seems to have belonged 
to his £imily, and it was there apparently that his relics were translated 
in 790, but I have not found any trace of a previous or simultaneous 
dedication to the Holy Trinity, and must be content to point to Clon- 
dalkin as the possible home of fragment B. 

All that seems fairly proved is that both the sacramentaries were in 
use on the continent at the beginning of the ninth century, that when 
the Carlovingian-Roman superseded the Irish use, they were discarded, 
used for scribblings, and in 848 either erased and rewritten, or cut up 
for binding purposes ' ; the arrival of the MS at the Irish foundation 
of Keichenau is due to the flight of Irish monks up the Rhine in the 
middle of the century : the earliest (eighth-century) copy of Adamnan's 
life of St Columba (now at Schaffhausen), was similarly written in 
France and reached Reichenau at the same time as our MS. 

Fragment C, from the Archives of S. Antonino, Piacenza, is a sheet 
of parchment c. 245 mm. long and c. 355 mm. broad, with from 27 to 
30 long lines on a page, which once formed two non-consecutive pages 
of a MS ; the fragment is in a very bad state of preservation, being 
almost in two halves, and as it has evidently been used for a long time 
as a fly-sheet, the verso is so completely worn away that it is practically 
illegible \ a few disjointed words here and there show that it was a con- 
tinuation of the recto. As our knowledge and experience of chemical 
reagents becomes more advanced, it is to be hoped that the whole of 
this fragment may be successfully restored. 

Piacenza is situated where the mountain road to Bobbio leaves the 
Via Emilia^ and the church of St Antonino, one of its oldest eccle- 
siastical foundations, was in close connexion with the Abbey of 

* It is interesting to note that the Stowe Missal received its eleventh-century 
metal-work cover at Clonmacnois. 

' Apart from the Stowe Missal, the only other known fragments of Irish sacra- 
mentaries (St Gall, 1394, 1395) owe their preservation to having been enclosed in 
book covers. 


St Columbanus * j hence it would seetn not unreasonable to assign 
to Bobbio an Irish MS found in a city so intimately connected with 
it, (there was unfortunately no opportunity at Piacenza of seeing 
whether the library of SL Antonino still possessed the book from which 
our fragment had been taken, a hurried glance at the few MSS now 
remaining there did not diselose any Irish ones), and the Bobbio 
provenance of the fragment seems favoured by the contents of the two 
pages here published, which contain two prefaces which are only found 
elsewhere in the seventh-century so-called Gallican sacramentary (now 
Paris, B. N. lat. 13246) which was discovered by Mabillon at Bobbio, 
and is now so generally supposed to have been written there that it is 
cited as Codex Bobiensis '. If our fragment does not hail from Bobbio, 
it is a very strange coincidence that parts of another Irish missal with 
Bobbian prefaces should have got so near to it '. 

Bearing in mind the unchangeableness of the insular hand and the 
remarkably few dated early Irish ecclesiastical documents, it is almost 
impossible to fix the date of a fragment on purely palaeographicai 
grounds (as one of our leading palaeographists writes to me, ^ the dating 
of these Irish MSS is desperate work'). The script h Irish minuscule 
with several continental traits. Majuscule letters ^and 5 occur frequently, 
and some of the large dotted initials are quite in the style of early Irish 
MSS, though these two marks may be due to the scribe having before 
him an eighth- or ninth-century MS ; several good judges who have seen 
C ascribe it roughly to the ninth or tenth century ; on the other hand 
Dr» Traobe calls it * twelfth century at earliest,* and Bodley's Librarian 
* late thirteenth or early fourteenth ' ; I do not venture to give a verdict 
when the authorities thus differ to the extent of three or four centuries*, 

^ That the connexion between Bobbio and Piacenza was more than local is dear 
f«tora the way in which the latter cathedral copied and adapted the tropes and 
sequences of the abbey ; a lar^e proportion of the bishops and abbots of Bobbio, 
from the eleventh century onwards, were natives of Piacenza. 

* Cf. Mr. Edmund Bishop's notes on ' The prayer book of Acdelwald ' ^Cambridge, 
190a), p* 339, anii Monsignor L. Duchesne Origine d* la Uturgu gulUctw* (Revue 
3'histoire et de litt^raturc religieuscs, t^oo^ p. 38 sqq.) 

* There is another slight difficulty in assuming that our fragment was written at 
Bobbio; palaeographicai reprints furnish us with examples of many MSS written 
(or perhaps only kept) there in uncial, serai-undal and Lombardic script, but, as far 
as I have ascertained, they do not give us any MS written in a purely Irish hand. 

* 1 hope in some future number to be able to publish the opinions of palaeo- 
graphicai experts on this point. It would have been desirable to have collotype 
plates of the fragments in the present volume, that palaeographicai students might 
judge for themselves of their date^ but as the Journal was not in a position to do 
this, photographs have been sent to the Vatican Library, iheBibliothdque 
of Paris, the British Museum, Cambridge University, Trinity College, Dublin, 
the Bodleian (the press-mark to the last library is J5773 a. 16). 

uon 10 GO ■ 
Nationale ■ 



though it seems to me scarcely possible that such a liturgy as this could 
have been written for actual use anywhere as late as the twelfth century, 
and highly improbable that it would have been then copied as a 
memorial of an extinct rite. We are, at present, strangely ignorant of 
the early history of Bobbio, and cannot say how long the composite rite 
shown in the Bobiens, was retained there or when Irish ceased to be its 
vernacular^ (both questions intimately concern the present fragment, 
with its most marked Gallican type of service and its Irish rubrics) ; but 
if the sacramentary was written there, it would seem that it or its exemplar 
could not well be dated later than the ninth century. As a matter 
of fact, for our purpose, the exact date of the actual copy before us 
is not of primary importance, just as the liturgical value of the Stowe 
Missal does not depend upon the vexed question of &e date of the 
copy now at Dublin. Our fragment, if not part of an early Bobbio 
work, may be a late copy of an older Bobbio sacramentary. It is, 
of course, after all possible that the MS may have been brought there 
from Ireland or some continental foundation, in which case we can 
only judge its date on palaeographical grounds. This is an unsatis- 
&ctory conclusion, but so it must remain for the present 

^ Professor CipoUa, who is now eng^tged on the history of Bobbio, assures me 
that by the twelfth century there were no Irish monks there, and that he has found 
no traces of the Irish tongue or script there as }ate as that date : the fragment, in 
his opinion, b *■ much older than the twelfUi century.' 


FOL. I, RO. 

[?cina»»] tribue uulnerib«x «-^ semi tui -N- *>ut pwxepta rempsione] 
omnium peccaton/m in sacramentfs tuis sincera deuotioo[e] 
p^rueniat ^ et nullum* redemptionis aeteme susteneat « de[tri] 
mentum e/ xeUqua 

Lines 5-8. This prayer which begins Dtus qm omfitiHtum tibi ooarda is found as 
a Post-communion collect in the Stowe Missal (St.) [ed. Warren, p. 247], twice 
in the ordo ad rtconcUiandum peniUtUtm of the Gelasian sacramentary (GeL) [ed. 
Wilson, iq>. 65, 67], and in an .office for the VisiUtion of the Sick reprinted 
in Martene, De ant tccL rit, vol. i, Ordo xxii, p. 335 (Mart) -.—^ uulnenUis, 
St. GeL Mart »»-* omitted in St. Gel. Mart • dtinceps dtuoHom, GeL Mart., 
dem€9ps dtdiiiant^ St ^ ptrmantantj GeL' Mart, pvmummt^ St * austi$uant, St. 
GeL* Mart The writer of the Introduction to the PaliographU MusicaU, voL v, 
supposes (p. 141, n. i) that when the compiler of the Stowe Missal or its prototype 
had to provide a Post-communion collect for the Missa pro ptnUiHiOnia viviSf as he 


leo'p£eiio^ jy£US qui 
torig ' inawst[a] ' 

to tern tuajM suppikiter * depivcenar s at ^idiiIilm taum -K- de to[a| 
misencordia twmMtvUtM . cadeati . p^vtegas b ^nijsnm , afinx 
Ba et tua 1^ pipfccti o ne * OMsenia > . at [t]ibi 
QuHis t empiatiam but a te sep«ret«ir pgr 
aiip«r oblfldft^ Soscipe clrmrntragime 
r^ laudis qoas ego ^ peccatoR 
tiin * oflerre prcsimio ad 

tate ^miili tni • N • at OMfnriMi detgctncrm 
» per d^mnurm oMaSrofli 

tomfli pietaftem] 
toam hnrmlf pr«ce depcscuBiB tit* frmdMi tDnv* 
respicia^ et pietatis tax ^ custodiam ' tmpendas ' nt ec lolD co[r| 
de et ex tota aieiite tihi dcscnuat et sib toa semper p»tectio[tie] 
afmisui * ut q^ioado ei Gcdema^ ncBent dies * socicftfem 


* Tbe eltree titles of the pr a y era are by a Uter band. * FEnt haad * 

■ t o»er i, * / over/. ■ First hand 'iimfilcr/ • IV bhiMy 

to carrect the previooa R- ' a over /. * First haad eo. SeCQOd 

fttccred o taio » aad added JtodKm &c., as &r as the end of the fine. 

aoc set one from the Bobbio saci^mentary befbre hini, he copied tlas prqnr 
frttB Che GmAmmmmjm. If this is so, the collect here may be the P. C. to son 
«f fplndi «e hove not got the befinain^ : bat its ponckm here >s apfwrenffy liie 
fcit <f feor p c ay e ra before the pre^^ce looks aore IQae Aat oia.ft^^fiaib mmmm^wsad 
it may hereafter be fbund tfiat it is by on^in Gaflinn and aoC Grtawn J 

Lilies 9-13. ZVm fitf imai^fStms : the first collect of a mmam oaan ia SmffL f 
5«cn G^igor. ';KiKnton, Lit Ram. vet. (ed. X74S) coL 193) (Gr.% in Sacr. BttgaammM, 
(ed. 1900, p. Ijij (Ber]^). and in Smer. R^mms,{e±Che^nh€r^BAL LAtfg^ rtjL 'wu, 
f^ Sd6) (Rem.). CX Saer, G^bcmi, (ed. Mtnatori, UL Romt, mi, coL ^06] :— ' ftam- 
Ha — I, Gr* B«TS. • ifc/wniw»Btf, Gr. Ber^. ^ tea ajaa^iM, Res., aasidbav 

Bcts- ' aMawOf Gr* BefS. J 

14-18. Smwript \l iiiMitfaawii: Thta appears (aa here) as the St^tr 

far a firing fiiead in 5«m Rtmuns. (ed. CJkMMStr, p. ^7) 
ia tbe 2arieh MS Rheijaaii 30 (ed. GtffAert Moa. aet. 


piat [et] X inensmbilem glorias sine fine possideat * • per damintim 
Vor digtmrn dtus giatias agre i/r cuius amspectu sanc/us raphiel 35 
adsistit pmta qfi^ssumwf ut tibi pro famulo tuo • N • exorar[e] 
dignetjtfr ut gratiam tuam • semp^ mereaUr habere p/vsentem [?ex] 
empXwn^^ et in ^vnspectu tuo semp^decantare" • sanchis et leUqua . . 
jyEUS qui culpa • ofif[en]deris penitentia placaris da nobis dominie] 
flere nia[la] que fecimiix ut tuae r^^nsulationis gratiam constq[u3i] 30 

mur Qui pridle .*." 

* First hMndposstdeai. >* There remain traces of the first letter. ? R f S. ? P.— 
*€xitmpl$tm ' ia the only suggestion I can ofier, but it is not satisfactory. Mr. Ed. 
Bishop notes that ^templum' is a word frequently found in Bob.^ but the scribe of the 
fragment never divides a word in this way ; Mr. H. A. Wilson suggests ' rttUmpius * 
as giving a possible sense, but the contraction over the final vowel cannot, I feel 
snre, represent s. ^ re over a. '' The rest of the fol. is blank : a later 

hand has inserted ' D«ms universita[ ] ^ ' dna in adiutorium meum * ' dcMS in 

adiiitoriu«M * ' Riuos mellis Riuus lactis ' with peculiar initial /? (? a reference to 
Bede's description of Ireland as ' Dioes lactis ac nuUis ittsttia,* Hist. ecd. lib. i. c i) 
and the letters M, A or A and A (? aitatfipi^ Ai&ur«aXor). 

' cum qmbtts, Rem. Berg. 

Lines 29 sqq. Deus qui culpa, as far as the word 'placaris * is one of the oraHones 
prop€ccatis in Gng. (ed. Murat. coL 249), whence it was borrowed by the compiler 
of the new Mass for the first Thursday in Lent (col. a8), where it figures as the first 
collect ; the rest of the prayer runs 'prtcts popuK hd si^Ucantis propiHus respice tt 
fiageUa huu iraamSae quat pro peccatis nostris mtrcmur averte.* Cod. Bobiens (ed. 
Murat. col. 776) and Stowe (ed. McCarthy p. 197. n.b) give it in another form 
* affiidorutn gnmtus respiu et mala quae iuste irrogas misericorditer averte ' as the 
second collect of the Mista Rowunsis cotidianaj whilst Miss. Gothic (ed. Murat. 
col. 658) gives it in this Irish form as the first (and probably only) collect of that 
mass. Our collect, which by its position here is clearly intended as a Post- 
sanctus, is on diflerent lines, and looks as if it were made up of two prayers, the 
second commencing ' Da nobis domiiu ' ; yet it b curious that it has the words mala 
quae of Bob, St. and Got/uc. 

FoL. I, VO. 

iesum chm/vm Mum suum : — 
Sascipe d^wime pr^es ' nostras quas pro dispossitione * famulorum ' 5 

tuonuv tuoruMi et famulanifw tuarum • N • deferimjyj 
orantes ut sacrificii p/^fsentis obladone * ad refrigerium anime suae 
rum suanun te misreante p^ruenient * ; per dominum GUium tuum . . . 

*■ es over c ' First band ' depositione.' ' Above this word is written 

the ahematiFe text U, N, * The second n is 9 ; tread obhtio . • . proveniaL 


SacraU d^ i>fv s6 suTsqti« defferentibus ' dona samJoruMtque mardiUiiM^ 

inuocantibus * sufira 
gia adsit uirtus^ imnensa iugisqw^ dementia . p«r d^mminn iesum cfarr^ 

sfum filiuiw suum qui secum 
10 Suscipe dtmine h6c sacrificiuivi ab offeiandbMj . qui t6 ipsoM sacri[fici]uff^^ 

Yne [dig]nuM et iustum aequuM et iustiwi est nds tibi hie et ubiqv^^ 

semprr gratias 
[agere] damine stutctt piXer ontnipotens eteme dtus coins ' 
f pronus]siones * * plenas aetemonui bononuii in ipso ezspectaMus 

tandas iw quo scimus ^ absconditas dMoho nostro ksu chruto filio tuo 

qui ueia *• est 
i^iiita cwdentiifjit ct<? resurrectio <*mortuoniJw per qae«i tibi ptv ani- 

mabus -^ "< £unulo 
nwtuoni«i«et£unubnriMitaani»^ IL^«f sacrifido* Jstud^offenmvj 

l«* ut K^tnentioQts fonte puigatos^^K s te*rptatioiuTMis cACJipto s«" 

^Q\anexv^d^^:iien$i«sief^Kieetqix]s^ ^6ecisti*adobbKiQiieOT^paitidpes 

iuSefts be 
[t]«d(tiKs UsK essie^ «vi«scct<s ^ ^ :e enai oicupoccos das .cictiinnu« 

»» ^(^^»i> A t«ttisEKcabiu<$ i=^$!e£cc»s cbcci sioe cessttsooe . prvdbinant 

Mki^ )«» -^^ 4Kt .^»4lt^( ^ * .^M«<5. hm i^tk: A~ « stsokk. :ix <!4 
«kK ^^ -f ^mna i ^ «LX«Ki^«. ^(w».«i^f^ ^^i»t?t «^ siMtt ^ac!!!«2: w 



soDcfiiS sanc/MS sancfys domnus deus ^* sabaoth &c ; 

Adsistat huic** sonc/ificationi ilia braedicdo qua dtmiaus nos/^ iesus 

chrisfus sacrifidum tale uistituit aique b^mdint 
[OJssanna ** in altissimis t6 pro refrigerio spt'ntus defunctotum omni- 

po^iens etem^ dots 
[hum]iliter exomnus . precipue pro anima^vs famolonim tUQrum*' . et 

famularvm tixantm . N . usrlessa 
[ jmemoradone . ut ab infernali ** maim libeiatas ** in sinu patris requi- as 

[patrijarchas per difmiaum nostrum iesum chm/vm q»i tecum uiuit 

dominatjtfr ac regnot simul cum 
spirit]u sonc/o iff secula saeculoTum qui pridie quaxv'" 

'* after dens L ** kmc above the line, originaDy after soMti^kaiiom but erased. 
** M over M. ** ahemative mafmmHli tuL ** First hand mfemela. ** First 
hand libtraims, *■ at foot of page I a oiv— original mannscript 

FOL. 2. RO. 

» in cuius uel in quorum ho[norem hec oblatio hodie offertur 

ut cunctis proficiat ad sa[lutem ^ 

conta[c]t!s terrene feces sfc[ 

XSs nostris pre/imXHs pfrsent[ibus 

et qjvm misisti illis r^ni ae[temi parti 

cipes sancH spirifus coeredes re[ I lo 

te enim omnipotens d^vs lau[ 

^egius apostolorum et[ 

immo p^rpetuo et ixdefessis [laudibus cum quatuor animalibus venti- 

senioribtff condnnant [dicentes ] 

«Vere b^n^ictus uer[e mirabilis in Sanctis suis deus noster ihesus 15 

ipse dabit uirtute[m et fortitudinem plebis suae, benedic] 

* Lacunae supplied, where possible, from the Stowe MissaL 

*...«« emits vd m quomm. In Stowe Missal (ed. Warren, p. 345) beginning 
OmmbuM Jklms vUat noshrat^ bat omitting * m emus veL ^The Stowe Missal differs 
entirely after sabUem. 

• Vert hnudktns occnrs in the Stowe Missal (ed. Warren, p. 246) as Ven stuictus 
vert bentdidHSf &c 



tos diSKS quern benedidniiis in a^pottiiiis ct in 

qui pla] 
cacnffn ^ ab initio saecoli 
Vere elogios bassilios [ 
tor apostulomm om[niiim 
saitc/ts suts S2lviticat * 

Uiicitlcwfiii m(\ 
'Paulus apostolus iesu dnkti . 

e[ mpli f igiiui ?]* 

ppv yMs 8cie[ntes] 

The rest of this p«^ and the whole of the next page «ne fay a 

* The Stowt Mtssa] inserts ti alter / i to i w i — f . 

* The texi of the lections is not printed in fnU, hnt any 
Volute are noticed. 

' 2 Cor. i i-n : tbchuntna on the ninth hneofthe MS is too 
f-vr. vatwv ftmsolmttomt^ sime txkmimwmr pf\} wmlm axkoftmhame ati 
the claiwe mw tjrhortmmttr f9o mstm txhtrntrntmrnty was prahafaly 
has MtoAnwwite verse 6' ? ««r 

£raai tiie 

The MS 

FOL. 2, VO. 

r OS e 


inquaTT. sT^eramus qw/wuzm 
. adiovantibos' c: ^t>his m oraliane pnc nobis .'. 

D/mcinifs de ode i«; tmaw aa>erpi: ut audi 
re: ^anitas coropeditorum « u: adnantta:^^ \r. sioc noat^ d^vMuhi &: 
iaudeir cwv ic ierusalem : — 

* Itrrrogavit disdpnlo? suo? dicens 

~ c: XT. ce:h< . *. ordk> misisie prr c«ptiiii& ifi6i|iil. 
lanf rorde r-rwtntc fl^hil: uone lacnmahile - 

iT/wBgTKai: ba: - sic df: no rmunnorvipf - manibk.' 

* A CT«sse xt. the mTrhtnm: nunr h«rr kc to the midun|: 
of somt of th<; letters : «L thai i< Tia&)« nc^ is arKr mmrntmnm.. with raom 
ior aboQ! twc- tetters o. the f*n Po5S!i^^• the Ti»ine was intentioxialiT nor written 

• : Cor. . iz. Tut KS -nhices: mfmu helr.Tr wk 
'The MS pmbablT t\t nrc mntair hrrr tht wor»J* " i 
whirr ocxn- n: a colirr « ir«- Ime* dmrii * Vol««r 

ttSi. Mattt; XT. i.:^-it, hii: tht MS. it mniMurr vitt the oidese 
hemn XL v. it nnr €i beiorc ik «»*? u. v. lo. • n«T. v. 3C 



... 1 ducat speciality auUm fratrem nostrum, H. festina 
. . . . ]cia.t p^r dommum nostrum [filium] suum qui* secum regnantem ' 

. . ]e redempta ad cf los ^^scendisti de c^lis 

• • ] filios interemptOTUM cunctosqt#« iff captiuitate 

■ • 1 geneiib«f dignare p^ucere qui cum patre 

post nomijna reoitata 

. . domt^ni deprvcemur uti uniuersos babtizatos 

] . . partidpes efficiat . * at ui • omnes 25 

] domino eripiat per suum unigenittun 

] qui tecum 

] per ista/» tui corporis • 

] alligatos et fratrem nostrum 

reduce]re digneris qui regnas : — 30 

omni]potentis mise[ri]cordiam 

captiui]tatib»x . elongatis carceribvf detentis 

conlsulator ads[i]stat neqw^ deejje sibi 

domi]nian nostrum s\x\im 
V.D. gia]tias agere dominc sancte omnipotens ^teme deus, 35 

qui po]pulu/7i tuis pr^eptis o^fftradicentem duro seruitio 
?subiectuma]d pristina/w lib^rtatem reducebas . respice 
^e dicant] gentes ubi est deus eorum quiquamvis Xibinon bene seruiant 
?rup]tis uinculis carcere reserato t^rre motu 

] . um * reddidisti sic domine cunctos ch/irtianos 40 

] normanicis ^ ferreis funib«f Bique 

*^ sic ! *-* 1 read at ui, • read Paulum or afiosfolum, * The first three 
I^^rB are ahnost illegible in the MS, but Uie photographic negative reveals f$oi 
or nor before tpiaruds. 

11)6 dotted line represents fragment B* 

FoL. I Ro., Col. i. 

magnus facis mirabilia 

deus ueri ' latittia sanctorum . quam tu 
pr^miBisti omn/potenti in fide ere 

* fi 


FoL. I Ro., Col. 2. 

• Dws qui sanc/am [huius diei sollem] 
pnitatetn in oi ' [ 
^N • * rf?/rse[crasti adesto faniili 




e tu§ 

: precihus et dona 



i die fiesta celeb 

\ [ranti] 


■ M 

i xilio i [coram] 

] mun 

[iamur per] 

: iesum \ [christura] 



\ onibus I 

] nme 

\ deuo I 

?ti red 

:i num ] 


\ i sancfi \ 


jtuk j 


i? i« j 

: tion • 

1 ut j 


iefa \ 

?atu : 

\ suppli ' 1 

qui in 

jpos \ 

t me 

\ diem \ 


jtis j 


\ sacer \ [do] 


jneu: i 

ob ? s ? 

i ? upi : 

' Lacuiiae supplied from the MissaU Goikkum, * There is no sign of any 

contraction, hence the word is probabl}' not omni, the second letter is possibly the 
first half of M. * f t^, reading very uncertain. * ?5 ill, * The letter 

before Hon is either a or m, ^ \ iiu ' ipopuH. 

* Thia collect might be reconstructed : D, f. s, k, d. s, in [Ajoiiorr b*alorum ./V. 
cOHSecrasti a./. L p. ti dona nobis hodie/gsia ctlebrantibus ut auxHio eorum ftmniamHr^ 
&c, Cf. the first collect for the Mass of many mariyrs in the Gothicum * Ditus 
fni sanctam huitts dm soliffttpftitafeMt pro cotntnemoraiionem btatisstpnonnn marty- 
rkim tuorum ill. et ilL passtamm Jvristit Ad€Sto familie tm prtcibus ei da ut quorum 
hodie ffsta cflebramus ecrum meritis et inffrcessionibus adiuvemur^ &c. [Text as 
collated from the MS of the Gothicum.^ The Sacranttntarium iripltx at Zurich^ foL 
338" gives it for the Mass of one martyr, evidently taken from some Ambrosian 
Sacramentary. FL iiy^^-i^t^'^ in that MS contain the Ambrosian Commum 
sandorum, and agree exactly viath the Bergamo sacramentary (ed, 1900, pp, 135- 
143). Gerbert printed this in his snialleat type on pp. 313-220 col. I and aaa-Jag, 
but he did not realize that what he printed on his p. 316 (including Ihe present 
collect) was one Ambrosian Mass. 




FoL. I vo., Col. i. 

ritatem obte 
suit se/ mota 

€st u : : ; iiostr \ urn iesum chnsfum fi 

hum svLum : — 

Deus ad cuius c i rescit glori 
3M quicquid sanctorum sal j utis contu 

tu* i 

exemplum tuae 
uoluisti e 


uHs per dommum 


D 1 [ignum et iust] 
: [stum est n] 
que s j [emper grafias a] 
nit j [ati . . .] 

um equum et iu 
OS hfc et ubi 
gere tri 
ut te auc 

tor i em omni] 

s creatu 


iff laudem 

sanctor \ [um . . .] 

? in tuam loc 

at«r j 

atum die! 

hui ! [us . . .] 

? tis in hon 


N consecs 

ast i[i...] 
it?c i 


ist 1 

ma est : 

FoL. I vo 

., Col. 2. 

hostia i/inocens uita suscipisti 
enim dominer hodiema die anima»» 
sacerdotis tui • N * camis i/itig 
re conuersationis ifilesse crucis 
5 uixillum calcato seculo prrferenti 
s. qutm ad et^mam uitam ' et ad glo 
nam regni celestis quam pr^ioso 
exitu ta^ felici petere iubes 
iffgressu qui et celestiuw secre 
10 torux9 ifft^rpres et diuinoru/Ti consi 
liorum capax iam in hoc mundo esse 
priOTneruit angeloru»? comes conso 
rs apostolice dignitatis qui 

' Before * tn'tam ' sa but deleted. ! -* aaluttnu 


dum per iffextipgibilem tui amoris ar 
15 dorem carnis ^uleos contriuit 

mtioTum i/rcendiua pfvstanit dia 

bull uirus extingfAt * ante moritu 

nis in s^cula quai» natura ista ey/ 

mors p/rtiosa sanctorum qui gloriattf r in re 
ao quie sua diem beate ressurrec 

tionis expectans in quo erit et ius 

titiae merces et corona uirtutis 

et palma uictoriae per dommum nostrum 


FOL. 2 RO., COL. I. 

Angeli ymnu«« debitum sine 

cessatione prvclamant dicen 

tes sanctus sanctus sanctus dominus deus sabao 

th pllni sunt 

5 Domine deus nost^ n6s quoqt^ hodi 

emam dieiw in honored tui sancti no 

minis et iff * commemoratione b 

eatissimorum martiniM am * cete 

ris Sanctis annua festiuitate 
10 peycolimjtfj alteribMX tu^ pieta 

tes adsistimus tibi emm damme 

laudes et gratias referamos 

in homine* et honore sojic/issimi 

filii tui dn ac domini nastri iesM chmti ip 
15 se emm qui pridie quaM pro nostra o 

mniuJM salute patiretur cepit pawMt ^ 

+ Oremus d^jwmi missercordiaMi 
*prv animbaci- omniuM episooponmi nos 
trorujRi et presbit^roniM ^ nostroruM et di 
K> aconoruM nostroruM - et caroniw nostxoniM 
et caraniM nostrarujM* et pueroruflt nostronui 
et pveUaruii * nostnunuv et penetentiuM nostr 

* M above the Ubc^ • c. • fer 

cfmoaJtj, *r(yrer«. •■overc 


onm * et o iM ommioni <i stratu ^^ « senioriMi f & s miaif 
trorum omnium s .*. Pfv iiitigritate uirginiMi . 
as et ^vifdnentia • uiduarum */ Frv^ aeris • temp 
[crie et fructum * feomditate terrarum ^ pro 
pads redetu et ^ fine discriminum '*] 

" First hand siaiu. " Lacuna supplied from the Stowe Minal. 

* From here as far as d^gtuhir, coL a. lin. 17, is found in the Stowe Missal (ed. 

^vren, p. 234) -5^, and in Witzers extract from an Irish MS at Fulda (Vicelius, 

EanikutmUa sittcttae ptitaHg, Mogunt 1555, P. ii)->^. ; both sources give the 

frit sentence as ' Pro st(r)aiu * (vide infra, p. 7a) and insert the whole dause in 

tke Canon between *pn> ndtmpHom am'marum auarum * and ' p90 apt aaluHa,^ &k, 

* omitted Si. 1V» * steHw JV. ' stntdrum suorum, Si. "^ mmisinmtm 
*ii»imm^riiait,St puriiaUrnhnsiromm^W. ^ W.MA^Bbona. ^ atgiinmW. 
*ooBttedinW^. ^aeW. 

¥gl. 2 Ro., Col. 2. 

Pr^ iiicolmitate^ [regum et pace* popa] 

loruM ac red[itu ^ captiuoram pro uo] 

t!s adstan[tium « pro memoria mar] 

tinim^ /. Pf»« re[mi8ioDe pecatorum] 
J nostrorum . e[t actuum emendatione [r]eonim] * 

''et pw^ requie d[efunctorum et« prosperitate] 

iteneris nostn^ & [pro domino papa episoopo et^ omnibus *] 

episcoplsi e[t prespeterfs^ et omni (cdesi] 

astico ordi[ne pro imperio romano ^'] 
'° ct omnibus regib[us ^ christiants ™ pro fi:atribus in uia] 

directis . & pro [fratribus quos de cali] 

ginosis n huius [mundi » tenebrts dominus ar] 

cessire dig[natus est ut eos in o etema lu] 

ce et q»iete <>Pdi[uina pietisP suscipiat] 
'S Tro {latribus qui ua[ri$ dolorum] 

gemitibifso ut[i eos* diuina pietlis* cur] 

are dignet[ur * petri] 

^ ^-^cunae supplied from Stowe Missal ' The MS fHt(y have room for all 


' ^*^nqmmtat$ W. ^ lOnmiiotu W. « W. adds exanditndis. « W. adds 
^^^*^»»tda. *~* mmiitttdis aiqut nmndandis peccoHs nosiris W. *^ ae St. 

>w>V '/roW. ^^ proRo.ponHJkiac^. ^-^ presbyUrisqm^, 

^. omits romano. * prindpidut W. ■ Here St. inserts proJraMbHS H 

'^'O'AiM ttoairis^ W. has p./. aororibusftu n. but places *pro /ratribut . . . mudpmi* 
'^ *profratr%bus in via dirigmdU* ■^ m%mdi kmus St •^ 9ttma SHmmas 
^ptirttSt, atierHamsummamqustMetmrtfuieinH'VJ. 9^ pittas dmma Si. 

^iniribuM ad/KguniHr St. W. ' W. adds m atttmum. * bonilaa W. 

* Here St proceeds with pro tpt saluiitt &c., i. e. part of the Canon. 
VOL. V. F 






• ^ "t, 


cnaczsKZA. ^ 

« > " I > 





'*^tLshabeamwj a.damtmm \' landiuiiacb *, imwola (ko 
B 'VimnoU difo sacrificiu/w laudis et redde altissimo uota tua ^ 5 

In conspectu oranis popuVi eius^^ in medio tui hiemsalem^ immola dtfO. 
^mmolamus Xibi d^ww/ne hostiam gratulationis nosir^ . exaudi nos 
^t pfTsta unicuiqtt^ nostrum pr^priu/w petitionem . affectumque tribue* 

m\serere nobis d<?iwriie qui xegnas * 
'eirenis cogitationibv^r seperatis " sola c^lestia ac sp/ritalia cogitemus ro 

'*Ma et deus & dominus domintts nosfcr* 
'ratres carissimi sicut simul orauimos ita ^ simul et ofTeramwj 
sacriiicium deo nostro sussuwi corda habeamus 2L^ominum * . . 
Offeramus d^wno d<fo nostio'' sacrosa/ic/i munera sp/ritalia. Dignum"^ 

. . . Btfu^rdictio 
dd pfl/ris & f/lil & spiritus . r<flfV«^a . . B : SBnd eanatair nadignumma 15 

f«>r tormach rendignum na triwdote %* ** 
Deua & d«rws et df^^iinws n&stei dommuE noster* 

• Dignura et justum ?quum et iustum est nos. tih"' hie et ubiqw^ sezraper 
gradas agere: di?»i/ne s<7/ic/e p^j^rr o^^nipatens ^tfme d^^s . fqui fecisti* 
c^ltim et trrram mare et o;7i«ia que in eis sunt . m/tiura tuom dc^mmQ 

ftobit^* . et magnitudinis tu^ mm es( finis ^ . una diuinitas b et una^ mai »o 
etttt , natir/a insep^rabilis , persona dividoa ^ dw^s unus et nan * soJ[us] 

* «A full washing. 

** ■ Here are sung the Dignttttts on an augmtntum before the Dignunt of the 


' In the margin here \^coim. * Dtus tt deus^ &c,, as below, but erased. 

r» wilh one mark of contraction over the two letters. ' A second hand inserts 
■^<»vcr er; this scribe's final long s is always very like/(cf. graiulaiianis^ /mtres]^ 
^ it is a distinct/. ' The fii^t two and ihc last two words of this sentence 

We la red. * Above the line. * A later hand has inserted in red a short 

'over the long & ^ In the margin. '* i.e, woviV. 

*^ Ps. xJix 14. Cf. the Lcabar Breac ; M'^Carthy on Stowe Missal, p. 262. 
*^ Pwt of Ps. cxv 18. ^^ Part of Pa. cxv 19. • This preface is 

'o^nd in Cod, Bobmt. (Par. B,N. tat. 13246) here quoted as Boh,^ and in the 
*our«bjc Missal (cd. 1755, p. S4), here quoted as Mos, It occurs in one of the 
S«n6j Masses in Bob. and for the eighth Sunday after the Epiphany in Jfcfar. 
onitted in Moa.^ in Bob, ' t>ms Abrahafn^ dtus Isaac^ dews /acob, cuius utrbunt 
*"*»m$a nvata stint cuius spiritu omnia nunciantur,* Mr. Edmund Bishop points out 
i^ook 0/ Cfrnt, ed. 1903, p. 148) that this adaptation of Acts iv 34 in liturgical 
^yci^ is ilniost entirely confined to books that can be connected with Irdand. 
•^ titrina. Bob., trina, Moz. *» indimdua, Bob. Mor. ' Cf. the 7th- 

^UiTy Irish prayer in MS Turin. F. iv 1 (ed. Meyer, loc. at. p. 303) ^ D*us omm^ 
A**""* ^ «s MH$4S H*c soitiSj Itrqui unus tt in fribus unus.* Cf. also Book c/ C*me 
(d 190}, pv ii^j 11. 9 and 10) * Dms unus it noH solus^ umlas IripUx,^ Bob. omits 
"^ either because liable to misconception or from a recollection of Pi. Izxxv 10 

*^ a dtus aoius^^ 

F a 


unttas triplex ^ et trinitas sc^ p lcn ttpientia multiplex 1^ . iM(^fffu[sa ^] 
coniiinctio . imliuidua°> distinctio « qucm^ mmm substantiality <) p^va- 

etP triniim personalitfr nommam«5 <i . quia 'tu es *6iU9 solus ^ et 

n^wi **«/ 
alius preter te . nec« «f/"» uoindum^ opera, tua yqui fecisti c^los**** 

ifftellectuy et« 
futidasti t/fTEM si(/Vr aquas* . ^pa/lrr et CrVvs et spm/vs sanc/vs^ . qoi U 

uno^ trinus" 
apares . et ' in tribus * unus agnosceris ^ . t quippe distiuctis p^rsoois 
singulatim d^us . patct d(us filiWs dfus spirits sanc/us . non idem poiSer 

qifi fifliiis efst] W" ide[m 
credit»r pa/tT esse ^ quod f/l/«s » , pa/CT ifigenitvj • qi«* a se «/• » fiii»s 

*autem genitw*" . . ." 
spirtfus saftc/us « a ptf/re « p/YTcedens ptf M et Clio codemus una * in je 

tribus et uoluntas^ 

'* The MS has the usital con traction for est, a a found written in foQ (reodered 
«9# by Moratori) in the coirespondin^ passa^ of Cod. Bobitn. ; the {^inse m 
probably taken from Ps. Ixxxv 8 Non tsi simtlis tm in d»s domint, H noH at 
wteundum opera tua. " The MS has a long s with a transverse line under it, 

■ rare but not unique contraction for s*ntndutn. '* / ibove the line. " m 

over «. ^ The MS has i single s with the contraction line over it, a capital 5 

has been erased before it " Above the line. »■"*' The reading here is rery 

uncertain ; I believe the original words to have been anU aecula m/indta^ but the 6iul 
letter of uMir appears to have been erased for the si^ for fuam and the « of a§€mk 
has been changed into ko. 

^ Moz, omits f/ *^ omitted in Bob. ^ inconpmsa (i,e» ituompmkm»\ 

Bob. ■ tmtmsa, Bob,, ft indiuisa, Moz. ■ pti^ Bob. • insuh- 

Mtapi<iali/fr, Bob. •*"> omitted. Bob. ' mimcmppikj, Moz., ffoww* 

Hdmac« rrn^SrmMs mM^^wmr, Bob. ^'^ omitted in Moz. ' omitted, B<^. 

* «s fmm deus. Bob. ; Moz. (ed. I755t p. 304) has an *aJia eraHo* with expressions 
like thb and a phrase which occurs a few tines further on In the fragment, Tm m 
dots et in if est dius gt noH est almsprrter te ; ah on igttssum uerhum, nan rt^ t idjlmt, 
fma Htique nalus JUius^ non ipse qui pater eM cretHhtr^ dum tamen ipgum tsse qwod 
pater est faittur.' « omitted, Bob. ■"* omitted, Bob. * «s, BoU 

'^ omitted, Bob. ■ Tu, Bob. ■ aquam, Bob. ^^ painm et JUium 

et spirilum sandum^ Moz., tu legem creatoris omnibus posuisO^ Bob. 1 MMiim, 

Bob. ^ omitted, Bob. ■ trino^ Moz, i Here Moz. concludes with 

Qfuein eon/aMdant angeii, Ac, t^ omitted, Bob. *^ omitted, BoU 

•-« mttis est gentratur^ Bob. ■-« unus est expaSre^ Bob. A.-A 

Ih&KJ uniias et d^itas potestas, 4r., Bob. 




FOL. 2, RO. 

* * Cuius *» propitiationem [sacerdotum preparjatio declarauit 
Catm [lon]gan[imitatem iudicum eqjtiitas pr^uHt . Cutus^ sapien- 

f«gnum*« uita desseniit Cums spiWrt*ni p[rophet]ar«z« u«?ntas adpro- 

CiffW b aduentum zacharias castigatus ostendit . Cujus introitum 
lohannis pr^cajsor ' adraonuit . Cuius ^ natiuitatem oirgo pr^tulit s 

stdia prfccssit angelorjyw f sacra uox ' cicinit pastorvw p^fniigel sol 
lidtudo pnniidit* magorw;« tnperthi'^ oblatio muneris honorauit 
Orftfs possionem * mundus non s«Jtenuit * ' tremuit terra * * . sol fug[it] ^ 
Cm'its resurrectionem adsistentes ostentauertf/Jt 1 angeli ^Cuius*^ . . . 
gentes "» glorificau<Ttt^ sa«c/i *» explorantes apostoli prf dicauerunt ^ i© 

Cwjus ascensum disciputi porrectis in c^lum oculis prosecuti sunt'*^ 
Ckwc regnum <» cum uniu^rso ^ c^lesrium et terrestrium p et infernorum 
preconio p animaliura et *i senloium signatorww f£j«ceiitus ' incessabili 
noce pf»claraant dicentes sancfus sanc/us sancfus dominus d^/^s 

sabaoth • 
Haec til*! laudes in excelsis omfus cansona, uoce resonant ac . . . 
COS u/ftf ex humili ■ sede supplices maiestati tu? fundimus pr^es 
cbsccrantes ut ad h^c pura libamina respicere digneris ♦ . , 
P^ogeniti fiT/l tui ac domini nastii iesu chWjti Qui pridie quam . . . 
amen dicitur* ordo miBsae Bancte majri^ ^^ 

* Concede quessumus omnipotens deus ad beat? sanc/c mari<^ 
^fginis gaudia ^Urna p^ninguere de cuius nos ueneranda as 
'amptione tribuas annua sollerapnitate gaudere per 
" Int/rcessio d^w/he mari^ beat^ raunera iwstm commend^t no " . . . 

^ The first thr^ lines arc much nibbed and could not luive been deciphered 
^"ilbout the help of the correspoodins passage m Bob., from which the words 
WlHliiii brackets have been supplied. ' The sense demands rg^m. * The 

B^DnlnicUon for $ts b the one which usually signifies us at the end of a word, 
^^K i.e. ^as&ioHtm, ' t over the first r> * Reading doubtful. \ Ditms, T Ornnes. 

^^r Scarcely legible^ doubtful reading. ' n over m. * These words are 

^B*dded by a later scribe who uses a jGLnal r not found elsewhere in the fragment. 
' This title is by the original hand, and enclosed in a single red line. *^ Ap- 

parently mqut. . , . 

• This preface occurs in Cod. Bobiens. in one of the Missa* dominicaUs. It begins 
* Cuius vocera Adam audivit' (cf. Muratori, Lit. Rom. Vd, voU ii, col, 924), and has 





thtc following variants r 
~* itaae sacra, « ptruidit. 

mtttntautrtmt, ^"^ cmn resurgntttm. 

loHgamimtaU (sic). ° sapitttcia. 

treptrtiia, ^-* ©mittcd. ^ rtfugit, 

"~" omitted. «*"* umutrsum, 

'^^ m/irmorHw^ptt loncmtum. "^ omitted. * omitted. ' Here the 

prciice ends in Bob. *^ This collect and secret appear in the Assump- 

tioo mass of the Tnpltx as G(elasiaii) and A(aibrosian) , with nobis after conctde and 


A mmAj of tbe Trifdez i 
{ma afCame, p. si^m. J} as to tihe 
^w rcil piie-GresvriBi 

of^ i*«d Gdttin in the 
P^ 3£3} «s <l>c Vatican 
B^ flf fro, tJie accKft a 4Mljr that 
«rtbe BwV.fbr SLFafaiaBaad 

r. Bislwp's 
MS as aa index to 

The dbject of die present Dotkse bemg the pnblicttioB of the text of 
the ft^gmenti and not m dtsqoisitioQ on the knotty qoestioiis which 
c oDcera the aodeot Gallican rite, it will sn^ce to caB xttentroo to the 
new erideoce which these firagmcnts lerea]. Mad to s^baw their points of 
simHanty and ooatiast with the Sinwe and Bobhio missals : these two 
redly fall under one category ; a glance at the AAgr^fikde musuaU^ vol. 
V, pp* 13S and 129, win show their intimate connexion with each other'. 

The general similarity between oar fragments and these t#o missals 
if evident at first sight ; the vernacular robfics and prayers which arc 
a special feature of Irish liturgim occur not only in fragment B, which 
if moulded after the type of the Stowe trussal, but in die (presumably) 
Bobbio sheet, though the Cod, Bobiens. is entirely in Latin « 

I am indebted to Mr. ^Vhiiley Stokes and Professor Rhys for help 
in translating the rubrics, which at once recall somewhat similar ones in 
the Stowe missal, though it is difficult to see how one Dignum could be 
tung belbre another, and the liturgical meaning of Idndtunach (*a full 
washingf' a ^complete washing out'), apparently at the offertory and 

Our frafments will bear out Mr. £. Bishop's belief^ expressed in the last number 
of the JotraaAL (J»ljj 1903* p. S^Ot n), that the Irish were concerned in the manipu- 
lation to which tiie Roman books were subjected in Gaul and in Northern Italy in 
tba Acventh century. 




cenamJy before the preface, is at present unknown : it cannot be the 

same ceremony as the Stowe Uthdirech and Idndtrech (the half and the 

fiill uncovering of the chalice); one hesitates to suggest a hitherto 

rded ceremonial cleansing of the chalice at this part of the mass ; 

if O'Reilly's Irish- English Dictionary (1864) is correct {diunach-=- 

'bathing,' 'washing'), the ceremony will be the customary washing 

the celebrant's hands. 

Putting on one side the phraseology of the prayers, which, as regards 
fragments A and B, is distinctly Roman, it will be at once noticed that 
their whole system is a GalHcan one, for whilst Gregor. and Gelas. for 
.ach mass only supply as a rule one or two collects, a secret and a post- 
communion prayer, ^e?^,, Gothic,, Fraruor,^ and Galiican. vetus agree in 
providing four separate prayers before the preface, which in its turn is 
followed by the post-sanctus and the canon ' Qui pridie' \ after which 
^ob. provides nothing else, as the Missa Romtnsis cottdiana at the 
t>cgirming of that missal, with its fixed post-communion, had apparently 
I to serve for all masses. Now tliis arrangement is precisely the one 
"^tnessed to by fragments A and B, whilst C. foL i r« provides some^ 
what elaborate initials for four only of the items which precede the pre- 
face It is far from being suggested that we have here a pure Galiican 
, lite; the fragments are a product of a time when Roman influence had 
I «iibrtitiited short pithy collects in the place of the lengthy Galiican 
■fdnes^ and the Roman canon, or part of it, had been introduced, but the 
^^distinctive prefaces are left untouched and the old framework remains, 
thediptychs are still read and the/ojc is given before the consecration ; 
though the actual title *post namina rtcitaia^ only occurs once, the 
^rd rtcUa . . . appears in one of the prayers, whilst another begins with 
^Biunsitis nominibus* It must be borne in mind that the titles on the 
fint sheet of A are a later addition by a Romanizing corrector, who 
xdng three nameless coUects prefixed to them the three titles common 
in Roman sacramentaries, without stopping to think whether they were 
applicable to the prayers, and without seeing the impossibility of the 
Homan • Super populum ' coming before the preface *. The very position 
of the Epistle and Gospel, so rarely found in early sacramentaries, but 
here placed by themselves as * lectioms ad missam ' and followed by the 
' Ordo missaCy is exactly the arrangement of the Bobbio Missal. 

But it is not only in the arrangement of the office that our fragments 
agree with the Stowe and Bobbio MSS ; it may be only a strange co- 
JOcidencc, but just as the Stowe Missal has three masses only, viz. for 
tltt common of saints, for penitents, and for the dead, fragments A and B 

* This procedure is the reverse of what wc find in Cod, JBobmts.^f where the Roman 
pnjrtn of the Mista Rommsts cotidinna appear under utterly unsuitable GalHcan 


reveal three masses which, though they bear no title, correspofid exact^^ 
with these three. In the few pages before us we meet with typic^x/ 
Hiberno-Gallican expressions which rarely if ever occur in the Grt^^. c?r 
Geias. ; c. g. the elders of the church are termed * senwrts ' whilst the 
faithful laity departed are the ^ cari nostri' \ ^ stratus ym. the sense </ 
body or congregation, which occurs only in the Stowe Missal, is found 
here with the epithet ' communis ^ ' ; ihe solemn Amen at the giving of 
thanks (i Cor, xiv 16) is ordered by the special rubric 'Amen diatur*; 
but perhaps the most striking similarity with the Stowe Missal is the 
omission of ih^ fiHoque ; though it was added to that MS by Moelcaith, 
the text of the Piacenza fragment remains unchanged, * Spirifus sancius 
a patrt proadtns^ a fact which seems to go some way in justifying the 
early date assigned to this sheet or its exemplar ; the fact that the words 
occur in a preface here instead of in the creed does not weaken the 

It will be observed from the notes that whilst the first mass in the 
Reichenau sheet is more or less the common property of Roman and 
Gallican missals, our fragments, with the exception of three Ambrosian 
collects, give us texts which are only found elsewhere, if at all, in Stowe, 
Bobbio, Rheims and the Mozarabic, and that the variants are instructive, 
as providing what in some cases looks like a purer and more primitive 
reading. If the number of known liturgical forms is not greatly increased 
by the present publication, it brings out a few new points as to text and 
arrangement, as well as some apparent difficulties which await solution. 
The phrases * rtfrigerio spirifus dtfunctorum ' * Deus , , . da nobis dcmim ' 
may be due to errors in copying, but the frequent reiteration of tnim 
in the middle of prayers is peculiar, nor do I remember having seen 
elsewhere sursum corda habeamus in a collect, or cepit pamm ' for 
aatpit panem at the commencement of the Canon ; the sequence Petri 
et Pauli lohannis^ to the exclusion of Andrew, in what appears to be an 
extract from the Canon, is a distinguishing mark of the Mozarabic 
Missal, though the three names do occur in this order in one of the 
Stowe collects; the * Ven elogius bassilius' (unfortunately defective) on 
A. fol. a ro is presumably a half Greek version {elogius^EvXoyrjiTAs ^) 
similar to ' Ven bentdictus ' which precedes it, but it seems to break off 
into the Latin of another prayer ; at any rate, it is interesting to note 

* Wiud*s priM of the Fddai MS has 'statu,' Of course it is impossible to rely 
on bis text as rendering the reading of the MS here, but still it now appears his 
statu is countenanced by the first hand of the new fragment. The correction to 
stratu however, as in S/., seems highly interesting [Ed- B,], 

* I do not know of any other suitable eitpansion of the cpa which foUowi after 
patifwtur in the MS ; it might he a scnbe*s error for c tijtHfuis), but the reading of 
the text ts clear. 




this survival of the ancient ecclesiastical tongue where it was saircely 


In the almost total absence of headings to the collects it is impossible 

arrange with certainty the masses in the Piacenza fragment ; some of 

sentences were sung by the choir and not said by the priest ; e. g* 

}la Dto sacrtficium laudW* ' was ordered, according to the Leabar 

:, to be chanted after the full uncovering of the chalice and paten 

after the gospel, and there is little doubt that the Deus et dens et domtnus 

imim^s nailer^ which occurs three times in one mass on fragment C, 

must have been one of those antiphons which we learn from Stowe 

were interspersed in the service, though these or similar words have not 

been met with before. But it is very doubtful whether this explanation 

can accotint for the two prayers, which look like benedictions^ which are 

fouBd on A, fol. I vo between the preface and the postsanctus, ^ ad- 

sis/at . . . ben^dLxii * and on C, fol. i v« immediately before the preface 

* BmtdUHo . , . spiriius et reliqua ' ; the former of these is apparently 

unfinished and perhaps has b^en copied into a wrong place, but the 

alMence of any similar examples of any liturgical interpolation im- 

iswdiately before the preface makes it necessary to call special attention 

t<» these anomalies. 

The first question naturally asked as to any newly discovered 
Callican sacramentary is as to the existence of a non-Roman canon, for up 
to the present no such has been found. Our fragments merely give the 
first words of a formula which either* as in Bab., agree with the so-called 
Gdasian canon: (i) * Qui pridie^ (ii) * Qui pridie quam^ or (iii) with 
the Ambrosian * Qui pridie quam pro nostra omnium salute paterttur* 
»nd in all three cases this apparently invariable formula follows imme- 
<iiitdy on the post-sanctus, whether the latter is addressed to the first 
Ct to the second person of the Holy Trinity ; there is no trace of any 
reference to the night of the betrayal instead of the eve of the passion. 
Of to our Lord's standing in the midst of the apostles, such as might 
bve been expected in a purely Gallican liturg}'. But there is a certain 
confusion and irregularity in B, fol 2, col i which deserve notice ; 
»fter ((pit panem (?) there is a short space, and on another line the 
*inje scribe proceeds to write + Oremus domini^ 6^r., which begins 
Biuch like a bidding yn^ytx post namina (defundoruni) redtatai but sud- 
'lenly, in its eighth h'ne (after the punctuation mark .-. instead of .), it 
liecomes a prayer for the living, ^pro intigritate, ^c! Of this text 
Stcme has as far as *p€nitentium nostrorum ' as the ^nA of an- added 
^ftr oblata {ed. Warren, p» 233), whilst it provides the rest of it in 

* These «re pfob»bly the words erased on fol. 19 of the Stowe Missal see 
^' Htlaitby'a mrttclc, Traasactions of the Royal Imh Academj (PoUtc Literature 
*^ Ajitlquitics), vol Z3Lvli| pt 1, p. ao^, n. b. 

Ill ifcB ' lUi 









milm^m^iL {ILA.W,] 


and that Boh, here is pure Gelasian, the suspicion crops up that possibly 

"^c may have here the relics of a part of the Gallican canon ; this is a 

'moe surmise with but little to uphold it, but at least it may be thrown 

^^ if only to be destroyed by the criticism of more experienced judges. 

Considering how few are the extant documents of the Irish rite \ and 

^H>w little we know at present of its origin and development, the present 

^'igments, though apparently insignificant, may be of real value to 

%iie liturgical students, and if their assumed date and provenance, as 

^^tte tentatively set forth, are accepted, they may prove to be portions 

of sacramentaries which are older than the Stowe* and which preserve 

^ ii^ore perfect text than the Bobbio Missal ; at any rate they will show 

^t neither one nor the other of these can retain its claim to be 

^ '^matm or a mere personal production, and their publication may lead 

^ the search for and the discovery of other fragments and to the elud- 

^^^tion of an important question '. 

Henry Marriott Bannister. 

^ Mr. WaiTeii*s nUquiae of Irish Ktnrisies are taken from about a dozen sources, 
^t ^vduch only three are really aacnunentaries. 

* The oonsensua of opinion seems to place the tnmscription of this MS to the 
'^'Uith century, but see TM4 Academy, Oct. ao, 1894, and PaUogr. Music, v, p. 14a. 
^ photographic reproduction of the whole MS is a great desideratum which the 
Henry firadahaw Society would do well to consider. 

' I must acknowledge with much gratitude the veiy valuable suggestions sent 
<i>e by Mr. H. A. Wilson and Mr. Edmund Bishop. 




Prefatory Note, ' 

The following texts have been compiled from almost all the Old Latin 
sources at present available. There are some omissions which will be 
briefly referred to below. Care has been taken to use the best editions of 
those writings from which the compilation has been naade^ though some 
of the older ones have also been used for the purposes of comparison; 
these will be enumerated below. 

From the nature of the case a text of the kind here presented is of 
varying authority ; as a rule, the value of a passage, for present purpKises, 
can be approximately determined by knowing its source ; for example, 
Cyprian may be regarded as olTering a text as near as possible to the 
earliest form of the Old Latin ; the authority of Tyconius^ too, is very high* 
On the other hand, TtrtulUan is an extremely unreliable authority, and 
must be used with great care ; a very cursory examination of his quotations 
will make this apparent at once ; indeed, in a few cases it has been found 
advisable to omit quotations from him, on account of their being rather 
of the nature of paraphrase ; but this is not always the case ; at any rate, 
he could not well be neglected, owing to his early date. It happens not 
infrequently that the value of a particular quotation cannot be settled 
off-hand ; in the case of the Speculum as well as Spec. (Aug.), for instance, 
there are early elements as well as late ; while Lucifer Caiaritanus som^ 
times quotes from Cyprian's Testimonia^ at other times from a late text. 
Therefore it has been found necessary to indicate clearly the source of 
every verse or part of a verse by inserting the name of the authority in the 

It is hoped, therefore, that the compilation may be found useful as 
giving a text founded on varying authorities ; k will not for a moment be 
supposed that the intention is to offer the genuine text of the Old Latin 

The following are the authorities cited in the text, together with the 
editions that have been used \- — 





Qs^»»r (including: Auct, Dt Pascha 
Cmfmtus, Dt Duobus MonHbus, 
AiD.Naoatianum in the Af^ndix 
to Cyprian) 

lucifir Cahrit 

COoHo Cartkaginiensis (Habetdeus) 
[Donatist quotations] 

£. Ranke Fragmenta . . . 1856, 
1858, 1868, 1888. 

E. Ranke Par paUmps. Wirceb,, 

W. V. Hartel in CSEL, vol iii 
1866 (for quotations from the 
treatises and epistles, Hartel's 
text ; for those from the Testi- 
monia the MS called L by 

F. C Burkitt Rules ofTyconius, 
1894, in Texts and Studies, 
vol. iii 

F. Weihrich in CSEl^ vol. zii 

Mai Nov, Patr. BibL, 1852. 
W. V. Hartel in CSJSL, vol. xiv 

F. Oehler Tert. Omnia Opera, 

P. Sabatier BibL Sacr. Lat. Vers. 

. . . 1743- 
Dupin Optatus (App,\ 1700. 

C. Ziwsa in CSEL, vol. xxvi. 
P. Sabatier ^. «'/. 
Migne PL, xUu U//.). 

C9iiim FulgenHum Donat. 
[Donatist quotations] 
Quotations from S. Augustine have been omitted ', as they are probably 
not of much help in determining the text of the Old Latin ; it is true 
(tt I am informed by Mr. Burkitt, in a private communication) that all 
Kadiogs which he stigmatises as ' African/ or as found ' in some codices,' 
have a good chance of being genuine Old Latin ; but, as a rule, he uses 
* revised text, and at the end of his life, he sometimes uses the Vulgate 
jtidf. Lactantius, Firmicus Matemus, and Commodian (here I am again 
indebted to Mr. Burkitt) always quote from the Testimoma, and thus 
V^ no independent evidence ; their quotations have therefore also been 

Wherever the Codd. Weing, and Wirceb. are available they form tbe 
^ and whenever a verse is found in any other authority it is noted in 

' Notes kindly supplied to me by Mr. C. H. Turner have furnished some correc- 
ts of Hartd's account of the readingB of L. 

' A few ezeepUona to this will be found in some quotations from ^ee, (Aug.), 
wkicli sppear to contain early elements. 



the AppanUus Critkui^ unkss the quotation is word for word the saflJf 
as the Vulgate, in which case it is omitted Where the Codices fail, the 
text is compiled^ as far as possible, from the various quotations, in the 
order: Cyprian, Tyconius, Speculom, Lucifer, ColL Cartb,, Fulgentios, 
Tertutlian. The sources from which the text is drawn are indicated, is 
already pointed out. in the margin ; references to the patristic quotations 
employed for text or App, Crit. wOl be found below the text. 

The Apparatus Criticus. Besides giving the variations among the 
Latin authors, the App* Crii, also gives the readings of the Alexandrian 
Greek Version (G), together with those of the LMdamk and HesycMan 
recensions. These rccensons are indicalfid respectively by l and K, 
which stand for two groups of MSS; btxt it frequently happens that 
a group is not united, and that therefore the MSS have to be indicated 
separately. Generally speakings and when not otherwise signified, % 
or K denote the whole, or the decided majority, of the MSS of their 
group ; where one or two of the MSS differ from the rest of the group, 
the witness of the latter is not r^arded as having been impaired. 

A void most be said r^gvding these two^groaps of MSS*. The 
fwfmmk (li) indtides the MSS numbered (Hoimes and Parsons) aa, 36, 
[4»1 5*. 62, 95, r47. 153, 185, 233; of these 22, 36, 51, 153, [233] 
agree very dosely ; 4S, 233 are to some extent Hesychian, and r53 shows 
ft good number of individoal readings in some books, but this applies 
also, to some extent, to 22, which is uniretsaliy recognized as genuinely 
Ludanic. When a reading is supported by this sub-group, or by a dis- 
tinct majority, it is set down as the witness of the Ludanic recension. 
This witness 'v& frequently supplemented by that of die second sub-group 
62, 147 *; the individual character of these two, but especially of 62, is 
strongly marked, but both very oCten support the first subgroup. A third 
Lnciaruc sub-group consiste of the MSS 95, 1S5 ; these two also show 
a certain amount of independeoce, though this is not nearly so strongly 
marked as in the sub-grocp 62, r47. 

The MtsyMoM recension (K) tnchides die fi)Ik]nrag MSS : — Q tSy 
49, 6S, 87^ 9t| 106. Here there is greater unanimity among the MSS, 
thoQgb subgroups nia^ be disttngntsfaed. Q 26 osualiy agree i 6S, 87, 
91 iam a distxnci sobgiroop ; to6 shows the gr^test individQaHty of the 
gronp, while 49 abo stands a httle apart ; this Utter is in close agre^ 
ment with a MS r eg arf ed by some as Hesychian [yii, 23S [= 97]]^ but 
wliidi, fiior reasons given cbewhere *, is not included among the genuine 
MSS ; it is only with hesttadon that 49 has been induded 


F«rMM <^«r tea* ^At 
• ForH 


of these, Ke the wnter^ 5iiffw at tkt Cnak mad 

of t&eae two IISSp sec Simdits^ pp. 9^15. 
pp. 9, Ji-14, 


in the following App. Crit^ its support in the group ^ is often 

It win be seen from the above that the signs E and W, when 
oocurring in App. Critf do not necessarily include all the MSB of the 
leoension, though this is of course generally the case. To give the indivi- 
dual evidence of each member of the groups would very much increase 
the balk of the App. Crit,\ and for the present purpose it does not seem 
oeoessary to do so, because what is here aimed at is to give the general 
mdaia of each recension for or against the Old Latin texts. 

Finally, readings of some other MSB have been added when they have 
nppoited the text ; instances of this ^lay be seen in e.g. Mic. iii 7, 10, 
Zq)h. i II, 13, Hag. ii 21, &C. ; other authorities quoted under similar 
drcamstances are the Armenian and Slavonic Versions (H. and P.), and 
the Complutensian and Aldine texts. 
The following is the notation used : — 

OL = The Old Latin Version. 
Cod. tVeing, = Codex Weingartensis. 
Cod. Weing, (F) = The Fulda fragment. 
Cod. Weing, (St) = The Stuttgart fragment. 
Cod, Wirceb, f» Codex Wirceburgensis. 
C = Cypriap. 
7*= Tyconius. 

S = Speculum (Pseudo-Aug.). 
5 (Aug.) = The Speculum of S. Augustine. 
L — Lucifer Calaritanus. 
Tert, — TertuUian. 
Cc = Collatio Carthaginiensis. 
F— Contra Fulgent. Donat. 
® = The Alexandrian Greek Version. 
®B = Codex Vaticanus (Swete's edition). 
1. = The Lucianic recension. 
?? = The Hesychian recension. 
Q = Codex Marchalianus. 

(19 includes Q unless otherwise stated.) 
A = Codex Alexandrinus. 
K = Codex Sinaiticus. 
r = Codex Cryptoferratensis. 
Arm. = The Armenian Version. 
Slav. = The Slavonic Version. 
Compl. = The Complutensian text of the LXX. 
Aid. = The Aldine text of the LXX. 
Vulg. = The Vulgate (ed. Vercellone, Romae 1861). 
The order of the books follows that of B. 


ct erit ubi 
qw fill dl viTl, " CI 
et paoct stbl toitiiiA 

qnn haec non 


L I. la dUbm . . .] >r A«7m K api w r m tfo f if iqpat (Wf« vwr rm Bt^^ S lift 
a. et dixk dai ad Omc] ««• » «7 91 te] cm 6 E 1^ h Gook)] Foj^^ 

61]^ 4. Isrmhcl i*] l«0^fX fi Iw^mX St Im^irvM. (j«^ ^6«0 49 U9§faA 

(me mfm) 92 147 U{fiO>t\ 153 I<CS^(uA M 96 4« SI «8 87 91 95 104 285 9^ 
Unlie] a*] k^MX S 1 1^ etaTCrt»n]Mi«E3^C«<r49) 5. didt daa] 

»m S 1. ^ sacttum arcta] ro T^«r S 1* H Isndiel i*] l«v^a«A S 1, i| 

«. dixit: ^ awrm fi 1. 19 dms] <mm S 86 48 95 18S ttt Ife 7- filus] filios 5 

todAe] ludM 5 OfN S^ 1, H CA«6 ^ coram] ipsoffum S bello] ^ ov8f cf 

ofi^fftM 88 ^7 91 Q* (o«8« tr 9^tf>m Q^ cwt mt t «r ap/minv 28 36 49 106 8. oon 

dflcctun] njr ovk jjXtijugwipr G l (tit 15$) J^ CODC *pit] •«• «ft S 1 1^ 9* dms] 
o«M 6 36 48 95 185 233 ^ ipsi] am I H la ncquc mettri] 

Au err IN om/ et erit] erit eoim C ofai] qao loco C dictum ruerit] 

dJcetur C vos] om C S 32 86 48 S93 !( vocabantur] ^ OJo loco C /r 

«Mi 32 ^6 /r avTM »« 61 ^ cm ovroi 106 ipst] o»n CE It. ludfte] 

J^ « mo$ IE 1. 3^ ponet} tfi^^orro* 6r 1^ 1^ ascendet] ara/S^fforra* G 1, || 

Iirahel a*: K/ncX 6 iL )^ l«ff/«fA Q 62 87 1471 

II. 1. non est uxor mem] 17 fnrnjp fiov (cotr. ah at m. ut m Ed,) 106 4- Mn 117 
fum] om fi E (MX- 51) |E} eltis a Ukdt mem^ ct adaltcnuo] om %% «diiltenuD] 

^^^^^^^■^ NOTES AND STUDIES 8i ^H 

m MX dispoliem earn nudam et constituam sicut dies nativitatis eius, Corf. t¥infk 
I et ponam sicut desertam, et statuam earn sicut terrain sine aquam et 
4 ocddam earn et sitim tilei. * Filiis eius noa miserebor quia filii 
L i fomicaiionis sunt, ' quia fomicata est mater ipsorum, confusa est 
I quae peperit eos» quia dixit, ibo post amatores nieos qui dant mihi 

■ pane et aquam meam, vestimenta mea et linteamina mea, vinculum 

■ 6 meum et oleum et omnia quecuiiique mihi necessaria sunt. • Propter 
I hoc ecce ego saepio viam eius in sudibus et ei aedificabo vias 

■ 7 eius et semitam suam non inveniet. ^Et persequetur amatores 
H suos, et non conpraehendet eos» et queret et non inveniel eos, et 

■ dicet, ibo et revertar ad virum meum priorem, quia bene mihi tunc 
I t erat quam modo, ' Et ipsa non cognovit quia ego dedi ei triticum 

■ et irinum et oleum, et pecunias multiplicavi et, ipsa autem argentea et 
I 9 aurea fecit huic bahal, • Propter hoc convcrtam et auferam triticum 

■ meum in tempore suo et vinum meum et oleum meum in tempore 
I luo, et auferam vestimenta mea et lintiamina mea ut non cooperiat 
I to turpttudinem suam. ^^ Et nunc denudabo spurcitiam eius in con- 

■ 11 spectu amatorum eius et nemo enpiet earn de manu mea, *' et avertam 

■ omnes iucunditates eius dies festos et numenias et sabbata eius et 
I 11 omnes mercatus eius^ "et exterminabo vineara eius et ficeta eius, 
P quoniam dixit raerces hae meae sunt quas dederunt mihi amatores 

mei, et ponam earn in testimonium et comedent earn bestiae agri et 
'3 volatilia caeli et repentia terme» " et ulciscar super earn dies bahalim 

■ in quib. sacrificavit ei et inponebat sibi inaures suas et ornamenta sua 

p 18 '* Et disponam illis in ilia die testamentom cum bestiis agri^ et cum Spicuhtm 

voUtiUbus caeli, et cum serpentibus terrae 

33** . . • Vocabo non populum meum populum meum CypHan, 

■ el non diJcctum dilectum. ....... 

m II M. Tcrt. Adv. Marc. 120, V4 II 18. Spec, caiv 11 23. Cjpr. Testim. i 19 

^avn;«61,|^ 3. constituam] +atfn7v ® 1, J|} dies] fv i^^ffMi 51 $2 147 

^^5 <v f^frt^t *.>5 ISA ponam] ^ avrriv ^1L^ ct &it!m mei] 9¥ S(^«i €& E H 

-«^ Filiisl pr mm ^ E ^ 5. ibo] ottaKovOr^oto 26 iW lOti 233 {A) pane] 

""^P^^ C& H |l( aquam ineam] + irai top <hvov fAov jrai ro tktuov ^ov Sd 40 ct 

^oteamina in«a] iww otvof ftov OS^hnrat rov ot¥ov >ww 87 106 + *ai rov oifc*- Q* ("w> 

"^incttluni meum] om Ct E JQ 6. ei] om S E )t2 7* queret] + aurovr ® E 1^ 

^L et pecunias] +itm xpvoiof E (*xc 48 238) Q^ "^ huic bahal] tt; Ban\ ffi E |^ 

^Tir fi. 22 51) 9, ci oleum meum] om <!5 E jl^ {ixc 4^) 1 1. dies festos] ^ eius 

Ttrl avTi7f G E 91 ^y* ««« iracras Trts &5 185 numenias] neomcrtias TVit+aimyj 

^ E Bl eius i**] om Ttrt mcrcatun] caeremonias Ttrt 12, quoniam] wf<x 

<IS E 1^ et ponam cam] mxi Bfjffofuu avra 61 E |^ i*xc 26) earn a°] nvra fS E |^ 

(mv 86) 13' ei] avrms B E (fv ovTOir 62 147) ft 23. VocalK* . . .] «a* 

«>««i|a« (tAfifffw E J^) rip Ov« TiyawijfMt^v mxt tpai rw 0« Aoai /40v Aaot /to* «( ffv 


VOL. V. C 

4 j»x)gU4n. buperuktiioent. ' Ifican» ttna logdaxt cam nntversis tnn^bs 

feui^ cuic beslMS a^ citiD scrpcotibos tenae, cum 
4 el <idident pisoes msm. * Vt nemo mdioet nemo 




poio etflub.« 


i4 ''El oon iiinfiiiriiiffiimrr fiUu fettta^ exan k 
nurus yeftns cmpmiitgit quia ipBi cmn iamtcsriB 
et cuiu pro«tiuiUs aacrifiaifaant, et imfiiilBE qni -non 
i£ C' rijiatur cum fomicaiia. ^Tu aniSBk Iwnrtifl DaiE 

c ah lutratre iii Galgaia, ct oolite jmijimIiih. in donmiD Og et 

j6 ooii luiaic per vivum dtJm dm. ** Quia stent vacca 
1 1 Iftialiel nunc pasctn eos dins tamqoam agnos id ktioaa 
1% suaulacruf uw EphreiD posuit sibi scandaK * de^ 

firopior quod tawcati autt ^^'*-«'""* %noiiiia^ ex frenuBi sua 

ly '* Haec cooveisio ips tu cs in innnis dam a cunfurtdeuir ex 


V. t Aud^u; ua/ec, aaiceraotet^ ci aotpndai dcmiis iandid : et 
i€^ pngb^m aueea qmn^am MwiiMU ^poi ok wwliiium 
■ripwPMm lacti Mlia ipciciocae in Tiotatiooe et sicut retia extensa in 
t ttatum in se, *qtiam qui venaotuf con&tenint bestiam, ego autem 
I cruditQr venter »um. ' Ego cooovi Ephrem et Israhel recessit a me 
|irupUfr 4uod nunc fomicalui est Ephre et contaminatus est Israhel 

IV 1-4* Cy(ir. Tutim. Ifl 47} Ad Dtmti, U V 1. Luctf. CaL Dt 

A4kmn. i 15 

IV. «. f^tiMTiliu] am a P) 
M Mifttt IM) <ifu«|pw«9tf « ra* Q 

3. lugcbit] <f wu /;iiKpi;»^<rfT«i C& H |^ i^crii 

cum J* 4*] ^'^ «v ^ 1L 1^ 14- ««^ 

(F) qui non inlcUeg^Mitur] o g iw y 

Q"^ 15- Og] nr a «i 4« a 

M.) iM sn f^ vft 


It «^ )il Ifti rf» aliMi (^ i« 8fi 60 07 (91 wUb't 0*' 1 
4» ««i Ml iMiJ w AEII 16. Qtt 

( WI 1H P X **' '' * •*! li Jiir, MM 

« E 1 »w»' wMi* {^ v«*^^ ;;- «> n M ^ 4f $1 lOi l» S» 

V. ^ AiKaaBkaBC i > . : ci f»^i «a <4 i n to i j ■ l iiii t ^t 




f^Non dederunt cogitationes suas uti oovertantur ad dom, quoniam Cod. Wintb, 
$sp5 fomicationis in eis est, dom autem non cognovemnt. ^Sed 
humiliabitur iniuria Israhel in faciem eius ; Israhel et Ephraera 
infirmabuntur in iniustitiis suis et infirmabuntur et lydas cum eis. 
6 'Cum ovibus et vitulis ibunt exquirere dom el non invenient eym, 
)deveitit enim ab eis; "'quia dom dereliquemnt quia fili aliidiati sunt 
8 ab eis nunc comedet eos erisybe et iluctus earom. * Canite de tuba 
super colles, dnio resonate in excelsis domo Og et expavit Veniamin, 
5*Ephrem in exterminium factus est in diebus arguitionis in tribubus 

10 Israhel ibi asiendil credibilia : ^^ Facti sunt principes luda trans- 
ferentes terminos super eos effundam ut aquam impeluw meum, 

ii"/nvaluit Ephrem in adversarium suum co«culca%"it iudiciuw quia 

11 coepit ire post vana. *' Et ego ero sicut conturbatio Ephrem sicut 
13 stimulus domui luda; "et vidit Ephrew infirmitatem suam et ludas 

dolores suos, et abiit Ephrem ad Assyrios et misit legates ad regem 
larim, et ipse non potius liberare eos et non cessavit ex vobis dolor. 
14** Quia ego ut panthera huic Ephrem, et sicut leo domo ludae : et 
Is ego rapiam et ibo et accipia(t)m et non erit qui eruat. ^Ibo 
et convertam in locum meum /riorem donee exterrainentur et 
querant faciem meam. 

VI. 1 In tribulatione sua diluculo vigilabunt ad me dicentes, eamus et 

convertamur ad dom diii nostrum, quia ipse laesit et salvaviV nos, 

I'pOfit viduum et in tertia die resurgemus et vivtmus in conspectu 

V 15, VI I. Tcrt. yfrft/. Marc, iv 43 
6. Tert. Adv. Jud. xiil 

VI I. Cypr. Ttsitm. H 35 

VI I, a, 

rtctsait] fir ovtc 6r H )^ et a'*] orrt QEr H j!^ 4. non dedenint] non dabunt S 

«i convertmntur] om S ad dom qiio(niam)] «= Cod. Wting. (F) ad doin i**] 

tdeujD suum S wpot ror 6fov avro^ ^ li ]^ quoniam] quia 5 in eis est] Jn 

at^io cCTum S {ttTTiv tv fxtffot ttvran^ Com/fl) 5. Sed] urcu IS iL $} 6. dcvertit] 
/roTi ^ 1^ cnini] omSf^ (hablL) 7. dereliquerunt] — Cod. IVfing. [F) sunt] 
•Vtryriitjaa^ ffi «' *' Q'*" 22 86 46 49 61 68 87 91 238 tyfirtfijffat^ Q* 26 62 95 106 147 
15J U5 ab eis] om ab G IL J^ («» ovrcw*' Georg) et iluctus coram] mou rovs 

'^n^tm ovTMr G I (avTovs 238) ^ {koi tow ttapvovi atnaiv 26) 8. super collea] bis 
Vfmtod <Mo]omGl.)^ domo] /r *7^i;£aT« © U J^ /r «v © E ]5 (f vc TOfr w/r*uK 
W) Of] nir «5 H 1^ {om 26) ct] om^lLfEt, Veniamin] Btv. © E J| 

9* ibi] oiM 15 U J^ (f#«i 4d) ro. lyda] + w ffi iL 1^ la. sicut a**] /^ wi (K IL J^ 
(orBfi 1»5) 13. dolores sues] tijk c^mr^v axnov © H |^ larim] ^ H J!^ {}cLpu0 
(?■ ^pifi 158) non potius] ot/« ijSvraatfij G 48 49 68 106 liberare eos] ^MotKiBai 
^»^m S2 Se 61 fwmff^ v^mt 01 t» Q^ 62 hi {mg aynmvi) E»l ^5 147 153 iKS f^aaoQai 
V^MMvioi v^ff ^L 26 48 40 106 233 14. ego] ^ *m^lL'% 15. pnorcm] 

**»€il|( donee externiinentur] + *oi tfno-r ^%^o\yQi 22 86 51 95 (-«w* 147) 186 et 
V»«r*m] ut q. Twrt 

Vi. I. diluculo] ante luceni TiH vigilabunt] surgent Ttrt convertamur] 

''trtainur C salvavit] vivificabil Ccurabit (a/sanabit) Jrr/ nos] + jraraf« 

**< mmu ij^t 6 E {ixc 62) ^ 2. post] pr vfioau tjt^as ^JLJtt 

CM mnt^ 


3 cius * et cognoscemus persequemur ut sciamus dom sicut diluailfflB 
paratum inveniemus eum et veniet nobis sicut pluvia matutina et 

4 serotina terrae. * Quid tibi (aciam Epbrem, quid tibi faciam luda, 
misericordia autem vestram sicut lux matutina et sicut ros afft^ 

5 lucanum eris. ' Propter hoc dimensus sum propbetas vestros occidi 

6 eos in verbo oris raei et iudicium meum sicJrt Aix rriet * Quoniam 
misericordiam volo quam sacrificium et agnttionem dei quam bok>- 

7 cauUi. ^ Ipsi autem sunt ut homo /rasgrediens testamentum ibi 
8k 9 contempsit me *Galaad civitas operans vana turbans aquam, *eK 

fortitudo tua firi piratae absco/rdenim sacerdotes viam ocdderui^t 
t9 Sidmam quia peccatum fecerunt * in doroo IsrahcL Vidi horrendafli 1 
11 fomicationem buius Ef^rem co^quinatus est Israbd "et lodas inci(^ 
^ndemiare tibi ipsi in co cum conTertam capdTiatan popub m^** 
VII. I et in eo cum saneai lanbel et tefMbkm iniiKtitisi Ephrem ^M 
SMJiua S«mahae quia opemi ant mfndTJiMtt et lor ad *1 

l»4* . . « pmdiKi *adiiltei^ 

rotnoMe « . . ^ . . . ct%DiiooBe^'t 

ct oca fiik in cis qtii iovocar^*^ 

n^yaeWd^qaoammmawBtLmmci maiufesti soot, quia peccaTexnnr 
i^oiHK ^ct naaduHivenm jdraccocdibiissuis 

•«* iDlcnaA^TptL 

VIIL I In SOM MM akM imm vdm aqrih m dono dS; eo 
qpMxl pcKTaricwciumt mtHMMMn aw mm * ec idvctsus le^ciB 

9«QlM . 

w^ c tiiif iiiifc s if «««ik ^ •* "1 III s m n (I ■ K 1^ 


per me, priocipatum egenint et nescierunt me; argentum suum et C9d,Wik 
aimini simm feoeroiit tibi simulacra; quemadmodum ad nihil 
I mdiganhir. 'Coniri vitulum tuum Samaria: exacervatus est furor 
-(mens in eos: quo usque non poterunt mundari *in Istrabd: et 
ipsom hbo fiedt ; et non est da ; prop 

13 " . . . eorum ; et ulciscetur peccata 

eorum; ipsi in Aegyptum redierunt, et inter Assjrrios immunda 

14 manducabunt ^ Et oblitus est Istrahel qui fedt eum ; et aedifica- 
Terunt templa, et ludas replevit civitates muria circumdatas, et 
inmittam ignem in civitates ipsius, et comedet iundamenta eorum. 
IX. I Noli gaudere Istrabel, neque aepulari sicut populi terrae; 
quoniam fomicatus es a do tuo^ dilezisti munera in omnem messem 

1 tritid ' et area, et torcular ignoravit illos, et vinum fefellit eos. 

3 ' Non inhabitaverunt in terra dmi, inhabitabit Ephrem in A^;ypto 

4 et inter Assyrios, inmunda manducabunt * Non libaverunt d^ 
yinum et non placuerunt ei victimae eorum ; sicut panis luctus eius 
omnes qui manducaverunt ea coinquinabuntur ; propter quod panes 

I eorum in animas eorum, non intrabunt in domum dmL ' Quid 

6 £udeti8 in die mercatus, et in die soUemne d^ ? * Propter hoc ecce 
ibunt ex infdidtate Aegypti, et suscipiet eos Memphis et sepelivit 
eos Machmas ; argentum. eorum interitus possidebit, et spinae in 

7 tabemaculis eorum. ^ Venerunt dies ultionis tuae, venerunt dies 
perditionis tuae et male tractabitur Istrahel, sicut profetes qui 
eztitit homo spiritalis, a multitudine iniquitatum tuarum repletus 

$ insaniae. ' Inspectus Efrem cum deo profetes, laqueus pravus in 

9 omnibus, viis ipsius. Insaniam in domo dei: confixerunt *corrupti 

sunt : secundum dies collis memor erit, dabitur iniustitia eorum et 

10 ulciscetur peccata eorum. ^ Sicut uvam in deserto inveni Istrahel 

et sicut speculam in arborem ficus ; mane vidi patres ipsorum, ipsi 

introierunt ad Beelph^or, et alienati sunt in confusionem et facti 

IX 4. Cypr. EpitL facviis ; Sp§e. xlvi ; ColL Carth. Gmia cdviU 

ngem coasdtiientiit C 13. et inter Asqrrios immunda Bumducabunt] am f{ 

14. eomai] cvrev ^A 

IJL X. terrae] mm flr 1# |Q (Aa6 Arm.) a dO tiio] avo Kvpiov rov 9tm tfov 1, 

fl, eC 1*3 (MM ft 4. vicdmae] aacrificia CS Ce eios] ovrocf 6r 1# fi( omnes] 
omnia Ce mandocavenint] manducant C 5 tetigerit Cc ea] ex eis Gr airr«r 

% (cjor 36 4A 15S 3SS) eoiaquinabuntur] contaminabontur C 5 inqoinabitur Ce 

f ukm >0 if t ri0nu 62 147 61. poesidebit] -i- ovro ft % {exc 51 153 233) et spinae] 

CM I K (A#» ft Compl) eormn a*] om ft 1. IQ {habBf^ Q) 7. tuae i«] 

OMft9) ioaaiiiae]^««»ft||{(Mv91)Kacc36 95 153) 8. del] cvpunr 

26 49 106-l-aimw 36 51 62 05 147 135-^«wr«r 153 npm 233 9. dabitur] om 

ft 1, IK eorum 1*] wnm ^ ct nldaceturj mm 26 om et ft 1^ ||(car 106) 

eonim a*] cnrrmr f|{ 


fd^ W«ittg.{f) tt sunt qui cranl dilecti sicut abominandl "Efrem sicut avis eTokbft 
gloria eorum : ex usuris et ex iniquitatibus : et ex conceptlonibus ; 
11 ^' propter quod si enutrierint filios suos, sine filis erunt, ab hominibiis, 

13 propter quod \*ae illis est caro mea ex ipsis. ^ Efrem quemadmoduoi 
vidi in bestiam adstiterunt filios suos, et Efrem ut produceret in con- 

14 fixionem filios suos; **da Illis dme, quid dabis illis ; da illis volvam 

15 quae nalos noo procreel et mamillas ahdas; '*et omnes malitiae 
illorum in Galgala, quia ibi illos odivi propter magnas adinventiones 
ipaorom, de domo mea eiciam eos> non adictam ut diligam eos, 

16 omnes principes eorum incredibiles. " Doluit Efrem, radices ei^^ 
ftiefactae sunt, et fiuctum non adferet, propter quod etsi generaverint 

1 7 occidam desideria ventrium eorum. ^ Abiciet illos ds quoniam no^ 
obaudierunt eum » et erunt errantes inter 

^todmm X. I Vinea in maceria bona Israhel, fiuctus eius uberrimus secunduoc* 
multitudinem fructuum suorum. . . . *. 
4 et orietur sicut gram en iudidum in incultum. ... * 
DiiteMM ^ • et vinctum eum ducent xenium regi 

O]^**^ XL Non fiieiaixi iuxta iram tndignattonis meae, noo sinam deleri 

Efrem» quoniam Deus ego stiiD» et non homo in te samctus, et 

to non introibo in dvitatem, '*po6t Deum ibo .... 

XIL J Iudidum Domini ad ludam ut vindicet in lacob secundum 

3 vias dus, . . . secundum studia dos retiibuet ei ' ... In utero 

4 supplantaTit fiatrem suum et in Idioribiis suis iBTilmt ad Deum, ^ et 
invaluit cum angdo et poteos foctoi est ... in temple 
meo me inTenemnt, et iUic dispcitatim ctt ad eos. .... 

X T. S^. cadi X 4. Sftc. exhr Z 4 Tert. Adm, Mmw. iw ^ XI 9^ iol 
Cypr. r«i«»t.ii6 XU s^ TycoiL Jilir, S|^ XII 4. Tett^^ Jtor; 


fi#««l|^ in jro iitets«o d niei«««]>lb>t* n ., „ E 14.^ 

OKs j^ a« M a 147 tSt 15. et] «. Sl.]| ki GdMal <r 

tstss L J * 

aaoj mvmm^DM ^mttr mmm fm A m ym m» fir m» E C» Or ^ 


^ ^ Chanaan .CotLWtimg.^ 

^ ^ . . . * . . . tabemaculis 

'• * . . . "• • • vjt Istrahel in . 

^CIII. I bahalim et mor 

^ <• • . . ' . . . sicut pulvis .... 

"^ . . *ego autem Dominus Deus tuus qui firmo caelum et SptaUum 

creo terrain cuius manus creaverunt omnem militiam caeli et non 

ostendi tibi ut ires post ilia . . . saluet non est praeter Cod, Wtmg, 

^ ^ me. 'Ego pavi te in deserto in terra inhabitabilis, 'secundum pascuas 

illorum ; et repled sunt in abundantia, et exaltata sunt corda eorum, 

> propter hoc obliti sunt mei. ^£t ero illis sicut panthera et sicut 

^ pardus secundum viam Assyriorum ; ' occurram eis ... 

clusionem cordis eorum, et edent illos ibi catuli 

S silvae, et bestiae agri disrumpent eos. * Corrupdonis tuae Istrahel 

^o quis erit adiutor ? ^ Vbi est rex tuus hie ipse salvum te faciat, et in 

omnibus dvitatibus tuis iudicet te, quem dixisti da mihi regem et 

^i principem. *'£t dedi tibi regem et . . ne mea, 

^a et habuisti in impetu tuo. " Collectionem iVulvstitiae "Ephrem tf^scon- 

13 ditum peccatum eius ; *' dolores parturientis venient ei, hie filius 
tuus sapiens, propter quod nunc non restabit in contribulatione 

14 filiorum tuorum. '* De manu inferorum eruam eum et a morte 
liberabo . . . ubi est stimulus tuus infeme ? Consolatio 

15 absc^fisa est a3 oculis meis: "propter quod hie inter fratres sepa- 
ravit Inducet dms ventum candentem a deserto super eum, et exsic- 
cavit venas eius, desertos fadet fontes dus, ipse perexsiccabit terram 

XIV. I dus, et omnia vasa . . . ^ 

quia restitit dmo suo; in gladio deddent et sugentes mamillas 

2 illorum defodientur, et pregnates eorum disrumpentur. ' Revertere 

Istrahd ad dom dm tuum, propter quod infirmatus es iniqui- 

XIII 4. Spte. zliv XIV a, 3. 5/«c xziii 

XIII. X. bftfaalim] ny BaoX ft ^ (ixe i9 rw B.) rw B. 1, (mw 158 88S ny B.) 
8. et bestiae] OfM et ft JQ 9. quis erit adiutor] -t- <roi 02 91 (aupm Im ab al m) 
95 147158 185 10. ipse] cbi l]^ eti«]om]«i| iudicet] /r «m 1, 
II. et babnisti] aai w^mxo^ Q^ 22 (86^ ab al m ut m Ed) 51 62 68 (87 scrw^x'o^) 
95 147 158 185 SOI wyw & 26 48 49 91 106 288 in impetu tuo] «r rw Bvpim futv 
ft I |l{ («r Tw 0. vow 180 811) la. collectionem] avorpofif % ffvoTpo^ijr ft |^ 
(cxr 49 87) peccatum] oSuna 20 86 49 51 95 106 185 attaprta ft 22 48 62 68 87 
91 147 158 288 13. parturientis] /r m ft E ft sapiens] cv <pf(mt/im Q* 
nunc] om ft f| C tuorum] om ft |Q 14. eum] ovrovf M, {txe 158 ovrov) 
om ft it (exe Q 26 ovrovf) et] om 26 49 106 288 15. super eum] cv 

XIV. I. deddent] ■¥ wna ftj^ (om Q^) % a. propter quod] quia 5 
iniqnitatibas tuis] per iniquitates tnas 5 <y tois a8ur. tfov ft 1, ]^ 


Otd. Wtmg. 3 talibas tttis. ' Adgmntle mtjauiui moltos^ et cotnrertiiiiini ad dom 

tere peccata, ita ut non accipiatis 
^^^^ iniqiiitateiii, sed nt Mcipiatk bom, et retriboemus fructum laborim 

^^^H 4 neM troro m et aepniabitiir in boms oor fMCftmni. * Assur non salvabit 
^^^H nos, in equos ooq a m cHdwitt , iam noa dicemus dE nostri estis 

■5?^^ c^eribus mantunn 

Sptcuhtm 6 . . *. Florici ot HUmn, ct mittet radices suas sicut thus. 
7 ^ extendeottir Tami fllras, et eiit vdat oUra fmctifera, et odor eios 

ficut ihuris 

9 • ct ego confinnabo eum sicut iunipemm 

niatiirescens : ez me inventus est (hictus tuus. 

XIV 6-^. Sfmc OUT 

3. Somite Tobiseam mulios et eoBveitisiUii ftd Dominam Deum v e atriia i. Didte 
Uli : poieos es dimitlere peccala, ut acdputis booa S muttos] X«7ovf 6f !« 
(62 147 Aoytvi voAAot^} ]^ sed ut accipiatit] Km KafiifT§ ft H et &epaI|U>itur 

in bonis cor vestruta] 0m ft 2, ;esr icoi trrpaf^u cw aya#oif ij (fv^^ "tf"" 6^ cadeffl 
oiisi 17 ca^&a w>iftrr 147^ |Q (W — Cod, mai 17/aMr /ro trjMir) 9. ego] Orti ft Q^ 

(hat Q**"^} ^ {*xcU 49 IW) 5iciit]/re^ ft (?^ l2 


The following notes are the fruit of some da3rs' study which I devoted 
in the spring of 1902 to the liny volume which alone preserves to us the 
primitive form of any considerable portion of the original Latin version of 
the Gospels, It is this unique importance which must be my justification 
for going back upon work which has already been thoroughly, if not 
quite exhaustively, done by Tischendorf and Bishop Wordsworth : the 
edition with which I worked, and to which these notes refer, is, of course, 
that in Old Latin Biblical Ttxh ii (Oxford 1886), pp. 3-53. The list 
which now follows represents, with one considerable exception, the 
whole of the notes which I made ; but I have not thought it necessary 
to swell this list with details about the abbreviations of the * nomina 
«acra' (which would not always be quite easy to represent in type), 
seeing that they will be sufficiently discussed in Dr. Traube's forth- 
coming treatise on that subject. 

Since these notes were first put into type, I have had the opportunity 
of seeing the notes which my friend Mr. F. C. Burkitt has made of the 
same MS : and in order to save the space of the Journal, the agree^ 



of Mr. Burkitt and myself in making the same correction is signified 

ithe following notes by the initial B. In all such cases the result of our 

iependent labour raay I hope be taken as definitive. 

i. la: the heading is cata matth [not cata marc, as Wordsworth, 
pp. vii, xi]. 
I 7 the space appears to require farisaei, which is the regular 
spelling of the scribe elsewhere, Marc, viii 15, xii 13, 
Matt. V 20, vii 39, Ix 11, 14, xii 2, 14, 34, 38, [not, as 
Tischendorf, farisei], B. 
2a L 7 bestaida m. i, bedsaida m. 3 [not m. 3]: cf, on fol. 790 
1. 10 bessalda. It is extraordinary to notice how often 
the first hand raiswrites a familiar proper name of the 
Gospel story : cf. e. g. in these notes foil 18 a I 6 scribae 
(feribat), 37^ 1. 8 caluariae (galliariae), 44(1 1, 7 mariam 
(maxriam ?), 48 ^ I 2 sadduceis, 73 a 1. i lebbaeus 
(iebbacus), 74a 1, 6 sodome (sodocie?), 77^ L 10 
iohane : the most natural explanation would almost seem 
to be that the scribe was a pagan \ His worst errors 
are as a role corrected by the contemporary m. 2, who 
acts throughout as a diorthota. 
a H 3 iterum : the -um is in ligature, though not at the end of 
the line. B. 
L 12 aule . . . erunt illi . . . es, is all that is absolutely clear 
in this line. Fleck's autem responderunt is too long for 
the first lacuna; Wordsworth's illi omnes is too short 
for the second. The indications had already led me to 
suspect the true reading to be autem dixerunt illi 
dicentes when I noticed that the Greek too has ol 8* 
furac aifT^ XcyonTf r. B. 
1. 14 quida . . . elian alii vere, is all I could make out in this 
line : but the space seemed quite sufiicieni for quidam 
autem helian, and our scribe writes helias elsewhere, 
Marc, ix 4, 5, 11, 12, 13; xv 35, 36; Matt, xi 14. 
[Wordsworth quidam autem eliam alii uere.] It is true 
that scribes are not always consistent with themselves in 
such matters : e. g. the fifth-century fragment of Cyprian 
de op€re et clemosynis^ Turin G v 37, uses both helias 
and elias. 

3^1 5 eis dicere m. 1, eos docere m. 2. The correction may 
possibly be prima manu\ it is not always easy to 

•I b perhaps worth noting in this connexion that in Marc, xv 35 be writes 
uocAt for belinn uocat. Sec Mr. Burkitt's paper in the Expositor^ Feb. f B^, 



a corruption of et introibit ad mulierem rather than et 
haerebit ad, as given by Dr. Sanday on pp. cxxix, cxliii : 
the true text (KB syr-sin) omits the words altogether, 
and the addition in k appears to be independent of the 
addition in the majority of our witnesses. 
IbLioH I doxerit (Le. duxerit) is ro. 3 : B. The spelling would be 
enough to show this. 
L 4 m. I certainly super illos. B. 
L 9 poeros m. i, pueros m. 3, I think, 
fol iiaL 5 optume ut uid, m. i ; opteme [not optome] m. 3. B. 
L 9 dom" m. i : des [not deus] m. 3. 
1. 14 iele {sc ille) m. 3. 

an! m. i, corrected to eni in scribendo. 
foLi3aL8 the line is very difficult to decipher, but instead of quae 
uen|tura I read quae illi fujtura: there are sufficient 
indications of illi (cf. Gr. ovrf ), and what may be the 
tail of f is visible, while uen|tura would (after illi) take up 
too much room, and there are no traces of any super- 
scribed line for uejtura. 
foL 13H 7 apparently et annus a sinistra [not et unus a sinistra] : B. 
Cf. foL 22 a \, 12 quiannus est dom, for quia unus est 
IL 13, 14 ilis is supplied by m. 3 at the end of 1. 13 solely, 
I believe, because the illis of L 14 was already too much 
rubbed to be legible, 
fol- 14^1 6 illi dignare (for indignare) m. i : B. See above on foL 

foL 15a L 2 animo**sta : there is room for either one or two letters. 
L 6 ante me dixit m. i : m. 2 wrote u over n, but omitted to 

erase the second e. 
foL 15^ 1. 2 apparently puUon [not pullum]. 

I 14 aui autem ut uid. [not alii autem] m. i : B. Perhaps he 

meant a uia. Alii m. 3. 
foL i6flL 14 m. I had written neither f (in fici) nor b (in arborem), but 

apparently sicarhorem. Burkitt reads it scaphorem or 

scaf horem ; this suggests (rvKo^pav^ but the resemblance 

is I suppose a mere accident. 
loL 16^]. II m. I cum menses (sc cum mensis). B. 
^^i%a\,6 scribae is not the original writing, but apparently feribat 

[Burkitt's ferebat is I expect right] 
wL 19^1. 8 in factums : probably a corruption of ille factus, see above 

on fol. 9^1. 3. 
loLaoai. 9 in ueritatem is not m. i but m. 2 : m. i wrote honestatem 

(without in). B. 


1. 14 the superposed mark is not over a, but over s, andisfJC 
doubt meant as a mark of erasure. B. 
; 1 1 ^ 1. 1 resurrexcrint is not the original writings which was apparently 
recsrcxerint : Burkitt makes it re[']spcxerint a mortem, 
U 15 cum [not cum] m, i : cum m, 5, B. 
IbL i3tf U. 91, to maius his a|hu$ [not a^alius, as Wordswoitb]. 

L 14 omntb m. 2, not m. i : m. i does not (I think) use th^ 
abbreviation b^bos, except at the end of a line, anJ- 
appaicntly wrote either onoih or omnil [Burkitt read^ 
il omms, which is probably i^g^]. 
Iblta^i to addexteramea^ [not a deciefa mea]. B. 

L 14 et ande est [not et ande et]. 
lbLi3«L5 et sesskmeni [Dot et sessMaon} 

I it qMNDodo [not qwMBoda]. 

idl a^^ 1 1^ nott nax be ceased (•oWardswoctfa) or may be only rubbed : 

in this MS it ts oIm very dttolt to ditti^ganii accidental 

iaLa4iilj ctpiMtnnlMM •iiBa>Mt(arafcq<«attbitigsipeiiianibus: 
Ihii fPiiiii^ aoKes a dKoii^ ia C^pdaa Tb/L i 15 
(HmmI 49. 1 7)— llie niaiiiai AcR ^Qold nm on with 
file fHQoediig Saa, wmd 1^ whoie of lines 15-1 7 should 
be ufaaed to Maac am a» and so^ as by UarteL to 

L5 to toaaieto [aot aa toaaaaa^ c£ llatc ix ji tm manoa, 
tan^ia bdkito.t 3»/Lt«y:mt: 


fol 266 L 9 m. 3 adds in mat^'n sues {sc electos suos) t avrou is read 
within brackets in Westcott-Hort. B. 
L 14 soli adgnoBci (»/ uid.) m. x. B. 
foL 27^11 a, 3 cuiusque o|pus suum [not o|opus]. B« 

L 6 uerum : doubtless a corruption of an ancestral utrum. 
foL 28a L I cum is unquestionably the reading of m. i. B. 

I 4 bethaniam [not belhaniam] : Burkitt adds that m. 2 deletes 
the final m. 
fiisS^L 2 taedium m. 3 [not m. 2]. 

foL 29^11 5^ 6 m. I wrote firstly subpedaneum {sc a stool), then corrected 

this to subterranaeum : the marks round 'pedaneum' 

are meant to bracket the word (compare below on fol. 

86 d 1. 4), and the s of Wordsworth's sterranaeum is not 

a fully-formed letter, but a similar mark dividing the 

cancelled pedaneum from its substitute terraneum. The 

true word I imagine to have been superaneum (perhaps 

miswritten subperaneum in the exemplar), which accounts 

for both subpedaneum and subterraneum. I have not 

been able to find that this word occurs elsewhere : but 

the word dvayawv here and in Luc. xxii 12 proved a great 

stumbling-block to the old Latin translators) and it is 

not I think over rash to conjecture that the ancestor 

of k represented it by some such bold expedient as 


foL 30111. 7 ill est {sc ille est) m» 3 I think [not ipsest} 

fol. 30^ 1. 6 ilis is the reading of m. 3 I imagine [not illis] ; there are 

only four letters. 

L 10 cQ [not cu]. 

I 1 1 the last two letters under the erasure were apparently -ae : 

possibly the word was regulae. 
1. 12 hominum m. i [not heminumj. 
fol. 3 1 tf L 3 posttea [not postea]. 
1. 7 standaliziati m. i. 

1. 10 tertio was perhaps the reading of m. i under ter me. 
L 14 dixer- [not dixCr-] : correct therefore Dr. Sanday's reference 
to this passage on p. clviii. 
foL 3 1 ^ L I cui [not qui]. 

fol. 32 a 1. 4 autem m. i, possibly corrected manu prima into quidem. 
foL 33^ 1. 14 I cannot see in the MS the dots which Wordsworth prints 

over the u of surgentes. B« 
fol 34^ 1. 10 ex familiis [not ex famulis]. B. 

foL 35 a 1.5 et gallus is a correaion: the original reading was set 
gallus. B. 



i. 13 the i of iurare is in rasura: the original reading wai 
apparently furare. B 
foL 37^ 1 6 of the letters printed by Wordsworth in small type as due 
to the corrector, ce and ul seem to be only a retracing <ii 
the same letters : ul was apparently preceded by b : the 
lost word was something like ceauibularei Burkitt'i 
cnace ambulare is doubtless right. 
1, 8 galliariae [not galuariae] : Burkitt gives galliarie. 
I 9 bibcrc uinum [as Fleck: not uinum bibere, as Words- 
worth ], B. 
fol. 38fil3 unum [not unun] : the -urn is in ligature at the end of 

the line. B. 
fol, 38 A 11 a, 3 tenclbrc [not lenebrae], 

l. 3 tota . . . usque : the m of totam is part of the correction : 
the letters erased were either three or four: Burkitt 
tU^lgttts ora. 
I. 9 locus appears to be the lost word : the -us at least is 

certain. B. h 

I. 10 the t of et is not in rasura^ but m. i. B. I| 

fol 39#l 7 dc [not ds]. 
fill 40A 1 1 the reading of the MS is perhaps a corruption of surgente 

in claritate filio dei. ■ 

It 18, 13 ihn ilium cruciflxum ilium naxoraeum was the reading 
of m. i» corresponding to the Greek *l9<n>w rir N<ifap^ w nir 
iwTmvfm^%w¥, B. The representation of the Greek article 
by tile in the primitive Latin version was often a stumbling- 
Mock to later scribes : I hope 10 a future number of the 
JOOItltAt to coUect some instmnces from St. C}rpnan's 
ntlkmm in ll lttititim of tlus point : meanwiiile I may 
tt^ to Isa. 14— l>sL i 3 (Hand 4»- «) ; Mic ▼ i = 
fh$L it ia (71^ 4); Gen. ixi i = Ttst m 15 (laj* to); 
t Ttek iv S 8 TksL rai x6 (iji. aoV 

tofi^oriRlMMnsdw im w e»ite aeaiodlor t;, 
iIm tlMlf^te Ibwili e: e todo ocxamd 10 me^ boc 

M 4iM 


L 9 aute [not aute]. B. 
L 13 inple|retur [not iniple|retur]. B. 
foL44H 12 magis, I think, rather than magiL B. 
foL45aL I m. I wrote, I think, stellam cum audis|set autem. B. 

L 7 iudaeae is all by m. i, I think : e is the letter in which the 
writing of ro. i and m. 2 is most easily distinguishable — 
the latter tends more to make the top part of the e in 
a separate stroke, and also slopes the letter more — ^and 
here it seems to be the e of m. i. 
foL46aL 12 ei iure et gadiume m. i : ei surge et ad«ume m. 2 : ei 
suxge et adsume m. 3. B. 
L 13 in is not m. 2 but m. i. 

L 14 esto illic m. 2 : ethillio ut uid m. i : Burkitt reads it 
foL46^L8 a domino profetam : the last five letters of domino are in 
rasura, though the correction is apparently made by m. i 
himself: probabfy he first wrote adimpler for a dom per 
of his exemplar, and when he corrected it forgot to write 
in the per. 
fol 47^ L 7 secesit [not secessit] : B. The whole word is perhaps in 

foL48aL 9 fiiit lucus is all by m. 2, but -us projects beyond the space 
occupied by the erased letters. 
L 10 siluestre m. 2 : perhaps silue fere m. i : Burkitt suggests 

dilu*ter«*, but somewhat doubtfully. 
L 14 ab eo [not et eo]. 
fol 4^^1*3 sad|duceis: the last six letters are in rasura of something 
rather longer : it is another instance of a proper name 
misread by the original scribe. 
foL 50a 11. 7, 10 nepthalim in each case [not nephthalim]. 
foL5iaL II inbecillita|tem [not imbecillita|tem]. B. 
fol-SiH II m. I bae*ati (the lost letter apparently e or c), corrected 
to beati. B. 
I. 14 bae^tl 
^^I2b\, I m. I apparently wrote plange|tis. 

1. 13 b^eati ut uid, 
^oL53aL 12 etterra is no doubt only by error printed as one word in 
Wordsworth : the MS of course does not separate words 
at all in the ordinary way. 
IL 13, 14 trans|sibit : the s at the end of 1. 13 is, I think, intended 
to be deleted, no doubt in order that the division of the 
word may comply with the rule that the new line should 
if possible begin with a consonant 


fol. $$3 1. 9 iietra [not uestra] m. 3. 

fol. 54 a 1. a reuf : -ut if in ligature and over an erasure (appaientlj 
of -a), 
eri I not eri', as Wordsworth] : the t has simply disappeared 
by the trimming of the page. B. 
1. 4 raca : the space su3 rasura seems to be too much for 
p, and would suit r better : with diffidence I suggest that 
m. I wrote raca after all, for the curious hieroglyphic of 
m. 3 seems to me more like s than r. 
1. IS tu [not tu-, as Wordsworth] : again, as in 1. 2 of this page» 
the final letter is simply cut away with the maigia B. 
fol. 54^1. 10 did not m. i write cau|sam rather than ean|sam? The 

third letter is certainly u, not n. B. 
hi 55 II I 7 totum (rather totuum) is, I think, in imitative uncial of m. J» 
not m. a : m. I had meum. B. 
I 13 uxo|rem [not uxorjrem]. 

I, 14 Audis : the rest of the word is cut off with the trimming 9^ 
the maigin. B. 
M. 55> I i iurahis Wordsworth : but the first letter is hardly like an i^ 
rtddcs m. t [not m. 3]. 
I ^ eius m« a : est apparently m. i. 
I 10 ^uia (m^t quoniam as Wordswocth]. 
l^^lx j(^> K mx I h4id be^^n loqu^ but changed 1 to b and dotted qu, 
l»i^ a$ to make bonos. 
\. : »\^><^u$ <\>j^ ratbier than super kneos as Wordsworth. 
1^4v ,\>4 \ ^ ix\ UK^ << in $TtMi$ic^ [not in okas eft symgogb]. 

I u tW $^q>|>k«iiK«t at the ^^ot ^die page I take to be m. a, 
«K>t m. ix 
(^4.5^^4V x,^ ^>«v« tSr Ust rav> Wacn an «a mcwv^ a^fwrently (^ 

wwtv 1^ 
I^^V w «^i»a vW Wc^m <«atil^i ace j^^brmK ii< wliid& was the 
■^^^^^v ^^ ^^. ^-^^ .^-1^ -^ ^ ■iiiflM^ rirnirrtrilTij tMnirtf 

«Ati^<*\^^ »»^wi^ ^ tk S<ft imak^b^ 1 :tejk ^ikx jiiilBHii}, m. i. 
V ^ ;M^i»^K ^4»Y:4^>m<c!^».Hber;teuskCKr: -Mtiiaot 

1^ '^^riv^>iN;iHs^iis^.r«a:s3de;ditlaie: i^r wf^Mal! I 

^^^^iNihtN^ ^«y<9t 1^ . ^ <<t v^adk ;£ke JCSiBr Aer s 

V^^^ >^ V «i^ ;die lut ^w :ite «L Oand lie luvc 

If^^c^^ai^ ^i^H*t^ «teai«K^ JMn <»k Iol ^ 


reading in St Cyprian {Tesf. iii 6, Hartel 119. 18), so 
that the reading might almost be transferred from the 
column for disagreements between k and Cyprian to that 
for agreements in Dr, Sanday's list, p. lis. 

foL62^L II fedet;: m. 2 may have meant and probably did mean to 
correct facet to facit rather than, as Wordsworth, £aciet. 
L 13 m, I wrote potest arbor malos fructus face|re. 

foL63aL 8 quo m. z, qui m. 2 : Wordsworth's note might mislead. 

foL633L 2 m. I speramini|quitatem : m. 2 peramini inin|quitatem. 

I. 4 uerba mea : the original reading was apparency uerbum ea. 
foL6331L4, 5 fajcit [not fejcit, as Wordsworth]. 

foL64al. 6 CQn|sunmiasset [not con|sumasset]. 

fol65^ 1. 2 in regno caelorum [not in regnum caelorum]. 

L 5 m. I was perhaps writing stridentium for^ridor dentium : 
if so, he made the correction himself. 
foL66aL i optulerunt [not opluterunt]. 

daemoniacos [not demoniacos]. 

II. 8, 9 turbae multae is a correction, apparently from tturbas 

IL 13, 14 hab|bent : the first b is dotted for erasure by m. i, since 
babjent would divide the word wrongly. 
foL66H 13 the letters under erasure were something like cacis. 
fol. 67a 1. 3 estis [not haestis]. 

fidai apparently m. i. 
U. 12, 13 exeu|tes [not exeu|tes]. 
foL 67 H 2 fill di ends the line : the ii which Wordsworth prints is only 
a take-off from ti- of fol 68 a L 2. B. 
I 3 the final writing — perhaps m. 2, perhaps a correction by 
m. I — is hoc [not hue] : m. i may have written first 
i , . ic (?? istic or illic). 
L 13 aquis is m. 2 : m. i wrote aques or aquos. 
foL68flL 7 cum [not eum]. 

IL 9, 10 op|tuleriunt m. i. 
L 13 bono animo [not bone animo]. 
fcl- 69^ 1. 1 audisset [not audissit]. 

1. 14 uenient in this line is not erased as Wordsworth's note 
seems to imply : but on fol. 70 a 1. i m. i wrote autem 
uenient dies, and it is this second uenient which is 
foL 70^ Li m. I wrote uenit, but himself corrected to ueniens. 
I 12 m. I wrote apparently saluabitur. 
1. 14 fidest m. 2 : m. I apparently wrote ex hoc 
foL 72fl L 7 inbecillitate [not imbecillitatS], 
VOL. V. H 

fol. 730 1. I 

fot. 760 1.4 


m. I wrote apparently abiejei : m. 2 abiecti (aU in 1. 
and erased ei* 
icbbsicus apparently m, i. 
ieritis item aut fartio|nes [not icritis ite magis actiolnes, ^^ 


Wordsworth's notes] m. i : the words item . . . are ^ 

coiime a corruption of ite magis ad oues, the s of magi ^ 

becoming the f of factiones, according to the rno^ 

common of all the confusions to which our scribe ii 

sodocie? m. i. 
in ipso m. 1 1 the in is deleted. In line 2, in me, the in is 

BO rubbed that it is impossible to say whether it is deleted 

or no. 
coram fratre meo m. t, 
■equitur: loquitur m. i. 
profetc [not profctae], 
aut6 is in the margin, and must have been added seai 

surdci [not surdij. 
iohane: the letters o and h are im rasura. Again a curious 

instance of bungling over the Gospel proper names, 
qui dixistis [not quid existis]. 
choroian, as Fleck [not choraxan]^ 
bessalda ts certain and should be in the text. 
not syryan, but perhaps syrymm, m. i. 
the q in quomodo is m. i : perhaps he wrote q- — quae (or 

Vitx^ s neqyeV 
under tlie cnsuna is nisi filim el : it was ju^ an omission 

by kmmmitimim^ after agnoadt. 
Ok 1 ivfolc fiint |Mll«a^ dotted the m aod added s to make 

it HMO BtMii mt u 00 foi S3« L 4 be 

scribe's first reading of j 

if tl» 
MMEi^ti nni|li[»ii|m|iiii)> 
M.tselt mmiifgmm^m^thpmMiw, 

mk^wek (^ s gK»k si s 
ain leaaie^ aed 




Ibl 87^1 1,5 

type : it (or ralher at eus = ad eos) is a correction by 
m. 3. I make the reading of m. t to be at lr(ip)la— 
whatever tt was it was presumably a corruption of at 
turba(s), Gr. toU 5;fXotr. 

I. 8 est : the s is by m. 2 in rasura : m. i apparently eit. 

1 12 Wordsworth's note might mislead: m. i wrote fratris for 
patris of verse 50 (f. 1 2), not for the fratres of verse 49 

(1. 11). 

what Wordsworth represents here by square brackets are 
the same signs that on fol. 29^ L 5 (Marc, xiv 15) he 
had represented by quotation marks : they are not unlike 
our round brackets, and are obviously intended to cancel 
the words enclosed. Erasure in the strict sense is hardly, 
if at all, employed by m. i. 

t« 1, ^ The mark in the text calling attention to the supplement at 
the foot of the page is here hd [not ha]. 
ttdcak.pag. spineae: the last letter but one hardly resembles 
a at all I should not like to say what letter it is meant 
for: yet all the other letters in the supplement are 
formed quite regularly and normally. 
folS3R \i seminatur hoc est : m, i wrote femina turba est : add this 
H instance of b — h to Dr, Sanday's list of confusions on 

p. cxxxvii, and cf. fol. 86 a L 2, Sanday, p, cccxxxviii. 
there is no line over Ix. 
i of dicens is in rasura^ presumably of docens. 

tfoLQo^lL 7, 8 me|um m. 2 : me|uiam perhaps [me|usm, as Wordsworth, 
is not long enough] m. i. 
foL9iflL 13 eius m. 2 : ilJis ut tttd. m. i. 

I 14 facmnt in m. 2 : factae sunt m. i. 
'oL 91 M. 7 absconsum sacro [not absconsum *^» sacro^ as Wordsworth] : 

ki. e. m, 2 wrote in over s, to make it read absconsum in 
1. 8 quod : d is by m. 2 in rasura, 
I. 9 m. 3 prefixes pero [not pro] to gaudio* 
^^aal. 14 ignis is by m. 2 in rasura [not, I think, simply retraced, 

as Wordsworth]. 
lw«9»H4 caelof- [not caelor]. 

»D.6, 7 de thensauros suos : m. 2 apparently marks the final s In 
each case for cancel 
L 9 m. 3 superscribes -ess- over the latter part of transtulit, 
perhaps meaning transessit == transisset. 
eum is m. 3 : m. i wrote cum. 

sub . . . . ta : four letters apparently have disappeared. 
H 2 

folgofll. 2 


t 9 

dedit DL 3: m. I had vritten a longer word beginning 
with p (?pofUait or porrent or pertulit). 
foL 94^ II. 10^ 1 1 demit|te [00c denutjet* as WOTdswocth]. 
fol. 95 <i L 5 ftnenis, I thtnk [not fimenis], m. 5. 

I 8 dauit [not dauid]. B, 
fol 96aL i 1 dodis [not dodos]. B. 
fol 96/' 1 9 illi ID. I : illis nu 3. 

C H. Turner. 


Wlttl* passing through Turfn in April of this year I was able to s 
a couple of days in examining Codex Bobiensis (A) with the aid of the 
Oiford edition, and though the total result was not very large; yet 
the great importance of Jk for textual critidsm seemed to justify tHie 
publication of my notes. After I had written what I had to say, 1 found 
ifial my friend Mr. C, H. Turner had also re-collated k about a jm 
before my pausing visit. Our results, I am glad to say, very greatif 
roindde. It would be absurd to print the same collation twice <ym. 
Mr Turner has therefore marked the readings of his collatioo wijkii 
were also in mine with the letter B, and so I only give here the readio^ 
which it was not in his plan to notice, together with the very few places 
where we are at variance. 

1* Jhtm-htafi^H, There are two systems of punctuation in k^ 
of which is consistently represented in the printed edition. The 
divide<l sentences by blank spaces and also by a point opposite lAe 
middle of the letters. Sometimes we have the space wxthoct the pamtU 
aometimes the point without the space, sometimes both togedier. The 
photographed page (fol 4 1 <t\ which contsuns Mark xvi 6-eBd w9 
Olltttmte ttxh of these methods. After dixt and e xfrn t u rm m f there ane 
ipMei M hknk without a dot ; after/i^rrwi«/tsasiiuiIls{MK3ewidia40l; 
Ubt/t ^anjNwAjt^ MhMdBtr» ami {i^\ tremor^ pomm-^ aipmrmt, msfm {t% 
aBN, Jiwiiw, w«pm»atat,>Dd befote ifr, there «e dots widaMi ^ml 
I lam It 10 te ttftder whether theie be a space left bOwULa mnmmm' 
wAmmt Of ttiese two systefDs« the space and die point, llieipaae» If 
fcr the ■aoi<einq)cwta»t,becatise it lepresents the latent^ 

added Uler ; in the case of the 16 
ladPBteadf . It ap p ealed to m 

I (cw 115 iMg to reBa)i the next wuid n has 
ofiaedocsat the endi of won 




t^elonged to any S3rstem of rational punctuation, but are mere word- 
ciividers, placed semi-consciously. The difference between these dots 
^.nd the conscious work of the scribe is well seen in Matt v 47, 48, 
'^here^ has 


Xlere the space after faciunt marks the end of the sentence and the 
xather thick dot after q marks the regular contraction for -que* But 
tihe dot after uos is higher up and much fainter: the pen simply rested 
on the vellum in making it and did not move, and I doubt if the scribe 
'was aware that he was marking the surface at all. Most of the dots 
enumerated above from fol. 41a are of this character, as the reader may 
see for himself from the facsimile. 

This result is of some importance when we are considering textual 
theories which deal with systems of colometry. In such matters I doubt 
if any secure argument can be founded on the points of ^, though the 
spaces left by the scribe and his paragraphs may be significant. In 
the Oxford edition the paragraphs are carefully marked by indentation, 
but the blank spaces in the lines themselves are most capriciously 
represented, e. g. the MS has a space between superfuerunt and dicunt 
in Mc. viii 19, and also before Mc. viii 24, 28, but no space after 
colludit in Mc. ix 18. In Mc. viii 27 the small point comes immediately 
after uia^ leaving a blank before et \ but in Mc. x 9 f. coniuncxithomo and 
separet'Ct barely enough space is left for the dot itself. It would take up 
too much room, and be wearisome besides, to give a list of all the spacings 
which I observed and to correct the dots in the printed edition : in this 
respect the Oxford text, otherwise so excellent a representation of the 
MS, cannot always be trusted. Of' course, where there is a dot in 
the printed book there is almost always a dot in the MS, but there 
are dots in the MS which are not inserted in the edition, and there is no 
distinction made between dots evidently intended by the scribe, dots 
which are very likely accidental, and dots placed by a later hand where 
no stop was intended by the original writer. 

2. 7%e Text, As explained above, the following collation only contains 
a few points of difference with Mr. Turner, together with some readings 
which he did not bring forward. As it now has no claim to complete- 
ness I have divided it into two parts, the first containing, miscellaneous 
readings and the second some notes on the spelling of the compendia 
for ' Jesus.* I use k* for the original work of the scribe, k^ for corrections 
either by the original scribe or by the corrector called m. 2 by the 
Oxford editors. These corrections are all contemporary with k*^ and it 
seems to me not unlikely that they are all the work of the same person, 
who was possibly the original scribe himself. The characters we use in 


to think it an^ 
recCDtlf wished il 
over sndi 


tB^ffli tfas^. ti*! ^^^ ' 


M*— [< 

fc4SfM.U>LM)wiii yfil> 


xii 19 (foL 21 a, L 2) tuo k* (vid), suo k^ 

xii 36 (foL 22 ^, L 9) dicit • dom* dom^ k {sic) 

jm 2 (foL 23^, L 13) illi non k*, illis non k^ 

adii 18 (fol. 25 d, 1. 13) hie me k\ hieme k^ 

idn 33 (fol. 27 <!, 11. II, 13) a s^ce is left between tjv. 32 and 33, but 
none between 33 and 34 

xiv I (foL 27^, 1. 14) infidus k 

xiv 6-47 was not collated by mCy except that I verified amphoram 
quae {p, 13), and came to the conclusion that the addition 
^suis after discentibus and the correction ^quae into 
aquae were by m, ^ 

xiv 49 (fol. 33 a, 1. 6) quotidie h (sic) 

X? 21 (foL 37^, 11. 5, 6) I think h* wrote factione eum cru{ce 
ambulare, but ' factione ' is perhaps not quite certain 

xvi 4 (fol. 40 ^, 1. i) uiui di k (sH) ; the extra stroke thctt makes the 
last word look like di* ^r taken off from the opposite side ^ 
^tt. i 17 (fol. 43^, 1. 9) generationis {misprint)\ generationes k 

\ 21 (foL 44 a, 1. 11) sic ^* (vid), hie hfi 

i 22, 23, fol. 44^ be^ns at per prophetam (misprint) 

ii 2, 3 (fol. 45 a, 1. i) stellam eum audisjset k* (so also C. H. T.) : 
then (i) eius was added above the line, (2) k^ erased every- 
thing between stellam and -set, and added the missing 
words at the foot of the page 

ii 13 (foL 46 ^, 1. 2) eum k*^ eum m, 3 

ii 15 (fol. 46 by 1. 7) M ky not *»» 

iv 21 (fol. 51 a, 1. 2) ^f^ capital to zebdei in k 

V 30 (fol. 55 <i, 11. 4, 5) abi|ice (misprint)'] abi|ee k 

vi 25-xiv 17 was not collated, except that in Matt, viii 29 (fol. 67 ^^ 
L 2) I agree with C. H. T. that ii is merely a set-off, 

XV 30 (fol. 96 a, IL 7, 8) ie|eerunt k (Gr, ?p<^i^), pro|eerunt m. 3 

(B). Compendia for ^Jesus' 

Mc. viii 27 




ix 2 



1, Ki- 




„ Bs(=/Vw) 




„ Ks (=!«««) 




II El* 




1, Ki« 

Illis refers of course to the actual reading of the MS : Mr. Turner's coqjecture 
^ to what underlies it is very attractive. At the same time I am not quite 
^^'^ced that 'the glory of the Living God' is wrong: comp. e.g. Lk. ii 9, 
"^^ xxi 33. As I pointed out in T*xU und Shtdka iv 3, p. 94, ' surgent# • . . simul 
""^^demnt cum eo ' might be a rendering of iytf$irr9S a^ov . . . ovrori/Siytfar oir^, 
^ the analogy of Matt viii i A. 


Mc X 23 for Bi 

read hi' 







Kii (/5i>) 





ITI» (= iesuffC) 










Ei'*( = i>^) 

XV 43 





xvi 6 





Only a small proportion of the corrections made by Mr. Turner and 
myself aflect the critical value of the text of ^, except so far as they serve 
still further to illustrate the idiosyncrasies of the scribe. In a few cases 
monstrosities put down to him do not exist (e. g, Mark x 10, xii 39, 41, 
xiii 34, xiv I, 3, 32, XV 27, 40; Matt, i 17, iii 6, v 30, 32, viii 29). It is 
especially pleasant to be able to read iemptanUs in Mark x 2 instead 
of tenptant€S \ and to know that in Matt, viii 29 quid hue uenisfi is not 
preceded by //. In Mark xv 23 F, F. Fleck (the first editor of ^, whose 
inaccuracy is bewailed by all who have written on the MS) was right in 
reading bibere uinum and not uinum hibere \ and in Mark viii 28, where 
k really has dixerunt ilH dianies in agreement with ^BC*LA and the 
Bohairic, Fleck's ' responderunt illi dicentes'is no further off the true 
reading than the *dixerunt ilii omnes' of Tischendorf and the Oxford 

The point of most general interest brought out by the re-examinations 
of k has been perhaps the reading makdixisH in Mark xv 34, where the 
late cursive band here called m. 3 has substituted dereliquisii^ as in 
the Vulgate. A full note on this reading will be found iny. J! S. \ 278. 
I only wish to add here that the use of dereliquisti does not prove that 
m. 3 was correcting k by means of another MS. The scrawl used by 
m. 3 can hardly be dated earlier than the seventh century, if so early, 
and doubtless the Vulgate occupied by that time a dominant position 
in most parts of Western Europe. Nearly alt the emendations made by 
m. 3 look like the work of a reader who was trying to make out an 
incorrectly written text as best he could. In Mark ix 26 m, 3 turns 
ueiuemortuus into uelui mortuus^ though the Vulgate has sicut mortuus ; 
and in Mark ix 9, where k has descendetttibuSy m, 3 adds eis to eke out 
the sense, though the Vulgate has Hits. Similarly in Matt, v 43 ubi 
is rightly changed by m. 3 into tibi where the Vulgate has tuum^ and 
in Mark xiv ^^ facta is changed by m, 3 mio fa ha where the Vulgate 
omits. At the beginning of Mark ix 5 ??». 3 supplies ei ait Fetrus^ in 
agreement with the Llandaff Gospels (Wordsworth's L), where the 
Vulgate has et respondem Peirus ait lesu, but this may be only a 

* The error was caused by misreading the ligature np. This may be a convenient 
place to mention that the rotlowing ligatures occur in Jfr, mostly at the ends of lines : 
a, /fj hIj untf uHf mft^ or ur^ is ns $*Sf ct ni unt uty eu. 


imdence. The nationality of m. 3 is a point of some historical 
terest, for if it be a true tradition that makes S. Columban a former 
of k^ then m, 3 is the only hand that can be identified as the 
Saint's (Wordsworth, p. x). But does not pesces {(qt pisces Matt, xv 36) 
point to an Italian ? 

In Mark xii 36 it is satisfactory to find that k has ad dexUra^ 

i e. it supports Mr, Turner's theory that the earlier I^tin texts 

represented <« ht^\iiv by the neuter plural of 'dexter' (/. T, S. ii 610). 

[ In Mark xiv 62, xv 27, k has a dextra and in x 37 fl dextram^ no 

doubt under the infltjence of the classical training of the scribe in the 

skTX of writing. In Mark xvi 5 therefore, when we find in dsxtra (for •* 

■ri»5f ^f««t), it is probable that the final a is long and that the word is in 

, 't^t ablative singular. 

In the matter of spelling it is interesting to note that editors have 
c^orrectly reported k to read quottdie in Mark xiv 49, a spelling otherwise 
^Llmost unknown in Christian MSS earher than the eighth century ^ In 
^^datL vj 1 1 >^ has cotttdtanum. 

With regard to the compendia for lesus (or rather Hiesus\ it is worth 

Boting that the common Greek abbreviation it does not occur, as the 
IShas 5i" in Mark viii 27. In the two places where ^ was reported to 
jv€ the common Latin compendium (i/f Mark xv 43, ih"* Mark xvi 6), 
«iiic first letter is in each case majuscule and I incline to think the 
templar may have had a sign beginning with H, for there is very 
XattJe difference between IB« and Hi«- Certainly the authority of k 
^zannot be safely invoked for the spelling ihesus. 

3- The persanali'ty of the scribe of k. This is a really important 

<]uestion, for k contains by far the most valuable text for critical 

pufposes of all our Old Latin authorities, and it would be well if we 

«oi»ld find out when and where it was written, and what qualifications 

^he scribe had for his work. The tradition connecting k with 

S. Cdumban does not give us much help. If true, it might mean 

Jhtt k belonged to the earliest stratum of the Library at Bobbio, 

* thing not very probable in itself. Bobbio was on!y founded about 

^—^13 A.D. By that time k must have been at least 200 years in 

^■toistcnce and its text was out of date. It was not in the least the 

^■^^ of book that would be used in the seventh century, and it 

^l»obabIy did not come to Bobbio until S. Columban's foundation 

^ become a famous centre of books. The analogy of Codex n is 

J^ instructive. Most of the surviving fragments of n are now at 

S. Gallen, but two leaves (those formerly called a,) are still at Chur, 

*nd it is highly probable that the whole MS once formed part of 

^ Chapter Library there. We know of at least two MSS (the 

Id Cyp. 308", cod. S is said to have quottidU, 


Sacramentary and the Capitula of Remedius) that have been taken 
from Chur to S. Gallen ^, but we know of none that have made the 
return journey- In any case it is more likely that ancient MSS should 
migrate to centres of learning and books, such as the great Benedictine 
House at S. Gallen became, than that they should go from S. Gallen 
to Chur, a place that once had been the centre of Roman culture and 
government^ but was so no longer. 1 may add that the ancient con- 
nexion of Chur and Milan explains the presence in Switzerland of a 
North Italian text like n. It seems probable that n came to S. Gallen 
in a fragmentary state and only got there because S. Gallen had already 
become a famous repository for old books. For similar reasons and in 
a similar state k may have been brought to Bobbio. There is no 
trace in k of Irish influence; the band is not an Irish hand, the 
spelling is not Irish spelling, and the text is not the Irish text of the 
time of S. Patrick *. 

The extraordinary blunders in the text of k have often been used 
to demonstrate the ignorance of the scribe. It is true that he seems 
to have been quite unfamiliar with Christian phraseology : a scribe 
who writes ueni ad rtgnum tuum in the Lord's Prayer (Matt, vi lo) 
could not have known his Paternoster very well. But be was not 
ignorant of Latin, for his mistakes generally make well-spelt Latin 
words. Too much, I venture to think, has been made of his confusions 
of one letter with another ; he seems rather to guess the wrong words 
than to misread the several letters. No doubt his exemplar had a fonn 
of long f» whereby ' s * is confused with ' i * and with ' f/ but this long f 
can be illustrated from written Pompeian tablets (FaL Sac, I, voL iii, 
plate 159), so that it affords no evidence for date or place*. But the 
spellings found in k are quite inconsistent with any theory that makes 
the scribe an uneducated man. His spelling, in fact, is what we might 
expect from his beautiful handwriting, I have elsewhere compiled* 
a list of spellings which agree with those in the best MSS of Plautus, 
but are hardly to be found in any Christian document except k. They 
include ^rdua/us^ deMotson'ay inhitis mamims^ noum^ optxima^ optxufu^ 
panxoiis^po^ nos^ sinmlarc^ uoHmui^, also ctuitVAt^ simiieHt, /m marr^Kfic 

* See Wilson's Gtlastan Sacramentary, p. jJii ; PlanU, Da$ alt* Rdtien^ p, 509. 

* See Bernard and Atkinson {Libtr HymnorHm^ ti 100) on the Hyam of 
S. Sechnall Auditi omnts^ and J. T, S, tit 95. 

* Another good instance ts to be found in the tombstone of Gaudentia (a. d. 338) 
in the Capitoline Mtiseutn at Rome, of which a good facsimile is given in F. Stefleia, 
Lutttnisch* Paldographit i 1 a. I am glad to have an opportunity of calling atteflUon 
Co this useful publication. 

* Cat$d>ridgt University Rtpcrter tor March 5, 1 901, 

» yoUmus IS also found in cod. W of Cyprian's De Mortatitait (Hartel 308 '•, 
3fo»» »<). 





But it may be said that these ancient spellings are due to the stupid 
fiutbfalness of the scribe who only copied what he saw. From this 
point of view the misreadings of ^* are of some interest, for they 
ibewus the kind of words that naturally flowed from the scribe's i>en. 
Thas in Mark xii 14 the puzzling official word capitularium is given 
without mistake, but in the lines preceding instead of in ueritatem uiam 
Demini doces we find that k* wrote honesiatem uiam Domini dices^ 
it 'you say that the Lord's way means wealth.' This is a fine per- 
remoD of the text, but nevertheless hones tas is a good Latin word* 
In Mark xiii 12 the prophecy of persecutions makes the scribe think 
of the law-courts, and ^o frater is miswrilten /rfft'/c?r. In Matt, v 28 
i^e strange-looking tan sam is really causam. In Mark xiii 28 the 
*cribe did not try to begin a Latin word with * dg ' as the edition makes 
«itn, but instead oi folia adgnoscitis he wrote soli adgnoscitis 'ye alone 
know/ Of course these misreadings do not make true sense, e. g* 
^»/ramvs in the preceding line is ridiculous, but yet the misreadings 
generally make up something which looks like Latin. To crown all, 
^He scribe, who stumbles over the names of Peter (Mark xvi 8/) and 
^C Mary (Matt, i 20), turns * how much doth a man differ from a sheep ' 
V^hfatL xii 12) into Quart to ergo differ t homo Ioue\ I cannot help 
S:vspecting that Paganism was still alive when k was being written, 
^^nd that the scribe was a professional copier of books, perhaps a 
l^^eathen still or only a recent convert. Such a man would have 
^hat might be called a compositor's knowledge of literature, admirable 
90 &r as it went, but stopping short of syntax. It should however 
lie noticed that in Mark x 24^* seems to have written soimnonem instead 
^ sermonem, thereby indicating some knowledge of Jewish history*. 
The difference in general appearance between k and other Christian 
^^ MSS, the beautiful handwriting, the traces of Classical culture in the 
^B 9cribe*s work, coupled with his surprising unfamiliarity with the Gospel 
^n phraseology — all these considerations point to a very early date. The 
7 text of k is practically identical with that used by S. Cyprian, and such 
a text was not used, so far as we know, in any part of the Christian 
irortd after, say, the death of S. Augustine. Thus textual criticism and 
palaeography unite in suggesting that k is one of our oldest MSS. 
I I venture to think that we may consider it to have been written in 
^^ the fourth century. 

^H No direct indication of the place of writing survives. There is no 

^Vtesison why we should doubt that it was written in Africa, the only 

B place where a text like k seems likely to have been in actual use, 

but how the MS eventually reached Bobbio must remain for the 

present an unsolved problem. 

F. C. BuitKITT, 
^ In Matt, the name b spelt Salomon and salamoHn 



In the course of a visit to Mount Adios and a few hours spen 
in passing at Basd and Paris, Mr. W. £. Moss* and I had in thi 
summer of 1902 the good fortune to see sevend manuscripts o 
Athanasius ; two, B and R, whidi have been recently discussed in the 
/. 7! 5. by Dr. Wallis and Mr. C H. Turner*, and five others whid 
have not previously been noticed. These I shall call A K X Y Z. 

I propose first to make a few remarks on B and R. 

Cod. B (Basd A iii 4). Described by Dr. Walh's in the/. 7:5: voL £ 
pp. 245 ff. On p. 246 n. he says: 'There is a phenomenon in oonnexio 
with the numbering of the qu a te rnions which I caimot interpret . - 
I have traced a tampering with the s^natures of the quaternions to tl^ 
end of f. 412^ [from C 117^]; the corrector has desired to move tl: 
quaternions five places bac^' te. The explanation of diis phenomenci 
is diat the gatherings are not quaternions^ as can be seen by looking < 
die 'strings' instead of the s^naiture& As I was only stoppii^ ^ 
Basd between two trains I had not time to take foil notes of ti= 
gatherings, but I satisfied myself that d»e history of the tampering 
this: — 

(«) The senator of the MS began his work 00 the assumption, i 
which Dr. WaOis has followed hrm, that the gatherings are quatemions 

(3) After inserting fifteen s^natures on this mist^en plan he saw hi 
error and hence^Mth ibilowed the gatherings, but wtdioot correcting hi 

f7) Later, the s%naturcs were altered to correct this mistake^ ead 
being moved back. 

Cod. R (Paris Xat.Grec.4r4X Described by Dt. Wallis in the/. 7:5 
voLcLpp.97C On p^ 9$ he gives an accocnt of the various notes whid 
are written on the first and hst leaves^ To his tcaisscripciQiB I am not 
abtetomakeafewadditiocxs': — 

V«) The note on L A» siboaki be 

Tw v« ^«^Xa) i^. TL e^ rim ^«XU, w^l 

(3) The note (i) on £1 t is in red. I jtisjged it to be of die thirteend 
oe fixEcteenth centurv. 

(>) The note i,ii) seesKd to be of the same age or a feie titer. 
1 n SBC^ iadebfeed b» Mr. Hues Sir ma^j vtbtaMe 


(i) The note (iii) seemed still later, possibly of the fifteenth century. 

(() The note (iv) is fit(PKiov) doy/iar(ue6y) ay{iov) (?) d^aMi(<ruiv) 6fi<rmp6{f) 

h the same hand, I think, as note (ii). 
(f) The note on f. 458 runs thus : — 

+ovrovf ovro t^s Kvpi^ov did tv ^v ryfytro-f-Mff 
KJijfimif ^ay) trrapBot* viroXijr fioim)(o(t) cnro r 

I cannot quite rewrite this : it is obviously somewhat corrupt both ia 
gelling and grammar. The best I can offer is : — 

ownff rovro rijs KvpiCov dih 'lijcoC xP^arou tytvtro nSXt»s^ icn/firnjr' tSrop 
^^^pA^ i wokgs lunHxxhs anh t^v ' dymv So^toy ri^v tTiixija-tv dtxov rav t(6lkȴ. 

I cannot construe this, but I take the meaning /to be that the MS 
•as taken at the fall of Constantinople from St. Sophia to the 
Monastery of Kyrizos and used to defray the expenses of the monk 
^Ik) brought it. 

The impression formed on my mind by the character of the writing 
^ that it {M-obably referred to the fell of the city in 1204 rather than 
^ 145O) though the spelling may perhaps be regarded as favouring the 
^ter date. 

I must now turn to the more speculative question of the history of 

Dr. Wallis has suggested two identifications. He takes the monastery 
""^ Kupov ^onHTunt to be the ^monastery of rod &yiw Aiowaiov on Mount 
•Athos. This seems certainly right: I would only add that the title 
**po» rather than dyiov seems to point to a time probably before and 
<*rtainly not long after the death of Dionysius (i. e. about 1400). 

He also takes xvplCov to be Caryes on Mount Athos. This, I think, is 

^possible. Caryes is probably KapvdU, a dative plural which has 

Quired the force of a nominative from tlie fact that it was most often 

^sed in the phrase iv Kapvais, By no possibility could it be corrupted 

•tito Kvpifov. Moreover, there never has been a /*ov^ Kapv&v^ though 

^Viat is now called npw6Tav was once known as 4 Xovpo eV Kapvms, 

But if we abandon this identification, what suggestion can be made ? 

As the MS seems to have probably been at Dionysiou in the founder's 

lifetime, his history may be expected to give us the clue. 

I therefore give an extract from a report made in 1706 by P. Bra- 

'Ce nom (Dionysiou) luy vient d'un solitaire nommd Denys, n6 dans 
^^5 montagnes de Castoria au lieu nommd Kyrissos. . . .* 

^ I do not think that this is right, I do not understand it. 
' I do not know what this can be. 

* dw6 takes an accusative in modern Greek. 

* H. Omont, Missions ankeoiogiqtus/roMfaises en OrinU, p. looi. 


Surely it is quite probable Ihat Kyrissos (now Goritza in the vilayet 
of Monastir) is the place referred to in the note, and the history of R is 
that it belonged (i) to St. Sophia at Constantinople, (2) to a monastery 
at Goritza, which bought it from a fugitive monk from Constantinople 
after the capture of the Crusaders in 1204, (3) to the monastery of 
Dionysiou, which acquired it through the founder, who came from 
Goritza, (4) to Colbert, who obtained it through one of his many agents 
in the East ; it would probably not be very difficult by a few days* 
research in Paris to trace the exact channel by which it reached him. 

Cod. A, fV^atopedi 7). Vellum (34-9 x 21-8 cm.)', twelfth century. ™ 

In the comer of f. 101 there is a sponged out note which may be 
a date, if so it is perhaps ,<f^i% but I have no confidence either that this 
is right or that, if it is, it has any bearing on the date of the MS. I thought 
that it probably belongs to the second half of the twelfth century, but it 
is a difficult MS to date. It is written by probably ten hands, some 
good, some quite bad. 

The original MS was identical in contents with L (see /. T. S. voL ii, 
p. 105), and is therefore probably connected with BL and, as will be ^ 
shown, with K ; it is the earliest of this group. ■ 

Bound up with it is another collection of Athanasian tracts, written at 
the same time and probably never separate. These are ;— 

1. f. I. rw «V dytotr ir/»f ^^v *A&avtuTiov apxif^rnincAfrov dXi^mrfytint 

Arranged in twelve chapters. 

2. f. 24. atpokoyui ntpl T^f ava\tttprffTf^£ ffviica ^^i»x$rj vrrh (rrvrfpuivov rtyv iovtedf* 

3. f. 32^. Kara aptim,&¥ mt itarh cra^cXXiava>v icat aTr<^ayia virip iiovwriev ^ 

4. f. 42. iTpor rour tw *A<f>pu(^ ciruririjinn/r. 

5. r 47^. iffp\ irtWeoic op$oii6^ (cari aa^XKtavStv. This is a long dialc^gue 
between Macedonius and Onhodoxus. 

6. f. 62^, duiXfcToc 6p6M^ mai avo/iotov, apxirrui, diro r^c hFitnokifS to5 
Offt^m drrlav, 

7. f. 69. fi>t>ofitov Koi 6p6*Ji6^v iripa dtaX(«cTOff. 

8. f. 73- ^MiXf^* mroKXtvapiov Kai o^^odo^ov. 

9. f. 80. Tov mrrms [in mg. m. p. rot! iytow *A^awunw] *ls rh ptfT^ 
rvoyyrXiov ntp\ rov €1$ t6p Kvptoi" ffivmyftov tXBdvrtt tts roif Xryo/ArHiir Kpanam 
T6rrt» K. T. X- 

Cod K. (Vatopedt, 5, 6>. Vellum (27-9 x 24-1 cm.), fourteenth century. 
This manuscript contains a note at the b^inning, partially erased, 
which states that it was 

' These measurements, as those of K, are calculated from pbotognphs, they are 
tliCT^ore pn>btti>ly ooc quite 



fiiPKlow fiatnkuAw rov jea\ *IaMii>ir . . . rrowoftao 
&fwros Utii rov BtUv m\ ayytXttcov vx^ftaros 'luaaaxj* . . . 
Gompuing this with the note in MS Paris Nat. Grec. 1275, '^*^^ 

^9^iaT&rcv fiaaikius KVf^ov ^leaamnv KavrtiKovCijiPoO, rov . . . furovoixatrBivTos 

Wid^ ^loMixov . . . there can be little doubt that the emperor who is 
implied in the word /3aar(Xun$y is John Cantacuzene who was associated in 
tbeimperial office with John V from 1345 to 1355, ^^^ ^^^" retired, under 
coopdsion, to end his discreditable career as a monk. He lived for 

i Ottoy years and founded a school of calligraphy which lasted for several 

I jeoentions. Its work is easily recognizable by the charming whiteness 

0^ the vellum, the beauty of the writing, a peculiar sepia ink of a yellowish 

tin^ and a tendency to flourish marginal letters, especially those in the 

hA line of a page, while in biblical MSS the rule seems to have been 

to give liturgical notes and mark the oMiyvttcrfumi, but not the Ammonian 

sections or Eusebian canons. 

I hope that some day the Palaeographical Society may see its way 

to publishing a little fasciculus of MSS which belong to the Joasaph 

school, — cod. Evan. 568 (Bumey 18) is a good specimen, but there are 

several more. 

The contents of K can best be given by reference to the table of 

contents in B given in the/. T. S. vol. ii, pp. 246-8. 

1. B 1-25 = K 1-24, except that the Disputatio contra Arium (B 3) 
is omitted in K in its proper place and is K 27. 

2. B 45-88 = K 37-76 with the following exceptions; — 
(a) The De sententia Dionysii^ B 48, is K 47. 

(3) The Encyclica epistola Alexandria B 50, is omitted in K. 
(y) The Epistola Constantini^ B 66, is omitted in K. 
(8) The Explication B 69, is omitted in K. 

(«) The Epistola ad Serapionem, B 76, the Historia Arianorum^ B 77, 
and the De synodis^ B 78, are K 66, K 65, K 64 respectively. 

3. B 26-44 and K 25-36 are arranged so differently, although 
loughly corresponding, that I must give the table of correspondences 

B 26 = K 32 B 35 = 

B27 = B36 = 

B 28 = K 36 B 37 = K 28 

B 29 = B 38 = K 26 

B 30 = K 34 B 39 = K 29 

B 31 = K 35 B 40 = K 25 

B 32 = K 30 B 41 = 

B 33 = K 31 B 43 = 

B 34 = K 33 B 43 = 

B44 = 


4. K 77-81 are not in B. They are 

77. Epistola praefaHofds loco scripta, 

78. Dialogus cum Macedomiano. 

79. Contra Anomoeum. 

80. DiaUgus alter cum Macedomano. 

81. Vita S. AniomiK 

5. K has ^^ludktum PhotUzhsx the ma^^ B has it before the «wc 
as have also A L. 

From these facts taken in connexion with what is already known 
the MSB of Athanasius it is possible to draw several conclusions, wi 
varying d^rees of probability. 

I. In speaking of the MS A Ihave shown that it probably bdongs 
the group hitherto represented by L and B 1-21. It is possible tb 
R 1-20, 87 must be added to this group, — it would be almost certai 
were it not that the coincidence between LB A and K is broken by tJ 
displacement of the £>isfmtatio cmira Arium^ and as be t ween B and 
extends beyond the twenty-first tract. 

It is probable that the displacement of the Disfmimiio is an acddei 
but the other &ct seems to point to the possibility that ahlioqgfa L^ 
B i-2i« and K 1-10^ 27 repcesent a common archetype^ ^B 1-25 ai 
K i-i4« 27 represent it not directly but throii^^ an intcnnediate MS, m 
whiiL^i had added K«ir tracts at the end of the twenty-one wfaidi we 
ft>uiidin.<l. Tbe rehtioiis therefore of the MSS may be put thDS^— 




R B A L 

It )» f<t)Mi^ jcu<>e^ 3Kc«ssaav ^> Mi riac :^ onhr a;;pSies t 
:ihe ^'«^3« cf Af :nk"ts^ h oc*» 3joc ixjc^ Ssccxse a scrT^e adopu 
^»e ceiiet x^"^ ra^-t!? « 4 v«tta >r:> rsuc i»i jOsc skcttc tie ts 

tV-^itocktoAikl^^iljSptst ;J^ ^ :a: u^wv-^iy 5jr»t iaot ^k suae 1 


(i) This is shown from two notes in R, quoted by Dr. Wallisy. T. S, 
vol. fi, pp. 99 and 249. The first note shows that the De synodis 
preceded the Historia Arianorum in R and that R inverted the order. 
K has the order of i?, and, as was mentioned above, also places the 
Epistola adSerapionem after instead of before both these tracts, showing 
that besides the alteration in order made by the scribe of R and noted 
by bim, there was a further change which he did not record. The 
second note shows that the scribe of R wished the De sententia 
^^ionysii to be placed next to the Eusebii symboium ; B has observed 
this change, therefore, says Dr. Wallis, it is a copy of R rather than i? ; 
but K^ has got the old order, which supports the suggestion made 
above that it is a copy of R rather than R. 

(2) That B is indirectly a copy of R and not of R is shown by the 
notes attached to the Sardican epistles in R B K (see /. T, S. vol. ii, 
P> 250). R has a full and accurate note, B has a shorter and less 
accurate one, therefore Dr. Wallis concluded that B had abbreviated 
^'s note. But K has B's note and K has been shown to be a copy of ^ 
nther than R, therefore either B and K have independently made the 
s^e inaccurate abbreviation of the longer note, or R's note is really an 
cj^sion of B's note made because the latter was perceived to be 
"^accurate. The latter hypothesis is far preferable. The only theory 
I can see which will account for all the facts is that there was an 
mtennediate archetype between R and BR which I will call 5; this 
contained most of the notes found in R, which was acted upon by the 
scribe of B and copied by the scribe of R, but it did not contain 
tbe longer note on the Sardican epistles, which is due to the scribe 
of R, and probably did not contain the note on the Deposiiio. The 
^tions between BKR may therefore be represented thus: — 


B R K 

It will be noticed that this theory reinstates B as potentially equal in 
value to R, so that the study of K has not merely given us a new 
authority for the text of R but has restored us one which Dr. Wallis's 
researches seemed to have taken away. 

' K throws no further light on the position of the Dtposiiio : it agrees with R B 
and has no note. I therefore incline to the belief that the note in R is really 
intended for the guidance of future copyists, and is not an indication of any 
difference of order in /?. 

VOL. V. I 


Cod. X. (Laura B 28), VelJum (18*5 x 14*6 cm.), eleventh century. 
This contained originally : — 
(i) Contra Gentes. 
(a) De incarnatione. 
(3) Disputatio contra Arium. 

but it is now mutilated at the beginning, inc, «« -ya^ «ai ro aarpa 
iarttala^Qv je.r.X. 

Cod. Y. (Laura B 58). Vellum (23.7 x 19-2 cm.), tenth century. 
This contains : — 

1. Contra Gentes (the beginning is missing). 

2. De incarnatione. 

3. Disputatio contra Arium (incomplete). 
Cod. Z. (Laura r 106). Vellum (24-7 x 19*6 cm.), tenth century. 

This contains :— 

1. Contra Gentes. 

2. De incarnatione. 

3. Disputatio contra Arium, at the end of which is written cVXiipw^ 

avv $t^ 7 rc^i; Aylov d&avaalov tcttra ap*iov dpiarticu 

The beginning of this MS has been preserved by the fortunate 
accident of some leaves of a Chrysostora being bound up with it ■ 

It will be seen that these three MSS are practically identical in 
contents. Mr. Moss and I compared them for several hours to see 
if the texts were also identical, and found that there are a few accidental 
variants in X, though none of the smallest importance, but that Y and Z 
are either copies one of the other or sister copies of the same original ; 
they agree consistently in the smallest details. It is impossible to sayi 
which is the eariier ; Z is slightly better written, but both are admirablel 
specimens of late tenth or possibly very early eleventh-century writing. 

It only remains for me to add that the monks at Vatopedi and the 
Laura were so kind as to allow us to photograph the whole of the I>e 
incarnaiione in K A Z. It seemed unnecessary to photograph X Y in 
view of their textual identity with Z. I have since developed these photo- 
graphs; there are a few negatives which will be incomplete owing to 
defects in the film, but even if I am unable to go back to Mount Athos 
again, I hope that when I have time to collate the prints I shall be able 
to give a fair representation of the text of A based on the readings of 
L B A K S, as well as of Z, which is of course far the oldest MS accessible 
for the text of the De incarnatione, though it does not follow that it is 
best ; so far as I can see at present it seems to be independent both 
of Bands. 

K. Lake. 


OF ST. ANDREWS FROM A.D. 1093 TO A.D. 1571 \ 


CAHELINE, chancellor of the king and papal chaplain (Feb. 13, 
*a54— T. no. i6i), was postulated on the first Sunday in Lent, 1254 
(Sc vi 43), which works omt as Feb. 14, 1 254-5. M. (j. <i. 1 254) says he 
■^^as dected by the prior and convent of St. Andrews, presumably 
•■^erring to the Keledei being refused a voice in the election. 

Gameline is confirmed by Pope Alexander IV on July i, 1255 ; and 

tlic letter of confirmation (T. no. 176) explains why the word *postu- 

^ted' was used by Sc He suffered from defect of birth, being ex solute 

,g^tus et soluta. The letter recites that on the death of Abel, the 

prior and chapter convened, and proceeded per viam compramissi, 

Appointing nine of their number to make choice of a bishop either by 

election or postulation. The choice fell on Gameline, papal chaplain 

auul chancellor of Alexander, king of Scotland. Four persons, Robert 

<3e Prebenda, dean of Dunblane, Simon of Kynros,. clerk, and brothers 

Hdyas and Alan, canons of St. Andrews, were sent by the prior and 

chapter to the Pope with the postulation. The Pope dispenses for 

deto of birth, and confirms. A letter of the same date (T. no. 176 

tdjlnem) was addressed by the Pope to the bishop of Glasgow com- 

naoding him, in the usual terms, to associate with him two other 

bishops, chosen by the bishop elect, and to confer on Gameline the gift 

of consecration. He is still 'elect' on Sept. 20, 1255 (Bain's Calendar ^ 

ino. 2013), at which date he had been removed from the council of the 

king for offences against the king of England. 

The consecration by William, bishop of Glasgow, was on secundo die 
futtaUs Domini J quo dominica habebatur^ 1255 (Sc. vi 43). Dec, 26, 
fid fall on Sunday in 1255. The delay between the papal confirmation 
ind the consecration may be accounted for by opposition on the 
put of the king and the members of his council. Gameline's banish- 
ment in the following year is attributed by M. (5. a. 1256) partly to his 
opposing the designs of the king's councillors, and partly because he 
refused to give them money, quasi pro emptione sui episcopaius*, 

Gameline died on the morrow of St. Vitalis, Martyr (which feast is 
cd^Mrtted on April 28), 1 271, at Inchmurdauch, and was buried in the 

* The writer will be grateful for corrections or additions to these notes. 

* On July 31, 1355, Pope Alexander IV gives leave to Master Gameline, bishop 
^^of St Andrews, to retain for two years from his consecration the benefices 
^*^ he had before his postulation. This is granted because of the debts on his 
chuth and the repairs which it and other buildings needed (T. no. 178). 

I 2 


WILLIAM ERASER, chancellor of the kingdom, dean of Glasgow. 

On the day of St Nicholas (Dec 6) 1279, William Fraser, dean of 

^^lasgow (he does not style himself elect of St. Andrews), obliges him- 

^>df for a debt of 2oolb. sterling incurred by the chapter of Glasgow 

^ pro ardais nostris negociis in Curia Romana promovendis.' His 

V^rothers, Sir Symon Fraser, knight, and Andrew Fraser, are his * fide- 

Jiissores' (R.G. i. 193-5). We cannot but conjecture that this money 

^^ns for expediting his bulls. 

Elected August 4, 1279 (Sc. vi 44). The letter of confirmation from 
I'ope Nicholas III, dated May 21, 1280, relates that the election was 
,/cr viam compranUssi. The * compromissarii ' were the prior, the sub- 
prior (the text reads probably in error * superiori *), six canons, and the 
archdeacon of St. Andrews, all named. They unanimously chose 
William, then dean of Glasgow. Proctors were sent to Rome, and, 
according to custom, the decree of the election was examined by three 
cardinals. The election was confirmed by the Pope (T. no. 276). 

According to Sc (vi 4) Fraser was consecrated at the Roman court 
by Pope Nicholas on May 19, 1280. 

The letter of confirmation already referred to, dated May 21, contains 
the expression ' tibique munus consecrationis nostris manibus duximus 
impendendum.' This is worth noticing ; for sometimes the expression 
that a consecration was by the Pope means no more than that it was by 
his command or commission '. 

Fraser died Aug. 20, 1297, at Artuyl (in France), and was buried 
at Paris in the church of the Preaching Friars (Sc. vi 44). His heart 
was brought to Scotland, and by his successor, Lamberton, was deposited 
in the wall of the church of St. Andrews near the tomb of bishop 
Gameline {ibid,y, 

WILLIAM D£ LAMBERTON (Lambirton, Lambyrton), then 
chancellor of Glasgow. 

Elected Nov. 5, 1297, *exclusis penitus Keldeis tunc, sicut et in 
daabus electionibus praecedentibus ' (Sc. vi 44). The election was 
per viam eompromissi, the 'compromissarii' being the prior, the sub- 
prior, the archdeacon, and four others, being, canons, all named. The 

' He had served as envoy to England July 10, 1277 ; and again Feb. 20, 1278 ; 
and again April 10, 1279 (B.C. ii pp. 23, 24, 48). Oct 3, 1289, he and others were 
accredited to treat with the ambassadors of the king of Norway (iMe/. ii 96). At the 
end of 1290 the seven earls of Scotland and the community of the realm complain 
of W. bishop of St Andrews and John Comyn as guardians (I'Mi/. ii 109). He had 
a brother Simon {ihid, ii 103). 

* On March 23, 1277, Master ^^^lliam Fraser, dean of Glasgow, chancellor of 
Alexander, king of Scotland, receives from Nicholas III a dispensation to hold 
one benefice with core of souls in addition to the deanery and the church of Ar. 


(Bene, Bane).-— In one of the MSS kA Scolkhromam 
(▼i 45) the beadmg of the chapter gives the name as ' Jacobus BenedictL' 
Keith (Cmimiogm^ Rnsad's edition, p. 23) suggests, with probability, 
that ' Jaoobos Bene dictos' in a contracted form ('Jacobus Bene diet ') 
maj have given rise to the reading) \ archdeacon of St Andrews 
(Sc; W.ii 375), canon of Aberdeen and prdxndaiy of Cruden (CP.R« 

Twelve days after the burial of Lamberton the chapter proceeded 
(June 19, 133S) to an election. By calculation we find that the day 
was a Sunday. Some of the votes were given for James Ben, archdeacon 
of St Andrews [and papal chaplain, T. na 473] ; and some were given 
fcr Alexander Kininmonth, archdeacon of Lothian. As usual, the 
immber of votes for each is not recorded. Ben was at the time at 
tbe papal oooit, and before the news of the dection reached him, he had 
been advanced to the see by John XXII. Alexander Kyninmonth went 
^ Avignon to prosecute his claim ; he found St Andrews already fiUed 
<>|>, but the Pope provided him to the see of Aberdeen (Sc vi 45). 

In a letter of J(^m XXII to 'James bishop of St Andrews' 
^'^. no. 472) dated Avignon, Aug. i, 1328, the Pope states that 
during the life of William de Lamberton be had resolved to icscivc 
'^^lie see of St Andrews to his own provisioiL Tliere is no reference 
^^ an dection by the chapter. James is appointed, and the Pope had 
^^^ansed him to be consecrated by Bertrand, bishop of Tusculum*. 
-A letter of the Pope to King Robert I, dated Oct 15, 132S, com- 
^nrTKJing Ben, is printed by T. (no. 473). 

After the battle of Dupplyn (Aug. 12, 1332) in fear of the En^ish 
he bade friewdl to the prior and canons of St Aiuhews, and sailed 
for Flanders. He arrived shortly afterwards at Bruges, and died 
SqA. 22, Z332 (Sc. L r.). The date of his death is confirmed by the 
inscription on his monument in the church of the canons regular of 
Eckcfaot (Akewod. Sc). He is styled in the ^ti^ ' lacobus, dominus 
de Biurt (xar), episoopus S. Andreae in Scoda, nostiae religionis.' Keith 
(from a memoir bd<mging to the Scots College in Paris). 

His death was known to the Pope before Nov. 3, 1332 (CP.R. 
n 3«4)'. 

90 Bore of this. Puticnlara as to the cacrowmnniration of die bish o |i8 of 
St Aadrewa, Moray, Dank^ and Aberdeen by the Pope will be found in CP.R. 
S 191, 19a, 199. 

* Some late writers, thns miried, call him ' James Bennet' 

' This cardinal was a French Fianciacan, of great repate for learning, and known 
as Doektr famomu. He died in 1330, or, according to Lake Wadding, in 1334. 
Ciacwnius , is 415. 

' A few other particnlars as to Ben from sources unknown to Keith may here be 
added. On Nov. J^ 1329, the Pbpe appropriated to James and his soccessora in 


After the death of Ben the see was long vacant; according to 
(vi 45) for nine years, five months and eight days'. It would s ce"JT 
that the farewell taken by Ben of the prior and canons must ha^^c 
been a resignation, or, at least, understood as such ; for on August i ^S» 
133a, WILLIAM BELL, dean of Dunkeld*, was elected by tfc»« 
canons of St Andrews, the Keledei being excluded, and now maldi^^8 
no claim to a voice. He resorted to the papal court at Avignon ; b — ^ 
'through the opposition of many' he £auled to obtain confirmatiocr:^' 
At length, depressed by age and afflicted by blindness, he surrendere**^^ 
any right he had obtained by reason of his election. He eventually-! 
returned from the papal court in the train of Landells, after the con^^ 
secraticm of the latter to the bishopric, entered the Priory of St Andrews^^ 
and died Feb. 7, 1342 (Sc. flMdl). 

During the wars several efiforts were made by the Engii^ crown^:^ 
to secure an English partisan for the see. Edward III first suggested^ 
to the Pope Master Robert de Ayleston (or Ii^eston), archdeacon.^ 
of Berkshire, but the Pope dedined him. Again on July 24, 1333, « 
Master Robert de Tanton was recommended to the Pope (B.C - 

WILLIAM DE LANDAIXIS (Landd, Landdls, Launddys), 
rector of Kinkd in the diocese of Aberdeen. 

Feb. iS» 1343, Benedict XII appoints WiDiam, rector of tlie ciiorch of 
Kinkel, in the diocese of Aberdeen. The Pope s letter of tliis date 
lecoonts diat on the vacancy of the see by the deadi of James, the prior 
and chapter elected WOlam Bell dean of Dankeld, cmmtmdiitr^ per 
Jkmmmm Mvm /»i f mts sx : that the ekct had gone to the papal oomt to 
se^ confiimation : txit had emtoaDy for varioos causes, imm immum 
ptwsumt sme Hih^^ spootaneonslT res^ned all rtgiit arising out of the 
election into the hands ot die Pope. Before the resignation die Pope 
deckits that be had juid^^ed diat in aSsnfa cases of lesignatkn of an 
election the apfK^immem sbocki be tesvared to himseit He a cccw din gly 
a|>fpoints WittuuBX bot he Aids dot be tool: ixtto Macoimt the straqg 

li» «« 9f ^ A»drrM» ^»t piurs^ c^nsxAi oe 

IMM^. :>«%«<•» $.K«(^. Ifk t$. hV C^ JKttir rx '.^^3:5. Jcte XXE 
illfc % wr ttfe fc . <ait >Ma ><r >i4m 4e Uy». «■>« « <SkM!ttw;> «» 


W iecommendations of William that had been sent to him by the prior 
f Ukd chapter (T. no. 550) \ 

Bower (Sc vi 45) gives the date of William's appointment as Feb. 18, 
thus exactly corresponding with the date of the papal letter. The letter 
is addressed to William as * elect ' (i. e. as chosen by the Pope) which 
shows that he was not then consecrated. Sc. {idid,) gives the date 
of his consecration as March 17. And this falls in well with the Pope's 
mandate to William, dated March 18, to betake himself to his diocese, 
liafing been consecrated by Peter, bishop of Palestrina (C.P.R. ii 557) *. 
He died in the monastery of St. Andrew's, 1385, Sept. 23 (in festo 
Sancte Tecle, virginis), Sc. vi 46 ■; and was buried in the floor of the 
great church before the door of the vestibule (that is, the vestry or 
sacristy), t'M, * 

STEPHEN DE PA (Pai, Pay, W. iii 26), prior of St. Andrews, 

"^as elected by the chapter after the death of Landells, presumably 

iu October, 1385. Carrying the decree of his election and letters 

commendatory from the king of Scots, he was taken prisoner at sea 

* by pirates,' and carried captive to England. Shrinking from burdening 

the monastery with the cost of his ransom, more particularly because of 

tbe expenses involved through the burning of the church of St. Andrews 

seven years previously, he preferred to remain in England. He was 

soon after taken ill at Alnwick, and there died (Scvi 46) on March 2, 

»385(»-e. 1385-6). Sc. vi53. 

WALTER TRAIL (Trayl, Treyle). In 1378 he was official of 
Glasgow, M.A., and a licentiate in canon and civil law (C.P.R. Pet, 
^ i 540)- In 1380 he was a doctor of canon and civil law, papal 
chaplain and auditor (ibid. 555). In 1382 he was treasurer of Glasgow 
(ftW. 564). His petition for the deanery of Dunkeld was granted by 
Clement VII (anti-Pope) in November, 1380 {ibid. 555). 

^ Bower (Sc. vi 45) mentions that he had been strongly recommended to the 
I^>pe by the kings of Scotland and France, as well as by the chapter of St. 

' Peter de Prato, a Frenchman, created cardinal bishop of Praeneste (Palestrina) 
1)7 John XXII. He died in 1361. Ciaconius, ii 416. 

' Keith, in error, makes S. Thecla*s day to be Oct 15. But there can be no 
doobl what day is intended, for the Cupar MS. of Sc reads * in festo S. Tecle sive 
Adamnoli.* In Scotland the feast of S. Adamnan rather overshadowed the com- 
memoration of S. Thecla on Sept. 23. See the Kalendar of MissaU <U Atbuthnott 
(cxi), and Bmn'arium Aberdomnse (pars estiv. Propr. Sanct foL cxiiii verso). 

* Keith gives many references to evidence from charters. There are many notes 
o'ptpal writs to this bishop in C.P.R. vols, iii, iv. They chiefly relate to adminis- 
tntion and discipline. In 1381 (June 3) he is described as feeble and broken with 
H^ and is granted an indult by Clement VII (anti-Pope) to use ovis tt qmbuslibet 
^^t*id$tii$ twice or thrice daily in Lent and other fasts. His confessor is also 
allowed to commute his life-long vow to fast on Wednesdays into other works of 
I»«»y. C.PJL iv 343. 


There Is a lacuna here in the papal registers. Bower says his 
appointment was of the spontaneous provision of Clement VII (anti- 
Pope), adding that Trail was grattose builis txpeditvs {Sc. vi 46). But 
we do not possess any decisive statement as to the date of his appoint- 
ment. Dr. Maitland Thomson has pointed out to the editor that 
' I'Yom the account of the custumers of St. Andrews for the period, 
March t6, 1384-5, to March 31, 1386 {Exch, Rolls, iii 137-8), it 
appears that the see had become vacant during that period/ This falls 
in well with the date assigned above to the death of Pay. We find 
Trail bishop of St. Andrews Feb. 15, 1386, when he was granted 
a faculty to hear and decide first appeals to Rome (C.P.R. iv 252). 
This shows that Pay must have resigned his claim, or that his claim was 
disregarded by the Pope. But Bower {Sc. vi 46) assigning Trail's death 
to the year 1401, tells us he sat as bishop sixteen years. The election 
by the chapter after Trail's death was, according to Wyntoun (iii 79), 
July I, 1 40 1. Supposing that Trail died early in June, this would give 
US Trail's appointment as in June, 1385. This is obviously too early 
by some months, at least. 

We find Walter as conservator of the privileges and rights of the 
Scottish Church on July 18, 1388 (R.M. p. 350). 

An inquisition about the * scolartandis ' of Ellon made before Walter 
in 1387 (neither month nor day is recorded) leaves no doubt that 
Waller had been bishop for a year before the inquisition was made 
(R.A. i 177-8V 

Trail died in the castle of St. Andrews, which he had built &t>in the 
foundation, 1401 (Sc vi 46; Pluscarden a 17; W*yntoun iii 79), and 
tcnne time before Juty i, when the dectioa (by the chapter) of his 
W i CC iB So r was held (Wyntoun /. i\). He was buried in the cathedral 
dose 10 the great allar to the north nt^v (? imfrmypm^iimm (Sc vi 46)'. 

On the de*th of TtaU, THOMAS STEWAUT, archdeacon of 
St Andrews^ an illegitinuite son of Robert II, was elected on Jnly i, 
1401 *be concord ekctionne * (W. iii So) ; but though the ekction was 
*admitted* (i.e. ptobably by the king), when the decree oi the decdon 
WIS about to be tna w aMtted to the Pope, he lenoonoed his r^gta 
(Sc Yi 47)\ The ./V^ iMOmif (to vol. i) have some nockes of 
Thooiat SleiMfft la i^So the Fope^ Oettcnt VII. provids Thooaa 
Sle««n« Mtual SOQ of the kingV Scothiid, to the aicfadeaconiy of 

« Dw^tftM S<y»> 1 1»» KPt iPli ty Iht Mi a yiM coaiii— t o r iif the Uw« 
gf thv •wMwIi.HP* i»f \<f*^ Kfltmm ft 4HX V^^w VI MuhKi to St. 

a iliailh \1^ Hw ^j»<V mn^A «s a 
* W. t>ii M H|fJiali li* «b9*«ar« Waiiiai 2(oii^, as 



«f th» iliviaia i» A«%iMa^ 




St Andrews and to the canonry and prebend of Stobo in Glasgow 

cathedral (p. 551). In 1389 the king petitions for the deanery of 

Elimkeld for his son Thomas, and for a dispensation to hold it together 

"vrith the archdeaconry. This petition was granted (p. 574). In 1393 

Thomas petitions that he may hold a canonry of Brechin with his other 

preferments. Granted (p. 577). In 1395 Thomas Stewart, natural 

scm of the late Robert, king of Scotland, bachelor of canon law at 

Puis, and archdeacon of St. Andrews, petitions that while he is at the 

nnirersity he may visit his archdeaconry by deputy, and receive money 

procorations for five years (p. 592). Wyntoun (iii 80) also speaks of 

him as a bachelor of canon law. 

John Dowden. 

{To ^ continued.) 


Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) was no doubt one of the 
g^test writers and theologians of the early Church ; the place which 
be holds among the divines of the first centunes is at once eminent 
and peculiar. The aim of his studies .was not only to explain the 
Christian doctrine, but also to reconcile it with the tenets of philosophy. 
He endeavoured therefore to link together faith and science, revelation 
ind reason, theology and philosophy. Faith, in his judgement, ought 
to be scientific, and science, in its turn, ought to be faithful. It is of 
course well known that he maintains, with both acuteness and earnest- 
ness, the view that philosophy leads the human mind to the Christian 
L religion, and that the believer alone is the true scholar, or yvtoariKSt. 
In the present note I do not of course aim at a complete exposition 
of Clement's Christology, but merely at such an outline as may exhibit 
its fundamental principles and its main positions. From this point 
of view his Christology may be considered in certain divisions which 
form, so to say, the heads of the subject. 

I. Matter is good. Clement starts upon his course by showing that 
matter^ and bodies as well as souls, were created by God : they are 
God's work and therefore good. In this way he sets aside at once 
an antecedent objection to the possibility of the Incarnation. The 
objection may be stated thus : * Matter is evil : but God cannot unite 
Himself to any evil thing, since evil and good are incompatible ; there- 
fore the Incarnation of the Word is impossible.* This argument Clement 
overthrows by maintaining that matter, as a work of God, is good ; for 
God cannot do evil. The human body, in particular, is the crown and 
highest perfection of the corporeal world : it is in truth a masterpiece of 


the power and wisdom of God, because it was the work of his 
hands ' : soul is, indeed, the most excellent element of man, but bo^=:^ 
is itself quite perfect in its kind. God has granted to it a wonderC^^ 
organization, and an upright form, fitting it to look towards heaven*-^ • 
Its nature, then, places no impossibility in the way of the Incamaticr:^^ 
of the eternal Word. 

a. Tke Ward took human flesK Human flesh not being evil, tl rr^ 
Word could assume it. This is a leading principle. But the Wo^^^ 
took human flesh in order to purify and sanctify it Thus huma^^ 
flesh became the abode of the Divine Word. To speak precisely-* 
our Lord, the incarnate Word, was God in the form of man *. Th^^ 
Word bore a visible body*. He took our passible flesh* and oi*:-^ 
actual nature, to the end that we may imitate His examples and kee^'^ 
His precepts*. He took a humUe and lowly form, lest His disdple^ 
might be led by their contemplation of &imess and beauty set beforp**^ 
their sight to forget His teaching and the things that are not seen'^' 
Thus Clement stoutly defends the reality of our Lord's body againsira 
the Docetists. Some scholars have indeed maintained that ClemenPE^^ 
was in a measure aUied with the Docctists* since he says at times tha^C 
our Lord took human shape in order to fulfil the drama of Redemption* — 
But such an objectioQ has no sohdity^ for od the one hand Docedsm vs 
ranked in Qemefits teaching as a mere heresy*; and oo die odier 

' lMi#«j<nirvr. /WC i 3 .PUL bML xuL c«^ 2^7. t> ji^wbm i^m, Ir mm t i^m^ 4 

* i>9«w«» WXryacB 4t «tr«v^M\«rrffir rf»K\apta(r cask aattv^vrvc ri>«S|Hr mA JwiyMi ■» 

«twr j ^ rf m^m i tt/lm iptf« >«wrw» ino'^-itMMNwr. •« t« j*^ «i^ am^ apis va amAaa^ a» afit 
♦ ^^ *4^!»^ C^!M«n^ iv ** ^rK tcoft. T3fc. cwL i?*»-73.\ 

I * fNMK ;» . i h^iMWi H I If X^lHtt^ i^Wfc. i * , Ai. KOL ^m. coL 25-r\ 

^ T ^ n ^i M i>iw « r>Mmw «sjqr«^ii. vW IIk^k i TSuc iri^ia — ■■■ im>^ aaifaa^ifaa fui 

* ^ w ^«» H» ^^ ■■■< K •« nw i i ' i m i iwn i » ii iiiimfMi «.t;Jl SBmhk. Wl a ;^PG, 


liand the phrase r6 Mp&mv irpofrmrthv is opposed, in the passage 

crited in the note, not to reality of body but to the eternal existence 

of the Word in heaven. Clement, however, though holding, as against 

the Docettsts, the reality and materiality of Christ's body, does not 

Ciilly preserve the orthodox belief on the subject of that body. He 

^UTs as to its nature and needs. He teaches that it did not by reason 

of its nature need sleep or nourishment. Christ did, it is true, sleep, 

«at and drink : but this was not the result of need, but because He 

<lesired to preserve those of His own time from the Docetist error ^ 

Probably, though the point is not clear, Clement also teaches that the 

passible flesh assumed by the Word afterwards became impassible by 

its union with Divinity '. 

3. 2^ Word of God took complete human nature. This is closely 
connected with the actual purpose of the Incarnation, which was the 
redemption of the whole of mankind. The Word of God became man 
to redeem and to deliver the posterity of Adam. Clement affirms, as 
against false theories, that the Word took not only human body but 
human soul. He was therefore perfect man, compound at once of 
body and souL Clement several times distinctly speaks of the Saviour, 
as God and Man ' ; he refers to His human soul * ; and the existence 
of this human soul he supposes in speaking of our Lord's descent into 
hell •. He draws, moreover, the consequence that the body is not evil 
irom the position that otherwise our Saviour, in healing as He did 
both body and soul, would have increased the opposition between 
the two*. 

4. The Atonement. Jesus Christ was the Redeemer of mankind. 

^ 'AAX' {vi fUr rw Xenijpot r6 e&fia dvcurciV tin a&fia rds dfaytcalas innjptoiat tit 
Stafcoi^, yiken hw ttri. iipaytw fap ci Sect r6 ff&fuif JSwd/ui awtx^iuwov ^rpqr &Kk* 
in /t^ robs ffw6rras SWatt vtpt adroG ^poritw ivtiffiKBoi' Sxnnp Afiik§t 6<rTtpov Hok^ou 
Tivh abrbv Mf^aiftpSia9ai iwiXa^ov, Strom, vi 9 {PG, torn, ix, col. 292). 

* OA*i /fljr if96 Ttros ^j5oyrjs wtpun^fifvos, KaraktlwM nor &y rilP 6M9pinniy /njSc/iorfay* 
Sff 7« «a2 rj^ aifmt rifv Ifivo^ ^<^«t y«roft4yrjv duaXaB^ th t^iv dwaOuas IvcuScvacr. 
Strom, vii 2 (JPG. torn, ix, col. 41 2). [I again follow the correction accepted by Hort 
and Mayor.] 

' For instance : 6 /i6pot dftpat Bt6t re leai drOpenroSf dwivrcaif ^/uv afriot dfoBSfv, 
Coh, adgmi, 1 {PG, torn, viii, col. 61) : see also Paid, iii i cited below. 

* "EoiMtv Si 6 Tbulkiyorfdt fliujv, & «m3«s it/ittfj r^ Uarfii airov r^ 6C9), o^ip lariv 
tlAs dmfidprrjTos, dycrtXi/vror, Koi dvo^r t^ ^h'X^*'* 0«^ ^ difOpinrov ax^futri 
dxpcanotf tarpuc^ 0*k^tmTi Ikdieovos, ASyot 6<ds 6 h r^ Uarplt 6 l/v Ht^iSiy rov UarpSt, 
ffirir ttal r^ <rx^fiort St6s. OSros ^fuv tbci/y ^ dteijXiJicrrof rovr^ worrl a$iv» wtipariov 
i^ofioimjw rijir tfwxfyv. Patd, i a {PG. torn, viii, col. 25a). 

» Cf. Strom, vi 6 {PG. torn, ix, col. 265-76). 

* T£ 8<; ofixi b larriip^ &<rw«p ripf ^ftoch^^t o0t« 8i «a2 t6 a&fia loro rSof wa$w; oitc &v 

Strom, iii 17 {PG. torn, viii, col. iao8). [I foUow Dindorf's correction.] 


He offered to His Father a true sacrifice for our sIds and otir laui'i 
He paid to God an adequate satisfaction for our debts. Among C-] 
many passages of Clement which maintain this point and dedaie tl 
satisfactory character of our Lord*s Redemption, it may perhaps sufl&< 
to indicate by examples the chief features of his treatment of tl 
subject. Clement calls our Lord the Mediator (/m^inn) between GC 
and man\ Our Lord was the founder of a new covcsant, tl 
Reconciler, and Saviour ' («nropAo^<i,jor, doiXXamfc; v^nifi). He was all 
the great High Priest Otcyar a^ttptvt) of God '; the sacrifice (oXocay>r«|« 
SCiaA) oflered to God for us * ; He it was Who ofiereid Himself for oi 

work consists in His death on the Cross; whkh was an atonement i 
the sins of mankind ~. He is Saviour and Lord, because He is Loi 
and Saviour of all. men : in a word. He died for aJl •, 

V, Eriioni. 

$ik^^ rm Bmwf^ i |W > fiy LnrtXat* /u^trfs jA^ I A^tot, 4 mmrit V jii ' ' ^«^ ^ 
Yl^t, %mwif U iM § ^ m • aoi fw ^> fc i II I iii , »Jr If, « ui fc y| 4 a. fimd, m t (B 
ton. viii, ooL 557). 

m2 ImAAmt^ «t «ivvV <i^ A^Too, v^y^ C«a«M< 4fW^' ^ v"" 

CUL «rf««i>'. 10 {PC, tarn viil coL JsSX 

* 'AIImv atrAc, Ifvafr ^ 4 phf* V x^ P " * ft *< » ^^ ^^t n£ a4««» aal llwr^i^ ii 

• ■ QLiw^PM^ tV *«^ V"^ i" i»ti i6»i> 4 l^iTpk. S(»«m. VII (J^. lgM.j 

> A^ v«vf« a^ flir^f «Bf^lLiir fciT^»T* l i^Bii i ifihr^ Ibft vwr« t^ A»4^m 

iii|ipmiU^»^x»> gbn 4k. adk 37 (/^ l>»a. is* c»L ^i>. 

•dB. ^vK coL atS-a9% 

CFGL bA ix, cdL 4ta> [I Uknr DiadorTs cocrecfeia^J 



Ths action of the Inquisition at Venice in issuing a catalogue of 
iieredcal books in 1554 was important not only in its effects on the 
iustary of pdnting in the Republic^, but also as a step towards the 
compilation of the famous series of Roman Indices beginning in 1557 '. 
The catalogue itself was little more than an amended copy of one put 
out at Milan in the same year. Both are generally supposed to have 
shared the fate of two earlier Italian lists, those issued at Venice 
in 1549 and at Florence in 15521 and to have totally disappeared ; for 
no ttace of any one of them has been found by the bibliographers '. 
But all excepting the Florentine catalogue were soon reprinted by 
Piero Paolo Vergerio, and from his texts have been published anew 
byReusch*. The Venetian list of 1554 had been previously reprinted 
by Joseph Mendham* from what he believed to be the original, but 
what was in fact Vergerio's text. 

The following note is concerned only with the Venetian book of 
1554, the first that claims the authority of the Inquisition. Vergerio's 
edition was produced some time between 1554 and 1556, apparently 
from a German press ; but it bears the imprint of the original, Venetiis 
apud GabrieUm lulitum de Ferraris et fratres, 15 54*- He issued 
a second edition, likewise in Germany but with a Venetian imprint, 
b 1556, in which he distinguished such additions as he made by the 
use of italic type : Reusch places these within parentheses. Reusch also 
detected certain words in Vergerio's first edition which he believed to be 
his own insertions, and printed them within square brackets. Now there 
exists in the Bodleian Library a volume which appears to be a copy of 
the hitherto undiscovered original edition of 1554. It was purchased 
by the curators in 1858 for £2 is. Without venturing to express an 
opinion on the typography, I may notice that on one leaf there is 
discernible a portion of the well-known Venetian water-mark of an 
anchor within an oval. That it is not Vergerio's first edition is evident 
from a comparison with Mendham's reproduction ^paginatim^ Uneatim, 

^ Horatio F. Brown, The Venttian Priniing Press^ ch. xiv, London, 1891. 

* F. H. Reusch, Der Indtx der verbotttun BOcher, i 258, a68, Bonn, 1883. 

' Reusch, i 204 ; S. Bongi, Annali di GabrUl GiolUo dg' Ferrari^ i 445 f., Rome, 

* Dk Indicts Librorum prohUniorum dis stchjuhnien JahrhundirlSj pp. 148-175, 
Tubingen, 1886. 

* An Index cf prohibited Books, pp. 68 ff., London, 1840. 

* Reusch, Der Index, i 209 n. i ; Die Indices, p. 143. 


and later for ktter^ vcLfacsiwdk^ of the ktter. The arrangement 
title-page differs entirely ; the pages are numbered ; Frandscus Gri 
ImstiMopolUatms is omitted at the bottom of p. 1 1, and Theodarui 
at the end of p. 25; and, most important, the words ex exet 
Vemetiis excuse are absent after the finis. In other respects th 
books agree in substance, though the spelling and the misprints d 
many differences. But there is one interesting divergence. E 
notices that the Milan catalogue of 1554, but not Ae Venice 
of the same date (meaning of course in each case Veigerio's re 
contains repeated citations of the Louvain Index \ Now all thes4 
two others in addition, appear in the Bodleian volume, whei 
reference Lotsa^ or lumaiu is placed after the names lamus Cor, 
wudicus^ Joannes SartoriuSy Justus Meuius^ Ottko Brunfessius A 
tinus, Paulus J%igius^ Paulus Constantinus Pktjgius^ Petrus Ar 
Sebastianus Meyer, Stepkani J)oleti Cato Ckristianus et earmi,^ 7 
Venatorius, Vincentius Ohsopoeius ; and also after Pkilotetus 1 
and Tkeobaldus Billicanus, where no such reference occurs i 
Milan list It should seem therefore that the original Ve 
catalogue stood nearer to that of Milan than Vezgerio's edition 
lead one to suppose. That Vergerio should have omitted refe 
which were non-essential to the purpose of the list need can 
surprise : Reuscb, however, took it for probable *, or evoi certain 
they were insotions in the Milan list due to Veigeria 

It may be worth while to add, in order to save unprofitable en 
that the extracts Ex Catkalogo Ubrorum Jkprtiafrum inquis 
Venetiarum contained in John Bales noce-bocdc in the Bo 
Library, but not printed in the recent edition of that manus 
are not taken from the Venice book of 1554, but merely selecte 
abridged from Vergerio's second edition of 1556. 

Reginald L. Poc 

> Act /aAr, t aio. 

' Ibid, i aai. * Dit ImAn, p. i 

* Imdtx Bn^mmmmt Sarsfianum^ Oxibrd, 190^ See tbe pve&ce, p. xv n. 1. 




^damte van Atripe und die Entstehung des nationeU dgypHschen Christen- 
/urns, von Joh. Leipoldt (= Texte u, Untersuchungen, N. F., x, i. Heft). 

To-day is a great pillar fallen in the land of Egypt.' Thus did the 
'lying Cyrus (Kvpoc), the reputed brother of Theodosius I and for sixty- 
^t years a hermit in the Scetic desert, refer to * our father, the prophet, 
•Apa Shenoute,' of whose decease, immediately preceding his own, he 
bd had miraculous intimation *. The introduction of this irrelevant 
incident into a legend not without interesting features of its own, may 
be due simply to the proximity of the two festivals in the calendar'; 
it adds however one more to the many evidences of the popular venera- 
tion paid to Shenoute by the Coptic church. The churches of the 
west know nothing of him ; indeed the fact that the Syrian mono- 
physites are the sole body, outside Egypt (and Ethiopia) where even his 
name is recorded, if not a sufficient argument for the part he had played 
in the theological strifes of his day, is at any rate significant of the 
party with which he was subsequently identified. 

Since Quatrembre made us first acquainted with this great figure in 
Egyptian monastidsm, the number of documents for his history has 
much increased. This has been due primarily to the rescue of the 
remains of Shenoute's own monastic library — the library, that is, of the 
great institution of which he seems to have been the second founder : the 
White Monastery, near Achmim. From the time when, on b^alf of 
Cardinal S. Borgia, Italian missionaries acquired the leaves which served 
eventually for the epoch-making Catalogus of Zoega, till the present day, 
the market has seldom been without some fragments of what must once 
have been a vast collection. It would seem that the greater part of the 
volumes whence these disiecta membra had been torn, was written in the 
toith to twelfth centuries ; a smaller number in the seventh to ninth ; 

' Tonief, Kopto^Mop, akoM. o pnpod. Kir (Zap. Imp. Ruaa. Archeol. Obfthtch. 
^ p. 08). Fragments of the Coptic original in Paris, 129*', a6 ; 131', 36, 37. 
VOL. V. K 


still fewer in perhaps the sixth. In quite recent years stray leav< 
a still earlier date have appeared^ likewise, it was said, from Achml 
But here a connexion with Shenoute's monastery is at least undemon— 
strated. Among the remnanis, biblical^ liturgical and patristic, of thi^ 
rich Coptic library, now scattered through the museums of Europe^ s^ 
large number show titles attributing the contents to Shenoutc himselfp^ 
while others are fragments of the biographies ^ whence the better pre--^ 
served Bohairic, Arabic and Syriac Litcs were subsequently adapted *. ■ 

It is upon these materials, and primarily upon the former group, that 
Dr. Leipoldt has based his study : hence its importance. Hitherto 
writers had relied, he holds, too much upon the popular biography, 
attributed (in the main probably rightly) to Shenoute's disciple, B^sa *. 
The facts are rather to be sought in the extant writings of Shenoute himself, 
since, with him alone among Coptic authors^ chance, in preserving to us 
his library, has rendered such direct communication still p>os$ible. 
Moreover, althou^ the number of works actually baring SheiK>utc*s 
name is considerable, very many fragmettfs besides, where no b'tle is 
preserved, can be with practical cataioty attributed to hira ; for raxely 
has a writers style been more marked or vocabolaij more unmi^takahle. 
And yet it may be doubted whether in this the crUma by whkh 
Leipoldt has been guided will always prove sufficient teste. How 
deticate are the indices to be kwked for and liow deceptive the 
asMimed cfaaracteri^ics we may judge from the Epts^ riinsialfd by 
T^ripnlrtt on pp. 90, 91. He has htmsdf recpgrnzed the difficaldes of 
its attnbdtioQ to his aiidior» and, in £Kt, the tetter ts one by Sevcras of 
Antiodv addressed to Anastssias^ in reference to the a£l^ of Mace- 

Shenoute died in 451 or 451, after atiainanfe it is said, theageof ii8w 
His \on% life wss apparently oneventiful ; the yoitroey to £pbesas» as 
C^nTk heodunaa, in 431, is the ooly ooc«atd ODcunencje of inponanoe 
hj his hiogtapheis. All his eoeigfees vere ocoipied in the 
of the great Oock of aionks and nans iriM ^Ihered to 


A09 of SMt (V. AjBie'BaeiB^ Gmgt. 401, 
Atf. F^. 1^. 

to Ifaa^ iMtiaria of >Gwdk 



^ monastery which his uncle Pgol seems to have founded, but which 

<^wed its fame to bis own reputation and, in Dr. Leipoldt's view, to its 

being a genuinely Coptic rival of the somewhat hellenizing monasteries 

of Pach6m*s foundation. The monastery, after an excellent sketch 

of its political, economic and religious environment, forms the sybject 

of a detailed description (5§ 19-33)1 wherein the author shows how 

much can be extracted from sources the most valuable of which are 

cither fragmentary or obscure* Among the interesting features of the 

monastic life described is the novitiate— an innovation, it would seem, 

of Shenoute's— with the preliminary undertaking or covenant {SiaB^xrf)^ of 

vhkh Leipoldt has recognized a fragment (p, 109). In this connexion 

an incident in B^'s Life might have been cited, where, on the occasion 

of a monk's expulsion, this covenant is prominent \ Community of 

goods was enjoined upon all. To the illustrative passages here cited 

(p. 107) we may add one from a letter addressed by BSsa, to 'those 

that have renounced {dpvtafuii) their constancy (im-o^oj^) and departed 

from us,' Our fathers, he writes, since the foundation cf these tojtoi, hav€ 

mmxtrained none to be a monk ^' force. But they did ordain that such 

as ttfouid be monks should give up (an&Taxrati») all their goods and inscribe 

than for the community (<eoi*'<Mvw) of God and the service {hmKovla) of the 

poor; neither should any be able to return and take aught^ according as 

ea^h hath made agreement (6^oXoy#«i^) with his word '. For those who 

definitely joined his order Shenoule prescribed a life of constant labour. 

Work for work's sake, as a salutary occupation for head and hands, 

Leipoldt shows to have been his ideal. Of asceticism, as Greeks or 

Syrians understood it, he showed little appreciation. Yet he governed 

with an iron hand, taking delight in the prescription of the minutest 

rules, whereby the smallest details of daily life were regulated. The 

eptsttes * wherein these regulations are embodied ^re the most curious of 

Shenoute's works and philologically the most valuable, full as they are 

of strange words and unusual phrases. A * rule,' in the precise monastic 

•etise» does not appear to have been formulated : at any rate not by 

Shenoute, nor, I believe, by his predecessor. Dr. Leipoldt's identification 

of the often cited * books ' or ' letters that have been laid down for us ' 

wilh canonical works of Pgol seems to me to require further demon- 

stntion. Indeed, Shenoute's relationship to the earlier monks of Egypt 


* Mumom fran^ iv 54, 406. The Sa'idic version is in Naplcn (2ocgtt ccxciii, last 
). It miy here be suggested that ' the kingdom of heaven * (pp. 109, 1 10) is not 
c laoABStery ; for a very similar phrase is familiar in legal documents, where a 
ffiflcrent sexise is required (v. Reviltout, AcUs 87, Brit. Mus. pap. buux K, pap. 
" MS Cui^on, to8, p. inrtf. 

' Or, AS tbe MSS call them, the' canons.* The word is used of other disciptinary 
Irtlen, eg. those of Moses of Abydos (Paris la^^*, 14). 

K 2 


is still obscure, and likely, unless new documents appear, to remain si^^^- 
Among these the figure of his elder contemporary, Pshoi or Peter \ fc^^r 
instancy traditional founder of the neighbouring Red Monastery, ^3J 
interesting* The Synaxarium, which appears to have forgotten Pgol » 
commemorates Pshoi as follows. A native of Achmim, his life in yout:^^^^ 
was evil, til!, falling ill, he had a vision of hell, where he beheld thiev^^ 
(or extortioners ?) cut in four by angels. In terror he vows to reperr::^^ 
and, if God heal him, never again to behold a woman. Recoverin^^3 
he goes to the monastery of BanwaU*^ is received by the monks, an^*^ 
there for many years fights the spiritual fight^ till his fame is spread:^ 
abroad and he is made head ' over many saints.' He composed manjjt^ 
admonitions and instructions for monks and laity, and, after thirty-fiv^^" 
years of rigorous asceticism, died. If this story embodies a genuin^^ 
tradition, one might speculate upon the fate of Pshoi's writings and see at^ 
least a reference to them in some of Shenoute's allusions to older works.— 
Lcipoldt has some suggestive remarks (p. 39) upon the causes which 
led to the apparently speedy lapse into obscurity of Pshoi's monastery. 
He shows reasons for thinking that the Red Monastery may have been 
a last stronghold of the archaic Achmim dialect, which the Sa'idic, 
cultivated at the White Monaster)*, was destined to supersede. 

For the subsequent history of Shenoute's monastery we have prac- 
tically no materials. His immediate follower appears to have been his 
biographer, Besa, many of whose writings likewise exist. To him pro- 
bably succeeded Shenoute's secretary (roraptof), Zenobios ; for he has the 
title of archimandrite and his name follows Shenoute's *. Colophons 
of books presented to the library bear dates of the tenth to thirteenth 
centuries, among the latest being a. d. 1248*. The sainfs coffin was 
still in Situ in the twelfth century • ; but in the fifteenth, the place was 
in ruins \ To-day merely the shell of the vast building remains ; the 
skeleton is filled in with the squalid huts of a modem village. But the 
name of Shenoute had early spread beyond his native district He ob- 
tairted a place of honour among the saints of the Egyptian church', and 
CTCn to-day his homilies^ — alone among Coptic works — are prescribed as 

' So in P»ris i»9'*, 13,6. and io th« Symrnxmrimtm^ ts bdow. 

' At any rate the araiiaUe Arabic and Ethiopic copies The f>ro^rmm of the 
Wbite Mooastery naturally commemorated him ; a^th Meclur» Lejnd. MSS 3z6% 
Tbc kUkmu^ is (tt>m the Eth. ^Or. 667, f. 175 a, Or $6a t 14S) ; ia Ar. Psfaoi i» 
mmnij aaaed (5U1 Mechirt as head of ' the mooastefy of Adimla,* 

* So abo in Armbic (Br. Uaa^ Or. 47*5* ^ »j\ -Copt Ammi» (Pkm 139", 76X 
cC Ab^ Om^. 359. Was Pilioi received ia a PadMaaui rn—wify ? Baawmlt 
Hestw«lv« aules oorth oTthe Red Mooaa^ery. 

• IWIs ii9« i3fi; tM^.^L^f^ MSS 197. • PtoB ij»», Sj. 

' Xa^rtii. JTmsMc^ m. 57, 

»cnM by Q...«»ite ( J2«iMk«a, 19S), 



sons in Holy Week, beside those of Athanasius, Chrysostom, Severian 
and Sevenis\ From Egypt his fame was naturally transmitted to 
Etfaiapia ; but whether his monastic institutions were ever introduced 
then seems uncertain '. One line of Ethiopian monks appears to have 
included him among its worthies ', and Ethiopian pilgrims visited his 
Tuonastery *. 

Space forbids more than an allusion here to perhaps the most impor- 

result of Shenoute*s energies : the influence of his personality and 

itutions upon Coptic hterature. To him we owe, as Leipoldt points 

, the development of the vernacular of the Thebaid into the rich 

flexible idiom of which his own writings remain the most charac- 

ic monument *. Dr. Leipoldt *s book is however but the preliminary 

to that chief disidtratum of Coptic studies : an edition of all that now 

remains of Shenoute's works. The undertaking is a heavy one, entailing 

copying or collation of manuscripts scattered from Cairo to 

Petersburg. In the great Paris collection alone, many a leaf of the 

inuthian writings has strayed into other volumes beyond the five 

laily labelled Shemudi, whence Dn Leipoldt has already extracted 

10 much that is new and valuable. But the present work is a sufficient 

goinintee that he is excellently equipped for the task, and it is only to 

be hoped that he will obtain access to all the extant material and so 

oiake his edition really exhaustive. Nor will historians and philologists 

be alone to benefit by the promised edition. Students of the New 

Testament will find in Shenoute's endless quotations a highly valuable 

witness, as yet wholly unexplored, to the text of the most important 

I of the Egyptian versions. 

^ W. E. Crum. 

honour : *■ the feast of the desert of Apa S.', held on Monday of the second week 
ita Lent — which, by the way, explains the passage cited by Leipoldt, p. 105, n, 4. 

1 F. YOstif Habashl, Daiil as-Smaksdr (Cairo, i»94), p. 50; also Codd. Vatic» 
CopL louu, TOLxly, and the Boh, text of these, Rtmeil vji 89. 

' My statement in PRE*, xii 813, was based on Turaicf, laslitd, agiolog. isiotck, 
iatof. Ethiop. (,1903), 63. I see however that his authority (John of Aksum on Isaac- 
Garima, *d, C. Rossini, nth Orient Congr, iv 170, L 637) has merely: 'they re- 
QCfflbcred what he (Garima) bad bidden them conceramg the rule {lerfai) of Abba 
Sinoda, " no secular (cleric) shall make the oflTering nor shall any but he that is chosen 
fron among the monks celebrate.*' ' This may well be an addition by the Egyptian 
•athor, John. It is not in the other MS (Brit. Mus,, Or, 702) of the text. 

» K the monastic genealogy in Basset, Apocryphes dthiop. viii 16. The name there 
preceding Shcnoute might be Pg6l / 1-^ for J^.)i an*! ^at following Besa (though 
peHups Wisa would be here required). This list seems unique; none of the 
genraJogics in Brit. Mus. MSS has it. 

' W. dc Bockf Maiiriaux, p. 54. 

* It will l>e remembered that the old Sa'id. papyri from Abydos and Thebes 
(TuriA| London, &c.) are almost all translations. 




iIk JocuuL pdnied its 



*^^t were published within the years 1 884-1 900, which we owe to 

^*--^T, A. Ehrhard', Professor originally at Wiirzburg, then at Vienna, 

^-*:»d now the first tenant of the chair of Ecclesiastical History in the 

*^^2wly erected Faculty of Theology at Strassburg. It is a work of course 

I meant for beginners : but for more advanced students it will be 

d to be quite indispensable as a book of reference, while yet it 

iffers from other bibliographies in that it can be read straight through 

^^Dm end to end with enjoyment as well as with profit. Dr. Ehrhard is 

^perhaps best known in England as the author of a brilliant and (so far 

31^ circulation goes) successful plea for liberal Catholicism, Der Katho- 

^lismus und dat swanzigsk Jahrhundtrt : the book now under notice 

shews that be is as thorough and erudite as he is brilliant. And it fills 

a real gap : nowhere else can workers in the patristic field find so clear 

ban outline of the problems which this generation has had to face, or so 
exhaustive an account of the attempts which it has made to solve them. 
"With characteristic German patience Dr. Ehrhard has calculated that 
the notes in the present volume, which treats of ante-Nicene literature 
only, amount to 2710: and to nearly every note corresponds *some 
writing, treatise, or other contribution to the subject of greater or less 
dimension/ VVe expect anxiously the appearance of ihe companion 

P volume on the post-Nicene literature : for here the field becomes so 
test that only with the help of some such guide can the individual 
scholar hope to become acquainted with the labours of his con- 
temporaries. The faculty of Catholic Theology at Strassburg is fortunate 
indeed in being able to draw directly on the stores of Dr, Ehrhard's 
leaioing. It is a venial fault if we find him somewhat too much inclined 
to register as conclusive the numerous pronouncements on critical 
questions of some of the more eminent of his countrymen : and it is 
only right to point out that English writers, and even specifically Anglican 
books like Abp* Benson's Cyprian^ find unexceptionable treatment at 
the hands of the German Roman Catholic, 

(3) If Dr. Ehrhard is the most prominent patristic scholar of the 
younger Roman Catholic school in Germany, Dr. F. X, Funk of 
Tubingen is certainly the best known of the veterans. The two volumes 
of the new edition of his Patres Aposioiici, published in 1901 *, are 
divided by twenty and twenty-three years respectively from the volumes 
of the original edition of 1878 and 1881, just as that edition was 
' separated by a similar interval from the last edition of Hefele's work, on 

» Dig ttUchnstlkhi Litirraiur und ihrt Efforschung von i8fi4>]900 : EnU Abttilung, 
Iht vormcdniacht LitUratHr, Von Albert Ehrhard. Freiburg im Breisgmu, 1900. 

* Pairn Apostolici : Uxtum nansm'i, adnoiationibus aifia's exfgfficis hisiorids 
tBrntrmniy vrtsiontnt laHnam prohgomena indicts addidit, Franciscus XavcriusFunk. 
Editio II adaucia t1 anatdata. Two volumes, Tabingen, 1901. 



which, as regartls the first volume, it was based. In the way of new 
iBHIeha] the quarter of a century just elapsed can p^haps hardly daim 
equal importance with the period which saw the discovery of the original 
text of Barnabas and part of Hennas and the completion of that 
of Oaaenl, betides the second Latin and Ethiopic ver^'on of Hennas 
Mid the Syriac version of OemenL Yet even in this sphere the 
Didache and the LaUo Oement are no incoosidefable addltioiis to 
our ktKiwlcdgc : while on the sooce of new editiom the five vohimes of 
Bp. Lightfoot'S Aptsii^ i^hbrr (1SS5, 1890) mark the last period as 
efiod^^makin^ m tbe histoiy of patristic criticism. But if Dr. Funk's 
fii«t cditKHi ins thevebf aatiqintcd. it was not wfadDy si^ierseded. 
Time is still toom for a text of the Apostolic Fatbeis ]e» aa m fc ii io B f 
dMftl4g{hilfeoi^$bmiiioieexteB8i^i&aoope: ODeiiliicliwillsiimBaiBe 
rather than produce tfaem« but one irindi or die otber 
wOl inctode aU tbe Apofitaik Fathen^ attd Kit ibe gcHii^viU 
imif but (ao fitf IS ^Moe penote) die iparioBs as wdL Ont fand|f 
for imtaaoe, where else to turn than to Dr. Fonk for tbe 

Clashes 00 Virpaxy, Dr* Fabk^ phs too cf 

A (nodem) 

eacbofdiefeomiedocnMttls. It is a pleasore, tboefon^ to 
a aewediwm iSbM 

oaie^ wi oie aaat wmnae ■wcufai me 

its as nocessarf « ie<:asl woA ve^RiKoB^sid we ooaUd viiii iIhS De. 


<£ ibe paKmi»^§utdMk§BKgBxj {\ 

10 40re^ baa to be aomdft fat 


^^4/ the changes have left him rather lonely. In 1853 learned opinion 
^►^ more or less divided between the view that Cureton's new Syriac 
^iiscoveiy represented the genuine Ignatius and the view, supported by 
^^ilgenfeld and bis great leader F. C. Baur, that there were no 
S^uine Ignatian documents at all. Nowadays, however^ the Seven 
Epistles unquestionably hold the field. That Catholics and Anglicans, 
like Funk and Lightfoot, should have hillied to the champion of epis- 
copacy, or Orthodox Lutherans, like Zahn, to the champion of the 
<5octrine of the Godhead of Christ, is intelligible enough to Dr. Hilgen- 
feld : that the disciples of Ritschl, himself an opponent of the genuineness, 
should become converts, is a misforttine only to be accounted for by 
the fstct that they read Ritschlianism into Ignatius. Dr. Hilgenfeld 
does his best to sfem the flowing tide. To him the seven epistles are 
still a Gnostic forgery : the epistle of Polycarp only genuine when all 
references to Ignatius and his letters have been erased : the Antiochene 
Acts of Martyrdom and the chronicle of Malalas, which make Trajan 
present at Antioch, the most trustworthy witnesses to the history of the 
martyr. Even if critical opinion were to incline in this direction in 
England, it would not, we are sure, adopt the system elaborated by 
Dr. Hilgenfeld. The original second-century forjger is followed by 
another (in Hilgenfeld's notation, Ignatius I ^) who in the third century 
composed the five letters, Mary to Ignatius, Ignatius to Mary, to the 
Tarsians, to Hero, to the Antiochenes. Between the councils of Nicaea 
and Constantinople a third forger, Ignatius I^ added the letter to 
the Phiiippians : while yet a fourth, Ignatius II, contemporary with the 
last, is responsible for the enlarged and corrected edition of the original 
seven. In correspondence with this theory Dr. Hilgenfeld prints the 
seven letters in Greek (with the Roman letter imbedded in the martyrdom), 
the epistle of Polycarp, the same in its * genuine ' form, the martyrdom 
of Polycarp^ the same as given by Eusebius, the Latin versions of the 
letters of both saints ; from the Syriac (but in Latin translations) the 
fragments of the seven letters, and the three * Curetonian ' letters ; the 
five additional Ignatian letters ; the sixth additional letter (that to the 
Phiiippians) in Greek and Latin ; and lastly the fourth-century form of 
the seven letters. A hundred pages of notes conclude the book, and 
are perhaps not the least permanently valuable part of it. Another 
feature in this edition which will specially commend itself is the very 
convenient list of patristic quotations from the seven epistles, pp. 134- 
162, arranged in the order of the epistles themselves. Dr. Hilgenfeld 
(like Dr. Funk) writes in Latin : we are sometimes tempted to think 
he would be easier to follow in his native tongue. 

(5) Dr. E. Preuschen is another of the Germans whose literary 
industry and activity are, judged by our more sluggish standards, incredibly 


astonishing. He edits one of the best of the newer theological rev 
in Germany ; he is, we believe^ engaged in the practical work of school 
leaching ; and yet he finds lime to write books, two of which lie before 
us at this moment. Perhaps this fertihty would be inconsistent with 
work of the most permanent SLnd enduring kind : but his collection of 
AmUU^g^mena ^ is both handy and useful — more useful indeed than the 
title would quite suggest, for it includes not only the scanty remains of 
the apocryphal Gospels and eitta-canonical sayings of our Lord (these 
occupy no more than twenty- fi\*e pages) but all the Gospel-citations 
in i Clement, in Justin Martyr, in the Gementine Homilies and ia 
Origen^s report of Olsus. The ficagments of Ptapias and of the elders 
IQ Iieoaeus are perhaps properly added as gennane to the subject, 
tboHgb they can be found in any o^ the ediiiocis of the Apostolic 
Fathers : it is a little more diflknlt to see on vliat grcwiids the inclusion 
of the fragments of Hqge a pp o s ooold be logkaDy deieoded, though as 
these are less easy to find collected dsewb etc one vocdd not wish to 
pnss the claims of logic «sutttt those of c oo fe nknc e. The texts 

to hare been caiefU^ ediled, and the EifirhSan extnM^ts are 
earidhed with tsk afspantua criticits — nowlwre more aeoessary than in 
thee extncts— by the hefy of Dr. Sdi«iftt*s coliiions. The only 
d iJ i w b x A that we have nolked to the use of the book is a certain lack 
of dBUMSB in anmgcBMBt; ilie diftsrem (foucatioos uiidei the tif^tiiig 
01 oca UMinor are ^iminguiSDCo. uf mmoeRt ok w/bk are cues in 
mbidi the imcrtal of a line could have been left with grcM nd«inla§e 
to the eye of the leadcf. The Gerottn truwhrioBs wiD be useful 10 
those to wtiom the bngoage of the ordinals is less &iiishar, and the 
pcioe IS moocine enoiign m mniie a ■wwh doqk wncfly aHOcsHDie. 

of gttnt writets of a. ix iSo-a5t\ we ind CkiaeBl of Alesandiia 
bgraoksthMitlaeeofteboolEsonanriiL. Twoindeed 
of telle ire hmf, bit m ifaej preoeed fcont die pen of Dr. Ouo 

it cocs wMmi ayi^ tel tef M tepomoL la 
lo a aamfciujn 1 iiliw 1 of 

r;ilt«^ mril awnd t» Ifae kMBK. he 


'Qementioa' of two of the MSS, suppL gr. 270 and 421, are collations 
bf Montfiuicon and notes by Le Nourry respectively, while the third 
IIS^ soppL gr. 1000, is only connected with Clement at all by an error 
in the catalogue. For the Protrepticus and Paedagogus he agrees with 
Btmard that the codex of Rodulphus Pius, bishop of Carpi, employed 
as a teoondary authority in the editio princeps, is the present Muti- 
nensis (lil)i But what was the other and primary MS, on whose 
mthority the text in that edition was mainly based? Stahlin proves 
that the MS used for the Paedagogus was Laurentianus v 24, our F, 
and for the Protrepticus a MS hitherto overlooked, Munich gr. 97. 
This Munich MS is shewn to be a copy of M, and as M is itself a copy 
of Aiethas's great MS of the Greek apologists, Paris gr. 451, the 
htter is kft as the ultimate source of all knowledge of the Protrepticus 
in the sixteenth century as well as in the twentieth. 

(7) Dr. Stahlin's other contribution is a pamphlet on Clement's quo- 
tations from the LXX ^. The Biblical quotations of an early Christian 
writer may be used for the textual criticism either of his own writings 
or of the Biblical books themselves : but in the case of Clement so 
little of his extant writings rests on the authority of more than a single 
MS that there is practically no field for the first of these purposes, and 
te interest of the quotations will therefore lie in their bearing on 
LXX problems. And from this point of view Clement's antiquity and 
the very considerable bulk of his writings make him an important 
witness, though we must not forget to put aside all such quotations as 
ue drawn not directly from the LXX but mediately for instance through 
Philo. In identifying Clement's quotations earlier scholars — Hervetus, 
Sylbufg, Le Nourry, Potter— all did yeoman's service : later editors have 
done little else than multiply misprints. But if Dr. Stahlin's work owes 
nothing to Klotz or Dindorf, he acknowledges in the fullest way his 
obligations to Dr. Swete's Introduction and to his manual edition of 
the LXX : indeed it appears to be implied with regard at least to the 
Psalms (p. 25) that for pmposes of comparison with Clement little would 
be gained from any more elaborate apparatus such as we look for in the 
biger Cambridge edition. It must be remembered, however, that for 
&e Psalter Dr. Swete used more manuscripts than elsewhere : and in 
particular the agreement of Clement with the fragments of the London 
papyrus Psalter (Swete's U) against all other MSS, when taken into 
account with the similar agreement — first pointed out by Mr. Brightman 
in/. T, S. ii 275, as Dr. Nestle duly notes in the addenda to Stahlin's 
pamphlet — of U with Mr. Budge's Sahidic Psalter, seems to point to 
an early Egyptian text distinct from any of the great uncials. In the 

* GEmwns AUxandrmus uttd dU Siptuaginta, Von Dr. Otto StAhlin. NOrnberg, 


leason at all why the name of the one should share either the credit or 
the responsibility for the work of the other. This is not the occasion 
to enter into a detailed review (though we could wish that such a one 
m^t still appear in the pages of the Journal) of a book which cer- 
tainly marks a distinct step forward in the criticism of a difficult and 
confbsed author : but we signal with gratitude the attempt, too rare in 
these days, to assist in the elucidation of the author's meaning as well 
as in the restoration of his words. Dr. Mayor is sometimes scrappy, 
bat always vigorous: stronger perhaps in matters of grammar than 
of text, in the knowledge of Clement's heathen predecessors than of his 
Christian contemporaries: never so happy as when breaking a lance 
against Hatch and Hamack in favour of Clement's right to create a 
philosophy for the Church. The commentary is replete with good 
matter. But why have we to turn to a footnote on p. Ixviii of the 
Introduction, in order to find the meaning of the symbols employed in 
the apparatus to the text? And is it not rather pedantic to divide up, 
as is done on pp. 385-386, Clement's quotations from the books of his 
Greek Bible into the two classes ' Bible ' and ' Apocryphal writings ' ? 

(9) The remainder of the books catalogued in the present instalment 
of Patristic chronicle are ail concerned with the pseudonymous literature 
of the early Church, with works, that is, which either the original 
writers or later scribes placed under the protection of illustrious names 
such as Clement, Justin or Tertullian. In all this vast field no group 
of writings has in modem times attracted so much attention as the 
pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. To the school of 
Tubingen they seemed, with the Apocalypse and the four great Pauline 
epistles, to take us back, as no other writings did, into the heart of the 
controversies of the apostolic age ; and a very great antiquity was con- 
sequently attributed to them. Neither their authority nor Aeir antiquity 
is now rated so highly : and among the books which will do most for 
the spread of saner views about them must indubitably be ranked the 
newly published lectures of Dr. Hort \ As we have just had occasion 
to say, there are drawbacks to posthumous publication: but in this 
case the lectures were intended to be printed, a preface had even been 
written, and Mr. Murray has restrained his editorial hand within the 
narrowest limits. It would have been a real loss to criticism if these 
lectures had never seen the light. The style is, what the style of 
Dr. Hort's writings too often was not, straightforward and intelligible : 
the learning and the independence of thought which we associate with 
all Dr. Hort's work are more than ever illustrated here. He makes 
good a special title to be listened to on the questions of date and origin 

' NoUs iMiroductory to the Study of tk€ CUmhUws Rttogmtums : a Courst of 
luctuftt, by F. J. A. Hort, D,D, Maanillans, 1901. 


of lhi» literature, becnuse he shews a singularly respectful attitude 
tow»rdt Its thought and theology. Its 'nameless authors' set them- 
Mlvtt to face • some of the most indestructible problems/ which were 
dealt with in much early Christian theology *in a perfunctory and 
manifestly inadequate way*: and they have therefore 'with all their 
fauU«« a right to be remembered with something of the same sympathy 
«nd care * with which we study the Gnostics or Irenaeos or Qement 
tad Oi%«ii (|k t4aV StUl the literature is nol necessarily primitive 
iMCiilM it » iatertttiiig. Dr. Kort fuUy admits thai the mutual 
relationship of its extant representatiTes* the Homilks and the Recog* 
can only be sarislMorilf eiphtned by posrubting an etzticr 
which was the 90ince of bodi. But be 
with tt down the ear)y ceotmiei^aiMi 
thaittbere b no evktaoe «t al for 
Om tm^i «ibI«T; dMi Oi%e& is d»e QBiy witiies to it ID dM lUril 
iftd GMbte teHit im MToT ttetartli; and ite so6r tbe 
d» «Qt ptte to tbft fsvteMe of tltfttrlte BoBaes or tbe 
weha^HiCHk IWot^MMlioniwandpediapatheoaiy 

350 4. m iiPMMir boie ibe title 



^ lesanectionei eiusdem libri V adversus Marcionem/ Critics have 
^^^berto been content to cite the poem as pseudo-Tertullian : for since 
tlie dates assigned to it have varied from the third century to the sixth, 
^ was superfluous to fix its authorship. But the present generation of 
C^cnnan scholars are possessed with a passion for abolishing the anony- 
xxKMis : and it is quite true that writings which remain anonymous or 
pseadkmymous are apt to be neglected, and true also that the con- 
oentiation of the evidence into a definite ascription of name may, even 
though the ascription turn out to be erroneous, prepare the material 
from which truth may ultimately be extracted. The merit of an excellent 
and painstaking collection of facts, the value of which extends far 
beyond the thesis they are called in to prove, will be put to the credit 
of Herr Hans Waitz by many whom he will certainly not succeed in 
persuiuling that the true author of the pseudo-Tertullianic carmen is 
the Afirican Christian poet of the third century, Commodian^ For 
the carmen^ though it does not keep to all the classical rules of prosody, 
has a good metrical swing of its own : while Commodian is of all early 
Latin Christians the furthest firom classical models, and his hexameters 
have to be read over two or three times before it can be seen how 
they scan. No amount of Quellenkritik will prove that tolerable and 
intolerable Latin verses were products of the same pen. And Waitz's 
QueUenkriHk is successful rather in shewing that the author lived in the 
third century than that be was the particular third-century writer, Com- 
modian. The most solid point established is the contact between the 
carmen and Victorinus of Pettau : dependence on Hippolytus is pos- 
sible for the order of popes, Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clement : the use 
of Theophilus of Antioch xorA MapK/«vof is neither h'kely in itself nor 
made more likely by Waitz's far-fetched arguments. But if the carmen 
is ante-Nicene at all, it merits a good deal more attention than scholars 
have hitherto bestowed on it : and should Waitz's proof on this head 
stand finn, the worthlessness of his Commodian theory will be a small 
matter in comparison. 

(11) Justin Martyr was par excellence the Apologist of the early 
Church, and more than one anonymous Apology sought the protection 
and shelter of his name. The reader who follows the enumeration 
given by Herr Gaul ^ of the literature which has been devoted to the 
criticism of a single one of these writings, the Cohortatio ad GraecoSy 
will probably be inclined to complain that of the writing of books, 

* Das^aeudottriuUiamsclu Gedickt ^Adversus Marciontm *: tin Biitrag Mur Gisckichtt 
ier aUthristUchtn LittenUur sotvu Mur QuelUnkritik dts MardonUismus, Von Hans 
Waitz. Dannstadt, 1901. 

' Dit AtfoMaungmtrhaUnisat d*r pstudojustinisch*n ' Cohortatio ad Gnucos* Von 
WUly Gftol. Berlin, 190a. 


especially of German books, there is no end. He will learn that the 
most recent opinions are divided on the question whether or no the 
Cohortatio is prior to Cyril of Alexandria, whether or no it is really 
a work of Apollinaris of Laodicea, whether it is earlier or later than 
Porphyry^ earlier or later than Julius Africanus, earlier or later than 
Clement of Alexandria, whether it is a work of Apollinaris of Hierapoiis, 
or whether finally it was not after all written by Justin himself If 
he has stiU the courage to pursue further enquiry under Kerr Gaul*s 
guidance, he will find that the difficulty in dating the book arises out 
of the fact that it is a ix)lemic against Greek paganism shewing few or 
no points of contact with external history or with the development of 
Christian doctrine; and that the argument must proceed therefore 
almost cntirdy on comparison with similar apologetic writings, and 
especially with any of them with which it is found to stand in the 
relation cither of exemplar or of copy. Of the two works which shew 
the closest identity of language with it, critics are nearly unanimous 
that Cyril of Alexandria in his Adversta luMammm was indebted to the 
Cohoitatio and not vict versa, but on the question of priority as between 
the Cohortatio and the Chronographies of Julius Africanus they are 
inofe evenly divided. Herr Gaul has convinced himself that the Cohor- 
tatio IS bier than Qement, earlier than Africanus ; and no doubt the 
neoplatonic and svncretistic movements of the opening years of the third 
century — in which period he places abo the A MMMndiia of pseudo- 
Justin and ^bt Apolpgy of p8eiido>Melilo — woold have created a 
suilahle atmoqibere for the prodoctioii of sncfa a p ofagetk literature. 
But to sacuje d in diewing iliat the Ot ho ttatio may very wcU have 
beenmtten at that paitioukr tone is not the SHiie thing as provii^ 
that it fxxild not have been vtitten at any ottwr time : the wMe evidence 
that is available te the criticism of tins and wndar writiags is of a 
within the Inits of the more cv iess probable 
tlMB the WMe or less cseitaiB. 
(ia) With even less cjuai than the OohortMio to be laidLed as 
Jmtm s, the gnittp of km pseado jiMtawaii docMets of wfakh Dr, 
Haimck treats ^^-tbe Qmmsfmmtt ti jftjjwiaiwmj ^ Qt nhrfaraj, Qmme- 




Fnr of al ibe mk m tbe 
ind hi^gottf have bromlia 

-^ «-- / ij ■ I 



than the almost total disappearance of the numerous writings 
^VDiodoie of Antioch, the ' second founder ^ of the Antiochene school, 
^1^ teacher of Chiysostom and Theodore, bishop of Tarsus from 378 
his death in 392. And whether or no we are in the result con- 
by Dr. Hamack*s arguments, his great gifts have never been 
displayed to more advantage than in the present treatise. An admirable 
of style, an erudition which never fails to astonish, persuasive 
in marshalling arguments, the prospect at once of solving one 
of the problems of early Christian literature and of rediscovering 
one of its lost writers — this is a combination which it is difficult indeed 
to resist If on the second reading one misses some of the glamour of 
the first, and feels more conscious of flaws in the argument or of alter- 
native possibilities ; if one cannot help remembering that Dr. Hamack, 
certain of his results as he is on this occasion^ has been equally certain 
on too many occasions and with too sh'ght proof before ; if one would 
like to suspend judgement for awhile rather than give an immediate 
assent; even if some features seem to suit better a later date than 
Diodore's— it still remains true that this is a book which should be not 
only read but mastered by all who are interested in patristic study: 
and at the risk of overstepping the limits of a chronicle^ some attempt 
must here be made to give an insight into its contents. The four 
tracts, then, are all found, under the name of Justin, in a Paris MS, 
graec 450, of the fourteenth century, on which all the older editions 
depend: but a better and fuller text of the most important of the four, 
the Qu^ustiofus et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos^ is found under the name 
of Theodoret in a tenth-century MS of the 'Jerusalem' library at 
Constantinople, from which a Greek scholar, Papadopulos Kerameus, 
published a new edition of it in 1895. Of the two suggested names, 
Justin is on all grounds impossible, and has never been defended: 
Theodoret is at least so far possible that the writings certainly emanate 
from the school of Antioch. The author's favourite title for the 
Incarnate Christ is 6 d«(nrdn7ff Xpurrof : he distinguishes the v\ht 6€r6g 
and the vl^ SBtrot, he uses ' indwelling ' as a synonym for the Incar- 
nation, he contrasts the two Natures as t6 cV ra^t and r& rd^aw. On 
the other hand he holds language of absolute clearness on the unity 
of the Person : Scripture Karii tAi» \6yo¥ rfis arrM^tns — the phrase gives 
lome trouble to Hamack (p. 30), but is obviously equivalent to the more 
usual <2sT(Bterir, cotnmumcaiio idiomatum — 'records inseparably of one and 
the same Person the things that fit separately to each nature,' ntpX iiAt 

ni r*v «urov wpwrAwov iroui dduuprr^f rfiP Htfjyrio'W rStv iKcurrji <f>va'€i dtjjfnuuvmt 

ipfmrAm-w, It is characteristic of Hamack's centrifugal tendency that 
be reserves all his emphasis (e.g. on p. 67) for the Nestorianizing side 
of our author's phraseology : but if Nestorius had been willing to use 
VOL. V. L 


language such as that just quoted^ there need have been no Nestorian 
controversy. In any case the Christobgical standpoint of the author 
is Antiochene : while the doctrine of the Trinity — so Dr. Harnack pro- 
ceeds to develop his argument— gives not only similar evidence of 
place, but still more cogent evidence of time. Although a convinced 
opponent of Arianism> he prefers the term ^ortfioc to the term oftooCtnos i 
although he believes that as with the Son so with the Holy Spirit there 
is *no sort of distinction or differentiation in essence' from the Father, 
it is yet clear that while he can assume the co-essentiality of the Son 
he has to slate and argue the co-essentiality of the Spirit If the 
doctrinal ailment thus throws us back on the days of the Apostolic 
Constitutions and of St Basil, the chronology of the political situation 
is exactly the same : pagans are still hopeful of a restoration, ' error/ 
that is to say heresy, is actually in power. Everything therefore points 
to Diodore, the only writer of the Antiochene school whom we knew 
to have been active in the period immediately preceding the fall of 
Arianism in 378. This theory of the authorship was first propounded 
by an almost forgotten scholar of the beginning of the eighteenth 
century, Lacrozc : and it would no doubt offer a sufficient reason for 
the attributions to Justin and Theodoret, since Diodore in the course 
of the Nestorian controversy fell into some disrepute in orthodox 
circles — Cyril wrote against him in 438» after the Reunion, and even 
the Nestorians when they circulated his books suppressed their author- 
ship. Lacroze's statement of his case was brief, and bad quite fallen 
into oblivion till it was brought to light by Dr. Hamack, who has 
developed the theory with amazing fertility of resource and illustration, 
Wliere such wealth of argument is displayed, not every statement will 
be of equal cogency : it is difficult to understand the ground for the 
assertion— made on p. 31 ». 2, and repeated on p. 44— that, as the 
author read the Syriac bible, he must also have been able to read the 
Hebrew. If Dr. Hamack fulfils the hope he expresses on p. 68, and 
gives us a tprfits operum DMori with the Greek text— for the present 
he has confined himself to a German translation — he must justify his 
preference of the Paris MS in the biblical quotations on pp. 61-63* 
where the earlier MS is distinguished by marked agreements with KB. 
On pp. 6if,, 19 IT., r>HKrnFc^<ar must be corrected into irpoirorycnc. On 
pp. 14, 40, tt^ passage quoted from St Basil's letter to Diodore (^ 
135) is quite ungrammatiod as its stands, and must be completed firom 
the Latin version of Facitndus of Hermiane given on p 15 : 9^ piw 
hnn^ im^fi^im w diA r^ /i^^vrinv #-<(»«» , , , HX in no«* n £^ i^ni 



Books dealing .with Hippolytus, Novatian, Cyprian, Peter of 
Alexandria, Eusebius, Gr^ory of Nyssa, and other writers, are awaiting 
discussion, but must be reserved for a later number of the Journal. 
The present notice has already almost exceeded the reasonable limits 
of a chronicle^ 

C. H. Turner. 


(i) In the departnlent of hagiography the chief event must always be 
the appearance of a volume of the Bollandist Acta SS, ; and during 
the two years that have elapsed since the previous Chronicle ib these 
pages, a volume has been published, not indeed a part of the great 
•cries of Acta, but one of those welcome supplementary volumes that 
from dme to time appear in the same stately dimensions and print as 
the regular series. It is a critical edition of the Synaxarium of the 
Gteek Church ^ The Synaxarium is one df the liturgical books Which 
gives in quite a short form day by day the lives of the saints celebrated 
thtoughout the year — much as the later Latin Martyrologies of Beda- 
FkMrus or Ado. The edition is the work of Pbre Ddehaye. The Pro- 
logue discusses the character of the Synaxaria and their relations to 
other similar Office Books, as the Menaea, &c.; it investigates the 
sources fix>m which the h'ves were compiled, and describes the MSS and 
their groupings. The text is a reprint of the Sirmond MS of the twelfth 
or thirteenth century, once among the Phillipps Collection, and now 
at Berlin ; but fully half of each page is taken up with additions and 
selected readings from some sixty MSS. As in the case of the Martyr- 
ologies, the historical value of such a collection is very difficult to 
estimate ; no doubt a number of authentic traditions are to be found 
therein, mixed up with a vast amount of rubbish. But a good edition 
of the Synaxarium is a great aCqtiisition for the hagiographer, the 
litugist, and the Church historian. 

The sixth and last volume of the Greek Menaeon^ or longer Lives, 
edited by the Basilian monks of Grotta Ferrata, has recently issued from 
the Vatican Press ; it can, however, hardly claim to be a critical edition. 
(2) Of hardly less importance is the appearance of one of the volumes 
of the Monumenta Germaniae Htstorica devoted to saints' lives. The 
fourth volume of Merovingian writers consists, like the third, wholly 
of hagiographical materials edited by Dr. Bruno Krusch *. The first 

* PropyUuum ad Acta SS. Novtmbris : Synaxarium EccUsia* ConstanUnopoUUmat 
(Bn^saels: pp. Ixxv, 1179). 
' PasMottts Vitatqut Sanctorum Attn Merovingici (^Hannover : Hahn, pp. 817). 

L 2 


half is taken up with the Irish monks, SS. Colurobanus, Gall, and their 
fellows; the most important document, the Vifa Coiumbani discipu- 
li/rumque eius by Jonas, is accepted as authentic and historical, the 
author having known well some of Sl Colurabanus's personal friends ; 
less authentic is even the earliest Life of St. Gall, written a century and 
a half after the saint's death. The second half of the volume contains 
the lives of a number of purely Merovingian bishops and saints, of 
whom the most important probably is St. Eligius or Eloi, the friend 
of Dagobert I, though the Vita in its present form is, in the editor's 
judgement^ of much later date. The volume of 800 pages contains 
eighteen documents edited with infinite labour and scrupulous care. 
Of course they had already been printed, many by the Bollandists, 
many by Mabillon ; but for serious historical work all previous editions 
are now definitely superseded. The historical and critical Introductions, 
notably that on St. ColumbanuSj are of extraordinary value, as also are 
the elaborate Index and Lexica et Grammatical or list of notable words 
and forms. 

An instmciive episode in connexion with this volume is worth re- 
cording, as showing how necessary it is that an editor should see every 
known MS of his text. The Life of St. Richarius, or Riquier, printed 
by Krusch, is Alcuin's literary revision of an earlier life. All the MSS 
which he examined contained this form ; but he mentions one MS which 
be could not see. Ptre Poncelet the Bollandist has since had an 
opportunity of examining this MS, and he finds that it preserves the 
missing earlier form, and that there is every reason for believing that 
it was really written by a contemporary of the saint. The text is printed 
in Anakcia BoUandiana XX I L Thus in spite of all Krusch 's care, his 
collection is already defective. 

(3) While speaking of the Merovingian saints it will be proj>er to 
mention Abb^ Vacandard's Life of St.Ouen, bishop of Rouen (641-684)' ; 
those who know the author's other works will not be surprised at the 
statement of the Bollandist reviewer that it is a solid contribution to 
historical hagiography, and deser\'es * des eloges sans reserve,' Krusch, 
too, in the Addenda to the volume just noticed, praises it as one of the 
best studies on Merovingian history that has appeared for many years. 

{4) The present year witnessed the completion of the edition of 
the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles begun by Lipsius and carried 
out by Max Bonnet*. The concluding part contains the Acts of 
Philip, of Thomas, and of Barnabas. We congratulate the surviving 
editor on the completion of the undertakings which has been throughout 
a model of good editing. Readers of the Journal will remember that 

* Vk dt Smnt Chttn (Piris : Lecoflfre, pp, xxi, 394). 

» Ada jipostolomm Apoctypka, II, iJ (Leipzig; Mendelssohn, pp. xlii, 395), 



' ■ oa two OGcasions Mr. Burkitt has maintained that the Acts of Thomas 

§ are an or^nal Syriac work, the Greek being a translation; and 

' JUb; Rendel Harris in his Dioscuri (to be noticed just now) says that 

lie had independently arrived at the same result ; so did Dr. Raabe ^ 

Dr. Max Bonnet tells us that he too had begun (reluctantly) to suspect 

the ame, when Mr. Burkitfs articles came and quite convinced him : — 

and, indeed, seeing that the ' Hymn of the Soul ' has now been found, 

and in prose^ in the Greek Acta^ whereas it is in metre in the Sjrriac, it 

y& difficult to see how any other conclusion can be possible. Bonnet, 

however, still holds tentatively that the original may have been a Greek 

text, now lost except in one passage, so that the present Greek Acta 

would be a retranslation back into Greek. The independent Greek 

Acts of Thomas, first printed by Dr. James in his second series of 

Anedota Apocrypha^ are not included in this edition. 

(5) Although already reviewed in these pages by Dr. James, the 
second volume of Dr. Wallis Budge's Ethiopic Contendings of the 
Apostles, containing the English translation, should be mentioned 

(6) Two recent substantial numbers of Texte und Untersuchungen have 
dealt with Apocryphal Acts. In one Prof, von Gebhardt edits the 
Latin versions of the Acts of Paul and Thecla *. He shows that there 
are three quite independent Latin translations, one of which exists in 
three variant forms, another in four, so distinct that the attempt to 
form resultant texts would be impracticable. Thus there are in effect 
etg^t Latin texts, all here printed in full, each with its apparatus; 
besides these there are fragments of a fourth independent Latin version, 
and seven epitomes. The Introduction will be of interest to textual 
critics as a model of method in investigating a difficult problem. The 
relationships of the Latin versions to each other and to the Greek are 
highly complex and confusing. Gebhardt's conclusion is that the 
extant Greek MSS do not faithfully preserve the original work but 
a revised redaction. Here again we encounter the phenomenon, so 
familiar in N. T. criticism, of frequent agreements between the Latin 
and Syriac against the Greek : in such cases von Gebhardt holds that 
the united witness of the two versions must prevail. We pity the next 
editor of the Greek Acta who will have to face the problems raised 
by this mass of new material. G^bhardt's admirable study only empha- 
sizes the pessimistic conclusion that in textual criticism the more 
thorough the work the less certain the text. 

Dr. Corssen has maintained the thesis that in the fragments of the 

' TheoL Literaturzeitung, 1903, 400. 

* Dit latti$tisektH UtbtrMtjnmgen dtr Ada Pauk ti Thtdoi : T. und U. vii a 
(Ldpiig : Hinrichs, pp. cxviii, 188). 


fourth I ill in version mentioned above, we have a translation of portioos 
of Ihe j>ririiitivc form of the Acta, not known to exist in Greek \ 

(7) Prof. Carl Schmidt takes occasion from some Coptic fragments ■ 
of the Acta Petri to investigate anew the character of these Acts *, He " 
arrives at the conclusion thai not only the Acts of Peter but also the 
othertp even the highly docetic Acts of John, as well as the Acts of 
Thomas, including even the ' Hymn of the Soul/ are not Gnostic 

in origin and character, but Catholic, and represent phases of thought 
to be found in 'the Great Church' during the second century. If such 
A view finds acceptance —and coming from a specialist in Gnostic matters 
it must carry great weight — it will work little short of a revolution in sotne 
dcpartnients of early Christian history. 

(8) The fifty pages devoted to the Apocryphal Acts in Dr. Barden- 
hcwcr's great History of Early Church Literature*, supply copious 
information fortified by on exhaustive bibliography in regard to this 
wholo cycle of literature. The work is planned so as to occupy six 
Urge volumes^ whereof the first (reaching to the end of the second 
rcnluryv but not including the New Testament), has been published. 
This history is an enlargement of the author's excellent Patrologie. 

(9, 10) Two small volumes of selected Greek and Latin Ada Mar- 
fyrum have been prepared by Knopf and von Gebhardt *. The Acta 
of Ihe foUowiog ten MArtyrdoms are included in both collections: 
Folyourp ; .Karpuv rapylus. and Agathontke ; Justin ; Scilliun martyrs ; 
l.yot\s maityn; Apollonius the Apologist; Perpetua and Felicitas ^ 
Pioiiitts ; Cyprkn ; Testamefkt of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste. Each 
fdilor includes m down other documents vbereof the genuineness will 
not be comeatedL exotfit in icgud to the Greek Acts of Paul and 
Theda, primed by Ton Gdilnjidt Needless to say. the cyde of Roman 
* Gecta * is wholly unrepreicnlod. Tbe documents in tiiese two mlnnies 
vill Aflkuda vMyndeqonle Imniy oitenon for di st i ngoi s hiqg between 

geontuM Acts and lomuioet ; and ilier ^i^ >B^ 
inienat tt telks of the eaitiest Ckftsdan tioies. As both 
imendidto be innctknl wmoal ones, the best ptimed tests bive 
teiwoAmdl von Qebtedu bo«vw. h» hnd 

de' CtediEft IM c^M^ the ftesb SS. Mariai^ 



Jaoobi, and the Maityrium of St Theodotus of Ancyra^ and that of 
St Ar^uln^ all in the Vatican Shtdi e Testi, In the Anakcta BoUcm- 
ima have appeared the Acts of SS. Dasius, Gains, and Zoticus ; of 
SSl Fiddis, Alexander, and Carpophonis ; and of St Barlaam of Antioch. 
Br. Compernass has edited the Acfa S, Carterii Cqfpadocis (Bonn). 
Dr. Kizsch has produced various preliminary studies for the compre- 
bensive edition of the Legenda of St Agnes which he has in hand. 
Finally, owing to the number of martyrdoms for which it is our ultimate 
authority, it is perhaps right to mention Schwartz's edition of Eusebius's 
Eedesiastical History (I-V) in the Berlin series. 

(12) In the previous Chronicle mention was made of M. Bidez's 
edition of two previously inedited Greek forms of the Life of Paul the 
Hermit, and his conclusion, viz. that St. Jerome's Latin is the original, 
was acquiesced in ; but a subsequent study by Abb^ Nau necessitates 
a reconsideration of the whole question*. The main focts are as 
fi^ows : of the two Greek forms of the Vita^ one (called a by Bidez 
and Nan) is manifestly a literal translation of the Latin ; the controva:sy 
turns on the second (b\ a somewhat shorter and simpler form of the 
story; from b come three versions, a Syriac (in MSS of the sixth 
century), a Coptic, and an Arabic. Although a and b differ greatly, so 
that probably in five-sixths of the subject-matter they might well be 
independent translations of the Latin, still here and there there are 
resemblances and identities of vocabulary and phraseology such as 
demonstrate a literary connexion, and preclude the hypothesis of 
complete independence. Bidez holds that ^ is a very free rewriting of 
a ; Nau that ^ is the original of St Jerome's Latin, while a is a revision 
of b made with the object of assimilating it to the Latin. One would 
gladly see Nau's view prevail, for the historical basis of the story of 
Paul the hermit would thus be placed on a somewhat better footing'. 
But after a careful study of the question I find myself unable to arrive 
at a decision. Nau shows that b presents a number of coincidences of 
vocabulary with the Vita Antomi, which are not in a, and claims this as 
a palmary proof of the priority of b ; but the force of this argument is 
neutralized by Abb6 van den Yen, who (at p. 132 of the monograph 
next to be noticed) shows that the Greek of the Vita Hilarianis contains 
citations, even more striking, from the Vita Antanii : in this case there 
can I think be no doubt of the priority of the Latin. Nor does Nau's 

' The Acts of St. Theodotus were omitted by an oversight in the list of genuine 
Acta in Harnack's AUckritiUcht LUerahtr (see TheoL Literatuneitong, 190a, 358). 

' U Uxiegrte origmald* laVitdeS. Potd «U Thibes (AnalecU BoUandiana XX). 

' The attitade adopted by Prot Grtitzmacher in his Hinv$iymus in regard to the 
VHa Pa$tU is much the same as the present chronicler's in the Latuiac History of 
PalladhiM (p. 330). It is to be hoped that the concluding part of Dr. GrOtzmacher's 
monograph will be published in time for the next chronicle. • 


explanation of the difficulty to his theory that arises from the presen< 
in b (as in a and the Latin) of the postscript wherein * Jerome th< 
Sinner ' begs for prayers as the author, appear quite satisfactory : fc 
ahhough, as he says, the postscript is in a different form in the differeni 
copies, still in every known representative of b (even the Arabic) th< 
postscript is there in some shape, and it is difficult to beHeve that it 
should have been introduced independently in all five copies of ^ (two 
Greek MSS and three versions). 

One consideration that might decide the question has not been 
noticed on either side. St. Jerome*s Latin contains three verses from 
Virgil ; if ^ reflects any of these Virgihan pieces it may be recognized ^^ 
• translation of the Latin. In the Latin we find : ^| 

Taha perstabat memorans fixusque mancbat 
h ^ves for this : ^^t4»«iyrDf ^ durou «V rotf X^yoif ruvrxnu The question 
is, Did the Greek suggest the line of Virgil to St. Jerome, or does it 
translate it ? a, which is confessedly a translation of the Latin, has simply 
rmvrm Jmfitfimmtiupw. This makes me inclined to see in ^ a translation 
of the Virgil, for it is more like the Latin than is a. H 

(15) A controversy like the last has been raised also in regard to^ 
St Jerome's Life of Malchus. which Dr. Kunze in his Marcus Eremifa 
maintained to be translated from the Greek-Syriac form of the life. 
Abbe N'an den Ven defends St. Jerome's authorship, and in my judge- 
ment convincingly ^ He prints for the first time tbe Greek and port 
of the Syrnc. His treatment bespeaks care^ aicitineiiv kDowk4KC of the 
liteniture» and understanding of critical methods ; and as io addkioit he 
k able to work in Syriac and Copdc, valuable contiihntioos in the 
domain of early monastic literature may be kx>ked for from hin:u We 
owe to him abo Lm Vm prnfmi it S^/mm k /*skkaiie (c 820), printed 
for the first tioAC in the Loimm Mmkm of 190a. 

(14) Another dabofiieconlnbitioii to the tecnnfe of eaxlymofH^^ 
is Ahb^Kae'^ study of the legCMi of Thais the Hatiot*. Reinvestigates 
the sources of Ihtaloiyaiidshovs tfaetlhehera is Senpion 

I. HelhenpriMssMfebysMle 
Greek wrMes of the iex% and as meaj vadriebea of 
along with a tmosktion of the Sfsiac The l aft od M c ii o n is of coo- 
; but it is ihyappn i —mg to fad in so s ci e ntific a piece 

(i$> The Imtat aumher of fktm larfRia n li i^n' is a study by 



Dr. Leipoldt 00 Schenute or Schenoudi (Senuti in Diet, Christ Biog). 
He was archimandrite of the great White Monastery at Atripe or Athribis, 
and was next to Pachomius the chief organizer of the cenobidcal life in 
Upper Egypt He lived during the second half of the fourth and the 
fint half of the fifth century. Leipoldt begins with a list of the numerous 
Copdc fragments that may with reasonable probability be ascribed to 
Schenoudi; they are for the most part letters and sermons, and he 
rdies on them rather than on the Life by Besa, Schenoudi's disciple. 
He rejects Nau's surmise that the Life was originally written, not in 
Coptic^ but in Greek ; and he sides with Abb^ Ladeuze in maintaining 
against M. Amdineau the superiority of the Coptic over the Arabic 
form of the Life. The Schenoudi documents possess a special philo- 
logical importance as forming a considerable portion of the body of original 
Coptic literature that has come down to us. Dr. Leipoldt next sketches 
the political and religious state of the Copts of Upper Egypt about the 
yw 400 ; there follow an account of Schenoudi's life and an appreciation 
of his character and ways of thought, and then an elaborate description 
of the monastic system that prevailed in his monastery. In short the 
book is excellent and of extraordinary value not only for the life of 
the hero^ a truly notable personage, but also for the history of Egyptian 
monachism and of native Coptic Christianity. Not the least remarkable 
dicumstance concerning Schenoudi is the fact that he was discovered only 
in our own day. His memory was indeed preserved among the Copts ; 
bat though he was a prominent Churchman in the early fiflh century, 
and apparently took part in the Council of Ephesus as an adherent of 
St Cyril (there is no evidence that he supported Dioscorus after 
Chaloedon, indeed he died in 451), his name nowhere occurs in the 
Greek or Latin writers of the time; so that he was unknown out- 
side of Egypt until the publication of the Coptic Catalogues of Min- 
garelli and Zoega, and the writings of Quatrem^re and Revillout. Yet 
Rufinos, Jerome, Palladius and Cassian all were in Egypt at the heyday 
of Schenoudi's influence ; and Palladius actually visited and describes 
a Tebennesiot monastery at Panopolis (Akhmim) only a few miles from 
Athribis, and relates a story concerning a convent of nuns in Athribis 
itself. It is indeed a striking reminder of the limitations and dangers of 
arguments from silence. 

(16) Mr. T. R. Glover's Life and Letters in the Fourth Century has 
already been noticed in these pages ; but I may be allowed to revert to 
a current and important hagiographical problem once again raised here. 
He brings forward in the very last pages of his book the Vita Antonii 
as an example of an early Christian novel, rejecting of course the 

T. und U. z I (Leipzig : Hinricbs, pp. 213). [A further notice of this work will be 
loiiBd OB p. 129 of this volume of y.r.5.] 


IMpfMlt Grmm»am', to cImw flUfM be added Ntn and the BoQ- 
§mmi inifMdUd lad Zddklcr l»«e ml«a^ hdd dds Tiew. Here 
^Mf ttit BIM fiCMl proiKMIiiomCDi will be cited, that of Grutzmacher 
dl Ikii Aft, ' Mdnrhltim ' in Hcnag-Hauck'i RtaUntykhpddU ; he says : 
^ '1 Imt /^/Ai wtchotil any doubt ^oct tMck to Athanasius ' ; and adds : ' As 
In ttMP bifU^kfll V • • ^iiirte tKere can be no doubt, as Athanasius 

9^xml^ In t|i>« rcl.. , with Anihony/ 

(\f\ Hr IVruM lipri ha« recently rephnced his Darmstadt 'Programme'/ 
whi^Nln lit* • i»t the ground from under the theory, threatening to become 
(hit vt»Hiitt iltrtt iM'fon* hit conversion to Christianity St. Pachomius had 
t»f>i'< • 1 ihiihk , and derived thence the ideas on which he organised 

hu I: . I MiM. I'tcUii lien ihows that the Koro^oi in the temples of 
Hvmpd did not form i)UARi>mon«»tic communities, and were not monks 
ih Any •91^110 whatever. Hy ex|K)sing this ' unfounded myth ' he dbdms 
Hi K*v^ glv«»w jti fnif/Urf tn the la^t surviving of Weingarten*s theocies^ 
nmn«nth' i\\i%\\\% 

\\t\ The rtnt thrtt^ isin> ka M. lxk>n Clugnet*s^i 
|f<lfAi<Hi# < VviiM^ * c\>nuin the I W r/ rA?^ i^ r«W Dmmklk 
iHf ^ it^ bf ChlglMl, Syiiiic bj Naiv «nd Qipt^ 

!^^ A h^m fUw JAkimm by Km ; aSyriK lext faf Ki 

N .^« the Soklicr l^ 
^ a tbe 

^ ^ firm U d a»et yoMts %^ ly 

^^Mik i^i^rt I dtai 9mm Aifc il 





(ao) So far we have dealt with texts and textual problems; two 
Ei^lish books remain dealing with wider questions of hagiography. 
Mr. Rendel Harris has printed two lectures on certain twin saints in 
the ecclesiastical calendar \ The argument is developed by a series of 
eztxaordinarily ingenious inductions, so that even while resisting them 
one by one as they appeared, the present writer felt as though a sort 
of web were being gradually wound around him. The thesis is that 
a number of the twin saints really represent the Dioscuri. The author 
shows how widespread was the cult of the Twins not only among 
Greeks and Romans, under the names of Castor and Pollux or of 
Amphion and Zethus, but generally among the Indo-Germanic races. 
The cult appears to have been religious and moral in character; and it 
would be in full harmony with well-known facts to suppose that features 
of this popular and harmless cult should have been transferred from 
the mythological Twins to Christian twin martyrs. In regard to the 
first case examined, that of the eastern martyrs Florus and Laurus, 
I think Mr. Rendel Harris has shown good ground for supposing 
that features of their cult were derived from that of the Twins ; when 
he goes further and suggests that the Martyrs are the Twins, he is on 
less secure ground. Similarly I think he has shown that the writer of 
the apocryphal acts of Thomas ' the Twin * moulded his story on 
current notions connected with the cult of the Twins. The other 
cases appear less valid ; one of them is the case of SS. Protasius and 
Gervasius, and here an issue of far deeper and wider import is raised. 
The author hardly disguises his belief that the question involved is the 
veracity of St. Ambrose and St Augustine, and that the whole affair was 
a fraud and a hoax wilfully perpetrated by St. Ambrose, who 'knew 
that he was parading the Dioscuri in a Christian dress.' Less brutal 
methods of facing the ever-recurring problem of miracles recorded by 
eye-witnesses have for some time prevailed. Concerning the eye- 
witnesses who relate St. Bernard's miracles the late Cotter Morison, 
while rejecting their evidence, was still prepared to say that they * had 
probably as great a horror of mendacity as any who have lived before 
or after them '.' That Ambrose and Augustipe should have conspired 
to lie ; that Ambrose should have lied hypocritically and unctuously in 
a private letter to his sister ; that Augustine, that * religious genius of 
extraordinary depth and power ' (Harnack), who was at Milan at the 
time of the occurrences, should in later years have four or five times 
with wilful and wanton mendacity reverted to the story, will to some 
minds appear of all hypotheses the most difficult. 

(21) Mr. W. H. Hutton, the Bampton Lecturer for the current year, 

*■ Tk* Dioseufim the Chnstian Legends (Cambridge : University Press, pp. 64). 
* Life and Times o/St. Bernard^ p. 374. 


has chosen for his subject the English Saints \ The opening lecture 
explains the motive : the subject is regarded as a branch of Christian 
apologetics, the embodiments of Christianity found in the saints being 
taken as a voucher of the character of the religion — ' by their fruits 
shall ye know them.' Succeeding lectures deal with the great Engli^ 
saints under various groupings : first come the Saints of the Conversion 
both Roman and Irish (and here it is to be noted that there is no 
disposition to exaggerate the importance of the Irish missions as con- 
trasted with the Roman); then follow Royal Saints, Monks, Statesmen, 
and finally Women and Children. The book is in efiect a series of 
pictures in which the chief saints of England are presented one by one, 
and their character, life's work, and influence are delineated with much 
skill and charm. Naturally every reader will demur to some or other 
of the lecturer's positions ; for instance, those who have read the Aseeni 
cf Mount CarmelzxiA the Obscure Night of the Sou/ and the other works of 
St John of the Cross, will be bewildered on being told that 'his sfuritual 
struggles read like the ravings of one possessed ' (p. 74). But the book 
is written with sympathy and appreciation and even a sober enthusiasm, 
so that it is pleasing reading. There are two appendices, one printing 
for the first time a Life of St. Edward the Martyr firom MS 96 of 
St John's College, Oxford ; the other containing notes on the question 
of mediaeval mirades. The numerous bibliographical references in the 
footnotes will be of great service. 

(22) Any treatment of recent ' Frandscana ' would demand more space 
than is here available, but the subject has been weU dealt widi by 
Professor Little in the Engiish Historical Review^ Oct 1902. With 
most of his judgements I can agree, especially that on the Speculum 
Perfectionis \ but concerning the document put forward by Friars da 
Civezza and Domenichelli as the Legemda Trium Sodorum my judgement 
would be more un&vourable than his, for I doubt that any homogeneous 
Latin text, properly so called, stands behind the Italian. 


> Tim m/bmtct t^Ckrisiimtufy i^om NmHomml Ompmin' Obair^td ty ike Lams mmd 
Ltg0i^i^tke£j^isk Smmts (Londou I WeDs Gardner, Dttrton ft Co., pp. 385). 



(i) English. 

Church Quarterfy Review^ July 1903 (Vol. Ivi, No. 112: Spottis- 
woode & Co.). Religion in London — Gairdner^s English Church His- 
tory—The Age of the Fathers— The History of the Orthodox Church 
of Cyprus— Dr. A. B. Davidson's Sermons— The Letters of two Mystics 
—Jane Austen and her Biographers — Prayers for the Dead— Truro 
Cathedral — Church Autonomy and a National Council — Leo XHI — 
Short notices. 

The Hibberi Journal^ July 1903 (Vol. i, No. 4 : Williams and 
Noigate). F. G. Peabody The Character of Jesus Christ— W. Miller 
Are Indian Missions a Failure? — W. Ward The Philosophy of Authority 
in Religion — W. F. Cobb Do we believe in the Reformation ? — P. Sidney 
The Liberal Catholic Movement in England — P. S. Burrell The 
growing Reluctance of able Men to take Orders — ^J. H. Poynting 
Physical Law and Life — T. K. Cheyne Pressing Needs of the Old 
Testament Study — J. Moffatt Zoroastrianism and Primitive Christianity 
— W. R. Cassels The Purpose of Eusebius— Discussions — Reviews. 

The Jewish Quarterly Review^ July 1903 (Vol. xv, No. 60 : Macmillan 
4 Co.). A. H. Keane Ea ; Yahveh : Dyaus ; ZEY2 ; Jupiter — S. Levy 
Is there a Jewish Literature?— C. Taylor The Wisdom of Ben Sira — 
J. H. A. Hart Primitive Exegesis as a Factor in the Corruption of Texts 
of Scripture illustrated from the Versions of Ben Sira — G. Margoliouth 
An early Copy of the Samaritan-Hebrew Pentateuch. — H. Hirschfeld 
The Arabic Portion of the Cairo Genizah at Cambridge — A. S. Yahuda 
Hapax Legomena im Alten Testament — E. N. Adler Professor Blau 
On the Bible as a Book. 

The Expositor, July 1903 (Sixth Series, No. 43 : Hodder & 
Stoughton). T. H. Stokoe The Edition of the Revised Version with 
marginal References, 1898 — S. R. Driver Translations from the Pro- 
phets: Jeremiah xxii, xxiii — G. S. Streatfield The Fatherhood of 
God : a Study in Spiritual Evolution— T. Barns The Catholic Epistles 
of Themison— H. Black The Gospel of Work — Th. Zahn Missionary 
Methods in the Times of the Apostles. 


August 1903 {Sixth Series» No, 44), J. Denney The Atone- 
ment and the Modern Mind— W. H. Beknett The Life of Christ 
according to St Mark— H» B. Swete The Teaching of Christ in the 
Gospel of St. Luke^E. J. Goodspeed Did Alexandria influence the 
nautical Language of St. Luke? A Study of Acts xxviii 11 in the light 
of Greek Papyri — A, E. Garvie The Value-Judgements of Religion — 
J. MoFFATT Some recent Foreign Literature on the New Testament. 

September 1903 (Sixth Series, No. 45). J. Dexney The Atone- 
ment and the Modem Mind — A. E. Garvie Otto Ritschl, Reischle, 
and Scheibe, on Value-Judgements in Religion— J. H. Bernard God 
as Spirit^ — J. Hoatson James Martineau and Frederic Robertson : 
a Study of Influence— A. Carr A Note on St. John vii 52 : A Prophet 
or The Prophet— Th. Zahn Missionary Methods in the Times of the 

(a) American. 

2TU Ameriaui Journal of Theology July 1903 (Vol. vii, No. 5 : 
Chicago University Press). C. A, Briggs Catholic— the Name and 
the Thing— A- H, Wilde Decadence of Learning in Gaul in the 
seventh and eighth Centuries, as viewed especially in the Li\'es of the 
Saints— W, B. Smith The Pauline Manuscripts F and G : a Text- 
Critical Study — Recent Theological Literature, 

The Princeton Tkeologtcal Review, July 1903 (VoL i, No, 3 : Phila- 
delphia, MacCalla & Co.). A. T. Ormond James M^Tosh as Thinker 
and Educator — W. M. M^Pheeters The Question of the Authorship 
of the Books of Scripture : a Criticism of Current Views — J. F. RioGS 
Missionary Policy in the Levant— W. H. Johnson Evolution and 
Theology to-day^ A. C. Zenos Revelation or Discovery — G. G. 
Cameron The Laws peculiar to Deuteronomy— B, B. Warfield Sanc- 
tifying the Pelagians— H. C, Minton 'The Varieties of Religious 
Experience ' — Recent Literature 

(3) French anb Belgian. 

Revue Biblique^ July 1903 (Vol. xii. No. 3 : Paris, V. LecofiTre). 
V. Rose Etudes sur la theologie de saint Paul — ^I-J. Lagrange El 
ct Jahve— Melanges : N. Schloegl Le chapitre v du Livre des Juges — 
E, Duval Le texte grec de J^r^mie, d'apr^ une ^tude recente — S. 
Ronzevalle Quelques monuments de Gebeil-Byblos et de ses environs 
— M-J. Lagrange Nouvellc note sur les inscriptions du temple 
d'Echmoun — A. Condamin Transpositions accidentelles — M. van Ber- 
CHEM Epigraphie palestinienne : Inscription arabe de Binias — M. Abel 
Inscriptions grecques de Bersabee— Chronique : M-R. Savignac Un 
tombeau romain i Beit-Nettif ; Une eglise byzantine k Yadoudeh ; 
Fouilles anglaises — ^Recensions — Bulletin. 




Anaieda Bottandianay July 1903 (Vol. xxii, No. 3 : Brussels, 14, Rue 
des Unulines). H. Thurston Visio monachi de Eynsham — H. 
DiLSHATE La passion de S. Th^odote d'Ancyre — Bulletin des publi- 
OKtions hagiographiques — U. Chevalier Supplementum ad Reper- 
toriom Hymnologicum (Salveie^ natae regiae — Soli Deo quos integra)— 
Index generalls in torn, i-xx Analectorum (pp. 1-16). 

Reotu BMduHfUy July 1903 (Vol. xx, No. 3: Abbaye de Mared- 
loiis). G. MORIN Hieronymus de Monogrammate — U. Berli^re Les 
iviqnes auxiliaires de Cambrai aux xiii« et xiv« sidles [suite) — J. Chap- 
XAN A propos des Martyrologes — Analyses et Comptes-rendus. 

Revue d*Histoire et de Litterature ReHgieuses^ July- August 1903 (Vol. 
viii, No. 4 : Paris, 74, Boulevard Saint-Germain). P. Lejay Le sabbat 
joif et les po^es latins — Ai Loisv Le discours sur la montagne : (5) 
Les bonnes oeuvlres ; (6) Le d^tachement — J. Turmel Le dogme du 
p^^ originel dans I'Eglise latine aprbs saint Augustin ; Propagation 
du p^h^ originel-^A. Loisv Chronique bibliqu^: (6) Histoire et 
thdologie bibliques — J. Dalbret Litterature religieuse modeme. 

Scpt-Oct. 1903 (Vol. viii, No. 5). F. Cumont La pol^mique 
de TAmbrosiaster contre les paiens — A. Loisv Le discours sur la 
montagne: (7) Lemons diverses; Conclusion — H. Hemmer Chronique 
dliistoiie eccl^iastique — P. Lejay Ancienne philologie chr^tienne: 
(17) Lituigie (suite), 

(4) German. 

Theologiscke Quartaischrift, 1903 (Vol. Ixxxv, No. 4 : Tiibingen, 
H. Laupp). Belser Der Prolog des Johannesevangeliums — ^Vetter 
Die litterarkritische Bedeutung der alttestam. Gottesnamen — Schwei- 
tzer Glaube und Werke des Klemens Romanus — ^Wawra Ein Brief 
des Bischofs Cyprian von Toulon an den Bischof Maximus von Genf — 
Reviews — Analecta. 

Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, July 1903 (Vol. xiii, No. 4 : 
Tubingen and Leipzig, J. C. B. Mohr). E. Billing Ethische Grund- 
fragen des evangelischen Christentums. Einige Betrachtungen beim 
Studium von Hermann's Ethik— C. Stuckert Gott und die Natur. 

September 1903 (Vol. xiii, No. 5). J. Gottschick Die Heils- 
gewissheit des evangelischen Christen im Anschluss an Luther dar- 

Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des 
Urchristentums, August 1903 (Vol. iv, No. 3 : Giessen, J. Ricker). 
A. Deissmann 'ikaxrrfipioi und IKaarripiov — M. L. Strack Die Miiller- 
innung in Alexandrien — H. Hauschildt np«<r^ur<po» in Agypten im 
I-III Jahrhundert n. Chr. — E. Rodenbusch Die Komposition von 
Lucas xvi — E. Nestle Neue Lesarten zu den Evangelien — Miscellanea; 


ilSsr MnkSdk Zahdknfk ]^ 1905 (VoL xnr, Nql 7 : 
A.Dc>cbef^ >L PRSKS Zv Fi^e 

n— C St 

R. KfTTCL DieBobel-Bibel Fi^e (iMdkiM). 

1905 (VoL xi¥, No. S'x WissisGsm Uba- C^nibe 
;<-W. ScHMmr Ethisdse FEagen (IX>>-E. Koittc Polp^ 
so Isad-^Lk COGAJto A lKlaiili kJbe Siigen ober 
4w Lebea dtf AposuL 

Sepcoiber 1903 (VoL xiv. No. 9). G. Witzxl Die gwifhirhtHdbe 
Gtmbvordigkeii der im EiugdiDB ] 
JcH-*A. KumutMAWM Bdtiige nir 
tcncfi*— G. HosrsricKS MkxeUen zor GeschHur der Ethik der lotbe- 
Kocfae — !• CofJASD A l imiiiBliiri iie Smco iber dK Leben der 


The Journal 


Theological Studies 



I. The reaction of intellectual progress on sacred studies. There 
have been many periods of the past when the tone and character 
of theological discussion have been directly influenced by the 
intellectual conditions of the day. The impulse which was given 
to philosophic thought in the West by Averroes had its effect 
at Christian seats of learning, and called forth the theology of 
St Thomas Aquinas. The new enthusiasm for literature at the 
Renaissance was closely connected with that critical study of the 
Greek Testament which was associated with the Reformation. 
It is almost inevitable that the remarkable progress in physical 
science, which occurred during the nineteenth century, and which 
has taken such hold upon the popular mind, should react in some 
feshion upon the study of Theology. The history of intellectual 
developement seems to shew that some force and freshness may 
be secured in presenting Christian truth, if theologians can in any 
Way adopt the current habit of mind. The new movement may 
at least indicate a mode of approaching sacred studies which is 
likely to be invigcrating and fruitful. 

It is, of course, obvious that the new developements of science 
may suggest modifications in the form in which Christian truth 
is expressed. Science has afforded phraseology and illustrations 
which some writers, like the late Professor Drummond, have used 
with effect, though not always wisely. But the scientific move- 

' A paper read (in part) before the Ely Diocesan Branch of the Society for Sacred 
Studies, April 30, 1903. 
VOL. V. M 


meiit touches more than modes of expression, and its influence 
must go deeper. Christianity is a literary religion^ which 
tj-easurcs sacred books, and the application of critical methods to 
sacred literature gave rise to a new learning among sixteenth- 
century theologians. But Christianity is not only a literary 
religion ; it is also a historical religion , introduced into the 
world at a definite time and place, and embodied in certain 
events* The habits of minds which are formed in connexion uith 
the study of other occurrences in time, are necessarily employed 
in the modern effort to appreciate aright the phenomena of the 
life of our Lord and of the growth and dififusion of the religion 
He revealed. 

There is, in many minds, a good deal of suspicion of this 
tendency — a suspicion that is by no means unnatural. Those 
who believe that it opens up a real step in progress, may yet be 
ready to admit that in this, as in all progress, there is loss as well 
as gain. The coming of the Kingdom of God was marked by 
the fall, as well as by the rise, of many in Israel. At every other 
step in advance there are double results. Both the good and 
the evil of progress were manifested at the Reformation. The 
changes which then occurred in habits of thought tended to the 
disintegrating of religious institutions, and the loss of the old ideal 
of the religious life, but they also made for the consecration of 
secular life and the stimulating of religious activity. Both the 
good and the evil of progress have been exhibited in the past, 
and both arc doubtless involved in the movement of the present 
day. It is not possible for us to assess the loss and gain of any 
contemporary change : but we may at least attempt to consider 
where the gain is to be sought for, so that we maya\*ail ourselves 
of it to the fullest extent, 

2, Tk^ m&dim scientific sfiriL The great scientific movdnent 
of the last t\\*o hundred >*cars, and especially of last century, has 
shewn itself in the direction of accumulating and co-ordinatiDg 
experience. Empirical science takes facts as ultimate— the par- 
ticular observations of particular minds^and sets itself to check 
and oonfinn their accuracy by reference to the particular obaer- 
vatioas of other particular minds. The multiplying of Iatx>ra* 
tones has been due to the desire to train the rLing generation of 
students in habits of careful obserMitioti and experiment, and to 



the feeling that, even for purposes of learning, we need actual 
demonstration and manipulation — personal experience — where it 
may be had ; not mere book knowledge of opinions and theories, 
but actual contact with observed fact — so that the student may 
be in a position to interpret other phenomena in the light of his 
own experience. 

This is the positive aspect of the scientific movement, but it 
has also a negative side. In order to attain its object, as com- 
pletely as possible, each empirical science is compelled to con- 
centrate, and to discard lines of enquiry that have no direct 
bearing on the matter in hand. For the purpose of progress in 
physical investigation, it is unnecessary to raise any of the deeper 
philosophical questions as to the nature of the universe or the 
validity of human knowledge. Science takes for granted that 
apprehension, by the individual mind through the senses, is a 
sufficiently reliable instrument for attaining knowledge as to the 
relations between different physical phenomena. We can assume, 
too, that the conditions necessary for such investigation remain 
similar throughout the whole period of human life upon the 
globe. We may take for granted that the data observable 
within that time enable us to penetrate, with a high deg^ree of 
probability, to eras when no direct human observation or ex- 
perience was possible. The range of enquiry thus opened up is 
large enough to absorb the energies and kindle the enthusiasm of 
the most eager and active minds. They do not feel that it is 
their business to go into philosophical speculations about the 
matters Jhat lie to hand, or that such speculations can advance 
their enquiries. It may be admitted that one solution of the 
ultimate problems is better than another, but to attain a solution 
at all seems to be one of the luxuries of thought, and does not 
assist in the prosecution of particular research. Hence it comes 
about, that science as science — what we may call the scientific 
spirit — is, in its negative side, indifferent to philosophy and to 
religion, as lying outside its sphere; it is, properly speaking, 
agnostic. That many scientific students are, as men, intensely 
interested in philosophical and religious questions is another 
matter. I am speaking of the characteristics and limitations of 
the habit of thought which has been increasingly dominant 
among educated people during the last half century. 

M 2 


3. Biblical science as closely analogous to otiter sciences. It is 
natural that men of our generation, who have formed this habit 
of thought, should retain it when they turn attention to such 
fields of interest as the phenomena of reh*gious history in general 
and of the beginnings of Christianity in particular. There y^ 
a tendency to treat theological study as a department of science 
which deals with the phenomena of sacred literature and religious 
institutions, so that it may be pursued on the same lines as any 
other branch of science. When we press the analogy, we may 
feel that we can, and perhaps that we ought, to lay aside all the 
opinions and feelings which might bias our investigations, and 
view the records of the life of our Lord and the beginnings of the 
Church as so many literary and historical phenomena to be inter- 
preted in accordance with literaiy and historical experience. 
The pursuit of Biblical Science on these lines yields many inter- 
esting results as to the composition of the sacred books. The 
date w*hen any author, sacred or profane, wrote is a literary 
problem, to be settled by critical methods which do not neces- 
sarily involve a special sympathy with the matter of the books, 
or much interest in the subject of which they treat. Similarly, 
we may feel that skilled analysis is needed to detect the precise 
form of any teaching that made a stir in bygone days, to dis- 
tinguish it from other doctrines that were then current, and to 
trace the influences which favoured its genesis and diffusion. It 
seems as if skill in handh'ng literary and historical evidence were 
the only equipment which is needed in order to pursue sacred 
studies on the lines which are proving fruitful in other branches 
of empirical research, and that in order to reap the results of the 
modern intellectual impulse, we have only to set ourselves to 
apply ordinary methods of investigation in a new field. This 
appears to me to be the position taken by Canon Henson, and 
others of my friends ; but it does not satisfy rae. There is 
a danger of merely imbibing the scientific spirit in its negative 
aspect and accepting its self-imposed limitations, and of missing 
the stimulus of its positive example. 

4. The importance of labor atoty work. We shall miss in sacred 
studies the full benefit of the impulse which has come from 
scientific progress, unless we are encouraged to take a further 
step. Empirical scic-nce is not content with discussing the 



experience of other people ; its power and vigour lie in the stress 

it lays on actual personal experience — on the constant checking 

of accepted results, and the testing of principles in different con- 

dttfons. It is not mere book knowledge that is valued, but 

Imowledge that has moulded the personal faculties of the student, 

and taught him what to look for and how to observe ; he has to 

do with knowledge that is verified and tested as a practical thing 

under his own eyes. 

Personal experience gives a sense of the actuality of the 
objects of study that can never be obtained from books. For the 
sake of convenience of study it is necessary to isolate particular 
aspects of phenomena, and to study them apart ; empirical 
science, that is merely a thing of books, necessarily retains this 
division into subjects ; but the fields of the various sciences 
cannot be really marked out by hard and fast lines. Chemical 
phenomena do not exist by themselves, nor do physical phe- 
nomena ; all natural phenomena are to be investigated in their 
chemical and in their physical aspects. In books these topics 
remain apart and isolated ; it is in the laboratory that the inter- 
dependence of various factors, which we find it convenient to 
study separately, is seen, and that the actual character of the 
object of study, in all its complexity, and divested of false 
simplicity^ comes out. 

Actual investigation in a laboratory has also an educative 
effect on the student himself; it quickens his insight and intelli- 
gence. It enables him to use the records of the observations 
made by others more intelligently, to see perhaps the importance 
of a point to which the observer has given little attention. The 
great vigour of the empirical sciences lies in the fact that 
students are consciously and constantly engaged in co-ordinating 
personal and recorded experience. This is the characteristic 
mark of the *live' studies of our time. The increased interest 
in History is largely due to the fact that it is so easy to 
co-ordinate current observation of human conduct with the 
recorded experience of human life. History, as Seeley used to 
say, is past politics, and politics is present-day history. The 
depreciation of the study of dead languages, of which we hear 
so much in current talk, is due to a common failure to see that 
the classics serve for the formation of literary excellence in 


modem authorship ; Latin and Greek, to many minds, have no 
relation with ordinary life, as we live iL Theological study b 
also liable to be treated as stagnant, and it will not gain the 
full benefit of the intellectual impulse of the present day, 
unless it is consciously pursued with the aim and object of oo* 
ordinating recorded religious experience in the past with actual 
and personal religious experience as it exists to day. 

5, Religiotis experience^ as recorded. Actual experience gives 
us knowledge of the relations between different physical phe- 
Oiomena, and actual experience has also brought into light a 
lowledge of other relations which concern us. Experience 
affords the subject-matter of religion as well as of science. There 
are two great realities in the Universe, as each of us knows it — 
the thought and will of which we are each conscious within, and 
the Thought and Will which expresses itself in all that is. There 
are relations between each human personality and the Eternal 
Thought and Will, from which all come, to which all go» * in 
whom we live and move and have our being \ It is the part of 
the Christian religion to bring these complex relations into con- 
sciousness, and thus to render personal religious experience full 
and deep. There is a sense of sin — ^the knowledge of human 
frailty, as it stands out against a background of infinite righteous* 
ness. There may be, too, a sense of pardon, of changed relations 
with the Eternal Will, a participation in the blessedness of the 
man to whom the Lord does not impute his sin. And the indi- 
vidual apprehension of these relations, and of changes of relation- 
ship between the individual and the Eternal Will, constitutes 
a body of personal religious experience. 

It is well to remember that the Bible, and especially the 
Gospels, do not claim to be a mere chronicle of events by dis- 
passionate observers ; they are rather records of personal religious 
experience — of the occasions and events through which certain 
men attained to new conceptions of the relations between God 
and man. This fact comes out in regard both to the writers' 
qualification for their task and to the object they set before them- 
selves in undertaking it. Men who had personal experience of 
divine things— of the power of Christ's words, and the import of 
the signs He shewed, put it on record that after generations might 
try to cultivate religious experience, substantially similar to that 


which the Apostles enjoyed. These are written^ as we read in 
the Fourth Gospel, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christy 
the Son of Gad, and that believing ye may have life through His 
name. This is the purpose these writers had in view, not merely 
to put certain interesting discourses and marvellous events on 
wcord to satisfy the curiosity and rouse the admiration of future 
ages, but to diffuse a knowledgje of the relations between God 
and man, so that all men, who read their writings, may enter into 
the same conscious and close relations with the eternal God, as 
they had themselves attained by means of their companionship 
with Jesus Christ. They had come to believe in God, not merely 
as the patron of their race, and the God of their battles, but as 
the Father of each and every one of His children. They had 
taken Jesus Christ, as not only their Master, but their Lord and 
their God, and they relied on the help of the Holy Spirit for 
guidance and comfort. We of this generation cannot see what 
they saw with their eyes, or hear the gracious words that pro- 
ceeded from the mouth of the Lord. The tones of His voice 
and the expression of His countenance— that which gives most 
meaning to our intercourse with friends — are lost to us for ever. 
But for all that, it was the conviction of the sacred writers that 
after generations might share in the same spiritual experience 
which they themselves enjoyed. The same consciousness of an 
intimate, complex relationship with God Himself, the same hope 
for this life and the next, which they cherished, is possible for all 

6. The validity of religious experience. It is true that religious 
experience, like other experience, has an intuitive force, which 
carries conviction with it at the moment, and makes doubt of the 
truth conveyed impossible. But this prevailing conviction may 
not always be maintained in the minds of those who reflect on 
the feelings and impressions of past years, and it cannot be trans- 
ferred directly to the recorded experience of others. We have all 
need to reassure ourselves as to the validity of religious exper- 
ience. The question must arise — May it not, after all, be a sub- 
jective feeling of remorse, or a subjective feeling of peace ? What 
reason is there to believe that such states of consciousness testify 
to real relationships between God and man, and are not mere 
feelings and fancies of ecstatic individuals ? 


It is obvious that the difficulty which arises, as to the validity 
of any experience, must be felt in regard to religious experience. 
But it is noticeable that Christian experience has always claimed 
to be tried by the very tests which we apply to all experience. 
We ask, in regard to other conscious states, whether the results 
reached are true for all intelligences alike? Now this is pre- 
cisely the test to which Christian experience makes its appeal. 
taste afid see tliat God is good^ is the confident invitation it 
echoes. It holds that for all human minds and wills there is 
a possibility of the consciousness of sin, in its guilt and shame, 
and that for all, too, there is a possibility of pardon and conscious 
union with God. The very claim of Christianity to be a uni- 
versal religion, appealing to all men^ — of all races and all tem- 
peraments alike— is another way of stating the case for the 
validity of the Christian experience of each* 

Another indication of the character of Christian experience — 
as no mere subjective impression — is to be found in its practical 
working in the world. The convictions which are rooted in 
religious experience — and I am not speaking of Christianity only 
— have an active influence. The moulding of human character, 
the creation of human institutions, which has gone on under the 
stimulus and guidance of religious conviction, is at least a tesd* 
mony to potency from generation to generation, which is not 
easily compatible with the opinion that religious experience is 
merely a subjective illusion. Religious experience is valid, 
because it is creative in the realm of morality, and iinds expres- 
sion in human institutions of many kinds. 

7* Tki difftrtnus betwum religwus and ctkar exferUnce, Even 
if religious experience be approved as valid, when tried by the 
tests to which all personal impressions are subjected, there can 
be no doubt that it is fundamentally different in many ways from 
other experience. The data on which the theologian builds are 
different in kind from those which are co-ordinated in science — 
and this difference renders the methods of investigation, which we 
apply in one case, unsuitable in others 

Natural science in all its branches has to do with phenomena 
Ibat aue observable by the senses — sight, touch, hearing, and so 
lbffth« Theology has to do with experiences whiich belong to the 

HGr Hie of thought azui will In the physical sckxices» himian 



infe%ence is, from the common-sense standpoint, a mere observer 

and reporter, looking on at movements which occur beyond it. 

But so far as religious experience goes, human consciousness is 

the field as well as the instrument of observation. And not only 

so; the Individual mind serves to co-ordinate sense impressions 

and the relations of external phenomena to each other, to the 

satisfaction of the observer. But no human mind is able to attain 

to more than a very partial and imperfect apprehension of the 

relations of the individual human will and the Eternal Will. 

Face to face with Perfect Goodness, and Perfect Knowledge, and 

Eternal Being, the human mind is conscious of its own limitations, 

its inability to grasp or express the truth about such Being, and 

the mystery of His dealings with the changing, imperfect natures 

that we know. The field of religious experience is different from 

that of ordinary experience, and the limitation and weakness of 

human intelligence must be borne in mind all the time. 

From this it obviously follows that the methods of investigation 
which are appropriate in regard to scientific enquiry will not serve 
in the new sphere. Religious experience takes us to the very 
heart of things, and places us in direct relation with the power 
that moves in all that is. It gives us a standpoint from which we 
no longer look on the world merely from outside. It brings a man 
into closest intercourse with the very meaning of things : he may 
find there within himself the working of spiritual powers accom- 
plishing the impossible, breaking the bands of those sins which 
he had by his frailty committed, controlling the sequence of cause 
and effect as we find it in the world of mere phenomena. And 
in the light of that experience he will see the world of phenomena 
in a new light He will recognize the creative power of the Spirit 
of Life in quickening human aspiration and raising men to newness 
of life; he will recognize the power of the Divine Ideal, that has 
appealed to him from the cross of Calvary; he will trace a Fatherly 
hand presiding over all, disciplining individual lives, shaping the 
destinies of principalities and powers, and giving a worthy mean- 
ing and object to all the ages that went to the preparation of an 
earth that furnishes a stage for the drama of human existence. 

From this point of view, the personal religious experience of 
the Christian man — in all its complexity — is the type in the light 
of which the worth of all the simpler and tentative forms can be 


As Christiass we hanre tke 
; the i cc o r de d phm om caa oC 

thefaaskoBwiik^oarlmovkdeeBbaiM. Tbe 
of iodncdve irsrjuth, bjr vliidi tlie hypulBcKs of the physicist 
are proired or dinM O ^ c J ,aieia aptJyahte io the sphere of rel%iooi 
cxpcxioice. The iqr p o lhrm of a sop c ma tigal life is ■otooettgt 
cm be pnwcd or diap row ad fay fip i iiral methods; it may be 
tDoBtxated and cocfimed, bat not establisifeedL 

Thoogfa the methods of invesl^gaiicm aie iKcessarily so diflmM« 
tbe pfoocsB by wfaidi progress may be lecnrcd is the saoKL Adraooe 
is to be hoped for by the caseiitl efibct to co-ordssate adsal and 
peisuoalrehgionscaqKneooewithieli^gioiB ejipciiei iceasre cof d B d 
ibthepast. We mo^ go oo&om the mental attitude of the stndeat 
tothatoftheinvcst^aloriBalabofatocy. Theological 
will do well to cnktvate prrOTn l leiigioiis experience as 
to^ and oonreiative with, the stody of the experience that 
is recorded tn literatUTe and histocy. It is in tbe cmjoictSao of the 
two sides that the smdent may attain to greater iai^^ in the mtcr- 
ptetaiioo of l e co n i cd c xp a ic Bce^aod gwatg- power of appi ^ir nsina 
Emptrica] science wkh its t^nd advaDce^and its C30IK 
to actual ohservatioci and experiment, is a 
against any cfivofce be tween these two ades. If we 
oootem to analyse religions experience in tbe past, by itself 
apart from actual rel^^ioos experience now, we may be 
but tbere is at lea^ a dai^er that our amdnsiQOs will be 

& Tke grpwth 0/ experience emd tke mmts pf sacred simdj^ 
The oiore we look npon sacred study as the invest^gatiaB of 
a living body of rel^ous experknce, and the co-oidination of 
present-day with recorded experience; the more easily shall 
we giasp the trtith that theotogkal study is oot only altwc; bat 
grow i n g . This coovkttoo will safeguard tis against the danger 
of S M ppO M Dg that cor studies are exhaustive, or that ve ha^^ 
reached a statement of knowledge that is at all final. The mani- 
frstation of the Eternal in time, is not and cannot be, complete and 
exhanstive. The data furnished to us are not complete, God's 
Spirit is working in the world, and leading with a deeper know- 
led^ of God. 



We dare not, therefore, limit the field of religious experience to 
any particular era in the past. Unless we keep this clearly before 
0^ we are in danger of turning to the Bible, as if we could find in 
it exhaustive knowledge of God's dealings with men. There are 
seven} distinct aims we may keep before us in the study of the 
BMe, and though all the ways of reading it may be good, they 
are not all equally good. 
There may be the careful study of the letter, so as to get the 
/ precise shade of meaning which any sentence conveys ; the first 
impression as to what the words mean may be quite true so far as 
it goes, but there is a depth of thought and a delicacy of expres- 
sion in every part of the Bible, that makes it well worth pondering 
so that we may appreciate the precise significance and full force 
of every phrase. 

Or, we may read the volume for the sake of getting at the 
I personality of the author, and noting what were the special 
features in our Lord's ministry which interested one or another 
of the evangelists. It may be our aim to get at the man through 
his writing, and this sort of enquiry is especially interesting in 
the case of the divine library. 

All such study of the Bible is good ; but we do not get the best 

. out of it, unless we are eager not only to enter into the thoughts 

I and feelings of the writers, but to make them our own, and live 

I them over again ourselves. We must not merely admire the 

beauty of Christian teaching, but take it as a principle which 

reproduces itself in our own words and deeds. It is best to study 

Christian truth with the hope and aim of trying to verify it for 


Since religious experience is still growing and the data are 
still incomplete, we cannot suppose that any interpretation of 
them, or expression of the truth about God and His relations 
to man, is complete and final. We must recognize the possi- 
bility of continued progress in Theology, the possibility of 
attaining to a fuller apprehension and clearer statement of truth. 
The terms we employ change their significance as human thought 
advances. There is a danger in treating any expression of the 
relations between God and man as at all complete. St Thomas 
Aquinas worked out the Summa under the influence of revived 
legal study^ and settled each point as he raised it, by references 


to autboritaiivr opinions ; and thus he built up a self-consistent 
system cnunciAting the Voice of the Church. But St Thomas did 
not s*y the last word ; religious experience has been growing ; 
some of his phraseology is out of date, some of his conceptioos 
have been outlived, for the life of the Church has not stood stilL 
There is room to discriminate between the aspects of his doctrine 
vrKicfa ^"ere characteristic of his tiine» and the truths wtuch bold 
good for all time;. He has not given ns an atterance whidi 

If there ts no cooiplelenesB in the systematic collection of 
authoritative nttttmnces and the tatctpretatioo thus given of 
datu of experience^ their is certainly none in the joc^cmeBt €if 
liqf MivkttMd coosckNiSBiess. This camiol he 
complete, finnL There are those vho hold tfaemsdvcs 
reject any Gmstlui fcnrhiag lfa«l has aoc awakened a 
c<iio in their onm 901^ There are di i e i Mties of 
the same Spn^; U>e experience of the 
fatf^gcr and oMre complete than any 

hopeioacqiire. Noaeof asdares^thatweliaveattaimsdto 
■CMMrtenlp^ OP to n perfect 
ve cnB OBiy Hif^Kie ic ovr oonsoHK shd ao 
a Mkr iqiprehcBsiaa oT ife Uh of the 


IT m ase mcNned to 

I m 

the 1 


sciousness, or of the universe; — and hence, theology, as the 
schoolmen would have it, is the scientia scientiarum. 

Nor are we even justified in limiting the field and working 
of spiritual activity by reference to the principles which may be 
safely assumed in regard to other human experience. Habitual 
reference to personal religious experience affords a new criterion 
of the possible and the probable. There is no forgiveness in 
Nature, there is no intelligible place for a doctrine of forgiveness 
in mere Theism. But those who have experience of it as a fact 
that has made a difference in their own lives, will feel that the 
creative power of the living God must manifest itself— if it be 
manifested at all — in a fashion which is at variance with mechanical 
routine. The record of the miraculous birth and rising from the 
dead of the man Christ Jesus, becomes intelligible to them, just 
because it fits in with their own conscious life. Credo, such a man 
may say, credo quia impossible. 

The late bishop of London used to insist that the distinctive 
feature of the English Church, as apart from the other branches 
of the Church in the West and the East, was that she cherished 
sound learning ; that the love of learning and the determination 
to test her teaching in the light of learning was a feature which 
had been marked since at least the Reformation era. But I think 
it is equally noticeable that she has preserved the tradition, which 
, has been lost in so many protestant bodies, of insisting that her 
clergy shall habitually cultivate personal religious experience. 
The daily offices which are incumbent upon her clergy, the weekly 
celebrations which were insisted on in colleges, testify to the mind 
of the Church in this matter. Divine learning is to be fostered, 
but not in a merely secular spirit ; it is to be sought for, partly 
^ study, and partly through the clear light of personal conscious- 
ness of God's truth. 

W. Cunningham. 

m to tnat of God 

cAciij&c It mav" gxaming GoJts 

-iMpL Foraqri 
witidt tbeolo^ 

^ ^tmmSgmma^ •*«■»■&«# ffVSrtl^*^ SI M Jl-g>£rlhl«. tfJP |£ •||| 1^ ■■b*^ 

tll£9C JUtUUCS sue CX ffl tf*^*^ ^" it> toC ^CfHliBfc I T^mc ir 

tftafc iCEOR&i^ tD Holy i>crtpciifc God is ooti OBttm 
ffltanoBs; God the Stnt became man ; wdteqt Bfc|>tam ft Is 
to g nte r beaveii ; £uth ts occeaeary unto ^vataoo. It 
troths bafioie as aod proves ttaa to be Scz^ptmaL 
sach a fitac^oB is called Pbsitiae. and 



admirable specimens of it are to be found in the works of the 
Fathers of the Church, who excelled as Positive theologians. 

Positive theology is undoubtedly most important since it is 
fundamentaL It holds a foremost and necessary position in the 
theological domain. Yet it performs only one function of 
theology^ and that an initial one. It occupies the first and 
preliminary st<^e in the presentment of revealed truth. Conse- 
quently of itself it is incomplete, since there remains a further 
work to be accomplished. It brings forth from the deposit of 
hith and proposes to us revealed truths, and here its function 
ceases. There is consequently another function of theology we 
may consider. It is possible to collect, co-ordinate, and systematize 
revealed truths. It is possible to investigate them, to analyse 
them, to try to penetrate them, to increase our understanding of 
them. We may shew the relation of one to the other, their 
mutual dependence^ their harmony. By arguments of analogy 
and congruity we may confirm them, and we may shew how 
conformable they are to reason and to natural truths. From the 
truths supplied us by Positive theology we may deduce others, and 
we may resolve them into their various consequences. This is 
the function of the theology we call Scholastic. It begins where 
the Positive leaves off, and its first principles are the truths which 
the Positive supplies to it. 

The human mind is so constituted by God that it is ever eager 
to attain to its proper object, and it seeks to grasp it as fully and 
as completely as its capacity will allow. It endeavours to view 
truth in all its aspects, to illustrate it, to make it more acceptable 
by removing difficulties and by solving objections brought 
against it. As the instrument of Scholastic Theology it enables 
us to have a more intelligent appreciation of revealed truth, and 
its exercise imparts an especial pleasure in making acts of faith. 
Since God has entrusted to man a body of revelation. He does 
not mean that he should merely passively accept it and lay it up 
in a napkin. * Therefore the apostle Peter* warns us that we 
ought to be ready to answer every one who asks us the reason of 
our faith and hope, because if an unbeliever ask the reason of my 
£iiith and hope and I see that before he believes he cannot 

* I Pet. iii 15. 


comprehend, I give him as a reason this fact itself, that therein he 
may see, if possible, how preposterously he asks> before he believes, 
the reason of those things which he cannot comprehend. But if 
one who is already a believer asks the reason, in order that he 
may understand what he believes^ his capacity must be considered ^ 
so that according to it, when the reason has been given, he may ■ 
obtain as great an understanding of his faith as possible, a greater 
if he comprehends more, a less understanding if he comprehends 
less ; provided, however, that until he arrive at the ftillness and 
perfection of knowledge he depart not from the path of faith.' ^ 
The truths of revelation are not to be preserved as mere fossil 
remains. It is difficult to see how we can have a lively and 
fervent faith, a yearning after a greater knowledge of God and 
after a more intimate union with Him, and not embrace readily 
His sacred word and reverently exercise our intelligence upon it. 
* But perhaps some one may say : Shall there then be no growth 
of religious doctrine in the Church of Christ ? By all means let 
there be growth and that to the utmost For who Is there so 
hostile to men, and hateful to God as to endeavour to prevent it? 
But, notmthstanding, let it so be that it be truly a growth of faith 
and not a change. Since to growth it belongs that each thing 
be expanded to the full measure of itself, but to change that 
something be altered from one thing to another. Let there then 
be an increase and growth, a strong and exuberant growth, of 
understanding, knowledge, and wisdom, as well in individuals as 
in the community, as well in one man as in the whole Church by 
gradual lapse of ages and centuries, but only in their own kind, 
namely in the same doctrine, the same sense and same meaning/* 
A religious body of men should not be an inert, lifeless mass, but 
a living, active, energetic organism. But Scholastic Theolc^fy 
imports activity of mind upon the truths entrusted to it. It 
displays revelation in all its beauty and splendour, and with 
a marvellous fecundity unfolds to us. so far as the limitation of 
the finite human intellect permits, the infinite depth and breadth 
of the Divine word. 

There are some revealed truths the human mind can under- 
stand, whilst there are others which surpass the natural cona- 
prehension of every created intellect. Nevertheless of them all, 

St Aug. £/, 130 I 4. * St Viae Lir. Comumomi, c zxiti § 55. 


each according to its measure, the mind strives to have a deeper 
knowledge. Hence the precursor of Scholastic theologians 
exclaims : * I do not try, O Lord, to fathom thy depth ; because 
in no wise do I compare my intellect with thine, but I long to 
muierstand to some extent thy truth which my heart believes and 
loves. Nor indeed do I seek to understand in order to believe ; 
but I believe in order to understand. For this too I believe, that 
unless I believe I shall not understand.* ^ It is the love of God s 
truth that prompts the desire to apprehend it more fully and 
completely. Scholastic Theology does not seek to rationalize 
faith by undermining or supplanting its formal object and by 
explaining its material object away, but to strengthen faith by 
indirectly confirming it, by shewing how compatible it is with our 
rational nature, and by enhancing and multiplying the induce- 
ments to believe. Of it may be said : * With all diligence this 
one thing [the Church of Christ] strives after, that by treating 
faithfully and wisely the things that are old it may make them 
exact and smooth, if in any way they are previously unformed 
and inchoate ; may confirm and strengthen them if they are 
already clearly expressed and developed.** It depends upon 
Positive theology for the raw material which it humbly, lovingly, 
and reverently accepts, and which by activity, industry, subtlety, 
power, and skill it weaves into a vesture of marvellous beauty, 
shape, and symmetry for Christ's Mystical Body on earth. 

So far I have spoken of the function of Scholastic Theology. 
Its scope is noble indeed and worthy of the highest faculty of 
man. But there is also the form to be considered. If we turn 
to the works of those who are generally acknowledged to rank 
as princes of Scholastic theologians, as St Thomas, St Bona- 
venture and Suarez, we shall be struck by certain characteristics. 
There is an entire absence of verbiage. No appeal is made to 
the feelings by the use of rhetoric. The language is perfectly 
simple and unadorned. There is nothing to move the mind 
except the sheer force of evidence of the bare truth. Men who 
are in search of truth are anxious to remove any hindrance 
whatever, whether it be beauty of language or exuberance of 
expression. Error or sophistry more easily conceals itself beneath 

* St Anselm Proahg. c. i. * St Vine. Lir. Commomt. c. xxiii § 60. 

VOL. V. N 




tlie iBOfe diScdt k if to extract it. ^liereu d the 
ii ptft before as in a jejqne aun B CJ ^thc flUDC 
ijokkly and more acc a n Udy , aad is better able to 
kHaoUc worth. Heooe cMXiirs tiie fi e qg e ni sse of tbe 
whidi employs oo svperflnoiis or reHnndant word. M 

Moreover there h a 6xed terminology. Scholastic theolo^ansfl 
wrre oof wont to excogitate each for himself a nev i-ccibiihryf 
or Docnenclature and arbitrarily determine in what sense tbe>* 
wotild employ it Bat tbey accepted the tenninology haiMied 
down to them, which had been consecrated by cootiBooas use 
tLnd by time, and which had been polished aod rendered more 
definite and accurate by the skilful handling and treatment of 
iticcca«iive generations o( the ablest and subtlest inteUects. Tbe 
Arittotelian philosophy no doubt enters largely into Scholastic 
Theology ; but it does not constitute its essence and scope. It 
IS used as a vehicle of thought and expressioa, and is adopted 
where theologians judge it to be true ; for Scholastic Theology 
does not banish reason but exercises it upon the articles of &ith. 


I may be asked why am I so anxious to defend Scholastic 
Theology . It -sccms to me that if Anglican theologians would 
employ it, it would be a great gain for them as well as for others. 
The earlier Anglican divines spent much of their time and 
labour in protesting against, and in trying to refute, the errors of 
Papists* Of late years they have devoted themselves chiefly to 
Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, No one can deny that they 
have done excellent work in promoting and advancing Scriptural 
and Piitristic studies. They deserve all praise in these special 
lincH. On the other hand, it is to be regretted that they have not 
progressed further where progress is possible. They will not 
venture into the domain of Scholastic Theology ; but they 
approach its confines and there they stop. Why should they not 
do for it what they have done for other branches? Why should 
I hey not endeavour to treat the articles of faith in a scientific 
maimer, and to attain to a greater understanding of their full 
significiincc ? It is quite true that at the present day Christian 
theologians arc greatly absorbed in defending the fact itself of 



revelation against unbelievers. But notwithstanding the necessity 
of Christian apologetics at this crisis of doubt and infidelity, sonie 
time may be spared for other duties, nor need all engage in 
%hting against the InfideL 

One reason which may prevent the cultivation of Scholastic 
Theolc^y is the want of unanimity in the articles which are to 
serve as first principles of Scholastic Theological science. There 
must first be agreement in these. This may be an objection, 
but only a partial one, nor is it insuperable. Combined labour 
in the same line usually supposes a common starting-point 
Nev^ertheless there are certain revealed doctrines which Angli- 
cans generally hold, and from these they may commence. If 
they would only combine and carry on a united work in the 
developement, evolution, and illustration of Christian dogma, the 
result would be an immense gain. 

In many minds there is a dislike of the Scholastic system, 
which they identify with the syllogism. They tell us that faith 
docs not depend upon the syllogism and no one is convinced by it 
But such an assertion is irrelevant here; for f am not speaking 
of the motives of credibility nor of faith and its ultimate analysis* 
I am supposing faith, and faith in truths which have been arrayed 
before us by the special function of Positive theology. I am 
speaking of the exercise of reason upon what the deposit of 
(kith has yielded up to us. Just as we can reason from the first 
principles of a purely natural science, so can we employ ratio- 
cination upon those first principles which in Scholastic Theology 
are the articles of faith. If a person take exception to observing 
the laws of logic in Scholastic Theologyj he should take the 
same exception, if he is consistent, in his advancement of every 
natural science* With such a one it would be idle to pursue 
the discussion further, unless he divest himself of such a miscon- 

Then there are many who do not wish to be restricted to 
modest proportions in arguing or reasoning. They fill page 
upon page with excellent English. They introduce happy and 
pleasing illustrations. They display a vast amount of erudition 
and general reading and culture. But if all that really consti- 
tuted the argument were stripped of superfluities and were stated 
in its strictly essential form, pages would be reduced by such 

N a 



condensation to a few lines and then the true strength or weair 
ness of the reasoning would be made manifest in its bare reality. 
Unfortunately we have grown so accustomed in this country to 
the diffuse and literary style that it would inflict quite a shock 
upon our taste and feelings to be suddenly confronted with such 
a revolutionary proceeding* Under the present circumstances 
I doubt if theology will ever make much progress in the Une 
of developement* We are so accustomed to a loose style of 
argument and to literary effect, that we often fail to discover 
fallacies and ambiguities and also waste time in wading through 
a vast amount which in reality is not to the point or is unneces- 
sary. A trained Scholastic theologian would first propose the 
question, and then he would marshal in its defence various argu- 
ments or proofs in a clear, concise, unadorned, logical^ and un- 
impassioned form. He would solve the principal arguments 
brought forward in support of the contradictory doctrine. He 
would use the terminology which other theologians would accept 
and employ in exactly the same sense. He would not distract 
the mind by idle words or useless matter. When arguments are 
examined by theologian after theologian ^ a consensus will finally 
arise as to their cogency and validity, and then the doctrine 
which rests upon them, if they are recognized as valid, will 
become a common theological opinion. Thus by degrees opinion 
after opinion is firmly established^ and such a process indicates 

In this country we are too apt to confound the history of 
theology with theology itself. No one should underrate the 
importance of the history of dogma or of theological opinions. 
It is of the greatest use and value both for the proper equip- 
ment of every theologian and for the purposes of teaching. 
Nevertheless it has its own special sphere and should never be 
made to do duty for theology. A serious defect in philosophy 
at the present day is that we have men giving us the views of 
others and holding nothing themselves. They will propound the 
different opinions, and so far they act as historians ; but they m 
not unfrequently fail to do the real and critical work of philo- 
sophy by examining, analysing, and weighing the arguments 
upon which these opinions are based. They seem afraid to com- 
mit themselves. Moreover, if they are to train the minds of 




Others, they should propose something definite which they them- 
selves arc prepared to maintain, and they should not allow their 
pupils to drift over a sea of opinions without chart, without 
compass, and towards no settled port. If they hold no definite 
body of doctrine which they are able to communicate, they 
should not attempt to teach. Let us then duly appreciate 
Positive theology and the history of theology, but let us also 
whilst using them both strive to advance in the peculiar sphere 
of Scholastic Theology. 

Sometimes it happens that an Anglican theologian may hold 
certain articles of faith which Catholic theologians hold, and yet 
he may make statements which Catholic theologians declare to 
be inconsistent with those articles, I venture to assert that if 
be had cultivated Scholastic Theology^ he would have refrained 
from making those statements, since he would have perceived 
their inconsistency* The fact is, he has not worked out the 
articles of faith to their legitimate conclusions. Consequently 
he has not that definite, consistent, and guiding system which 
such a developement or evolution produces. If he had caused the 
articles of faith to germinate, to produce the various deductions 
which natui-ally follow from them, and to put forth explicitly by 
evolution what is latent or implicitly contained in them, a system 
would be evolved with its ramifications and would disclose what 
a theologian could consistently aflBrm or deny. Thus he would 
not be betrayed through lack of this system into asserting what, 
from his own standpoint or position, would be illogical or incon- 
sistent. For instance, if a theologian accepts as an article of 
faith that God the Son has become incarnate and is substantially 
man, or in other words that our Blessed Lord is God the Son 
made man, he cannot logically allow that our Blessed Lord 
could sin. At one time there were those who theoretically 
admitted such a possibility; but by degrees truth became more 
manifest, so that now the common opinion of theologians excludes 
this possibility* This is an instance of progress in the attain- 
ment of truth. At present therefore no Catholic theologian 
would maintain as probable that Christ whilst on earth could 
have committed sin. Also some Anglican theologians speak of 
the knowledge of Christ's human intellect in a way they would 
avoid, had they, after the method of the schools, analysed the 



nature and exigency of the hypostatic union and followed this 
analysis to its logical and legitimate consequences. 

Likewise in discussions on free will in man, some divines, I am 
told, cnuntiate opinions which are at variance with their belief 
in the redemption of man and his co-operating in it by satisfying 
and meriting. This is to be regretted ; for it is to build up and 
destroy the same edifice. A logical system carefully worked out 
would be an inestimable gain to such men. They may have 
ail the qualities to fit them to be able theologians; but they lack 
that very instnjment which would enable them to use those 
qualities efficiently and successfully. 

There is another point I submit for consideration. The culti- 
vation of Scholastic Theology, besides leading Anglican divines to 
a greater unanimity amongst themselves and to a deeper and fuller 
appreciation of revealed truth, would aid them to understand 
better the dcvclopement of doctrine tn the Catholic Church* 
If Peter and Paul both believed as a revealed truth that God 
the Son is perfect man, Paul might well be astonished if, when 
he asserted God the Son to have a human intellect and a human 
will, Peter denied it. Had Peter analv-sed the predicate perfect 
WHMy he would have »?cn that this involved the ti^'o essential 
fiicuhies of man. In a similar way when Catholic theologians 
deduce conclusions with all the rigidity of logic, they are accused 
of having altered revealed Iniths or of having imported new 
ones. The prindple of developeiikcnt is admirably expressed by 
Vincent of Lcrins : ^ Let the religion of souls imitate the manner 
of bodies u1kich« although in pttpoess of yeans they unfoUl and 
611 out their parts, >*et remam the same as before. There is a 
freat diflTefence between the donxr of youth and the maturity 
of old age; but acvert h d ca the very same beoocne old mea who 
had been youths ; so thai dkhoi^ the state and ooodi tkxi of oaie 
and the s«mc man be changed, still there abides oae and the same 
MHai^ QM and the suae peraoa. * « . Thm also it is toii^ that 
lii^ doctilne of ttie Omiiatt leligioft fbl^ 
Maie^% thit it he ;nc i HtHf.iir i t by ycus^ iii^iiaii J by time, 
MilatoltsMljMIMveh(ri«e,yet ifttMlnifi^itaad oum. 
lMyhi4,aAd W e ^ wy ktc wd perfeei ii the eiMtiie proportioiis 
of ^» (wAm aiHl. Mio s«y«ittall its om aeiiAcR ud senses; 
MMl ikM^ MMWsw; k Kteit «f M dOBge, «»deno ao loss of hs 



own special character, no alteration of its essential nature.* * The 
recognition of this principle ought to make those hesitate who 
are inclined to reproach Catholic theologians with having intro- 
duced novelties. It seems strange that men should deny to the 
deposit of faith what they are obliged to admit in a deposit which 
is merely natural. For instance, in that truly admirable, monu- 
mental, and sympathetic work, TAe American Commonwealth^ 
Mr. Bryce informs us * that the American Constitution has de- 
veloped in three ways, by amendment, by interpretation, and by 
usage. The first means a change in the constitution ; the second, 
an unfolding of the meaning implicitly contained in it ; and the 
third, an addition consistent with its spirit. With the first and 
last we are not here concerned. The second way is parallel to 
the theological developement of which I am speaking. We might 
even adapt to some eminent theologian, to De Lugo for example^ 
Mr. Bryce's description of Chief-Justice Marshall : * He grasped 
with extraordinary force and clearness the cardinal idea that the 
creation of a national government implies the grant of all such 
subsidiary powers as are requisite to the effectuation of its main 
powers and purposes, but he developed and applied this idea 
with so much prudence and sobriety, never treading on purely 
political ground, never indulging the temptation to theorize, but 
content to follow out as a lawyer the consequences of legal prin- 
dples, that the Constitution seemed not so much to rise under 
his hands to its full stature, as to be gradually unveiled by him 
till it stood revealed in the harmonious perfection of the form 
which its framers had designed.'^ 

It may be objected that the Anglican Church is not congenial 
soil for Scholastic Theology or its method, otherwise they would 
have been introduced and cultivated long before now. In fact 
the Anglican temperament is utterly antagonistic to them. Many 
Anglicans dislike dogma, or at any rate such an excessive form 
of it as is presented in Scholastic Theolc^. They prefer to be 
unhampered and untrammelled by the hard and fast cramping 
Scholastic system. That the soil of the Anglican Church was 
formerly not congenial is beside the purpose. That it is not con- 

' Commonii, c. xxiii §§56 and 57. * Vol. i p. 36a, 3rd ed. 

• Bnd. p. 385. 



genial now is the ]>oint in question. That many Anglicans would 
find no sympathy with it I am quite willing to admit. That there 
are at least some who would excel in it and by its adoption would ■ 
promote the cause of revealed truth is what I am now specially 
maintaining. I have tried to explain how Scholastic Theology 
would be a fit instrument for the purpose, and from my acquaint- ■ 
ance with Anglican divines I am persuaded that there are those 
amongst them who, if they applied their talents and ability, 
sincerity, earriestness, and energy to its cultivation, would do for 
it what others have done so well for Holy Scriptures and the 

To accept revelation and to reject dogma is a contradiction in 
terms. To accept or believe in revelation is to assent to a truth 
or body of truths on account of the authority of God revealing. 
This means to embrace dogma. How can a man embrace and 
reject dogma in sensu composito ? When men talk about being 
intellectually unhampered and untrammelled, if they logically 
mean anything, they mean they do not wish to know the truth ; 
for so long as they remain in ignorance they are at liberty to 
affirm or to deny as they please, and are not constrained by the 
evidence or manifestation of truth. What happens in natural 
sciences, happens likewise in the sphere of revelation. In natural 
sciences a man's intellect is determined by a natural truth made 
clear to it or by the evidence of truth. He is no longer free with 
regard to it. In this sense he may be said to be hampered or tied ■ 
down. But he would be unreasonable to folly who would object 
to such a curtailment of liberty. If God besides speaking through 
nature should speak to us by revelation and present to us a truth 
to be accepted upon His authority, would not that man be equally 
unreasonable who, although he saw it was evidently his duty to 
yield assent to it, would yet refuse on the plea that he wished his 
intellect to remain untrammelled? Such a liberty is like that 
which can be seen inscribed upon the public monuments of 
France. It is licence, not liberty. In reality natural physical 
sciences do not of themselves give any scope for the exercise of 
liberty ; since a scientific man is forced to accept that which is - 
intrinsically evident or demonstrated. He deals not with super- I 
natural faith but with natural knowledge. But the theologian 
^ercises both reason and liberty when he assents to those first 


theological principles from which Scholastic Theology begins to 
proceed by reasoning. He exercises his reason in so far as he 
demonstrates to himself as evident not the truth to be believed, 
but his duty to believe it ' Let no one suppose, I say, that we 
believe so that we may not receive or seek a reason, since we could 
not even believe unless we had reasonable souls.* ^ Since, however, 
the intellect cannot determine itself, and since it is not determined 
by the evidence of the revealed truth, the will comes to the rescue, 
and compels the intellect to assent to the truth to which it sees it 
is its evident duty to assent Thus he who believes in revelation 
is eminently rational and eminently a man of duty, and he offers 
to God that whereby he is specifically distinguished as a rational 
animal enjoying free will ; he offers the submission and homage 
of his intellect and of his will. 

Nevertheless, I cannot help thinking that men who inveigh 
against dogma must not be understood as using dogma in the 
strictly theological sense. What they object to is not the obliga- 
tion to accept what they believe God wishes to impose upon them. 
They know quite well that even in daily life they are required to 
exercise human faith just as a child accepts its food from its 
mother, believing it on her authority to be good and wholesome. 
Also they know quite well that God, being truth itself and omni- 
scient, possesses the requisite authority to be believed. Were they 
convinced that He was speaking to them, they would admit on 
His authority to be true what He spoke. Hence St Thomas 
takes for granted in the third difficulty (quaestiuncula 2) that 
'nullus est ita infidelis quin credat quod Deus non loquitur nisi 
verum ' (3. dist. 23. q. a. a. a.). But they repudiate the obligation 
to accept as revealed truth what they regard as merely human 
opinion proposed to their assent by a merely fallible institution. 
If a Church does not profess to be divine and infallible any man 
may reasonably object to being called upon to assent to whatever 
she may propose merely on her own authority. Such an imposi- 
tion would be intellectual tyranny. In this sense they are averse 
to what they call dogma. Yet before reprehending Catholics they 
should strive to understand the Catholic positioa The Catholic 
does not assent to a truth upon the authority of the Catholic 
Church as if that authority were the formal object of divine faith ; 
» St Aug. £>. 120 §3. 


but he assents to the truth on the authority of God, and he 
k when proposed to him by the Church because he believes the 
Church to be the infallible custodian and interpreter of the deposit 
of faith. At least the Catholic acts consistently with his position, 
whether that position be right or wrong. 

Also I maintain that the cultivation of Scholastic Theolo^by 
Anglican divines would cause them to tend to greater union with 
those from whom they are now separated. It is obvious that 
Scholastic theologians differ among themseK^es ; but it is only in 
matters in which the revealed doctrine has not been explicitly 
proposed by the authentic teaching body or magisterium of the 
Church or in which they are allowed to differ. Yet even in such 
matters by degrees they may arrive at imanimity. How fre- 
quently it has happened that opinions of theologians were divided 
on some question about which in course of time a consensus has 
at last arisen ! For instance, some theologians used to hold that 
the priest was the minister of the Sacrament of Christian Marriage. 
Gradually theologians, by discussing the various arguments for 
and against this view, arrived at a common consent that the con- 
tracting parties themselves and not the priest administered the 
sacrament. Another example is the case of original sin. It is 
now generally held that its essence consists in a twofold element, 
the first being the privation of sanctifying grace caused by Adam's 
actual sin, the second being the imputation of that sin until it be 
forgiven, De Lugo \ in treating the more general question of 
habitual sin, maintained the essence of habitual sin to be the 
actual sin morally persevering and being imputed until forgiven. 
But in spite of De Lugo's subtle arguments the common opinion 
has triumphed and prevails. Such cases may be multiplied inde- 
finitely. Yet there are many new questions arising and many old 
ones remaining unsettled* There are some that%vill most probably 
never be conclusively answered in this life ; because we lack suffi- 
cient data to enable us to form conclusive arguments. For instance 
it is doubtful whether the habit of the theological virtue of charity 
is the same as sanctifying grace. Some theologians deny that it is. 
Others affirm that one and the same infused habit of charity is both 
a kabiius operativus and a habitus entifatnms. As the former 
it is the virtue, as the latter it is the quality or accident 
* Df Poenit, disp. Fii, sect, v, n. 48* 

mt which is J 


called habitual or sanctifying grace. How shall we ever be able 
to determine with certainty that even if Adam had not prevari- 
cated, God the Son, on account of the excellence of the Incarnation 
itself, would have assumed human nature although not in its 
present passible state ? So far as we can judge there is no like- 
lihood that a genius will arise who will be able to excogitate some 
conclusive argument which has hitherto escaped the ingenuity or 
wisdom of all preceding theologians respecting either of these two 

The differences which divide Christendom are far greater and 
niore radical than these. Nevertheless, I think that if we all 
Pursued the same system and method, there would be a greater 
approximation to union and certainly we should understand each 
other better. Surely it is good and pleasant for brethren to dwell 
together in unity. In His last address on earth to His apostles 
^^iir Blessed Lord ^ exhorted them to union, and He prayed that 
"^liey might be one as He and His heavenly Father were one. 
^X'here may be union of hearts where there is divergence of minds; 
l^ut the bond of perfection is strengthened, drawn together more 
^^losely and made more secure where there is not only one heart 
VDut also one mind. No theologian worthy of the name in its 
truest and fullest sense can go his own way through life little 
^•ecking whether he agrees with others or not in matters of serious 
^noment. Our Lord's prayer must have been efficacious not inas- 
much as His heavenly Father would do violence to the wills and 
intellects of men and force them to be one, but in so far as He 
would obtain those graces which would enable men to be one 
if they chose to co-operate with them. Consequently each theo- 
logian should have at heart an earnest desire to lessen the gulf 
which separates men, to try to have some common ground, to enter 
into the views of others, and to see as they see and thus to under- 
stand them. I do not entertain so idle a dream as to fancy 
all this will be done by Scholastic Theology. Yet I do think 
that Scholastic Theology will contribute its share to that end, and 
therefore I am urging this plea. Perhaps few indeed may have 
the least sympathy with my idea, or perhaps still fewer may care 
to put it into execution. Nevertheless, when we imagine we see 

* John xvii a a. 


a remedy, however inadequate, to bring men's minds together, 
we should not refrain from pleading its cause and urging its 
acceptance. Unfortunately the disunion of Christendom may 
continue for long weary yeairs. Scandals must needs come ^ ; 
ravening wolves will enter in among us, not sparing the flock * ; 
and of our own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things to 
draw away disciples after them ; there must be schisms amongst 
us and there must be heresies^. But each man who has the 
welfare of Christ's Mystical Body at heart should labour strenu- 
ously, unceasingly, and courageously to heal the wounds of 
Christendom so far as it is given him to do. He must sanctify 
himself and he must pray ; but also he must act so as to affect 
directly his fellow men. Action may be manifold, and I humbly 
suggest that one phase of it may be the cultivation and promotion 
of Scholastic Theology by men of intellectual aptitude and apos- 
tolic zeal. 

J. O'Fallon Pope. SJ. 

* Matt xviii 7. * Acts xx 39. * x Cor. xi 19. 




It has been shewn that Nilus of Rossano and his followers were 
skilful scribes and energetic students, though it is doubtful if as 
much can be said of the other Greek monks of South Italy at 
that period. 

In the Norman period this literary spirit was kept up, and 
considerable libraries were founded in several monasteries. The 
chief ones were of course in those monasteries which were the 
largest and richest. We cannot trace the fortunes of them all, 
hut we can piece together the outlines of the history of the 
libraries of S. Nicholas of Casola, and of S. Mary's of Patira from 
their beginning up to their dispersal, and we meet with other 
h*braries at later points in their history, though we have no definite 
infomiation as to the way in which they were collected. 
The points, then, which call for consideration are : — 
(i) The History of the Foundation of the Libraries, 
(a) The Character of the Handwriting employed in the various 
(3) The History of the Dispersal of the Libraries. 
These three points must be dealt with in order, 
(i) The History of the Foundation of the Libraries. As was 
said above, we have no knowledge on this point except so far 
as the libraries of S. Nicholas of Casola and S. Mary of Patira 
are concerned. 

The history of the foundation and prosperous period of the 
library of S. Nicholas of Casola is as follows. 

It was founded by Nicholas of Otranto, the third abbot, who 
ruled the convent from 1153-J190. De Ferrariis tells us that 
Nicholas collected MSS from every part of Greece, and spared 


no cxpcrwc to obtain a fine library. He also encouraged the 
monks in the monastery to add to the collection which he formed. 
Thij \a shewn from his Typk(m in the Turin MS (217 b, iii 27), 
which iccms to have been especially designed to encourage 
the literary spirit and the careful preservation of the library*, 
I'coancc is enacted for any one who borrowed a book and left 
it open- Severe penalties were to be inflicted on a careless 
scribe who did not copy accurately, who dirtied his exemplar, 
or broke his pen. Gossiping in the library was especially for- 
bidden, and when at the close of the day the monks retired to _ 
their cells, they were bidden to read, or else weep for their sins. I 

The Turin MS also gives us some idea of the contents of the 
librury, though not a complete catalogue. Gospels, Psalters, and 
liturgical books aitrthe chief works mentioned, but there were 
also copies of Aristotle and Aristophanes*, while it is probable 
that it was from this source that Bessarion obtained his copy of ■ 
Quintus Caiab^r^ and of the Rape of HcUn, \ 

The library so richly endowed naturally became a centre of 
Greek learning. * Whoever ^ ', says De Ferrariis, * wished to work 
It Greek literature, was given teachers, lodgings, and the greater 
ptrt of his board without any payment/ More than this, it was 
a lending library for students in the district. The Turin MS is 
ftiU of notes which mention that MSS have been lent to vmrioi» 
strangers. These notes have been collated by P. Cooza Lttti. 
who gave his translatioQ to Mgr. BatiffoL It is to be knad m 
the latter's LAUmft tk Rdssmnf, p. 125* Such is the higHary of 
tha foundation of the library of S. Nicholas of Casob, ux^ of tbe 
days of its (prosperity. 

TIm history of the library of S. Mary of Patira b staSSar^hm, 
loempt for its Ibwidatioa less well pceserved. It was fondod h^ 
BaitlMloflMW^ lopsllier with the mooastery, for, 
Hm omits bad MA a sMffidency of MSS of the 

to CoBstandaofile aod aaade a ooQectios oC MSS 

It » pcfbaps not too kazardoas to goess thift be 

Ibe piwpfe aad sQ^cr ihmhii liiii of tbe Goapds k 


as 2, one of a group of MSS of the sixth century which includes 
also N, N„ *, and is generally held to come from Constantinople *. 
This is all that is known of the foundation of this monastery, and 
we have no knowledge of its further history until the time of its 
dispersal in the sixteenth century. It may have been — probably 
it was — a centre of learning for the r^ion of Sila, as S. Nicholas 
of Casola was for the district of Otranto and the heel of Italy 
generally, but there is no evidence of the fact, nor have we until 
a late period any knowledge of its contents. 

This information about the foundation of the Greek libraries 
of South Italy is not very great (and it only concerns two monas- 
teries) ; but it is sufficient to enable us to lay down the general 
proposition that their foundation was due partly to the multiplica- 
tion of manuscripts by native scribes, and partly to the importa- 
tion of MSS from other parts of the Levant, especially perhaps 
from Constantinople. 

It is a possible conjecture that the latter cause operated 
especially in the case of the monasteries dealt with above, and 
perhaps this is supported by the fact, which is shewn in the next 
section, that the scribes of Rossano and Casola used to copy the 
style of the Constantinopolitan writers rather than the school of 
calligraphy already existing in South Italy. 

(a) The Handwriting employed in the various Scriptoria, 
I have already mentioned that Nilus and his friends adopted 
a style of handwriting which was influenced by the Lombardic 
or Beneventine type of Latin manuscripts. It would be natural 
to expect that this type of handwriting should be found in the 
manuscripts written in the Basilian monasteries of South Italy 
in the following centuries. This expectation is partly fulfilled, 
partly falsified. 

It IS fulfilled in the case of MSS which come from monasteries 
which were not under the direct influence of Bartholomew and 
his friends ; it is largely falsified in the case of MSS which come 
from the libraries which he founded. 

Mgr. Batiffol ^ is the chief source of information on this point, 

' See Codex Purpureas Petropolitanus by A. £. Cronin in Ttxts and Siudita^ 
a paper on Codex Rossanensis (Z) in Studia BiblicOy and a note on N, (Par. Gr. 
Su|^L 1386) in NoHcts tt Extraits Tom. xxxvi by M. Omont 

* VAbbaytde Rossano p. 93 ff. 


though he does not point out the importance of the facts wl 
he gives. 

He quotes twenty-three MSS of the Norman period. Of 
these he finds the Greco-Lombard or, if I may so call it, the 
hand of the school of Nilus, in Cod. Vat. Gr. 5008, and in Cod. 
NeapoL II c. 7, which were written at S. John the Reaper, of 
Stilo, in 1102 and 1159 respectively ; also in Cod. Vat. Gr. 2029, 
which was written at S. Elias of Carbo in 1083 (and there are 
traces, though less obvious, of the same type in Cod, Crypt. 
A. B. 10, written by Euthymius at Carbo in 1131); also La 
Cod. Vat. Gr. 1221, which was written in 1154 for the Abbot 
of S. Mary de Carra (KepaTtav) near Stilo. That is to say, at 
Carbo, at Stilo, and at S. Mary's de Carra near Stilo we have the 
calligraphy of the school of Nilus; but in the other monasteries, 
S. Mary's of Patira, its sister foundation S. Salvator of Messina, 
at S. Nicolas of Casola, and at S. Peter's of Arena, this type 
of handwriting does not make its appearance. Instead of it we 
have an imitation of the ordinary Constant! nopolitan hand and 
style of ornamentation. This is surely to be attributed to the 
influence of the importations by Bartholomew and probably 
Nicholas, which set the fashion to the scribes. 

Such a theory b, of course, at present only a speculation ; but 
it seems to be that which is naturally suggested by the facts. 
If it be supported by future investigation it is not without 
importance, for there are many MSS of the twelfth century 
written in the hand of the school of Nilus which are without 
any notes fixing their provenance. If we could say with certainty 
that these manuscripts come from Carbo, or Stilo, or some smaller 
house dependent on them, the gain to our knowledge would be 
considerable. It wouldj for instance, be a most valuable factor 
in determining the provenance of the Ferrar group, all of which 
are written in this style of hand, except Cod. 69, which is later 
than the others'. 

Whether it will ever be possible to distingtjish from Byzantine 
copies the MSS written in imitation of the Constantinopolitan 
hand, is a more doubtful question. In some cases probably it 
will be ; for the scribe is clearly copying a type of MS which 

» Codd. Ev»n. 13, 134, 69, 346, 543, 788, 8a^, 828. v. L'Abb* Martin ^na^v 
ivtss. imftorianiSt and Rendel Hairis Research^ into tkt Origm o/tk* Femr Crotp, 




is not his own, and writes much worse than the true Byzantine. 
For instance, no one could possibly mistake Cod. Laur. Athous 
IQ4 for a B3rzantine MS, even if the pictures in it did not betray 
It ^ ; yet it would be hard to mention any single detail in which it 
difTers from a MS from Constantinople. On the other hand, 
I have seen many MSS at Messina and in the Basilian collection 
in the Vatican which it would be impossible to surpass for 
elegance and beauty. Are these all importations? At present 
it is impossible to say, but there seems to be no reason why the 
question should remain permanently unanswerable. 

(3) Tke History of the Dispersal of the Libraries, There 
is little doubt that for many years before the dispersal of the 
libraries there was a continual small waste of manuscripts, 
which were sold to collectors for inadequate sums, much as 
manuscripts on Mount Athos or Mount Sinai were sold (if they 
were even sold!) to Curzon and Tischendorf; but this is a pro- 
cess which it is almost impossible to trace, except by some lucky 
accident. The dispersals of MSS which are important, and which 
one ought to be able to trace, are those which are made en bloc^ 
or in considerable numbers at a time. 

The first person who seems to have recognized that it would 
be well to acquire and remove the libraries in South Italy was 
Cardinal Bessarion. 

According to Valentinelli,the historian of the BibliotecaMarciana 
at Venice, he acquired almost the whole of the library of 
S. Nicholas of Casola about the year 1460, and made it the 
nucleus of the magnificent collection of Greek MSS which he 
left to S. Mark's. The remainder of the library of S. Nicholas 
was destroyed by the Turks in 1481, when they sacked the 
monastery. The whole therefore of the library of S. Nicholas, 
80 far as it exists at all, is still to be found at S. Mark's, for 
the Marciana has never been dispersed. At the same time it 
must be remembered that in the sixteenth century the library of 
S. Mark's was very carelessly managed, and many of Bessarion's 
MSS disappeared. A threat of excommunication obtained the 
restitution of many of them, but some, no doubt, of the volumes 
were never returned, and must be sought for in other libraries. 
An account of the matter and its connexion with Mendoza is 

' Cod Evmn. 1071, v. /. T, S, vol. i no. 3. Tht Italian origin ofCodix BeMU. 
VOL. V. O 


to be found in Ch, Graux's Essai sur les origines dufandsgr^ 

de lEscuriai^, p. 183. 

The reconstruction of the catalogue of the library of S. Nicholas 
has never been seriously attempted ; but I see no reason why it 
should not be made with, at least, the same degree of partial 
success that has attended Mgr. Batiflfors efforts in the case of 
the library of S. Mary of Patira at Rossano. J 

It would be necessary first to make a list '^ of all the books ■ 
mentioned in the Turin MS, and then to examine Bcssarion's MSS 
at Venice. I cannot believe that there are no notes in any of 
the Casola MSS which would betray their origin. A library 
which was used for working in must have had some system 
of numeration, and this has surely left some traces behind. Even 
if the name of the monastery were not found, the task would 
not be necessarily hopeless. For instance, there is only one 
vellum ^ MS of Aristophanes in the Bessarion collection. It 
is an obvious conjecture to suggest that this is the Aristophanes 
which was at S. Nicholas of Casola. Once a start was made in 
this way, it would be possible to do more ; identity of hand- 
writing, peculfarities of numbering and arrangement of quaternions, 
and many apparently insignificant details, would soon begin to 
assume importance and intelligibility. 

Such work has been done with some success for the Laudian 
collection of Latin MSS in the Bodleian Library ; why could it 
not be done for the Bessarion MSS from S. Nicholas of Casola 
in the Biblioteca Marciana? 

In the fifteenth century, then, the library of S. Nicholas of 
Casola was taken to Venice, and must be looked for in the 
Biblioteca Marciana. 

The other libraries of South Italy waited until the seventeenth 
century before they were bodily removed to more cultivated 
surroundings ; but during the intervening period, they were 
gradually being dissipated and absorbed into other collections. 
It was the time when various great libraries were being founded. 
Lorenzo the Magnificent, the King of France, Cardinal Sirleto, 

* Bihlioihiqiu dt VEcol* da Hauies Eludts fasc 46. 

' I am not sure whether the list given in UAbbayt d* RossaPto p. 125 f is 
exhaustive ; I believe that it is not 

^ Recently published by the HcUeoic Society, with an introduction by Mr. T. W. 


toi^o de Mendoza, Paez de Castro, and others, were collectii^ 
MSS. The last-named has left an interesting account, written 
a,bout 1560, of the way in which the collections were made ^ : — 

'Tres pla9as principales ay en Italia, de donde han salida 
muchas librerias, assi la del Rey de Francia como de otros, que 
son Roma, Venezia y Florencia. De Levante se traian mui 
buenos libros mui escogidos en poco tiempo. En los reynos 
de Sicilia y Calabria ay muchas abadias y monasterios que 
traian copia grande de libros griegos y no se aprovechan 
d'ellos, antes se pierden por mal tratamiento y se roban de 
personas particulares. Yo vi, estando en Roma, que los mesmos 
-Abades y Archimandritas traian muchos libros a presentar a 
Cardenales y otros a vender/ 

It is impossible to do more than collect a few scattered traces 

of this process of collection from the South Italian libraries ; but 

these few are enough to shew to what an extent the libraries 

of Europe, especially of Italy and Spain, have been indebted to 

Calabria and the adjoining districts. 

Perhaps the earliest account which we have is the story of 
Janos Lascaris, who was employed by Lorenzo the Magnificent 
to collect manuscripts for the Medicean library at Florence. 

Lascaris was a follower of Bessarion who entered the service 
of Lorenzo at the Cardinal's death in 1472. He was brought 
to Rome by Leo X in 151 3, and in 151 8 went to Paris, where 
he assisted in the organization of the library at Fontainebleau, 
being appointed Maitre de la Librairie. In 1534 he returned to 
Rome, to the service of Paul III, and died in 1535. He used 
to make journeys to Calabria, Sicily, and Greece in search of MSS ; 
and by great good fortune a partial account of one of these 
journeys is preserved in Cod. Vat. Gr. 141a. This has been 
published in 1884 by K. K. Miiller in the Ceniralblatt fur 
Bibliothekswesen p. '^'^i ff. It gives us an account of a journey 
made on behalf of Lorenzo, during which he went to Corfu, 
Thessalonica, Constantinople, Mount Athos, and South Italy * ; 
and he mentions that in Apulia he obtained MSS of Scholia 
on the division of the Staseis (long lections of the Psalms and 
Gospels), ancient Scholia on certain tragedies of Euripides^ 
on Hermes Trismegistos, and fourteen others. 

' Lt funds grte dt rEscurial 1^. 38. ' Op, cit, p. 40a. 

O 2 


In Congliano^ he obtained frofn the priest George copies ol 
the Mc^um Etymologicum, of the writings of Nicholas of Otranto, 
of Coluthus's Rape of Hikn, of Tniphi'dorus's Sack of Trey, and 
three others ; while at Monte Sardo, a dependency of S, Nicholas 
of Casola, which was no doobt impoverished by the loss of the 
great abbey, recently destroyed by the Turks^ he obtained eight 
MSS, including copies of Aratus and Aristotle. J 

This collecting work of Lascaris for Lorenzo is no doubt 
t3^ical of many other journeys by himself and by others ; and 
Paez de Castro*, in the memorial quoted above, urges Philip II 
of Spain to send agents to Italy to exchange Latin printed books 
for Greek MSS, a transaction, he says, which would be good for 
all parties, and a great saving of money. He does not say 
anything about exchanging Latin MSS ; but one cannot help 
thinking that it was in this way that Cod. C of the Vulgate, 
which was written in Spain, came to La Cava, though it is so 
beautiful a copy that one is afraid to press the suggestion that 
any collector would give it in exchange. 

Probably Paez de Castro was not speaking without the know* I 
ledge that a Spanish collector had already done what he advised. 

The earliest source of the Escurial library is the collectioa 
of Gonzalo Perez, which was acquired by the king. Ajitonio 
Perez °* in a letter to a friend, says that this collection was partly 
inherited from the Duke of Calabria who died at Valencia : . . , 
' Otra parte era de libros de mano griegos muy antiguos que mi 
padre fu^ recogiendo en su vida y en e! curso de su fortuna de 
abadias de Sicilia y de otras partes de Grecia.' ■ 

M. Ch. Graux has been unable to reconstruct the library of 1 
Gonzalo Perez, but he points out six MSS in the Escurial which 
probably belonged to it *, of which one (11 III 4) comes from 
Messina, and was written by a native of KaorAXou, which is more 
probably a Sicilian or Calabrian village than Castile (as M. Graux I 
suggests), and another (<I> I i) at least came to Spain from a 
Calabrian library- It is a MS of the eleventh or twelfth century, 
and has a note in Latin of the thirteenth or fourteenth century 
which mentions an abbot *de Calabra', M. Graux thinks that 
this is a mistake for de Calabria. I suggest that it is a village 

» Op, cU. p. 403. 
* ibid, p, 34, note 1. 

* Ltfondi grtc de t Escurial p. i8, 

* ibid. p. 38. 



named Cakbra in the Basilicata, which is oflen meationed in the 
charters of S. Elias of Carbo. 

These are the only MSS which M. Graux notices as certainly 
drawn from the libraries of South Italy. There can be little 
doubt that an examination of the Escurial with attention to 
palaeography, and especially to the peculiarities of the School 
of Nilus, would add to the number. 

The work of collecting MSS from South Italy also went on 
in Venice. The great collectors here were the Dandolos, The 
X)andolos were the hereditary 'proxeni '^ of the French ambas- 
sador, and were famous for their wealth, influence, and culture, 
Marco appears to have begun the foundation of a library of Greek 
MSS, and Matteo greatly enriched it. One would have expected 
this library to contain MSS from South Italy; and although 
M, Graux does not mention any, it is almost certain that this 
expectation is not falsified by facts, for both the MSS of the 
Gospels, which were numbered 79 and 89 (or 80) in his catalogue, 
now numbered ^ m, 5 and T 11, 8^ in the EscuriaJ, contained 
the curious stichometrical reckoning known as pif^ara, which so 
far as is known is not found except in South Italian MSS. It 
is found in twenty-three MSS, of which thirteen are in the hand 
of the School of Nilus, while the rest, so far as they have been 
examined, are of doubtful type, but cannot be said to be not 
South Italian, This gives, in the absence of more definite infor- 
mation, considerable support to the probability that the Dandolos 
drew on the libraries of South Italy for their collection of Greek 

One would have expected the Dandolo library to be in S. Mark's* 
But it is not. At some unknown date it was purchased for the 
Escurial, where it still is. M. Graux has reconstructed it, on 
p. 109 of his book. 

In this way MSS from South Italy were taken to the Escurial, 
to Florence, and to Venice. As one would naturally expect, 
they were also brought to Rome^. Cardinal Sirleto in 1561 

* Lt fonda grtc dt tEscuriai p. 135, 

' There is some mystery about this MS. M. Graux says it is Dan dole's 89 
and that 80 is lost ; but Moldenhauerj who collated parts of it, says it is 80. Again, 
11. Graux says that it is thirteenth ceotury aad contains the writings of Basil, Is it 
potsible that there arc two MSS Durabcrcd V, ji 8? 

« BatiSbl La VaiicaH4 d* Paul III tt Paul V^ and LAbboy* dt RossaHO p. 40. 


obtained a catalogue of the MSS at S, Mary's of Patira (now unfor- 
tunately lost)j and as he was then the Protector of the Basiliaoi 
monks he had no difficulty in bringing or taking any volunti^ 
which he wanted. For instance, in 1583 he mentions that there 
is at S. Mary's of Patira a copy of Hippolytus's tract against 
Noetus the heretic ^ Three years later this MS was in SirIeto*« 
possession, and is now in the Vatican (Cod. 143 1). 

Gradually the cardinal obtained a fine collection *. He em- 
ployed agents all over the Levant, and even supplied them with 
lists of MSS which he desired to possess. He was not the only 
collector in Rome whose collection can still be roughly traced ; 
but before going on to consider another eminent bibliophile it will 
be well to trace the outlines of the history of Sirleto s collection \ 

At his death Philip H wished to boy his library en bioc for 
the Escurial, just as he bought the collection of Gonzalo PereZj^ 
and his offer (289 crowns for ninety-one MSS) is preserved m 
Cod. Barber, xxxiv, 107 ; but the transaction was prevented by 
the Vatican librarian Cardinal Carafa, who bought thirty-five 
selected MSS. These are all marked ' Emptum ex Hbris Car^ 
dtnalis Sirleti*, and two at least come from S. Mary's of Patira*: 
(i) Cod. Vat. Gr. 1451, a collection of canons, made according 
to Mai by a Monophysite^ and containing the tract of Hippolytus 
against Noetus. This is a MS of the twelfth century. (2) Cod. 
Vat. Gr, 1456, a palimpsest of the tenth century, containing the 
Onomastkon of Eusebius. \ 

The rest of the library was bought in 1588 by Cardinal Colonna 
for 14,000 crowns. At his death a lawsuit led to the sale of his 
library, which was bought by Duke Altemps in 1611 for 13,000 
crowns, but lOO MSS were given by him to Pope Paul V. ■ 

Fifty years later the Altemps family began to sell the library, 
and many MSS were bought by Mabillon for the library of 
Louis XIV. I do not know whether these MSS have beeiij 
traced ; they may perhaps be identified, among other things, by 
the binding, boards of cypress wood stamped with the arms of 
the Altemps, a golden stag on a red field, surmounted by a* 
crowned helmet. 

In 1689 Pope Alexander VIII purchased the remainder of the, 

La Vuiicant p. 54. 
*6*rf. p. 5 a fll 

» U>id, p. 38 f. 
* ibid, p, 53 f. 


collection and placed it in the palace of the Ottoboni, where it 
remained until 1740^ when Benedict XIV bought the whole of 
the Ottobonian library. 

Thus, after so many changes of ownership, the Sirleto MSS 
came into the Vatican library and joined the thirty-five selected 
MSS which had been already brought there by Cardinal Carafa. 
We may therefore expect to find a considerable number of South 
Italian MSS among the Ottobonian MSS * in the Vatican. 

To return to the sixteenth century: when Cardinal Sirleto* 
was the General of the Basilian Order, his friend. Cardinal Alex- 
ander Farnese, was the commendatory abbot of Grotta Ferrata. 
Like Sirleto he was an ardent Hellenist, and he set to work to 
replenish the library of his monastery. 

It is probable that the original library of Grotta Ferrata had 
almost disappeared by the fifteenth century. In 1432 a certain 
Ambrose ^ says that he visited it and found the books in it * dis- 
sipata, disrupta, conscissa, putrida, ut miserabilem omnem faciem 
praeferrent *. 

Bessarion, who was commendatory abbot in 1462, seems to 
have improved matters, and given it many MSS ; and according 
to the catalogue of that year, published by Mgr. BatifTol *, the 
library now numbered 133 MSS, of which twenty probably 
belonged to the original collection and about fifty were service- 
books. Alexander Farnese still further added to the library, and 
had a new catalogue made. It was practically the second collec- 
tion of Grotta Ferrata. But we must not look for it now in its 
old home. Probably in the days of Pius V, or at least before 
1626, the whole collection of literary MSS, together with the 
catalogue made in 1575, was moved to the Vatican, where it 
forms a little group of MSS known as Codices Cryptenses — not 
to be confounded with the Codices Cryptenses of Dom Rocchi*s 
catalogue of the present library of Grotta Ferrata. Here, then, 
is another source from which we may pick out South Italian 
MSS. It is the last of what may be called the private collections 
which drew upon the South Italian libraries. 

Bessarion, Gonzalo de Perez, Lascaris, Dandolo, Sirleto, 

^ Mgr. Batiflbl has found at least two, Ottob. 178 and Ottob. 210. 

' VAbb€^ de Rassano p. 40. * La VoHctmi p. 105. 

* LAbbayt de Rassano p. 118. 


Mabillon, Alexander Farnese, these are the chief collectors whose 
work may perhaps be retraced ; but there were doubtless many 
others, and by their means it has come to pass that South Italian 
MSS are to be found all over Europe- 

But at the end of the seventeenth century a new and final stage 
in the dispersal of the libraries was reached, and the whole of the 
remaining MSS were overhauled and made into four great collec- 

This was the work of Pietro Menniti ^ He was elected General 
of the Basilians in 1796, and at once began his work. 

He first desired to form a Codex Diplontaticus of the Basilian 
Order, and though he did not succeed in doing this he has left 
a mass of material in the Dossier Basiliani in the archives of the 
Vatican, which is unedited, but has been extensively used by 
Mgr. Batiffol. 

In pursuit of his plan he collected all the bulls and charters of 
South Italy and Sicily into the libraries of S, Basil in Urbe (a 
foundation of the seventeenth century) in Rome, and S, Salvator's 
at Messina. He then turned to MSS, as distinguished from 
charters. These he dealt with under two heads: (i) Liturgical 
books, (2) Literary books. Those, of both classes, which he 
found in Sicily, were collected into the libraries of S. Salvator 
and S, Pietro d'ltala. Those which he found in Italy were placed 
either at Grotta Ferrata or in S. Basil in Urbe. The former 
library received the liturgical works, the latter the literary ones. 

There are two questions which are important with regard to 
these collections of South Italian MSS :— 

(1) From what monasteries are they drawn? 

(2) Where are they to be found now ? 

The first question is answered by Mgr. Batiffol in his 
L'Abbaye de Rossano. He finds that the bulk of the MSS come 
from S. Mary of Patira and S. Elias of Carbo ; that there are a 
few taken from S. John the Reaper of Stilo, S. Adrian, S* Pietro 
d'Arena, and S. Bartholomew of Trigona ; the remaining monas- 
teries probably had none to supply, and cannot be shewn to have 
supplied any. 

The second question may be answered shortly. The MSS 
which were sent to Grotta Ferrata are still there — the third 

^ UAbbayt de Rossano p, 41 ^. 


^il)rary which the monastery has possessed ; for the first almost 

disappeared and the second was taken to Rome before 1623, 

^ind is now the Codices Cryptenses in the Vatican library. The 

AISS taken to S. Basil in Urbe were obtained in 1780 (Mgr. 

'Batiffol thinks by purchase) by Pope Pius VI, and placed in the 

Vatican, where they are catalogued as Codices Basiliani. 

Such are the outlines of the history of the libraries of the 
Basilian monasteries in South Italy. 

The question which is of most interest to scholars is, whether it 
is possible to do anything towards reconstructing the old libraries ? 

I cannot believe that this is at all outside the bounds of possi- 
bilities. The truth is that our knowledge of Greek minuscule 
hands is not great, and the attention which has been given to the 
history of old libraries has been often confined to Latin MSS. 

Roughly speaking, there are two criteria in attempting to 
reconstruct old libraries, which may be employed in the absence 
of definite information : — 

(i) The character of the calligraphy. 

(a) Indications o( provenance in MSS. 

Much is to be hoped from the study of characteristic South 
Italian hands. It is extremely easy to recognize the hand of the 
School of Nilus, and this is in itself enough for a beginning. 

Mgr. Batiffol has established its characteristic nature, though 
I think he was wrong in connecting it with Capua ; but he only 
noted it in MSS of which he could trace th^ provenance by some 
other means. Considering his purpose, that was both right and 
natural ; but the process can now be reversed, and instead of using 
the provenance to define the calligraphy of a district, we can use 
the calligraphy to determine t\ic provenance. In this way, a more 
or less complete list might be made of all the South Italian MSS 
in European libraries. It would perhaps be especially easy in 
the Escurial, where we have the researches of M. Graux to help us. 

I am sanguine enough to believe that the mere possession of 
this list would not exhaust the gain to our knowledge of Greek 
palaeography. It is sometimes said that two Greek minuscules 
of the same age are far more like each other than two Latin MSS. 

There is some truth in this, but to a great extent it is based 
on ignorance. It is as easy to tell a Greek MS of the School of 
Nilus as it is to tell a Latin MS by an Irish scribe ; yet twenty 


years ago nobody could do the former, while there must hal 
been hundreds of scholars who could tell Irish MSS when they 
saw them. 

Greek palaeography has fallen behind Latin, and in some 
respects we have even lost knowledge once possessed. 

For instance, there was, it is said, a Greek school for scribes 
at Nardo, in the heel of Italy, whose work, known as literae 
NeritijiLU, was described as superior to print ' : * Sunt enim hae 
literae perpulcrae et castigatae et iis quibus nunc utuntur impres- 
sores Orientalibus ad Icgendum aptiorcs,' says de Ferrariis. 
I have tried in vain to find any one who knows what this hand is. ■ 
A well-known German scholar recently described a MS as written \ 
in literae Neritinae ; but when he was asked to give his reasons, 
it appeared that he had conceived literae Neritinae out of his 
inner consciousness of what de Ferrariis had meant I 

I cannot resist the belief that there is still much to be done in 
the identification of local Greek hands, even though we may never 
be able to attain the degree of certainty which is possessed by 
Latin scholars ; and certainly one of the ways by which this 
knowledge may be attained is by studying the MSS which come 
from the old Basilian foundations of South Italy. 

The criterion furnished by signs o{ provenance h^s been already 
used by Mgr, Batiflfol- to reconstruct the library of S* Mary's 
of Patira, and the same scholar has given us some invaluable 
material for continuing the task which he has begun, in the cata- 
logues %vhich he has found of the libraries of S. Elias of Carbo 
and S. Peter's of Arena. 

It ought to be possible, by using these documents and the facts 
which are given above as to the history of the collections which 
drew on the libraries of South Italy, both to reconstruct several 
small collections which are now merged in the great Euroj>can 
libraries, and to find in them the remains of the once famous 
libraries of the Basilian houses* As I said before^ this would 
be a task which would grow easier as it advanced ; press marks 
and other details would become intelligible, and would help to i 
write what would surely be an interesting chapter in the history 
of Greek libraries* 

K. Lake. 

' Di Situ lopygiae p. 35. 

* L^Abhay* de Rossatto, 



In Palestine, in early times, the Pentateuch was read through 
consecutively in a cycle of three years, a portion {seder) being 
appointed for each Sabbath {T, B, Meg. 29^ See article by 
Dr. A. Biichler in Jewish Quarterly Review Ap. 1893). This 
triennial cycle may possibly have arisen from the fact that the 

Table I. 

lunar months would require an intercalated month once every 
three years to reconcile them with the solar year. 

We will assume, with Dr. Biichler, that the cycle commenced 
in the first month {Nisan) ; it may then be indicated by three 
concentric circles, as in the accompanying diagram, in which 


a sufficient number of the Sabbath-readings are given to shew 
the arrangement of the whole. 

Thus^ — the first year read Gen. i-Ex. xi. 

the second year read Ex. xii-Num. vi 21. 
the third year read Num. vi aa-Deut xxxiv. 

The way in which* the triennial cycle coincides with tradition 
is most suggestive. A few instances may suffice. Thus : — 

The first months Nisan, Here the first year opened with Gen. i, 
the Creation of the World ; accordingly we find {Rosk Hash, lo**) 
that the world was created on the Jst of Ntsan. The Sabbath 
nearest to the Passover read the Sacrifice of Cain and Abel 
(Gen. iv), which in Jewish tradition (Pirke R, Eliezer) is associated 
with the Passover. 

The reading for Nisan in the second year of the cycle was Ex. 
xii-xv, i.e. the histitution of the Passover and the Song of Moses \ 
accordingly we find, in the Mechilta on Ex. xiii,that the passage 
through the Red Sea took place on 7th of Nisan. 

The third year of the triennial cycle, for Nisan read Num. vi 
22 fl", i.e. the Priestly Blessings also the Offerings of the Princes 
at the Dedication of the Tabernacle (Num. vii), and a second Insti- 
tution of the Passover in the Wilderness (Num. ix 1-14). This 
last reading is most interesting, especially as it would seem to be 
a later addition to the Priest-code. 

If we study the context we shall see that the writer, P', goes 
back to X\iz first month. Thus : — 

'And YHVH spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in 
the first month of the second year after they were come out from 
the land of Egypt, saying, Moreover, let the children of Israel 
keep the passover in its appointed season,' &c. Thus he inter- 
rupts his story, which had begun with the second month (Num. i 
with vii I , see critical commentaries), in order to insert a passage 
about the Passover in Nisan. We begin to suspect that the 
arrangement of the documents in the Pentateuch was not alto- 
gether uninfluenced by the Calendar. 

We now pass to the second month. 

The second tnonth, lyar, P. tells us (Gen. vii 11) that, 'in the 
second month, on the seventeenth day of tlie month, on this same 
day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up* Whence 
did P. derive this precise date? 






Is it a mere coincidence that Gen. vll 1 1 is read in the triennial 
cycle about the seventeenth day of the second month ? As on 
the second 'day' the waters were divided from the waters for man's 
^ood, so in the second month the waters are mingled with the 
"waters for man's destruction. 

TA€ third month, Sivan. The Feast of Pentecost usually 
occurs on the sixth of this month* In the first year of the cycle 
the readings from Genesis would have reached chap, xi, i.e. the 
Story of Babel and the Confusitm of Tongttes^ at the season of 
Pentecost, Now it is certain that the writer of Acts ii associated 
the Confusion of Tongues with the Day of Pentecost, tlie Gift 
of the Spirit being a reversal of the curse of Babel* Again^ we 
know that a very early Jewish tradition connected the Giving of 
the Law with the Feast of Pentecost. The origin of this tradition 
is not to be found in the Old Testament, but, if we turn to the 
triennial cycle, we see that in the second year of that cycle 
the Decalogue (Ex. xx) was the Sabbath-reading for Pentecost 
According to the present arrangement of the Pentateuch the 
Decalogue was written twice, each occasion being marked by 
a Theophany. On the first occasion Moses is forty days in the 
mount ; then comes the sin of the Golden Calf, the breaking 
of the Tables followed by a second period of forty days, after 
which Tables are rewritten (Ex. xxxiv). Thus, assuming that 
the Law was given on Pentecost (6th of Sivan), we should expect 
to find a second Giving of the Law eighty days later, i. e* on 
29th of Ab, This expectation is fuily borne out. Dr. Buchler 
says: * We are able to assign Ex, xxxiv as the reading on the last 
Sabbath of the month Ab, with which opinion tradition is in 
accord (Seder Oiam vi), inasmuch as it informs us that Moses 
went up Mount Sinai with the tablets of stone on the 29th of Ab, 
which occurrence is related in Ex. xxxiv/ If this chapter be 
studied it will be found to contain the elements of a second 
Decalogue by J . , originally independent of the Decalogue by E. in 
Ex, XX, Thus the agth of Ab practically marks a second * Giving 
of the Law', and we may note the fact that, in the third year of 
the cycle, Deuteronomy began on this day. If we divide the 
interval between Pentecost and 29th Ab into two equal periods 
of forty days each we arrive at 17th Tammuz as the date for the 
sin of the Golden Calf (Ex. xxxii). Now this exactly agrees 


with Jewish tradition. * The fast of the fourth fmnth took plac5e 
on the 17th of Tammuz. , . , To this tradition adds, that it was 
also the anniversary of making the golden calf, and of Moses break- 
ing the Tables of the Law ' (Edcrsheim, The Temple, p. 297). 

Every Old Testament scholar know^s that the duplicate stories 
of the Giving of the Law by E. and J. involve a great critical 
difficulty. I suggest that the Jehovist records originated with 
a race that began its year at the Summer Solstice, while the 
Elohist records dated their year from the Vernal Equinox. 
Thus the 29th Ab would, in the Jehovist year, have been two 
months after the Solstice, exactly as Pentecost was, in the Elohist 
year, two months after the Vernal Equinox, In other words each 
system would have had a similar Festival at the end of its second 
month. When P. came to arrange these records in the form in 
which they have come down to us, he found these two traditions 
located in their respective months, and was therefore obliged to 
make two events out of what was originally one. 

I merely give this as an example of the way in which a study of 
the Calendar would throw light upon the criticism of the Penta- 
teuch. Perhaps on this subject I may be allowed to refer to 
my Letter to Old Testament Critics (Deighton, Bcli & Co.), 

We now turn to 

The Sixth Month, EluL The ist of Elul was, for some 
purposes, reckoned as a New Year's Day (Mishna, Rosk Hash. I i). 
Thus we are led to compare it with the ist of Tishri (Rosh 
Hashana) when, as we shall see, the Decalogue was again read. 

In Elul in the second year of the cycle, the closing chapters of 
Exodus were read, in which P. describes the Dedication of the 
Tabernacle. To this we shall have occasion to return. 

The Sei>enth Months Tishri, This month opened with Rosh 
Hashana^ or ' New Year's Day*. The Seder for this day, in the 
first year of the cycle {see Biichler), was Gen. xxx %% flfj which re- 
cords the birth o{ Joseph, and derives the name from the root Asaph 
(f|DK). To this I shall again have occasion to return when I speak of 
the position oi\h^ Asaph Psalms in the triennial cycle of the Psalter. 

Dr. Biichler calls attention to the fact that, in the Mid rash, 
the 1st of Tishri is given as the birthday of Joseph. The tradition 
arose from the reading of this passage in the triennial cycle. 

The second year of the cycle read, for this day, Lev, iv with the 


thought of Atonement for Priests and People (cf. Ezek. xlv 18, ao 
Heb.), while the third year read Deut. v, containing the Deutero- 
nomic version of the Decalogue. Biichler tells us that there was 
a practice (assigned to Ezra, T, B. Meg, 31 **) of reading the curses 
at Pentecost and Rosh Hashana with the Decalogue. So too we 
find that the section Deut. v-xi, which is complete in itself, 
begins with the Decalogue and ends with the Blessings and the 
Curses. The Samaritans had also the custom of reading the 
Decalogue on Pentecost and Rosh Hashana (Petermann, Reise 
im Orienty p. 390, quoted by Biichler). Thus the custom dates 
from very early times. I shall have occasion to return to this 
point when I speak of the triennial cycle of the Psalter and the 
Psalms of Imprecation. We now return to the study of Table I. 
It is important to observe that the Book of Genesis ended (with 
the death of Jacob and Joseph) on the first Sabbath in Shebat 
^the eleventh month), and that the Book of Leviticus also ended 
on this same Sabbath. As to the end of Deuteronomy there are 
two traditions, preserved in the Mechilta to Exod. xvi 35 ; 
R. Joshua asserts that Moses died on the 7th of Adar^ while 
R. Eliezer places the death of Moses on the 7th of Shebat 
(Biichler). In other words, the chapter of Deuteronomy which 
records the death of Moses was read either on the first Sabbath 
of Adar^ or on the first Sabbath of Shebat. I have no doubt 
but that the date given by R. Eliezer, i. e. 7th of Shebat, is the 
more correct, since it agrees with the death of Jacob and Joseph. 
If this be so we note that the first, third, and fifth books of the 
Pentateuch ended on the same day, that day being the first 
Sabbath of the eleventh month (Shebat). It is interesting to 
note that P., or the editor of Deuteronomy, agrees with this 
tradition, for he assigns the Book of Deuteronomy to the first 
of the eleventh months ^ And it came to pass in the fortieth year^ 
in tlie eleventh months on the first day of the months that Moses 
spake unto the children of Israel* (Deut. i 3). The Song of 
Moses and Death of Moses are evidently placed on the same 
day (cf. Deut. xxxi 22, xxxii 48 ff. (P.)): indeed the Book of 
Deuteronomy is but the episode of a day between Num. xxvii 
ia-15 and Deut. xxxii 48 ff. The Appendix containing the 
Song of Moses and the Blessing of Moses would supply Sabbath- 
readings for the remaining Sabbaths in Shebat and Adar, 


There were four additional Sabbath-readings for the twelfth 
month, consisting of special lessons which were not in the order 
of the Sedarim, These were (i) S/ukalim (see Exod. xxx ii); 
(0) Zakovy \, e. ' Remember Amalek " (Deut. xxv. 17), chosen 
doubtless because of the season of Purim ; (iii) Para {see Num. xiv) 
and (iv) Hachodesh (Exod. xii). These may possibly have 
served the purpose of an intercalary month. We have seen that 
precise dates, e.g. for the Birth of Joseph, the Death of Moses, 
the Giving of the Law, the Sin of the Golden Calf, &c., were 
evolved by the Scribes from the cycle of Sabbath-readings; 
may we go back still further and suggest that the precise dates 
which are so characteristic of the Priest-code were evolved in 
a manner not wholly unlike, in so far as they were influenced 
by the Calendar? We cannot now discuss this question, since 
our object is to determine the influence of the Calendar not upon 
the Pentateuch but upon the Psalter. Before we leave Table I 
we must call attention to a fact noted by Buchler, viz. 'that 
the first Book of the Pentateuch commenced on the ist of Nisan, 
the fifth on the ist of EIul, the third on the ist of Tishri, the 
second and fourth on the 15th of Shebat, thus corresponding 
to the four dates given in the Mishna {Rosh Hash, x i), as first 
days of the year for various subordinate purposes, c. g. the tithing 
of animals and fruit,* 

We now proceed to arrange the Psalter for a triennial cycle of 
147-50 Sabbaths (Table II). 

In examining this plan we are at once struck by the fact that 
the first and third Books of the Psalter end in Shedat. exactly as 
the first and third Books of the Pentateuch end in Shebat, We 
also note that the secoftd Book of the Psalter ends (Ps. Ixxii) at 
the close of EluL exactly as the second Book of the Pentateuch ends 
at the close of EluL The benediction at the end of this second 
book attains a new meaning if we read it in connexion with the 
closing words of Exodus and the closing year. The prayer 
^ May the whole earth be filled with His Glory' (Ps. Ixxii 19), 
should be compared with the words of Exod. xl 34, T/iwrf the 
Glory of YH VH filled the tabemack * ; we may also compare 
the words ' The Prayers of David ^ the son of Jesse, are tnd€d\ 
with ' So Moses ended the work' (Exod. xl 53), 

The 'Asaph' Psalms (Ixxiii-lxxxiii) would begin in the seventh 



month, 1. e. at the Feast of Astph, at the season when, in the first 
year of the cycle, Gen. xxx 22 f was read, which tells of the birth 
of Joseph^ and derives the name from the root Asaph. I have 
shewn ^ on independent grounds that the Asaph Psalms were 
connected with this season of the Asipk and with the house of 
Joseph. In the second year of the cycle Leviticus began at this 
season, and the Asaph Psalms are essentially ' Levitical ' Psalms. 

Table II. 

Again, if we observe the position of Ps. xc in the triennial cycle 
we find that it comes at the very time which tradition associated 1^ 
with the Death of Moses, I venture to think that this is the 
origin of the title which assigns this Psalm to Moses. This 
title is as follows : 

M Prayer of Moses the man of God\ which is almost identical I 

> *■ Tht Psalms in Tknt CoiUcHons* Part a pp. 
VOL. v. P 


with the heading of the Blessing of Moses (Deut. xxxiii i) 
was read at this time in the order of the Sedarim. If this be 
correct, Pss. xc-c, which form one group, ought to have points in 
common with the Song of Moses and the Bkssing of AloseSy i. e. 
with Deut. xxxii, xxxiii, which were read at the same season. 
This is abundantly borne out by the facts of the case. Thus : — 




, xxxiii I 



dwelling' place \ 

used of God 
in Ps. xci 9 

» ^7 




xxxii ^i^ ■ 



. 7 1 






24 ■ 



. 30 ■ 




xxxiii 17 S 


15 (a 



xxxii 4 1 





,♦ 33 ; xxxiii a ^ 
xxxiii 8 (cf. xxxii 51) 
xxxii 43 (Sept. text). 

If the references be studied they will abundantly prove that 
this group of Psalms has been influenced by Deut xxxii, xxxiii. 
We may also add that the mention of '^ New Song ' (Pss. xcvi i, 
xcviii i) contains an allusion to the Song of Moses as the Old 
Song, an allusion which would be very evident when they werefl 
used together at the same season in the Temple worship. 1 

Another characteristic of the group of Psalms xc-c is the 
Kingship of God on earth, * Ki^ F// is become King* (Pss. xciii i ; 
xcvi 10 ; xcix i), the only other passage which is exactly 
parallel being found in the Korah Psalm xlvii 8, This Psalm 
has many other parallels with the group. 

Compare Ps. xlvii 2 with xcvi 4 
„ 8 „ xcvi 10 

„ I „ xcviii 4 
„ „ • 6-8 „ xcviii 4'6 
„ 10 „ xcvii 9. 
Indeed the Kingship of God is characteristic of the Korah 


Psalms exactly as it is of group xc-c But if we turn to Table II 
We shall see that the Elohistic Korah Psalms xlii-xlix occupy 
exactly the same place in the first year of the cycle that the 
Psalms xc-c do m the second year, while Pss. cxliv-cl^ which 
"Urere sung in the third year of the cycle^ also speak of the ' New 
Song'' (cxliv I, cxlix i) and of the Kingship of God (cxlv i, 
cxlvi lo) ; and this too at a time when, in the order of the 
Sedarim^ the Song of Moses, which is the hats classicus for the 
Kingship of God, was recited. Can this al] be accident? 

Another group of Psalms (cxx-cxxxiv) known as the Songs 
4Df Degrees^ or the Songs of the Ascents, is, rightly or wrongly, 
associated in tradition with the Pilgrimage of the Station-men who 
iDrought up the firstfruits [biccurim) to the Temple. These first- 
fruits could not be brought before Pentecost, while the last day 
for offering them in the Temple was 25th Kislev, i. e. Hamuca. 

But, if we turn to Table II, we shall see that these Songs of 
Degrees occupy the fifteen Sabbaths from 1st Ehd to Hanucca* 
Thus, in the third year of the triennial cycle, these Psalms would 
be the Sabbath Psalms in the Temple during those very months 
in which the constant processions of pilgrims were bringing the 

Again, we have already seen that the ' Curses' were, according 
to Jewish tradition, read as a sort of Commination Service at the 
seasons of the Decalogue, 1. e, at Pentecost and Rosh Hashana. 
We have also seen that the ■29th Ab was, practically, a second 
Pentecost ; consequently, if the Psalms of Imprecation have any 
connexion with the * Curses *, w^e should expect to find them at 
these seasons. If we turn to Table II what do we find? The 
two Psalms of Imprecation quoted by St Peter (Acts i ao) 
are the 69lh and the iC9th ; of these Ps, Ixix comes immediately 
after the %'i)th Ab^ while Ps. cix comes immediately after Pente- 
cost We also note that Ps, lix, which is another Psalm of 
Imprecation, comes at the season of Pentecost, in the second 
year of the cycle ; and that Pss. Ixviii and cxix, which arc 
Psalms of the Law, both come on the Sabbath nearest to the 
29th Ab. Many other illustrations might be given ; but we will 
conclude by calling attention to a fact which all commentators 
have observed but which none have explained, viz, the striking 
similarity between the closing Psalms of Book I and the closing 

P 3 



Psalms of Book II, this similarity extending at times to practii 
Identity of several verses, e.g. Ps, xl 13-17 with Ps. Ixx 1-5; 
Ps. xli 7 f with Ps. Ixxi 10 f. 

If we study Pss, xxxv, xxxviii-xli, and also Pss. Ixix-^lxxii, 
we notice that they are not only closely related to one another 
but also that they are penitential in character, and, like Ps, xxii, 
full of references to Jeremiah. Now if we turn to Table II we 
see that Ps. xxii and abo Pss. Ixix-Ixxti came in the sixth 
month, Elul, which, coming as it did before New Year, was 
the penitential jnonth of preparation (see Dr. Schiller-Szinessy in 
The Prayer Book Interleaved, p. 257)* We also see that Pss. 
xxxviii-xli, which close Book I, came in the tenth month, i. e. at 
the close of the cycle. It will be remembered that, even in the 
days of Zechariah, there was a *^fast of the tenth month ' even as 
there was a ^ fast of the seventh month * (Zeeh, viii 19)* Indeed, as 
I have already suggested, if the Jehovist traditions were derived 
through a race which b^an its year at the Summer Solstice, 
then the month which we call the tenth would have been the 
seventh. This will account for the practical identity of the Feasts 
of Tabernacles (seventh month) and Ifantuca (tenth month)* It 
will also explain the similarity between the * Asaph ' Psalms 
(seventh month) and the ' Korah ' Psalms (tenth month). 

If we study Table II we see that, though the Jehovistic Korah 
Psalms are in their proper place at Hanucca^ the Elohistic Korah 
Psalms are removed from that feast by six (or seven) Sabbaths. 
Yet these Elohistic Korah Psalms are most closely related to 
the Jehovistic'^ ^ and undoubtedly belonged to the same Feast. 
This suggests a cycle beginning, not as the triennial cycle did in 
Nisan^ but on the second Sabbath in ShebaL In other words, we I 
are led to suspect that, just as in the triennial cycle, the Second 
and Third Collections of the Psalms began in S/te^at, so at 
a still earlier time the First Collection began in Shehat. 

If the reader will make this correction in pencil on Table II 
he will see that the forty-one Psalms of the First Collection exactly 
occupy the Sabbaths from the second Sabbath in Shehat up to 
the Sabbath before HanuccUy so that the Elohistic Korah Psalms 
(xlii-xHx) would come in their right place at Hamtcca. 

According to this arrangement Ps. xiv comes in the second 

* ' Th§ Fsalms in Thru CoiUtiions* Part a pp. x,ui, 173, 181 f, 190. 



nionth, in which we find Ps. liii, with which it is identical *. Pss. 
Xx, xxi, which are Psalms of the 'King', come in the month 
tammuz, in which we have already found Pss. Ixi, Ixiii, which are 
Psalms of the* King*. 

Ps. XXX, which has the singular title For the Dedication 
of the House, would come on the 3rd Sabbath in Elul^ on 
which day, in the order of the Sedarim (see Table I), Exod. xl 
was read, recording the Dedication of the Tabernacle* We 
may also mention the fact that Ps. xxvii, which was recited 
morning and evening throughout the month of Ehdy would come 
immediately before the opening of that month. 

Let me only remark, in conclusion, that I have no thought of 
suggesting that the Psalms were originally written for consecu- 
tive Sabbaths, but I do maintain that certain groups of Psalms 
belonged to certain definite points of the Calendar, that the 
triennial cycle was a natural developement of this earlier thought, 
and that this triennial cycle was known to the editor who 
arranged the Psalter in Five Books. 

Edw. G. King. 

^ In my Commentary on Ps. xiv, before I had any suspicion of Uie triennial 
cycle, I had occasion (p. 74) to point out the striking allusions to Gen. vi 1-4 ; it is 
certainly a remarkable coincidence that Gen. vi 1-4 should have been read in the 
order of the Sidarim at this season (see Table I). 



This event in our Lord's incarnate life has so little 
in the consciousness and liturgical system of the Church that 
all who have realized its importance cannot but welcome any 
discussion of it as tending to win for it due prominence in our 

The two papers which have appeared in the y,T.S, (Jan- 
and July, 1903) presented but one aspect of the event, for whilst 
differing from each other on certain points, they both were con- 
cerned with the efifect of the Transfiguration upon the minds 
of the three selected witnesses and ignored the probability of 
purpose in relation to our Lord Himself, and to the Old Testa- 
ment saints who were present. Mr. Holmes professed only to 
treat of ' one of its purposes \ and we may assume that Dr. Ken- 
nedy would agree that neither view, if established, would be ■ 
exclusive of some other and, possibly^ higher purpose. % 

In order that the theory here presented may be put briefly 
I do not propose to traverse the arguments so far adduced, or 
to repeat at length what the former writers have so well said of 
the 'setting' of the event It will be seen that if the theory 
here given is acceptable, it not only does not evacuate the 
purposes already described, but carries their force and effect 
still deeper. ■ 

Comparison of the Transfiguration with other events in the 
same life brings out its unique position as a meeting-place of 
old and new, the old finding its fulfilment in the new departure. 
We can hardly estimate the force of this until we think ourselves 
into the position of one to whom the Mosaic system was the only 
formulated truth with undeniably divine authority on earth. That 
the older, the husk, should pass away without some other sign 
than the ruin of Israel is incredible. Certain devout souls, as 
Simeon and Anna and the Baptist > had had their faith rewarded; 
was there no such reward for those who in older days had 





laboured for the preparation of His coming? In the two who 
-%vere manifested all the past in respect of organized spiritiial 
life was represented. The law of continuity was thus observed 
as in no other event. Living priests and prophets might deny 
and crucify, other living authorities should testify and rejoice. 

But let us turn to the Mount itself. The persons present visibly 
were our Blessed Lord, Moses, Elias, and the three principal 
disciples. There was also vocal, sensible evidence of the presence 
of the Eternal Father as the principal and immediate operator 
in what we may reasonably consider the main purpose of the 

Of our Lord, we know that, as has been shewn, two h'nes of 

thought had just been presented to the disciples, His Sonship, 

and His Passion and Death ; the one His eternal prerogative, the 

other His own willing act as Son of Mao giving Himself in 

sacrifice for the sons of men. At the Transfiguration we know 

also (from St Luke) that the subject of the conversation between 

Him and Moses and Elias was His coming death. The subsequent 

incidents include an act of healing (one requiring special grace), 

preluded by reference to the work of Elias ; and then further 

discourse on the Passion, and on priority in the Kingdom of God. 

Sonship, sacrifice, and power are the three dominant ideas in 

the narrative as a whole, 

* His exodus* being what it is, namely, the meatus of our delivery 
from the bondage of sin, the presence of Moses is easily under- 
stood ; but there was another reason. Moses was the founder of 
the Aaronic priesthood, the consccrator of the first high priest of 
that order, and one to whom it had been said that to the same 
Aaron he should be * as God*. (Aaron was the mouth-power, the 
word of Moses,) 

Elias was pre-eminently the Old Testament prophet, the one 
destroyer of false prophets, the restorer whose name symbolized 
the work of the Baptist, whose word made straight the way by 
which the true Prophet of humanity should come. 

So far, therefore, the functions of priesthood and prophecy 
seem to be the most prominent on this occasion. 

In the next place» passing over the suggestion of three taber- 
nacles, made, to what intent is not clear, by St Peter, we have 
some evidence to shew the impression which the incident pro- 


duced on the minds of the three disciples. As to St Peter, it would 
be acknowledged by all that, if 2 Pet. was his composition, 
he is the one of whose impressions we know the most. The 
' tabernacle ', the *exodus*, the voice of the Father, and the power 
of the prophet are all in evidence. But there is proof of this 
also from i Fct. The connexion of ideas in ch. i of that epistle 
is, if more veiled, still to be traced as it is in 2 Pet., and not ac- 
cidental are the verbal reminiscences in e,g, ch. v 9, 10 of i Pet. 
Is it then a mere fancy that whereas the root subject in 1 Pet, is 
priesthood, ministerial and general, and in 2 Pet. the prophetic 
workj we should conclude that St Peter saw in the Trans- 
figuration nothing less than the assumption before selected 
witnesses of both offices, priest and prophet, by the Son of 
Man ? Assumed^ we may rightly say ; but at the voice of the 
source of all authority and power, the Father Himself (cf. Heb, 
v 4*'6), There was no other recorded occasion in our Lord's 
JJ life when His consecration to the priesthood can be without 
question asserted to have taken place. And if it took place 
then, may we not see why silence was imposed upon tlie three 
witnesses ? The Priesthood must be established by the Sacrifice : 
the Prophetic office manifested on the Cross in declaring and ful- 
filling the mind of the Father towards all human error : when these 
were accomplished the investiture might be announced, not until 
then. Priestly power without self-sacrifice is a snare to man : pro- 
phetic power without personal submission entire and complete to 
the message-giver's will is a source of hypocrisy* Our Lord would 
have the disciples learn by His Sacrifice and submission the 
perfectncss of His Priestly and Prophetic character. Suffering 
first— then glory. The disciples were to see before many days how 
both functions might be degraded and the institutions of divine 
appointment made to subserve the lowest temporal ends. By 
contrast they were to learn wherein true priesthood and prophetic 
power differed from the false. How but for the Transfiguration 
could they have known Him at all for Priest and Prophet? 
Moses and Elias were there for the teaching of the three as well. 
Moses saw the Priest there whose office he had been instrumental 
in prefiguring. Then he knew for the first time the meaning of the 
glorious vesture with which his hands had arrayed his mouthpiece, 
Uien he understood all that the bloodshedding of countless lambs 




had symbolized. At such a consecration who of all the great 
men of God in old time could assist with more befitting presence? 
On this Mount met old and new, symbol and reality, the temporal 
and the eternal. Granted that some help was intended to 
disciples whose hearts were to be tried by desolation, or grant 
any other theory of the kind, the heart of the subject has not been 
reached until the Person of Christ Himself in that event has been 
studied and His office therein defined. 

Elias, too, saw the Prophet of whom his own wonderful career 
had been but a faint shadow, saw Him whose School of prophets 
of a new Israel should outnumber his largest dream, saw Him 
whose still, small voice should strengthen and comfort the hearts 
of the wearied with conflict of evil> saw Him whose word should 
be recc^ized as The Word of God unerring, impasaionate,, swift 
as lightning, sure as death, but life-giving. 

Does St John give sign of the impressions received on the 
Mount ? We see it in his later vision of the Son of Man girded 
as Priest eternal : we have also to help us his thought of the 
two witnesses whose dead bodies (he had seen their living spirits) 
were lying in the streets of the city where their Lord was cru- 
cified, a significant description of an effete priesthood and a 
d^raded prophetic ministry (see Rev. xi 1-13). To the mind of 
St John the germ of all is the Incarnation ; granted that, all else 
follows. Herein he differed in apprehension from the more active, 
more governing mind of the chief of the apostolic body. The 
difference in mental characteristic explains the difference in attitude 
towards the Transfiguration. The Petrine tabernacles of differ- 
entiated powers become one to the vision of the seer, * the 
Tabernacle of God ' which is * with men *. 

If there is anything in the theory here briefly set forth, does it 
not provide reason for desiring a fuller recognition of the scene on 
the Mount in our worship and teaching? We own Christ as 
Priest and Prophet, let us own with due solemnities the day of His 

A. T. Fryer. 




Thk document here printed was discovered and copied independently 
by myself in 1902 and by my friend Dr, G. Mercati, then of the Am- 
brosian but now of the Vatican library^ some years earlier. The right 
to first publication belonged indubitably to him, and his edition has in 
fact lately appeared (with other material) as No. it of the Vatican 
Siudi t Tesh'K But inasmuch as my own text was in type before 
I knew that I had been anticipated in the discovery, and seeing also 
that the document is one which from its age and character deserves all 
the attention which students can bestow upon it, 1 have ventured, with 
Dr. Mercati^s full consent, to publish the treatise, although no longer 
an anecdoton, in the pages of the Journal. 

Not only in the discovery of the document, but in the edition of its 
text, Dr. Mercati and myself have been wholly independent of one 
another : and the very close agreement which on important points 
exists between our respective results is I hope an indication of their 
substantial correctness. In order to emphasize the extent of our inde- 
pendent agreement, I have not thought it proper to modify in any way 
the form of my own presentation of the text ; and it will therefore 
be convenient, even at the risk of anticipating the logical arrangement, 
to call attention at once to the principal variations between our two 

In the arrangement and division of the chapters, which are of course 
not marked as such in the MS, Dr. Mercati and I agree, I think, in 
every case except that he begins his second chapter a line and a half 
later than I do, with the words ' quia humana fragilitas '. Of the few 
passages which 1 have been able neither to understand nor to emend, 
and have therefore marked as corrupt, (i) ch. iii, I. 17 is beautifully 
restored by Mercati through a simple transposition of two words ' hoc 
enim ilii poenale est, si quod non uult perdidesse et ipse se perdidesse 
fateatur*; (2) ch, vi, 1. 9 'patiatur', he notes id est ^ sustineat^ tokrei . . , 
uei fort, nonmdla exciderunti {3) ch. viii, 11. 17, iS he prints 'quo 

"^ Varia Sacm, Fascieoh I : 1. Anonytni Chiliastae in Mafika>nitH fntgmtttta, 3. 
Ptctoli supphmenti agii scrittidci dottori Cappadod e diS. CiriUo AUssandrino. Roma, 
TipogTa£a Vaticana, 1903. 





raptii Ipso terrore mortem sicut soporem patientur, et comportati, dum 
ad Dommum pemeniunt, reumiscentes resurgent*; (4) ch. ix, 1. 17 he 
prints the MS text, and notes * id est monstrabii se rtgem esse et suos 
unius Dei konore gloriosos^ i (5) in ch. x, IL 42, 43 he emends 'et 
Domino, qui uita est, in maiestate sua praesente magis digfium^ quo</ 
concupiscenda edwlium esse tion potest*: (6) ch» xix, 1. 4 he follows 
ihc MS, but doubts whether the passage may not contain a corniption : 
(7) ch. xix, 1, 23 for * ut meritum conlocetur' he writes *ut merito 
conloqujtor ', 

Other noteworthy readings introduced by Dr. Mercati into his text 
are — ch. iii, 1. 21 ' dominari ' for MS 'damnari'; ch, iv, 1. 12 * boni 
fnientur uita, mali uero ' for * uitam alii ', a simple and satisfactory 
emendation that ought not to have esc^^pedme; ch. vi, 1. 14 infirmatae' 
for • infirmitate ' ; ch. x, L 44 * all ut prius cogatur ' for * aliut conatur ' ] 
ch» xi, L 25 * auidus * for ' abitus * ; ch. xiii, 1. 7 ' de vii diebus vii anae * 
(1* e. septimanae) for * de vii dies vii anni,' which is at least very in- 
genious ; ch. xiv, 1. 4 * sic ' for ' sed * ; ib. I. 40 ' proumere ' for ' pro- 
uenire * (I conjecture * non inuenire'); ch. xvi, 1. 3 * fatus ' for 'faus' 
{I have proposed ' fraus') ; ch. xix, 1. 16 'adseruimus ' for * adseruemus *; 
ib. L 27 * insperatum ' for *speratum\ and 'tutos' for 'totos.' 

In two or three places his edition has enabled me to correct slips or 
omissions in my own : ch. ii, 1. 5 reference to Wisdom iv 1 1 should be 
given in the margin, and ch. xv, U. 4, 5 reference to 2 Cor. v 7 ; ch. xiv, 
L 20 after ' passi ' the word * statim ' should be inserted ; ch. xviii, 
I. I * ergo ' should of course have been * erga '. But on the whole our 
results harmonize in a rather remarkable degree. 

I ought to add that, following on the exposition of the eschatological 
passage. Matt, xxiv 20-44, the MS gives two short pieces, de tribus 
mensuris and de Petro apostoio^ which may perhaps be drawn from the 
same source. Dr. Mercati has printed them both. 

Many interesting problems offer themselves for solution in reading 
through this newly recovered document. What is its age ? is the Latin 
form in which we have it original^ or a version from the Greek ? is it an 
independent whole, or an extract from a complete commentary on 
St Matthew's Gospel ? And lastly, when these questions have been 
considered and as far as possible answered, who was its author ? 

The document emanates from the age of persecutions. * The sign 
of the beast on the forehead or on the hand' is interpreted of the 
wearing of the laurel crown upon the head and of the casting of incense 
on the * altar of abomination ' (ch. xix, 1. 8) : the former is familiar to 
us as the theme of TertuUian's fierce declamation in the de corona 
miiiiis^ the latter was the oilictal test of apostasy in all the persecutions 


at least Trom Decius onwards. Again humanity is divided into tTie 
three classes of *iusti \ * peccatores', and 'impii ' (ch. xiv 16-28, xix 6), 
that is to say, good Christians, bad Christians, and heathen, a distinc- 
tion being drawn between the *iropii\ who perish, and the 'peccatoresV 
who are punished in proportion to their sins: and this prominence 
of the heathen as a separate class in the eschatological conception of 
the writer p>oints us back to the time when heathenism was still dominant. 
Chiliasm, too, is still an absorbing topic of interest : not only is our 
writer himself a Chiliast, albeit a moderate and reasonable one, but he 
has to take serious account of a rampant and ofiensive Chiliasm which 
maintained that the saints during the thousand years* reign would eat 
the good things of the earth and drink at the Lord's table in His king- 
dom in the crudest and most material sense. We need feel no hesitation 
in attributing our fragment to the third century or at latest to the very 
earliest years of the fourth. 

If the writer was a Greek churchman, it would be natural to place 
him somewhat before the later boundary of the limits just laid down, 
since Chiliasm was extinct in the Greek much earlier than in the Latin 
chufch: but the question of the original language of the treatise is 
a much more difficult one than its date. We have not here to deal 
with an artistic and literary whole, the finish and setting of which 
would Inevitably be tarnished in the process of transference from one 
language to another; in such cases it may be possible to say with 
confidence whether a writing bears the impress of a single hand or no : 
but it is clear that this sort of criterion does not admit of easy application 
to exegetical matter. Another and perhaps more serious ground for 
hesitation attaches specially to llie l^tin Christian writings of the time 
when ecclesiastical Latin was still in process of making : for its mode of 
thought and its technical language often betray such obvious marks of 
their ultimate Greek origin that the decision whether any particular 
document is a translation into Latin, or an original Latin production of 
a writer imbued with Greek ideas and Greek training, becomes peculiarly 
difficult. Tertullian was no doubt neither the only nor the last Latin 
Christian who composed in both languages : and in writers of less 
individuality than Tertullian this bilingual facility would result in 
a graecised Latin that might be hard to distinguish from the Latin 
rendering of a Greek original. Therefore if I suggest that our document 
may be only a translation, it must be understood that the suggestion 
is propounded tentatively and with full appreciation of the reasons that 
make for caution. But the cumulative effect of the following instances 
collected from my apparatus criticus seems to me sufficient to warrant 
the claim of the hypothesis as at least a possible alternative : — ch. viii, 
L II 'rapiemur in nubibus, id est a ministris nubibus', ApnArHCDMeeA cn 


nc^AaiC, tovt* itrriv vno Xttrovpy&v [r&p] iv^XAv — the dative With h can 

be instrumental in Greek, but hardly so the ablative with 'in' in 
Latin : ch. xiii, 1. 7 ' de vii dies *, irtpi rov 'Etrrh rnUpai — Mercati avoids 
this by writing *de vii diebus': ch. xiv, 1. 5 *quia Christo resurgente', 
mi Xpurrov dvurratuvov : ch. xiv, 1. 34 * menierunt resurgere ' of the resurrec- 
tion of sinners, ri^A$rf<rav : ch. xvii, 1. 11 * de eius accipit,' cVc rov [ii/ov] 
Xaf»fiav€t, Jo. xvi 15 : ch. xix, 1. 10 ' sed qui etiam hi qui christiani erant 
. . . cesserunt,' Saot dc km xpurrtatmi Svrtf . . ., where Mercati simplifies the 
Latin construction by writing ' sed quia etiam hi qui christiani erant ac 
. . . cesserunt *. 

It is worthy of mention in this connexion, though one would not wish 
to lay undue stress on the fact, that the Muratorian Canon, which is 
found in the same MS as our document and at no great distance from 
it, is also according to all probability a translation from the Greek. 

If then we have to face the possibility that the Latin as we have it is 
not original, the limits of date as given above will of course apply only 
to the Greek original, not to the Latin translation. Yet the translation 
itself must belong at latest to a time not appreciably removed from the 
inferior limit, that is to say, from the early years of the fourth century. 
The decisive factor in this case is the character of the Latin biblical text, 
which has striking affinities with some of our oldest authorities. In 
particular we are fortunate in possessing in the ad Fariunatum of St 
Cyprian (§ 11, Hartel i 335) a continuous quotation of Matt, xxiv 4-31, 
—a passage which for its last twelve or thirteen verses runs parallel with 
the opening chapters of our document : and a summary comparison of 
these verses with Cyprian and the chief Old Latin MSS of the Gospels 
will sufficiently guarantee the early character of the text. 

[Verse 19]. 

I. nutrientibus with Cyprian codd. TW 

nutricantibus t Tcrt. 1/3 Cypr. codd. RS 
lactantibus a d Tert 3/3 
ubera dantibus b 
[Verse ao]. 

a. orate autem with abdt 

adorate (om. autem) Cypr. 

3. ucl with a b Cjrpr. cod. T 

aut t Cypr, cod. R 
nee d Cypr. 
[Verse 31]. 

4. pressurae (pressura) with § Cypr. Iren. x/a 

tribulatio abd Iren. i/a 

5. fuerunt (fuit) with abd 

est facta * Cypr. Iren. 

6. ab initio with Iren. 9/3 

ab initio mundi # Cypr. 

ab initio saeculi abd Iren. z/3 


[Verse a a]. 

7. electorum causa with HiL i/a 

propter electos abd€ Cypr. HiL i/a 
[Verse 33]. 

8. hie est with t (Tert X) 

hie a bd Cypr. Auct rebapt. 

9. aut illic with d 

aut ecce illic a Cjrpr. 

ecce iUic b e 

aut hie Auct. rebapt Cypr. cod. V 

10. ne credatis 

nolite credere abde Cypr. Auct. rebapt. 
[Verse 34]. 

1 1. portesta with Cypr. Auct rebapt 

prodigia abde 
I a. ita ut in errorem inducant . . . electos (with a X) 

ita ut in errorem inducantur . . . electi b (a f) 

ita ut errent . . . electi e Auct rebapt 

ut seducantur . . . electos d 

ad errorem faciendum . . . electis Cypr. 

ad euertendos . . . electos Tert 

13. etiam with a b Auct rebapt Cypr. codd. VW 

et d C3rpr. cod. S 
om, t Cypr. cod. R 
[Verse as]. 

14. (ecce) praedizi with abde 

proem uos autem cauete Cypr. 
[Verse 36]. 

15. deserto with abde 

solitudine CypT, 

16. cubiculo d 

■ cubiculi^ (cf. our document, ch. iv, 1. 7) Cypr. 
promtuariis e 
penetralibus a b 
[Verse 37], 

17. coniscatio with d e Cjrpr. 

fulgur a b 

18. quae exit with e Cypr. 

exit {om. quae) ab d 

19. paret with a b 

apparet e Cypr. 
lucet d 

30. usque in with a d 

usque ad e Cypr. 
usque b 

31. aduentus with a d 

et aduentus b e Cypr. 
[Verse 38]. 

33. ubi with e Cypr. 

ubicumque ab d Iren. 
33. fuerit with a d Cypr. 

erit b e 

est Iren. 


24. corpus with a b t 

cadauer d Cypr. Iren. 
35. illuc with Cypr. Iren. 

illic abt Cypr. cod. W 

26. congregabuntur with abde Iren. Cypr. cod. S 

colligentur Cypr. 
[Verse 29]. 

37. statim with a b 

continuo d * Cypr. 

28. tribulationem with abde 

pressuram Cypr. 

29. contenebrabitur 

tenebricabit Cjrpr. 
in tenebris conuertetur « 
obscurabitur ab d 
[Verse 30]. 

30. parebit with ab d 

apparebit t Cypr. 

31. plangant (-ent) se with a Tichonius 

plangebunt d 
lamenubuntur # Cypr. 
concident se b 

32. magna with d e Cypr. 

multa a b 

33. claritate with # Cypr. 

maiestate a b 
gloria d 
[Verse 31]. 

34. colligent with e Cypr. 

concolligent d 
congregabunt a b 

35. a summis with a b Cypr. 

ab extremo d t 

36. ultimum with a 

extremum t 
summum d 
summitates Cypr. 
tenninum b 

If we tabulate the results, we find that our document has with a 
eighteen agreements, and with each of the other four continuous texts 
thirteen or fourteen agreements, out of the thirty-six cases. It is^ 
perhaps, more really instructive to note the cases in which it goes with 
the better of two readings where these five ancient authorities are 
divided against each other. Thus in i it goes with Cyprian ; in 4 with 
e Cypr. Iren. 1/2 ; in 11 with Cypr. Auct. rebapt. ; in 16 with </Cypr. ; 
in 17 with d e Cypr. ; in 18 with e Cypr. ; in 25 with Cypr. Iren. ; in 29 
it is closest to Cypr. ; in 32 it goes with d e Cypr. ; in 33, 34, with e 
Cypr. ; in 35 with a b Cypr. It is clear that, on the whole, though it is 


not an * African * text, it approaches more neaiXj to the * African ' tc 
of e Cyprian than do the typical fourth-century texts a and A. 

We conclude then, so far, that the original document belongs to the 
third century or at latest to the early years of the fourth, and that 
the form in which it comes to us, even if not itself original, cannot 
be much later than this. We now proceed to enquire whether the 
probabilities point to its being complete in itself, or whether, alter- 
natively, it is to be regarded as a selection from a larger whole, such 
as a commentary on the entire Gospel of St Matthew, It is perhaps 
the most convenient method of approaching this problem, although 
it wilt involve some digression, to commence by asking what com- 
mentaries on this Gospel are known to have been written in the ante- 
Nicene period, and which of them come into serious consideration as 
the possible source of our fragment 

St Jerome, in the preface to his own commentary on St Matthew 
(a-d. 387 ; ed* Vallarsi vii 6), gives the following enumeration of those 
who had preceded him in the task of exposition : ' legisse me fateor 
ante annos plurimos in Mattheuro Origeais viginti quinque volumina 
ct totidem eius Homilias, commaticumque interpretation is genus; ct 
Theophili Antiochenae urbis episcopi commentaries, Hippolyii quoque 
roartyris, et Theodori Heracleotae, ApoUinarisque Laodiceni, ac Didymi 
Alexandrini ; et Latinorum Hilarii, Yictorini, Fortunatiani opuscula.' 
Of these nine commentators, Theodore of Heraclea, Apollinaris of 
Laodicea, and Didymus of Alexandria among the Greeks, Hilary 
of Poitiers and Fortunatian of Aquiteia among the Latins, are post- 
Nicene, and do not therefore concern us on this occasioiL There 
remain of the Greeks Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, and Origen, 
of the Latins Victorinus of Pettau : and to one of these, as the only 
known anle-Nicene expositors of St Matthew, our fragment must be 
presumed to belong, if its source is to be found in a systematic com- 
mentary. But the alternatives open can be reduced within narrower 
limits still. The commentary of Origen is extant for the whole of the 
latter part of the Gospel in an old Latin translation (ed. de la Rue, 
iii 521-951), and cannot possibly represent the same original as our 
fragment: while it is equally certain that the fragment, if it is part 
of a larger whole at all, must come from a commentary and not from 
either 'homilies' or 'scholia'. And in any case the Millenarianism 
of our document, however moderate it may be, would put out of court 
at once any claim on the part of Origen to be regarded as its author. 
The case for Theophilus of Antioch, again, is too slight to be taken 
into serious account. Even if we defer to Jerome's authority in 
admitting the existence and genuineness of a work about which Eusebius 
in his catalogue of Theophilus's writings (J5^ £. iv 24) is wholly silent, 





we could not bring it into relation with our fragment, which bears all 
the marks of the more developed literature of the third century, while 
the episcopate of Theophilus came to an end before the last decade 
of the second. If we have to choose among the commentators, the 
choice reduces itself to the two names of Hippolytus and Victorinus. 

That Hippolytus really wrote a commentary on St Matthew's Gospel 
may be accepted on the authority of Jerome's preface to his own com- 
mentary as indubitable, in spite of the fact that neither of the two 
earliest lists of his works— that inscribed on the chair of his statue at 
Rome, and that contained in Eusebius H,E. vi 22— contain any 
mention of it. The Chair is silent as to exegetical works altogether *, 
though we know that Hippolytus wrote for instance on the book of 
Daniel and on the Song of Songs \ and Eusebius concludes his list 
with the caution that 'very many other works' of this author would 
be found on research to be extant, That Hippolytus wrote in Greek 
vras unfavourable to the circulation of his writings in the West ; that 
lie wrote in or near Rome was equally unfavourable to their circulation 
in the East. It would therefore in any case be hardly surprising that 
tiie commentary should have soon dropped out of sight : and the dis- 
appearance would be still easier to explain if the lost writing were not 
a commentary in the fullest sense of the word, if it were not, that is, 
a continuous exposition of the text of the Gospel from beginning to 
end. More than one consideration may be thought to point in this 
direction. The parallel enumeration in Jerome of expositions of 
I Corinthians—' latissirae banc epistulam ititerpretati sunt,' ep. 49 § 3 
(a.d. 593) — includes several writers such as Dionysius, Pierius, and Euse- 
bius^ who certainly, so far as we know, never composed complete com- 
mentaries on the epistle. Moreover, in the days of Hippolytus the 
biblical commentary as a department of Christian literature was still 
in its infancy : and even a writing entitled EtV rhv ^(SBmav or EiV ri «otij 
Ma^oioi* need not have meant more than a discussion of particular 
sections or aspects of the Gospe!. The titles of other works of Hip- 
polytus sufficiently shew that eschatology was a specially congenial 
theme : and it is significant in this respect that all the fragments of any 
considerable compass which can be referred with probability to the lost 
commentary on St Matthew belong without exception to the twenty- 
fourth chapter, (a) In Htrmathena vii 1 3 7-1 50 (a. t>. 1 890) Dr* J. Gwynn 
pubhshed with English translation an extract from the Syriac com- 
mentary of Dionysius Bar-Salibi on the Apocalypse (MS Brit. Mus. 
Rich 7185), which cites Hippolytus^s explanation of Matt, xxiv 15-22, 
and gives in the margin the additional reference to ' the interpretation 

1 Uitle^ the enigmatk phrase usually printed ^tai A% «daa» tvls ypa^s conceals 
in some way or another a reference to them. 
VOL. V. Q 


of the Gospel ', ;. e. to a definite commentary : Harnack Altchr. Lit- 
teratur i 64 1 , appears to accept this attribution, but Gwynn^ while not 
doubting the Hippolytean authorship, speaks with reserve as to the 
actual source of the quotation, and Achelis in the Berlin edition of 
Hippolylus (I ii 243-246; a. d. 1897) prints it among the fragments 
of the * Capilula against Gaius *. {if) From Coptic, Ethiopic, and Arabic 
catenae, which all represent a single (doubtless Greek) source, Achelis 
op. at. 197-207 prints German translations of interpretations ascribed 
to Hippolytus covering Matt, xxiv 15-34* The Syriac comment over- 
laps slightly, the Egyptian overlaps largely, the passage expounded in 
our Latin document : and the general character of the relationship 
is that of similarity of thought without any such marked contact as we 
should expect in independent versions of a common original. If there- 
fore the Oriental fragments belong to the commentary on the Gospel, 
then, unless they have suffered unusually in the process of transmission, 
the Latin can hardly belong to it as well : if on the other hand they 
are drawn from Hippolytus indeed, but from sources other than the 
commentary, then the attribution of the Latin to the commentary would 
explain at once its similarity to them in general thought and its diver- 
gence in expression and in detail. Here the matter may be left, while 
something is said about the other commentator whose claims must 
be compared with those of Hippolytus. 

Victorinus of Petavio or Pettau, on the borders of the Greek and 
Latin speaking worlds, was according to Jerome, de viris illustribus 74, 
better acquainted with Greek than with Latin : if he wrote chiefly or 
exclusively in the latter tongue, this was the necessary consequence 
of a definite aim which he had set before himself. Victorinus in fact — 
and the aim was a noble one, however inadequate its execution— 
wished to familiarize the Latin Christian world, which down to that 
time (he was martyred in the persec ution of Diocletian) appears to have 
possessed no exegeticai literature of its own, with the thoughts and 
methods of Hippolytus and Origen. So much we learn from repeated 
statements of Jerome : ep, 36 § 16 ad Damasum (a. d. 384) * Hippolyti 
martyris uerba ... a quo et Victorinus noster non plurimum discrepat ' r 
ep- 61 § 2 ad Vigilantium (a. d. 396) 'taceo de Victorino Petabionensi 
et ceteris qui Origenera in explanatione dumtaxat scripturarum secuti 
sunt et expresserunt ' : ep. 84 § 7 ad Pammachium (a, d, 400) • nee 
disertiores sumus Hiiario nee fideliores Victorino, qui eius \sc. Origenis] 
tractatus non ut interpretes sed ut auctores proprii opens transtu- 
lerunt'. These passages do not apply only or primarily to the com- 
mentary on St Matthew, but there is no reason to exclude it from their 
purview. And if either Hippolytus or Origen was here the model of 
Victorinus, the probabilities are distinctly in favour of Hippolytus. 





We know that the commentary of Origen was of enormous length and 
prolixity : we have seen reason to believe on the other hand that the 
work of Hippolytus may have been no more than a partial and incom- 
plete exposition : and the language of Cassiodorus, de insHtuiiom 
divinarum iitUrarum § 7, ' Mattheum . , * de quo et Victorinus ex 
oratore episcopus nonnulla disseruit,* suggests that the same was the 
case with Victorinus* 

That Victorinus is connected in some way or other with our docu- 
ment, eilher as actually its author or, if it is drawn from a Greek source, 
as its translator, appears more than probable. If the arguments for 
regarding the I^tin as a translation are sound, then no name can 
be put forward for the authorship of the original so likely as Hippolytus. 
Perhaps the indications given by Jerome suggest that the truth lies 
with neither of these alternatives exclusively but midway between them, 
and we may suppose Victorinus to have worked partly as * author * and 
partly as ' interpreter * in the composition of perhaps the earliest piece 
of Latin exegesis that has come down to us. 

^m L Omte autem ne flat fuoa uestra hiema uel Babbato, id est ne 

cum fuca fit inpedimentum patiamini. oraire autem est semper sollicitum 

esse et auxilium Dei inplurare, ne impedimentis constrictus tempore quo 

fugiendum est terrenis nexibus obligetur. semper autem inpedimenta 

S fugienda sunt : idcirco sic nos constituere debemus ut cum fuge dies 

> * uenerit liberi et a^^ fucam a/ti inueniamur. hieme autem | et sabbato 
cum dicit, quid aliud significat quam tempos quo fugire non potest, id 
est ne cum fuga fit inpedimenta et hiemrs et sabbati in nobis inueniantur, 
quibus inpediti fugire non possumus? hiems autem ad fugiendum uel 
*olatendum intuta et minus utilis est: sabbatttw uero ultra iter facere 
quam lex iubet secondum ludeos non sini't, non ergo sabbati lege uti 
nos praecipit, quod iam solutum est, sed ne actus nostri cum fuca fit 
hiemi et sabbato conparentur, sicut pri^antiuia et nutrientium. 

I. 2. horarer^ 3. inplurare: iVa ^^rr (iw /) ^jc inplurale 5. fuge: 

Codex iLmbroHianiis I loi sup./?/. 19 « (saec. vii-viii) 


Hfttt. xxiv 

HAtt. xxirj 

fu«»e (fugae?) f«/' 
abti cod hime c&d* 
Qm cod* hiemes cod 
scripsi : sabbato cod 
tium cod 

6. uenenerit cod ad fucam scripsi: a fuca cod 

7, fugire : iia corr m p ex fuge 8, ne m 2 : 

9. quibu inpedeti fugere cod*^ 10, sabbalum 

faceret ^»^* i\.i\xi€^cod 13. prinnan- 



pfilful et nk ifitflllealt quia 'nouiivima pcrsecutio est* in hieme uel 
Hibtmto ftlgiiinrAlii lil r wbbAikm cnlin nouissimus dies est et hiens i> 

ttlli ttit IL \^^ i^ulti griiuo« prftMura ol quAl^s non ftiorunt ab initio enint, 
^^* ^^ tItilHtUmi lie A ndtf ditcixiAmus : quia humatu fragilitas diutinam per- 
ltN'iUi«)Hilfti r«rti» non potest, ei t^mput ad &im pnefenitam uiiionim 
nuuii^m (ii)ilfri t)|M>cttt» tltetorum luorum oausa breuiabiiBtiir ait, 
m i^mMtUiii pi«MUf« Ktnuad inuid €ed«r«Qt uicti torm^ntis, ne ma&cii f 
iifkteUfitiii iiiu muum iotillocittia oonua, qok deoocits atti mfwmts 
MrtI ptHril <tti|liMlt) lUffii mim praraa a mpinie om mmack 
^Qltl^ tiiriMli triM ilitlii. iioilMiiiBioblemNatteiHMeMi 
ttiliii #litMlllft iokiiilQrilieittsadnliiteM; | kttk^tmmmwmmammjM 
\MJMdv>i« «ok iMhMif iiMlur irecc|M persecutioiK ttsqne ad 



est uel ad momtntum in terra uult utt, vr in templo dei id est in iTh€sa.if 
ecclesia sedeat ostendens se qvasi sit devs. iam enim periturus 
re propter quam pent uel ad tempus uult uti ; mauult enim perire quam 
rem quam adgiessus est non inplere. hic furor habet et iracondia ut 

lio^ rem quam contrariara scit non praetermittat,nec uictuj uideatur | quamuis 
t6 scia/ se uinci, sed yincere sibi uidetur dum a proposito non discedit : 
licet et conpressus enim in eadem tamen uoluntate perdurat. thoc enim 
illi perdidesse et poenale est si quod non uult ipse se perdidesse fateaturt. 
non solum enim praessuras Dei seruis excitat ut metu et dolore cedant 
ao ADORANTES illum quas! Deum, sicut ausus est ad Salbatorem dicere, Matt iv 9 
addTrari autem se uult Deum et damnari, ut impleat uoluntatis suae 

I malignae proposituro ; sed et per diuersa iactari praecipit christuw esse 

aliquando in cobiculo, aliquando in deserto (facile enim quij seducitur Matt, xjtiv 
si illi fingitur quod amare scitur), ut hi qui tormentis praessurarum uinci *^ 
35 non possunt dolo capiantur^ credentes christum esse qui non est, aut 
hi qui in latibuHs degunt exeant putantes christum suum ad auxilium 
serborum suorum uenisse, et sic antichristum fatendo filivm per- jTheia.ii3 

I DTTiONis perditioni adquirentur, aut incident in poenas per quas forte 

uincantur, aut crucientur. accedunt his signa et prodigia magna, quae 

^ faciliora sint ad persuadendum etiam Sanctis, hinc ergo pugnat dolus, 

illinc persecutio et tormenta, ex alia parte signa et prodigia j ut quo- 

modo est diabulus non esse putetur, et h'cet ab inuilis qui uincuntur 

!tonnentis adoretur, 
IV, Sed Salbator ad munimenia seruorum suorum omnia haec futura 
ad seducendum praedixit et monuit | spe praemii toleranda ; et non sic 
se appariturum ut alicubi esse et alicubi non esse dicatur^ sed manifestari 
aduentum suum omnimodo et ocukta fide una hora omnibus apparere 
in. II. mumentum «w/ 14. inplere: m^i^ cad^ (corr m p) hic 
scripsi'. hoc cod innit cod* 15. contrariam cod: addendum forte sibi | 
nee uictus uideatur scripsi: om cod*, add nee uictur uideatur m p} 
16. sciat se uinci scripsi \ sciaseuinci cod disedit cod'*' 1 8. fatetur cod^ 
19. praessuris f^* %^m\% scripsi \ senius rcf/ et : om cod* 21. ad- 
urari cod 22, christum scripsi: xp cod 23. quis scripsi t qui cod 

24, illi: illid ^i?^* amare scitur scripsi (sed forsitan malis adaroare): 
admarescitur «?^ 27. sic: sicut fo^* filium perditionis perditioni 
scripsi, cf 1 10 supra : filius perditionis (tantum) cod* : filius perditioni cod* 
a8. incidant jrrr/*j/: incidunt fft^ 

IV. 3, non m 2: omcod* 4. occulta ^decod: ocula.i^ Ede coniea 

e Cypriano ad Fortunatura xiii (Ilartel 346. 7) Paulus ... qui oculata 
(oculata coddf occulta edd priores) fide lesum Christum uidisse se gloria- 
tlir : uerbum oculare apud Ttrtuliianum aliquoHcs inuemtur : cf, adv. 
Marc ii 25, poen. 12, apoL 2, pudic. 8 (Forceilini-de Vit) 





Matt, xxiv 

Apoc. xii 

i»3. 7-V 

ostendit dicens Sicnt enim comscatio quae exit ab oriente et paret 
uaque in ocoideutem, ita erit aduentnis fill hominiE : ut per hoc 
omnis dolus et niuiUatio diabuli qui christum tingit in co/Acuhs aut in 
desertis apparuisse manifeste uitetur. non enim quasi corporatus homo, 
qui in loco uno uideatur et in alio non sit, apparebit Saluatur, sed filius 
Dei, ut impleat mondum splendore magistatis suae : quia sicut primo i 
aduentu in homine Deus uisus est, ita et in Deo Dei filio homo uidebi- 
tur spiritali uigore praeclarus. quo uiso boni fruentur uitam, alii uero 
formidrnem passi cum cruiriatu uita prittentur. 

V. Et quia sancti qui pressuras et angustias antichrist! perseuerantis 
Mei uigore uicerunt cum sanct/s qui cum Domino aduenient rapientur, 
Ubi faerit corpus iJliic congre^btmtttr aqmlae ; ut cum Domino et 
fratribus suis post tempestates et angustias requiescant, corpus tamen 
Domini significauit et sanctos, quia membra ait svmvs corpvris eivs : 5 
aquilas autem ideo dixit quia regalis generis sunt cristiani ac per hoc 
aquilis conparati sunt, dicente Petro apostolo genvs resale. ■ 

VI. Sed quia apparente Domino sol et lima statim ab officio desistunt \J 
amissa luminis clarltate, adiecit Dominus Statim autem poet tiibu- 
latiooem dierum iHomm aol contenebrabitur et luna non dabit 
lumen suum et etellae cadent de caelo, et uirtutes caelorum . 
mouebuntur : e^ tunc parent filius bominis in caelo. apertum estfl 
et nulli dubium quia de caelestibus et spiritalibus caelis in his carna- 
libus (ex quibus nouissimae diabvlvs proiectvs est) caelis apparente 
Domino, et potentia claritatis suae mundum inluminante, nulla creatura 
tpatiaturt nisi cui ipse concesserit. qui enim fieri potest ut uero lumine 
apparente creatum non decidat, et Domino praesente serui formidinira i 
patiantur, quippe cum sciant officia sua lam cessare nee posse Domino 
praesente serui?s iudicare, praesertim qui forte administratiom's suae 
non ita ut a Deo decretum est egerint tern pus ? aliquae ergo potentiae 
conscientia reatus sui infirmitale decidunt, aliquae reue^ntia agnitionis 
dominicae prostrate humiliantes se creatori. interea signum domini lesu t 
in oaelo uide^iiur, id est crux eius apparebit quasi tropeum uictoriae 

IV. 7. gauillatio cod couiculis cod 8. uetetur c<?d 10. magistati 
SMZQ £iad* {eorr m p) 11, uidebatur f^if 13. passi x^n/if': pas- 
sim cod crutiatu cod ^ 

V. a. Sanctis : scs cod 3. congrecabuntur cod 4, fratribus : ff bus 
cod 5, sanctos : scs cod 6. aquila cod* {corr m p) recale cod 

VI. 3. lunam cod 5. pareuit cod 9, qui scrtpst: quin cod 
\ I ^2A\2^nlw. pracmittendum for tcLsse non 17 » ^trrnxs cod fortae^zM 
administrationes cod 13. aliquae . . . aliquae scrtpst: alii quae . . . 
alii quae cod 14. reuerentia scripsii reuentiae cod* : reuentia? cod* 
16, uideuitur cod appareuit cod 



quo uicta mors est, quae none perfid/s stvltitia et dedecus uidetur, 
32 a dum enim aduentus eius totum mundum inbminat, | eignum tamen eius 
in oaelo uidebitur yt qui sit sciatur, hinc fiet ut omnes plangant se 


sed iam in poeniientiam locom non habe^t pr^terea quod inuid 
confiteri coguntur: si quominus, inanitur fides, si hi admittendi sunt. 

vn, Videbunt ergo uenientem Dominum, sicut ipse dicit, in nu^^bus 
caeli ctun tiirtuto ma^a et olarit^td : ut cum in nu^biifl uenire 
uidetur Dominus esse credatur^cui famulantur caelorum nubes obsequium 
debitum reddere oidentur ; ctim uirtuto autem magna, id est cum 

5 LEGION iBvs innumeris angelorvm ; et claritate autem cum dicit, hoc 
signifirat quia omn/s exercitus eius potentia caelestis naturae fulgebit 
sicut exercitus potentissimi regis, ex his ergo omnibus supra memuratis 
dinuscitur esse Deus, qui prius ut infirmis homo fuerat derisus et con- 
temptus] nee ab aliqua creatura usurpator et subreplor regni iudicabitur 

10 qui in nuiHbiis oaeli uenire oum uirtnte magna et claritate uide^tun 

non enim haec omnia illi famularentur, nisi eum cognuscerent crealorem. 

VIII. Tunc, id est In ipso aduentu, mittit inquid angeloe auos (ex 

^"*eorum utique numero qui secum uenerant in exercitum), | ©t ooUigent 

electee eins a emnmis eaelonim uaque ad nltimnm eorum, id est 

de summis caelis ubi animae occisorvm visae svnt usque ad ultimum 

5 quod tn mondo est, quod superius dixit ubi fuerit corpus illuo 
oongregabuntur aqtdlae. hoc apostolus t^tum non diu fieri docet, 
sed cito factum diu manere : quamuis humana conscientia sic debeat 
uidere aduentum Domini ut intellegat et torqueatur proprio tortore et 
sic morti gehennae adiudicetur, tamen non dio fiet nam mortvi ait qvi 


iLLis RAFtEMVR IN NV.8iBVS| id est a ministris nu^ibus, obviam christo 

I Cor. 

3 Thcss,iii 


30 A 




Apoc. vi ^ 
i 5 supra 

I Thcss. 
iv 16, 17 


VI, 17, perfides c^d i8» in!iminat cod 19, fit c(fd^ {^corr mf) 
20. conssenserunt cod autem m 21 om cod* 21. iam : om cod* 
habent: hohxX cod* i hzbtt cod* propterea ji^J^ji: praeterea ^it;^ 
3 2, inanetur cod* 

VII. I. nimihu^ cod 2, nuuibus f^ 3. gredatur f<?if * 6. signi- 
fig2X cod omnes cod potentia 5rri/>j/ : potentiae r«/ 8. infirmis: 
wi/tf ^bffji-AItalaund Vujgata/. 274 9, usurpatur ^f7<f * 10. nuibus 
cod uideuitur cod 1 1 cognuscerint cod* 

viJi. I. ipsa cod* aduentus cod* 3. electus cod 6. apostulus 
cod* toium scrtpsi : tntnm cod dock cod* g. adiudicetur : /or tassc 
scrBtndum abiudicetur 1 1. ilh's ; ipjillis cod, unde fortasse Ugendum 

ipsis in nobibus, id est a ministris nubtbus: haec uerba graecam prae 
se/erre mdentur originem^ fV , , , tovt' iarlv vn6 . , , apud iatinos enim in nu- 
bibus non idtm significai atque a nubibus nubibus bts : nuuibus Ms cod 


Apoc XX 7 


Matt xxvii 

IN A£RE« hoc angoli XDlBsi curabunt : et hoc est ivdicark vivos ac 
MORTVOS; sed adhuc pars malorum superest ad aetemam uindictam 
quae fiet post mille annos, ideoque iam bonos vivps et mortvos; 
quia Qvi in christo svnt mortvi in aduentu eius resvrgent, deinde ij 
HI QVI vivi inueniuntur permansesse in Christo rapientvr obviam 
DOMINO, qui rapto ipso terrore mortem sicut soporem padentur, tcum 
portati dumt ad Dominum perueniunt reuiuiscentes resurgentes. 
pseudoptofetae autera cum principe suo antichristo et qui sponte adora- 
uerutit eum olim perfidi iussu Domini capli, hoc est spiritforis eivs, | f 
rui se putauerunt posse resistere, vivi missi svnt in stagnvm ignis ai 
ardentis. ceteri uero, qui seducti ab eis fuerant, gladio Domini qvi 
EX ORE EIVS PROCEDiT confodientur, id est uerbo Domini siue uoluntate 
morientur per ignem, animabus eorum receptis in tartarum* iustus 
enira Dominus eos qui non sunt seducti sed olim eiusdem uoluntatis J 
fuerunt, uebimentius poenas perpeti facit % 

IX. Illut tamen inter cetera contuendum est quia atatim, inquid, post 
tribulatiooein dierum illoruni boI et lima soluentur ab officio su0| 
amissa luminis clarttate, quia iam tempus cessat, sicut et in Apocalipsi 
legitur quia tempvs iam non erit cvm septimvs ancelvs ceperit 
TVBA canere : non enim, praesente Domino in maiestate sua, sancti 5 
eius sole et luna egebunl. quomodo ergo post tiibulationem, cum 
ipsa tribulatione Sanctis ]X)sitis Dominus apparebit? sed qum omnia 
bretfi agentur, cum apparuerit in luce maiestatis suae caelestibus ac 
mundanis tribulatio cessat, quia omnium uincula soluentur. et eodem 
momento uidebitur BlpLtun fii homLms in oaelo : si enim in passione u 
eius monvmenta aperta svnt petrae fissae svnt, quanto magis cum 
uenit in maiestate et gloria sua sanctos eniere de metu praessurae ac 
doloris? soluta ergo | tribulatione statim sol et luna deficient uelA 
cessabunt, sublat^ sibi actionis potestate, quia dies uerus iam lucet, 
quern nox non sequetur quia mane/ totum inluminans mundum. igitur i« 
tempus cessauit iam, quia hie Dominus cum suis diu futurus propter 
errotes mundanorum regem se illis tet tinius Dei honore esset monstra^it 

12. tiiuus ^^ 14. bonus ^<9£f* muus cod 16. 
17. qui scrtpsi: quo cod cum: com cod* 18. 
reueuiscentes cad 20. spiritu scripsii sp cad 

qui cod 33. ardentes cod* 


IX. 4, ceperit m 2 
cod* : solem cod'^ 
9, mondanis cod* 
et gloriae suae cod 
scri/si: mbhtecad 
manet totum scrtpsti 



21. cui 

om cod* 5. caneri ^d?^* 6. sole nr^ji : sol 

7. apparebet cod* 8. brebi cod suae : sae cod* 
12. et gloria sua jcnr)>ji*: 


10. mumento^i?^* 

nisi ma/is gloriae suae (om et) 14. sublata 

lucit ^i?^* 15. sequetur r^*: sequitur«?^* 

mane totum c&d 1 7. monstrauit cod 







iJlos qui crediderunt gloriososv ut gloria eoium infidelium poena sit. ideo 
MiLLE ANNos hic regnOiSit Christus cum suis, ut ipsa regni continuatio 
ostendat nullam swbreptionem sed uerum esse quod geritur. praeterea 
euro tarn claram et copiosum militiae caelestis exercitvm uideant, 
continuatio regni et magna uirtus et claritas exercitus et regis ipsiiis 
intollerabilis splendor aut emendat (quamuis locum praemii non habeat 
inoita confessio, sed poenae) aliqtios ex his qui contra unius Dei fidem 
conspirauerant cum diabulo^ aut inexcosabilcs perdet. Justus enim Dens 
quae facit ratione facit non potestate. 

X. Quid ergo est ut quibusdam uideatur sanctos qui cum Domino 
hic regnabiint edituros, qui rexurrexerint, qui neqve esvrient neqve 
siTiENT AMPLivs, cum constet Moysew adhuc mortalem praesente 
Domino XL DiEBVS ) et noctibvs non eswrisse? quid ergo ut sancti 
jam nofi morituri, quos scriptura NEC esvkire iam de ^scis manducare 
NEC setire adserit, edituri d/cantur, cum edere famis ac sitis necessitas 
facial ? absurda ergo et inanis adsertio est sed Dominum post resurrec- 
tionem iam utiquae inmortale coq)us ha^entem iegisxe se adserunt edisse. 
cuius rei causam absolutae, si uelint, adsequentur, Dominum non 
necessitate edisse coq>oris sed ut rexurrectionis suae ueritatem mani- 
festaret: nam si adhuc in corpure morti obnoxio ac terreno esvrisse 
legitur non tamen edisse, et sitisse ncc tamen btbisse— si ergo hoc 
mortal! corpure exibuit, quanto magis inmortali? sed bona terrae 
EDfTVROs sanctos promissum est, inquid, et Saluator inter cetera et 
EGO inquid disponam vobis sicvt disposvit mihi pater mevs regnvm 


mille annos hic regnabit Salbatc^r, dubium non est in hoc regnum hoc esse 
promissum, quoniam post haec redditurum fiiium regnum deo et patri 
declarat apostolus, tanta cura ac studio hoc defendunt, ut cupiditate 
edendi corniptioni corporeae semper uelint subiecti uideri. porro 
autem si ratio ipsa in examen deducatur, | et quid Deo magis dignum 


the Ml 

Apoc.vti I 




Matt, xxi 

Marc, xi 1 

Jo. XIX 3E 

Hfttt XXV 

34 : Mar* 
XV 33 
Is. i 19 
Luc. xxJi 

I Cor. 

IX. 18. gloriosus cod* 
sobreptionem cad 

23. intullerabilis cod* 

X. I. uidetur wd* 

19, regnauit cod 20. ostendam cod* 
21. exercituum cod 22. exercitur cod* 

15, tnexcusabile cod* prodet cod* 
3. moysen scripsi: moyses cod 4. esorisse 

(0d 5. non morituri scripsi: morituri cod iam 2* : + nec sitire m a 
escis scripsi', scis= Sanctis cod 6. dicantur scripsii dacantur cod 

8. hauentem i*^ legisse se jm^« : legisesse r^^ 11. ahuc 

cod^ obnoxium cod* 14. editurus cod* inquid 

cod*: inquiant «i 2 saluaturfo^* 16. nX scripsi: tXcod\ 

biuatis cod 1 7. hic : hoc cod* salbatur cod regnum oc 

cod* : regno hoc cod* 20. corporaee cod semper cod^ : sera cod* 
31. deducantur «?4f 


I Tim. V 6 

Gal. V 30, 

Dan. ii 44 
Luci 33 

et hominibus consullum sit uideatur, tone quid honim defendi debeat 
ahsolutae monstra/itur. sed awidi sunt ad bon/I terrae edenda, unde 
magis hoc quasi cupidi drli«riarum defendant ; cum apostolus uiduam 
dicat quae in deliciis est mortuam esse dum uiuat^ isti contra ad hoc 15 
resurgere uolunt ut deliciis perfmantur, cum deliciae luxuriam germinent, 
quae ut regnvm cAEtORVM coNQVtRr possit damnatur, cum Domino J 
certe futuri sunt eius praesentia inlustrati : contumilia eius non erit, si * 
sancti, quos secum regnare in inmortale regno promisit, cibo terrestri 
egeant, passi cupiditatem edendi sicut prius cum cumiptibile^ essent ? 3o 
misenim est ut post resurrectionem iam incurruplubiles passioni et 
infirmiLiti subiacere dicantur^ cum adhuc mortaltbus praesente Domino 
infirmitas baec dominari non potuisset* hoc ergo magis dignum Deo 
est et rationi ipsi congnium et hominibus melius, si, quomodo inmortales 
de mortalibus fecit, sic et edendi ah eis infirraitatew abiecisse dicatur : 35 
si quominus, mortales uidebuntur qui uiuere sine cibo non possunt ; si 
autem possunt, exclusa est edendi ratio, quia non est qua ex causa 
consumatur. quomodo autem | incorrupt! et inmortales resurgunt s\f^ 
famen patientur, cum famem pati nonnisi mortalibus debeatur, fames 
autem defectus est quidani generans mortem ? nam et hoc melius est 4° 
hominibus, ut iam ab hoc officio infirmilatis humanae, quod subsequitur 
squalor, alieni sint; et Domino qui uita est in maiestate sua praesente 
t quo t concupiscentia edwlium esse non potest : minus de eo sentitur, 
si illo praesente aliut conatur. 

XI. Salbatoris regnum aetemum esse scribturae testantur : dicit enim 
Danihel profeta inter cetera excita^it dominvs caeli regnvm alivt 
QVOD NVMQVAM coRRVMPETVR, et angelus ad Mariam et regnvm eivs < 

NON ERIT FINIS, et in AfX>Cal}'psi FACTVM est regnvm ORBIS terrarvm 

quomodo ergo mille annos cupiditatem edendi habebunt quibus regnant 
Saluator, cum constet Salbatorem semper regnatunim ? aut semper ergo 

X. 22. tunc quid horum r«/*: tun qui orum cod* 23. monstraui- 
i\ii cod ^ihxAicod bone ^^^ 24. dilitiarum i*^ 25. quae 
in deliciis est mortuam esse dum uiuat scripsi-. tale enim aliquid 
excidisse uidetur, cf i Tim. v 6 29. regnum cod* 30. passim 
cod* currupttbile cod 31. incumiptubiles ex incurruptum cod 
{corrtnp) 32. infirmitati ^j; infirmttas f^{£wrr«f/) 34, inmor- 
talis ^£»^* 35. infirmitate r^^ 37. qn\2.smpsi: quae ^^ qua: 
quae cod ^Z. autem ; + q cod* 39. pati cod* : pattenlur r<7rf* 
43. aeuolium cod* : aedoliura cod* potenst cod 

XI. I. salbatori cod* scribilur {sine testantur) cod*^ quod forsitan 
in textum rtcipere debui\ scribiturae testantur m% 2. excitauit cod 
5. regnauit cod 6. regnauit cod 7. saluatur cod* 



1 z 




ediiuri sint, aut iam, quomodo mors et curruplio cessavit, cessavit et 
esoL, quia esca curruptibilis est nam Salbat^riN regno suo edi'turos in Lucxj 
MENSA sua let^ et sine aliqua sollicitutine future ostendit : | et hoc ill is 
erit ' regnare ' null/us egere, et * bona terrae edere * spiritales illius terrae 
Iructus capere quam sancti hereditate possidebant ; fructus auteni illius 
tenae qui sunt nisi ^^audium et inmortatitas ? quia enim haec uita 
terrenis fructibos sustentatur, propterea per horum nobis imaginem ilHc 
uita promittitur : quia si aliter diceret, non intelkgercmus^ sed per haec 
quae scimus ilia nobis significantur quae nescimus, tantum ut intelle- 
gamus illic nobis laetara uitam aeternaOT (uinram, sed obponilur forte 
angelos, incorruptibiles utique, edisse. quod constat ideo factum ut Gen.xviriS 
quod uidebattir uerum esse probaretur; quia possunt aduersi angeli 
apparere, sed edere non possunt, quia non in quo apparent ueritas est 
sed praestigium; hii autem qui a Deo missi erant, ut uerum esset in 
quo apparebant, e^erunt, quod enim Deus fecit uerum est. aliut forte 
dicatur, Adam inmortalem edisse. Adam inmortalis factus non est^ sed 
incurni/tibilttatem ilii et inmortalitatem arbor uitae praestabat: de qua 
per praeuaricationem indignus habitus edere, factus est morti obnuxius ; 
sublato enim praesidio hoc coepit esse quod erat factus. | nam resurre- 
ctionis donum naturam ipsam facit inmortalem, ac per hoc cibus 
mmoUa/i opus iam non erit. 

XII. Salbat(?r ergo inpleto sexto millesirao anno uenturus est, ut septi- 
mum millesimum annum hie regnet. cuius sabbat//m habet fi^uram, id 
est requiei imaginem, ut quantum distat umbra a ueritale tantum distort et 
requies a requie et uita a uita, quia ilia aeterna erit haec tempiiralis est, 
ideo requies ilia totius mundani opens cessatio est. nam cumsiderandum 
quia unus dies mille annorum fi^ura est: tantum ergo intererit inter 
requiem et requiem, haec utique requies in saeculo data est ad 

XI. 8. cessabit cessabit : cessauit cessauit c(?d 9. esca i" : 
sea cod salbatur cod editurus cod* 10. letus cod 
futurus cod II* nullius egere et scripsii nuUus egerit cod* : nullus 
egere etfof* 13. caudium f(C»i/ 14. im^mto cod* 15. diceret 
cod : /artasse scrsdendum diceretuT 16. quae 2" : queri?</ 17. aeterna 
futuraf^^ 18. angelus^£7</* contat <r<7^* 22. apparebant :+ pro- 
bant cod\ und€ foriass€ iegendum ut uerum esse in quo apparebant 
probarent ederunt scripsi-, et erunt cod 34* incurrutibilitatem cod 
25 abitus cod 36. praesitio f£wf* 28. inmortali opus scripsi i 
inmor^opus cod 

XII. 1. salbatur r<?</ 2. ?,3hhz%om ut uid cod ficuram «w/ 
3, ucritate tantum scripsi : ueritateettantum cod distet : dislat cod 

4. a 2° : ad cod 

5. mundana cod* (corr m p) 


{sc considerandum) scripsi: cum desiderandum cod 6. ficura cod 

7. et requiem supplcui'. om {ut puto ptr homoeoteleuton) cod 






191 »i 

f 92 

Apoc.itx 3 
3i 7-9 

Ps. cxvii 

(civiii) 34 


momentum uel diem, ilia requies in regno Christ/ aetemd aetema. in 
inmortali ergo regno nihil erit cornjptionis, et ibi uera requies ubi 
cumiptio nulla est. si autem nascantur quae necesse est occidere, non 10 
erit regnum inmortale ubi comiptio opera^itur. null! dubium puto 
LiBERATioNEM FiLiORVM DEI in resuTTectione consistere, et gloriosos 
illos fore quando cum Salbatore aetemo regno p^tientur. quam 
liberalionem creatvra expectat ut a servitvte corrvptionis 
LiBERETVR IN LiBERTATEM FILIORVM DEI : id est, omnium sanctortim JS 
in came et anima restauratio requiem da^it omni creatvrae ne seruiat 
curruptibilitati, hinc manifestum est regnante hie Christo cum suis 
etiara creaturam ab officio et ministerio eorum, quae usibus humanis 
proficiunt in corruptelam, pausam accepere. 

XIII. Pos/septimwm millesimura annum | remisso diabulo be cakcere Jot, ^ 
t in quo mille annos fuerat CLVSvs,d cum suis satelletibus gog et magot, 
id est demonibus, aduersus castra sanctorvm se conmouente, igni 
CAELESTi coNsvMPTO cum cis, in ocfeadem omnia meliorabontur reuersa 
ad Deum, ut unius s^tentiae sint, partira uicta^ quae non praemio sed s 
poena digna sunt, partim uoluntaria, quae gloriam adepta sunt, nee 
enim aliter ratio intellegi permittit de * vii dies vTT anni.' sex entm dies 
sex milia annorum habent fi^uram quibus agitur mundus. Septimus 
uero, id est sabbatum, septimi millesimi umbra est, qui cessationem 
mundanis operibus futuram septimo millesimo anno incipiente significaL lo 
octauus autem dies, qui primus post sabbatum, et ante sabbatum est; 
ipse enim creatus est ut forma esse/ ceteris, hie ergo typum babet 
octoad/s, qu^ omnia redeunt reformata ad Deum. unde circumcisio 
octaua die data est, et Christus octaua die resurrexit, qui (sicut dixi) 
primus est, ut omnia ad prislinum statum ipsi? die quo et facta ab inicio 15 
sunt redderentur: ideoque in exultatione resurrection is canitur haec 
DIES QVAM FECIT DOMiNvs, unum enim diem fecit Deus ex quo ceteri 
curricula sortirentur, 

xiu 8. christi: xps cod a^elemo cad^ ; aetema a»^* 11. inmor- 
tale : inmortalem /-(jii cumiptio <^fl^/* operauitur f*?*/ 12. gloriosus 
cad* 13. poiltntMT scrtfst : patientur r^ 14. a: sid cod 

15. scntonim cod 16, dauit«?^ 19. accepere: acceperae 

cad* : accepturae cod*^ undt forsitan scribcndum accepturam esse 

XIII. I, posseptimom r£?^ diabolo ^-i?^' 2. annus r<7^ ^\ scriptix. 
ut cod 4, caelestis cod octoadem scripsi cum / 1 3 infra i ocdoa^' 

dem cod 5. sintentiae cod uicta cod 7. de vii dies : fortasseegr 
ft§p\ ToO *E?rTtt Tiiiipni \Xi {sc septem milia) anni scripsi: vii anni cod 

8. ficurara cod 9. septimum millesimi cod cessationis cod* (corrmp) 
10. (uiUTum cod* 11. etante: dis cod 12, esse ^<3^ 13. oc- 

iozdcs cod quo scripsi : qui cod refurmata ««f 15. ipsu ^^^ 




XIV. In auentii Domini sanctos solos resurgere documenta legis tes- 
tamur, dicit enim apostolus Paulus de rexurfcctione initivm christvs, 


CURiSTO SVNT PRiMi. sed tam in primo aduentu eius quam in secundo, 
quia Christo resuigente, mvlta corpvra sanctorvm dormientivm 
kt 37 «i svRiiEXERVNT, non omnium sed eorum | arbitror qui poss<;nt agnusci 
et per eos alii resurrexesse crederentur, ut resurrectionis ueritas non 
fantasia uiderettir. simili modo et Apocalypsis docet quia non resurgent 
neque uioent, nisi Qvi non accepervnt signvm bisteae in manv avt 
xo IN fronte sva: et a^tecit ceteri mortvorvm non vixervnt donec 
coNSVMJtfENTVR MiLLE ANNK SI autcm * non uiuerc' non esse in gloria est, 
ergo post millae annos in gloria erunt, quia dixit ceteri mortvorvm 
NON vixervnt donec consvmmentvr millae anni ? sed non ita est : 
quia post mille ann^ resurgent quidem, ut ostendatur illis quia uerum 

» 5 est quod non crediderunt aut uerbis nudis credentes opus fidei neglexe- 
runt, non tamen uni? in loco peccatores et impii erunt donec 
coNsvMifENTVR MILLAE ANNI. nam sicut in pomo aduentu sancti 
rexurrexerunt, ita et in secundo, forma enim secundi aduentus in prirao 
uisa est : sed tunc multi, postea omnes, tunc soli mortui, postea et uiui 

ao et mortuij uiui enim quasi soporem mortem passi reuiuiscunt, et hoc 
erit resurrexisse. non enim potest ut peccatores resvrcant in 
coNSiLio ivsTORVM, quia iusti resurgent ut millae annis regnent cum 
Saibatore: ideo in hoc consilio peccatores esse non possunt aut si 
iMPii simul resurgent cum Sanctis, quanto magis pecca/^res ? sed non 

as resurgent, quia ceteri mortvorvm non resvrgent donec consvm- 
j*entvr mille annl ideo nee peccatores resvrgent cum iustis^ 
quia post millae annos iudicium erit omnium mortuorum, ut impii 
pereant, peccatores autem pro modo delictoruwi poenas expendant. 

•76 post mille annos finis erit, sicut dicit] deinde finis cvm tradederit 

30 REGNVM DEO ET PATRi, CVM OMNIA ilU subiecerit quae nunc filium 

ilium Dei non credunt, id est cetera, tamdiu enim recna^it donec 

OMNIA illl subiciantur. in hoc ergo fine mali resurgent qui tN prima 

XIV. I. scscad solus cod* 2. apostulus ^i/* 4. ta,msmfisi: 
turn cod 5. quia xpo resurgente cad^ fariasse e graeco U Xpitrrov 

atntrrafMtifOif 6. possGUt scnfisi I possiTil cod 8. quh cod* I qui 

cod* 9« qui: quia o?^ xo. aiecit ^0^ 11. consumentur ^^</ 

13. consumentur i-f?*/ 14. annus cod 16. nn\x cod 17. consu- 
mentur cod 30. mortem m 21 om cod* 21, resurcant cod 

23. ami cod: Ugendum foriasse dX 24. peccares ^^ 25. consu- 

mentur ^^ 27. omnibus ^i?^* 28. modo: mQ6.\xm fortasse cod 

d^McXQincod 30. suiecerit fWd/* 31. cetera: idem sciUcet cu 

ceteri mortuorum / 25 supra regnauil cod 

1 Cor 


I Theaa 
iv 16 




Pi. i r 

Ps. is 

I Cor. 




RESVRRECTiONE non fuemnt digni resurgere et regnare cvm Christo, 

meruerunt atitem resurgere in fine, quo omnes omnino mali resurgent 

Apoc XX ad damnationem ut finiatur malum illorum in gehentia quae est mors 

\^^ . SECVNDA. ideo VAS ELECTiONis non dixit deinde * resurrectio/ sed 
Act. IX 15 , 

finis; resurrect! onem illorum nnem esse potius uel mortem quam 

Jo. xi 35 resurrection em. quomodo credentes in christvm acsi mortvi svnt _ 

ET vivENT, ila et ilU resurgentes uiuere uidebuntur cum sint mortui : ■ 

Apoc ix 6 hoc enim peius est, uiuere cum poena et cvpere mori et Noy ixvEfiiRR. 40 

XV. Quamquam aliquibus prima resvrrectio in baptismate facta ui- 

CoL iii t deatur, quia dicit apostolus si consvrrexistis cvm christo et cetera : 

I Cor. XV in baptismate enim terrenvs homo deponitur et caelestis adsumitur. 

'*' mori enim uidetur in baplismo et resurgere cum renascitur : sed per 

Phil, iti I J fidem non per speciem, quia hoc in spe habet, non qvod iam acciperit* 5 

ilia enim resurrectio iam uera, non in uerbo sed in re, non quae speretur _ 

sed qutie iam sit, prima et in dignitate et in numero, quia congruum est ■ 

primum sanctos resurgere et regnare cum Christo, tradere autem 

est regnvm dec et patri post /Inem sub n^jmine dei et patris 

regnare filium, ut regnum j sub Dei nomine sit non sub Cristi, quia iam /ot, 18 

cognitum erit de Deo Deum esse Christum^ ut sub uno namine regnet 11 

pater et filius in saecula saeculorum. 




XVL Quoniam ergo aduenlum suum Dominus ad ultionero iustorura et 

interitum iniquorum promiserat, ne ad tempus uenire crederetur, multa 

Matt, xxiv fraus est quae signaculum aduentus eius protestaretur ; ideo ait A flci 

3 a. 33 autem arbore draoite parabulam : cum iam ramus eius tenuis 

fuerit et Data fueriut folia, BcitiB quoniam prope est est as ; ita et 5 

uos oum uider/l^ls omnia haec, cognusc/te quoniam prope est in 

ianuis. et ut non diffVrri aut excusari generationi homiiium diem 

iudici doceretf neque sicut quibusdam uidetur timoris causa dictum, 

Matt, xxiv adiecit Amen dico nobis quia non transsibit generatio baeo, id est 

34t 35 non d/ficiet generatio hominum, donee haec omnia flaat. et addedit 10 

XIV. 34. meruerunt : fortasse e graeco ri$io»Brj(rap resurgerer a»/* 
ommnes cad 35. ad damnatione cod 40. non inuenire scripsi 
ex Apac. ix 6 : protienire {sine non) cod 

XV. 2. apostolus cod* 5. in ccd"^: am cod* accipereit cod 
7. quae: <\\x^ cod 9. mntxn cod numine ^<?^ 11. numine ^1^ 

XVI. I. altionem ^<7^* 3. itoxxs scHpsti iz\is cod 4. ar»bore 
cod (arb ut uidetur primis curis scripscrat^ sed b forma quam uocant 
minuscu/a) descite cod 6. uideretis cod cognuscete cod 
7. diffirri cod 8. iudici cod^ sc iudicii nequae cod 10. difidet 
cod generatium cod* «''« 





Caeltim et terra traasibunt, quod quibusdam inpossibile uidetur, 
ttorba autem mea non tranBibunt, quae supra memoratis falsa 
uidentur : ut iUud transeat quod transire negatur, et hoc quod transire 
credilur maneaL 

XVII- Et quoniam dies iudlcii scientiae humatide praefmiri non debuit, 
continue ait Be die autem ilia et hora nemo soit, neque angeli in 
caelo, neque filius, nisi pater solus, quod et pa/ri humiliando se 
honorem debitum reddit, et quod dicendum non erat excusauit. recte 

8 b enim dicitur nescir/ | quod dici non deb^t. res enim quae /ident^r 

6 quidem scitur, praefmita autem non est, solHcit/TS semper e/ uigilantes 

facit expectantes examen futurum : si quando fiat ignoretur, formidine 

ipsa continuae suspicionis homines se a mahs inhibn-e conpellit. pro 

utilitate uero hominum factum est^ ut sciens Salbator diceret se nescire. 

10 nam si sanctus Spiritus, qui aliquando pa/ri's aliquando fili dicitur, et 

de quo ait Salbator quia de eius accipit, n^^ri non potest scire diem 

et horara iudicii^ propterea quod nemo sciT qvae synt in dbo nis/ 

SPIRITVS DEI ; qui et Christi est, quia omnia inquid qvae patris SVNt 

MEA svNT : quanto magis ergo filius negari scire diem et horani iudicii 

15 non potest, quippe cum ipse sit iudex? numquid non mali operis 

hominibus dicturum se dixit amen dico vobis qvod nescio vos ? ex 

causa ergo, non ex ignorantia, dicit nescire se. quia omnia signa per 

quae dies iudicii inminet scire ostendit. 

x^'iii. Nam quoniam neglegentes homines inueniet dies Domini, et ergo 
curam animae pigjos et segnes, diligentes autem et stJ/d)os^?s circa cor- 
poris coram, luxuriae dedit^s, desideria carn alia sectantes, qvae obsunt 

I el obstup^«/em circa res salutares prestant ANiMAif, ut obliuionem sui 

^" xvi. 13. uidentur: -^ non pr^etenhunt cad (scilicet Vui^atam /ecfionem 
pro non transibunt), ud tamquam glossam de iexiu eieci 

xvn. I. humane <:tf^ praefeniri rd?^/ A^^x\,cod* 3. patri humilian- 
do ^scripsi\ padhumiliandoset ^^d? 5. nesciri scrips i i nescire ^^^ 
debit cad fidenter scripsi : uidentur cod 6. praefenita cod solli- 
citos semper et uigilantes scripsi \ solUcitusessempereuigilantes cod* \ 
sollicitus semper euigilantes cod ' : malts fortasse sollicitos et semper 
cuigilantes 7. expecctantes cod* 8, inbibire cod 10. patris 
scripsi V pars cod eius : forlasse e graeco U rSiv atroD necari 
cod 12, in deo nisi (in do nisi) scripsi: in donis cod 13. patris 
mz: paris ^^i/* 15, numquidr<^*: nonqnvd cod* 17. inorantia 
cod* 18. inrainet scire scripsi: inminelur scire cod*^ corrtxit mp in 
inminetur sciatur : mails fortasse legere inminere sciatur 

xviii. 2. curae cod* pigrus cod* signes cod* stodiosus cod 
corporis scripsi : operis cod 3, luxurie cod deditus cod 4. ob- 
stupentem x^i^ji : ob stuporem ^tf^ anma, cod ut scripsi: dead 

MatL xxi? 

Jo, xvi 15 
1 Cor.ii ti 
Jo. xvi 15 

Matt. XXV 

t Pet.ii 11 


Matt, xxiv 

xMAv passa cognoscendi se studium mintme consequatur, dicit Dominus Sicsnt 
37-39 ftiit in diebua Noe, ita erit et aduentus flJi hominis. quomodo 
enim faertmt in diebus illis ante dUuuiiinit edentea et bibentes^ | 
uzores duoentes et niiptu tradentes, usque ad diem quo introiuit 
Hoe in arcam, et non aognoaerunt quoad uenit dilubium et tulit 
omnes, ita exit aduentus flJi hominis. huius rei causa cottidie con- 
monendi et fuUirarum pressurarura terrore ad prouidendum sibi excilandi 
sunt, ut suUiciti semper de die in diem iudicii tempus expectent, nee se 
inpedimends et mollitiis saecularibus obligent) sic mundo fnientes ut 
animo in caelo sint. 

XIX, Sed tunc omnea tulit dilubium, excepta domo Noe ; at nunc non 
ita, quia in iudicio Tunc duo, ait, enint in agro, unua adsumetor 
et alter relinquetur. Noe tarn en in bonorum forma Hberatus est. 
propterea in iuditio similiter peribunt fsedtmali. tunc enim aut ex 
antichristi parte quis erit, aut ex Christl nunc enim tria genera 
horainum sunt, impiorum, peccatorum, sanctorum; /unc non ita, sed 


MANY SVA — ^hoc est, coronara acc^it in caput suum lauream et tus 
in aram abuminationis raisit^ — aut in caritate Christi permansit. idcirco 
boni adsumentur, mati relinquentur, sed qui, etiam bi qui chstiani 
erant, terronbus et pressuds cesserunt, non enint adsumendi, quia Qvi 


Salbatorj de duobus enim qui unius fuerant professionis unUB ad- 
sumetur et alius relinquetur ; hoc est duos esse in uno, quia et ille 
qui uictuj est non apud se negat quod etiam pu^lice non debuerat 
dene^re* quoniam ergo hoc | ita ut adseruemus dixit Salbator, statim 
Mattxalv subiecit dicens Tigilate itaque, quia nesoitis qua hora uel die 
<* Dominufi uester ueutunis est; ne quis forte putarel nihil sibi obesse 

si cederet, propterea quod inuito eliciatur ut neget, de animo taraen non 
auferri. ut nemo ergo sibi de hoc blandiretur, ostendtt Dominus nihil 
esse si apud se, sed magis obesse nisi et apud eos qui negare conpeEunt, 





Hitt. xxiv 



XVIII, 5, cognuscendi tW* 9* tolit ^ 10, cottitie^/w/* | 
coraonendi cod* 12, de die : de diem a?d* 13. saecuraribus 
cad* mondo cad* 

XIX. I. at scripsi: et cod 2, in 1" jw 2 : am cad* 4, sed codi 
foruian scribcndum soli 5. tria genera: cf^ cap xiv //. 16-28 
6. scotorum cad (sed sco in ras) tunc scripsi : nunc cod 7. ad- 
horauit cod 8. accipit cad 10. sed qui etiam hi qui crtstiani 
erant cad\ fartasse e groica Stroi Ae Koi xptifruivo} Qvnt 1 1. qui : qiui cad 
13. qui: quiof^i/* 15. uictu^roi/ pnplicecad 16, denecarer^ 
20. nihil; -^dcad* 21. si; am cod* ^us cod* conpellunt: 
+dm cod* 


Christum Deum confiteatur. qui enim pu^lice confessus non fuerit, in Matt x 3a 
parte antichristi inuenietur. ideo tiigilandum est tut roeritum conloce- 
ttfrt,et semper uigilandum quia temtation/s tempus nescitur, ut ipsa deuo- 

as tionis sullicitutine, cum aduenerit, adiuuari ad t^Uerandum mereatur et 
adueniente Domino adBtunatur. et ut munimentis firmioribus propter 
speratum diem tot^ nos praestaremus, adiecit Hint autem soitote Matt, xxiv 
quia si soir^ pater familias qua hora ftir uenit, uigilare/ utique ^^* ^ 
ea hora qua uenturum sciebat et non siner^ perfodiri doznoM 

30 auam. idem sensus est quo nos semper soUicitos aduentus sui causa 
uult esse, qui enim scit fures uenturos, qua hora autem ueniant nesdt, 
peruigilat et non potent expilari. sic et nos nescimus quando uenit 
Dominus, uenturum autem scimus: semper soUeciti et parati esse 


e[x]pl[icit] de diae et hora 

zix. 22. puplice cod 23. conlocetor cod 24. temtationes 

cod 25. tuUerandum cod 27. totus cod 28. sdrit cod\ 

uigilaret scri/st: uigilare cod 29. sinerit cod domu cod 

30. idem sensus est : discod soUicitus r^* 31. uenturus^»^* 

32. peruigilateet cod expillari cod nos : forsitan suppkndum qui 
ueni«t cod (uenis ut uid cod* : corr mf) 33. autemescimus cod^ \ 

essem cod* 

VOL. V. 





Tfconius I. I ' Sermones Amos quos vidit super Hierusalem 

3 ♦ . . * In tribus impietatibus Damasci et in quattuor non 
aversabor earn, eo quod secabant serds ferreis m uiero habentes 

II "In tribus impietatibus Idumaeae 

et in quattuor non aversabor earn, propter quod persecutus est in 
gladio fratrem suum 

Spuuium II. 9 * Et abstuli Amoiraeum a facie eorum, cuius erat altitudo ut 
altitudo cedri, et fortitude eius sicut ilex : et abstuli fructus eius 
a summo, et radices eius ab imo 

TfrtuiJian i a " Et potum dabatis sanctilicatis nieis vinutn 

Cyprian IV, 7 ^ , . . , et pluam super unara civitatem et super 

unam non pluam : pars una compluetur et pars super quam non 

8 pluero arefiet* * Et congregabuntur duae et tres civitates in unam 

civitatem potandae aquae causa nee sic saliabuntur; et non con- 

vertimini ad me, dicit Dominus 

I I, 3| II. Tycon. Reg, Quart, 
IV 7, 8. Cypr. Ad Dtntti. vi 

II 9. 5^. ciii II 12. Tcrt. Dt I4un, ix 

I, I, Amos] + ot fytvorro iv AKitapHfi #« Bwoyt ffi IL {nisi Mafna0iap*tfi) ^ 
3. In tribua *fc] pr k<u «tir«v Kvpiot ffi earn] aurov GJ^ [<fxc 68 87 ovrovi) {%^ 

text) II, In tribua etc] pr raSc Kiyu Kvpwi (Sr Idumaeae] loi/Souas A* Uovpuuat 
A^ earn] aurous ©J^ (H^^text) persecutus cst]+ayrovj G]^ (IL — text) 

fratrem] pr tKaaros A 

IL 9. abstuli !<*] pr tyw (& <£<7fipa A a fade] om a f||| (vpo Q* t* Q*) 

1 3. sanctiftcatis] al Sanctis TVrf mcis] om G 

W. 7. pluero] + tr avTjjy A Q 8, duae] +ToXftj A et non convertimiiii] 

OV0 Off cirftrrjpff^TC A Q* {ovtc twWTpa^ijr* Q"^ 

* It has been thought well, for the sake of abbreviation^ to use the sign G for 
the LXX version mduding the Lucianic and Hesychian recensions, excepting 
wbere theao two latter, under the symbob H jEj, are speciaUy mentioneii 





rz '* Qui solidat lonitruum, et condit spiritum, et adnuntiat in homines T*rtullktn 
Christum suum. ,..,.,,... 

V. 6 * Quaerite Detim et vivet anima vestra. . . . . . Cyprian 

7,8 'Qui fecit in exce]so iudicium, et iustitiam in terra posuit. •. * . Luc. Col. 
Qui advocat aquani mans et eiTundit earn super faciem terract Sptculum 
dominus Deus omnipotens no men est illi. 

lo^Odio habuerunt argueniem in portis, et verbum aequissimura 
abominati sunt. .,...,..., 

18 " Vae qui concupiscunt diem Domini ; et ut quid vobis hunc diem 

19 Domini? Et hie est dies tenebrae et non lux, "Queraadmodura 
si fugiat homo a facte leonts, et incidat ei ursus; et insiliat in domum 
suam et infulciat manum suam in panetem, et raordeat eum scorpio. 

30 *'Nonne tenebrae sunt dies ilia Domini, et non lux, et nebula sine 

lumine ? 
a I " Odi, reicci cerimonias vestras : et non odorabor in frequent lis Ti 


34 ** vivus sine via : Cod, W* 

J5"nuroquid victimas et hostias optuHsti mihi XL: annis domus 
a6 Istrahel : ** et suscepislis tabernaculum Moloch et sidus del: vestri 
ay rempham : figuras eorum quas fecistis vobis : ^ et trans/nram vos 

in ilia Damascum dicit dmS: ds: omnipotens nomen est ei. 

VL f ^Vat illis qui sper^unt Sion: et eonfid^ul in monism Samaria e 

pervindemiaverunt initia gentium et superintraverunt in eis domus 
a Istrahel : ' transite omnes et videte et egredimini inde in Samar- 

IV 1 3. Tert, Adv. Pmx, xxviii V 6. Cypr» Ad Dimtt. xiiii ; Spic. (Ang.) xiii 

V. 7. Lucif» Cal. Di sand. A than, i V 8. Spec, cxxxiv V 10. Sp^c. xxxii 

V 18-ao. Sprc, xxvi V 21. Tert. Adv. Mart, v 4 VI i. Tert. Adv. Mart, iv 35 

IV. 13. Qui] 810T1 B Start i&w (yat B^ ^^ AQ tonitnium] at tonitrum T§rt 
condit] at condidit Ttrt Christum] d' ko^ov Q"*' 

V. 6. Dcum] Doraiuum S to*' Kvptev <5 et vivei anima vestra] ct vivitc S 
not (rp-t © M C^^aT* B'^ Q* (ijctTt A Q^ (ijutffBt % 7. Qui fecit] pr »vf»ot % 
{txc 48 95 185) |l^ [txc 68) prUci oTt A %. advocat] al evocat 5 dominus Deus 
omnipotens] Kvpiot © 48 (EH? - text) 18. et 1"] om ^^ ^ (IL = text) dies 
tenebrae] axorot €( IL ^t? 19. si] oroy A mimuin suam] al matius auas S ras 
X((;nf avrov (!^ ILJ^ in J**] vpoi A ttt Q (tin (B) 31. odorabor] t Bvtrtat <5 22 
26 48 106 {om Q) 35. Istrahel] + Xt^ti wypjoj Q 26 49 106 mihi] + fy t^ tptiim 
G a^. rempham] ^fufpfiv G (P*<^v Q) % {*x€ 96 1 8& Pt p^} % corum] QmAQ 
{hah Q^ 68 87 91 E 

VI. r. ct confident in monlcro S.] Vac qui confident in monte S. TeH in eia] 
avTQt Ct Q (fovroif Q*) 28 49 106 % {*y awraif 22 ^aurcHS 62 05 147 185 «k avrw 233) 
3. videte] -(- fti JiaKavnjv E {i-xc 36 48 51 158 233) 68 ^1 ct egrcdJmint inde in 
S«narb«b«ni] mm litxear* txtiOiv tti Efia9 Pa^^a ^ |[} (txc Q tit fia$pQ0Ba vcu 
&«AiaT« (-^«r€ Q') tittte*r) Saiaarhabam] Ai/ta9 rt^v fityaKiiv 22 36 <ri;/Mi9 ri}V 

R 2 


CW. Wring, 


Cod. Wtmg. 


habaun : et descendite in Geth alienigenamm : quae sunt optimae ex 
omnibus regnis eorum : si plures sunt fines eorum quam vestri sunt 

I fines : ' qi/i optastis in diem malum qui acceditis et tangitis sabbatis 

4 (aJsis : *qui dormitis in lectis eburnels et luxuriamini in stragulis 
eorum : qui manducatis haedos de gr^ibus : el vitulos de medio 

5 armento lactantes * qui plauditis ad vocem organorum : sicut per- 

6 manentia aestimaverunt et non sicut fugientia * qui bi^//is liqua/»;» 
t'inum et primis unguentis unguemini : et passi sunt nihil contribu- 

7 latione loseph. ^ Propter hoc nunc captivi erunt ab initio potentium : 

8 et auferetur hinnitus equorum ex Efrem : * quoniam iuravii dms: per 
semetipsum quoniam eg<7 abominor omnem iniunam lac^ et 
tegvones eius od/, et ai/feram 

VIL 10 Et misit Amasias sacerdos in Bethel ad Hieroboam r^em 
Israel dicens : conventum facit adversum te Amos in media domo 

II Israeli non poterit terra sufferre verba eius, "propter quod haec 
dicit Amos : in gladio morietur Hieroboam, Israel autem captivus 

13 ducetur a terra sua. '' Et dixit Amasias ad Amos : vade, discede in 

13 terram luda et ibi commorare et ibi propheiabis j "in Bethel autem 
iam non adicies prophetare, quia sanctificatio regis est, [Cod. Weing, 

14 (*S/.}]etdomusregni erit: ^*Etrespondit*Araos*et dixit ad Amessiaro: 

VI 4-6. Sptc. ex VI 4-6. Tert. Adv. Man. iv 15 VI 8. Sf^c, xxxin 

VII 10-17, Cypr, D§ Hon^ft. vUi VII 10. CoILCarth. Gtsta cclviii 

fUyaKni> t^ 147 descendite] + *M*t9€v (& 1, {txe 153 238) &m g|^ («xe 36 49 106) 
eorum] rowvif tfS 3. qui optastis] o* npxofifvoi ^^ %1^Q^ {^ tvxofuvoi 

QA) 4« in lectis] ciri $vpaiv J^ itxc Q 26) liucunaimini] deliciammi S in 

stra^lis] super thoros S qui manducatis] ttax eadofrct ^Q^Jl^ (tu fc9QVTts Q) 

oi tttew^rn E medio] om A S arracnlo] anaentis S Vae qui donniuiit in 
lectis eburnels^ ct deltciis Quunt in thorn sub: cjui edunt haedos de grreg^ibus 
caprarum et vitulos de gregtbus boum tactantes Ttfi 5. qui plauditis] qui 

plaudetis S comiplaudentes Teti o* €vi>cpaTovifTts "^ (exc Q 26 -KpoTot/vT*%} voccqb] 
sonum 5 Tcri sicut permanentia] sicut sempitcrna S tanquam perseverantia 

7Vr/ Off tarrfKOTa {^S ojt taraira ATLJ^ (txe 48 wr «<7^n7«oTa) aestimaverunt] 

dcputavcrunt Ttrt aestim. ea S sicut j°] quasi S tanquam Ttrl 6. bibitis] 
bibuni 5 Terf tlquatum] saccatum 5 primis unguentis] optima unguenta S 

priraariis unguentis Ttri unguemini] unguunlur 5 T*rt pa^i sunt] non 

dolebant Son A contribulatione] in IntcHtum 5 7. ex] «ir Q**^ («f Q^ om 

Q] 233 8. quoniam i* a*J quia SA per semetipsum] + A.<Tr<t Kvptot o 0<ot 

rw ^vyafifotv % {ixc 48 153 233) 63 87 fl 1 iniuriam] superbiam S ( - Vtdg) eius] 
illius 5 awTw A 49 106 153 odi] odivi 5 

VIL 10. in Bethel] o»« in ffi IL («sc 62 147 ««) ^ conventum] conglobationes 
Cc cvarpofai ^ in media domo] in medio domus Cc tv fit^ip otxov fl^ non poterit] 
non potest Cc ov /i»j fftniTai A suffcrc] supportare Cc verba] aermones Ccfir 
wavrai S eiusj-^^et ob hoc insupcr expcUitur Cc 13. Amos] -ho Qpo» 

G discede] +ffv ®i (om A Q) 13. iam] om (& et domus regni erit] - L 

erit] <crp( ^ 14. Amessiam] A mas iam L Kiuxoiav ^% (txc 62 147 Aftiatav) H 



non eram profeta neque filius profetae sum ego : sed pastor erara 

15 capramm 1 bellicans mora: " et adsunipsit me dmsi de ovibus et 

16 dixit dmsi ad me : vade et prophetare in plefaem meam Istrahel " Et 
mine audi verbum difu: lu dicis non profetabis in Istrahel : et non 

17 congregabis lurbas in domum lacob. ^"^ Propter hoc baec dicit dras: 
ds: uxor tua in civitate prostabit : et filii tui et filiae tuae gladio 
decident : et terra tua funiculo metibitur : et tu in terram immundam 
morieris ; Istrahel autero captivus ducetur a terra sua. 

VIII. I ^Sic OBtendit mihi dms: ds: et ecce vas aucupis : et dixit dins 

1 ad me : quid tu vides *Amos*: et dixi vas aucupis : * et dixit dms: ad 

me : venit consummatio vere super populum meum Istrahel i iam non 

5 adiciam ut praeteream eura ; ^ et ululabunt fundamenta templi in 
ilia die dicit dms : prostratorum Humerus inmensus in omni loco 

4 proiciara silentium. * Audite itaque haec qui contribulatis in mane 

6 pauperes: et dissoluitis mediocres a terra: " dicentes quando transeat 
messis ut adquiramus : et sabbata et aperiamus thensauros ut faciamus 
raensuram rainorera: et ut ampliemus pondus et faciamus stateram 

6 iniquam : 'ut possideamus pecunia pauperes et humilem pro calcia- 

7 mentis : et ab omni negotio mercabimur. "^ Jurat dras: per superbiam 

8 lacob : si oblivfscetur in vincendo omnia opera vestra : * et in his 
conturbabitur terra: et lucebit omnis qui commoratur in ea: et 

Vlir 4-8. SpK. xxii 

profeta] + tyw ffi {exc 26) sum ego] om G% {*xc 22 51 147) ]^ belUcans 

mora] vclUcans mora L itat KVi(an' uvKop^tva GJ^ £xc Q om xai) itat cvttafuva nvi(mv 
i. («xc 48 153 238 =• ©) 15. ovibus] wpo<pT}Tiuv B {Trpofftnojv A Q) dms a"] 

om L el prophetarel om et ffi {fxc 22) picbcra] + meam L + ptou G {t-xe 

26 aov) Istrahel] Israel L sic infra 16- non congregabis turbaa] noti congre- 
gabitur L in domum] in domo L 17, ds] om <!£ civitate . . . terra tua] 

om Q {^hab Q™') tu] om Q {hab Q^^) in terraro immundam] in terra 

immunda L a terra sua] in terram suam L 

VIII. I. dms ds] xvfHot Kvfum B 48 68 87 Bl 233 dms ad me] om^^ hab 

E {exc 48 158 283) a. vere] <?m O populum mcum] tok oiKi>v 62 147 

153 238 3. fundamcnta] (paTvttifiaTa ^ dms] KVfxot Kvpioi ffi J^ (Q tcvptos 

Q^ V ^) prostralorum numerus immensus] iroXvr o trtwra/fta/t ^ 4. ita- 

que] igitur S qui contribulatis] oppriinHis {at oppremitis) 5 m tKTpt0ovTtt 

^J^ci f«dX//3oi^€i i {txc4% 61 163 233) pauperes] ai pauperem S irrrrfra ffi 

ct] om A dissoluitis] vioktis (ajf vigiolatis) S mediocres] inopcs S nrtax^^ 

1L {exc 43 158 283) 5. transeat] transict 5 adquiramus) pr veudcntes S mn 

fftwoXrjao^v ffi (Q otu *fiitXfjaofify j^o - flS) d 3*] ut S thensauros] 0Tj<ravpof 
^B 1^ 0^9(^0* -ow) &tioavpov^ %A ut a"] et S pondus] ^traBfua A Q* '^ 

{'$fuov Q*) 6. pecunia] pccuniam (at pecunia) S tv apyvfum ffi pauperes] 

pr Itat €t 48 87 {%i^A»iexi) humilem] inopcs S ab omni ncgolio] 

awo wayros 7iMjpttT0t © Q 26 49 1D6 iraat}t vpaiTftat {tfii rrpa^fatt) % {*xc 48 288 
m O 7. iurat] iuravit {at iurabit) 5 per] adversus (a/ + scmet ipsum quia 

abominor omnem) 5 in vincendo] om S in vntot (w/ wtutot) ffi vestra] 

cius S B, in his] pro his S conturbabitur] ov rapax^riatTai fli lucebit] 


ascendet sicut flumen consummatio : et descendet sicut flumen 

9 Aegypti ; • Et erit in iOo die, dicit dms: occidet sol meridie : et con- 

10 tenebrescet super terrara dies lucis ; *•* et convertam dies solemnes 

vestros in luctum : et omnia cantica vestra in planctum : et iniciam in 

omnem lumbum ciliciuni : et m omne caput decalvationem : et ponam 

eum sicut luctum dilecti : et eos qui cum eo [C&d. Weing, {F^ sunt sicut 

I J diem doloris, " Ecce dies venient dicit dms: et inmittam famem super 

terram noo famem panis neque sitim aquae sed faraem ad audieodum 

I a verbum drm : '*et movcbuntur aquae usque ad mare et ab aquilone 

usque ad orientem percurrent quaerentes verbum dmi: et non in- 

13 venient. " In i!lo die deficient virgines bonae et iuvenes electi in 

14 sitim I '* iurantcs per propitiationem Samariae et dicentes vivit ds tuus 
Dan et vivit ds tuus Bersabee : et cadent et non resurgent uroquam. 

WeingJf) IX. i ' Vidi dom: stantem su[)er altare et dixit mihi feri super 
propitiatorium : et movebuntur luminaria et concide in capita 
omnium : et 

5 ■ et lugebunt omnes comroorantes in ea et ascendet sicut flumen 

6 consummatio eius et descendet sicut flumen Aeg>'pti : ' Qui aedificat 
in coelum ascensionem suam : et repromissionem suam super terram 
fundat qui advocat aquam maris et effundet earn super faciem terrae 

VIII. 9, to. Tert. Adn^. Mart, iv 42 VIII 9. Tycon- Rtg. StpL VIII 9, la 
Cypr. TisHm, ii 23 VIII 11, 13. Spu. cxxx IX 6. Teit. Adv, Marc, iii J41 
iv a4» V 10 

lugebunt 5 nfySrjnn ffi omnia] omncs S qui commoratur] habi- 

tant S consummatio] i mmyr E (fxe 48 95 163 185 2S8) 68 9* dms] Kvptof 

Kvfiios ffi 48 68 87 91 Kvptm a fft QA 36 153 233 Kvpwt % {«rc 36 48 153 233) 
occidet] pr KOI a^^ meridie] media die Ttrt contenebrescet] tenebricat T 

obtenebrabitur C tenebrescet («/ tcncbricavit) Tfti dies lucis] die lucis C dies 

(u minis T Ttti tv iffupa to far G5 % {exc 22 63 147 fJ' ly^f/w ^ftwot) J5 10, dies 

solemnes] vel ui ai. Ug. diesollemnes dies festos C omnia cantica vestra] 

cantica eomm {at » Cod) C in planctum] in lamentation em C et 

iniciam ad fxn. tx>m\ et imponatn super (umbos vestros saccum et super omne caput 
calvitium ct ponam eum quasi luctum delicti et eos qui cum eo quasi diem moeroris 
Ttri eum] auiiiv ^ 28 62 147 11. venient] veniunt S dms] irv/Mor xtipit>% ^ 
68 87 91 163 panis] ttpnuv (E 1^ {*xc 30 61" 62 147 lfi3) Q^9l aprov A ncquc] 
ncc S sitim] oi q' Ui^ot a' ^ Rivtar Q™' dnu] dei {al * Cod) S t a. move* 

bunturj dvcox^ija-oi^ai Q {Q^ aaktvQriaovrm) 86 61 (raA«w^«TCH A 1L (fjrc36 48 51 153 
238) 1^ {ixc 26 49 106) usque ad mare] T171 Qakaaojjt ©b t<uj ^x. A Q {Q^ tiwo 

0aA.) OMQ &aK. tmi BaX. 22 62 147 ad orientem] ad austrum S percurrent] cm 
S 13. electi] om ^ 14. ds i°] +irv/MDE A 26 49 106 

IX. 1. mihi] om © super propitiatorium] #»( to 9\tmtiaTfipiQy AQ {Q^ twt 
TO iXaarrjptov) 48 106 147 233 luminaria] to wptumka © E {txc 22 62 l&S to 
vpomrKtua) J^ (fxr fll) 6. ascensionem suam] ascensum suum Terf repro- 
missionem] promissionem Trr/ super terram] in terra 7Vr* dms] + iw»To«poTo>p 
«S 48 95 186 ft («c Q 26 108) + ff7 o wokt, A % {txc 48 &fi 186) Q 26 106 



~ 7 dins: nomen est ei* "^ Nonne sicut fili Aethiopura vos estis mihi fili 
Istrahel dicit dms 1 nonne Istrahel rediixi ex Aegypto : et alienigenas 

8 ex Cappadocia : et Syros de fovea : ' ecce oculi dmt: dei: super 
regnum peccatorum : et auferam illud a facie terrae : adtamen in 

9 consummationem non auferam lacob dicit dms : * propter quod ecce 
ego praecipio et tritu ......... 

^ MiCAH, 

■ I. I .Corf. 

^^ 5 . 4 ^ ^tiod est peccatum domus 

6 /uda nonne JHerusalem. ; * etpona.m Sawariam in specu/am agn et in 
//aMB,t%onem vineae, ef ^.?ducam in Ckaos lapr^/^j eius: et fQn</(fiwenta 

7 eius (ienudaho : ' et omn\2. scvXpiiiia rius concidtnt : et omnes /oca- 
tiones in /gni crewa^^untur : et emm^ idola eius ponam in f j:/erminium : 
quoniam ex conductionibus fornicationis congregavit : et ex condu- 

( 8 ctionibus fornicationis evertit : * propter hoc planget et lugebit ; ibit 

^^p nudo pede et nuda facie: faciens planctum sicot draconum: et luctum 

^^ 9 sicut fiiiae sirenum : *Obtinuit autem plaga eius quia venit usque ad 

ludam: et tetigit usque ad porlam poputi mei usque ad Hierusalem: 

10 ^''qui estis in Ged noiite magnificari: qui estis in Acim noUte reaedi- 
ficare: de domo derisoriar terram vos spargite super derisum vestrum: 

11 "quae inhabitas bene civitates tuas: non est profecta quae habitat 
in aelam t plangite domum iuxta earn : accipiet ex vobis plagam 

ladoloris: *^quis inchoavjt in bona quae commoramur in gemitu : 

13 quia descenderunt mala a dmo: super portas Hierusalem: ''sonus 
quaddgarum et equitantium quae habitat Lachis : dux peccati eius 
haec est huic domus Istrahel : quia in te inventae sunt impietates 

14 huius Istrahel. ** Propter hoc dabit qui mittantur usque ad heredi- 
tatem Geth : in doraos vanas m nihil facti sunt regibus Istrahel r 

15 "usque dum heredes adducant inhabitantes hereditates Lachis: 
1(5 usque Odollam 1 veniet honor filiae Sion ^*radere et tondere super 

Alios tuos teneros : dislata viduitatem tuam sicut aquila : quia oiptivi 
Wk duett sunt a te : 

™7. fUi] w/ M/ <i/. Ug. fili Aegypto] pr yrjt (5 H (fxc 22) J^ 8. lacob] pr tok 

wMotf iSt {Iffparjk A 26 49 106) 9. ecce] otn ^b 43 9^ 

I. 6. in i°] on A 7. locatiODea] +at/rf}T i& 8> facie] om <£ filiae] 9vyG,rtfmif 

^% {txc 153) 1^ io» in Acini] €*' A#fft/* ffi J|J Erauuft % Q^ Box"/* terrain 

ifos] om vos ® {habA) super] om^%tt^Q^t>\ 62 95 147 185 ii. dvitatea 

tuas] pr itaBtXot 1L (*«■ 22 48 153 233) in aelam] 'Xtwaap ffi {Ztwnap . , , otno¥ 

}»pm ras B^) htvav H (62 147 Itwav 48 153 233 « C&) JlJ = © («r p* Ttrvaar 68 
17 91 Joiyvay) 13,. peccati eius haec est] a/jofirtar cynj fCTtv (Q ajU. aimyf fCfTi*' 
A 26 106 {Q*^ $' avrq) huic domus Istrahel] tij ^vyarpt l,it<av^ 14, dabit] 

hoiOM luj^i {exc 87 91) A in domos vanaa] om in (ffi 15. hcredcs] ^^ aov 22 

86 51 238 adducant] ayayta ffcw % (ay. uov 95 185) hereditates Lachis] Aax<'<^' 
Kkfipopotua ^ it Aaxct? Mkrjpovofnay J^ Sion] ct it 68 87 91 ItTjfMfjA ffi ^ {M€ 

[laparfk Siov 49] — Cod) 16. viduitatem tuam] rrjir ^r^ptjeiv cw%^ 87 81 nji* 

IvfnTfhv tfpw JJ*"^ iTr\v xtiptioar ffov J^) 



IL ( ^ facti sunt cogitantes in laboribus : et operant&r mala, in cubf- 

/i^us suis : et ss'mui in die co^xwwmabunt 0a quoniaw non levaverwn/ 

fl ad dom: manus suas: *et concuphctbsint agros et dirip/V^fl«/ orphan^! 

et domus per /(^tentiam ifft^adebant et ///Wpiebant virum et domi^m 

3 «lwj vinim et A^rtlitatem eius, ' Propter hoc haec dicit difu ecce ego 
Wwf^.(/^ CQ|i/<7 ^i/per plebf/w ^a«r [£7<^. Weing, (-F)] mala ex quibus non 

levabitis cervices vestras et non ibitis recti subito : quoniara tempus 

4 malignum est • * in ilia die sumetur super vos f>arabola et flebitur 
flatus in parte dicentium, Miseria laboravit pars populi mei : mensurata 
est in ftiniculo : et non fuit qui prohiberet eum ut reverterentur : agri 

5 veslri dispersi sunt * propter hoc non erit tibi qui mittat ftiniculum 

6 in sorte : in ecclesia drai : * nolite lacrimari lacrimis : neque lacri- 

7 mentur in hts: non enim repellet opprobrium: "^omnis qui dicit dms: 
lacob intra exasperaveruot spiritum dim : quia haec sunt adinventiones 

S eius nonne verba eius bona sunt cum eo : et recta abienint * et 
palam plebs mea inimicitiam restitit contra pacem suam pellem eius 

9 decoriaverunt : ut ne auferrent spem tribulationis belli. 'Propter hoc 
duces populi mei : proicientur de domibus aepulationum suarum 
propter ma!as adinventiones suas : repulsi sunt. Accedite in montibua 

10 aetemis " surgite et ite quia non est vobis haec requies : propter 

11 inmunditiam corrupti estis corr:uptionem: " persecutionem passi estis 
nullo persequente: sps: stetit in te mendax: stillabit tibi in vinura et 

13 in ebrietatem : et erit ex stillicidio plebis huius ^' congregatione con* 
gregabiturlstrahel: cum omnibus sustinens sustinebo residuoslstrahel: 
super eundem ponam aversionero eorum sicut oves in tribulatione : 

13 velut greges de medio cubili suo: exilient ab horainibus: "propter 
incisionem a facie eorum interciderunt : et transierunt portam : et 
exierunt per earn : et exivit rex eorum ante faciem eorum : dms: 
autem rector erit eorum 
III. I Mn tempore. Audite igitur: haec principes lacob: et residui 


II 1-3 Lucif. Cal. Z>tf san€t, Afhan, i 35 

II 7 Sfiec, lit 

II 9 Sp€C. cxx 

II. I. dom] 0eum L Compi Cyr, AUx. rov $tov ((K «= Cod) 3. concupiscebant] 
concupicbant L ct domus per potcntiam invadebant et diripicbant virum] 
om L virum 3*] prnm © Q"*^ 3- cogito] cognosco L banc] om L 
4. laboravit] tToXmwwfn^cafi^v © vestri] t^tiuv (25® A 22 36 61 6. Nolite 
lacrimari] /a^ «Xa4«T« S 3^ ^7 hoKpnnn 1^ in his] t »c tovtoi |^ Q {Q^ tm rmrrots) 
A 153 238 -t-M <np$aXfioi vtimv 22 86 51 7. oirniis] om 6i dini] domus 
S wjrof (5 intra cxaspcmverunt] inritavit S quia] c i (25 IL J^ Q**^ {Q* w) 
9. Propter hoc] om 6^ A accedite] adpropitiquate S" 10. vobis] cot 61 
11. in te] om ffi 12. Istrahcl i^] IohoiB ffi Istrahel a*] tow Aaov toxttov A 
eorum] atnov (Ef^ ('avranr A Q) greges] woifiytov i&J^ilL = Cod) 1 3. propter 
inciaionem] aya07}9i 81a rrjt Komjs I |Q {exc 26 49 106) 

III. I. in tempore] icoi tptt (E haec] cm % lacob] fir omoy ffi JQ [E *= 



a domus Istrahei : nonne vobis est ut cognoscatis iudlcmm : ' odien- I 

tibus bona et quae renti bus mala : rapkntibus pelles eorum ab eis : I 

3 et cames eorum ab ossibus eorum ' quemadmodum comedarunt I 

cames plebis meae et pelles eorum ab eis detraxerunt : et ossa eorum I 

comminuerunt : et conciderunt I 

6 . , . . . , * Propterea nox erit vobis de visione, 7>i^wm#J 
et lenebrae vobis erunt ex divinatione, et occidet sol super prophetas, 

7 et obscurabit super eos dies luminis. ' . . . . quia Specutum 

8 non erit qui obaudiat : *si non ego implevero virtutem spiritu meo 
sancto et iudicio et potestate, ut renuntiera huic iacob iniquitates, 

9 et huic israhel peccata sua, * Audite itaque haec, duces domus 
iacob et reliqui domus Israhel, qui abominatis aequitalem et omnia 

10 recta evertentes, ^''qui aedificatis sion in sanguinibus et hierusalem 

11 in iniquitatibus, ^* duces eorum cum muneribus iudicabant, et sacer- 
dotes eorum cum mercedibus respondebant, et prophetae eorum cum 
pecuniis divinabant, et in dominum requiescebant, dicentes : nonne 
dominus est in nobis ? Non venient super nos mala, 


a • , , . . venite ascendamus ad montem Dei 

Quoniam lex de Sion proficiscetur et sermo Domini Cyprian 

3 ab Hierusalem, ' et iudicabit inter plurimos populos, et revincet et 
deteget valtdas nationes ....... quam Cod.Wmtg, 

4 j/udebunt M/igGTMe : * c/ re-^wiescet unus^i^que sub f /nea sua : et 
suhfxcu sua: ct non erit qui w<f/^ /remit eos: quia os dm omnipoten/is 

J ^utuni est Itaec : * quia otnnes popu// ibuni unus quisque viam suam^ 

6 «os ^wtem r^/mus in nommo^ del: nastn m d,tternum et dej'mr/i. " In 
ilia die /^cit dns: ^Twinipotens \ congregabo adflictam et expulsam 

7 suscipiam : et quos reppuU : ^ et ponam contribulatara in reliquias : 
et proiectam in gentem validam : et regnuvit dms: super eos in 

8 montem Sion : a modo et in saecula saeculorum. ' Et tu turris 

III 6 Tycon, Rig, S*pi. Ill 7, 8 Spec, iii III 9^11 Spec, x; Lucif. Cal De 

sand, Aikatu i 35 IV 3 Spec, acx IV a 3 Cypr» TesHm. i 10 

3. ab eis] airo twv oarttav avrouv A Q 106 153 238 6. luminis] ow (5 

7. erit] f«7Ttr Q*"" obaudiat] +ouTaw © 8, spiritu mco sancto] §v 

wpevfuxrt Kvptov <Bi H (iT-w 62 li7 tv mKvtiaTi ajuot) J^ iniquitates] + avrou (gc 

9. duces] pracpositi L iacob] lijX A reliqui] residui L Istrahei] 

Zsinel L laxtsf0 A abominatis aequitatem] abominamini iudidum Z. ever- 

tentes] pervertills L 10. aediftcatis] aedificastis L sion] am A tn 

sao^iEtbus] in sanguinem L 11. duces] iudiees L eorum i" a"] etus Lauri^t 
ffi mercedibus] nicrccde L fUffSov ffi eorum 3*] om L Dominum] 

Domino L nonne Dominus ad fin com\ Dominus in nobis est ct non venient 
in nos mala L nobis] w^f Q* {^po-v J^*) 

IV. a, Dei] Ki/^iov<S 3. et deteget] ow (ffir studebunt] + €Tt /f^ 4» sua 1*] 
ow P* •^ [hah Q* ("'tfJ) 5. dei] ft Kyptov (& {om A) 6. In ilia die] *v rms 

tjfitptui tiiuvais % omnipotens] om G 7* reliquias] + iiafitvop Q^ 


graegis arida filia Sion super le veniet : et intrabit initium regnom 

9 primum : ex Ba^^lonia filiae Hierusalem, ^Et tu nunc tit qnifl 

cognovisti mala : numquid rex non erat tibi : aut cogitatio tua peril; 

10 quia optinuenint te dolores : sicut parturicntem ? " Dole et Tinlitct 
age filia Sion sicut parturiens : propter quod nunc prodies ex dritaie 
et conmoraberis in campo : et venies usque in Babylonia : inde 

11 liberabit te dmsi ds: tuus de manii inimicorum tuonim : " et none 
congregatae sunt super te gentes multae dicentes gaudebimus: ei 

13 videbimus super Sion oculis nostris " ipsi autem non sctenint 
cogitationem dm\: et non intellexerunt consilium ipsius: quia collegit 

13 COS sicut manipulos per messe : " surge et tritura eos filia Sion : quia 
cornua lua ponara ferrca : et ungulas tuas aereas : et tab^j<rere facial 
m eis geotes: £f mtftulatim fanes pl^rb^ multas e/ referes dino: mul/i^ 

V. I /udinem eorum: et virtu tern eorum dtiio: universae terrae. ^Nunc 
concludelur filia in condusione ; obsidione constituit super vos m 
a virga percutient super maxj/his irilfus Is/rahe], * Et tu Btihktm 
domtu habiia\}^\mms E/raia : numquid minima es ut sis in mtVths 
luda *. ex te mi\\\ prodie^ qui sit pxxnceps in Istra^/ et egres^Mt ip«<£J 
lub \rC\\\o ex diebus saecu/i. * Propte/ifa ^abit eos usque ad Xempus 
pariinxae paxxtX et restdui frtitrum eius xtsertentur super ^/ios ZrtTahel: 

4 * et stabunt et videbunt et pascent gregem suum in virtutem dmi : et 
in gloria noniinis dmt: di: eorum erunt. Propter quod nunc magni- 

5 ficabunlur usque ad extrema terrae: "^et erit ei haec pax cum Assyrius 
venerit super terram vestram: et cum intraverit in regionem vestraro: 
et insur * . . . pastores : et octo morsus hominum : 

6 ■ et pascent Assur in gladio : et terram Nebroth in fossa sua : et 

V 1 a Cypr. Tfsiim. ii 1 a ; TerL Adv. lud. xiii 

8. ex Babylonia] /r HamXua S (310 = Cod) 9. Et tu] om tu (ffir tc] etoo S 
(<ri A) 10. age] ain. cdd. 97 "228 SIO Km tyyii* (5» % {txc 87 91 ^ A) liberabit 
tc] + *c<xi ^KtiBev XitTpttitrtrm at B^ <"'W> A Q 13. et labcscere faclam in eis gentes] 
om A Q'^ {hah 49 87) et minutatim , , , multas] om B 

V. 1 . jElia} + "Btppm^ %'^A vos] ij^os Q^ tribus] rat trvAot G'^ 68 a. domus 
habitationis Efrata] domus ittius ephratbii C ofn Ttrt oimts W^p^a (fSr (rev £^<^>a^ 
%AQ) habitationis] refcctionis, F* C, Burkiii (O. L* and Itala, p, 95) 

nuraquid ad ^n con%\ num exigua cat ut constttuaris in roiliibus luda? esL te mihi 
procedct ut sit princeps apud Israel, et proccssioncs eius a principio drebus 
saeculi C numquid] norj Ttri ^117 Er o>ti <^ P| ut sis] ow Ttrt in milibus] in 
ducibua Tcrt *p x**^'*^**' GE {fxc 36 233 «r rots rjytfwatv) j^ [txe 49 tv Toir TiytfiMttv) 
ex tc] f^ 01/ ©B 26 (i« aov &t^ A Q) mihi] enira Tert predict] + ti-yovfitvm A 
prodtet . . . Istrabel] exiet duxqui pascet populum metim Israel Ttrt in Istrahel] 
Toti l^ptx^T^K (5° 3. fratruro eius] tojv oScA^^qjv omtwv l?^ 1L [exc 51 95 [147 -ranf (ti, 

ffou] 185) fil 4. stabunt, videbunt, pascent] (TTi^aeToi, o^trai^ woifxavu fSi {adnoi ra 
«ti&t}a<fpit[ya\ «tf rovi ifvo roitovt ov Kuvrat i r<a cfa(rcA[iSiu] Q""'^) magni ficabunlur] 

ttty<iXvv0rjfffTcu (It fnyoXw&rjtfo^rrai B^'^^ A Q 5- ei] om C5 6. Nebroth] 

ntdpoil <S (N<^^ 23 97 SIO Atd) et ertptam te] ttiu pvercroi ® |^ «a4 puctrm a* 






eripiam te ab Assur cum supervenerit in terranri vestram : et cum 
7 intraverit super fines vestras : ^ et erit residuum lacob in gentibus : 

in medio populorum multorum •. sicut ros a dmo decidens : et sicut 
men ita ut non congregetur quisquam nequc 
'« restet in filiis hominum. * Et erit residuum lacob in gentibus in 

medio populorum multorum : sicut leo inter pecora in saltu et sicut 

catulus in gregibus ovium : quemadmoduoi cum introit et segregans 
9 rapit : et non est qui liberet : '-^et exaltabitur manus tua super 

10 . . . et omnes inimici tui inleribunt. ^® Et erit in ilia die 
dicit dms : exterminabo equos tuos de medio tui : et perdam currus 

1 tuos: "et aoferam civitates terrae tuae: et auferam omnia firmaraenta 

11 lua: **et disperdam maleficia tua de manibustuis: et qui respondeant 
13 non erunt tibi : *^et exterminabo sculptitia tua et fanos tuos . 

'* et disperdam civitates tuas 

5 "et faciam in ira et furore oltionem in gentibus propter quod non 
oboedierint mei. 

VI. I * Audite itaque quae dms: dixit : surge adversus montes experire 
3 iudicium et audiant colles vocem tuam, ^ Audite colles tudicium 
dmj : et valles fundamenta tenae quia iudicium dim : ad 

3 . , . et cum Istrahel disputabit : ' populus meus. Quid 
feci libi aut quid contristavi te - aut quid molestus tibi fui responde 

4 mihi : * quia eduxi te ex Aegypto et ex domo servitutis liberavi te : 

5 et misi ante faciem tuam Moysen et Aaron et Mariam* "Populus 
meus recordare : quae cogitaverit adversum te Bala^rm 

6 . * * In quo adsequar Dominum et adprehendam Deum meum yptt^n 
Sublimem ? Si adprehendam ilium in sacrificiiSj in holocaustomatis, 

7 in vitulis anniculis? "'Si accepto favet Dominus in milibus arietum 
aut in decern milibus caprarum pinguiom ? Aut dabo primittva mea 

8 impietatis, fructum ventris mei peccatum animae meae ? * Renuntia- 

^ VI 6-9 Cypr. Tesiim. iii ao ; Ludf. CaL Dt sanct, AtMan, i 35 VI 8 Sptc. v 

% {tcai pvtxofuu <7€ 36) 9. et 1^] om <Er 10. tUa] om ©^ equos tuos] 

om tuos <5 JH (rxc 49 106) 1L A Q 1 1. et auferam] ttai §^o\«&ptt>att> ffi 12. ct 

disperdam] itai i{ok($ptvoiu {^ % {exc 153) «m t^apci jP^ et A maJeficia] pr warra A 
J 3. fanos tuos] rai <mjAat ffov (JEt 15. mei] 0m ^ILJtl {exc 26 106) [hai> A) 

VI, I. Audite * , . dixit] Ajsovaar* dtf A070V. Kvpnot mifHot ttvtv ffi quae dms] 

A.o70j» KvaolciAaolaQ surge . . . iudicium] AvQffTijBt KptBrjrt wpot to cfij 052/ 

sic nisi Ita* «/>. JlJ 2. colles] A^cioi flS" {AQ* ^ovvai Q^^ opij) 4. ex Acgyplo] 

ff«r Y7t AiTvirrov G Moyscn] rov Wa/arjtf © (Q rov Mwvtfrfv) 6. adsequar] 

coBprchendain L xaraXa^Qi ffi ct adprehendam] adsumsm L cm ct (E (exc 91) 

Deum meum Sublimem? Si adprehendam] om Q* hab Q^'if Sublimem] excelsum L 
adprehendam 2*^] conprehendam L ilium] eum L in sacrificiis] om L QEr 

holocaustomatis] holocaustis L in 4*^] pr aut L prrf 49 7. Si accepto favet] 

aut sisuscipiet L <i 1^poaS*(tTa^ (JK milibus l"* 3"] milia L caprarum] hae- 

dorum L x*^i^Pf^^'^ ^ {apron' A) primitiva] primogcnito L impietads] -f/jov 1L 
peccatum] pro peccatis L pr mtp ® 8. Renunitatum est] renuntiandum L 




turn est tibi homo quod bonum aut quid Dominus exquirat aliud 

nisi ut facias iudicium et iustitiam, et diligas misericordiam, et paratus 
9 sis yt eas cum Domino Deo tuo ? • Vox Domini in civitate invoca- 

bitur, et timcntes nomen eius salvabil ... . . « 

VIL 4 . . . *Vae, uUioncsenira tuae venerunt, nunc erunt pro* 

5 bationes eorum* * nolite fidere in amids, nequc speretis in ducibuj 

8 * Noli gratulari inimica mea mihi, 

qwoniam si cecidi et exsurgam, et si in tenebris ambulavero Dominus 
9 lumen est mi hi. * I ram Domini lolerabo, quoniam peccavi illi, usque 

dum lustiticet causam meam, et faciat iustitiam et iudiduin» et pro- 
10 ducat me ad lucem, \ndebo iustitiam illius. "Et videbit me inimica 

mea et cooperiet se confusione 

14 '* Pasce populum tuum in virga tua, oves haereditatis tuae, habitantes 

convalle in medio Carmelo ; parabunt Basanitin et Gataditin secun- 

ji dum dies saeculi, ^*et secundum dies profectionis eonim a ten^ 

16 Aegypli oslendam illis mirabilia. "Videbunt genteset confundentur 
ex omni fortitudine sua, et soperponent manus in os suum, aures 

17 eorum exsurdabunlur, "Et lingeni pulverem quomodo serpentes 
trahentes terram ; conturbabuntur in conclusione sua, ad Dominum 

18 Deum suum expavescent, et timebunt abs te. ^* Quis Deus quomodo 
tu elevans iniustiliam et transgrediens impietales ? . . , 

tis suae: non continuit in testimonium iram 

19 suam: quia vokns misericordiam est. '*Ipse revertetur et misere- 

VII 4, 5 Spec, cvii Vli g-io Cypr, Ad. Nov. xii VII 14-18 Cypr. Tesitm. 

iii 30 VlI 18, 19 Tert. Adv. Marc, iv 10 

Kinuntiaturo est 5 (4 ayij-fytXii fflr IL (om «i) ^ tibi] + est Z- quod] quid sit S L 
aut <]uld] KOt Ti % Dominus] om S cxqmT&l] quaerat a tc S cJtquisivit a te L hh 
wapa croi G aliud] + Dominus S om ® iudictum] aequitatem S et iustitiam] 
om SS IL (/xc PT} J^ (exc 49) misericordiam] miserationtra S ut eas] ire L 

Tov nopivt(r$ai i& |1| rov woptvta&at ot IL cum Domino Deo tuo] omo'af Kvpiov Bhmi 
aov % {fxc 48 153 233) (BJ^ f^^ra . . .) 

VII. 4. Vac] his scr ffi^ cnim] om ffi 8, si l**] om (ffir ambulavero] 

ttaHnucii ffi ?^ Jtoptvio} iL Q™' lumen eat mihi] fpantu ^oi © '/otfS ftcv 87 ^1 o* 

^a« Q^ 9. facial] airo^o^f I ^ iustitiam et] om (S tudicium] + /*«* fi 

10. me] om ^ 14. tua]/r<j|ivA,7f IL ^y^ij*' ^ j^ habitantes] + icotf eourcwr 

^J^-i- Kara iwvax % g™' convalle] Ipvfir) Q^ "^ {ipvtiw Q*) 1 5. coram] aov 

€5 a terra Aegypti] f^ Aitvwtou 6r |^ f* TU hiyturrov % Q"^ ostcndara 

illis] tu^oii avrcis IL Q^^ ofptaBt fi!& |^ r6. sua] airraw © manus] x"/» 

A 17. Et i**]o»« S sua] «vT<w»' S suum] Tj^iwj' (Sr 18. elevans] 

eximens Tttt iniustitiam] iniquitatcs Ttrt tofofum ffi** u^iitcai %^A trans- 

grediens] praeteriens Ttrt impielates] iniustiliaa Tert aac/Seias ©IL aBuriar JtJ 
Cpr *wi 0^9) + rcsiduis haereditatiss Tirt non continuit] non tcnuit Ttrtov trwtax'^ 
© % on* fKparriatv Q^O Qg 87 91 volcns] voluit Teri est] om Ttrt 19. Ipse] 
om Tert ffi^ revertetur] avertct Ttrt 


bitur nostri : et absolvet omnes iniquitates nostras : et proicientur in 
30 altitudinem maris omnia peccata nostra : *^ dabis veritatem huic 
lacob : misericordiam huic Habrahae : sicut iuravit pa .* 
dies pristinos. 

19 et absolvet] demerget Teri om et ffilL {txc 95 185) ^ {exc 106) omnes 

iniquitates nostras] delicta nostra Titi om omnes (Sr proicientur] demerget Tert 
a.90fpitffti AQ^ in altitudinem] in profunda Ttrt omnia] om Tni 30. dabis] 
SoMTci <Sr veritatem] pr cif (Sr]^ [S/-i- (^ov] Habrahae] Kfipaafi (Sr 

OF ST ANDREWS FROM a.d. 1093 TO A.D. 1571.^ 


After Stewart's renunciation of his election, WALTER DE 
DANIELSTON (Danyelston) was, according to Sc. (vi 47), postu- 
lated (in 1402 according to W. iii 83) to this see, and received the 
fruits of it until his death. According to Wyntoun ijbid\ the election 
of Walter, which was *in way offcompromyssioune', was at the instance 
of the duke of Albany ; the election was ' agane conscience of mony 
men'; and 

*Sone efftyre at the Yule deit he. 

Swa litill mare than a halfif yere 

Lestyt he in his powere.' 

Any information about this obscure figure is of interest. 

On Feb. i, 1392, a petition was granted of Walter de Danyelston, 
canon of Aberdeen^ licentiate in arts and student of civil law at 
Avignon, for a canonry at Glasgow with expectation of a prebend, 
notwithstanding that he has also papal provision of the church of Suitte 
(itr) in the diocese of Glasgow, of which he had not yet got possession. 
Granted (C.P.R.; Pet \ 575). 

In 1394 Danielston held the hospide for the poor at Poknade 
(? Polmadie), to which he had been presented ',by the earl of Lennox. 
The earl's right of presentation was disputed by Matthew, bishop of 
Glasgow {jbid, 614). At a later date he was appointed a papal chaplain 
{jbid, 608). 

It would seem from Bower and Wyntoun that the appointment of 
Danielston to St. Andrews was by arrangement between him and the 
king and duke of Albany, the condition being that Danielston, who was, 
or claimed to be, (hereditary) castellan of the castle of Dumbarton, should 

^ The writer will be grateful for corrections or additions to these notes. 


surrender it to the king on receiving the bishopric, I am not aware of 
any evidence to shew that Danielston was ever confirmed by the Pope. 

GILBERT GREENLAW, bishop of Aberdeen^ and chancellor 
of Scotland, was postulated {? 1402 or 1403) to St. Andrews, and Nory 
was again sent to the papal court for confirmation of the f>ostulatioa. 
But Benedict XIII refused to confirm the postulation (Sc. vi 47), and 
provided to the see — 

HENRY WARDLAW, precentor of Glasgow, doctor of law, and 
nephew of the Cardinal of Glasgow (Sc, vi 47), A lacuna in the 
archives at Rome prevents us from affixing a precise date to his provision. 
But Sc. (/,f.) says that three years and a half intervened between the 
death of Trail and the appointment of Wardlaw. Wyntoun (iii 85) 
seems to place the provision of Wardlaw in the same year as the battle 
of Homildon (Sept. 14), 1402. This falls in with a petition of John de 
Hawik, priest of the diocese of Glasgow, for confirmation in the precen- 
torship of Glasgow, void by the promotion of Henry Wardlaw to the 
see of St. Andrews. He states that he has held the precentorship for 
eight years. This petition is dealt with by the Pope on March i, 1410 
(CP.R. ; Pet. \ 596). To this has to be added a charter in the 
Register House (cited by Dr. J. Maitland Thomson) — the charter of 
Wester Fudy, dated Sept. 14, 1437, in the thirty-fifth year of Wardlaw*s 
consecration, which shews that Wardlaw was consecrated some time in 
the year ending Sept, 13, 1403. But again, April 5, 1425, is in the 
twenty-second year of his consecration (R.P.S. A. 409), which shews that 
his consecration was after April 5, 1405. But another charter (Cam- 
buskenneth 31) is dated Way 20, 1409, and is said to be in the sixth year 
of his consecration. This would make his consecration after May 20, 
1403. So we conclude that his consecration was between May 20, 1403, 
and Sept 13, 1403. 

Henry Wardlaw died 'after Easter on April 6, 1440, in the castle of 
St. Andrews ' (Sc, vi 47), Easter in that year fell on March 27 *. 

JAMES KENNEDY, bishop of Dunkeld, which see he had held for 
two years '. 

He was postulated to St. Andrews, April 22^ i^^o^perviam Spiritus 
San€ti\ during his absence at the court of Pope Eugenius IV, then at 
Florence. Before the decree of the election, with the royal letters 
commendatory, reached the Pope, Kennedy had been by him already 
provided to St. Andrews (Sc* vi 48). 

^ Greeotaw was appointed lo Aberdeen betweeii Sept 18, 1339, and Apr0 5, 

' Many interesting^ notices of Wardlaw hitherto uokiiowii wiU be found in 
C.P.R. ; Pit, i pp. 549, 570, 573, 577, 584, 59a, 600. 

' He Wiia the son of Mary, second daughter of King Robert III, who had married, 
first, George Douglas, carl of Angus, and, secondly, Sir James Kennedy. 



On June 8, 1440, Jaraes, formerly bishop of Dunkeld, translated lo 
the church of St. Andrews in Scotland, offered /re* suo communi servitio^ 
by reason of the said translation, 3,300 florins of gold de Camera^ at 
which the said church of St. Andrews was found to be taxed, together 
with five minuia servUm. ObUgazioni ifi. 123)'. 

Kennedy is generally said to have died in 1466. And for that year 
we have the authority of Lesley {De oHgitie^ &c., p, 302, edit. Romae, 
1578) J who is followed by Spottiswoode (i 114). In the vernacular 
(and probably original) form of Lesley's work (Bannatyne Club edit, 
p. 37) the date is * x^t daye of Maye, 1466 ' I But Dr. Grub {Ecd. Hist. 
» 375) pointed out that in the Chartulary of Arbroath {Registrum 
Nigrum^ p. 145) we find David, prior of St. Andrews, acting as vicar 
general of St. Andrews, seds vacante on July 18, 1465. Again in the 
Chronicle of John Smyth, monk of Kinloss (HarL MSS 2363), we find 
* Anno M. Ixv [which must be merely a sHp for Mcccclxv] obiit lacobus 
Kennedy, episcopus Sancti Andree ' *, And his successor was appointed 
Nov. 10, 1465. See next entry. We find Edward IV of England 
paying his annuity to the bishop of St. Andrews for the year ending 
April 14, 1465 (B.C. iv 1360), and a very small payment for the year 
begun at Easter. 

Kennedy witnessed a great seal charter at St, Andrews on April 30, 
1465 (R,M.S, ii 831), I am disposed to place his death between that 
date and July i8» 1465, and perhaps on May 10^ as stated by Lesley. 
Principal Donaldson informs me that the records of the University of 
St. Andrews have no notice of the death or funeral of Kennedy. He 
was buried in the beautiful tomb which he had erected for himself in 
the church of S. Saivator, which he had built. 

PATRICK GRAHAM, bishop of Brechin *. 

Appointed by a Bull of Paul III, dated Rome, Nov. 4, r465 (B. i 123), 
On Nov. 29, 1465, the proctor of Patrick, lately tian slated from the 

* Bower (Sc, vi 48), who gives the day of his postulation A3 April 2J, adds ' in 
Quadragesima'* This is wi error, for Easter fell in 1440 on March 27. Kennedy 
was consecrated after May i6, 14^8, for May 16, 1448, is in the tenth year of his 
consecration (R.B. 1 18), and before July 7, 1438 (see Clackmamian IVrits^ cited t»y 
Keith 30). It should be noted that a charter in Lib, de Scoh, (187) makes April 10, 
1456, in the nineteenth year of his consecrationt which does not tally with the 
dates above given. The anno coMstcrationis was often a pitfall to the scribes. 

■ This date, 1 suspect, Lesley took from the continuation of Boecc by Ferrcrius 
(Boethius : Parisiis 1574 fol. 387 itrso). 

* Smyth's Chronicle is printed la Dr. J. Stuart's Rtcorda of ih* Monastery of 
Kinloss (Appendix lo the Pre£ace). 

* Like his predecessor, be was a grandson of King Robert HI, whose daughter, 
Lady Mary Stewart, married William Lord Graham after the death of Sir James 
Kennedy. Graham was thus half-brother of his predecessor in the sec. He was 
appointed to Brechin before March 2% 1463 (T. no. 3j8}. 



church of Brechin to the church of St. Andrews, offered 3,300 gold 
florins. His proctor was Gaspar de Ricasolis, merchant of Florence, 
* institor Banchi de Medicis' Obligaz. [ibid. 124). On Dec. 5, 1476, 
Sixtus IV commissioned John Huseman, dean of the church of St. Patro- 
clus in Soest (Suzaciencis) in the diocese of Cologne, to inquire into 
charges made against Graham (T. no. 862). Graham was deposed and 
condemned to perpetual confinement in a monastery 'or other place'. 
The date of the deposition is Jan. 9, 147S (T» no. 863). After confine- 
ment first at Inchcolm, then at Dunfermline, and lastly at the castle of 
Lochleven, he died in 1478 (month and day not known), and was buried 
in St. Serf's Inche in Lochleven. Lesley {De origine^ &c.,, 306). 

It was during the episcopate of Graham that St. Andrews was erected 
into an archiepiscopal and metropolitan see by a Bull of Sixtus IV 
dated Rome, Aug. 17, 1472 (T- no. 852). 

WILLIAM SCHEVES (Schevez, Shevez, Sheves, Schewess), 
archdeacon of St. Andrews. 

'Records of provision defective' (B. i 124); appointed probably in 
1478. Under the year 1478 Lesley {De origin, p. 306) says that Scheves 
received the pall in the church of Holyrood Abbey, in presence of the 
king and of many of the nobility. On Jan, 31^ 1477-8, he was arch- 
deacon, coadjutor and vicar-general (Rymer's Fadera^ xii 40), He had 
been coadjutor June 30, 1477 (R.B. i 200). He had formerly been 
*clencus regis' and master of the hospital at Brechin (R,M.S. ii 
no. 1358). In the vernacular History of Scotland from 1436 to 1 561, by 
John Lesley, bishop of Ross (Eannatyne Club), the day on which the 
pall is said to have been given is Passion Sunday ' in lentrene ' (p. 43). 
Ferrerius (Appendix to Boece,/a/. 393 verso) gives the same day, but 
makes the year 1479. June 2, 1479^ was in * anno consecrationis nostrae 
primo'. (Deed printed by University Commiss*, St. Andrews, 1837.) 
Passion Sunday in 1477-8 was March 8. Scheves was certainly arch- 
bishop on Feb. 2, 1478-9 {R.M.S. ii 141 7 /«/.), 

Scheves is said to have died Jan. 28, 1496-7 V The see was vacant 
March 22, 1496-7 {Lib. Nig, de Aberbrotk^ 3^3) '• 

JAMES STEWART, second son of King James III; born in 
March, 1475-6; marquis of Ormonde, 1476; duke of Ross, 1488*. 

On Sept 20, i497» the Pope made *the most illustrious James Stewart, 
clerk of the diocese of St, Andrews, brother of the most illustrious king 

^ So Keith; but I have been unable to find a verification from an original 
authority, The jK^ar at least may be accepted* 

' The archbishop had a brathcr, Henry Sheve2 of Gilquhus (iS«), to whose won 
and heir, John^ the Archbishop granted the fee-lkriii of certain lands in the regality 
of St. Andrews. R.BI.S. ii a 410. 

* See Sir A. H. Dunbar's Scottish Kittgs^ p. a to. 


of Scotland, being in his eighteenth year \ administrator of the diocese 
up to the lawful age, and after that provided him to the church of 
St. Andrews by advancing him to be bishop and pastor ' ( Vatican, B. i 
124). The Obbiigazioni record that on Oct. 14, 1497, James Brown, 
dean of Aberdeen, offered in the name of the Reverend Father, Lord 
James, elect of St. Andrews, on account of the provision by the Bull of 
Alexander VI under date of Sept. 20, 1497, 3,300 gold florins (B. ibid). 
The legitimate age according to the canon law for the consecration of 
a bishop was the age of thirty years complete {Decretalia Gregorii IX, 
lib. I, tit. vi, cap. 7). In the passage cited by B. (above) there is no 
indication of the Pope's intending to dispense with the law on this 
subject. I am not aware that there is any evidence to shew that 
James Stewart was ever consecrated. He was administrator, and a charter 
dated St. Andrews, Feb. 7, 1502, the deed is said to be in the fifth year 
of his 'administration ' (Keith). 

As to the date of Stewart's death we can fix it tolerably closely from 
an entry in the Tlreasurer's Accounts (ii 415). On Jan. 13, 1503-4, 
a payment of £26 13^. was made ' for the expens maid on the tursing 
of the Beschop of Sanctandrois to Sanctandrois to be beryit, in wax, in 
fraucht, and all other expens *. He was present in the sederunt of the 
Lords of Council on Dec. 22, 1503. So that he had not been long 
seriously ill*. Indeed he witnessed a great seal charter on Jan. 4, 
1503-4 (R.M.S. ii 2765). 

It may be proper here to notice what seems a discrepancy between 
the date of his appointment by the Pope (as given above) and an entry 
in R.M.S. (ii 2358), where James, archbishop of St Andrews, duke 
of Ross, and brother of the king, is a consenting party to, and witnesses, 
a charter on May 22, 1497. This can only be explained by supposing 
that the Pope's concurrence was regarded as absolutely assured. 

Beside the archbishopric he was granted in cammendam the abbey of 
Dunfermline (June 3, 1500), void by the translation of George, abbot ; 
and on Aug. 21, 1500, the sum of 250 gold florins was offered in his 
name(B. 178). Again he was provided to Arbroath July 7, i503(B. 164). 

The see was vacant for some years, perhaps kept intentionally vacant 
for the appointment of 

ALEXANDER STEWART, illegitimate son of James IV by 

* There is probably an error of transcription here, for, assuming the date of his 
birth as given above to be correct, the archbishop would be in his twenty-seeond 
year at the date of his appointment. As Brady transcribes the passage it runs 
' constitutum in xviii annos '. Those who are familiar with questions of this kind 
will know how easy it is to read ' V ' for * X ' ; but even this emendation would give 
a year too much to the age of James Stewart. 

■ I owe these references to Dr. J. Maitland Thomson. 

VOL. V. S 



Marion (by some called Margaret, by others, Mary) Boyd, daughter of 
Archibald Boyd of Bonshaw. 

His birth was probably about 1495. ■ 

John [Hepburn] is prior of St Andrews and vicar-general sede va^cmHi 
July 20, 1504, but the month is in error for the deed is confirmed M^ 
31, 1504, R.M.S. ii 2789. 

His appointment to the archbishopric is assigned by Sir A. H, Dunbar 
(Scottish KingSy 220) to the year 1505 in or before July- Sec his 

Dr. J. Maitknd Thomson cites a precept Feb. 24, 1506-7, in the 
third year of Alexander's administration (original in the Register House), 
which would push back his entrance on his administration to 1504 or 
early in 1505. 

As yet there has not appeared (so far as the editor is aware) any 
record of Alexander Stewart's provision from the archives at Rome ; 
but one may hope that future research may reveal some information. 
James IV wrote to Julius II (the date is not given) thanking him for 
acceding to his request in appointing Alexander to the archbishopric, 
and requesting that the Pope would appoint a certain Dominican 
(named obviously in the letter sent, but blank in the draft) to serve as 
bishop, who would have his title from one of the ancient vacant sees 
(meaning, no doubt, some see in Africa or the East, in partibus infi- 
ddium) who would superintend the tender archbishop. The king would 
provide him with a suitable income (Epistolae Rfgum Scatia^, i no. 2). 
This draft letter is given, in the volume cited, a place after a letter dated 
Oct, I, 1505. 

Alexander Stewart was slain at the battle of Flodden, Sept. 9, 1513. 
JOHN HEPBURN^ prior of St. Andrews, was nominated by the 
Regents and elected by the chapter '. Another aspirant to the see was 
Gavin DouglaSj provost of the collegiate church of St. Giles*, Edin- 
burgh, who shortly afterwards was provided by the Pope to Dunkeld. 
After Forman's provision Hepburn in May, 15 15, carried his appeal 
to Rome. Lesley (Bannaiyne Club edit.), p. 101. He probably 
desisted in his appeal ; at any rate he was given by the Governor of 
Scotland * ane thousand merkis pensione . . . for his contentacoune * 
{ibid, 106). 

ANDREW FORM AN (Foreman), bishop of Moray, to which he had 
been provided by Alexander VI, Nov. 26, 1501 {Vatican. B. 135). 

' The Regent had intended Elphinstone, bishop of Aberdeen, for llie Primacy. 
On Aug. 5, 15J4, a letter wms addressed in the name of the king to Leo X, 
begging that the biflhop of Aberdeen, * nulricms noster', should be translated to 
St. Andrews {Epis. Rtg, Scot, i 199). But Elphinatonc died Oct. i-., 1514 (R. A, 
ii 349 J R, G. 11616), 




He was also commendator of Dryburgh, Pittenweem, and Cottingham 
in England (R.M. 401), and archbishop of Bourges in France. 

He is said to have been translated to St. Andrews on Dec. 25, 15 14. 
This date is given in Major-General Stewart Allan's list of the bishops 
of Moray, printed in the Charters of the Priory of Beauly (pp. 296-8). 
General Allan unfortunately does not give specific references; but 
researches appear to have been made by him, or for him, in the Vatican 
records, and, while awaiting more information, it seems worth recording. 
On Jan. 8, 15 15, John, prior of St. Andrews, is vicar-general, sede vacante 
(R.G. ii 525). The date given by Lesley (Bannatyne Club, p. loi) for the 
publishing of *the bills (? bulls) of provisione* at Edinburgh is Jan. 15, 
1 5 14-5. Whether the news of the publication of the bulls had reached 
Henry VIII of England or not, we find that on Jan. 28, 15 14-5, he 
wrote to the Pope begging him to appoint Gavin Douglas, who had been 
commended to the Pope by his sister Margaret, queen of Scotland. 
He says that he understands that the bishop of Moray will never go to 
St. Andrews (T. no. 901). But Forman's position was now secure '. 

Forman died, probably, on March 12, 1521. John Smyth, monk of 
Kinloss, in his Chronicle (printed in the Appendix to the Preface of 
Dr. Stuart's /Records of the Monastery of Kinioss\ states that Forman 
died in Lent, 1522. But in a manuscript of John Law, canon of 
St. Andrews, which is preserved in the library of the University of 
Edinburgh, we find a note (which has been communicated to me by 
Rev. John Anderson) that Forman died at Dunfermline on March 1 2, 
1521 : and that this means March 12, 1 520-1, is apparent from what 
follows, unless we suppose that Forman resigned the see before his 
death, of which we have no hint. Mr. Anderson in a note to his Laing 
Charters (no. 327) points out that the see was certainly vacant on 
April 10, 1521. It was vacant also on May 18, 1521 {Jibid, no. 329). 

The continued vacancy of the see is borne witness to by Laing 
Charters (no. zzi)^ which show that it was vacant on March 28, 1522. 
There is a letter of James V dated at Edinburgh Feb. 21, 1531 
(i.e. 1 52 1-2), which refers to the vicar-general of St. Andrews, 'dicti 
Metropoli Pastore destitute ' i^Epist, Reg. Scot, i 329). 

JAMES BEATON (Betoun), archbishop of Glasgow. (Postulated 
to Glasgow by the chapter, Nov. 9, 1508. Liber Protocollorum, ii 232.) 

Adrian VI translated James Beaton to St. Andrews on Oct. 10, 1522. 
The revenue of the see is given as 10,000 florins ; and the Xsjol as 3,300 
florins. The pall was granted on Dec. 10, 1522. {Barberini B. 125.) 

*■ Mas Latrie (Traor de Chron. col. 1399) gives 157a as the date of Forman's 
appointment to Bourges, and 15 13 for his translation to St Andrews. But each of 
these dates seem to be a year too early. General Stewart Allan (I c.) gives 
Sept I a, 15131 for the provision to Bourges. 

S % 


Henry VIII had exerted himsdf to have Gavin Douglas, bishop 
of Dunkeld, appointed to the primaqr* But the regent of Scotland 
with the three estates of the realm wrote (Feb. 6, 1521-22) to the Pope 
informing him that Gavin had fled to their enemy the king of England, 
and beseeching him not to advance Gavin (Ef>ist. Reg. Scot i 327) *. 

We find David Beaton (successor of James) ' coadjutor of Sl Andrews *, 
Feb. 5, 1538-9 (R.M.S. iii 2741), just before the death of his uncle. 

James Beaton died *die Veneris, Feb, 14, 1539' {Liber G. Makesim^ 
in the Laing collection of MSB in the University of Exlinburgh). The 
day of the week works out right for the year 1538*9. 

DAVID BEATON (Betoun), nephew of the preceding. 

At the instance of Francis I, king of France, he was provided 
by the Pope to the see of Mirepoix on Dec 5, 1537. (Finnte B. 125,) 

The date of his appointment in succession to his uncle is not given 
by B. We find him, however, styled archbishop of St Andrews on 
Feb. 25, 1538-9 (R.M.S. iii 1916). The creation of Beaton as 
cardinal is given by B. (125) as Dec. 20, 1530, which is certainly an 
error for 1538*. His title was presbyter cardinal of St Stephen 
on the Caelian. A letter of thanks from James V to Pope Paul III 
is dated March S, 1539 (T. no. 1050). 

Possibly French records may have preserved the date of Beaton^s 
consecration to Mirepoix* From Scottish records we can infer it only 
approximately from a corajjarison of writs dated with his * anno conse- 
crationis '. Out of seventeen of these supplied to me by Dr. MaitLand 
Thomson I select two which perhaps bring us as near the date as we 
are likely to come. July 25, 1545, was in the seventh year of his 
consecration (R.M,S. v 1104), and Aug. 12, 1544, was in the seventh 
year of his consecration {Antiquities of At^erditn and Banff ^ iii 251). 
If these writs may be trusted, the date of Beaton's consecration would 
be in 1538, between July 26 and August 13. 

It may be suspected that the bulls appointing David Beaton as 
coadjutor (see last entry) granted ius suicessianis . This supposition 
falls in with what Lesley says when writing of James Beaton's death : 
*befoir his deid [he] had providit successouris to all his benefices, 
quhilkis were Mr. David Betoun, then being cardinall, to the arch- 
bishoprik of St Androis and the Abbaye of Arbroith ' &c. {Bannatyne 
edit p. 158), 

He was assassinated in his castle of St Andrews on Saturday, 
May 29, 1546 •. 

* This ou^ht to suffice to show that Gavin Douglas did not die in 1531 (thoagh 
po^bly'm 1531-3). The Black Book of Taytnoitth (p. 117} is prob&bly correct in 
writing of Gavin Douglas, bishop of Dunkeld, *ob. uli. lulii, 151a \ 

* See Raynald {AnuaL Ectlfs. vol. xiii 495) who gives Dec. ao, 1538. 

* On JuJy 16, 1540, William Gibsoli was provided by the Pope 'ecclesiae 


JOHN HAMILTON, a natural son of James, first earl of Arran/ 
bishop of Dunkeld (provided Dec. 17, 1544). 

The date of his translation to St. Andrews is (as given by B.) Nov. 28 
1547. He is at the same time granted a dispensation to retain the 
monastery of Paisley, and also a dispensation for the defect of birth 
'quem de soluto nobili et illustri genere procreato genitus et soluta, 
aut alias, patitur '. Fructus, 3,000 marks ; taxa, 600 florins. (Barberini 
B. 127.) 

But this provision does not seem to have been effective immediately. 
For as late as 1549, we find the stee vacant on April 15 and June 2 
(R.S.S. xxiii 4 and 16). The see of Dunkeld is described as void 
June 23, 1549 {ibid, 33), and *John, archbishop of St Andrews', sits 
in council on July 13, 1549 {Privy Council Register, xiv 9)*. And the 
letter convoking the Provincial Council of 1559 is dated Jan. 31, 1558-9, 
in the tenth year of his translation {Siatuta Ecclesiae Scoticanae, ii 143). 

John Hamilton had been consecrated while holding Dunkeld, to 
which he had been provided, with a dispensation for defect of birth, 
Dec. 17, 1544 (B. 130-2). He must have been consecrated after Jan. 
31, 1546, for Jan. 31, 1559, is in the thirteenth year of his consecration 
(S/af. Ecd. Scot I.e.); and after July 31, 1546, when he was still only 
« postulatus Dunkeldensis ' (R. S. S. cited in R. A. i lix). 

He was hanged at Stirling, April 7, 1571. 

It is strange that an event of such importance as the death of 
archbishop Hamilton should be assigned to no less than three different 
dates by early historians. Spottiswoode (ii p. 155) says that he was 
banged on April i ; and the marginal year-date at the top of the page, 
for which probably Spottiswoode was not responsible, has misled Keith, 
and even the ordinarily most accurate Joseph Robertson (Statuta 
Ecclesiae Scoticanae, i p. clxxxii, marginal note) to adopt April i, 
1570. The year was certainly 157 1. But about the day of the month 
there is more reason to hesitate. April i may be dismissed as untenable. 

Libarien. in partibus infidelium *, with a faculty for exercising the episcopal ofl&ce in 
the city and diocese of St. Andrews, with the consent of the cardinal, and with 
a pension of ;^JOo Scots, to be furnished by the cardinal. (BaHftrini B. ia6.) 
Beaton was appointed chancellor Jan. 10, 1543-3 (R.S.S. xvii l). 

^ On Sept 4, 1 55 1, Gavin Hamilton, clerk of the diocese of Glasgow, of noble 
family, procreated and born in lawful matrimony, now in his thirtieth year or thereby, 
is appointed by the Pope as coadjutor to John. The archbishop was to provide 
him with a pension of ;^oo Scots. It was also declared that on the death or 
resignation of John Hamilton, Gavin was to succeed him with a dispensation to 
retain the monastery of Kilwinning. The grounds for the supply of a coadjutor 
are * ob malam phthisis valetudinem' {Barbtrini B. 127-8). See also the bull of 
Pope Julius [III] addressed (4 Sept. 1551) to the clergy of the city and diocese 
of St Andrews commanding obedience to Gavin Hamilton, clerk of the diocese 
of Glasgow, appointed coadjutor and * future elect' {Lai9tg CharUn, no. 584). 


Dumbarton castle was taken on April 2, and Hamilton was removed 
thence to Stirling. But we find Calderwood (tii pp. 58, 59) giving 
April 6. The Diurnal of Occurtnts gives very precisely 6 pjn, on 
Saturday, April 7, 157 1 ; and it may be remarked that April 7 did M 
on Saturday in 1571. The Chronicle of Aberdeen gives also April 7 as 
the date. Sir A. H. Dunbar, who refers to these authorities, and for 
accuracy in chronology stands unrivalled^ gives his judgment in fiivour 
of April 7 {Scottish Kings^ p. 265). 

J. Hill Burton (Hist, of Scotland^ v 36) gives April 7, 157 1 'at 
two o'clock in the afternoon'. Where does the *two o'clock* come 
from ? Hume Brown (Hist, of Scot, ii 147) says April 7 (at 6 p.m.), 
1571 ; Grub (Ecci. Hist, ii 168) April 6, 1571. 

GAVIN HAMILTON, appointed coadjutor of the last (see above). 
In the Ust of the names of those who attended the Parliament in 
Edinburgh, June 13, 1571, appears 'Gawan Hamilton, archbishop of 
St Andrews, who now is slain [he fell in a skirmish a few days later], 
before abbot of Kilwinning, allowed by the Pope seventeen (sic) years 
by past to succeed the bishop that last was' (Calendar of Scottish 
Papers, iii 604). 

Dr. Maitland Thomson has been so good as to search the Register of 
the Privy Seal (in manuscript, and as yet unprinted) for any notices of 
the admission of the Archbishops of St. Andrews to the temporality of 
the see ; and he has found none. It seems curious that, while records 
of the admission to the temporality of other bishoprics appear in that 
Register from time to time, there is none of admission to the primatial 
see of St. Andrews. 

Gavin Hamilton is not noticed in Keith. 

Through the kindness of Dr. Kennedy, Librarian of New College, 
Edinburgh, the writer has been allowed to make use of a copy of Keith 
elaborately annotated in manuscript by Mr. William Rowand, a former 
Librarian of that College, and to Mr. Rowand's labours two or three of 
the references are due. But Mr. Rowand's studies in this subject closed 
in 1854, and he was thus confined to Scottish sources for his informa- 

John Dowden. 



Among the pieces contained in the Book of Ceme which are employed 
by Dom Kuypers, in the introduction to his edition of the MS, to 
illustrate the difference in structure and style between th*e prayers which 
belong to what may be called the Celtic and the Roman strata, is an 
Oratio matuiinalis, which appears also, with some variations, in the 
Royal MS 2 A xx, cited by Dom Kuypers as A*. This prayer, of which 
the first words are * Ambulemus in prosperis ', is very justly attributed by 
Dom Kuypers, on grounds of style, to a Celtic source. But it may 
perhaps be worth while to point out another feature of the piece which 
bears testimony to its origin. It is apparently composed on a system of 
rhythm resembling that of the hymn * Altus prosator ', described in the 
preface to that hymn in the Irish Liber Hymnorum as 'vulgaris' in 
opposition to the system of strict metrical composition described as 

* artificialis * ; a system depending not on the quantity but on the 
number of syllables, and with * correspondence of syllables, and of 
quarter verses and half verses '. The * Altus prosator ' is in verses 
of sixteen syllables each, and the eighth and sixteenth syllables— the 
last of each half verse — are intended to rhyme : sometimes the last two 
or three syllables of one half rhyme with the last two or three of the 
other. The quantity of the syllables is apparently a matter of indifference 
except in the case of the penultimate syllable of the half verse, which is 
either short or else made to seem short by the stress laid upon that 
which precedes or that which follows it. The verses are grouped in 

* capitula ' of six (or seven) verses each : but this is apparently not an 
essential feature of the system ; the reason for its presence in the * Altus 
prosator ' lies in the acrostic character of the poem, while the number of 
verses in the * capitula * depends upon the subject of the composition *. 

In the case of * Ambulemus in prosperis ' there are some instances, in 
both the MSS printed by Dom Kuypers, of apparently faulty rhythm : 
and an attempt to arrange either text in lines of sixteen syllables leaves 
some odd half verses. But each text contains some half verses which 
do not appear in the other : and if the two are combined the product 

* BookofCemtj pp. 91, 211. 

* The poems sent by ' Aedilwaldus' (whom Jaffd identifies with Ethelbald of 
Mercia) to St. Aldhelm while abbot of Malmesbury are in the same rhythm. 
See Jaffi Monumenta Moguntina pp. 38-48. The writer seems to have thought 
some explanation of their structure necessary. 


gifcs satecBfcncsoftfae SBUBc tvpe jstboae of 'AICBpnalar'. Id 
the feQcvraig arnm^emcnt the hatf vcoes viadi oocar caitf m A are 
princcd m italic tjpc, those wfaicfa cKcnr oaif in tbe Book of CecDe bang 
tockmtdm bnrkttt. 

Anbakmoi m p io >pei» boios <fid 

In oirtnce aiti««iiwi da 

In bcDcpboto chfHti, in 

In fide paUtmJm mm, [in mends prophetmnn,] 
5 [In pace apostolonnn,] in gsodio angekxnm, 

/« Mta ankamgUorumt in splendonbos^ sanctonmi. 

In operibas monachonnn, [in oirtiite iiivnui m,] 

In lusutjiio naitjnnn, in casitiatc anginnm, 

In dei tapienda, in maha patv»wtia^ 
10 /)« dcciontm prudentia^ in camis absdnenda. 

In linguae coodnenda, [in psKss habundanda,] 

In trinitads landibas, in acods sensibas, 

In semper bonis acdbas, in fonnis ^)intalibiis» 

In dininis sennonibus, in benedicdonibos. 
15 In his est iter omnium pro christo laborantimny 

Qui dedadt post obitmn sempitemom in gaudium. 

In Terse 7 the first half verse has nine syllables, the second half verse 
i^pparendy only seven. But in the latter case it may be diat either 
' tiirtttte ' or ' iustorom ' is meant to be treated as a word of four syllables. 
In ' Altus prosator ' an initial i is apparenUy always treated as a con- 
sonant if followed by a vowel: but in another rbythmical prayer 
contained in the Book of Ceme *Iesu', 'uerus* and *ueni* are 
apparently treated as trisyllables *. If ' monachorum ' and ' iustorum ' 
were transposed, the rhythm would be rendered sufficiently correct with 
no great violence to the sense. In verse 12, where the second half 
verse is of seven syllables only, Dom Kuypers notes in A an erasure, 
apparently of two letters, before * sensibus \ Possibly the original reading 
was ' assensibus ' or *■ consensibus ' : it seems not unlikely that either 
word, though capable of interpretation, would by reason of its obscurity 
be corrected to ' sensibus ', thus obtaining a more intelligible reading at 
the expense of the rhythm. In verse 13 the text of the Book of Ceme 
preserves the rhythm, while the reading of A (' in bonis actibus semper 
consdtuti') forsakes it entirely: and in the last verse the rhythm is 
clearly in favour of * Qui deducit ' (the reading of the Book of Ceme) 
or of ' Quod deducit ', as against the ' Quod ducit ' of A. 

The fact that a fairly r^;ular system of rhythm results from the 
combination of the two texts is perhaps a ground for thinking that such 

' qL tanctiUte. ' Book ofCtmt pp. 17a, 173. 


a combination represents the original form of the verses more accurately 
than either text singly. But it seems probable that the original order of 
the half verses, even if the combination preserves the whole number, was 
not quite the same as in the arrangement shewn above. It might be 
expected, e. g. that the references to the archangels and to the angels 
would be found in the two parts of one verse ; and that this would stand 
rather earlier in the series than either of the verses between which they 
are here divided. 

H. A. Wilson. 


Codex Macedonianus, 1 in Gregory's notation, €073 ^^ ^^^ Soden's, 
is a ninth-century uncial of the Gospels, procured from Macedonia by 
Mr. J. Bevan Braithwaite of London in 1900*. Its lection-system may 
be collected from the full rubrical notes throughout the MS which are in 
small uncials of quite similar character to those in the body of the text 
and are, I think, of nearly the same date. They have been inserted after 
the corrections made by the diopOanris, as is evident from Matt, xxii 14 
where r*. comes after such a marginal correction, and from Luke x. 38 
where dpx* precedes one. 

The lection-system agrees in the main with the common one throughout 
the earlier sfraia * of the Byzantine lectionary, namely the Sunday lessons 
throughout the year, and the Saturday lessons throughout the year 
(including all six week-days during the weeks from Easter Sunday to 
Pentecost when St John was read), but in the latest settled portion of 
the lectionary, namely the lessons for the first five week-days in the 
weeks from Pentecost to the beginning of Lent, it gives us a series 
of lessons differing from, though closely related to, that in common use. 
We find the same Five-day system in Evangelium 292 at Carpentras, 
formerly in Cyprus, a tenth-century uncial whose lessons, as also those 
in the common system, I cite from C. R. Gregory's Texikritik des 
Neuen Testamentes vol. i pp. 344-364, and it may exist in other 

^ For description see A new uncial of the Gospels in the Expontory Times Dec. 
1 90 1, and Dr. von Soden's Die Schriften des Neiten Testaments vol. i p. 15a. As 
Gregory and von Soden point out, it is evidently the MS referred to in Scrivener*8 
IntroduciioHy 4th ed. vol. i p. 377 as at KosiniUa, *K-fla Moi^, 375. The MS is 
defective for Matt, i i-ix 11, x 35-xi 4; Luke i 26-36, xv a5-xvi 5, xxiii aa-34; 
John XX a7-xxi 17. 

* See Rev. F. E. Brightman J.T^. vol. i p. 447. 



Evang€lia\ I hope to shew that the V292 Five-day system (for 
conciseness I refer to this as the a-0 system and to \ and Evl. 292 as 
a and |3) is more primitive than the common Byzantine Five-day system 
(which I refer to as the ^-system). < 

The Five-day lessons, or uadtjfitptvtdi begin on the Monday after ■ 
Pentecost and are taken in the w-system out of St Matthew for eleven * 
weeks and out of St Mark for five weeks, a seventeenth week being 
unprovided for, these being the seventeen weeks whose Saturday and 
Sunday lessons, or trti;iBnroKvpmKaf, were taken from St Matthew. Then 
with the New Year in September the series is taken from St Luke for 
twelve weeks, from St Mark for six weeks and finally from St Luke 
for three days of a nineteenth week, the Saturday and Sunday lessons 
during this period being taken from St Luke. lo the *f-system there 
were thus in all 173 Five-day lessons, arranged 55 from Matthew, 
25 Mark, 60 Luke, 30 Mark, 3 Luke. In & the series runs more 
simply— St Matthew nine weeks, no Five-day lessons for the remaining 
seven Matthew-weeks, St Luke eleven weeks, St Mark eight weeks, 
making 140 Five-day lessons in all. In a the lessons agree closely with 
those in /3, but the order is still more simple — namely St Matthew nine 
weeks, St Mark eight weeks, St Luke eleven weeks, leaving the last 
Luke-weeks unprovided for, which we may remember are those adjoining 
the six weeks of Lent when the Five-day lessons in the ^-system were 
taken from the Old Testament. There is no tible of lessons in n, but 
the following i>oints shew that the "'-system was thus arranged: (1) a's 
notation of Mark-lessons begins with ili^o^m d Mci^*c. i-- t^ tf rfft i tfiMt- 
fidHos *, which is in sequence after the nine weeks of Matthew^ but would 
be i^f »|S' f^K if it was to follow on after the eleven weeks of Luke. 
(?) The ^-system (derived as I shall shew from the q-i^ system by 
a spreading out of the lessons) takes five weeks of Marcan lessons after 
Matthew and the other six weeks after Luke, which implies a Matthew- 
Mark-Luke arrangement of the a-jS system. (3) At the close of the last 
Five-day lesson from Luke, namely Luke xxi 37-xxii 8 which was read 

Tfj wapatTKfvrj TT}t to *^8o,«cii!Jof, a's rubric runS Tf Xar ttjs na}virrKn'rfii Km rAof tmw 

Ka&tjfxtpiv£)v^ the natural meaning of which is that at this point the last of 
the daily lessons in the list was read. 

The difference in arrangement between a and ^ might be accounted 
for by supposing that the Mark-lessons were read twice in the year, once 
after Matthew and again after Luke, but the careful avoidance of over- 
lapping in other parts of the list makes this most unlikely and the MSS 
themselves seem to contain nothing to suggest it. 

' Evl, 55 S (uncial tcntli-centuury fragment) seems from Gregory's description to 
belong to the same group, 

' The words l^fl. a MapKov are not actually in a's first Marcan rubric, but the full 
formula b found again and again in other lessons of the series. 




The close relation of the Five-day lessons in the le-system and the a-fi 
system can be best discussed with the help of the following tables, in 
which the lessons in the two systems are arranged in parallel columns. 
In each column the numbers shew the order of the lessons, so that the 
actual day of the ecclesiastical year upon which any lesson is read can be 
obtained by dividing the reference number by five to find the week of 
Matthew, Mark or Luke, remembering that the series in each week runs 
ff y' If t impaiTKtvfi, Where the contents of a lesson arc the same in both 
systems, they are only stated in the first column. — a or — /3 means that 
a or /3 is defective for the passage in question : " refers to the notes at the 
end of the tables. 


Matthew-lessons read in the ic-system (first column) during eleven 
weeks from Pentecost and in the a-^ system (second column) during 
nine weeks from Pentecost. 

1 zviii lo-ao 

2 iv 25-v 13 

1 So a*0 

2 -a iv 35- 

30 xiii 44-54 1 

31 xiii 54-58 1 

22 xiu 44-58 afi 

v 13 3 

32 xiv 1-13 

23 Soa3 

3 V ao-30 

3 -a So^ 

33 xiv 35-xvii J 

34 XV 13-31 1 

4 V 31-41 

4-0 So ^ 

24 xiv35-xv3la/3 

5 vii9-i8 

5 -a So 3 

35 XV 39-31 

25 Soo^ 

6 vi 31-34, 

36 xvi 1-6 

26 xvi 1-5 afi 


37 xvi 6-13 

Zr So afi 

7 vu 15-31 

38 xvi 30-24 

28 Soa^fi 

8 vii ai-33 

6 -a vii 19-33/8 

39 xvi 34-38 

29 Soafi 

9 viii 33-37 

7-0 So ^ 

40 xvii 10-18 

30 xvii 10-13 *»^ 

10 ix 14-17 

8 So a ix 14-18^ 

41 xviii i-ii 

31 xviii 4-11 afi 

11 ix 36-x 8 

9 Soa^ 

42 xviii 18-33, 

12 X 9-15 

10 So 0/3 


13 X i6-aa 

11 Soai9 

43 XX 1-16 

32 Soa^ 

14 X 33-31 

12 X 36-31 a0 

44 XX 17-38 

33 Soa^ 

15 X 33-36, xi I 

45 xxi 13-14, 

34 xxi 13-140^ 

16 xi 3-15 

13 So a*0 


17 xi 16-30 1 

18 xi 20-36 1 

46 xxi 18-33 j 

47 xxi 33-37 i 

14 xi 16-36 a$ 

35 xxi 18-37 ••^ 

19 xi 37-30 

15 Soo^ 

48 xxi 38-33 

36 So afi 

20 xii 1-8 J 

21 xii 9-13 5 

,^ «i 9-13 « 

49 xxi 43-46 

37 Soafi 

50 xxii 33-33 

38 xxii 33-34 ^ 

22 xii 14-16,33-30 

17 xii 33-39 a0 

51 xxiii 13-33 

Z9 So afi 

23 xii 38-45 

18 xii 38-50 afi 

52 xxiii 33-38 


24 xU46-xiii3 

53 xxiii 39-39 

^1 So afi 

25 xiii 3-13 1 

26 xiii xo-33 { 

19 xiii 3-33, 

54 xxiv 13-38 

^2 So afi 

xi 15 a»3 

55 xxiv 37-33, I 

43 xxiv 38-33 0^ 

27 xiii 34-30 

20 xiii 34-33 afi 

44 xxiv 45-51 afi 

28 xiii 31-36 1 

29 xiii 36-43 i 

45 XXV 1-13 a*fi 

21 xiii 33-43 afi 





268 TI 


Mark-lessons read in the «-system (first column) for five weeks after 

the series of Matthew Five-day lessons and for the other six weeks 

after the series of Luke-lessons, read in the 0-^ system 

(second column) _ 

by a after the Matthew-lessons and by ^ after the Luke-lessoQS. H 

1 i 9-15 

1 Soa^ 

28 viii 30-34 


2 i 16-33 

2 Soo^ 

29 ix 10-16 

25 Soo^ ■ 

3 i 33-a8 

3 Soa3 

30 ix 33-41 

26 Soo^ ■ 

4 i 39-35 

4 139-340; 

31 ix 43-x I 

27 So a^ ■ 

i a^33 ^ 


33 X 11^16 

28 X 3-16 a3 ^M 

5 U 18-23 

5 Soc^ 

6 iii 6-1 3 

6 So a$ 

34 X 17-37 

29 So afi ■ 

7 iii 13-ai I 

8 iii 30-«7 1 

7 iii 13-37 a0 

35 X i4-33 

36 X 46-53 

30 X 38-31 a0 ■ 

31 So a& ■ 

9 iii 38^35 


J7 xi 11-33 

32 xi 11-31 afi ™ 

10 iv 1-9 

9 So a/3 

38 xi 33*36 

33 So a^B with 

11 iv 10-33 

10 So aj3 

Matt, vii 7» 8 ^ 

12 iv 34 34 

11 So off [0 ends 

39 xi 37-33 

34 Soo^ ■ 


40 xii 1-13 

35 xii t-ti oB 1 

13 iv J5-41 

12 So a0 

41 xii 13-17 

36 Soo^ ■ 

14 V 1-30 

13 So a0 [a ends 6 

42 xii 18-37 

37 Soa3 ■ 


43 xii 38-37 

38 Soa3 ■ 

15 va3-a4,35 

-vi ! IS v 35-vi I fljS 

44 xii 38-44 

39 SoajS ■ 

16 V 33-34 

14 Soo^ 

45 xiii 1-9 

40 xiii 1-8 a ; xiii H 

17 vi 1-7 1 

18 vi 7-13 j 

16 vi 3-13 fl^ 

i-9 m 

46 xiii 9-13 


19 vi 30-45 

17 vi 34-45 q3 

47 xiii 14-33 


20 VI 45-53 

18 So 0/9 [a ends 

48 xiii 34-31 



49 xiii 31-xiv 3 


21 vi 64-vii 8 

[ 19 vi 54-vij i6a^ 

50 xjv 3-9 


22 vii 5-16 

51 xi I'll 

23 vii 14-34 

20 vii 1 7-34 a0 [a 

52 xiv 10-43 



53 XJV 43-xv I 


24 vii 34-30 

21 Soa^ 

54 XV I-J5 


25 viii t-to 

22 Soo^ 

56 XV 10, aSj 35, 


26 viii 1 1-3 1 

23 So 0/9 


27 viii 33-36 

24 Soo^ 


Luke-lessons read in the K-sys 

tern (first column) during the first 
as to the last three lessons, on the fl 
;k T75 rvpo(pdyov immediately before 

twelve weeks of the New Year, and, 

2nd, 3rd, and sth days of the wet 

Lent: and read in the a-/3 system 

(second column) 

during the first 

eleven weeks of the New Year, 


1 iii 19-33 

1 SoajS 

5 iv 33-30 

5 IV 33-30 afi ■ 

2 iii 33-iv I 

2 So ^ iii 33-iv 3 

6 iv 38-44 

6 Soo^ ■ 

ittii»<u9* a 

7 v 13-16 

7 Soa. ^readaS 

3 iv i-rs 

3 Soo^ 


4 iv t6-aa 

4 So a# [a ends 

8 v 33-39 

8 Soa. breads? 


here ^^ 




9 vi ia-19 

10 vi 17-33 

11 vi 34-30 

12 vi 37-45 

13 vi 46-vii I 

14 vii 17-30 

15 vii 31-35 

16 vii 36-50 

17 viii 1-3 

18 viii aa-35 

19 ix 7-1 1 

20 ix 13-19 

21 ix 18-33 

22 ix 33-37 

23 ix 43-50 1 

24 ix 49-56 { 

25 X 1-15 

26 X 33-34 

27 xi 1-13 

28 xi9-i3 

29 xi 14-33 

30 xi 33-26 

31 xi 39-33 

32 xi 34-41 

33 xi 43-46 1 

34 xi 47-xii I S 

35 xii 3-13 

9 So i5*vi 13-160 

10 So a/3 [a ends 

11 Soa/3 

12 Soa0 

13 vi 46-49 00 

14 vii 17-39 o^ 

15 Soa3 

16 So 0/3 

17 Soafi 

19 So aiS 

20 So/3. ix 13-18 

ItoBijrai ab- 
ToO. o* 

21 Soa3 

22 So 03 

23 ix 38-36 a0 

24 ix 43-56 o"/5 

25 So 0/3 

26 Soa0 

27 So/5*, xii-ioa 

28 Soo^ 

29 So 0/3 

30 Soa/3 

31 Soa/3 

32 xi 34-43 a/3 

33 zi 43-xii I a0 

34 xii 3-7 a/3 

36 xii 13-15, 33- 35 xii aa-31 o/3 

37 xii 43-48 \ 

38 xii 48-59 1 

39 xiii 1-9 

40 xiii 31-35 

41 xiv I, ia-15 

42 xiv 35-35 

43 XV i-io 

44 xvi 1-9 

45 xvi 15-18; xvii 

46 xvii 30-35 

47 xvii 36-37; xviii 44 xvii 31-37 a/3 
. 8« 

48 xviii 15-17, 


49 xviii 31-34 

50 xix 11-38 

51 xix 37-44 I 

52 xix 45-48 S 

53 XX 1-8 

54 XX 9-18 

55 XX 19-36 

56 XX 37-44 

57 xxi 13-19 

36 xii 43-59 a/3 

37 xiii a-9 a/3 

38 Soa^ 

39 xiv 13-15 a/3 

40 xiv 36-35 **^ 

41 XV 3-10 a/9 

42 So a"i9 

43 xvii ao-30 a/3 

45 xviii 39-34 afi 

46 xix ia-36 a/3 

47 xix 39-48 a/3 

48 Soa/3 

49 Soa/3 

50 XX 19-35 a/3 

51 XX 37-40 a/3 

52 Soa^ 

58 xxi 5-8, 10| II, 53 xxi ao-34 a 


59 xxi 38-33 

60 xxi 37-xxii 8 

61 xix 39-40 ;xxii 

7» 8, 39 

62 xxii 39-xxiii I 

63 xxiii 1-43, 44- 



54 xxi 38-33 a^ 

55 Soa/» 

Rubrical notes are (accidentally) omitted in a at end of lessons I, 28 Matthew 
and at beginning of lesson 34 Luke, a is defective at t>eginning of 13 Matthew and 
43 Luke, and at end of 53 Luke and at beginning of 54 Luke. For lessons 9, 37 
Luke a agrees with a variant form of the ir-system wtiich is noted in Gregory: 
Gregory does not refer to /S's reading, which must be taken to follow the iv-system. 
In lesson 35 Matthew Gregory cites as ending at ver. 34, but has probably made 
a mistake owing to the homoioUUuton of verses 24 and 37 ; and in 47 Luke I have 
corrected his citation of the «lesson. In a the following closing words of 
lessons are part of the rubrics and not of the text:— in lesson 19 Matthew the 
added verse Matt, xi 15 ; in 45 Matthew (also read aa0, iC Matt) the T. R. conclusion 
of Matt. XXV 13 h ff 6 vlbt rw dtf$p6nrcv tpx^rtUf which suggests that this various 
reading is a rubrical addition to round off a lesson ; in lesson 33 Mark the addition 
kiyoi 8i Vfuy and Matt, vii 7, 8 ; in lesson 20 Luke the word odrov added after 
fia0T}Tai Luke ix 18. 

The tables establish the general identity of the a- and iS-systems \ 
They also shew the close relation between the a-/3 and ^-systems which 

^ Besides cases where a ends a lesson in the middle of a verse, which Gregory 


are evidently not independent of each other. For both forms of the Five- 
day list begin in each Gospel at the same place and follow the same general 
principles of taking the portions of Matthew, Mark and Luke unappro- 
priated to lessons of earlier formation (chiefly the two series of Sunday 
and Saturday lessons) and of taking these portions in regular sequence, 
one after the other. Moreover the lessons are for the most part equivalent 
in the two systems. Close relationship being thus shewn, the question 
which system is the more primitive remains for examination and must, 
I think, be answered in favour of the a-fi system for the following 

1. The K-system has the appearance of being a derived system in its 
division of the Mark-lessons between the Matthew-weeks and the Luke- 
weeks, an arrangement that would naturally result from spreading out 
the a-3 lessons so as to cover more days, but could hardly have originated 
the simpler a-3 arrangement. This spreading out of the a-/3 lessons is 
also shewn by the existence in fifteen cases of a-/3 lessons divided into two 
K-lessons (there is only one case 43, 44 Matthew where two a-/9 lessons are 
formed into one discontinuous x-lesson, the last Matthew-lesson required 
according to the x-system). It is also shewn by the piecing together of 
bits of Gospel to eke out the «>lessons, see 42 Matt., 55 Mark, 45, 48, 
58 Luke. There are sixteen cases of these discontinuous lessons in the 
«e-system but none in the a-^ system, except the refrains added to 19 Matt 
and 33 Mark. 

2. With the exception of the first Matthew-lesson ', the a-/3 system 
adheres strictly to the principle of sequence in order on which the list 
was based, but, besides this lesson, the >r-system has out of sequence 
lessons 5 Matthew, 16, 51 Mark, and parts of 58, 61 Luke. 

3. The original principle of avoiding the overlapping of lessons is also 
more closely maintained in the a-/3 system. Including overlappings 
with week-end lessons, I have noted forty-three cases found only in the 
«-system*, fourteen found in both, one found only in the a-3 system, 
where lesson 45 Matthew not only overlaps but is identical with the 
lesson o-a^S^ar^ iC Matt. 

does not note for ^, and $*s (accidental) transposition of lessons 7, 8 Luke, there are 
only eight differences in the Z40 lessons, namely, 8, 16 Matt 4, 40 Mark and 
a, 9, 20, 27 Luke. In 8 Matt, 40 Mark, ao Luke a avoids overlapping other 
lections and is the better form, as also in 9, 27 Luke. In 16 Matt. /S may be better, 
as o takes out Matt zii 1-8 for a menological lesson for Clement of Ancyra, 
January 23. In 4 Mark a includes an interesting verse not otherwise read in the 
a-fi system. In 2 Luke fi may be better as overlapping less with the next lesson. 

* This lesson rp litaifnw rrfs k* [itwriiKoaTri^] may have been settled earlier than 
the formation of the Five-day list, in connexion with the Feast of Pentecost 

* Ten of these occur in dividing a-/9 lessons into two «-lessons, another indication 
that these divided lessons belong to the derived system. 


We may, I think, conclude that the a-0 system gives us the Five-day 
list nearly, if not quite, in its primitive form. 

When we turn to the other parts of the year's lessons we find the 
variations small between a and the x-system as given in Gregory \ 

John-weeks. The week-days of the first week are called Trjs iKuuvrf 
triucv throughout ; Kvp. ^ is called nvp, y anh rrii dwuc. ; jcvp. y is called 
Kvp, If and the fourth day of the following week ^7 y t^t ^'o^ofrem/roar^c ; 
Kvp, fS is jcvp. r^( /ica-ofrcvn^KooT^f ; Kvp, t and q' become $*' and C &nd 
Pentecost is rp *y»9 irnmyKoor^. In these fifty lessons a is defective for 
lesson 49 and (accidentally) has no rubrics for lesson 46 nor has it a lesson 
for Pentecost rov SpBpov. The other differences are 4 Jno. i 35-43 not 
35~52 ; 34 Jno. x 17-38 not 17-30, although 27-38 was again read on 
the next day; 38 Jno. xii 19-36 yttnjoB^; 45 Jno. xvi 2-13 aKri$€ta»; 50. 
The rubrics for the Pentecost lesson Jno. vii 37-52, viii 12 include 
rubrics at end of t>. 52 and at beginning of v. 12, although the text 
of a omits the intervening verses (Pericope adulterae) and the rubrics 
accordingly come together on the same line. The rubricator must have 
known of the verses and indeed puts Xi^ in the maxgin, that is, perhaps, 
»*/>l TOW \^B^i*w or some similar phrase. Dr. C. R. Gregory, however, 
suggests to me that the marginal note stands for Xi;^ * an omission ', the 
rubricator noting in this way the discrepancy between the text which he 
was rubricating and the copy of the Gospels out of which the rubrics 
were taken, which must have contained the Fericope, 

Matthew aaff.-Kvp, Up to Kvp, ^ a is defective except for xvp. a t&» 
dyittp iraur<op and crafi. f' and Tafi. q\ Gregory notes no differences in-/9. 
The other differences are Kvp. rl Matt, xiv 14-21 not 14-22, <ra/3. t' Matt. 

Xvii 24-Xviii 4 cf. Evl. 32, KVp, I Matt. XVii 14-23 rytpftfo-fra*, trafi, \q 

Matt xxiv 34-44 including 36-41 not read in «c-system, xvp. %^' Matt 

XXV 14—30 with addition rmna Acyoiv «<l>av*i jcr«. 

Luke tra&,-Kvp, aafi, ^ Luke vi i-io omitting tr. 6 as &r as ^Mutmw, 
tfvp, S Luke viii 5-15 with addition ravra X«y«v c^<»v(t icri (see note in 
Gregory) j Kvp. «' Luke xvi 19-31 not 9-31 ^ ; wp. ^' Luke viii 26-35, 38, 
39 ; ira^, rf Luke ix 37-48 Otov ; trafi. «' unrubricated ; xvp, ta Luke xiv 
16-24 with in the text the addition iroXXol yap «t<n KXip-ot, oXtyoi H cxXcicrot ; 
levp. »y Luke xviii 35-43 cf. Evl. 32 not xviii 10-14 • ^^ere a's reading is 
the early one, for the Five-day lessons leave a gap at this place and xviii 
10-14 was read again in both systems Kvp. ig-' ; <rafi, iC, called in a (rafi, 

wpo Trjt mroKptio, Luke XX 45-Xxi 4 with addition ravra \^v «0wv«i Kti ; 
Kvp. iC called in a xvp. rov daarov Luke XV 1 1-32 cf. Evl. 32 ; aa^. irf, 
Kvp, nj no lessons given, <rafi. lijs rvpwpayov and Kvp. r. rvp. a defective. 

* A collation with Gregory^s list seems sufficient. I n^lect at few cases where 
a is defective at the beginning or end of a lesson or a rubric is (accidentally) omitted. 
fi is defective for the first 47 Johnlessoni. 

' 9-31 is a mistake of Gregory^a. 



Remainder of lessons, a has no Uavyvxl^s not lessons th rhy opSpvt 

for the fci'p, T^if tn^tTTftuf except for icvp, ^* called rav ^atav. cvp, a riv 

vri<rrnm¥ has the alternative title in the margin tcvp, t^c op^odo^r. €^fl^. f 
called Tf)v Au0f)ov has Jno. xi 1-46 not 1-45 (see note in Gregory). For 
the first four week-days in Holy Week the lessons iimtpat are done given; 
the Thursday lesson comprises Matt, xxvi 1-20 with word Ma^T^i- added 
as part of rubric, Jno. xiii 3-17, marked ruayy+Xiov roiJ wirr^por, with a fresh 
rubric against tr. 12 fwryyAwc ;i#rA r& vi^^acBoi^ Matt, xxvi 21-39, Luke 
xxii 43, 44, Matt, xxvi 40-xxvii 2, The riayyfXui T«ttv fFa6av are marked, 
but ^' is Mark xv 16-41 not 16-32 and i' is Mark xv 43-47 (Gregory 
has Matt, by mistake). The five lessons riv ^pitv agree except that 
none is given for Sipa ff. The Holy Saturday irpw/ and *<m4pas lessons 
agree with the t-lessons and the <w^*i*u agree except that a is defective 
for itn0. I. 

Several of these differences probably go back to the primitive fomi of 
the list» especially those which agree with Evl. 32. 

It is to be observed that the entire lists of a-a^.-Kvp. and a-3 Five-day 
lessons are comprised in the following parts of the Gospels : — Matt 
iv 18-XXV 46, Mark i 9-xiii 8, Luke iii 19-xxti 8; those parts broadly 
speaking which relate to the public ministry up to the Passion week. 
Within these limits, besides thirty-six small gaps of three verses or less 
unappropriated to any Five-day or cra,S.-irup. lesson \ there are twelve 
larger gaps in the o-^ system : — (i) Matt, v 13-19, a defective; (2) xii 
1-8, a only; (3) xii 14-21 ; (4) xvi 13-19; (5) xvii 1-9; (6) Mark vi 
14-33; (7) IX 2-9; (8) « i-io; (9) Luke x 38-42, xi 27, 28; (10) xii 
8-15 ; (1 1) xix 37-38 ; (12) xx 41-44. Gaps corresponding with (1), (4), 
(5)1 (^)» (7), (9), also occur in the «-system, the others are filled, or nearly 
so, by K-Iessons, which in cases (8), (11) come out of sequence as though 
newly-formed lessons. In the following cases menological lessons fill 
the gaps in a : (2) Clement, bishop of Ancyra (Jan. 23rd); (3) xii 15-21 
aa&. ficra ri^i^ Xpi<rrov yfWijtrti' (Dec) ; (4) Peter and Paul (June 29tb); 

(5) j) fitrapttptpmtTts (Aug. 6lh) ; (6) Mark vi 14-30 f) anoropij Tov UpoBpopov m 

(Aug. 29th); (9) TO y(t^i<Tif\v TTfs Ayiai BtfixoKov (Sept. 8th); (lo) Luke xii ■ 
8-12 Paul the Confessor (Nov, 6th). As it is evident that the Five- 
day lessons were accommodated to the previously formed tra^.-fn/p. list, 
accommodation to previously settled menological lessons is also probable, 
and while this would not explain all the gaps, we may perhaps infer that 
the lessons filling gaps (3), (4), (5), (6), (9) were already fixed. This 
would hardly be the case much before the end of the fifth century ', 

' Fourteen between two caB^-m\tp. lessons, eight between two Five-day lessons, 
fourteen between a ^a&.-Kvp, and a Five-day lesson. In twenty cases the w-syatem 
tAcka on the verses to other lessons or uses them for making up new Jesatns. 

* Sec e. g. J. C, Robert3on*s History cf the Christian Chttfc/i (^1876 cd.) vol. ii, 


which may accordingly be tentatively suggested as the period when the 
Five-day list was formed. 

For the sake of completeness I add a list of the menological lections 
in o. 

Menologv*. Sept. ist Simeon (Stylites) tLuke iv 16-22: 2nd 
Mamas *Jno. xv i . . . : 4th Babylas, &c., fLuke x 1-3, 8-12: 5th 
Zacharias *Matt. xxiii 29-39 : 8th t6 ytptaiov r^r 6yiat 0eoT6Kov II Luke x 

38-42, xi 27-28: — trafi, npd r^r u^o-ca>« fjno. xii 25-36 yivijtrOt : — Kvp. 
npo rrjs v^tvxrtat *Jno. iii 13 . . . — €is Sp6pov rijs vylt»atws *Jno. xii 28 . . . 
14th n v^o-««ff* Jno. xix 6 . . .: i6th Euphemia fLuke vii 36-50 
17th Pantaleon fLuke ix 23-27: 20th Eustathius tLuke xxi 12-19 
30th Gregory of Armenia *Matt. xxiv 42. . . . 

Oct. ist Cosmas and Damian, *Matt. x i, 5-8 (Nov. ist usually): 
3rd Dionysius the Areopagite *Matt. xiii 45 ... : nth Zenais II Mark xiii 
33-37, xiv 3 . . . : i8th Luke, *Luke x 16-21 : 21st Hilarion, tLuke vi 
17-23 : 25th the Notaries tLuke xii 2-7. 

Nov. 6th Paul the Confessor jj Luke xii 8-12 : 13th John Chrysostom, 
*Jno. X 9-16 : 2 ist rck 3yui tS>¥ aytW || Luke i 39-49, 56 also read tls 

Dec. 4th Barbara 'Mark v 24-34 : 14th Thyrsus tLuke viii 22-25 : 
(20th) Ignatius tMark ix 33-41 : 24th 7 napofiovfj rijs Xpurrov y*¥in\frwt 
11 Luke ii 1-20— o-a/3. fxtra rriv Xpurrov ytinnfirtp, IjMatt. xii 1 5-2 1. 

January ist Basil, || Luke ii 20-21, 40 . • ., — icup, np6 t&p (fwr^v ||Mark 
i 1-8 — tls ipBpov Tuv iP&Ttov tMark i 9-15 : 7th t§ iiravpwv t&v ^rMf 
II Jno. i 29-34 : (20th) Euthymius tMatt. xi 27-30: 23rd Clement (of 
Ancyra) II Matt, xii 1-8. 

February 2nd fj imanrainii Tov Kvpiov || Luke ii 22-40 : 3rd Simeon and 
Anna QLuke ii 25-40: 23rd Tarasius (Patriarch a.d. 808) *Jno. xii 
24-36 y«vTj(T6t. 

March 9th Martyrs (of Sebastia) tMatt. xx 1-16 : 25th 6 tvoyftkurpJ^ 
T^ff ^tonJKov Ii Luke i 24-38. 

April (none); May 8th (John) the divine Jno. xix 25-27, xxi 24, 25 
overlaps Passion-week lessons : 21st Constantine and Helena tMatt. x 
16-22 *Jno. X 1-9. 

pp. 56, 57, and authorities there cited. Some of the menological lections in the 
early parts of the Gospels may also be of earlier formation than the Five-day list, 
e. g. I think accommodation to the Epiphany lessons Mark i. 1-8 icvp. vpd rSiv ^tinoiv 
and Luke iii 1-18 r$ va/w/iOKp rw ^tdrrofv is probable. If it had not been for these 
lessons the daily list would accordingly have begun with Mark i i, Luke iii i. 

^ Lections overlapping aaff. -Kvp. , J ohn or Five-day lessons in a-system are marked *, 
those identical with or part of such lessons t) those independent of such lessons Q : 
these last, as already pointed out, may be of early origin in most cases. 

* Overlaps Passion-week lessons : — has the introductory words given by Gregoiy, 
substituting wws for 6non and another cravpnaw for cipar, ipov, 
VOL. V. T 


June (14th) Elisha *Luke iv 22-30 : 24Ch fl* r^ ytwitnoit m Upo^pAim 

II Luke i 1-25, 57 . , ,y 76, 80 i 2gth Peter and Paul II Matt, xvi 13-1^ 
July 20th Elijah Luke iv 22-30 : 30th *« npoaKlv^trtw toO nixlov ^uXm 

Matt, xxvii 27-32 overlaps Passion-week lessons (July 31st usually). 
August 6th n fitTafi6p<t>t»(nt tLuke ix 2S-36 and I Matt, xvii 1-9 : 29th 7 

inorofifi rov Tlpotlpuftov || Mark vi 1 4— 30. 

Miscellaneous lessons, tit iy^alvKa *Jno. x 12-38 — ns m^prnv tLuke 
iv 23-30 — mU rKwUia ^fTikitAv tMafk xi 22-26 Matt vii 7, 8. M ri* ( 
irpfff/iJwTjpMi' tMark vi 7-13, *U ttaprvpas jj Mark xiii 9-13 and t Jno. iv 
i7-xvi 2, 

In conclusion I may note a few cases where the o-lessons throw light 
on the origin of various readings* For Matt, xxv 13 see note at end of 
tables : — the omission in some authorities of »cai fXvjnj^an irtt>6dpa in 
Matt, xvii 23 and of «at wpwratpfutr&Tfvnr in Mark vi 53 is explained 
by «'s omission of the words in the lesson rvp. i' Matt, and the 13th 
Five-day lesson in Mark. In Luke x 22 the added words kq\ crrpot^W 
irpot Toifs fiaBfiriif *mi found in the mass of authorities are not due to 
lectionary usage, for Luke x 22-24 was only read in the Five-day series, 
and n, which preserves a primitive form of this, contains the added words 
in the text but rabricates the lection tlmv 6 Kvpws roJc iavrov pi^ijrair. 
In Luke vi 31, on the other hand» a omits from the text the TR additioa 
tim di 6 Kvpeos, but the Five-day rubric begins cfirf*' 6 K. which no doubtr 
originated the addition. In a the added refrain ravra \*ytiiv /i^wi rrt is 
rubricated with slight variations at end of Five-day lesson Matt xiii 23, 
nvp. i^' Matt XXV 30 (in ii at end of v. 29), mip. K Luke viii 15 (in o's 
text), icvp. ff Luke xii 21, tra^. tC Luke xxi 4 (only the two last in 
•-system) and in all five cases some authorities under lectionary influence 
put the words in the text The same may be said of the rubricated 
addition to the Five-day lesson ending Mark xi 26 and of the addition 
in n's text at end of Kvp, ia Luke xiv 24 (neither of which is in the 



The Clarendon Press announces in its lists under the heading 2^ 
Holy Scriptures in Grtek^ 6-^, only the following two editions of the 
Greek Testament:— 

Lloyd's Greek Testament,— '^^yys.m Testamentum Gracce. Acccdunt 
parallela S, Scripturae loca, necnon vetus capitulomm notatio et 
canones Eusebii. Edidit Carolus Lloyd, S.T.P.R. i8mo. y^ 
With Appendices by W. Sanday, D.D,, cioth^ 6s. 


Lloyd's Greek Tesfamentf CriHcal Appendices (separately), by 
W. Sanday, D.D. i8mo. 51. 6d 

MUVs Greek Tes/amen/,^^oyum Testamentum Giaece juxU ex- 
emplar Millianum. i8mo. 2j. 6d,, or on writing-paper, 7^. 6d. 

No account is taken in the following paper of special editions as 
Palmef's Greek Testament with the Readings adopted by the 
Revisers of the Authorized Version or CardweWs New Testament in 
Greek and English. When we wish to study the Greek Testaments of 
the Clarendon Press, only these two can come under consideration. 
Now it seems high time to say a word on them : 

First of all, both titles are not correctly given. The title of ' Lloyd's 
Testament ' as it is published at present runs 






Parailela S, Scriptural loca 

vetus capitulorum notaiio 

Cemones Eusebii 


e typographeo Clarendoniano 


XX. 653 pages. 

The *necnon* and *et' in the Press-list is retained from earlier 
impressions, as 1828, 1836. The title of 'Mill's Testament' is at 






e typographeo Clarendoniano 


562 pages. 

On the back of this tide is stated : 


Beside this remark this edition contains no clue whatever about its 
text. Now both these editions have a strange histoiy. 
Lloyd has a Moniimm signed 

Dabamus ex iEde Christi, 
2on»o Dec'*' 1827. 

T % 



This Monitum begins in the present impressions : 
Damus libi in manus, L.B., Novum Testamentum idem fere, quod 
jd textum attinet cum editione Milliana, cum divisione Pericoparum et 
Interpunctura J. A, Bengelii. 

To the word Milliana in square brackets a footnote is added : 
[Millius, quod ipse testatur, textura Stephanicum anni 1550 in 
editione sua repraesentandum curavit,] 

And at the end of the Monitum a similar footnote is given : 
[Textus noster, ut supra diximus, Stephanicus est. Accentus 
spiritus iota subscriptum inlerpuncturam Millius Car. Oxon. alii 

Now if we compare this Monitum with that of the original edition of 
Lloyd's, which has the year mdcccxxviii on its title, and *necrum' 
and *e/' as above mentioned, we find in the very first sentence one 
important difference. Instead of ' idem /ere' Lloyd had written * idem 
profedo\ No doubt fere is more correct, but the original reading 
ought to have been retained or mentioned in the margin ; when Lloyd 
published his edition, he believed that he was repeating the text of 
Mill, but it was not his. For there can be no doubt, that Lloyd gave 
to the printer the Oxford edition of 1742 mentioned above from the 
back of the title of what is now called * MilFs Testament \ 
Its title is 

Textu per omnia Milliano, cum Divi- 
sione Pericoparum fit luterpuncturA 
J. A, Bengelii. 
[Signet of the Theatrum Shddonianum] 
E Theatro Sheldoniano 
Impensis B, Brought on Bibliop. MDCCXLII. 
557 pages. 

Already Eduard Reuss has shown in his BibUMeca N<roi Tesfamenfi 
Graeci 1872 that the Editor, who is said to have been bishop Gamboid 
of the Moravians, did not follow Mill, but an edition published at 
Edinburgh in 1740, whose text difFered in not a i^w particulars from 
that of Mili. These variations came over into Lloyd, This must have 
been recognized rather early. For I possess an edition of 1836, which 
is, strange to say, unknown to Reuss and his followers Sckaff-HaW^ and 
not mentioned in the Bible Catalogue of the British Museum. ■ 

* Reuss describes, p, 155, no. 73: Oxonii c typographeo acaderaico, 1836. 12. 
Editto Milliana puro duci suo fidissima. Textus binis columnis expressus, versiculis 



It has 'Academico' on its title instead of • Clarendoniano ' and 
MDccc XXXVI, and 712 pages instead of 696, and is a much improved 
reprint of Lloyd's. This is already shewn by the references of the first 
page. For Lloyd had quoted in Matt, i 2, 1828: Gen. xxv 24, 1836 
has xxv 26, v. 7. 1828 i Reg. xv 3, 1836 has 8, &c. 

The last revision of Lloyd's seems to have taken place in 1888-9, 
for the ^Appendices ad Novum Testamentum Stephanicum^ iam inde 
a Millii temporibus Oxoniensium manibus tritum^ Curante GUD^ 
SAND A y; A,M,, S.T,P,, LL,I>: MDCCC LXXXIX say in a 'Moni^ 
turn Textui Graeco Navi Testamenti Praemissum ' (rather : Praemitten- 
dum t): * Visum est igitur preU academici delegatis texium ilium Millianum 
sive Siephanicum^ qui iamdiu Oxoniensium manibus teritur, ad exemplar 
editionis Stephanicae anni MDL denuo castigatum^ typis iterum mandare* 

Now it seems worth while to exhibit these several stages of the history 
of this Greek Text by parallel columns. In the first is placed 
Stephanus of 1550, in the second Mill of 1707, in the third (Gambold) 
1742, in the fourth Lloyd 1828, in the fifth Lloyd 1836, in the sixth 
Lloyd 1889 (from a copy, which has mdcccxciv on its title), in the 
last *Miir 1900 (=1742). 

1. Matt, xxvi 9 

2. Mark i 3i 

3. M iv 18 

VI 29 
viii 3 
xi 22 
xvi 20 

8. John xviii 34 

9. X Cor. XV 33 
ID. 1 Thess. i 9 

11. 2 Tim. i 5 

12. Apoc xi 2 




Oloyd' 1 














els rrfv <r. 


tit <rw. 




oirroi eltriv 


om. ovroi 

















6 'li^aoOf 













d. ovp 




























'Mill = 






That is to say : in all passages (eleven out of twelve) in which Gambold 
1742 deviated from Mill, he was followed by Lloyd 1828; in all, 
except the first, the true reading of Mill has been restored already in 
1836; in the twelfth passage (6= Mark xi 22) where Mill himself 

distinctis. Praefatio adest nulla. My edition has no columns nor verses, and has 
Lloyd's preface. 


deviated from Stephanus^ Mill was followed tip to the last revision 
1889 ; while that edition, which is now called ' Mill's ' ' secundum 1 742 ', 
sticks to 1742 still three times (1 and u and 12). 


IJ. Acts xxvii 3 

14. 2 Cor. V 13 

15. Eph. 13 














fV Xp, 





But this is the least point which is to be urged against these editions, 
that the impressions were no accurate repetitions of Mill. When the last 
reprint was made in iBSg, it was felt that it was not quite up to date to 
repeat a text of 1707 or rather 1550, Therefore the Monitum goes on : 
*Nolebant lamen (Delegati preli academici) Textum abhinc annos 
trecentos constitutum ila lectoribus proponere ut receotiorum omnium 
iudicia dissimularent. Itaque libro bene noto placuit appendices sub- 
iicere/ The first of these contains therefore 

Collatio Textus Westcotiio-Horiiani cum Ttxtu Stephanko annt MDL^ 
It is a very solid piece of work, of ninety>two pages, done for the 
greatest part by H. J. White e Societate S. Andreae Sarisburiensi and 
Fredericus A. Overton e Colt Exon. It shews already by its extent 
to what degree a modern text differs from the old; but I wonder 
whether it is much used ^ And then the so-called ' Mill ' has no such 

' Ajnerc EBispniit of 1889 (appurently). 

* The present writer has had occasion to check the collation from the end of 
Luke onward, and may be permitted to offer here some corrections and additloos 
(minor matters, as wrong numbering of verses, are omitted). 



Matt. V4, 5 

Luke xix 31 

Acts i 15 

XX 4 

xxiii 10 

XXV 10 

I Cor, xii 15, 

xiv 36 

Col iv 15 

I Thesa. ii la 

Hebr, viii 6 

xii 17 

James ii aa 

I John ii 34 

Apoa ii 34 

iii 5 

xviii 23 

The transposition of these verses^propcMsed by WH* on the margiAr 

is not mentioBed. 
WH. hri 'O pro 'Ot* h (Mill). 
J,, cififA^tkWK pro jMaffip-ttfi', 
„ ti^Mvloi (different accent). 
„ 7iFDft^vijf pro 7iK', 
„ iJSiin?**! pro iiUK^dtu 
16 different punctuation. Stephen, Mill and iS36had ; at the end 
of both verses : i8a8 v. 15 ,- v, 16 . : WH. both verses 
Lloyd 1889 both verses a full stop. 
WH. •^ivi^^n} pro 7«i^-, 
„ Nt'^i^K ( = fem*) pro Kv/i^soy («nmsc.), 

,, ^djOTtrpji^C vol pro -poVfitPOt^ 

ff T*Tttj(*r pro TiTivx*:, 

ff AirtioKifi&aSi}^ : different punctuation ; avr^ in this esse 

ferring to cuAo^iW, not to fttroyoiat. 

„ , at the end of verse, not ; , 

ff Ota, ovr. 

„ 0a9ia pro 0ae7i. 

„ tfwrlou (no difference between WH. And Millj, 

„ iparji pro fay^. 


appendix. And now think that the text of Mill or Stephen is prin- 
cipally that of Erasmus's first edition of 15 16, containing in the 
Apocalypse such grammatical and lexical monsters as xvii 5 dicadapn/ros, 
8 Kauir€p coTiv, and at the end of the book, because his codex was 
defective, his retranslation from the Latin, where in six verses he missed 
the original thirty times, closing the Apocalypse and the whole Greek 
Testament with a word, which has no attestation at all in any Greek 
document, nor even in the better documents of the Latin, fiera Trdvrutv 

C M 


It must be asked, Whether it is worthy of a University Press like 
that of Oxford to go on printing such a text merely because the name 
of Mill is attached to it. Mill's edition was indeed a splendid piece of 
work, but ift?/ /Vf fext, merely its apparatus. The fame which is justly 
due to the apparatus has been attached to the text without any reason, 
as every one agrees. 

The British and Foreign Bible Society has resolved no longer to 
circulate the texUis receptus. Surely it is high time that the Delegates 
of the Clarendon Press should follow their example. Things like 
oKaBaprrtfro^ Kaivep imv were a blot in the time of Erasmus, but are 
a disgrace in the twentieth century. 

Eb. Nestle. 

[We are indebted to Dr. Nestle for the characteristically minute care 
which he has bestowed upon the examination of some of our Oxford 
books. I believe the facts are in the main as he has stated them. It 
is perhaps just worth while to note that in the collation of MSS where 
Dr. Nestle thinks that the transposition of the verses St Matt, v 4, 5 
has been overlooked by us, the omission was really deliberate. The 
marks attached to the marginal reading indicate that it is not a true 
variant ; on this ground we passed it over. 

While recognizing the general correctness of Dr. Nestle's facts, 
I cannot help a little wondering why, under the heading 'Present Greek 
Testaments of the Clarendon Press ', he begins by ruling out the one 
book which has some real connexion with the Oxford of the present 
day, and devotes all his accounts to two texts, which as texts were 
never of any real importance, the one published in 1828, and the other 
in 1707 (or, more strictly, 1742). 

The book known as Palmet's Greek Testament with the Reviser^ Read- 
ings^ is prescribed for use in the Examinations of the University, and 
either it or Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament is usually recom- 
mended by tutors to their pupils. The *Mill' texts (for Bishop Lloyd, 


as Dr. Nestle truly says, intended to reproduce Mill) are just the 
survival of an old book which is only still issued because there is still 
some demand for it This means that in the whole of the area covered 
by English scholarship the use of the Textus Receptus, and of the texts 
closely allied to it, has not as yet entirely died ouL In like manner the 
Cambridge Press, I believe, still issues the text of Stephanas^ though 
the text most in favour at Cambridge is naturally that of Westcott and 

The Clarendon Press has the special right of printing *The 
Greek Testament with the readings adopted by the Revisers of the 
Authorized Version \ This was edited by the late Archdeacon 
Palmer, who gave the readings implied in the Authorized Version 
as variants at the foot of the page. Cambridge prints the Ste- 
phanos text of 1550 with the Revisers* readings as variants. It is of 
course true that the real credit for the text belongs neither to Oxford 
nor to Cambridge, but to the Revisers. The University Presses send 
out their books in accordance with the law of supply and demand, 
as trading corporations. They do not propose to dictate to their public ; 
if they did| it would be oseless^ as the public would go elsewhere. But 
in the end there is sure to be *a survival of the fittest'; scholarship 
tells by degrees in the easiest and most natural way. 

For these reasons I rather demur to the title Dr. Nestle has given to 
his study, which might seem to give to the editions criticized an import- 
ance they do not possess. But all facts have their value, and the 
standard of accuracy is constantly rising. This is not the only field in 
which Dr. Nestle's minute investigations have done real service. He 
treads worthily in the steps of the American scholar, the late Dr. Isaac 
H, Hall ; and when a new edition is brought out of Reuss's Bibliothcca 
he will be one of those who l^ve contributed most to it. 

W. S.] 







A Texl'Book of North- Semitic Inscriptions^ Aloabite^ Hebrew^ Phoenician, 
Aramaic, Nabataean, Fa Imyrene, Jewish, By the Rev. G. A. Ccx)RE, 
M,A,, late Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. (Oxford, at the 
Clarendon Press, 1903.} 



\ which this work is intended to satisfy has ' 
felt not only by students of the Semitic languages bol also by theologians 
and historians generally. The importance of the North-Semitic inscrip- 
tions, from a linguistic and historical point of view, is now universally 
recognized, yet no attempt has hitherto been made, either in England 
or on the Continent, to bring the subject as a whole within the reach of 
ordinary readers. The monumental Corpus Jnscripiionum Semiiicarum, 
and even Lidzbarski's Handbuch der fwrdsemitischen Epigraphik^ can be 
used only by a few specialists. Thus the scheme which Mr, Cooke has 
set before himself must meet with unanimous approval In a volume 
of moderate compass he gives us a most judiciously chosen collection of 
about J 50 iniscriptions, besides facsimiles of coins^ seals, and gems; 
every department of North-Semitic epigraphy is adequately represented, 
and the texts are accompanied by copious explanations, both historical 
and philological. 

No reasonable person will be disposed to complain because the author 
does not offer much that is new, * My aim throughout ', he says in the 
Preface (p. x), * has been not to propose novel interpretations or recon- 
structions of my own, but rather to give, after careful study of the various 
authorities on the subject, what seemed to be the most probable verdict 
on the issues raised, and also to bring together the chief matters of 
importance bearing on the texts. The frequency with which the 
words "probably" and "possibly" appear may, perhaps, be somewhat 
of a disappointment to the reader, as indicating an attitude of caution 
rather than of courage ; but it is w*ell to be reminded how seldom we 
can speak with positiveness on questions of grammar and interpretation 
where the material is so limited and where there is no contemporary 
literature to shed light upon the monuments,' Mr. Cooke certainly does 
not overstate the difficulties which these inscriptions present. It may 
even be thought that a still more frequent use of * probably' and 


* possibly* would have increased the value of his work. In g< 
it must be said, the sobriety of his judgement and the accuracy of his 
scholarship are beyond all praise ; but occasionally he seems to me to 
have fallen, through inadvertence, into serious errors, which, in a text- 
book intended for students, are especially to be regretted. 

Thus the very first page of his Introduction is a terrible chaos. 'The 
inscriptions', he tells us, 'which make up the present collection are 
grouped under the common title of North-Semitic to distinguish ihera 
from the South-Semitic, or Sabaean and Himyariiic, on the one hand, and 
from the Babylonian and Assyrian on the other.' It is unfortunate that 
Mr. Cooke has adopted from the Corpus the misleading phrase * Sabaean 
and Himyaritic * instead of ' Sabaean or Himyaritic *. This, however, is 
a mere trifle. We read a few lines further on, and the darkness thickens. 
'The languages in which the inscriptions are written belong to what may 
be called for convenience the Central, as distinguished from the Northern 
and Southern, division of the Semitic tongues. This Central division is 
subdivided into two main classes: (i) the Canaanite, which includes 
the Moabite» Hebrew, and Phoenician inscriptions, ninth century B.C. to 
third century a.d. and later; (2) the Aramaic, . . ,' What meaning 
does Mr. Cooke here attach to the terms ' Central' and 'Nonhern*? 
If the languages in which the North-Semitic inscriptions are written do ■ 
not belong to the Northern division, of what does the Northern division 
consist ? This mysterious passage is in no wise elucidated by the foot- 
note which Mr. Cooke has appended to it. 'The Semitic languages are J 
grouped in various ways j thus Wright, Comp. "Gr. 12 ff., divides them into ■ 
Northern, i.e. Assyrian, Central, i.e. Aramaic, Western, i.e. Canaanite, 
Southern, i.e. Arabic and Ethiopic' Now if we turn to Wright^s book 
we find that he divides the Semitic languages into a Northern and 
a Southern section; the Northern section is subdivided into three 
groups, the Eastern {i, e. Babylonian and Assyrian), the Central (i, e, 
Aramaic), and the IVes/em (L e. Canaanite). This is perfectly intelligible, 
but Mr. Cooke, by omitting the word 'Eastern', involves the whole 
classification in hopeless perplexity, since he makes it appear as if 
Wright's term * Northern ' included Assyrian only, whereas in reality it 
includes all the Semitic languages except Arabic and Ethiopia 
A few remarks on individual points may here be added. 
Page II — The word nn in the inscription of Mesha', line 12, is 
explained by Mr. Cooke as equivalent to ri*Ki^ from the root nwi *to 
see,' This view has been maintained by many other scholars^ but 
it should at least have been marked as doubtful, since the omission 
of the radical K in so ancient a text would be very surprising. The 
word nrnni, in line 11, is not an analogous case, nor yet can we base 
any argument on the obscure word n^^ in line 20. Possibly nn 






[pronounced either as ri»i:= ji'ii^ or as n*"! =n*^"i) may come from nn 
* to be moistened ', * to slake one's thirst \ hence ' to satisfy a desire ', 
This metaphorical use of the root occurs in Hebrew (Pro?, vii 18) and 
is especially common in Arabic 

Page 34 — The theory that the Syr. f cia is derived from poo, as 
Mr. Cooke states without any qualification, is contrary to all analogy. 

Page 65 — In his note on the proper name ^n^*\D Mr. Cooke apparently 
employs the term 'diminutive' in the sense of a familiar abbreviation \ 
This usage leads to confusion, as a diminutive does not properly mean 
a shorter form but a form expressing the smallness of the object 
referred to. 

Page 256— The Nabataean name 73n33 is here transliterated ' Ben- 
hobal', but on the next page we are told that it should be pronounced 
either ba'nJI or '^5^"3?. Names compounded with nn 'to build' 
undoubtedly occur, but Mr. Cooke scarcely has a right to quote the 
Biblical lin'p as an instance in point, since p must here mean * son ', 
as is shewn by the Syriac ffo* is (e.g. 'the blessed Bar-hadad the 
Bishop' in the Chronicle 0/ Joshua the Sfyiiie^ ed. Wright, §§ LVIII 
and C). Whether lin"p is an exceptional, but genuine, Aramaic form, 
or a Hebrew modification, we cannot say. 

Page 284 — ^The Palmyrene name K;rnn is here explained as = U.^,! 
' enchantment ', a word which, by the way, seems to occur In the plural 
only. It is much more probable that WK'in means 'deaf, as Mr, S.A.Cook 
has suggested in his Glossary of Aramaic Inscriptions, Compare the 
Arabic nickname *^\ which was borne by a poet of the Umayyad 
period and by various other persons. 

Page 333- — Why does Mr. Cooke repeatedly adopt the vocalization 
fWB (P^ 333). rS'ywiD (p. 335), nrupr? (p. 338). ^"^W^ (p. 339). 
with a long vowel in the first syllable ? According to all analogy the 
vowel ought to be either short e or short i, 

Page 334 — With regard to the Passives formed by internal vowel- 
change, Mr. Cooke rejects the view which is now predominant. He 
holds, for example, that the Biblical Aramaic napnn and HBWn *are 
artificially modelled upon the Hebrew, and probably were never used in 
actual speech.* But he seems to be wholly unconscious of the difficulties 
which this hypothesis involves. If HJ^nn is artificially modelled upon 
the Hebrew, how are we to account for the Passive no^pn ' was raised ' 

(Dan. vii 4), where the vocalization agrees with the Arabic cuI-Jl in 
contradistinction to the Hebrew i* Nor is it correct to say, as Mr. Cooke 
does, that *in Bibl. Aram, these forms were used only for the Perf, 
3 pers.*, since njpnn in Dan. iv 33 is undoubtedly a first pers. More- 
over, we find in Biblical Aramaic, not only a Passive of the Causative 
Conjugation, but also a Passive of the Simple Conjugation, as in Arabic 


i^\»J, C^, ?6|*i, ftcV sad m if i uiMlf aniv ionn, vii. Jinr2F 

mm Medeba, which 
(p. 247). Tfaos die tbeocy 
bf tntefBal vowd-diaiige is 
bftaks damn ako^etber. Unfoctnmlei^ Mr, Cooke 
hm not oDiy adcipled a wvoeg tfaeoiy oo dni snbfctl but has also niis' 
Malcd the ixtsw On p. 535 be c^iIubs die FakDjicne «32 as == '^, 
a 'Pea] pCcfik piH.', and rdai at to 'Bdd. Amu. ^| Dm. ii 30, 
*^? Ezra iv iS/ If be bad fcnfied these quotations, he voidd have seen 
that the Biblical fonni are ^, (abo ^ OaiL ii 19) and ^ which most 
be taken as Perfects, not Paitidp to;, since in Bibfical Arainaic die 
PasNve Paiticipie of sncfa v«rhs is spelt eidier witli final it (as to Syriac) 
or with fioal n, e. g. inf^, 7^, nvi. It is ontj in buer Aramaic dialects 
that these participial forms are sp^ with final \ Accordiiig^y there can 
be Httle doobt that the Pahnyrene m is a Perfect Passive^ corrcspondi 
to the .\rabic ^^^ 

In the note on the Tariff \ line 9 it should have been mentioned 
the emendation aro' for 3fD1 is due to Sachau (Z D^ M. G, for 1883, 
p. 563 footnote). 

Page 335— The Palmyrene V^rchv 'youths* and its feminine «nt3»^ 
are diminutive forms, so that the vowel of the second syllable was 
probably at or e^ not /, as Mr. Cooke supposes (pp. 335^ 340). This 
appears from the Jewish Aramaic KD^tnp and the Syriac [^ "'^^ . to 
which Mr. Cooke himself refers. 

A work tn which every word, and almost every letter, requires careful 
verification will naturally contain some mistakes. Those which I have 
ventured to point out may appear insignificant to most readers^ but in 
dealing with texts of this kind it must be remembered that even slight 
inaccuracies are liable to become sources of confusion. 

A. A. Bevan. 


Tht Bible in the Nineteenth Century, Eight lectures by J. Estlin Car- 
penter, M.A. (London, Longmans^ Green & Co.) 1903. 

In these able and interesting lectures Mr, Estlin Carpenter gives 
a concise but careful sketch of the progress of Biblical Criticism during 
the last two centuries ; he also attempts to estimate the importance of 
its assured results. Considering the standpoint from which he writes, 
wc have nu reason for surprise that Mr. Estlin Carpenter regards these 
results as adverse, not merely to current ideas about inspiration, but 
alao to the catholic conception of Christ's Person and work. 




I It is, however, only in the concluding lecture that Mr. Carpenter 
touches upon what may be called the rehgious consequences of the 
critical movement. The greater part of the book consists of a full and 
impartial sketch of the various epochs in the movement, ihe great 
names which have at various times been connected with it, and the 
silent revolution in thought which the use of historical methods has 
brought about. The first lecture deals with * The struggle for freedom 
of enquiry'. Mr. Carpenter looks upon the Privy Council Judgement of 
1863 (in the case of Essays and Rmtms) as * the charter of free enquiry 
into the origin and composition of the Scriptures within Ihe Established 
Church of England*. Unquestionably the settlement of this struggle 
gave an impetus to the movement for a revision of the Authorized 
Version, and to the agitation for the abolition of University tests. 
Mr Carpenter pleads for their abolition in the case of Divinity pro- 
fessors, and he holds that ' Behind the ideal of free teaching in theology 
lies another more important still— that of a free Church where pastor and 
people shall be alike pledged only to a common pursuit of truth and 
a common recognition of veracity as the first requisite of worship' (43). 
In Lecture II Mr. Carpenter expresses a fairly favourable view of the 
Revised Version. One of his criticisms of the O.T. version seems 
both just and suggestive. * It is *, he says, * perhaps unfortunate that the 
Revisers have so rarely admitted that the existing Hebrew is no longer 
iotelligible, and have insisted on finding a meaning where grammar 
and sense both fail ' (92). He duly cautions the reader, however, that 
the task of textual emendation is often of extraordinary diflBculty, and 
that another century of toil may be needed before it is found practicable 
to obtain 'a sufficient consensus^ of schohrly opinion to warrant the 
construction of a revised text. Lectures III and IV describe those 
* changed views ' of the Law and of Prophecy which have resulted from 
a more historical conception of the origin and growth of the Old 
Testament. Some readers will probably feel that Mr. Carpenter too 
peremptorily rejects the claims of 'typology'. It may fairly be argued 
on the other side that any system of interpretation recognized in 
Scripture itself must rest on a basis of reason and fact It is surely 
incorrect to assert that 'the system of scriptural typology was founded 
on the assumption that the first five books of the Bible were composed 
by Moses' (109). The system of 'typology' not only appeals to the 
practice of the New Testament writers themselves (especially the author 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews), but finds its justification in the organic 
connexion that exists between the Jewish religion and Christianity, It 
assumes also, surely not without warrant, that where a hving Providence 
is at work in history, the earlier stages of religion will inevitably to 
some extent foreshadow later developements. The statement of the 



writer of Hebrews that in the Jewish ordinances the Holy Spini 
signified truths and mysteries yet to be disclosed, remains unaffected* 
either by the historical question at what precise period those ordinances 
were in use, or by the fact that the writer adopted ^tnetbods of 
Christian gnosis' that were natural to his age. Mr. Carpenter also 
rejects too hastily the belief that in the Levitical ritual a process of 
selection is apparent — a process which in the light of subsequent history 
we may reasonably believe to have been divinely controlled. Nothing 
that Mr. Carpenter says necessarily excludes such a view. Nor can it 
be supposed that Scriptural typology would have survived the admitted 
abuses and vagaries of 'private interpretation', were it not based (as 
Dr. Hatch suggests in a noteworthy passage of his Hibbcrt Ltcturts) 
' upon an element in human nature which is not likely to pass away '. 

Apart from Mr. Carpenter's lucid account of the history of Penta- 
teuchal criticism, nothing could be better than his sketch of the general 
course of religious developemeot in Israel. He seizes on the salient 
points with true historical insight For instance, in speaking of the 
main principle of the Deuteronomic Code — the principle that religion 
is more than ritual, demanding spiritual affections as well as compliance 
with external rules — Mr. Carpenter remarks that *this transfer of the 
seat of religion to the conscience and the affections really prepared the 
way for the ultimate severance of religion from the national cultus * (149). 
He also does justice to post -exilic legalism in the statement that * The 
Law endeavoured to bring the principles of the universal Deity of 
Vahweh, his spiritual nature and his righteous rule, into direct application 
to the circumstances of a community still in danger of frittering away 
the positive gains of prophetic thought ' (153). The lecture on Prophecy 
deals with a theme which is fairly familiar to most readers, but it is not 
the less fascinating. Mr. Carpenter seems to overrate the extent to 
which the influence of prophecy moulded or * reacted upon ' the primitive 
traditions of Israel. It is perhaps too strong to assert that under this 
influence *a scheme of patriarchal relationships was slowly framed into 
which other and later material could be incorporated' (185). On the 
other hand, it is doubtless true that in Deuteronomy prophecy 'trans- 
lated its ideal aims into a definite code of individual and national duty * 
{193); and the writer gathers up in a striking sentence the wonderful 
significance of Hebrew prophecy, surveyed in its totality : ' As VergUj 
reflecting on the majesty of Rome, told the tale of the pious Aeneas 
and his flight from Troy, linking the far-off anguish of the burning 
city in one chain of Providential design to the full splendours of 
Augustan glory, so Hebrew prophecy, with a more impassioned sense 
of the ** tears of things", a more splendid conviction of the divine 
righteousness, saw the migration of Abraham's clan, the conflicts of 






Wbes, the rise and fall of dynasties, the clash of empires, all pointing to 
one end, — the union of the nations in one vast fellowship of obedience 
and trust ' (209). 

Four lectures are devoted to different aspects of the serious problems 
raised by the criticism of the Gospels. In Mr. Carpenter's account 
of the literary problem, what strikes us chiefly is the candour of the 
admission that * no Christian can approach the Gospels for the first time 
in the same way in which he may approach the records of other historic 
religions'. In other words, the idea of 'a presuppositionless criticism' 
is illusory ^ It seems, therefore, futile to dwell upon divergencies of 
view which depend on a difl*erence of fundamental presuppositions. 
We feel inclined, however, to ask, particularly in regard to the analogies 
suggested by the phenomena of Buddhism and Babism, whether Mr. Car- 
penter adequately recognizes the immensity of the mora/ revolution 
which Christianity, as compared ivith other systems, has introduced? 
-Is it not true of Buddhism and Babism, as of the ancient religious 
culture of Babylonia and Egypt, that the literature connected with them 
* might have remained for ever unread, and our spiritual life to-day 
would be no poorer* {453)? The more confidently you trace the 
teaching of Jesus Christ to the circumstances of His education and 
environment, the more urgent becomes the pressure of the question, 
What will account for the moral fruits of His teaching and example, and 
for the spiritual experience which has its roots in them ? The nature 
and limits, indeed, of Christ's self-accommodation to the conditions and 
habits of thought prevalent in His age, are fair matters of doubt and 
controversy, and raise problems which will inevitably be solved in dif- 
ferent ways. But does Mr. Carpenter recognize the full significance 
of his admission that * Jesus is the ultimate creator of the Christian 
character, the primal source of the Christian life*? It is because 
Christianity is essentially a life and not merely a creed that the age-long 
movement of criticism has on the whole produced so little impression 
upon faith. 

Lecture VII^ on the Johannine Problem, is singularly temperate and 
well-balanced in statement, but does not profess to do more than give 
a summary of the present position of the questions involved. In his 
concluding lecture, * The Bible and the Church ', the writer finds himself 
forced to touch upon the doctrine of authority in religion. 

It would be out of place, in a short review, to discuss at length the 
strong and the weak points of Mr, Carpenter's argument. On the one 
hand, he pleads effectively for a much-needed restatement of the doctrine 
of human nature ' on the broader ground of anthropology ', and he recog- 
nizes the candour and sincerity of the attempts which have already 

' Cp. Prot Orr's recent Essays on Riischliantsm p. 13. 


been made in this direction by writers Itlce Archdeacon Wilson ind 
Mr. Tennant. On the other hand, he misunderstands, as we thinks the 
relation of the Church to Scripture* * A single instance of mis-ascription \ 
he says, * really shatters the pretension of " inspired prudence " raised 
on its behalf. If it might wrongly attribute a letter to one apostle, it 
might equally blunder in assigning a gospel to another' (472). 

It might be replied that the different books of the New Testament 
gained their authority and their place in the canon, not primarily because 
they were supposed to be the work of particular authors, but because 
(as Prof. Robertson Smith has said in reference to the Old Testament) 
• they commended themselves in practice to the experience of the [O. X] 
Church and the spiritual discernment of the godly in Israel ' K Just as 
the Apostles* Creed embodies in a real sense the organized experience 
of the Christian community, so the New Testament Canon comprises 
those books which were, in matter of fact, best adapted to minister to 
COtain elements in the Christian life. The New Testament is best 
rCfardcd, in fact, as a record explaining and justifying the spiritual 
oxperience of the Christian Church. 

Mr* Carpenter reserves for the conclusion of his lecture a discussion 
of the Virgin-birth of Christ, He has no difficulty in stating forcibly 
the ordinary arguments against the alleged fact, and he is able to illustrate 
the narrative by a multitude of tales culled from the folklore of the 
world * from China to Peru '. He further maintains that * the doctrine 
was not with in PauKs view', and that those who regard Joseph as the 
father of Jesus have the authority of the Gospels on their side equally 
with those who ascribe His birth to the operation of the Holy Spirit 
This position we cannot here discuss. As regards other than literary 
and historical considerations, we observe that the repudiation of the 
Virgin-birth is allied (in Mr. Carpenter's case) with doubts as to the 
sinlessness of Jesus ^. He frankly declares that this latter doctrine is to 
some minds * a hindrance rather than a help * ^ and he ends, consistently 
enough, by denying the uniqueness of Christianity. 'Similar results', 
he says, ' are achieved elsewhere by other means and through different 
formi' (509). At the same time, his last word is an emphatic testimony 
to the uniqueness of the Bid/e^ and a vindication of the right of private 
judgement. Happily it is not within the province of a reviewer to enter 
into dogmatic discussions. Our sense of the great gravity of the topics 
di»cufi§ed in Mr. Carpenter's concluding lecture is best marked by 
abitention from unprofitable disputation. On the whole, he is to be 
sincerely thanked for a remarkable and deeply interesting book, 

R. L, Ottley. 

' Ofe/ Tejiinrntm/ in JftvisM Church p. 162. 

* Cp. Prof. Orr'a Essay on 'The miraculous conception jmd modern thought* in 
Riit^hliamvm pp, 331 foil* 



I^ Mission und Ausbrtitung des Ckristenthums in den ersien drd 
Jahrkttnderien. A. Harnack. (Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1902. 9 m.) 

This latest of Dr. Harnack's great works is marvellous in its com- 
pleteness and admirable in the skill with which it is arranged. Parts of 
it have appeared already in the Transactions of the Berlin Academy, 
but they fall into their due place in the connected whole ; Dr. Harnack 
has not been content, as scholars too often are, to publish an ill- 
compacted assortment of essays under the name of a history. No such 
statement has yet appeared of the causes and the stages of the expansion 
of Christianity up to the Council of Nicaea. The author is equally 
happy in explaining the methods of the preachers and the motives of 
the converts ; the only serious criticism that can be passed upon him is 
that something seems wanting rather in the spirit than in the execution 
of his work. The explanation is almost too complete ; the Christian 
^th seems dwarfed in comparison with the auxiliary forces which 
helped it to victory. Not that clear and fervid language is wanting, 
but that the picture as a whole presents a morally smaller and less 
stable organization and belief than the author in his own more 
enthusiastic moments describes. Dr. Harnack has a keen vision, and 
knows how to surround the objects of his inquiry with a singularly 
clear atmosphere; but we have learnt that such transparency is itself 
deceptive. It is symptomatic of a spirit which, if not obtrusively dis- 
played, is manifestly present that he indulges from time to time in 
language which is, to say the least, unsympathetic. For instance, on 
his last page he mentions among the causes for the success of 
Christianity its capacity from the third century onwards of 'over- 
trumping attractive superstitions'. The judgement of even so great 
a scholar as Dr. Harnack must be unconsciously warped by the use 
of such a simile. 

But this general impression does not lessen the reader's gratitude for 
each chapter taken singly, or his wonder at the wealth of knowledge 
displayed and the skill with which facts from remote parts of the field 
are brought into combination. But most remarkable of all is the way 
in which Dr. Harnack has seized upon minor, yet not unimportant, 
points of interest. Most students must have made their collections 
upon alms, or tertium genus^ or the use of alternative names by the 
Christians, or similar matters. They will find that Dr. Harnack has 
done the same, and with astonishing completeness. They will some- 
times be able to supplement him — for the taunt that Christians are 
a tertium genus (Lampridius Alex. Sev. 23. 7) should surely have been 
cited and discussed — and they will not sJways agree with his interpre- 

VOL. V. U 



tations or with his obiter dicta ; what evidence can be all^c for (p. 341) 
a * collegiate govcmraent by bishops and deacons ' ? But the doubtful 
statements are as rare as the omissions, and hardly weigh in the 
balance against the abundance of instruction which we gain. To 
choose at random, we may now reeard the meaning of pg^am is as 
equivalent to *ajlJjg£2 G-.^- *^'"' ^^^ ^^ ^^^ * soldiejc.of jCwist) as 
finally settled by Ibe joint authority of Zahn and Haroack ; and we are 
told of an unpublished fragment which speaks of Ximotwimm rv jcol *iov6aiM. ^ 

^purrov 6fio\oyovirr*t. ^M 

A large and perhaps disproportionate space is given up to the con- 1 
troversy with Duchesne as to the relative priority of the patriarchal I 
and urban episcopate. Dr Hamaclc*s ingenuity and zeal have led him " 
to injure his own case; he shews himself at times a German con- 
troversialist of a type which is growing obsolete. The suggestion that 
the famous Sarclus, the deacon mro BwVfijc (Euseb. If. E, V i. 17), is a 
deacon of Lyons who came from Vienne is surely unworthy of a serious 
scholar, though it was also made by Valesius ; and there are other aigo- 
ments which are hardly stronger It is strange that Cyprian Ep. 67 
should have been overlooked in this debate, where the words AeJio dia- 
€ono tt pUbi Emtritae consisientibus and the whole purport of the letter 
seem to have a bearing upon the question. But Dr. Hamack makes 
out a case which as a whole is much stronger than that of his adversary. 

Nothing in the volume is more interesting or important than the last 
section, which fixes so far as they are known the dates of establishment 
of the sees which are older than Nicaea, and so traces the progressive 
expansion of Christianity. The work is done most completely and 
judiciously. The fault, if there is one, lies in Dr, Hamack*s caution 
in accepting evidence and drawing inferences. But no one will blame 
him for his refusal to dogmatize about the numbers of the Christians at 
different dates, or doubt the reasonableness of his estimates ; though 
here again he errs, \i at all, on the side of moderation. He puts the 
Christians of Numidia and Proconsular Africa at three to five per cent. 
of the population in the time of St Cyprian, and the number of bishops 
at 130 to 150, justly observing that the opposition was absent from the 
Council of A. D. 2^, the Sententiae of which we possess. But he is 
hardly right in laying stress only on the military and official element in 
the African Church. Evidence of \*arious kinds points to a large 
immigration of the peasant class from Southern Italy, and the personal 
relation which seems to have existed between Cyprian and Capua M 
points to a special connexion between the two regions. May not the I 
multiplication of bishoprics in A^ca be a feature of Church life which 
the immigrants imported from their old home? Dr. Hamack might 
well have mentioned the possibility. 


He is emphatic in reducing to a minimum the number of Christians 
in Northern Italy and Gaul. He is certainly right in his main con- 
tention, but one of his arguments can hardly be sustained. He lays 
it down as a general rule that where bishops were few Christians also 
were few. It is notorious that the dioceses of Northern Italy were of 
large extent, and Dr. Hamack draws his conclusion that Christians 
were therefore rare. He should have considered the history of the 
cities. Roman historians of to-day trace the boundaries of the great 
military colonies of Cisalpine Gaul by those of the sees of Lombardy. 
For obvious reasons of strength and of administrative convenience, 
those colonies had been laid out on the largest scale ; and we cannot 
argue that because the unit of administration was large, therefore the 
number of Christians was small. Perhaps the diocesan system of Gaul 
was imitated from that of Northern Italy, as I have suggested that that 
of Africa was from Southern Italy. The wish to keep down the number 
of Christians has led Dr. Harnack into a strange argument as regards 
Bologna. The bodies of the martyrs Vitalis and Agricola were found, it 
is said, in a Jewish burial-place, and therefore there were so few 
Christians in the city at the time of Diocletian's persecution that they 
had no cemetery of their own. The story is a replica of that of 
Gervasius and Protasius; St. Ambrose is concerned with both cases, 
and in both there is the guidance of a vision ; the doubtfulness of the 
matter is increased by there being another St. Vitalis of Ravenna, the 
father of the Milanese brethren. The point for us is that a story in its 
successive reproductions always becomes more marvellous^ as Freeman 
has shewn in many entertaining notes to his Norman Conquest. 
Discovery in a Jewish burial-ground was more wonderful than discovery 
in a church. But an unorthodox interment, if such there were, would 
prove neither the paucity of Christians nor the non-existence of a 
bishop. We know an instance of Christian burial in a pagan cemetery 
in St Cyprian's day; the offender, Martialis, was himself a bishop, 
and the offence had apparently been committed before his lapse. 
Perhaps, indeed, the whole story is false ; it is that of a dispossessed 
rival in a day when the standard of truthfulness was low, and Stephen 
of Rome had disbelieved the allegations. But in any case it shews 
that in a church sufficiently important to have a bishop it was quite 
possible, in the opinion of a contemporary, for such a burial to be 

But it is ungrateful to dwell upon minor and disputable points 
rather than on the mass of accurate information, illuminated by the 
insight of a true historian, with which this most interesting volume has 
enriched us. 

E. W. Watson. 

U 2 



Affa PhiUppi tt Acta JTwfnae : acctdunt Acta Bamabae, edidit Maxi- 
MtUANUs BoKNET. (Ldpag, Mendelssohn, 1903.) 

Not many words, it is to be hoped, are necessary to commend this, 
the concluding part of the great Lipsius-Bonnet re*cditfon of the Greek 
Apocryphal Acts» to the readers of this Journal. All will be glad to 
have at last an authoritative text of the Greek (shall I call it version?) 
of the famous Acts of Thomas, If the question between the claims of 
Greek and Syriac to be the original language of these Acts are not 
settled by the appearance of this volume, we at least have an invaluable 
slock of materials for settling that question. M, Bonnet himself 
inclines to the belief (p. xxii) that the Acts were originally written in 
Greek ; that the Greek, with the exception of the concluding sections, 
was lost at an early period ; and that a fresh Greek version of the whole 
book was made from the Syriac. Certain it is that the last part of the 
book has come to us in two distinct Greek texts. 

The Acts of Philip and of Barnabas are of far less interest than those 
of Thomas. Philip v& now placed by many critics as late as the end of 
the fourth century, and is a Catholic producrion, chiefly worth reading 
for the sake of its story^ which is sometimes highly sensational It 
made no way in the Western Church at all ; the Latin Acts of Philip are 
brief and jejune, and are only coloured at most by a distant reflexion 
of the Greek. The Acts of Thomas^ by the way, were turned into 
Anglo-Saxon verse, like those of Andrew and Matthew : this we learn 
from a note of the Homilist ^Jfcjr, but I do not know that attentioa 
has lately been called to his statement. 

Barnabas is a work of the fifth century, and should be studied in 
connexion with other Acts of early Cypriote saints. A clause (p. 301, 
I. 12) stating that Barnabas was buried in a cave * where the nation of 
the Jebusites formerly dwelt ' is noteworthy, as suggesting a reminiscence 
of old Phoenician settlements in Cyprus, 

To any one who knows M, Bonnet*s work it would seem almost 
impertinent to say that this volume is edited with the most punctilious 
accuracy. The texts with which he has dealt have been transmitted in 
a most puzzling condition: it must often have seemed to him hardly 
worth while to comb out and set in order the broken strands of such a 
book as the Acts of Philip. But the task has been done and weU 
done, and the indefatigable editor well deserves all the gratitude which 
a growing band of readers is ready to pay him. 


Die alien Petrusakten im Zusatnmenhang der apokrypken AposteU 
iitteratur, nebst einem neuenideckten Fragment^ untersucht von Carl 
Schmidt. (Texte und Untersuchungen, N. F., IX. i. Leipzig, 1903.) 

In this exceedingly interesting little volume, Dr. Schmidt presents us 
first with a new Coptic fragment of the ancient Acts of St Peter, and 
then proceeds to upset all our views as to the character of the 
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. The two parts of his book may well 
be considered separately. 

The fragment which he publishes for the first time is found filling up 
a few spare leaves in the very important Coptic manuscript, acquired 
by Berlin some few years ago, which contains copies of two or three 
previously imknown Gnostic books. Dr. Schmidt is engaged in 
editing the whole volume ; and this fragment of the Petrine Acts is the 
first-fruits of his work. He is also, it may be remembered, working at 
the unedited Coptic fragments of the Acts of Paul These cannot see 
the light too soon. 

The fragment before us contains a well-defined episode : that of the 
paral;ged da ug h ter^p f S t_£fiter. We are familiar with a garbled form 
of her story, through the medium of the Acts of Nereus and Achilleus, 
and of the Legenda Aurea, In the Coptic fragment the tale is as 
follows : — 

It is a sabbath, and Peter has been healing the sick (as Dr. Schmidt 
holds, at Jerusalem). One of those present asks the Apostle why, if he 
possesses the power to heal others, he allows his own daughter to be 
paralysed in his house. Peter replies that it is not because God is 
powerless to heal her : and, turning to her, he bids her rise and come 
to him. When all are rejoicing and marvelling, he bids her return to 
her bed, and she does so, and becomes helpless as before. The people 
all beg Peter to heal her permanently, but he refuses and gives the 
reason for his refusal. At the time of the child's birth, the Lord had 
warned him that she would be a stumbling-block to many souls if she 
remained in health; but he, Peter, thought the vision a mocking 
delusion. However, when the girl was ten years old a rich man named 
Ptolemaeus fell in love with her. [At this point a leaf is gone, but we 
can see clearly that Ptolemaeus must have tried to carry the girl off, 
and that she was struck with palsy.] Ptolemaeus brought her home to 
her own door, where her parents took her in, and then himself fell into 
a desperate condition of grief, and wept himself blind. He was con- 
templating suicide when a vision came to him and told him to go to 
Peter. Peter opened the eyes alike of his body and his soul. Shortly 
afterwards he died, leaving a piece of land to Peter's daughter : this 
Peter sold, and gave the price to the poor. 


When Peter bad finished his story, and had further addressed the 
congregation, he distributed the bread to them, and when he had dooe 
S0| he arose and returned to his house. 

In the Acts of Nereus and Achilleus the daughter (nameless in the 
new fragment) is christened Petronilla — probably after a Roman saint ; 
and under this name she survives in Western Kalendars. The lover is 
called Flaccus, and the story is so handled that Petronilla is cured and 
then dies, while Flaccus apparently lives on. Earlier allusions to the 
episode are found in the Acts of Philip, which assign no name to the 

The fragment is chiefly valuable as giving us the first form of a 
rather famous legend; it contains no specially interesting doctrinal 
teaching, and not much is likely to be added to what Dr. Schmidt has 
said about it. 

He devotes only twenty- five pages to the new document. The 
remaining 140 pages are occupied with a most important and interesting 
discussion of the whole question of the ' Leucian * Acts. I can pretend 
to do little more than present his chief conclusions. 

The position with regard to the Leucian Acts must first be stated 
quite briefly. 

We possess, in whole or in part, five specially famous books (and 
circulated in a corpus) dealing with the lives of Apostles ; namely, 
the Acts of Peterj Paul, John» Thomas, and Andrew. In the time of 
Photius the name of Leucius Charinus was associated with all of these 
books, as that of the author. 

It is generally agreed that Leucius was a name which occurred as 
that of an eyewitness and narrator in the Acts of John ; but it has also 
been contended that the author of the Acts of John was also the author 
of the Acts of Petefj and very probably of the Acts of Andrew as 

It is further agreed that the Acts of Paul were not the work of 
this same writer ; and that the Acts of Thomas cannot be regarded as 
his work. Of the former it is on record that they were written by a 
presbyter of Asia to do honour to St Paul ; of the latter it is held by 
many that they were originally written in Syriac. The Acts of Peter, of 
John, and of Andrew, therefore, form a group somewhat distinct from 
the others. Their author is usually described as a person of Docetic 
views and a Gnostic of some ill-defined sort 

To several of these positions Dr. Schmidt brings a decided negative. 
According to him, the only Acts which ought to be called Leucian are 
those of John. The Acts of Peter are by a different hand. Further, 
all these Acts are by more or less orthodox Catholics : certainly none 



of them are Gnostic. ' Der gnostische Apostelroman ' (he says, on 
p. 129) *ist fur mich ein Phantom/ 

In dealing with the Acts of Peter, Dr. Schmidt points out that there 
are traces of borrowing from the Preaching of Peter (as Zahn had sug- 
gested), from the Acts of Paul (here agreeing with Hamack), and to a 
very large extent from the Acts of John. The intimate resemblance 
between Feter 2xsAJohn is demonstrated by me in Apocrypha Anecdota^ 
II xxiv sqq., where I support the thesis that the author of the two books 
was one and the same. Dr. Schmidt's general view of the situation 
(p. 99) is as follows : the analysis of the sources of the Acts of Peter 
shews that the author made special and express use of the Acts of 
John, along with other writings, and that the striking resemblances are 
not to be referred to the authorship of Leucius or of a like-minded 
disciple. To Leucius belongs the honour of having composed the first 
Apostle-romance: beyond his own expectations, he broke ground 
thereby for a new form of Christian literature: for his example was 
quickly followed by the author of the Acts of Paul — himself a native of 
Asia Minor — and the pseudo-Peter wrote his romance, standing on the 
shoulders of both. 

As to the date of Peter^ Dr. Schmidt would place the book at latest 
in the first decade of the third century: herein disagreeing with 
Hamack, who prefers the middle of the same century \ 

Whether Dr. Schmidt is right or wrong in his contention, it is quite 
certain that what he has to say merits most careful consideration. It 
should be remembered for one thing that he has made a special study 
of Gnosticism, and there is a strong probability a priori ihsX if a docu- 
ment is pronounced by him not to be Gnostic, Gnostic it is not. Yet 
I cannot profess myself a complete convert at the moment. I feel 
difficulties especially with regard to a passage in the Acts of John 
with which Dr. Schmidt has dealt (p. 127). It is in the Hymn of 

oyboa^ Ilia ^fiiv (rv/i^dXXci. o/a^k 
rh hi Skov a\6pfvrov vrrap^^tt, cifi^v, 

I had conjectured that between the first and second line a sentence 
was missing which made mention of a Decad, and thus filled up the 
ordinary Gnostic number of aeons, namely, thirty. Dr. Schmidt thinks 

^ It is important, in estimating the Catholicity of the Petrine Acts, to remember 
that the integrity of our chief text of them (the Latin version called Actus Vtrctl- 
Unses) has been challenged of late with good show of reason by von DobschQtz and 
Ficker. There is a possibility that this may be an expurgated text The new 
Coptic fragment, moreover, as von DobschQtz reminds us, whether Gnostic or not, 
is found in company with undoubtedly Gnostic writings. 


that I am hunting for mysteries where none exist. The Dodecad 
merely the Zodiacal circle, the Ogdoad the seven Planets, with the 
Kosmokrator, i.e. Satan, at their head. But, I would ask, is it 
admissible to suppose that the Kosmokrator or Satan joined in the 
exultation of the Redeemer who was just about to overthrow his 
power? And, again, was it (to say the least) prudent in the more 
or less Catholic Leucius to employ terms such as Ogdoad and 
Dodecad, which he must have knowTi to be specially characteristic of 
Gnostic systems? 

In another passage, Leucius speaks of f} KarcanKTf ^ifa, d<fi' ?}s (^naaay rwr 
yivofMumtf TtpoiikBtv (^t-rrtr. Uoes not this imply an essentially dualistic 
view? And, yet again, is not there a very close correspondence 
between the Gnostic teaching reported by Irenaeus (I 3. 5), on the 
function of the u,}*>s and <jrrovp6i^ and the speech of Christ to John 
about the Cross, Points such as these are to me a real difficulty 
in the way of supposing Leucius not to have been under the influence 
of what is called 'Gnostic' thought I am aware that the certainly 
Gnostic writings we possess, such as the Books of Jtu and the Pistis 
Sophia^ are far more overt in their exposition of a system ; and also 
that one must be prepared for the appearance of very odd doctrinal 
views in non-Gnostic early Christian literature: 'archaic' Dr. Schmidt 
calls them ; ' erratic ' seems at least as fair a name. But I cannot 
help seeing on the other hand that the Pistis Sophia and its congeners 
are» regarded as literature, absolutely contemptible, while Leucius is 
a man of considerable culture and literary skill, and wishes to be read- 
able. There is nothing, so far as I can see, absurd in the supposition 
that he was a 'Gnostic ', and one who did not feel it his function to set 
forth a system, but rather presupposed it, and let it occasionally peep 
through his narratives and discourses. 

I should like to follow Dr. Schmidt through his acute analysis 
of the patristic evidence about the Ltucian Acts : but this is more 
than can be done in the compass of a short notice. In what I 
have written, not nearly all of the points made by our author have 
been noticed ^ I only hope that enough has been said to draw 
attention to the book and to give some idea how well worth reading 
it is. 

M. R. James. 



Chartulary of the Abbey of Lindores, 1 195-1479, edited from the 
original manuscript at Caprington Castle, Kilmarnock, with transla- 
tion and abstracts of the charters, illustrative notes, and appendices, 
by the Right Rev. John Dowden, D.D., Bishop of Edinburgh. 
(Scottish History Society, 1903. Pp. xcv, 351.) 

Monastic chartularies have usually been published by persons 
interested primarily in the local history which they illustrate. It is 
the exception when the editor displays more than antiquarian know- 
ledge ; most commonly, with his attention fixed on names of places and 
men, he would be quite unable to describe how the system of the 
monastery worked and how it fitted into the general organization of 
the Church. There is therefore cause for thankfulness when so well- 
equipped an ecclesiastical scholar as the Bishop of Edinburgh takes 
a task of this sort in hand. The Abbey of Lindores in Fife was not an 
important one, and its documents have few specially marked features ; 
but the bishop has succeeded in making his materials the text for a 
singularly illuminating study of the ecclesiastical conditions of Scotland 
in the later middle ages. The subjects dealt with in his introduction are 
unfortunately not indicated in the table of contents : we may call atten- 
tion to the sections on the endowment of the monastery (pp. xxviii-liii), 
on *the process of the transfer of parish churches to monasteries in 
proprios usus \ on * second tithes *, and on private chapels (pp. Iviii- 
Ixxiii). It should be noted, by the way, that on p. xliii the bishop 
seems to date the establishment of * perpetual vicarages ', as a normal 
institution, too early. 

The Abbey of Lindores was founded, probably before 1191, by 
David earl of Huntingdon, brother to kings Malcolm and William the 
Lion, by means of a colony from Kelso. The chartulary was compiled 
about seventy years later, but considerable additions were made during 
the two following centuries. It is here printed in full, even when the 
same document has been entered twice over. The book having been 
wrongly bound and paged, it has been necessary to rearrange it, but 
only to the extent of placing ff. 29-88 before ff. 4-28. The text is 
printed without change, except in the punctuation ; even proper names, 
by an extreme of fidelity, have been left without capitals where they are 
so written in the original. Mere slips in the manuscript are usually 
corrected with a marginal note ; but not always (e. g. maiores persone 
conuentus nostre^ p. 160). Each document is followed by an abstract or, 
in a few cases, by a translation, in English. These extracts are not only 
excellendy done, but often serve the purpose of a commentary. It 


would, howcfcr, have been a good dixng if the pbn of tnimbtfng 
proper names (as astiarmSy * Dorwazd' pp. 95-^7) had been nnifonnly 
carried out. Thomas de Camoto appears as *de CamoC' (pp. 173^ 
tbooghhea r^tlj identified with Sir Tbomas of Chazteris in the note 
(p. 277). To translate cofuelitrtt tdaem ^gens bj *actii^ for die 
diancellor' (p^ iii\ at a time when Innocent III had not yet 
appointed a chancellor, may be mtdeading. Tbe En^ish student will 
be refreshed by seeing the ^miliar terms of the deeds rendered into 
the peculiar language of Scottish law (thus 'compearance', 'poinds', 
*wad', 'stangs and live-pools'); but except for a few phrases like 
* cane' and 'conveth', there is little to disdngoish them from docmnents 
drawn up south of the Tweed. The editor has taken great pains in 
fixing the dates of the charters ; bat it woold have been more con- 
▼enient if he had always noted them at the foot of the page rather than 
at the end of the volume, or indeed (as not infrequently occurs) in both 
places. He is also apt to be too elaborate in expounding dironological 
details which the reader might be left to take on trust or to explore for 
himself (see the notes on the dates of Innocent IV on pp. iiS, 120, 
and on the Sunday known as Oatli ma\ p. 255). There is a tendency 
to repetition (see the explanations of the bishop's official, pp. 356, 268), 
which sometimes leads to discrepancies. On p. 246 Bishop Abraham 
of Dunblane is said to have been bishop 'before 1217', on p. 249 
•1214-1223', on p. 250 *c, z2i4-<. 1324', and on p. 258 *i2i6?- 
1224?'; but if John, prior of May, who is mentioned in the same 
charter with Bishop Abraham (pp. 43 ff.), was 'succeeded before 12 14 
by William ' (p. 249), it is clear that the bishop's consecration must 
have taken place eariier. We have noticed but few oversights (e.g. 
*Premonstratensian monks 'p. 264; *Gualo' for *Guido* p. 303, line 
3z). For Scottish readers it may have been unnecessary to ex^^tn 
CasteUum (or Castrum) Puellarum (pp. i, 271). Liturgical students 
will be interested in the appearance in the chapel of Dunmore in 1253 
of umtm missale in quo continetur pscdUrium^ ympnarium^ Ugendci^ et 
antiphanariumy et totum pUnarium seruicium todus anni (pp. 71 f ). 
The learned skill with which the editor has everywhere treated the 
questions of Scottish history suggested by his book can only be referred 
to generally in this Journal. 

Reginald L. Poole. 



God and the Individual, and Authority in the Church, By T. B. Strong, 
D.D., Dean of Christ Church, Oxford. 

In order to understand a book, it has been said, one should first 
observe the object of its polemic. The object against which the Dean 
of Christ Church directs his polemic in God and the Individual is, in 
name at least, quite clear. The book is an attack upon Individualism 
in Religion. This term, however, is used in a sense so exceedingly 
comprehensive as considerably to impair the practical usefulness of 
these addresses. For the book is not a mere historical study ; it is an 
essay in Pastoral Theology. What we are told about the origin of this 
volume makes it clear that it is intended to serve a practical end — to 
give guidance to clergymen in the actual conflict with Individualism 
which they are waging in their parishes. It is in this view that the 
book will be read ; and it is this consideration which gives it its chief 

Regarded, then, as a piece of Pastoral Theology, how is it to be 
judged ? As an example to the clergy of industry and scholarly method 
in the reading of Scripture it is worthy of all praise. But in relation to 
the conflict between Individualism and the * Sacramental System ' many 
of those who have been able to observe this conflict at close quarters 
will see reason to doubt whether Dr. Strong has succeeded in speaking 
the word in season. The clergy are too much disposed already to 
believe that the Individualism to which they are opposing themselves 
flourishes only upon ignorance of philosophy and history. What is most 
needed is not to confirm this prejudice ; but to lead them to examine 
critically their own position. Looked at in this light these addresses 
make a disappointing book. 

For the Dean shews no sign that he has understood where the 
strength of Individualism — and the weakness of the ordinary clergyman 
in dealing with it — really lies. It has been admirably said by the late 
Dr. Moberly that * whether God forgives a man or not depends wholly 
and only upon whether the man is or is not forgivable. He who can 
be forgiven by Love and Truth, is forgiven by Love and Truth, instantly, 
absolutely, without failure or doubt. ... In God, forgiveness upon the 
necessary conditions so acts as if it were self-acting . . . penitence, so 
far as it is penitence, never by any possibility failing of pardon'^. Now 
these words, though not quite the sort of language which they them- 
selves would naturally use, express with great force the central con- 

^ Aiofununi and Ptrsonality pp. 57, 60. 



viction of those Individualists with whom the clergy have in feet to 
deal. And the reason why these people suspect and resist much of the 
sacramental teaching which they hear b just because it appears to them 
to assail this central conviction, li, they say, the penitent man can 
never fail of pardon, how can pardon be said in any sense to depend 
upon Sacraments? And the clergyman in answering them often fears 
to admit their premiss because he does not see how he can then avoid 
their conclusion. Thus he speaks with uncertain voice» Using some- 
times language like Dr. Moberly's, he prefers at other times to use the 
language of teachers who speak in a contrary sense ; the language, say, 
of Dr. Mason' or Mr. Darwell Stone*, who— in curious contrast with 
Dr. Moberly's 'instantly, absolutely, without failure or doubt' — teach 
expressly that St Paul was uncleansed, unforgiven, and under God's 
wrath during the time which intervened between his conversion and his 
baptism. And in thus assailing Individualism where it is strong, the 
clergy forfeit the confidence of many who might be disposed to agree 
with their attacks upon Indi\idualism where it is weak. 

Sttrely» then, what we most need to shew is that a belief in the 
absolute certainty of pardon for the f>enitent is in no way inconsistent 
with a high view of Sacraments — with the belief that ' the material 
vehicles not merely symbolize but cowvty spiritual effects ' \ As an 
open proclamation of God's love, the Sacraments produce and maintain 
in us the j)enitent attitude, and so bring the very grace which they 
symbolize. In believing in, and in proclaiming, God's pardon, the 
Church finds God s pardon. And therefore * the material side of the 
Sacrament * is not something * wholly apart * * from the spiritual idea 
which it presents. The outward act is essentially an element in that 
common life of Christians in which the penitent mind naturally lives 
and grows. But the maintenance of this truth does not require us 
to deny that when, by whatsoever means, a man has actually been 
brought to true repentance, then, baptized or unbaptLzed, shriven or 
unshriven, he is assuredly pardoned. In other words, we need to draw 
a careful distinction between the assertion that the Sacraments are 
genuinely means of grace, and the assertion that the individual can 
never count upon receiving grace without them. 

But, far from drawing any distinction of this kind, the Dean, by 
grouping together a number of separate propositions under the one 
rarae Individualism, and then warning us against Individualism in 
general, seems rather to add to the confusion. When be argues that 
the Church is more than *an accidental combination of individuals, 
who enter into partnership for purposes of mutual encouragement and 

> FaUk cftk% Gospel, edition of 1893, p. 289. 
' p. 90- 

» Holy Ba^m p. 35. 


convenience ' ' ; when he condemns the view which treats the Sacra- 
ments as 'impediments rather than helps'*; when he maintains that the 
community should recognize that it has an interest in the whole spiritual 
life of the individual ', his position is a very strong one. But these 
contentions do not prove that the individual can never be right in 
refusing Sacraments or claiming a position for himself over against the 
body *. It is one thing to say that * the normal condition of Christian 
men is membership of the one Body ' •. It is quite another thing to 
say that it is * only by entering the Body ' — if by this word we mean, as 
the Dean does, the outward organization of the Church— that * the tiue 
relation between God and the individual soul is established ' *, Yet the 
Dean passes lightly from the one statement to the other, as if ther6 
were no difference between them. That a * triangular relation ' should 
subsist between God, the Soul, and the Church, is certainly far from 
realizing the full Christian ideal. But whenever in unhappy times 
a reformer finds the organized Church opposed to reformation, this 
triangular relation at once arises : and so far as we believe the reformer 
to bear a message from God we must admit his right to claim a position 
* over against ' the community. If the Church then cuts him off from 
the Sacraments, associating them with doctrines or practices to which 
he cannot assent, we cannot hold that this act of the Church disturbs 
his relations with God. 

The confused treatment of this subject is in harmony with a certain 
inconsequence of reasoning which runs through the whole book. It is 
specially strange, for example, that Dr. Strong should regard his approval 
of the plan by which, in the matter of Sacramental Confession, the 
Church of England leaves every one to do as he likes as the natural 
outcome of his criticisms upon Individualism ^. 

And what exactly is Dr. Strong's attitude towards intellectual free- 
dom? Wherever, he says, the 'negatively individualistic' point of 
view has reigned, *we have had a tendency to be suspicious of any 
policy which seemed to curtail the untrammelled freedom of individual 
action and thought ' ■. In what circumstances, then, would Dr. Strong 
approve a * policy ' which aimed at curtailing freedom of thought ? 

This book is worth reading, and worth keeping, if it were only for 
the vigorous words in which it describes how the Death and Resurrection 
of Christ become * part and parcel ' of a man's life, how * he dates back 
to them ', how * their efficacy spreads itself over his life, instead of the 
facts of Adam's fall and sinfulness ', so that * to be in Christ is to live in 
a new moral atmosphere'*. Such words tend to quicken the experience 
which they pourtray. It is all the more to be regretted that these 

> Holy Baptism p. 5. • p. vi. • p. 48. * p. 44- * P- 39- * P« 41- 
' p. ix. • p. 51. • p. 40. 


addresses must do much towards perpetuating a confusion of thought 
which has long done grave injury to the work of realous and holy 

In Authority in the Church — a book in many ways very similar in 
aim to God and the Individual — Dr. Strong seeks to discuss, in the 
light of general principles^ some of the subjects which enter into current 
ecclesiastical controversies. We ought to be sincerely grateful to any one 
who insists on stating clearly those deeper and wider interests and 
principles which, at every phase of these disputes, all good men have 
reiilly at heart ; and the appearance of such a book as this in a series of 
* Handbooks for the Clergy ' is for various reasons a hopeful sign. 
Perhaps one of the most conspicuous defects of the ordinary sermon 
is that it shews so little trace of the influence of modem methods of 
studying history. This defect Dr. Strong's handbook, as a conscientious 
attempt to sum up in small compass the results of wide reading, may 
do something to remedy. We owe special gratitude for the guarded 
admission on p. 112 that in the earliest days the Threefold Name may 
not have been included in the doctrine which the Apostles taught. 
This admission will be of use if it merely suggests caution with regard 
to matters where dogmatic assertion has been not uncommon. 

The Dean's main philosophical contention concerns the relation 
between authority and conscience. He shews how the authority of 
the State may rightly be regarded as resting upon conscience: as indeed 
a 'kind of embodied conscience'*. As 'men cannot fulfil their true 
functions in life except by social intercourse and combination ' *, we 
ought not to regard organized social life as a sort of necessary evil. 
The State ' exists in order to the evolution of a moral ideal ' ; * it is 
a moral organism — the form in which man's true nature is clearly 
expressed ' *. Though there is no reason to regard the utterance of the 
State-conscience at any stage as final*, the individual is but rarely 
justified in opposing it*. 

The Dean next proceeds to shew how the principle of authority may 
enter into the intellectual sphere. Just as the foundation of the 
authority of the State is to be traced to the social element in man's 
nature, so *a similar social element underiies the intellectual acceptance 
of historical data : we believe men's evidence because we recognize 
our kinship with them'*. And then, turning to the specific question 
of the authority of the Church, he claims for the Church a position 
similar to that of a witness whose testimony we accept without positive 
proof. In believing * on the authority of the Church ^"^ the fact of the 
Resurrection, 'there must always', he says, *be an element of pure 

■ AtUiumty in tkt Church p. lu ' p. 94. 

* p. la. "p. 55- 






acceptance of a statement only paitially demonstrable ' ^ And thus 
he professes to have found for authority a sphere in which it is inde- 
pendent of reason and supplementary to it. 

But here, surely, he is less successful than in his analysis of what is 
implied in the authority of the State. It is quite true that in believing 
witnesses we are believing something that we cannot * demonstrate ' in 
the strictest sense of that word. But we utterly misrepresent the truth 
of the matter if we say that, in the case of testimony, rational demon- 
stration carries us a certain distance, and then, when it fails, our faith 
in the witness comes to our rescue and carries us further. To the very 
end our certainty is something quite clearly distinguishable from that 
which depends on mathematical proof, but so far as we have certainty 
at all— and we habitually speak of historical statements as 'proved' — 
this certainty is entirely based on grounds of reason. The trust- 
worthiness of our witnesses is part of what we seek to demonstrate. 
We believe them just so far as we have good reason to think that they 
are speaking the truth. Would Dr. Strong say that we ought to trust 
them even further than this ? If not, his attempt to claim for authority 
a position * over against ' reason breaks down entirely. 

Thus we seem to find here a somewhat similar defect to that which 
marks the Dean's smaller volume. His central principle here seems 
sound ; his opinions on current questions are stated with clearness and 
common sense — they are in fact (except where in the field of historical 
research he has felt his way to something more original) the views of 
a moderately Conservative Anglicanism — but the connexion between 
the central principle and its applications is by no means easy to see. 

For example, he protests against the 'relaxation of formularies for 
the benefit of Candidates for Holy Orders ' •, and contends that * there 
is a body of doctrine to which the Church ought to require assent as 
a condition of full membership". If, he argues, the authorities of 
the Church had adopted certain critical theories which flourished in 
the middle of the nineteenth century, they would have forfeited their 
right to be heard on any question of theology and would have placed 
the Church in a very foolish position*. And, no doubt, if we had 
canonized Strauss or beatified Baur ; if we had proclaimed as dogmas 
of the Church some of the least well-founded of their conclusions ; if 
for the forms of worship which embody the traditional doctrines we 
had substituted newer forms in which these doctrines were not men- 
tioned, our position by this time would have been sadly open to criticism, 
and it is conceivable that in devotional force and literary charm our 
public services would have gained but little by these changes. But 
if, on the other hand, we had merely done what perhaps is all that 

* Authority in the Church p. 114. ' p. 172. ■ p. 169. • p. 173, 


we were ever seriously asked to do^if we had made it nnniistakeably 
plain that an open mind on critical questions was not by itself a dis- 
qualification for a place in the Church or Ministry — it is not clear that 
we should have been so much in fault. In any case the Dean's opinions 
on this point can hardly be said to follow necessarily from his general 
doctrine of authority as it stands. 

The authorities of the State do not seek to exclude from rights 
of citizenship every one whose policy they believe to be contrary to 
the State's best interests. On the Dean's own principles, there seems 
no reason why an attachment to the traditional doctrines of the Church 
should lead us to approve any such method of excommunication as 
his remark about ' full membership ' seems to recommend And, agam, 
what connexion is there between his analysis of the general claim of 
the Church to authority, and his doctrine that the Church is within 
its rights in making use of philosophical terms, but exceeds its rights 
if it attempts to give lo those terms any particular meaning * ? When 
he enlarges upon the * advantages' of this manner of using Language, 
one might almost suppose him to be ironical- 
It would seem, then, that the Dean's method of bringing * theoretical 
discussion' to bear upon ecclesiastical controversies exists rather in 
intention than in execution. And it is impossible not to feel that 
in both these books — though they possess conspicuous merits — he gives 
encouragement to that loose throwing about of philosophic phrases 
which has become so .fatally common in recent years. We ought, 
surely, to regard it as a matter of conscientious obligation to mark care- 
fully into what hive it is that we are permitting the honey of Idealist 
Criticism to be carried. 

Charles J. Shebbeare, 


* Authority in tlu CAunk pp. 118-119. 





Volume XIII of Hauck*s Realencyclopadie contains contributions 
:o Old Testament learning from Baudissin, Buhl, Guthe, A. Jeremias, 
A.. Klostermann, von Orelli, and Volck. Mose (von Orelli) follows 
the Biblical account closely; the author thinks that some ancient 
pieces (e. g. Deut. xxxiii minus vv. 1-5) are the work of the Lawgiver. 
The articles Moloch, Mond bei den Hebraern, and Nanaia 
[Baudissin) give a full discussion of their subjects. Moab, an article 
eleven pages long, comes from the capable hand of Fr. Buhl. Volck 
writes short accounts of Micah (four to five pages) and Nahum 
[two and a half pages). A. Jeremias (as in former volumes) takes 
the ' Assyriological ' articles, Nebo, Nergal. Guthe's article, Negeb, 
shews little or no sympathy with Dr. Cheyne's views concerning that 
district; perhaps he comes nearest when he remarks: *Auch ismae- 
[itische Stamme miissen nach Gen. xxi 21; xxv 18 wenigstens die 
siidlichen Teile des N. durchzogen haben '. Above he writes : * Die 
Geschichte dieser durch ihre Stiirme bekannten Landschaft (vgl. 
fes. xxi i) liegt zum grossten Teil im Dunkeln'. The article Nehemia 
is by A. Klostermann. 

Vol. V of the Jewish Encyclopedia contains several articles on Old 
Testament subjects. Ecclesiastes is by Prof. D. S. Margoliouth, 
i^ho believes that the inconsistency in the sentiments uttered in 
different parts of the book is due to the varying moods of the author, 
rather than to diversity of authorship. Prof. Driver contributes a 
section to the article Exodus on the critical view of the book, and 
is followed by Rabbi Benno Jacob of Gottingen who writes a section 
igainst the critics. Rabbi Jacob holds that 'the alleged double 
tradition of the revelation, and especially Wellhausen*s so-called second 
Decalogue in ch. xxxiv, are mere figments of the brain'. Ezekiel 
[the prophet and his book) is briefly treated by Prof. Comill. 

The new edition of the late Dr. Robertson Smith's Kinship and 
Marriage in Early Arabia embodies corrections made by the author 
tiimself and contains notes by Professors I. Goldziher and A. A. Bevan 
ind by Mr. Stanley Cook, the editor. It will be remembered that 
the original work is a book of great interest for the study of early 

VOL. V. X 


and of the test of the Old Testament Incidentally it throws 
m good deal of light on the change in the position of the Arab wife 
brought about bj Isinn, but its main subjects are the reckoning of 
kinship throagUi wocneo wfaoch laigeJj prevafled in early Arabia, and 
the nature of the rmom kinds of marriage practised in ancient days 
amocig the Arabs. There is an index of Scripture passages; over 
twenty places of Genesis alone are dted. This new edition is very 

Dr. G. Buchanan Gray has written a Ml and painstaking Com- 
tnentary on Numbers for the Iniermaiimfal Commentary. Very careful 
attention is paid to Philology arui to the higher criticism of the book. 
Dr Gray's work is of great merit, and the criticisms which follow are 
not intended to take away any of the force of this verdict. The reader 
may find the commentary somewhat too wordy. The tone again 
is sometimes oflf-hand ; e. g. on chap, xi 1 7 Dr. Gray remarks : * Moses 
p oa s esa e a the ^irit in large measure, so that he can spare enough to 
enable seventy others to prophesy for the nonce*. Again the Com- 
mentator seems sc mewhat too ready to find discrepancies between one 
passage of the book and another : e, g. in what he writes on chap, xi, 
beginning. There is surely no serious difficulty in reconciling the 
demand of the Israelites for flesh (chap, xi 4) with the fact that it is 
implied in chap, xiv I'h ^^** ^^ possessed flocks. What the people 
wanted was a supply of fish {ibid. ver. 5) or fowl, which would enable 
them to indulge their taste for fl^h without the necessity of drawing 
upon the flocks and herds which formed their chief wealth. A pastoral 
people does not eat its money, except on the rare occasion of a feast, 
Moses in ver. 22 speaks like a true nomad. Again, the want of 
corr«pondence which Dr. Gray finds between chap, xi 17 b and w. 
11-15 will not be felt by his readers. Moses appeals to Jehovah 
for help, and Jehovah gives it. The prayer is answered fully. 

Dr. Gray's Introduction contains a few things open to criticism. 
In discussing the title the interesting heading of the Peshitta might 
have been mentioned, Menyand (* Number', sing.), a name derived 
from chap, i 2 aL Menyana is written without seyami^ the points 
which mark the plural, in the Lee and Urmi editions and in the 
Ambrosian MS and in the oldest dated Pentateuch (Brit. Mus. Add 
14,425). On page xlviii the Commentator betrays a curiously prosaic 
attitude of mind, for he writes, *A particularly antique conception 
appears in 10", where the ark moves of its own accord, and is addressed 
as Yahweh \ 

There are a few misprints in the book. On pages 76, 77 the symbols 
for the Samaritan Version and the Peshitta are interchanged. On 
r too * petulantly ' is misprinted, and on 109 a hiih stands for hi. 




Biblical History of the Hebmvs {Cambridge and London^ 1903) 
s from the pen of the Rev, F. ]. Foakes-Jackson^ B,D. The higher 
crilicism of the Old Testament and the historica) value of the documents 
are dealt with in an Introduction of thirty pages. The History proper 
begins with chapters on the Ancient Worldj the Patriarchs, and Israel 
in Egypt, and ends with a description of the work of Nehemiah. In 
the text Canon Jackson follows the Biblical accounts closely, but many 
useful notes are added, which often suggest alternative readings of the 
History, A few misprints might be corrected in a second edition : 
page 87, read *Waheb in Suphah'; page 362, read * Schopfung* and 
'Encyclopaedia'; page 564. * Dillmann's ' ; page 374, line 43, read 'It 
was lawful* (omitting the negative; cL Jewish Encyclopedia page 95) i 
page 391, note, read *Yahweh'(?); page 400, note 7 (some words 

Part IV of Dr. Cheyne's Critica Biblicay pages 313-397 {on I, II Kings) 
has appeared. The notes touch every chapter and usually several 
different verses in the chapter. The trend of the work may be gathered 
from the fact that ' Jerahmeel ' ts mentioned on every page with four 
exceptions, and even on these four the Jerahmeelite theory is noticed. 

La mitkode historique par le P^re M. J. Lagrange (Paris^ 1903) con- 
sists of six confirences on the Criticism of the Old Testament. The 
author warns us that these lectures * ne sont pas des traitds, mais des 
causeries '. He deals in a frank way with such questions as La notion de 
r inspiration^ Caractkre historique de la ligislation^ and L*his{oire primitive. 
With regard to the Legislation Pfere I^grange concludes, * II est done 
certain que s'il y a dans le Pentateuch une redaction rt^cente, elle n'a 
fait que mettre en ceuvre des Elements tr^s anciens, contemporains de 
Molse, ant^rieurs k Moise' (page 182). On the primitive history he 
writes, * Pourquoi ne pas admettre qu'il y a aussi dans ces ddbris des 
noms qui repr^sentent seulement un progrbs impersonnel de Thumanit^, 
des souvenirs perdus dont personne ne peut dire exactement Torigine, 
qui sont dans Fhistoire comme cet ^ther que nous pla^ons dans Tespace, 
sans hi en savoir ce qu'il y fait, mais parce qu'il faut mettre quelque 
chose entre les spheres . , , ? ' 

Pfere Lagrange has also published an important work entitled fjudes 
^Sur les religions slmitiques (Paris, T903). The chapters are on the Gods 
fchap. II), the Goddesses (III), Holiness and Impurity (IV), Sacred 
Things, such as waters, trees, enclosures, stones (V), Hallowed persons 
(VI), Sacrifice (VII), the Dead (VIII), Babylonian myths (IX), 
Phoenician Myths (X). An appendix, containing the text of the 
Sacrificial Tarif of Marseilles and some other ancient religious docu- 
ments, is added. Only a brief notice is possible in this place, but the 
book is one which rather deserves a full and careful review- 

X a 



Dr. H. V. Hilprecht has published a well illustrated lecture giving an 
account of the excavations carried out by the University of Peonsylvania 
on the temple of Bel of Nippur (Nuffar), Leipzig, 1903. 

The Fourth Volume of Encyclopaedia Biblica like its predecessors is 
full of good work, and the smaller articles are no less worthy of praise 
than the larger. Dr. Cheyne'S own contributions are again large and 
stimulating, but again are marred by the prominence given to the 
new principles of textual criticism. Three Egyptological articles, 
Uameses, Shishak, and Tirhakah are contributed by W. Max MixUer. 
Mr. C. H. W. Johns writes on Sargon, Sennacherib S and Shal- 
MANESER. Dr. T. G. Pinches deals with Tiglath-pileser. Samitel 
and Books of Samuel are by the veteran German scholar, B. Stade, 
Sacrifice (an exhaustive article of fifty columns) is by G. F. Moore, 
Salt is by the late Dr. Robertson Smith, revised and completed 
by A. R. S. Kennedy, who also contributes an article on Weaving, fl 
H. Winckler, the author of the Muzri-theory, writes on Sinai and " 
HoREB. SiRACH (Hebrew text), Wisdom, and Wisdom Literature 
are by C. H. Toy, Svria, which is illustrated with good maps, is 
divided between D, G. Hogarth, A. E. Shipley, and H. W^inckler. 
Temple is by L Benzingcr and G. H. Box. Trade and Commerce 
(fifty-five columns) is from the pen of G. Adam Smith. Mr. Burkitt 
deals with the Texts and Versions of both the Old and the New 
Testaments. The article on Writing is by Prof. Bevan. 

W. Emery Barnbs." 


Dr. H. Winckler' has much improved in his style. He has evidendy 
mastered his own method and is less hurried in his wish to get his 
ideas off his mind and in print. This is the most readable thing he has 
written yet. He does not deny the personah'ty of Abraham and Joseph, ■ 
rather he vindicates their historic reality. But he gives a fresh and inter- 
esting view of what they do mean in the Old Testament ; which is, for 
the prehistoric times before the kings of Israel, a histor)*^ of religion as 
much as of a people. The religion is monotheism. It had its roots in 
the two great centres of culture, Babylonia and Egypt. Monotheism 
was expelled from Babylonia under Hammurabi, in the person of 
Abraham, It is immaterial what was the name the one God bore for 
him. Monotheism also sprang up in Eg>*pt under Kuenaien, whose 
regent in Goshen and the Nile delta was Janljamu. If he was not 

> In coL 4,3,6a the expulsion of Merodadi-bftladan from Babylon should surely be ^ 
given as 711 or 710 u.c, not '721 b.c* M 

* Abra,ha%n ah Battylonier^ Jostph ah Aegypttr; der wdtgtschkhtitckt HtMUrgmnd ™ 
dit bibttsdttn Vdtergtstjtichteu auf Grund det KtUinschnfttH, Dr. H. WiocJder. 

Hinrichs, Leipzig, 


actually Joseph, he was the type which suggested him. Thus the 
monotheism of later days is connected with Babylonia and Egypt under 
whose alternating influence Palestine ever stood. For Palestine lay in 
no primitive world and in no waste far from the bustle of world history : 
it stood right in the midst of it Such is the very interesting view 
which Winckler takes of the fathers of Israel. They are meant by the 
tradition to appear much as the new-found history would estimate 
them, as members of the culture society of their time, not as meteors 
fallen from heaven. Whatever be thought of the historic grounds for 
such a view, it is admirably put ; and far less repulsive than solar myths 
or wandering moon-gods. But how does this suit the North Arabian 

Nowhere can a neater account be found of the history of Babylonia 
and Egypt in their interplay upon Palestine. The chief part of the 
tract is devoted to a proof that Palestine must have been deeply 
influenced by both, and that their culture was in essentials one. It 
abounds with happy illustrations from the history of the Middle Ages, 
and of Greece or Rome. 

The German Edition of Dr. S. I. Curtiss's Primitive Semitic Religion 
To-day^ has a preface by Graf Baudissin which explains the method 
and scope of the work. Not only to narrate in Arabic, but to perceive 
what is told in the Arabic sense, this is the key to true science. The 
traces of old religious views still left among the unspoilt natives of Syria 
and the Holy Land are most valuable if they can be understood. 
Explorations and excavations may tell us much, even all but how to 
understand. They furnish a correct standard to certify what is old and 
how old it is. But, before it is silent for ever, the living voice must be 
heard. Of course, the ideas of these peoples must have been influenced 
by Christianity and Islam, by the wars and expeditions, by the con- 
quests from East and West which have passed over the land. But, as 
amongst ourselves, pre-christian ideas have survived in folk-lore and 
local customs, so in a far more extensive way the very ancient religious 
thought and custom underlies the modem profession in the East It 
is not a question of what we may expect in this way so much as a 
question of what there is. Let all who can hasten to seek it out and 
put it on record while they may. They may leave to the expert the 
task of discerning the genuine from the mock antique. 

Graf Baudissin, an unrivalled expert, has doubts whether Ciutiss 
is right in regarding as genuinely old all the ideas of God and divine 
things which he has rescued. Here, not only the ancient literature but 

' UrsemUiacht RtUgion im VolksUhtn des htutigm Oritnts. S. L Curtiss. 
Vorwort v. Wolf Wilh. Grafen Baadiasin. Hinrichs, Leipzig, 1903. 


also ihe monumenls must be scientifically compared. Thus the idea, 
10 which Curtiss was led from his conversations with the modem people, 
that the shedding of blood in a sacrifice was not only its most important 
feature, and symbolized the absolution from blame, but that it was also 
substitutionary, the blood of the victim taking the place of that of the 
offerer, is doubted by Baudissin, He further takes exception to the 
supposed antiquity of the idea of Demi-' gods' or * deified men*; and 
to the conclusion that oriented temples necessarily were dedicated to 
sun-worship. Sundry other critical cautions enhance the value of this 
edition, which is moreover enlarged by the author's additions from his 
journeys in the year 1905, 

Those who have not obtained the English book would do weD to 
avail themselves of this chance of an improved edition. The book in 
any case is one that all students of Old T^tament religious ideas 
should read, and, while suspending their judgement on many points, 
will undoubtedly enjoy reading. It is illiistrated with pictures, diagratns, 
and maps, which really do illustrate the subjects to which they refer, 
and with excellent indices which render reference easy- 

C. H. W, Johns. 


Dr. Weissbach's Babyhniscke MhcelUn^ makes known to as some 
of the first-fruits of the recent German excavations at Babylon. It 
includes several new texts copied on the spot by the author. A new 
king of Isin, Sin-m%ir, who reigned somewhere in the third millennium 
B. c, is added to the four already known. An addition is made to the 
Kassite Dynasty of Babylon, which places a Meli^ihu, son of Kurigako, 
probably father of a Merodacb-baladan already known, somewhere in 
the gap between u. c. 1504 and 1440. This seems to involve the 
existence of three Kurigalzus, the first successor of SagaraktiburiaS, the 
second successor of BurnaburiaS, the third successor of Nazibugafi, 
the usurper. It also involves two Meli§ihus, the first son of Kurigalzu 1, 
the second son of Adad-^um-usur, Further we make room for three 
Merodach'baladans ; the first, son of McliSihu I ; the second, son of 
Melisihu II ; the third, the contemporary of Sargon II, who sent an 
embassy to Hezckiah. Thus the Kassite Dynasty is completely known, 
though there is still some uncertainty as to the order of the kings. 
Next we have a new king of the Sealand, UlaburariaS, son of Buma- 
buraria§, but of unknown date, unless the latter be identical with 
a BumaburiaS, king of Babylon. Then we have a long and deeply 

' Babyionischt MisuUtn by Dr. F. H. Weissbach, Leipzig, 1903* 


interesting monument of §amaS-rdS-usur, governor of the land of Sulji 
and Maer, possibly of the eighth century b. c, which raises many 
important geographical questions. Then we get an inscription of the 
Assyrian king Adadi-nirari II, duplicate of two British Museum texts. 
Whether this king was a builder of some temple in Babylon, or whether 
the monument was carried thither by some Babylonian conqueror, 
cannot be decided. A very important inscription of Marduk-nidin- 
sum, circa B.C. 853, follows, with a fine representation of the god 
Marduk. Next we have a little inscription of Esarhaddon's, with a fine 
portrait of the god Adad. An inscription from the early part of 
ASurbinipars reign follows. Then we have a new text of Nabopolassar, 
probably not before his sixth year, but yet the earliest known of this 
king. The most remarkable passage is, 'The Assyrians, who from 
far off days had ruled all peoples, and had oppressed with heavy yoke 
the people of the land, did I, the weak, the humble, who feared the 
lord of lords, by the powerful might of Nabii and Marduk, my lords, 
repulse from the land of Akkad (Babylonia) their foot, and put off their 
yoke.' The mention of Ner;^ and the god of j)estilence leads 
Weissbach to think that this result was assisted by sickness in the 
camp of the Assyrians. Part of a duplicate to the Behistun inscription 
of Darius adds some interesting details to the copy published in the 
third volume of Rawlinson's Inscriptions of Western Asia. Two 
fragments of syllabaries, a portion of a ritual text for the restoration 
of a temple, an important hymn to Marduk, an amulet with an in- 
scription for protection from the demon Labartu, a deed of sale of a 
plot of ground dated in the nineteenth year of Nabopolassar and the 
twenty-fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar, a loan of meal in the time of 
Darius, an astronomical tablet, all of some special interest, conclude 
the volume. The texts are beautifully autographed, the transcription 
and translation are good, and the full comments shew great learning. 
It will be some time before all the new material can be fitted into 
its proper place, and we are deeply indebted to Dr. Weissbach and 
the German Oriental Society for letting us share their booty so soon. 

Dr. S. Daiches ^ has taken six-and-twenty of the contracts published 
in Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets 6r»c. in the British 
Museum, Vols. II, IV, VI, and VIII, and given them in transcription 
and translation with comments. All these texts date from the period 
of the first dynasty of Babylon, many from the reign of Hammurabi. 
They are of great interest as illustrating the Code of QammurabL 
Dr. Daiches gives an excellent account of the nature of the transactions 
recorded and their contributions to the history of customs and private 
life. The proper names often give rise to interesting questions. Readers 
^ Altbabylonistki Rnhtsurkundm by Dr. S. Daiches, Leipzig, 1903. 


of B^the! and BibU will be uxtotsted in the apparent Jahwe names 
on pp. 13, 14^ 

Dt, J. Hunger* dcab with two texts of the Hammorabi period 
published in Cund/arm Texts frvm Bm^fhmam Tai>iits, &^c. Vol. Ill 
pp. 2—4, Vol V pp. 4-7. They contain dii«ctions and rules for 
divination by the behayiour of a drop of oil upon water in a en p. The 
divining cup of Joseph (Gen. xliv) wiU at once occnr to the reader. 
Dr. Hunger not only gives a transcription and translation of these texts, 
but also a very interesting account of what is known of lekanomantia in 
classical authors. This study of a very obscure side of Babylonian 
magic may be recommended to those who wish to know what auguiy 
really meant 

Dr. J. Hehn* collects the Babylonian evidence as to the idea of sin 
and forgiveness^ and compares it with Biblical parallels. It is an 
important study for those who want to see the theological meaning of 
the Creation myths, and of the imagery of the Dragon as the opposer of 
God* The parallels between Marduk and Christ are abo worked ouL 
In his Hymns and Prayfrs to Marduk* Dr. Hehn deals very thoroughly 
with the many points in which Marduk was a type of Christ While 
Professor Zimmem in the third edition of Schrader's Keilinschrifttn und 
das alfe Testament rather seeks the Biblical parallels to what v^ so 
famUiar to him in the Babylonian religion, here we have collected the 
actual Babylonian phrases and ideas, less familiar to us, that we may 
compare them with the Bible. The texts from which Dr. Hehn 
chiefly quotes have already been published, but are scattered in different 
Journals. He proposes to collect them in one of the next parts of the 
Beitrdge %ur Assyriohgie, They include some new texts of his own 
copying. These two little works will be very useful to those who use 
Zimmem^s more condensed account of Babylonian influence on the 

Dr. F, Hroxn^ * has examined the various so-called ' Hymns to 
Ninib ', which he shews to be really speeches put into the mouth of 
that god, who is represented as pronouncing the fates> or, in other 
words, determining the essential natures, of plants and stones. These 
cuneiform texts he has collated, transcribed, and translated. He has 
added many useful comments and some articles on the mythology. He 
maintains that the true reading of the god's name, hitherto read Ninib, 

* Btckerwakrsagmng bti tUn Babylomem mack mewi Ktilinxhri/Un ams dtr 
UammurabUtit by Dr. J. Hunger, Lei prig, 1905. 

' SuH4ie HHd ErlosuHg nock bibltsdttr tmd bttbylamsdkty A$tsckn»m$^ by Dr. 
Hebn, 1 903. 

* Hymnen und GtMt an Marduk by Dr. J. Hehn, Leipzig, 1903- 

* Sumetisch'babylopiUckt MytAtn von dtm Gottt Ninrag by Dr. F* Hroznf, Berlin, 



Nindar, or Adar, was really Ninrag, identifying this with the Mandaean 
Nerig, Arabic Mirrih, and Nikralj. He further suggests that this was 
the true form of the word rendered Nisroch in 2 Kings xix 37. The 
discussion of Oannes, Dagan and Dagon, and that on Labbu are of 
interest. On the whole, however, the arguments are very weak. The 
texts, transcription, and vocabulary will be of some use. 

C H. W. Johns. 


The recent discovery of the Code of laws promulgated about 2200 b.c. 
by Hammurabi, sixth king of the First Dynasty of Babylon, has made 
a great impression upon students of comparative religion and history. 
Found at the end of 1901, at Susa, the ancient Persepolis, engraven 
on a large block of diorite, it was published in October, 1902, by 
Professor V. Scheil in the fourth volume of the MSmoires dt la Dkli- 
gation en Perse^ by direction of the French Ministry of Instruction. 
It was translated into French by Scheil, next month into German 
by Dr. H. Winckler, into English in America by Professor C. F. Kent, 
and Dr. Hayes Ward, here by the present writer in February, and into 
Italian by Dr. F. Mari in August. At once comparisons were suggested 
with ancient law codes, especially the Laws of Moses. R. Dareste 
in the Journal des Savants^ Oct.-Nov. 1902, and again in Nauvelk 
Revtu historique de droit franfais ei itranger^ xxvii p. 5 f, Pfere 
Lagrange in Revue Biblique for Jan. 1903, all on the basis of Scheil's 
translation, discussed the legislation from the comparative point of view. 
Dr. John Jeremias in his book Moses und Jfammurabi treated it from the 
view of the jurist and Old Testament scholar; Professor G. Cohn 
in his Rectorial address at Zurich, in April, 1903, entitled Die Gesetze 
JJammurabiSy treated its legal aspects, especially in comparison with 
ancient German Laws, those of the West Goths at their entrance into 
Europe. Dr. H. Grimme published in August at Cologne Dcu Gesetz 
ffammurabis und Moses^ in which he specially compared an ancient 
code of laws preserved among the Bogos near Massowah^ retaining 
primitive features from the times before the incursions of the Amhara 
into Ethiopia. These followed Dr. Winckler's translation. A large 
number of reviews in many journals and magazines witness to the 
supreme interest of the subject ^ 

One of the latest and most important contributions is that of 

^ Dr. Carl Stooss, Dtis habylonischt Sirafncht ffammurubiSf in the SdtumMtnachi 
ZntschriftfurStrafrecht vol. xvi p. i f, and Mr. S. A. Cook in the Guardian, April aa, 
1903, are well worth reading. 


Dr. D* H. Miiller, so celebrated for his work apon the South Arabian 
mscnptions^ who gives us in ihe X.Jahrtsherkhi der hraelitisch-The^ 
hgischen Lekranstalt in IVien 1902-3 a very full discussion under the 
title Die Gtsetzt ffammurahis und die nuisaische Gesetzgcbttng, It opens 
with a sufficient notice of the monument itself, references to previous 
discussions, and a statement in brief of the author's conclusions* 
Prolonged comparative study induces him to decide that the connexion 
of the two codes is far closer than has hitherto been thought. This 
result is due to his method, which consists in comparing not only 
clauses and separate enactments but also the form in which they are 
presented and the sequences of thought and arrangement. He does 
not consider^ however, that the Mosaic code was copied from Ham> 
murabi's, but that both embody an earlier fixed law» preserving not 
only its enactments but to some extent its form. Further, he finds 
many striking parallels with the Roman XII Tables, which warrant 
him in thinking that these also have an origin in Semitic Law. H^ 
views on this point are further set out in the Abendbiati of the Ntm 
Freie Presse of 28 August, 1903. 

He was led to these conclusions, partly, by the happy idea which 
struck him to render the (Jammurabi Code into Hebrew, tising the 
expressions which seemed to him most exactly to correspond. To give 
the reader an idea of how this assists comparison* he has printed on the 
first seventy pages, in three parallel columns, the transcription of the 
Babylonian laws, his Hebrew version, and a German translation. This 
is a most valuable feature of the book. Then follow a hundred pages 
of discussion, In which he groups the Babylonian laws, compares them 
with Mosaic laws, the XII Tables and other ancient legislation, and 
exhaustively examines the knotty points of meaning and language. 
A few pages exhibit most valuable comparative tables of the codes; 
a discussion of Hammurabi's systematic follows ; while an interesting 
section on the XII Tables, a theoretical reconstruction of the primitive 
code and its relation to the Mosaic, a discussion of the fundamental 
principles of ancient Semitic right, and a judicial summing up of the 
whole position, close this portion of the work. The whole will be issued 
as a book by A. Holder of Vienna, with important additions on the 
grammar and etymology of the Babylonian code, and appendices on the 
fragments, preserved in ASurbdnipal s Library, on the Sumerian Family 
Laws and the important Syrian Law Book of the fifth century, 
edited by Bruns and Sachau. We hope that a good index vrill be 

Dr. Miiller makes some ver)' ingenious suggestions as to the reasons 
why a particular penalty should be double, while another is five-fold, or 
even sLxty-foId. But these suggestions are far from convincing. In 



other cases his knowledge of Jewish Law enables him to make important 
contributions to the etymology of difficult words. The great value 
of his work lies chiefly in the comparisons made with the Mosaic Code, 
in the beautiful Hebrew version, in the explanation of the substance 
and appreciation of the form, and in the liberality of thought which 
pervades the whole treatise. No student of the Code can afford to do 
without it 

Considering the prominent part which England once took in the 
Assyriological Studies, it is pleasant to record signs of a revival of that 
interest. Mr. S. A. Cook in his work The Laws o/Moses^ and the Code 
of ffammurabi (A. & C. Black, London) has done the English reader 
a great service. He has made himself acquainted with practically all 
that had been written on the Code up to the date of publication ; and, 
as he usually notices not only the views which he himself adopts but 
those which he rejects, his work is a convenient textbook. He is led 
to a rather different view from that of Dr. Miiller. He regards the 
Mosaic legislation as practically uninfluenced by Babylonia, and as more 
primitive in form and ideas. The great value of the work lies in the 
full and connected view which it gives of the civilization of Babylonia 
and its contrasts with that of Israel He takes account of most of the 
material available to him from the contracts and other sources for 
Babylonian law. He compares not only the Mosaic legislation but also 
the Syrian law-book referred to above. Indeed, there is very little 
material available to the student which is not here put in a convenient 
form. Of course, ample references are given for future research. 
Mr. Cook holds a rightly sceptical attitude towards the popular theories 
as to the origin of the First Dynasty of Babylon and its connexion with 
Abraham. It is deplorable that Assyriology, which has ample difficulties 
of its own, should be saddled for the sake of sensation with all sorts 
of speculations that have no real connexion with it If any attentive 
reader will carefully peruse this volume he will have a far better idea 
of what Assyriology has to say than he can get elsewhere in English. 
When he is told that such and such a view is held by some Assyriologist 
he will not, of course, confuse that view with Assyriology. 

This book is further of great value to ordinary readers because it 
embodies critical views as to the sources in the Pentateuch. That alone 
makes it a useful contract to Dr. Miiller's work. 

Professor J. Kohler and Dr. F. E. Peiser have produced the first 
Band of their great work on the Code of Hammurabi, containing a new 
translation, exhaustive discussions of its enactments, and most valuable 
estimates of its relation to other ancient codes and its contributions 
to the history of civilization and comparative law. Professor Kohler*s 
unrivalled position as a comparative jurist, and Dr. Peiser's intimate 


acquaintance with the Babylonian contracts should combine to render 
this the standard work upon the subject. The authors have collaborated 
before, and their Aus dem babyloniscfun Rechtsleben is a classic. They 
acknowledge assistance from many helpers in the preparation of this 
part, and the great name of Delitzsch is quoted as authority for many 
improvements in the translation. The second part is to contain the 
Babylonian part of the work, a transcription of the text, and full 
grammatical, philological, and lexicographical notes. The third part 
will contain a selection of contemporary documents such as contracts 
and letters, large numbers of which have been published. The careful 
consideration of these sources will doubtless lead to a large crop of 
Nachtrdge, A perusal of Dr. Daiches' work, small as it is, has already 
led to some. Mr. Cook's work would afford more. It is rather a pity 
that this illustrative material, a contemporary native commentary on the 
code, was not thoroughly worked over before the first part was printed. 
Let us hope that by the time this is done a second edition of the first 
part will be called for and so enable the authors to embody their results. 
We hope to see a full glossary to all the texts used attached, and may 
we not hope for an index too ? Professor Kohler inclines to the view of 
the independence of the Mosaic Codes. On the whole, these three 
works may be regarded as complementary, and between them a judicious 
student will get a very full idea of the civilization of Babylonia, its laws 
and customs. The Biblical scholar will form his own conclusions as to 
the influence of Babylonia on Israelite law, but will find the views set 
out very suggestive. 

C. H. W. Johns, 



(i) English. 

Church Quarterly Review^ October 1903 (VoL Ivii, No. 113: 
Spottiswoode & Co.). Church Worship and Church Order — The 
Golden Legend — The Holy Eucharist : an historical inquiry, Part viii 
— Welsh Methodism : its origin and growth — A Puritan Utopia — ^Joan 
of Arc — Some notes on the Church in Australia — ^The Imperialism of 
Dante— Short notices. 

The Hibbert Journal, October 1903 (Vol. ii, No. i: Williams and 
Norgate). E, Caird St, Paul and the idea of Evolution — H. James 
The present attitude of reflective thought towards Religion, II — G. F. 
Stout Mr. F. W. Myers on 'Human Personality and its survival of 
bodily death ' — T. K. Cheyne Babylon and the Bible — L. Campbell 
Morality in ^schylus — B. Bosanquet Plato's conception of death — 
C. F. Dole From Agnosticism to Theism — C. E. Beeby Doctrinal 
significance of a miraculous birth — Discussions — Reviews. 

The Jewish Quarterly Review, October 1903 (Vol. xvi, No. 61 : 
Macmillan & Co.). A Cowley Hebrew and Aramaic Papyri — L. 
Magnus A Conservative View of Judaism — D. Philipson The Reform 
Movement in Judaism — G. Margoliouth A Florentine Service-book 
at the British Museum — H. Hirschfeld The Arabic portion of the 
Cairo Genizah at Cambridge — E. Schwarzfeld The Jews of Moldavia 
at the beginning of the eighteenth century — E. N. Adler Auto de f6 
and Jew — A. BDchler Die Schauplatze des Barkochbakrieges und die 
auf diesen bezogenen jiidischen Nachrichten — M. Simon Some poems 
of Jehuda Halevi. 

The Expositor, October 1903 (Sixth Series, No. 46 : Hodder & 
Stoughton). J. Denney The Atonement and the Modem Mind — 
H. B. Swete The Teaching of Christ in the Fourth Gospel— C. H. W. 
Johns *The Name Jehovah in the Abrahamic Age' — A. E. Garvie 
Value- Judgements of Religion: Critical and Constructive — W. H. 
Bennett The Life of Christ according to St Mark — ^J. Moffatt Post- 
Exilic Judaism. 


November 1903 (Sixth Series, No. 47), G, G. Finblav Studies 
in the First Epistle of John : i. The Advocate and the Propitiation— 
D. Smith The Resurrection of our Lord : 1. The Evangelic Testimony 
— A, E. Garvie The Relation of Religious Knowledge to Science and 
Philosophy — J. H. Bernard The^postolic Benediction — V, Bartlkt 
The Epistle to Hebrews as the WorlT oif Barnabas — W. H. Bennett 
The Life of Christ according to St. Mark. 

December 1903 (Sixth Series, No. 48). W. M. Ramsay Travel 

and Correspondence among Early Christians— J. H. Moulton Notes 
from the Papyri— H, B, Swete The Teaching of Christ— G.G. Findlav 
Studies in the First Epistle of John : 2. The True Knowledge of God — 
J. Moffatt Foreign Literature on the New Testament, 

(2) American. 

The Ameman Journal of Theology y October 1903 (Vol. vii, No. 41 
Chicago University Press). H. Weinel Richard Wagner and Christi- 
anity — L. M. CoNARD The idea of God held by North American 
Indians— W, R. Betteridge The interpretation of the prophecy of 
Habakkuk^W, B. Smith The Pauline Manuscripts F and G : a text- 
critical study II — Recent Theological Literature. 

(3} French and Belgian. 

Revue BibliquCy October 1903 (Vol. xii, No. 4: Paris, V, Lecolfre), 
Batiffol L'Eucharistie dans le Nouveau Testament, d'apr^s des criti- 
ques r^cents— Hyvernat Petite introduction i I'etude de la Massore— 
Durand La divinity de J^sus-Christ dans S. Paul^ Rom. ix 5 — M^ 
langes : Vincent Les ruines d' 'Amwas : Ronzevalle Un bas-rcHef 
babylonien— Chronique: Vincent Notes d'^pigraphie palesiinienne : 
Les ruines de Beit Cha'ar : Fouilles di verses en Palestine— Recensions 
— Bulletin^Table des mati^res (ann^e 1903}. 

AnaUda BoUandiana, October 1903 (Vol xxii. No. 4: Brussels, 14, 
Rue des Ursulines). A. Galante De vttae ss. Xenophontis et sociorum 
codicibus Florentinis — H. Deleheve SS. lonae et Barachisii martyrum 
in Perside acta graeca : Un fragment de m^nologe trouv^ \ Jerusalem — 
L. Celier S. Ldonce honore en P^rigord^-A. Poncelet Sanctae 
Catharinae virginis et martyris translatio et miracula Rotomagensia saec 
xi — L VAN DEN Gheyn Translatio sanctae Reineldis in monasterium 
Laubiense — A, Poncelet Treverensia?— Bulletin des publications 
hagiographiques — U. Chevalier Repertorium hymnologicum, supple- 
mentum, fol. 37 — Index generalis. 


Revue BknidicHne^ October 1903 (Vol. xx, No. 4 : Abbaye de Mared- 
sous). L. Jannsens L^on XIII et Pie X~H. Quentin Le martyro- 
loge hi^ronymien et les fttes de S. Benott — G. Morin Un systibme 
in^it de lectures liturgiques — U. Berlikre Bulletin d'histoire b^n^ 
dictine — B. Albers Les Consuetudines Sigiberti abbatis — Analyses et 

Revue d^Histoire et de Litterature Religieuses, Nov.-Dec 1903 (Vol. 
viii, No. 6 : Paris, 74, Boulevard Saint-Germain). A. Loisy Le second 
fivangile — P. Fournier fitudes sur les p^nitentiels 4 : Le livre IV du 
penitentiel d'Halitgaire — H. M. Bannister Un tropaire-prosier de 
Moissac — J. Tixeront Des concepts de 'nature' et de *personne' 
dans les Pbres et les dcrivains eccMsiastiques des v« et vi« sidles — 
P. Lejay Ancienne philologie chrdtienne: 17 Liturgie {suite) — Index 

(4) German. 

Theologische Quartalschrift, 1904 (Vol. Ixxxvi, No. i : Tiibingen, 
H. Laupp). Grundl Die Christenverfolgung unter Nero nach 
Tacitus — Sickenberger Ueber die dem Petrus von Laodicea zuge- 
schriebenen Evangelienkommentare — ^Wurm Cerinth, ein Gnostiker 
oder Judaist ? Bihlmeyer Zu den sogenannten Novatian-Homilien. — 
Funk Die Anfange von missa = Messe — A. Koch Zur kasuistischen 
Behandlung des Fastengebotes — Schweitzer Polycarp v. Smyrna 
iiber Eriosung u. Rechtfertigung— Rezensionen — Analekten. 

Zeitsckrift fur Theologie und Kirche, October 1903 (Vol. xiii, No. 6). 

E. SchUrer Das messianische Selbstbewusstsein Jesu Christi — 
J. Kaftan Zur Dogmatik III. 4. Mogliche Standpunkte, 5. Schrift 
und Bekenntnis. 

Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie , October 1903 (Vol. xlvi, 
No. 4 : Leipzig, O. R. Reisland). P. Lechler Ueber die Bedeutung 
der Abendmahlsworte — W. Webkr Die paulinische Vorschrift iiber die 
Kopfbedeckung der Christen — A. Hilgenfeld Die vertiefte Erkenntnis 
des Urchristentums in der Ignatius-Frage — J. Draseke Ein Testi- 
monium Ignatianum — F. Gorres Der Primas Julian von Toledo^ 

F. Gorres Die angebliche Prophezeiung des irischen Erzbischofs und 
Heiligen Malachias iiber die Papste — J. Draseke Zu Johannes Scotus 
Erigena — B. Baentsch Zum Gedachtnis Karl Siegfried's — Anzeigen — 
A. H. Der mondsiichtige Knabe. 

Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift^ October 1903 (Vol. xiv, No. 10: Erlangen 
and Leipzig, A. Deichert). P. Tschakert Die Entstehung des Liedes 
Lutbers Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott — Th. Zahn Kleine Beitrage zur 


evangelischen Geschicbte — G. Wetzbl Die gesduchtUche Glaab- 
wurdigkeit der im Evangelium Johannis enthaltenen Reden Jesu 

November 1 903 (Vol. xi v, No. 11). G. Wetzel Die geschiditliche 
Glaubwurdigkeit der im Evangelium Johannis enthaltenen Reden Jesa 
(ScA/uss) — J. W. ScHiEFER Der Christus in der jiidischen Dichtang — 
Schick Etwas iiber die Entstehung und Begriindmig der Sonntagsfder— 
G. HoNNiCKE Der Todestag des Apostels Paulus. 

December 1903 (Vol xiv, No. 12). W. Schmidt Ethische 
Fragen — W. Caspari Die Mission in der Poesie der christlichen Vblker 
des Abendlandes — Schick Etwas iiber die Entstehung und Begriindung 
der Sonntagsfeier — Couard Altchristliche Sagen iiber das Leben der 

The Journal 


Theological Studies 

APBUi, 1804 


It is now some two years since there appeared one of those 
elaborate monographs ^ so characteristic of German theology, 
presenting an entirely new and original argument, which if it had 
held good would have had far-reaching consequences. To 
understand the bearing of this argument it is necessary briefly to 
glance at a point in the criticism of the Synoptic Gospels which 
seems to have won very general acceptance. 

The great majority of those who have studied the subject are 
agreed that the Gospel of St Mark, or a writing extremely like 
our present Gospel, if not necessarily the oldest of such writings 
that have come down to us, is yet the common basis of the three 
Synoptic Gospels. The other writers, whom we know as 
St Matthew and St Luke, made use of this Gospel, and derived 
from it the large element which is common to all three, and 
which is the more important because it gave that outline of our 
Lord's public ministry, beginning with the Baptism and ending 
with the Crucifixion and Resurrection, with which we are most 

It would be too much to say that the sequence of events as 
they are given in this Gospel is in all respects strictly chrono- 
logical. In more than one instance it would seem that the 
smaller sections of narration are grouped together not in order 
of time, but because of a certain resemblance in their subject- 
matter. But taken as a whole, the order of the narratives in 

^ Das Missiasgeheinmis in dtn EvangeHiH, by W. Wredey GCttingeo^ 1901. 
VOL. V. Y 


St Mark's Gospel, which in this troLj be identified with the 
common foundation of the three Gospels, is excellent, and pfe> 
sents an evolution of the history which is both bannoiiioiis in 
itself and probably represents m the main the real cottrse of the 

The narrative, as I have said, begins with the Baptism and 
ends with the Crucifixion and Resurrection. In the intervciUDg 
period there is a clearly-marked climax at the Transfigw^tioiL 
Up to that point there is a steady ascent which culminates in the 
confession of St Peter; down from it there is in like manner 
a descent which finds characteristic expression in the predictions 
of the approaching Passion, Death, and Resurrection, which 
b^in from the same point, in close connexion with St Peter's 
confession and the Transfiguration. 

Another special feature of St Mark's Gospel, which has also 
passed from it to some extent into the other Gospels, is the 
peculiar air of mystery and secrecy which is thrown over certain 
aspects of our Lord's career — His marked reserve in putting 
forward His Messiamc claims ; the double character of His 
teaching, and more particularly of His parables, at once so simple 
in outward form and so baffling to those who sought really to 
understand them ; and a like strangely double character in the 
miracles, which on the one hand arc wrought in rather coostder* 
able numbers, and on the other hand, we might say almost 
frequently are accompanied by an express command that they 
are not to be made known, or at least not published abroad 
And lastly there is a similar injunction of silence in regard to 
predictions of suffering, death, and rising again. 

It was impossible for a student of the Gospels to avoid noticing 
these points, which clearly hang together, though the connexion 
between them might not appear on the surface. Most of those 
who have made the attempt to write a Life of Christ have been 
content to take them as they stand, and indeed to accept all this 
part of the outline which St Mark gives of our Lord's public 
ministry as strictly historical. 

And indeed I will venture to say that all these features in the 
narrative are not only strictly but beautifully historical. Whether 
we see their full significance or not, there is just that paradoxical 
touch about them which is the sure guarantee of truth. What 




ion m 



writer of fiction, especially of the naTfve fiction current in those 
days, would ever have thought of introducing such features, with, 
just that kind of seeming self-contradiction ? I repeat : even if 
we could not at once understand all that is meant by these subtle 
oppositions, I think we should not fail to see in them some- 
thing strikingly lifelike and individual, quite beyond the reach 
of invention. 

That, I cannot but think, will be the feeling of most of us. But 
what no one (to the best of my belief) has ever done before, that 
Professor Wrede of Breslau, in the monograph to which I began 
by referring, has now done. He has called in question the truth 
of all this delicate portraiture. I will not prejudge the manner 
in which he has done this ; but I will begin with a brief sketch 
of the argument as he states it. 

The main point is this. If Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the 
Messiah, He would not have gone about preventing His followers 
from publishing that claim. If He wrought miracles in support 
of it, He would not have enjoined secrecy on those upon whom 
they had been wrought. The two things would neutralize each 
other. It would be futile to tell some few individuals to keep 
silence if there were many others who received no such command 
of silence. 

The truth, Wrede maintains, is that Jesus of Nazareth did not 
during His lifetime put Himself forward as the Messiah at all. 
The whole structure of the narrative which makes Him do so is 
built not on a basis of fact but on the belief of the Early Church, 
After the Resurrection the disciples came to believe that Christ 
was God, and they read back this belief into the history of His 
life. They found themselves confronted with the fact that He 
had not claimed to be the Messiah while He was alive, and had 
consequently not given proofs of His Messiahship. To confess 
the fact would have been fatal to the dogma which they had 
come to believe ; and therefore they tried to conceal it by in- 
venting these injunctions of silence. When they were asked by 
those who knew what the course of the life of Jesus had really 
been, why He had not shewn Himself to be the supernatural 
being that they claimed, their reply was that He really had 
shewn it in a number of ways, but that He had prevented these 
proofs from having their full effect by repeatedly commanding 

Y 2 


both His own more immediate disciples and others to abstain 
from publishing what He W3.s and much that He had done. 

I do not know how it will appear to others, but I confess that 
to me this theory seems unreal and artifidal in the extreme. 
That any ancient should seek to cover the non-existence of 
certain presumed facts by asserting that they did exist, but that 
the persons affected were compelled to keep silence about them, 
is a hypothesis altogether too far-fetched to be credible. 

We observe, by the way, that on this theory an enormous 
weight is thrown upon the Resurrection. It was the Resurrec- 
tion which gave rise to that belief in the Divinity of Christ which 
then coloured the conception of the whole of the preceding history. 
And yet, on the hypothesis, the Resurrection had nothing to lead 
up to it. It had never been predicted. Before it occurred the 
Lord had not given Himself out as the Messiah, and still less as 
the Son of God. Many, at leasts of the mighty works attributed 
to Him were pure invention. It is really one incredible thing 
heaped upon another The founding of Christianity was in any 
case a very great and wonderful event ; and yet it is thought that 
it can be explained by reducing the cause of it almost to nothing. 

Wrede's book, although no review that I have seen accepts 
any great part of it, has yet made more impression upon opinion 
in Germany than I believe that it deserves. My chief reason for 
referring to it is that it calls attention to an aspect of our Lord*s 
life which does present something of a problem. What account 
are we to give of these paradoxical injunctions of silence? That 
they are true I have not the slightest doubt. That they are an 
important feature in the picture we are to form for ourselves, 
I have also no doubt. But what are we to think was their reason 
and purpose? 

I am not sure that I am altogether able to say. But in any 
case I conceive that this feature of our Lord's ministry must be 
connected with that side of it which was a fulfilment of the 
prophet's words, ' My Servant shall not strive, nor cry, nor lift up 
His voice in the streets '. In any case it must be connected with 
the recasting of the Messianic idea which our Lord certainly 
carried out, divesting it of its associations with political action 
and transforming it from a kingdom of this world to a kingdom 
of God and of the Spirit. 



We must try to realize the circumstances ; for we may be very 
sure that the state of things with which we are treating is no 
embodiment of an abstract idea as Wrede supposes, but intensely 
concrete, arising out of the collision of different and conflicting 
motives in the Teacher and the taught. 

On the side of our Lord Himself we must bear in mind His 
deliberate purpose to work for the redemption of Israel, but not 
in the way in which Israel expected to be redeemed. There was 
to be no flash of swords, no raising of armies, no sudden and 
furious onset with the Messiah Himself in the van* It was be- 
ginning to be more and more clear that the end of His ministry 
w^as not to be victory in the sense of what was commonly 
accounted victory. The Messiah saw opening out before Him 
a valley, but it was the valley of the shadow of death, and death 
itself stood at the end. He was preparing to descend into this 
valley, not like a warrior, with garments rolled in blood, but like 
a lamb led to the slaughter, with a supreme effort of resignation, 
as one who when he was reviled reviled not again. 
I This is the picture that we have on the Lord's side 5 and then 
on the side of those for whom He fought and for whom He worked 
His miracles we remember that there was a spirit the very 
opposite of this ; eager young men, full of courage and enthusiasm, 
ready to take the sword, ready at any moment to rise against the 
Komans, waiting only for a leaden Ever since the dethronement 
of Archelaus and the annexation of Judaea by Rome in a.d. 6 
there had been this temper of sullen acquiescence biding its time. 
The memory of the Maccabean rising still lived in mens minds, 
and of the wonderful feats that had then been wrought against 
desperate odds. What then might not be done with a prophet 
at the head — nay, one more than a prophet, who was assured of 
the alliance and succour of Heaven ? 

There is a significant story in the Fourth Gospel, a story that 
bears upon its face the stamp of verisimilitude, much as such 
marks are overlooked by a criticism that has too much vogue 
at the present time. After the miracle of the Feeding of the Five 
Thousand, Jesus, * perceiving that they were about to come and 
take Him by force, to make Him King, withdrew again into 
the mountain Himself alone' (John vi 15), He constantly had 
to avoid this kind of pressure. It was in full keeping with this 


that He had on several occasions to check the zeal of those 
who would have hailed Him as the Messiah^ and to impose 
silence upon those on whom His miracles had been wrought 
Enthusiasm always lay ready to His hand. It could have been 
fanned into flame with the greatest ease. But it was enthusiasm 
of the wrong sort j it needed to be enlightened, disciplmed, 
purified ; and therefore it was that the Lord refused to give 
it the encouragement it sought- Hence these seeming o^oss^ 
purposes, this alternate stimulus and restraint* 

Unfortunately we have few details. At the distance of time" 
at which our Gospels were composed, it was hardly possible that 
we should have them» If we had» much that Is now obscure 
might have been made plain. We might have come to under- 
stand the special conditions at work in particular scenes, at one 
time favouring publicity, at another privacy. We may be sure 
that our Lord diagnosed with perfect insight the temper of those 
with whom He had to deal, and adjusted His own attitude to it, 
like a good physician^ adapting His treatment to each case as 
it arose. 

We must recognize that our Gospels speak for the most part 
in very general terms. Especially the accounts of wholesale 
miracle-working are subject to deductions for historical perspec- 
tive. It is remarkable that the Gospels have preserved to the 
extent they have the instances in which the finger of silence 
is laid upon the lips of those who were eager to speak. 

But I am quite prepared to believe that these instances have 
a yet deeper meaning than I have as yet suggested for them* 
I always desire to speak with great reserve of the human con- 
sciousness of our Lord* I cannot at all agree with those writers 
who would treat of this as something that can be entirely known 
and freely handled ; and still less when they eke out the limited 
data supplied by the Gospels from the Messianic expectations 
of the time. But where the Gospels themselves clearly emphasize 
a point, we also shall do right to emphasize it. And it is to be 
noted that where the Gospels speak of these injunctions of silence 
their language is constantly emphatic : * Jesus rebuked (cTrcri/Liijo-cv) 
the unclean spirit, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him * 
(Mk. i 25); 'And He charged them much (iroAAa ^ircW/Lta alrxfU) 
they should not make Him known ' (Mk. iii 12 ; cf, viii 39) ; 


'And He charged them much (ftieoretXaro avroU TiokXd) that no 
man should know this' (Mk. v 43; cf. vii ^6^ ix 9)* 

I have given only a few typical passages ; there are several 
others similar. In all of these the language is the same ; it 
is the language of emotion — of strong emotion. How is this ? 
I think perhaps we shall understand it best if we take these 
passages along with yet another, which naturally goes with them, 
and in which indeed they may be said to reach a climax. In the 
Gospel it follows immediately upon St Peter's confession. Then 
we have the first prediction of the Passion and the Crucifixion 
and the Resurrection. We are told that our Lord 'spake the 
saying openly. And Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him. 
But He, turning about^ and seeing His disciples, rebuked Peter, 
and saith, Get thee behind Me, Satan: for thou mindest not 
the things of God, but the things of men ' (Mk. viii 32 f.). In 
St Matthew it is stronger still, though the added clause is 
probably only editorial : * Get thee behind Me, Satan : thou art 
an offence [a stumbling-block or scandal] unto Me: for thou 
mindest not the things of God, but the things of men * 
(Ml xvi 25). 

Words like these come up from the depths. They are not 
the calm enunciation of a policy, or the didactic imparting of 
a lesson. Such things are cold, and words like these are not 
cold. They are spoken^ — if I may speak as we might speak 
of one of ourselves — with heat. It is really the reaction against 
temptation, felt — and keenly felt — as temptation. 

Our Lord goes so far as to identify Peter with the very tempter 
himself. The apostle spake in the innocence of his heart ; 
thoughtlessly, and with the vehemence of short-sighted affection, 
but with no evil intent. But in his hasty speech a poisoned dart 
lay concealed, a dart cunningly aimed at the whole purpose of 
the Lord's mission. 

We are reminded indeed of that of which we commonly speak 
as *the Temptation'. There the story is told in a symbolical 
form, which perhaps gathers up the significance of more than one 
actual incident in our Lord's life. He is conscious of super- 
natural power — of power that might have been wielded for other 
ends than those for which it was really given. When the Son of 
Man saw, as He might have seen from a lofty mountain, a broad 


and typical expanse, as it were a sample of the kingdoms of the 
world and the gloty of them, He saw what was entirely within 
His grasp if He had cared to take it. But to take it would have 
meant abandoning the whole line of ministry that He had marked 
out for Himself * Whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, 
or he that serveth ? is not he that sitteth at meat ? but I am 
in the midst of you as he that serveth ' (Lk. xxii 27). It was no 
common form of service that our Lord had chosen. * He became 
obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross.* It was the 
shadow of the Cross that now fell upon Him. And it is very 
clear that the prospect carried with it a temptation. 'O My 
Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from Me : never- 
theless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt * (Mt. xxvi 39). In that 
prayer tlie temptation was finally repelled ; but we may be sure 
that it had been felt before. It was especially felt at the 
moment when St Peter made his unhappy impulsive speech, doing, 
without knowing it, the devil's work. 

We speak of the remodelling of the Messianic idea ; and it is 
absolutely true that our Lord was the Messiah in a very different 
sense from that in which the name was understood by His con- 
temporaries. But this again was no change worked out, as it 
were, on paper ; it was no product of philosophy, speculative or 
practical. It was a conflict — if indeed that is the right name, 
for again I am speaking after the manner of men — fought out 
deep down, at the lowest depth at which such conflicts are 
fought, and extending all the way from the first moments after 
the Baptism to the last bitter cry upon the Cross. Beneath 
what seemed at times the quiet unruffled surface of that life 
the conflict was going on, and such scenes as those which we have 
been passing in rapid review are times when the fires within 
break forth and are seen. 

These scenes were not merely the expression of what we 
should call an idiosyncrasy of character; they were not merely 
incidents in a process of education, either of the inner circle of 
the disciples or of the outer circle of inquirers and sympathizers. 
They were in some degree, I conceive, both these things ; but 
their origin lay deeper. They were surface indications of the 
only inward antithesis of which we have any trace in the hTe of 
our Lord. He Himself described it as an antithesis between *the 




things of God ' and ' the things of men '. That tender Humanity 
shrank — as how should it not? — from the terrible end that 
was so clearly foreseen : an end the terrors of which were 
enhanced and not diminished by the fact that He who foresaw 
them was the Son of God. The human mind of Jesus shrank 
from this ; it had doubtless dreams and imaginations of its own, 
of winning the whole world in other and less dreadful ways. 
A lifted finger, a breathed wish, and twelve legions of angels 
would have been at His side. Only one thought hindered — 
but that a master-thought; How then shall the Scriptures be 
fulfilled that thus it must be ? Behind the Scriptures Isl}^ the will 
of Him who gave them, that will in regard to which Father and 
Son were at one. 

We see the antithesis — the conflict, if so it is to be called. 
But, the Son being what He was, it could have but one issue. 
It issued in an agony over which we draw a veil. We draw 
a veil over it, and we turn away ; but, as we turn, we say to our- 
selves * So much it cost to redeem the race of man '. 

W. Sandav. 




The critical study of the Gospcb falls naturally into three 
stages, which should be kept in theory distinct, however much in 
practice they overlap. There is (i) the literary question, the 
question of the literary sources of the several Gospels. The 
three Synoptic Gospels are certainly tiot independent : the later 
Gospels must have used the earlier, or they all three drew from 
a common source -. This is a matter of literary criticism, and it 
logically necessary that we should begin with it, for otherwise 
may treat the agreement of, say, Matthew and Mark as that 
two witnesses, whereas it may prove that one is merely copying 
the other. But when we have separated the literary sources of 
our Gospels there is yet another process to be gone through, 
viz. (a) the criticism of the tradition. What I mean will perhaps 
best be understood if we go on at once to the third stage, which 
is (3) the investigation of the actual events of the ministry, the 
writing of the ' Life of Christ ', VVe cannot scientifically proceed 
at once to this third stage, before we have considered through 
what stages the report of our Lord's words and deeds passed in 
the interval between the events themselves and the composition 
of the documents w^e possess or can reconstruct. 

This is an extremely important stage and yet the consideration 
of it is often slurred over. When we have isolated our ' original * 
authorities we cannot simply regard them as just so many 
independent witnesses such as were sought for by eighteenth- 
century apologists — at least, to continue the metaphor, we 
must expect to find them agreed upon a tale. The scenes of 

* The following pages contain the greater part of a Lecture deHvered last 
Aug\i5t to the members of the Vacation Term for Biblical Studies at Newnhato 
College, Cambridge. Together with some rather more general remarks on the 
study of the Gospeh, here omitted, it fortocd the Introduction to a short course on 
St Mark, St Matthew, and St Luke. 

* In the following Lecture I tried to shew that Matthew and Luke used Mark, 
%nd also another document now tost which docs not appear io Mark, together with 

'^tain other aubaidiiarj sources. 




our Lord's life on earth were indeed enacted in public and 
the multitudes heard His words, but our knowledge of them is 
derived from the disciples. We cannot hope to know more than 
the collective memory of the first circle of the disciples at Jeru- 
salem. Without pressing the narrative of the Acts in all its 
details, we learn from the Epistle of St Paul to the Galatians that 
about nine years after the Crucifixion St Peter was in Jerusalem, 
and it is there and not in Galilee that our authorities place the 
home of the infant Church. Moreover we are told that 'the 
multitude of them that believed were of one heart and sou], and 
not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed 
was his own ; but they had all things common '. This may be 
an ideal picture, and in any case the state of things was not 
permanent, but if it be at all true of individuals in any one 
particular we cannot doubt that it was most true with regard to 
their reminiscences of the Lord. The memory of the words and 
deeds of Jesus Christ must have been thrown into the common stock 
— * when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered 
that he spake thus ; and they believed the scripture and the word 
which Jesus had said,' Out of the bare reminiscences of the 
disciples those sayings and acts which in the light of later 
events were seen to be of significance were repeated to the 
younger generation that gradually^ took the place of the com- 
panions of the ministry. The object of the Evangelists was not 
biography but edification. 

All this tended to make the evangelical tradition homogeneous. 
It explains to some extent the selection of events and the method 
f treatment. Above all it helps us to realize what we get when 
we come to the final results of our purely literary criticism of the 
Gospels. Our second Gospel may be the work of John Mark, 
sometime the companion of St Peter, and it may embody some 
things that he had heard from St Peter's mouth. But even in 
this case the narrative has lost much of the personal note : it is 
far too even to be mere personal reminiscence. The tale of 
St Peter's denial, for example, may be substantially true, though 
personally I cannot help thinking that in some points the narra- 
tive of St Luke is here more accurate ; but be that as it may, the 
narrative of Mark does not read like St Peter's own version of 
the story. It is not a tale told for the first time: it represents 
the way in which this little episode of the great Tragedy came to 


be told in Jerusalem among the disciples tu^enty or thirty years 
after the events took place. I am not suggesting that any written 
document in Greek, or in the Aramaic of Palestine, underlies 
St Mark: the narrative is doubtless written down for the first 
time by the author, but some of the things which he is putting on 
paper had been repeated many times before by word of mouth. 

And what is the historic effect of all this ? It is not to be 
denied that it lets in the opportunity for errors of detail. ' These 
things understood not His disciples at the Brst\ says the fourth 
Evangelist : * but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered 
they that these things were written of him, and that they had 
done these things unto Him *. The Gospels took their shape in 
an atmosphere of growing and unquestioning faith ; they were 
compiled by men writing in the light of subsequent events. 
Under such circumstances it is hard for memories to be drily 
accurate, it is easy to feel that the more obviously edifying form 
of a story or a saying must be the truer version. The eye- 
witnesses of the Word, of whom St Luke speaks, had known 
Jesus of Nazareth for a friend, but they had learned to believe 
that He was the Only Son of God and that He now was waiting 
until the fullness of the times at the right hand of His Father. 
He had lived among them as man with man, as a master with 
his disciples, and at the time they had not thoroughly realized 
the experience which they were going through. Now they felt 
that they would be fools and blind if they failed to see the deep 
significance of events to which they had paid so little attention 
and words of which tliey had only half understood the meaning. 

The Gospel record had passed through a full generation of 
pious reflexion and meditation, before it began to be written 
down and so fixed for all time. The trustworthiness of the 
record depends therefore on the trustworthiness of the first 
Christians. How far were they qualified for their great task ? 
I propH3se now to try and answer some part of this question. 
My remarks must be, I fear, somewhat vague and provisional, 
for this part of the subject is not so advanced as the literary 
criticism of the sources of our Gospels, Many writers have 
been content with demonstrating the good faith and sincerity of 
the early Christians on the one side, or on the other laying stress 
upon their ignorance and lack of the critical spirit. It seems to 
me that we need a more detailed verdict than this. The qualifi- 


cations of the early Christian Church as the channel and mould 
of tradition cannot be satisfactorily dismissed in an epigram. 
Perfect witnesses the early Christians certainly were not. The 
perfect witness is himself a walking miracle. He should have 
the memory of Lord Macaulay, the justice of Dr S» R. Gardiner, 
the scrupulous honesty of Tillemont, the enthusiasm of a devotee, 
the insight of a prophet The hero of a written biography is at 
a disadvantage. The written word does not reproduce the tone 
of the voice, the smile, the explanatory gesture. The Christ that 
we know is a biography, the Christ that we want to know is 
a life. And yet with all the disadvantages of temperament, of 
race, and of historical accident, under which the Christians 
laboured, it is at least doubtful whether they were not as well 
quafified for their task as was possible under the circumstances. 

I wish to try and make the point that I hope to establish as 
clear as possible, even at the risk of prolixity. The question 
at issue is the qualifications and disadvantages of the first three 
generations of Christians — roughly from 30 A.D. to 120 a.d. — to 
be the guardians and transmitters of the words and deeds of the 
Christ. I begin with their disadvantages. 

The disadvantages of the early Christians as the transmitters 
of tradition were disadvantages of temperament, of race, and 
of historical accident. Under disadvantages of temperament we 
may reckon that generally uncritical attitude to historical events 
which they shared with most of their contemporaries. It was 
not an age of great historians. The most famous writers of 
history were not great. Suetonius was a gossip, Tacitus a pam- 
phleteer. St Luke is by far the most ' cultured * of the writers of 
the New Testament, and he is no more accurate than the others 
and less really scientific* It does not help us to accept the details 
of the story of Pentecost when the gift of tongues has been 
described by him in terms which naturally imply a sudden 
acquaintance with foreign languages. The disadvantages of race 
are familiar to us. The Romans and Greeks despised the Jews 
because they did not understand them. The whole of the Jewish 
and Palestinian associations of the Gospel narrative and phrase- 
ology were strange to Gentile Christians, and much of it was 
distasteful Inevitably much was misunderstood ; some mis- 
understandings indeed are only now being cleared up by the slow 
and painful investigations of modern scholars in the departments 


of Rabbinic theology and the then popular Jewish Apocalyptic 
literature. The matter was further complicated by the historical 
accident* if we may so term it, of the destruction of Jerusalem 
by Titus in A. D. 70, and the consequent breaking-up of the Jewish- 
Christian Churches, the only Christian communities at that period 
which spoke an>'thing but Greek. These are disadvantages indeed* 
As I have already said, it is a wonder that so much of what is 
precious to us has been saved out of the whirlpool. 

But there is another side to the picture, and we shall carry 
away a very wrong impression if we do not bear it well in mind. 
There are no real accidents in history. If we have in the Gospels 
an incomparable treasure, in which is preserved a not inadequate 
presentation of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, this must 
be because those who have recorded that life and teaching were 
in some way eminently fitted for their work. It is because of 
the positive qualifications of the Evangelists and their pre- 
decessors, not because of their defects, that the Gospels are 
worthy of their subject. 

And what were the qualifications of the Evangelists? Their 
chief qualification, but it w^as one of the * few things needful ', 
is etkicai sensitiveness, I am very loth to use the vocabulary 
of modem literary and artistic criticism in speaking of the mental 
temper of early Christianity, It savours of * superiority ' where 
w^e ought to be humble ; and the spectacle is not edifying of the 
tvventieth-century critic sitting in judgement from his safe 
vantage-ground, fortified by archaeological learning and historical 
experience, upon the instincts that prompted our spiritual fore- 
fathers to leave their ancestral traditions for a kind of Jewish 
Nonconformity. But the expression I have used serves well 
enough to describe one of the most striking features of our 
Gospels. There are stories in our Gospels, in which some of the 
features must be unhistortcal. There are plenty of people who J 
find they cannot accept this or that narrative from the Synoptic 
Gospels, and various explanations are given of how the tale may 
be supposed to have originated. Some things are said to be an I 
Imitation of Old Testament tales or to have been composed 
to shew how Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled. Other 
things are said to illustrate the controversies that disturbed the I 
infant Church. But if this be the case to any extent, is it not 

markable how little fault is found with the general tone and 


atmosphere of the Gospel stories, with their general ethical and 
moral tendency ? Does it not shew how well fitted by temper 
and instinct were those who handed down tlie Gospel tradition 
for the work which they performed ? 

Not for one moment would I suggest that the Gospels are 
works of ethical art, based ultimately on an idealizing imagina- 
tion. The fourth Gospel may be so to some extent^ but not 
the others. Where St Luke attempts to idealize, by smoothing 
down the rugged lines of St Mark, he does not improve the 
picture. No: Matthew Arnold's maxim, yest4S over the heads 
of all his reporters t is the true working hypothesis to guide the 
critic, the only one that leads to a reasonable explanation of 
what ue find in the Gospel literature. With few exceptions 
the early Christians were ignorant and unlearned men, but we 
take knowledge of them that they have been with Jesus. 

At the same time we shall do less than justice to the Church, 
if we do not recognize the debt we owe to her. If we praise the 
Gospels because they present a not inadequate picture of our 
Lord, we should remember that we receive them at the hands 
of the Church. The Gospels are not the discovery of modern 
critics or a view of the Founder of Christianity preserved by 
some obscure heretical sect- On the contrary: the Gospels, 
by whomsoever drawn up, and however they may be related to 
one another, are the Memoirs, the memorabilia, which the Church 
chose out to be the official records of the life of Christ. That 
the Church of the second century should have chosen so well 
is an irrefragable proof that in essentials it was inspired with the 
spirit of Jesus. The note of true culture is to recognize real 
merit, and by choosing our Gospels the Church shewed an ethical 
instinct that is surprising and a historical instinct that is only 
less wonderful. When one thinks of the explanations of 
Christianity that were offered by second -century theologians, 
both those who were accounted orthodox and those who were 
accounted heretics, it is, I repeat, wonderful that the Church, 
by which I mean the main body of Christians, should have 
chosen with such happy inspiration. 

I must now illustrate what I have said from some of these second- 
century writers. To study the Gospels critically one cannot get 
too much saturated with the spirit of the second century A.D,, so 
as to work back in a right frame of mind towards the successive 



periods when our written Gospels were ofHdally rccogniziGd, 
piled, conceived. 

I take Justin Martyr, chiefly, of course, because the 
remains of his works are so considerable that we can obtaa 
a fair idea of his attitude to the Gospel record. But he also 
represent! very well the close of the period during which our 
four Gospels gradually won their way to their positioa of 
recognized pre-eminence. It is a disputed question whether 
Justin, who wrote about 150 a.d.^ used our four Gospels. Per- 
sonally I have no doubt that he did use them, very likely to 
the practical exclusion of other evangelical documents* For the 
purpose wc have in hand* however, it does not matter. What 
wc want to get arc the points in the sayings and deeds of Jesus 
which attracted Justin. Out of the abundance of the heart the 
mouth spcakcth, and by considering Justin's references to the 
Gospels wc shall gain some notion of what he considered I 
the more important parts of their contents. The collection has 
been already made for us, and it has been digested into a sort 
of running narrative by Dr Sanday in his well-known work 
called T/te Gospels in the Second Century (pp. 91-98), 

The first inference you would probably draw from Dr Sanday's 
long abstract of Justin Martyr's evangelical references is that he 
did use our Canonical Gospels, in any case that he used our 
Gospels according to Matthew and Luke. But leaving that 
question aside, what I want to examine is something rather 
diflTcrent. I want to examine the reason that leads Justin to 
refer to our Lord's life and teaching. What was there that 
attracted him in the Gospel ? What did he think worth quoting 
from it ? If Justin Martyr be a fair representative of the Catholic 
Churchman of the second century^ and I think he was a fair 
representative, we shall obtain in answering this question the 
reasons which led the Catholic Church to choose out our four 1 
Gospels. And, seeing that the Gospels also were the work of 
Churchmen, though of a rather earlier period, we shall also gain 
some knowledge of tendencies of thought that helped to shape 
the Gospels themselves. 

The impression left on my own mind is twofold. On the one 
hand, I see an admirable mora! feeling, the ' ethical sensitiveness* 
of which I have already spoken. On the other^ an absence of 
nical and scientific criticism which invites all sorts of objective 




errors in the presentation of the incidents of the Gospel narrative. 
It is significant how many of the incidents are attested by Justin, 
which modem critics find a difficulty in accepting. The details 
of both the Nativity stories are there. As in oor Matthew we 
have the dream of Joseph, the prophecy of Micah, the Magi and 
their gifts, the slaughter of the Innocents by Herod, the flight 
into Egypt, the return in the days of Archelaus. As in our Luke 
we have the annunciation by Gabriel, the census of Quirinius, the 
Journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, and the story of the manger. 
AJl this is just that part of the Gospels where ' advanced ' modern 
criticism feels most sure that the historical basis is exceedingly 
smallv and that we are dealing with popular legends, incredible 
in themselves and inconsistent with one another, But Justin is 
delighted with the Nativity stories. He sees no contradictions 
in them, and he appeals to their details as offering the strongest 
confirmations of prophecy. Again, there is hardly any episode 
in the Christian traditions about the Resurrection so generally 
rejected by 'advanced' critics as the story of the guard at the 
tomb. But Justin refers to Matt, xxvii 63 fif, an integral part of 
this episode that tells us how and why the guard was appointed*. 
No doubt Justin would have regarded our historical criticism with 
grave distrust. He declares it better that Christians should 
believe miracles such as were impossible to men and to their 
own nature, than that they should disbelieve with the outside 
world, seeing that those who disbelieved what God had promised 
should come to pass through Christ will be punished in Gehenna 
together with those who had lived unrighteously {A/>ol. § 19). 

Thus we gather from Justin that a story which seemed to 
confirm a saying of prophecy was likely to be popular among 
the Christians of his day, and that special interest was being paid 
to those traditions which related the miraculous birth of their 
Messiah. We see that Gospels akin to those of Matthe%v and 
Luke form the staple of Justin's allusions, even if he be not 
actually using these very writings. From this point of view, 
therefore, we are not astonished to find that a very few years 

r * Juslin (DiaL 5 108) declares that Ihc Jews ordained anti •Christian missionaries 
who said of Jesus the Galilean 'Deceiver" (Matt xxvii 63) that after Ihe Crucifixion 
ol tia$riTal avrov MKi\favrts ahriv dird rov fitrffftarof yvKr6i deceive folit XifQUfrtt 
iiyijjip$ai abrdr U vtttpwv^ This is an obvious echo of Matt, xxvii 54. 

VOL. V* Z 


after Justin the Gospel according to Matthew and the Gospel 
according^ to Luke are received in the Church as authoritative. 

Now let us turn to the other side of the picture, to the ethical 
side. Here we are in a different atmosphere. Justin and his 
fellow Christians aim at a better morality, a better rule of life, 
than their pagan contemporaries, and at the same time they are 
conscious of a fr^h supply of power to walk in the way marked 
out for them. We Christians, says Justin, are not to be accounted 
Atheists, though we offer no sacrifices. The food which others 
would waste in sacrifices we cat ourselves^ or give to those who 
have need. But for every kind of food and for the other blessings 
of life we give praise to the Creator of all, which is the only 
sacrifice worthy of Hini, mingled with prayers that we may 
become again incorruptible through our faith. This, he says, we 
have been taught to do by Jesus Christ, who was crucified under 
Pontius Pilate, Jesus whom we have learnt to honour as truly the 
Son of God, together with the Prophetic Spirit. This is why 
Christians are accused of madness, in that after prescribing the 
worship of the immutable and eternal God they go on to the 
worship of a crucified human being {ApoL § 13). Justin feels 
that there may be a natural prejudice on this account against 
Christianity, a prejudice fostered by the evil spirits. He begs his 
hearers therefore to free themselves from their dominion, even 
as, he says, we Christians have freed ourselves that we might 
follow the only unbegotten God through His Son ; so that some 
of us who formerly delighted in lasciviousness now embrace self- 
control, others who followed magic arts now consecrate themselves 
to a God who is good and kind, others who devoted their energies 
to amassing wealth now share their possessions for the common 
good, others of us who hated one another, and would have neither 
common intercourse nor worship ^ with aliens now after Christ*s 
manifestation associate together, praying for our enemies, and 
trying to persuade those who are unjustly hating us, so that they 
also ^ may live according to Christ's salutary counsels, and have 
a good hope to obtain the like mercies with us from Almighty 
God. And, continues Justin, that we may not seem to be giving 

^ The occurrence of d/iod/oiTM two lines below {Otto, vol, i p, 36*) CDCouragcs 
mc to luggest Stajrdf re tail karias for Ad rd iSfti m^ Ivrias. 
'•'Hnit o2 with Mmrauus. 



Du a sophisticated account of our religion, I have thought it 
worth while to mention some few of Christ's own precepts, and you 
can see for yourselves whether our doctrines harmonize with His. 
And note that short and concise was His manner of speech, for He 
was no sophist, but His speech was the power of God (Afiol, § 14). 

Justin then goes on to quote a number of our Lord's sayings, 
mostly from the Sermon on the Mount (ApoL §§ 15, 16), ending 
with a protestation of the willingness of Christians to pay all 
lawful tribute to Caesar, for whose tnje welfare they gladly pray 
the one true God, remembering that Christ has said To whom Gad 
hath given tlie more, the more tuill be required of him {ApoL § 17). 

These extracts give, I think, a fairly adequate view of Justin 
Martyr's attitude towards the contents of the Gospel. Side by 
side with his lack of historical criticism, as we understand the 
term,, goes an intelligent and thankful appreciation of what after 
all is the essence of the Gospel message. • Lord, to whom shall 
we go ? Thou hast words of eternal life/ This is the keynote 
of Justin's attitude, and it is the attitude not of Justin only, but of 
the Church of his age. We find it in the Didache, and in the 
Epistle to Diognetus^ and the same spirit is present in Clement of 
Rome. The Church put the Gospels in their position of pre- 
eminence because the Gospels satisfied the Church's wants. The 
Christians were conscious from the experience of their corporate 
life that He who had been crucified in Judaea was the Son of 
God, sent forth at the fore-ordained time, and the Gospels 
preserved for them the commands of the Son of God, by which 
they could order their lives. They gave also tlie details of His 
ever-memorable Passion and Death, and the story of His Resur- 
rection, which was the pledge of their own eternal life ; and some 
of them gave also what seemed to the second -century Christian 
a worthy and honourable account of His birth into this world. 

But there is one feature of our Synoptic Gospels which seems 
to have aroused very little interest in the second century. It is 
a feature which shews us once for all that our Gospels themselves 
belong in their main contents not to that century but to an 
earlier age. This feature is the frankly biographical clement, 
the story of the ministry. Like St Paul, the early Gentile 
Christians do not seem to have cared to know Christ after the 
flesh. The cult of the * holy places ' in Palestine belongs to a 

z % 


Ut^r age. And here Justin's silence is s^nificanL He fijids 
occasion to mention the Nativity, the Baptism, the Cmd&doo, 
the Resurrection, the iact that the Christ had power to heal the 
sick and raise the dead. But all this b, so to speak, part of the 
'scheme of salvation ' ; all these things are events and ciromi- 
ttances theologically important. How different is the point of 
view in Matthew and Luke, and above all in Mark 1 Not that 
the Evangelists care for archaeology or * local coloftr ' ; they 
wrote that their hearers might believe that Jesus was the Christ, 
and that believing they might have life in His name. But the 
scenes of the life in Galilee are nearer* The stories of our Lord 
belong in our Gospels to definite localities, to Capemaum, to the 
Lake of Gcnnesarct, to Caesar ea Philippi — names which second- 
century writers never care to bring before their readers. As I 
said at the bcginnii^ of this Lecture, we are still in the regioa of 
history in the Synoptic Gospels, in the region of living memory. 

It would be a curious and not unprofitable task to attempt to 
put together what we could learn of the life of our Lord from 
Christian writings outside the Gospels before the age of Irenaeus 
— about J 80 A.D. The writings would include the Epistles of 
St Paul, the other New Testament Epistles, those of St Qement 
of Rome, of St Ignatius, and of the various Apostolic Fathers, 
besides what we have gathered from Justin Martyr and his 
contemporaries. The results, however, would be singularly 
disconnected. We should learn that Jesus Christ was crucified 
in Judaea under Pontius Pilate through the malice of His country- 
men and that lie rose again from the dead. We should be told 
many of His moral sayings. But we should be left quite in the 
dark as to how He spent His days among men. Jesus Christ 
would be practically to us a mere Aoyo?, a word, a kind of 
phonograph uttering counsels of perfection, but without human 
shape or features. It is the human shape that the Gospels 
supply for us* Let us never forget that while the Gnostic 
philosophers and the theologians of the second century were 
trying to find out the place of God the Son in the cosmogony, 
the Catholic Church was occupied in canonizing the Gospels, 
By so doing the Church kept alive for future generations the 
memory of our Lord s truly human life. 

But the most remarkable fact of alt remains to be noticed. 


We have seen that Justin, whom we have taken as representing 
the generation that chose out our Gospels, combined the Nativity 
story of Matthew with that of Luke, and that this is hardly to 
be explained except on the hypothesis that he used these two 
Gospels. In other respects also these Gospels contain much 
that appealed to the second-century Christian, to whom the 
Sermon on the Mount was the basis of ethics. Let us suppose, 
therefore, that the Church chose out these two works to be the 
official account of Jesus Christ's life and teaching, together with 
the Gospel according to St John, of the use of which there are 
some traces in Justin, and even among certain heretics before his 
time. The total amount of information about Jesus which we 
get from these three sources comprises most of what is known. 
But if we were to try and analyse the statements made we should 
be met by many curious puzzles, especially with regard to the 
literary relation of Matthew and Luke. We should see they had 
common sources, but it would be very difficult to determine 
ivhat use each had made of the sources or to make out their 
respective limits. Suppose then that we were to hear one day 
that Dr Grenfell and Dr Hunt had dug up in Egypt a fresh 
'apocryphal' Gospel, not unlike our Gospels according to 
Matthew and Luke, but shorter, and unfortunately mutilated at 
the end in the middle of the story of the Resurrection. 
Suppose, finally, that when this new Gospel is published we find 
that most of the points in the narrative which appealed to Justin 
and his contemporaries are absent, that there is no Nativity Story 
at all, that the long ethical discourses unconnected with the 
narrative are either curtailed or omitted altc^ether, but that on 
the other hand the single narratives are full of graphic details 
and of expressions which have fallen out of Matthew and Luke, 
though they shew real acquaintance with the thought and 
customs of Palestinian Judaism. How interested we should all 
be in this discovery ! How many monographs would be written 
on this newly-found Gospel ! We should hear that at last we 
have a picture of primitive Christianity, of the likeness of Jesus 
of Nazareth as He appeared to His first disciples. The absence 
of just those points about the Gospel which most attracted the 
writers of the second century would explain why this document 
had dropped out of circulation. 


This IS, of course, all supposition. The actual fact, I repeat, is 
more surprising. That the Gospel according to Mark should 
have been admitted into the Canon is a fact that I cannot 
explain. I cannot understand what attraction it offered to the 
Christians of the second century which the Gospels according to 
Matthew and Luke did not offer, either singly or taken tc^ether, 
in a more eminent degree. It is, we find, very little quoted 
before it became part of the official fourfold Canon, that is, 
before the time of Irenaeus, and it is certain that it ran a very 
serious risk of being forgotten altogether. As every one knows, 
the genuine text ends at Mark xvi 8, in the middle of a sentence 
describing the terrified departure of the women from the empty 
tomb. There is no reason to doubt that the Gospel went on to 
describe some of the appearances of Jesus to the disciples after 
the Resurrection. The narrative is incomplete as it stands, and 
it is much more likely that the mutilation was accidental than 
intentionaL Had it been intentional, the break would never 
have been made where it is, at itpo^ovvro yap , , . ; even the 
sentence is left incomplete. But all our MSS ultimately go 
back to this mutilated text; it is therefore evident that at one 
time no more than a single mutilated copy was in existence, or 
at least available. The work had dropped out of circulation, it 
had lost its public, and we can only guess vaguely at the reasons 
which led to its resuscitation. 

The fact, however, remains. By its inclusion in the Canon we 
are to-day in possession of a document in warp and woof far 
more ancient than the Churches which adopted it. The fine 
instinct— may we not say inspiration'i — which prompted the 
inclusion of the Gospel according to St Mark among the books 
of the New Testament^ shewed the Catholic Church to have been 
wiser than her own writers, wiser than the heretics, wiser finally 
than most Biblical critics from St Augustine to Ferdinand 
Christian Baur. It is only in the last half-century that scholars 
have come to recognize the pre-eminent historical value of that 
Gospel which once survived only in a single tattered copy. 




The settlement of the English Church in the centuiy after the 
Norman Conquest demands naore attention than it has hitherto 
received. Our historians are engrossed with the story of the 
archbishops Lanfranc and Anselm and beyond a brief record of 
the national synods which assembled during this period their 
narrative tells us little or nothing of the real settlement that was 
taking place. It was the time when the future lines of diocesan 
and parochial organization were being laid dow^. When the 
extant episcopal registers begin in the thirteenth century, we find 
that the diocesan arrangement was nauch as we find it now. But 
there are many problems on which more information is needed. 
The territorial spheres of work for the archdeacons have been 
settled, but what was it that caused the exact divisions which 
existed in the archdeaconries down to 1535? We iind the rural 
deaneries of varied sizes, and to-day containing very varied 
numbers of parishes. The earlier episcopal registers shew them 
as most important areas of diocesan organization. The clergy of 
each deanery seem to be responsible for the well-doing of their 
brethren, as the men in the hundred were responsible for the 
peace of the hundred. Such an organization suggests an English 
origin, but our historians tell us nothing about it. Our parochial 
system also bristles with points of which no serious attempt 
has as yet been made to find an explanation. We do not 
seem to realize how chaotic diocesan organization must have been 
in the century from io66-ii66. An idea seems to prevail that 
a fairly perfect organization existed in early English times, and 
that all went on smoothly under the Normans, except for those 
controversies which chiefly concerned the bishops. But there is 
no evidence to support such an idea. The little we do know 
rSeems to suggest the contrary. When Lanfranc in 1070 came to 


England there were Norman bishops at Dorchester (Rem^us 

1067), Winchester (Walkelin 1070), and London (William 1051). 
Selsey and Elmham received new bishops, Stigand and Hcr&st, 
that year. Giso of Wells and Leofric of Crediton were foreigners, 
and the saintly Wulfstan of Worcester was not acceptable to 
Lanfranc. York was vacant through the death of Ealdred and 
Durham through the death of Ethelwin. Then came the great 
change of the bishops* stools in the last quarter of the century, 
Sherborne and Ramsey to old Samm, Selsey to Winchester, ■ 
Lichfield to Chester and to Coventry, Elmham to Thetford and 
then to Norwich, Wells to Bath and Crediton to Exeter. All 
these changes tended to inefficiency and certainly disturbed very 
seriously whatever diocesan organization had prevailed. The 
parochial clergy must have been left very much to themselves. No _ 
strong centres made their influence felt throughout the diocese ; I 
the people in their parishes^-huge panshes with outlying hamlets 
separated by dense woods and dangerous swamps — the subject 
English and the French strangers, must have been much in need 
of an organized ministry and the instruction which such a ministry 
would provide. It is a problem therefore of very great interest to 
enquire whether it is possible to discern what went on in the 
country places, and how the church slowly developed into definite 
order, an order such as we observe to exist when first the episcopal 
registers come to our assistance. The evidence which exists calls 
for very cautious usage, but evidence certainly exists from which ■ 
we can look back and perceive what must have been, and how the 
Church throve even in those early years of the reign of Henry 
the first. Naturally the evidence which the Domesday Survey ■ 
offers us comes first in the order of our records, and this is really 
very considerable. It deserves much more serious attention than 
as yet has been given to it. Only the surface of it has been 
skimmed. It was no part of the duty of the Commissioners to 
mention the churches in 1084^ unless the Saint to whom the 
church was dedicated was endowed with land. A resident parish 
priest, however, would almost certainly have been so endowed, 
and therefore I am inclined to draw some conclusions from the 
silence of the Survey. I think it shews that the clergy were not 
nearly so numerous as the churches. The three terms by which 
the clergy are mentioned^ sacerdos, presbyter, eapelianus, the 



status in the diocese of royal chaplains who were parish priests 
and king's legates, the differences of rank of the churches them- 
selves, when carefully explained, will also help on this enquiry. 
Whatever had been the order and the organization of the early 
English Church, it must have suffered during the second half of 
the eleventh century, and it is therefore of the greatest interest 
to attempt the discovery of the forces which brought about its 

Now the clergy were divided into two rival classes of the 
regular and the secular, and this division was further complicated 
by rival nationalities. The regular or monastic clergy were 
Benedictines. No other form of monasteries as yet existed in 
England* and the number of Benedictine monasteries In the 
country at this time is well known and the list is not long. 
They were about fifty in all. In the diocese of Worcester there 
were only fivet and in that of Bath and Wells only four. Nor did 
the monastic clergy assist in the spiritual work of the diocese. In 
all the reforms of Lanfranc not a single hint is to be found that 
any duty rested on the monks to concern themselves with the 
spiritual welfare of the lay folk who lived on the monastic estates. 
Their influenceSj as far as one can judge, only reached but a short 
distance beyond the precincts of the monastery. The age when 
they acquired the advowsons of distant churches and created 
vicarages and made money out of the endowments left for the 
parish churches had not yet arrived. 

Nor could the influence of the cathedra! churches^ the mother 
churches of the dioceses, have been very great. Canterbury, 
Winchester, Worcester, Norwich, and Durham were in the hands 
of the Benedictines, and the recent changes of the bishops' seats 
had largely diminished the influence which the clergy of these 
cathedral churches could have formerly exercised. In the diocese 
of Bath and Wells the cathedral church had lately been changed 
from Wells to Bath, from a church of secular canons to a church 
of Benedictine monks. The influence of the latter had not begun, 
the influence of the former, such as it may have been, was 
seriously diminished. The secular clergy were, however, in 
possession of most of the cathedral churches and of nearly all 
of the parish churches. To a great extent the secular clergy were 
English, and certainly English in their sentiments, and certainly 


thextior^ oat in 93rmpaxfa|r«itli the acm refanntng Nomuui bisiiops 
wboludooiDCtonikovvrtiiaiB. NoroiQstwcbeledawayt^the 
term M joster, aad mugine that there woe anmerocis small tsoUted 
fHOQaistcries in the kxagdooi. In the time of Bcda we knoir tint 
there weie settlements of a vague Idiid of mooastidsm, bot the 
head of these houses was as olten as not married and the 
diitrcfaes bad been handed down from father to son, and they 
had by this time fallen into the hands of those who weie called 
secular clergy and were as often as not married men. The term 
Ifinster, as we have it in Ilmmstar, Charminster, Axminster, 

Banwell Minster, Cheddar Minster, seems to denote a church to 
which a resident priest was attached. The sevend Whitchurches 
in the south-west of England aie all called Album Mooasterium 
and as often as not Whytminster. 

But the secular clergy had got out of touch with the authorities 
of the Church, and their beneHces had in many cases becoaie 
hereditary ; and this fact made reform all the more difHcult. At 
Wells and at Crediton, bishops Giso (1061 -87) and Leofric (1046- 
72) had endeavoured to cope with the worldliness of the secular 
clergy by providing the clergy of the cathedral churches with 
refectories and dormitories and imposing upon them the rule of 
St Chrodegang, These are the only instances in England of Secular 
Canons becoming canons of any recognized order. It was the first 
practical step to enforce celibacy on the parish priest, and, though 
it was not a success, it led the way for the introduction of those 
canons whose work in the Church is the subject of this paper. 

The Canons Regular of St Augustine had become so assimilated 
in the ordering of their houses, and in their daily lives, to the 
Benedictine monks, that it is necessary to keep our minds quite 
clear as to their exact character and position. They were 
not monks, and though in process of time they became more 
and more like to monks, yet there was always an essential 
difierence. In a house of Austin Canons the majority of the 
members were in Holy Orders, and ail were supposed to be 
preparing for Holy Orders, This we must keep clearly in mind, 
because it was quite different in a Benedictine or any allied 
monastery. The question always demanded in reference to 
the admission of a novice into a house of Austin Canons is — 
' si sint habiles ad suscipiendos ordines/ They were to bear in 


mind that the canons must — ' in missis celebrandis, in omnibus 
serviciis r^ularibus in choro . . . ociositatem devitarc' During 
his year of probation enquiry is to be made — * si religioni congruus, 
habilis ad suspiciendos ordines et ad ministrandum in ordinibus 
bene dispositus '. They were men in Holy Orders gathered together 
for a community life, and having a certain recognized discipline. 
But they were not monks. Innocent II made this quite clear in 
1 131 when at the Council of Rheims he said the regular clergy 
consisted of Monks of the Order of St Benedict and Canons of the 
Order of St Augustine. Let us briefly then trace the growth of 
this Order. 

The term * canon' seems to have been given originally to 
those clergy who were the famUiares of the bishop, and who 
at first lived in the same house with him. Such clergy would be 
under supervision, and therefore they were men who would live a 
fairly disciplined life. St Augustine of Hippo and St Eusebius of 
Vercelli were conspicuous for the zeal they shewed in the training 
of their clergy, and St Augustine in one of his letters to some 
turbulent and worldly-minded nuns described a rule of life which 
formed the basis for a future rule for the clergy. But there is no 
evidence that St Augustine drew up a rule for the disciplined life 
of the canonical clergy. His Regula ad servos Dei in the 
Benedictine edition of his works is prefaced by a warning that it 
contained sentiments and phrases which he actually used and 
cherished, and had on that account only been added to the com-^ 
plete edition for what it was worth. The Council of Aachen 816 
was the first of a long series of efforts made by the bishops for 
the reform of the diocesan clergy. It is said that Unwan, arch- 
bishop of Hamburgh, 1013-39, was the first to gather congrega- 
tions of clergy under the rule of St Romuald the hermit, 910-1027, 
who, Damianus tells us, was the first who taught 'plures canonicos 
et clericos qui laicorum more seculariter habitabant praepositis 
obedire et communiter in congregatione vivere *. The eleventh 
century was full of this effort, but so far not a word is said of the 
rule of St Augustine. Among the most active of the bishops of 
that time to deepen the spiritual life among the clergy was Ivo, 
bishop of Chartres, 1090-1116, the pupil of Lanfranc at Caen. 
He is said to have reformed the monastery of St Quintin at 
Beauvais as a seminary for secular canons, and to have restored 


the order of St Augustine, and the historian Sigeberht records 
that the canonical order founded by the Apostles, and afterwards 
by the blessed Augustine, began to flourish again under bishop 
Ivo. In 1085, Philip, bishop of Troyes, founded a new clergy- 
house, and from bishop Ivo received not the Order of St Augus- 
tine, but the rule of tlie house which he had founded at Beauvais. 
In J 095 Lutosdus, dean of Toul, founded an Abbey for Canons 
Regular, and here, for the first time, we hear of the rule of 
St Augustine. That it had but lately been drawn up is clear 
because pope Urban II confirmed it in 1096, The historian 
Ansel m of Havelberg, 11 29, is careful to say that the Canons 
Regular were not monks, and pope Benedict XII, in his bull 1359, 
mentions the rules and constitutions of the Canons Regular, but 
says nothing of the letter of St Augustine. It seems clear that 
the Canons Regular were clergy under the direct superintendence 
of the bishops, and that the idea that St Augustine was the author 
of their rule arose at the end of the eleventh, or beginning of the 
twelfth century, and partly from a desire to place the Canons 
Regular in a similar position to the Benedictines, whose admiration 
for the Rule of St Benedict w^as then at its height. 

It would appear therefore that Ivo himself drew up the letter 
Regula ad servos Dei. No one of that age was so versed in the 
writings of St Augustine, and if his master, Lan franc, could 
improve and expand St Benedict's rule for the monks, why should 
not he expand and put into a practical form the teaching and the 
precepts of St Augustine for the clergy who worked under his 
direction ? 

The Canons Regular or Austin Canons were clergymen gathered 
together in a clergy-house and living under some rule in order 
that they might attain to a loftier ideal of Christian life. The 
example of Hugh, bishop of Auxerre, 1136, is pathetic* He is 
said to have given his canons many churches and their tithes — 
*ea conditione ut per singulos annos tota Quadragesima in 
refectorio communiter comedant/ And this connexion between 
the bishop and the Austin Canons continued to the eve of the 
dissolution of the Monasteries. The head of each house was 
a prior, and the abbot of all the houses in the diocese was the 
bishop. Not till the end of the fifteenth century, when they had 
become assimilated in almost ^\'eTy way to the Benedictines, 6\6^ 





the priors aspire to and obtain, as at Bruton, the dignity and title 
of abbots ; though indeed, in the case of some houses that followed 
the example of the Paris house of Canons under Hugh St Victor, 
the head, in addition to his title as head of the canons of his priory, 
claimed at the very outset and for other reasons the title of abbot. 

Such were the men for whom is claimed in the present article 
the honour of having done more than any other organization to 
establish the English Church in the country districts. They were 
the new clergy, clergy who were celibates, who lived a community 
life in a clergy-house, and whose ministerial work in England in 
the first half of the twelfth century is entirely ignored. They 
were in sympathy with the bishops, they were in sympathy with 
the new Norman lords, many of whom were the founders of their 
houses, and they possessed an earnestness and intelligence cer- 
tainly rare at that time among the parochial clergy* 

Now the statements made above call for corroborative evidence, 
and that evidence we obtain from a careful examination of the 
charters and documents that record the foundation of these houses. 
Let us see what was the story of their establishment in England. 
It is uniform, and in all the houses of Austin Canons established 
before the death of Henry II the story is almost identical. It 
centres in a desire to provide for the spiritual wants of the 
people, and the steps that were taken to carry it out. 

The first of these houses, and there were fifty- four of them 
founded in the period mentioned, was that at Colchester founded 
in 1096 by Emulf, an earnest priest who, living just outside the 
walls of the city, saw how great was the need for missionary effort 
among the people. To him and to his like-minded brothers in 

e faith J canons serving God, the church of St Julian and St 
Botolph at Colchester, and the churches of Greenstead, Fordham, 
and Heathfield were given. The parishioners shared with the 
canons the use of these churches; they were the buildings in which 
the canons ministered for the good of the people. To induce 
some of these canons^ ten years afterwards, to settle in London, the 
church of the Holy Trinity and St Leonard was given them, and 
in the bull of pope Pascal II, confirming in 11 16 this foundation, 
it is mentioned as the first house of Austin Canons in England, 
and we have in the bull an exact description of the work these 
canons had to do — ^to them, says Pascal, has been committed 


by our father * dispensatio Verbi Dei, praedicationis ofHcium» 
baptismum et recondliatio paenitentium ' — in other woixls 
the exact work of all missionary priests placed in charge of 
districts not as yet fully organized by the Church. Ernulf is said 
to have been a hermit priest at Colchester^ and this tenn Is 
remarkable, because in several other instances it is used, and it 
seems to be almost a technical term for a solitary priest attached 
to a church which was not prebendal and collegiate. 

Colchester was, in the reign of Henry I, in the circle of political 
order and civilization. Let us now go across to the wild 
districts in the far west, where the dioceses of Hereford and 
Lichfield, between the dense forests and dangerous swamps, looked 
down the valleys and across the open wold to the lands of the 
then unconquered Welsh. Here, in Herefordshire and Shrop- 
shire, in districts thinly populated, wild and dangerous, we find 
contemporary foundations of distinctly missionary character. 
The revolts of Earl Roger and Earl Hugh of Shrewsbury against 
the stern rule of William the Conqueror and the hated rule of 
his son, the Welsh wars of William II, the invasion of Welsh- 
men into Worcestershire in 1088, burning and harrowing and 
destroying as they rushed through Herefordshire and crossed 
the Severn, makes it certain that the Church in those districts 
could not then have been very efficiently organized. It w^as 
there, amid this desolation and in face of this danger, that 
Ralph Mortimer founded, about 1100, by consent of Gerard, 
bishop of Hereford, a house of Canons Regular at Wigmore. 
An earlier attempt had been made at Shobdon, and Ralph had 
endowed a church there with three prebends. But the times 
were too dangerous, and the district needed men of greater 
energy and discipline than were found generally among the 
secular canons ; and so the Austin Canons began at Wigmore. 
Now it must be noticed in the account of all these foundations 
that the endowments were churches. Estates are sometimes 
mentioned, and especially in later times, but they are the excep- 
tion. Enough land was given for their support and what was 
added was to be the sphere of their labour. This is not the 
case in the story of monastic foundations. In early cartularies 
of the Benedictines you hardly ever find such items. The age 
when the monasteries acquired the advowsons of distant churches 



had not yet arrived. The Austin Canons came first, and churches 
were given them not as means of enrichment but to be scenes 
of ministerial work. It will be noticed also that these churches 
are either in the vicinity of the priory or grouped round some 
mother church where one of the canons of the priory had been 
settled for the purpose of work. To Wigmore were given the 
churches of Wigmore, Shobdon, Cleobury, Leintwardine, Nene, 
Higley, Burley, North Lydbury» Presteigne, Aymestrey, Byton, 
Bredwardine, Leinthal Earls, Kinsham Ford, More, Rathling- 
hope, Cardeston, a string of churches almost from the Wye to 
the Severn, and a group of dependent churches including Hopton 
Wafers and Marmie round the mother church of Cleobury 

When again we cross the Severn into the diocese of Coventry, 
we find another house of Austin Canons settled at Haghmond. 
It is an instance of the northern of the two dioceses pushing through 
the forests that divided Staflfordshire from Shropshire and estab- 
lishing a missionaiy outpost a little north of Watling Street. 
Haghmond was founded, it is said, by William Fitzalan of Clun 
in II 10, though the Cartulary of Haghmond gives the date of 
the foundation as 1099. The Benedictines and the Secular 
Canons at Shrewsbury were not likely to do much. Greater con- 
fidence was placed in the Austin Canons. The churches 
attached to Haghmond are mostly north of it, Stanton, G rim- 
shall, Shawbury, and HadnalL Shropshire also had two other 
houses of Austin Canons at Wormbridge and Lilleshall. They 
were both on the eastern side of the Severn and in districts 
remote, on account of the forests, from the centres of diocesan life. 
Each had its group of churches given it as essential to its 
foundation, and Wormbridge was founded by the same William 
Fitzalan who was the founder of Haghmond, 

Lilleshall, though only founded in 1145, calls for special atten- 
tion, because it was founded by the last of the secular canons 
of St Alkmund, Shrewsbury, He yearned for better thingSi 
and Pope Eugenius allowed him to use his prebend of Lilleshall 
for that purpose. The priory was founded in the forest of Lilles- 
hall, and the churches of St Michael Lilleshall, St Alkmund 
Salop, and Atcham^ were given to the canons. 

If now we travel south-west by the Roman road that ran from 


Uriconium to Abei^avenny, we come to a narrow strip of Mon- 
mouthshire rUEning north-west between Brecknockshire and 
Herefordshire, bounded on the east by the Black Mountains and 
on the west by the hills of Brecknockshire. Here, at a place 
known aa Llanthony, a place which possibly recalls some scenes 
of former activity of the Celtic church, there settled, in 1103, 
William^ an attendant of Hugh de Lacy, and Ernisius, chaplain 
to Queen Maud. It was on the land which, in 1084, was recorded 
as belonging to Roger de Lacy. It was debateable land, reckoned 
in Domesday as part of the land of Hereford ; and as yet it was 
unsettled whetlier it formed part of the diocese of Hereford or 
part of the diocese of Llandaff, The two proposed to live the 
life of hermits, which I take to mean of priests living alone, 
content to minister to those who came to them. Archbishop 
Ansclm, however, persuaded Ernisius to change his * contu- 
bernium duorum' into a 'coenobium multorum'. So Ernisius 
became the first prior and they gathered ' viri religiosi ' from 
Merton, London, and Colchester ; and the church they built was 
consecrated in 1108 by Urban of Llandaff and Rheinhelm of 

All down the valley toward Abergavenny they laboured, and 
their churches were those at Llanthony, St Martins Comyowte, 
St Cleddoc'sj Ewyas Lacy, St Martinis Trewyn, and as far as 
Kenderchurch across the river Dove. Robert, the second prior, 
became bishop of Hereford, and is described as * vir simplex 
et rectusj in artibus liberalibus magister emeritus, et in divina 
pagina ita praedicator catholicus sicut in fidei articulis suflficienter 
eruditus ', Fifteen years afterwards the foundation was removed 
to the second Llanthony, close to the city of Gloucester, because 
of the violence of the Welshmen of Brecon. But in both places 
the character of the endowment was the same— sufficient land 
for the sustenance of the canons, and groups of churches in 
Gloucestershire, where they might minister to the country folk 

Let us take another instance in the house of Austin Canons 
established by Walter Giffard, bishop of Winchester, on his 
manor of Taunton in Somerset There had been for aoo years 
a settlement of resident priests there. In 904 Eadward arranges 
with Denewulf, bishop of Winchester, for the protection of the 






cltTgy of Taunton — * pro perpetua libertate ilHus monasterii *. 
In the time of Edmund Ironside, i.e, 1016, there was said to have 
been a college of resident priests there. In 1084 the college 
consisted of two priests who held land under the bishop of 
Winchester, The foundation, therefore, of bishop Gyffard, in 
II 31, swallowed up the college of secular priests and became 
the home of a house of Austin Canons, Its subsequent 
history tells us a good deal of the relationship of the bishop 
to these houses in his diocese- To the Austin Canons of 
Taunton were given all the churches in Taunton and the 
dependent churches of Lydeard St Lawrence, Kingston, 
Angersleigh, Bishops Hull, Fitminster, Ash Priors and Trull, 
Wilton, St George's in the Castle, Stoke St Gregory, St James's 
Taunton, Staplegrove, and Ruishton. Over these the bishop 
was to exercise his ordinary jurisdiction, and the archdeacon had 
the power to visit them* 

Another foundation in Somerset is of special interest, because 
originally it was a royal chapel of king Ine and existed, as early 
as 704, as the monastic church of St Aldhelm at Bruton. Little 
work was being done by the Church in the eastern border of 
Somerset in the first half of the twelfth century, and Bruton 
was part of the possessions of the Mohun family. William, the 
first earl, decided to found there a house of Austin Canons. 
This he did in 1142, and to enable him to accomplish his wish, 
William, the king's chaplain at Bruton, surrendered the historic 
church of St Mary and St Aldhelm, and here earl William 
established his canons. As at Colchester, so here, the church 
was a double church, the parishioners using especially the north 
aisle. The equipment of the house was similar to that of other 
foundations. A group of churches near to Bruton was given to 
the house, and the spiritual work of the district was carried on by 
the canons at Pitcombct Redlynch, Wyke, Witham, Brewham, 
Shepton Montagu, Milton Clevedon, and St LauTcnce's Crcech- 
HilL There were also, among the earlier gifts to it, three other 
groups of churches, in Normandy at the ancestral home of the 
family, at South Petherton, and also at the extreme west of 
the county of Somerset ; and the annals of the house in sub- 
sequent times record the going forth of canons from Bruton lo 
serve in these distant churches, and the danger they incurred 

VOL. V. A a 


from the freer contact with the outer world to which their duties 
exposed them. 

Nor is this missionary and ministerial effort of the Austin 
Canons confined to two or three localities in England Far to 
the north and to the east of the city of Carlisle, and a short time 
after Henry I had established the Austin Canons in that city, ■ 
Robert dc Vallibus settled, in the wild district of Lanercost just 
within the Roman wall, a small house of these earnest clergy and 
gave them — * canontcis regularibus Deo ibidem servientibus ' — the 
churches of Brampton^ Farlam, Irthington, Walton, and 
Kencrman. Carlisle itself is worth a notice* For when it was 
rebuilt in the days of William 11. the king placed in charge of 
the spiritual needs of the city, in 1093, William * ecclesiastid 
ordinis homo locupletis admodum'. Here Henry I founded a 
bishopric and gave to Athelwaldj the prior of the Austin house 
at Nostell, whom he made the first bishop, the church of 
St Mary which William had built, and, at Athelwald's request, 
founded there a house of Austin Canons with the wealth which 
William had left. To them also were assigned the churches of 
Newcastle, Warkworth, Robery, Winchingham, and Corbridge. 

At Barnwell in Cambridgeshire the original grant of Picot 
would have settled Austin Canons in 1092 at St Giles's Church 
under the Castle. Owing, however, to political troubles Picot's 
full intention was never carried out, and in 11 19 Feverel, his 
heir, settled them at Barnwell and gave them the churches of 
Caldecot, Comberton, Bourn, Rampton, Madingley, Guilden 
Morden, Harston, Hinxton, and others. 

At Twynham and at Plympton we have instances of churches 
of secular canons being given over to Austin Canons, William 
Warelwast, bishop of Exeter, turning the seculars out of Plympton 
because they would not give up their wives ; and to the canons 
regular were assigned groups of churches near Plympton and 
also in various parts of Cornwall. 

At Leedes, in 11 19, Robert de Crepito Corde founded a house 
and gave to the canons ' omnes ecclestae baron iae de Crevequer*. 
At Ixworth the parish church had been destroyed, apparently at 
the Conquest, and had not been repaired. Here, in 1087, William 
Btunden founded a house of this order, rebuilt the parish church, 
and assigned it to the canons with other churches and their 







dependent chapels in the neighbourhood. Geoffrey of Clinton, 
Henry's chamberlain, founded the church of Kenilworth and 
gave it to these canons with three churches in the vicinityp and 
Simon bishop of Worcester witnesses the charter. 

The same facts come out in the story of the foundation of 
the Austin Houses at Dunmow, Thremhall, St Dionysius at 
Southampton, Giseburn, Newnham in Hertfordshire, Norton in 
Cheshire, and Stone in Staffordshire, In some cases it is the 
desire of the bishops to impose a stricter discipline on the clergy, 
and so the secular prebendaries give way to Austin Canons. 
In some it is their desire to repair the waste places and to 
provide for the spiritual needs of the district, and so ruined 
churches are repaired and a house is built and the Austin 
Canons are introduced* But one fact comes out in every 
foundation deed throughout England in the twelfth century, that 
where a house of Austin Canons is established there have been 
assigned to them at the very beginning a number of churches, 
generally in the immediate neighbourhood of their house or in 
groups, as ' capellae dependentes ' centred round the mother church, 
as spheres for ministerial work and as essential to the fulfilment 
of the purposes of their Order. 

The men then were priests, or men training and suitable for 
priest's orders. They settled down, few in number but sufficient 
for the district they had to serve. The most prominent items in 
their early charters are not the mills and the manors, so much 
in evidence in early monastic charters, but the churches where 
they had to ser\''e. It may be said, however, that the parochial 
interests of the parish do not come into prominence in the 
annats of these houses. This is certainly true. But we could 
not expect it otherwise. The records were those concerning the 
house and the men that lived in it, and naturally such records 
only refer to the fortunes of the house and the lives of the men 
who inhabited it. In later times, as at Taunton in the fourteenth 
century, we find particular canons assigned to particular churches, 
and as scattered houses attached to groups of parishes were built, 
the prior of the mother house became known as the prelate of 
these scattered convents or monasteries. Moreover within these 
houses we find a freedom which was never sanctioned in 
Benedictine monasteries. A canon might bring in a strainer to 

A a 2 


if the 

The sick of the 

dinner ii the prior gave nim permission, ine sick oi tne pansi 
had not to wait outside for food. They were taken in and _ 
nursed in the priory. I 

It seems clear, then, that in the early decades of the twelfth 
century the Austin Canons did a great work for the English 
Church. They assisted more than any other religious organization 
to reorganize the dioceses and to provide for the spiritual need of 
the country parishes. However closely assimilated they became 
in later years to the monastic orders^ they should not be classed 
with them. Had they kept their first estate and remained in 
subjection to the bishops, who were originally and intentionally 
their abbots, they would not have suffered at the Dissolution of 
the Monasteries. They were not monks. In the twelfth century 
they were as much the disciplined side of ecclesiasticism as in 
the thirteenth century the Friars were the active side of 
monasticism. They were not confined to their house. They 
had horses on which they could visit their more distant cures. 
At Brut on the temptation was too great. They got themselves 
dogs and went off to Selwood. At Carlisle alone did Austin 
Canons form the Chapter of the bishop, but all through the 
centuries of their later existence, the bishop not only was recog- 
nized as being in a special relation to the houses of Canons 
Regular in his diocese, but also did visit and reform as no 
monastic house would have allowed. We have only to consider 
those parishes, scattered as they are all over England, the 
churches of which were given to the Austin Canons, to perceive 
how largely they helped on the settlement of the English 
Church. Whatever may have been the organization in earlier 
times, to a very great extent it must have been in abeyance 
in the time of Henry L The great monasteries and the 
larger prebendal and collegiate churches were possibly centres 
of spiritual effort in their immediate neighbourhood* but the 
restorers of the remote and smaller churches were undoubtedly 
those earnest and energetic clergymen, the Austin Canons of 

T. Scott 

' Holmes. I 






The two short Epistles of St John will gain much in interest, 
if we can discover to whom they were addressed, and for what 
purpose. The following notes are not intended to do more than 
suggest partially new solutions of the problems involved, and the 
reader should mentally insert * probably ', * possibly', or * conceiv- 
ably ' in many places where the writer has omitted it to avoid 
tiresome iteration. It will be best to commence with the Third 
Epistle \ 

§ I. TA^ circumstances of the Third Epistle, 

St John has heard that Gains was walking in the truth; in 
other words, that he had been practising St John's favourite 
virtue of charity. The Apostle congratulates him thereupon : 

*The Presbyter unto the beloved Gains, whom I love in truth. 
Beloved, I pray that in all things thou mayest prosper and be in good 
health, even as thy soul prospereth. For I rejoiced greatly when the 
brethren came and bare witness to thy truth, even as thou walkest in 
truth. I have no greater grace than these tidings, that I may hear of 
mine own children walking in the truth'.' 

News has been brought, therefore, to St John of what Gains has 

' I assume, without offering any proof, that * the Presbyter* is the Apostle John. 
I find it easier to suppose Eusebius, and not Irenaeus, to have been mistaken as to 
the meaning of Papias, and I believe there are cogent reasons against the existence 
of a second John. Nevertheless, I hold that, if he did exist, Hamack is right 
{ChroHol. pp. 675-80) in concluding that he must have been the author of the 
Johannine Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse, that he was the exile of Patmoa, the 
overseer of Asia, and the teacher of Polycarp and of Papias. Those who hold this 
view will simply understand all that I say, not of the AposUe, but of the Presbyter. 

' I find it convenient to use Dr. Westcott's careful translations. 



been doing. He has received certain brethren, who were strangers 
in the city where he lived, and has given them hospitah*ty and 
fellowship. ■ 

* Beloved, thou makest sure whatsoever thou doest unto the brethren 
and strangers withal, who bore witness to thy love before the Church ; 
whom thou wilt do well to help forward on their way worthily of God ; * 

Gaius h praised for having received the strangers once, and he ■ 
is invited to receive them again. After their first reception by 
him, they had come to St John^ for he says that they bore 
witness * before the Church \ publicly, in the presence of St John 
and the Christians of Ephesus, to the brotherly love which Gains 
had shewn them. They now return to Gaius, bearing this letter, 
but they are going further, and he is asked to assist them on their 

•for they went out for the Name's sake, taking nothing of the 

* They went out ', from some city that is not named, * for the 
Name's sake ', that is, because they were Christians ^. We are ■ 
not told that they were expelled, but that they went out, evidently 
because a persecution was raging, and their lives were in danger. 
We are not told that they fled or escaped with difficulty. It ■ 
would not seem, then, to be a case of sudden riot against the 
Christians, such as we meet with in St Paul's life on so many 
occasions, but rather of a definite and lawful persecution of the 
Name, which did not expel but put to death, and which was not 
universal but local. 

The Neronian persecution at Rome exactly fits this description, 
and I know of no other place or occasion \vhich is so precisely 
suitable. It was local at first, and it was legal. It did not exile» 
it slew. It was a hasty decree, not an uprising of the people, and 
can hardly have been sudden or complete enough to prevent the 
withdrawal from the city of teachers who were not marked men. 

^ They went out for the Name*s sake.' There is obviously an 
intentional vagueness here ; St John will not name the place or 
the cause. Why is he so wilfully indefinite ? It is possible to 

* I do not think we can take Jff ijAeor to mean * they went forth to preach \ since 
the words ' for the Nfutie's nakc ' imply some hardship, if not persecutloii, and 
could not be the equivalent of ' to preach the Name \ 


give a satisfiactory reply. In discussiog the Second Epistle I hope 
to shew that it was a regular oistom from the lime of Nero until 
the rescript of the Emperor Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus not 
to mention the Roman Church or its head, so great was the 
danger of the Christiaiis in the capital. Yet no one would mis- 
take the meaning of the wonis * They went out for the Name's 
sake \ We shall see, in discussing the Second Epistle, that the 
persecution of Domitian had not yet begun, while that of Nero 
was written in letters of blood and fire in the memories of the 
Asian Christians. Gaitis knew, of course, the history of the 
strangers, and would understand the vagueness of the allusioiu 
It was an honour to have been in Rome in those awful days, now 
many years ago. 

* Taking nothing of the Gentiles,* This is clearly also men- 
tioned as a title to honour, Wcstcott must be right in explaimng 
that the words refer to the Gentile converts to whom the strangers 
had preached. It was the custom of St Paul to refuse all pay- 
ment or even gratuitous hospitality in return for his preaching, 
though he declares that he had the right to receive it. He 
implies that this prudent avoidance of the very appearance of 
self-interest was a peculiarity of his own. He and his fellow 
workers supported themselves by a trade, at all events until 
St Paul reconciled himself with his family (according to Professor 
Ramsay's conjecture)^ and had money of his own. 

St John, on the other hand, had begun his apostolic preaching 
without shoes or scrip or purse, and had lived on the hospitality 
of his hearers. He had wanted for nothing (Luke xxii 36), We 
may be certain that the eleven commenced their preaching at the 
* dispersion of the Apostles ' on something of the same principle. 
They may not have kept literally to our Lord's original injunc- 
tions, but they had probably less luggage than Paul, who had not 
only a cloak, but books and parchments. At all events it is 
evident that they lived either on the hospitality of their converts, 
or on the means supplied by rich women who ministered to their 
wants {^htk^al yvvalK€^y cp. 1 Cor. ix 5), as the women from 
Galilee had once ministered to their Master during His missionary 
journeys in Judaea. But this life had no doubt become less 
heroic than the original mission of the twelve in Palestine, and 
St John could appreciate the converse method of St Paul, who 


practised the virtue of poverty by hard work, instead of by the 
refusal to possess. He knew that for the highly educated pupil 
of Gannaliel it was a bitter humiliation to work as a tent-maker, 
and that for the invalid it was a cruel penance. He is writing 
probably to a Pauline Church, and it would seem a recommenda- 
tion that the strangers had * taken nothing of the Gentiles * to 
whom they preached. 

I think we must necessarily conclude that these strangers were 
well known to be disciples of St Paul This is the natural 
explanation of the fact that it was to Gentiles that they preached, 
and that they adhered to the Pauline practice of *going a warfare 
at their own cost'. The conclusion forces itself upon us that they 
had been companions and fellow workers of St Paul at Rome, 
and that they had been obliged to leave the capital owing to the 
persecution of Nero. 

* I wrote a few words to the Church [reading ^paxfra n for hfpwf/a ay] ; 
bot he that loveih to have the pre-eminence among them, Diotrephes, 
doth not receive us.' 

* I wrote a few words to the Church ' might be understood, as 
Zahn understands it, * I have just written another short letter to 
the Church, which I shall send with this'. But it is more natural 
to understand a former letter of recommendation given to the 
strangers on their first visit. They had gone on that occasion 
with a formal introduction to the hospitality of the Church from 
the Apostle, but Diotrephes did not * receive' the Apostle's 
authority, and rejected the strangers. He does not appear to 
have had pre-eminence as a right \ he was probably only one of 
several presbyters. But he can hardly have disregarded St John's 
recommendation of these Christian teachers unless he had some- 
thing against them personally. We naturally infer that St John 
had written to the Church about them, to introduce them, pre- 
cisely because he knew there was a chance of their not being well 
received. Why should they be looked upon askance ? May we 
not suppose that the praise given to them by the Apostle is 
intended as an answer to the objection which Diotrephes had 
raised against them ? ' They went out for the Name's sake', not 
from mere cowardice ; their departure from Rome was an exile, 
a confessorship, a title to honour, though Diotrephes had chosen 




to regard it as a shameful dereliction of duty. It is of no use to 
recommend them to the Church a second time. Now they arc 
only to pass through, and Gaius who received them on their first 
visit, will entertain them once more, and assist them on their 
forward journey. 

*For this cause, if I come, I will call to remembrance his works 
which he doeth, prating of us with evil words; and since he is not 
content therewith, neither doth he receive the brethren himself, and 
them that would he hindereth and casteth out of the Church.' 

Djotrephes was perhaps an elderly roan who had been made 
a presbyter by St Paul, and was inclined to be jealous of the 
new overseer of the Asian Churches. He first found fault with 
St John for being deceived, he next refused to receive the 
strangers recommended by the Apostle, he then tried at least 
to prevent Gaius from receiving them. When he failed in this, he 
cast Gaius out of the Church. 

Diotrephes was evidently very angry^and we shall see presently 
that he took the action of St John to be nothing less than a slight 
to the memory of St Paul. I have little doubt that it was in 
reality by the special wish of St Paul that St John had come to 
live in Asia after the death of the Apostle of the Gentiles. The 
Asian Churches were in sore want of a Patriarch ; Typtaf^vTipos 
they said in those days, for the words Trarpidpxm* ft?/r/jo7roX(n7ff, 
ipXi'('fr(<TKo'JTos had yet to be developed. St Paul was more of the 
thinker than of the administrator. He had apparently never 
Instituted any diocesan, local, 'monarchical' bishop. In the 
Church of Diotrephes and Gaius there was no head, any more 
than at Corinth. The Apostle had governed all his foundations 
in person, sending prefects apostolic with full faculties from time 
to time, to act in his place when he was unable to come himself. 
The unseemly dispute between Diotrephes and Gaius is but 
a faint reflexion of the disorders of the Corinthian Church on an 
earlier and more famous occasion, to be repeated again in that 
still bishopless Church before the end of the century. Naturally 
Diotrephes did not like acknowledging a new overlord in St John. 
The Apostle of love was also the son of Thunder, and a vigorous 
organizer. Before his exile to Patmos seven of the Asian 
Churches had a complete ecclesiastical hierarchy ^ though he 
' For a justification of this statement see the Expositor^ Apnlj 1904, 


was not yet satisfied with them all. After his return from exile 
we are told by Clement of Alexandria ^ that he went about even 
to the borders of the barbarian world, setting up bishops, putting 
the Churches to rights and ordaining. 

There is now no difficulty in understanding why the strangers 
had come back to St John. They had found that they had 
become unwilling causes of dissensionj and their generous host 
had suffered on their account. They therefore returned to 
Ephcsus, where they bore testimony ' before the Church ' to the 
kindness of Gaius, and informed St John of the 'prating words* 
of the disrespectful Diotrephes. St John now sends them on 
other w^ork, and as they must pass again through the town of 
Diotrephes and Gaius, they take with them the present letter, 
to act both as a renewed passport and as a well-deserved com- 
mendation of Gaius. 

'Beloved, imitate not that which is evil, but that which is good 
He that doeth good is of God ; he that doeth evil bath not seen God.' 

The moral of these words is to be applied to Gaius and to 
Diotrephes respectively. St John knew human nature well 
enough to be sure that Gaius would not fail to let Diotrephes 
know the contents of the letter, 

'Demetrius hath witness borne to him by all, and by the Truth 
itself; yea, we also bear witness ; and thou knowest that our witness is 

It does not seera to have been commonly recognized that this 
emphatic sentence is not set down d propos de boties, but is in the 
closest connexion with the rest of the Epistle* Demetrius is one 
of the strangers ; he is, in fact, the one whose character has been 
called in question by Diotrephes. St John had recommended 
him once before, and his recommendation had been disregarded. 
He now repeats that very testimony to Demetrius^ against which 
Diotrephes had prated, and with extraordinary emphasis: 'Dio- 
trephes does not accept our testimony to Demetrius ', he seems to 
say, 'he would not receive him, and he turned Gaius out of the 

' Qv^is dhts 41, and ap. £us. //. E. iii 33 ^irctS^ "^ rov rvpaifvcv TtKtvrii- 

iwl ni wkrjat6x'^po^ tov i&ywVf cmov fil¥ iirtffM^wtxm waracm^crarKj &wov Si &kas iKJcKijciat 
ApfL&ffwv, &irw Si K\^ip^ fro yi taru M\rip&<rȴ rSiv LvA rov nyivftarot mittatvofUruv^ 


Church, because he did so in obedience to my former letter. But 
I repeat my approval of him in the most solemn terms that I can 
employ. The Truth, the Christian religion, bears witness to him, 
for he went out from Rome for the Name s sake. I also bear 
witness, for I have seen enough of him at Ephesus for that. And 
you, Gaius, can bear witness, for you also know him/ ^ 

One hardly feels that the hospitality accorded to Demetrius for 
a few days at most would be sufficient to justify this appeal to 
Gaius for his testimony. It is more likely tliat he had been 
acquainted with Demetrius on some previous occasion and in 
another place, and that he was thus able to bear witness to his 
character. Demetrius was well kno^^ii by reputation at least — 
too well known — ^to the Church of Gaius and Diotrephes, and the 
word ffVos does not, like * strangers ' in English, imply that the 
visitors were unknown, but simply that they stood in need of 
the hospitality given by Gaius. They presumably had Uttle 
money, for it was their custom to * take nothing of the Gentiles *. 
Hence their gratitude to Gaius, and hence St John's anger with 

* I had many things to write to thee, howbeit I will not write to thee 
with ink and pen ; but 1 hope to see thee shortly, and we will speak 
face to face. Peace be to thee i the friends salute thee : salute the 
friends by name/ 

Gaius has many friends at Ephesus, and St John has friends in 

' *Tboa knowwt that our witness is true.' This might mean either *Thou 
knowest that I am not tn the habit of telling lies', or else * Thou thyself knowest 
that Demetrius is a good man '. The latter b undoubtedly the right meaning. 
St John used the same expressions elsewhere on two very solemn occasions, when 
he saw the blood and water issuing from the side of Christy and when at the end of 
his Gospel he made a solemn protestation of its accuracy t * And he that saw it 
hath given testimony ; and his testimony is true. And he knoweth that he saith 
true ; that you also mny believe * (John xix 35), Here * he knoweth that he saith 
true ' does not mean * he knoweth that he is not a tiar *, but ' he knoweth that the facts 
were Just as he has written them '. ' This is that disciple who giveth t^timony of 
these things and hath written these things : and we know that his testimony is 
true^ (xxi 24), Lightfoot is no doubt right {Essays on Supfntat. Relig, p, 1S7) in 
calling this verse ' the endorsement of the elders *. But they did not write the 
words, which are in Si John's own unmistakcablc style ; he wrote them in their 
namei to express the assent they gave, ' We know that his testimony is true * 
means ' we know the facts from our own memory, and he has stated them accur- 
ately '. Similarty here St John says that Gaius could himself confirm the testimony 
by his own knowledge of Demetrius. 


the Church where Gaius lives, St John is coming shortly; ne 
will give Diotrephes a piece of his mind, and he has important and 
secret matters to communicate to Gaius. Thus, though Diotrephes 
put himself forward J Gaius is yet signalized as a person of some 

We may guc&s what it was that St John would not write. He 
meant to put an end to the self-sought pre-eminence of Diotrephes 
and to his high-handed proceedings. He would appoint a bishop, 
and perhaps he had even thought of Gains as the person best 
fitted to receive the charge. But he would probably wait for the 
opinion of the Church, that he might know for certain whether 
Gaius was indeed 'designated by the Spirit*. The matter must 
not be mentioned in the letter, for the letter was intended to be 
shewn to Diotrephes. 


§ 2. Tke sin of Detnetritis* 

St John has done all he can to make his 'testimony' to 
Demetrius impressive. He had used the same words on two 
occasions of extraordinary solemnity. Why does he again 
employ this imposing formula? 

• Demetrius ' is the full name of the stranger ; a long name 
which St John would have shortened into * Demas *, had he been 
speaking in a less stately manner. 

We have seen that the stranger was apparently a Christian 
teacher, a disciple of St Paul, who had been with St Paul at Rome 
during the Neronian persecution, and who had been accused of 
cowardice for deserting the city at that moment. The remark- 
able ' testimony ' given by St John seems to imply that a stigma, 
more difficult of removal than a mere dislike or misrepresentation 
on the part of Diotrephes^ had been laid upon Demetrius, a stigma 
which the word of an Apostle could barely suffice to erase, when 
tendered in the most solemn manner. 

If it were no less a person than St Paul himself who had com- 
plained of the desertion of Demetrius, the whole difficulty is 
cleared up. We understand the anger of Diotrephes^ — St John 
is sh'ghting the great Doctor of the nations. We understand 
also the necessity on St John*s part for speaking in the gravest 
tones when he is consciously contradicting an opinion put forth 
by so eminent a personage. 




Now in the Second Epistle to Timothy we find St Paul writing 
in the expectation of approaching martyrdom, and complaining 
that he is left alone in Rome at such a moment All his disciples 
have left him except Luke. One only is blamed for this deser- 
tion, and his name is Demas, the same who had been with him in 
his former Roman imprisonment (Col. iv 14 and Philem, 24)'. 

The letter found Timothy at Ephesus, where he was acting as 
Apostolic delegate to put the Church in order and to ordain 
priests and deacons, just as Titus had for a time superintended 
the Churches of Crete. He is to come to Rome at once before 
winter, passing through Troas, and bringing with him the luggage 
which St Paul had left there. We can easily Imagine the lamen- 
tations at Ephesus on the arrival of this last message from the 
beloved Master^, And what indignation at those who had 
deserted him in the hour of trial ! ' At my first answer no man 
stood with me', the Apostle complains* And it is Demetrius 
who is singled out for special blame^he loved this world — ^he 
was not anxious for martyrdom, nor to receive the 'beautiful 
crown from the Lord's hand* which the Scriptures promise to 
the just, and to which St Paul so confidently looked forward 
(Wisdom v 17). On the contrary, he conveniently remembered 
the saying of our Lord on which St Athanasius at a later date 
rested his defence — ' When they persecute you in one city, flee 
to another ' ; he did not flee, but he departed (or, as St John 
puts it, he went forth) to Thessalonica. It was a disappointment 
to St Paul, and he felt it, though perhaps he did not mean his 
words to imply any grave guilt on the part of Demas. St Peter 
himself had fled from Rome (so says a legend which was at 
least not invented in St Peter's honour), and turned back only 
in obedience to a vision/ The story has become famous through 
a clever novel. It is difficult to account for its origin, unless 
it contains an element of truth. 

' *I im even now ready to be sacrificed : and the time of my dissolution is at 
hand. I have foyght a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the 
Faith. As to the rest, there is laid up Tor me » crown of justice, which the Lord 
the just judge witL render to me in that day : and not only to me but to Lhena also 
that love his appearing. Make haste to come to me quickly, for Demas hath left 
me, loving this world, and is gone to Thessalonica, Crescena into Galatia, Tiius 
into Dalmatia. Only Luke is virith me * (3 Tim. iv 6^ 7). 

'We know how the Ephesian presbyters wept when they took leave of St Paul 
At Miletus (Acts xx 57). 


But in Asia the Churches of Pauline foundation were inclined 
to take a harsh view of Demetrius. It appears that they inter- 
preted his * love of this world ' in the worst sense. They repre* 
sented him as a half-apostate, a lapsus, just as St Cyprian's 
enemies decried him for hiding during the Dectan persecution. 
The recommendation given to him by St John (and a good 
many years must now have passed since St Paul's martyrdom) 
merely embittered Diotrephes against his new chief; Dcmas had 
deserted their Apostle, and this doting old man, John, didn't 
care ; perhaps he had still a grudge against the teacher of the 
Gentiles, whom he had been obliged to recognize as an equal I - 

The identity of the Demas of % Timothy with the Demas of \ 
3 John seems thus to be established. The coincidence of cir- 
cumstances is too remarkable to be put down to chance. 

§ 3. The H&spitaliiy of Gains* 

\ to 1 

When St Paul wrote from Rome to the Colosstans and 
Philemonj his companions were {a) Tychicus and Onesimus, who 
took his letter to Asia, {b) three brethren * of the circumcision ', 
Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus Justus, (^r) Epaphras, Demas, and 
Luke, who arc evidently Gentiles, and whose full names were 
Epaphroditus, Demetrius, and Lucanus. Of these, Aristarchus 
and Luke had come with St Paul, sharing his shipwreck. Mark 
he had probably found at Rome. Epaphroditus, who had been 
a teacher of the Colossians, and seems to have been a Colossian 
himself, had come bringing messages from Philippi. Possibly 
Demas had come with him, and he may very likely have been 
a Macedonian, for when he left Rome, it was to Thessalonica 
that he directed his steps. 

Who then was Gaius ? He seems to have been well acquainted 
with Demas in old days, and we are therefore inclined to identify 
him with one or other of St Paul's companions of that name, 
Gaius the Macedonian (Acts xix 29)^ Gaius the Derbaean (Acts 
XX 4)^ or Gaius the Corinthian (Rom, xvi 33 ; i Cor. i 14). This 
last was St Paul's host at Corinth* Is it possible that he is the 
same kindly individual who became after many years the host 
of Demetrius, and whose hospitality is thus commended for ever 
by the voice of two Apostles ? 




If SO, it is hardly likely that he was still living at Corinth, 
which would seem too far from Asia. Now Origcn^ tells us 
that this same Gaius of Corinth became the first bishop of 
Thessalonica. Corinth must have received a bishop soon after 
the letter of St Clement, so that Thessalonica may well have 
had one a few years earlier *. 

We thus reach a consistent history. Demas was a Thessa- 
Ionian. He perhaps accompanied Epaphroditus from Macedonia 
to Rome ; on leaving Rome he went to Thessalonica because 
it was his home. He must have found that city too hot for him 
as soon as St PauFs second letter to Timothy became known 
there. This will have been almost immediately, as Timothy no 
doubt went at once to Rome by Troas, and must consequently 
have passed through Thessalonica on his way to Italy by the 
Egnatian road. Many years later Demas, now an elderly man, 
desires to end his days in his native place. He obtains a letter 
of recommendation from St John to the Church of Thessalonica 
(typa\|f(t rt 177 ^/cicAwia}^ and if that document had come down 
to us it would have thrown some light on the life of Demas 
during the years which had elapsed since the Neronian perse* 
cution, and it must have contained the apology for Demas to 
which the Apostle obscurely refers in the words * they went 
out for the Name's sake*. The hospitable Gatus accepted 

' CompH, $H Ep. ad Rom, I x 41 ' Videtur ergo iedictre de eo quod uir fuerifc 
hospitalis, qui non solum Paulum ac singulos quosque aduentantcs Corinthum 
ho spit 10 receperit sed ecclesiiie uniuersae in do mo suaconuenticulum ipse pracbucrit. 
Fcrtur sane tradilione maiorura, quod hie Gaius primus episcopus fuerit 
ThesstlonlccrLsis ecclcsiae '. The information is early, and there is no apparent 
reason for its having been invented. The Apostolic Constitutions (vii 47) inform 
us that Gaius was the first bishop of Pcrgamuni, Demetrius of Philadelphia. It 
does not seem very probable that any tradition underlies this statemenL The 
Roman raartyrology states that Arisiarchua was the first bishop of Thessalonica. 
This is a mediaeval figment, unknown to Ado, Usuard, or the Hieronymian 

* Thessalonica was later the ecclesiastical as well as civil head of Achaia and 
inyricum, and was the scat of a Papal vicar from Siricius onwards. The case of 
Perigenes and Rufus well illustrates its superiority to Corinth, the metropolis 
of Greece. At Corinth Hcgesippus (ap. Eus. H. E. iv a 2) seems to imply a ' suc- 
cession ' before Primus, c. 160, the predecessor of Dionysius. In the letter nf 
Dionysius to the Athenians (c. 170, ibid, iv 23), Dionysius the Arcopagite was said 
to have been their first bishop. If so^ it must have been some time after St. Paul's 
di^ath. The first bishop of a see at the end of the first centtiry might well some* 
times be the oldest surviving disciple of the Apostles. 



St John's assurance^, but Diotrephes prated against him, in the; 
belief that the silver streak secured him from the jurisdiction 
of the Apostle, whose attention was principally given to Asia *. 
But he was mistaken. St John came to Thessalonica in person, 
and appointed Gaius bishop over the head of the ambitii 

We have seen that the Epistle is a recommendation to help 
Demas forward on his journey. Demas would certainly not 
have gone again to the same city immediately after having been 
obliged to leave it, unless it were unavoidable to pass through it 
on his way to a new destination. Now Thessalonica is precisely 
a place which Demas must pass through if he were going cither 
to Italy or to Greece, except by preferring a long and hazardous 
voyage by sea. As he did not stop with St John, we may con- 
jecture that he intended to avoid Pauline foundations for the 
future. Not Greece, therefore, but the West was probably his J 

It is noticeable that St Paul mentions Demas and Luke each 
thrice, and always together. We might find in this a confirm- 
ation of Ramsay's conjecture that St Luke was a Macedonian, 
although tradition makes him an Antiochene \ 

(T& be continued^ 

John Chapman. 

' Gaius may have known Demaa at Connth. For Demas would hardly 
joined 5l Paul at Rome if he had not formerly been his companion. He had 
wtb him at Colossae, for his greeting is sent to that Church and to Philemon. 

' St John tooJc no notice, we may suppose^ of the contemporary disorders at 

* So tU^ *' MonarchiAn ^ Prologue. Luke is Erst mentioned at Antioch (Acts zi 37) 
\sk Co<I. Bezae. 




WEST SYRIAN {continued)^. 

In the former article reference was made to the Nomocanon, IaK^ 
U^oeit or * Book of Directions * * of Gregory Barhebraeus, maphrian of 
the East (+A.D. 1286). Of this work, chapter iv § 8, dealing with the 
liturgy of the Presanctified, is here printed from a manuscript pre- 
served in the Syrian seminary of Sharfeh in the Lebanon, which differs 
from other forms of the text in that it adds a preface, giving an account 
of the institution of the rite ([I]). The original part of section 8, 
according to the plan pursued throughout by the author, consists of 
comments on selections from ecclesiastical writers, of which the most 
important as regards the history of the rite is that purporting to be the 
work of Severus of Antioch (v. note IV). 

A Syriac edition of the Nomocanon has been published by M. Bedjan 
(Paris, 1898), principally from MS 226 of the Bibliothbque Nationale, 
dated a.d. 1480. The British Museum MS Or. 4081 is modem, and 
written in 1887, A somewhat imperfect Latin translation is to be 
found in Mai Scriptorum veierum nova coliectio tom. x. 

' See Journal of Theological Studies^ iv (Oct. 190a), 69 sqq. 

* This, and not Huddoyo (used ibid. pp. 70, 71), is the correct title of the work: 
in the present article, it is referred to throughout as Nomocamm, Further corrections 
of my previous article are : p. 70, for * *'^'»-- ^ we received ' read ■-^<»«^ * they 
receive ' ; p. 71, for ' Isho'yabh ' read ^ Elias bar Shinaya*, metropolitan of Niabis, 
A.O. 975-c. 1049, ^^ whom the Liber demonsiraiionis is attributed by Wright and 
Duval ; p. 73, line 6, omit M ' ; p. 79 )QmJ should be rendered ' look we ', for which 
^OAA«D03 vp&axotiuv is sometimes substituted ; p. 8a, coL x and a: after ' O ador- 
able and all-wise ... * add < [Severus] ' ; ib» col. 3: 'And /u proceeds wUhtMt prayer* 
should follow * Sedro ', the prayer being the * Prayer of the Sedro \ or ' after the 
incense *, 

VOL. V. B b 


•UftA p*l %^.^ W*JpI lUoAd [.f .oUaa] 

Kayr Ho .U&±x ^^.^ i^^jf 1^1 V t ^ >N n .» 

|>«.tt/ OOiO pyO^lo 


. o n -> A I y(o 


*i^^ ls^\t\ m.v. ^t^? OOI ^ 

^ y ^ S L^^A iJ tm^\ 'tr^l^ ^b^^^If i^oi fimi>j "^^l^f W*^ ^/ 

]oei^ Idk^ l^jj^of .loi^l ]Lroi imd ^^ |««^ j|i*l^ ool lio .ut^o 

U«^j I'll Uj vto •^oil^ 6/ > ^Tft;fln t Jl'a^j ^ If- i-»Ij| i^ ylo 
♦ oii^ OOI ^^\it. .Lfi.^ i&ei^f lln a.Qifin Iftft'S fc^k^S^ (sic) «uk;j 

^{b0 Ito) ^oajo^f t,\->?Sy>o ^^^^If )o*f'«^ ^^r ^^^^'-^ ^/ .^eftd ^f 
^ ^jD ^^^-^-^i Vn.viv U^;::^ bot^t b^j '^^'i^ «/ .^o^a^ik^! 
tfti>^ ^.joo^ .3 1;^ *2f Jo^ .W^ Ic^ajf ^H 7^ Vo .^f ^*^oi 

I (sic) ilio^l o? Jlai ^^ 





[Chapter IV.] Section the eighth: on the Signing of the Chalice, 

[I] The occasion of the need of the Signing of the Chalice. In the 
Church it happened on this wise : that since the canons prescribe that 
the oblation be discontinued in the Great Fast, the faithful asked the 
blessed mar Severus that they might communicate : and he, as a wise 
physician, who would not transgress the canons, nor deny the faithful 
their requests, arranged that they should leave over of the oblation that 
had been perfected on the Sunday, and therefrom communicate. And 
since the oblation, without the chalice accompanying it, is void, and 
if they were to leave over of that of the Sunday, it would be kept with 
difficulty, or might be corrupted, they arranged thus : that, when they 
wished, they should sign the chalice with the oblation, that had been 
perfected, as was arranged above : and that the oblation that remained 
should be signed from the chalice that had been hallowed on the 
Sunday \ but that this chalice * should be signed with the coal there- 
from ', and that the Body should not be again signed from this chalice 
for a second time. 

A good memorial be to our ghostly fathers, who are in resplendent 
and glorious and good light, by whom we are instructed and through 
whom we live and are. 

[II] James of Edessa^. If an anchoret priest be alone, and there 
be other anchorets near him, if he wish to sign for himself or for 
them, when the faithful people are not present, it is left to his discretion 
to do so, and he is without blame in both. And if he wish to say one 
of the prayers, that are set down, or all, or if he wish to sign without 
prayers secretly as time allows, it is permitted to him. 

It is not right that the chalice be allowed to remain over night, lest it 
be turned and he who allows it be guilty. For the penalty of death was 
threatened by God with regard to the goat of the sin-offering which was left 
over, of which the priests did not eat in the evening, and which was allowed 
to remain until the morning. And the chalice is allowed to remain, 
either for the sick that are hard pressed and ought to receive the viaticum 
before they die or for fasters that fast till late evening. But apart from 
these cases, it is not at all right that the chalice should remain. When 
the holy Body is present, it is permitted to him to sign the chalice, and 
if a man wish, thrice in one week, when necessary causes require it. 

The deacon is not allowed, when he signs the chalice, to say any 
prayer or even to say anything great or small. 

* i. e. at the fraction of the Sunday Mass. 
' The chalice used at the Presanctified. 

> From the host hallowed on the Sunday. 

• A.D. 640-708. 

B b 22 


.jp^ l^ifjOQd ^i^njfcr/ P Jt^ %^< 


^fj^ipde .)jo*lL t,ma"> ]fc%* i^i^ao w^oi woir .|b^ ^f Ul .Ujoai 

lOp OOI 

jU^r ]lj 

QJft^ ^^P 



•diX l^^^^ l^otd Q^e *]^Jk, OQif \mA ^o ^A 

.|U^^ ]V^lk> l:>ci^):^ fhJ^Q U'eCx^ ocImo ^U f4» H^ ^ ,>|fl»Nk? 

\jn^^} jl^^Jl^a^ ^ftNwa>o Afr^JO fMjf U^«f •j^ao/ fA f**^-S t jis^bo 
^ .IbiA^d I^Q^r UoDQ^ii:^ yoii^/ ti>.aV* .|Lao3 et^f U^t ic^ lift 

Ua^alP ^ *R^^^ lootl-.;^ WvS ]pbU»0 4^^* ^ .bdLX %Xf 



Paris, Bibl. Nat. 226: variant. 

* Absent in Paris, Bibl. Nat. 226 : Brit. Mus. Or. 4081. 

* Absent in Brit, Mus. Or. 4081. 

* }lnrfc#^V,->OuP in Paris, Bibl Nut 336. 


[III] John of Telia. Let the deacon receive the pearl \ with which 
the chalice is signed, as many times as he ministers * the chalice : and 
on this we find no commandment. 

Direction. My opinion is, that the pearl should be cast into the 
chalice, and that at the time of the communion the priest should receive 
it : and that the priest should communicate his deacon from the coals 
that are in the paten: for it is not fitting that, when the priest is 
present, the deacon should receive and communicate by himself, except 
the chalice which he drinks and which is not given him to drink by 
the priest. 

[IV] Severus. When the priest has said the sedro', and set on 
incense, let the people say * We believe in one God *. TTien he prays, 
standing upright, and gives the peace, and seals the people with three 
crosses, saying : ' And may the mercies of the [great] God.' Then he 
takes the coal and signs therewith the chalice with three crosses, saying : 
' That He may unite and hallow and change the mixtiu-e that is in this 
chalice into His saving Blood, even Christ our God, for the pardon of 
offences * and the rest. Then he prays the Prayer of the Our Father 
who art in heaven, and again a prayer ; and he gives the peace. Then 
the Prayer over the people. Then the peace ; and he seals the people 
with ' May the grace '. Then the deacon : * Look we in trembling *. 
The priest : ' The presanctified holies to the holy ', and he lifts up the 
mysteries. The people: 'One is the [holy] Father.' Then he com- 
municates himself, and gives communion : and he returns and prays 
the Prayer of Thanksgiving. Then the Prayer over the people. Then 
he seals with ' Bless us all '. 

Direction. Know that in the ^urobho he makes a cross with the 
coal over the chalice, when he breaks : and here he touches the Blood 
by means of the coal, making the crosses. 

Paris, Bibl. Nat. 226 : variant. 

Direction. Know that in the ^urobho, he makes crosses over the 
chalice; and here, when he breaks, he touches the Blood by means 
of the coal, making the crosses. 

* i.e. the particle, or 'coal '. 

* i.e. purifies at the ablutions. 

' For the absolute use of ^{XD * say the sedro ^ v. Nomoc cap. v. $$ 4, 5. 


L In the thirteenth century, the prohibition of mass on the ferns 
of Lent, issued by the Synod of Laodicea (can, 49X still held good, 
the liturgy being celebrated only on the Annunciation, and the Wednesday 
of Midlent, on which day, if the Chrism was not to be consecrated on 
the following Maundy Thursday, the Oil of the Catechumens was 
blessed (Nomoc, cap. v § i). The principle seems to have been 
extended to other fasts, and this may perhaps account for the use of 
the Presanctified on the Vigil of the Epiphany, before the Blessing 
of the Water. In addition to the occasions mentioned in the Journal 
of T/uoiogtmi SitidUsy vol. iv, no. 13, p. 70, it seems to have been used 
at ordinations (Denzinger Rit. Orient. \\ gi). 

The following notes may be added on the practice of the Jacobite 
Presanctified. The host was either reserved on the altar, as at present, 
or in a paten (|b<4&0), enclosed in the paradiscus (kxLov*?;^, )l<iafcfi), 
a cupboard in the sanctuary {Nomoc. cap. i § 6). As late as the 
sixteenth century, Dandini records it as the practice of the Maronites to 
keep the Blessed Sacrament in a wooden box in a recess, without lights. 
Philoxenus of Mabbogh(+r. a.d. 523), in a Carshunic MS preserved 
at Sharfeh, prescribes the reservation of the host, but not of the chalice, 
from the Sunday to the following Saturday. The only mention of the 
piothesis of the host and chalice is that given in the thirteenth-century 
MS published in the former Article^; but as the entrance of the 
mysteries in the ordinary mass had by that time disappeared, it is 
difficult to determine whether it ever existed in the liturgy of the Pre- 

II. This extract suggests an origin of the liturgy of the Presanctified 
in the method of communion practised by the hermits (S. Basil J^. xciii). 
Elsewhere James states that stylites ought not to offer the oblation 
on their pillars, and that the Body is not to be left thereon, if there 
be any one present to give them communion. He forbids the cele- 
bration of mass to anchorets, except in cases of necessity {Nomoc, 
cap. vii § 10), but, in the passage under consideration, he makes 
provision for their communion by means of the Presanctified liturgy. 

III. The extract, the tenth of the 'Answers on the canons' of John 
bar Kursus bishop of Telia {-f a. d. 53S), refers to the mass, and has 
been misunderstood by Barhebraeus. It is the answer of John to the 
question whether the * pearl ', or particle, with which the chalice has 
been signed, may be consumed by any oncj other than him who has 
performed the consignation. The ancient practice was that the particles 
cast into the chalices were left therein throughout the communion of 
the people, and consumed after their return to the altar by the deacons 
who ' ministered ' the chalices, i. e. took the ablutions. This custom 

1 y. r. 5. iv 73, 



was still retained in the ninth century by the * Chalcedonians ' or 
Orthodox, according to the testimony of Moses bar Kipha (a. d. Si 3-903) 
in his * Exposition of the liturgy '. The modem usage is for the priest 
to consume the particle in the chalice at his own communion (v. Bright* 
man Liiurgies Eastern and IVes/em, pp, 102. 30: 103. i). 

The twentieth * Answer* of John of Telia, unless the expression *to 
sign the chalice' is merely an equivalent of 'to celebrate the liturgy', 
may possibly refer to the mass of the Presanctified : 

'The disciple— If any one has received the oblation, and has ministered (i.e. 
purified) the chalice, can he, under stress of necessity^ afterwards sign the chalice? 

The master — If he has only ministered the chalice, and afterwards it is necessary 
to sign the chalice, God is faithful that he is without blame : but let not this be made 
into a custom,' 

The fourteenth of the same collection also permits, if it be necessary 
to hallow the chalice, the * signing ' to take place without an altar, 
(Lamy Dissert aiio de Syrorum fide et disciplina), 

IV. It is usual to place the institution of the liturgy of the Pre- 
sanctified towards the end of the sixth century, and this date is 
confirmed by the style of the Byzantine rite. The Jacobite writers, 
however, are unanimous in attributing its introduction into the jurisdic- 
tion of Antioch to the patriarch Severus (elected a. d. 511; deposed 
518; +538); and if this tradition represents the truth, we must refer 
the institution of the liturgy to the earlier years of the century. 

The existence of a similar rite among the Orthodox of Syria has 
been already referred to {J, T, S. iv 69)^ and a closer investigation 
shews that its structure is identical with that of the Jacobite liturgy^ 
the anaphoral prayer corresponding to the Prayer of the Veil. It is 
also noticeable that in Vat. Syr. xli the Byzantine Presanctified bears 
the old Syriac title, following the transliteration of the Greek: 

Signing of the chalice of the holy mar Basil' 

In discussing the correctness of the Jacobite tradition as to the 
authorship of this liturgy, the passage in the Nomocanon, purporting to 
be the work of Severus himself {v. supra [IV]), must be examined. 

(a) A difficulty is presented at the outset by the use of 1^, 
which at the end of the seventh century was used absolutely, *he 
said the sedro ', but which has no Greek equi\'alent. In the Jacobite 
St James, the sedro, or prayer recited aloud before the altar in con- 
nexion with the incense, followed the entrance of the mysteries; 
but such a prayer does not exist at this point in the Maronite mass, 
and in the MSS of the Greek St James, the position of the 
secret tv^ii rav Bvfudfiarot at the Great Entrance varies. A century 
after Severus, a considerable number of sedros were composed 


by the patriarch John I ( + a. d, 648), and by his contemporary, 
Marutha of Tagrit (4-a.d. 649), some of which were certainly 
intended for the censing after the entrance of the mysteries ; e. g. BriL 
Mus, Add. 14520, saec. viii-ix, f. 140a, Uof^of l^Nv^? IbxA^t ]♦•« 
'sedro of incense of the entrance of the altar'; but though Sevenis 
composed a sedro for baptism, translated by James of Edessa, there 
seems to be no evidence for the use of such a prayer at the censing 
after the entrance in the Greek liturgy of the sixth century, the sedro in 
this position possibly being the usage of the Jacobite monastic strong- 
holds of northern Syria, in particular of Kenneshre and Gubba bairaya. 

(S) The blessing after the anaphora! prayer * And may the mercies of 
our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ be with you all ' does not occur 
in any of the MSS of the Greek St James, nor in the Jacobite Pre- 
sanctified as given in Add. 14496, 14667, 17128, 14500: it is, however, 
mentioned by James of Edessa in his letter on the liturgy to the 
presbyter Thomas. Elsewhere it occurs only in the Byzantine 
rite, including the Armenian, whence it was probably borrowed by 
the Syriac. 

(4 The formula of consignation is found in none of the MSS of the 
Presanctified. It closely resembles the ending of the Invocation of 
the Holy Ghost tn the ordinary liturgy, save that in the present case 
the Son is the operator : but as it stands in the text, it has no connexion 
with the preceding prayer. The wording may be compared with the 

formula in the Greek St James : 'Hwuto* ku* ^iafrrai xal rrrtXewrai 

(Brightman £iU. E. &* W, p* 62. 18), and with that of the Greek St 
Mark : **Vh%t tfylaarai Kal rrrcXfiWat Jvat ytyoycv tts ff&fui nal atpta vov Kvplov 

aal 9*ov ml Scor^por ^^v it.r.X. {i3. p. 139^ 15). Cf. Persian (r<5* 
p. 292* 6). 

(d) The response of the people at the Elevation is given in the 
Syrian form *One is the holy Father', &c, St Cyril of Jerusalem, 
however, the Aposiolk Constittithns^ and all the Greek texts of St 

James give Etr ^ytor, as Kvpov 'Itjcreur Xpt^rrtic-. 

{e) The concluding blessing ' Bless us all * (Brightman Litt, 
E, 6* IK p. 105. 30) is not mentioned by Moses bar Kipha, nor 
by the author of the treatise jL^^olf U^ *The Breaking of the 
Eucharist ', an exposition of the mass contained in a MS at Sharfeh, 
which judging from the order of the liturgy must be of the viii-x 
century. The first part of this blessing is paralleled by the *ux7 ^^9 ■ 
Ttktvraia of the Codcx Rmsanensis of St James : 'o iLv^tos ^^vfyiti ical I 

(lyuicrft xat <^i;Xdffi wdiyrar ^/xa$- hik rj\^ furakij^ms rmv axpdvmv avrov fiv<mf- 

pmv^ T§ avrou xap*T-» ir,TvX,, and possibly by the prayers following the 
first and second entrances (Brightman Litt, E, 6* W. pp, 33. 37: 
42. IS). 


A consideration of the points above mentioned leads to the con- 
clusion that the description of the Presanctified [IV] is not a translation 
of the Greek, but rather presupposes the existence of the fully developed 
Syriac liturgy. On the other hand, the formula of consignation, in its 
present state apparently the end of a prayer, and having no connexion 
with the rest of the description, is perhaps a fragment of the original 
composition of Severus, worked over by a later Syrian commentator, 
and may have been an account of the object of the signing of the 
chalice with the presanctified host 

The prayers of the liturgy, if we exclude the sedro, present no 
difficulty; they are stated by Add. 14495 (saec. x-xi) to have been 
translated from the Greek, and may be the work of Severus. It is 
possible, however, in view of the statement in Add. 14496 (saec. x) 
that the anaphoral prayer and the consignation are the only essential 
parts of the rite, that these alone are the composition of that patriarch. 
If the eremitic origin of the Presanctified is true, and the fourteenth 
and twentieth 'Answers* of John of Telia refer to this rite, the 
prayers of this liturgy may with great probability be included in 
the voluminous works of the founder of the Jacobite Church of 





Cod. IVeing. L 14 ** . . . . . . . . animam hominis 

hums t et ne des super nos sanguinem eius iustum : quia tu dme. quem- 

15 admodum volisti fecisti : *® Et acceperunt ionan i et iniserunt eum 

16 in mare: et stetit mare a violentia suai "et timuemnt viri dmore 
magno dom. : et immolavenint hostias dmo. et vota voverunt : 

n. 1 ^Et praecepit dms. ceto magno ut gluttiret ionan 1 et erat ionas 

3 in ventre ceti tribus noctibus ; ' Et oravit ionas de ventre ceti ad 
Z dom, dm. suum: 'et dixit Ctaraavi ad dom. dm. meum in tribula- 

tione mea : et exaudivit me de ventre infemi clamoris mei exaudisti 

4 vocem meam : * proiecisd me in altitudinem cordis maris : et fiumina 
me circumierunt : omnia turbulenta tua : et fluctos tui : super me 

5 transtenint : ' et ego dixi : expulsus sum ab oculis tuis : forsitam 

6 apponam ut respiciam in templum sanctum tuum : 'perfusa est 
aqua mihi usque ad animam : abyssus cvxanwix me : postremo demersit 

7 caput meum in fissuras montium : ^et descendi in terram cuius 
vectes sunt continentes aeternae ; et ascendat corruptio vitae meae : 

8 ad te dme, ds, meus : * in hoc quod defecerit anima mea a me : 
dml, raci memoratus sum ; et veniat ad te oratio mea in templum 

9 sanctum /uum ; * custo^fientes vana rt falsa misericordiam suam 
10 dereliquerunt : '"ego autem cum voce laudis et confesstonis supplico 

I. 14. aniroflm tuj o#« K* {kab «*•*) eius] om ffi 15. eum] ri* 

leuycof 05 185 16. hostias] ffv<r*<iy E («c 51 62) ^ Q* {evmcL% Q*) om 95 186 

dmo*] om. K* (superscr Hat W). 

II. r, tribus noctibua] pr rpm Tjftfpat koj ffi 2. dc ventre ceti] om K* 
(/lab «»<=--» i^i ^ ^) 3, et dixit . . . mea] om K* {hob H'"'-'* ^''^^ "' *) in 
tribulatione mea] om 05 185 5. ut respiciam] twicrrpttf^e K* (ciri^Xf^f K*-^ 
K"'*" *' *) templuTO] Toi' Xacv G^** {rov vaov B^ K kow A Q) 6. aninmm] + 
ftov E 1? Q* <"« P«f [om fl& Q*) 7, et i"] om © {hab 42) vectes] +avTiji © 
SKint] om G corruptio ] tK ipiopas & J^ j4 vitae ineac] rj {anj iiov %fl^A 
ad tc] om & 




Ti tibi : quaecumque vovi reddam tibi salvatori meo domino "EtCodL Wc 
praeceptom est ceto et eiecit ionan in arJdam 

III, i» a * Et factum est verbom dml. ad ionan iterum dicens * Surge et 
vade in nineyfn divitafef/t magnam : et praedica in earn : secundum 

3 praedicationem priorem : quam ego palam locutus sum ad te ■ Et 
surrexit ionas et abiit in nineven civitatem : sicut locutus est ad eum 
dins, nineven autem erat civitas magna deo. quasi itinere viae dierum 

4 trium : * et coepit ionas introire in civitatem : quasi itinere unius 
diei : et praedicavit et dixit : adhuc triduum et ninive civitas evertetur 

5 * Et crediderunt viri ninevitae in deo. : et praedicavenint ieiuniam : et 

6 induerunt se cilicium a maiore usque ad minorem eorum : * et 
pervenit verbum ad regem nineves : et exsurrexit de throno suo et 
posuit vestem suam ab se : et operuit se cilicium et sedit cinerem : 

7 '' et praedicatum est in nineve : a rege et a maioribus civitatis eius 
dicens : homines et iumenta: et boves et oves non gustent quicquam: 

8 neque pascantur neque aquam bibant *et coopemerunt se cilicia 


n II Lucif. Cat. Dfsanct, A than, ii 
A than. H ill ^ Tjcon. Reg, Quart. 

sand, AihoH, ii 

III i-^ Lucir CaL Dt sand. 
Ill 6-10 Lucif. Cal Ih 

lo. tibi salvatori meo] am aamjptcv B ctr tromjpiav fwv K**""^'*^ j4Q sk 
sine tiov 22 62 147 *it ffturijfitav fiov H {exe 22 62 91 147) 26 49 10« ii. prae- 

ceptum est] + a»o Kvpiov K«'^ (postca rBs) + KupiJOf 23 51 62 147 eiecit] 

reiccit L] Ionan] lonam L in artdani] super terrain L twi njv {rjpaf ffi % 

(tJX ea 147 «« rr}v iTjpav) Jj^ 

III. 1. Ionan] lonam L a. et i"] om CS^ hah K*-* (postea rasum) A Q 

Nineven] Ninevi L ^tftvij © Vonvrpf H earn] ea X palam] om L ^ 

3, Nineven 1* a'] Nineve TL dvitatcml am L <5 sicut] secundum quae L 

Moi&a ©B j^ (^j,f 22 36 51) 1^ (txc 26 49 106) Q* {Ha$m Q*) ad euro] ei Lotn^i^ 
{hab 86) )^ {httb 49) deo.] adeo L quasi itinere viae dicrum triura] sicut 

iter tridui L 4. quasi itinere] sicut iter L 4- oSov 26 86 49 283 A Q unius 

diei] tr L triduum] triduo L (01 X* ^toctpanovTa Q*"') civitas] om L fiS 

evertetur] subvertetur L 5. in] o*« £ CR induerunt] vestierunt L cilicium] 

cilicia L naK>to\^% © maiore] maximo L^avrot^ i^ Q*"* {on% A jj*) /uxpov 26 

86 46 51 106 ^Kpov tivnuv 22 62 147 mmorem] minimum L /j«7aAoi» 22 26 36 49 
61 62 106 147 (*<!« fuyaXov avratv K*- ^ (postca fity. avr, iwr fuKp. avr, rcvoc.) A Q 
6. verbum] knot H^^ (mox Aoyos rcvoc.) ad] usque ad L Nineves] Nineve L 
Ntr«wi7 G^HI^ Ktvfinjs H* (j improb. N*-* postea ras) exsurrexit] surrexit L 

throno suo] sede sua L posuit] abstulit a se Z. vestem] stolam L ab se] 
om L opcniil] drcumdedit £ 7. praedicatum est] + #01 ipptCTj ^ (Comply 

Cod. WfiMg.) in] om L Nineve] pon. post a rege L a maioribus civi- 

tatis eius ] a magistrattbus iliius L nat mtipa tm^ fi*yiarava>tr avrov (& mvrvtf fifyiaravvif 
ovtB {<c-«, «.6 dicens] XfjotrrMi' J^ Aid. iumenta] pecudes L non 

£^stcnt quicquam] nihil gustent L neque i*>] aed nee L pascantur] 

vescantur L neque a**] et . . . non L bibant] wurwtrw 22 51 68 87 91 

153 Compl. Aid. wtvtTwray 86 49 62 147 2S3 8. coopemerunt] circumdederunt L 




homines : et proclamaverunt homines et iumenta ad dm. vehemeni 

ct reversi sont unusquisque de via sua maligna : et iniusta quae erat in 
9 manibus eomm : et dixenmt : * quis scit si paenitebitur ds. et avertil 
10 iram furoris sui : et non peribimus : " et vidit ds. opera illorum quia 

reversi sunt unusquisque a viis suis malignis : et paenituit dm. super 

mala quae locutus est ut faceret eis et non fecit : 
IV. I * Et contri status est ionas tristitia magna : et maestus factus est : 
a ' et oravit ad dom. et dixit : dme, nonne haec sunt verba mea ; cum 

adhuc essem : in mea terra : propter hoc proposueram fugere in 

tharsis : quoniam sciebam quia tu misericors es : et indulgens : et 
3patiens: et nimium misericors: et paenitens in malignitatibus 'Et 

nunc dominator dme. accipe an imam meam a me : quoniam bonum 

4 est mihi mori magis quam vivere * et dixit dms. ad ionan : si valde 

5 contristalus es tu * Et exiit ionas extra civitatem : et sedit contra 

III JO Tert. Adv. Mart. iL 34 
Wircfb, IV 1, J Ludf. CaI. 

Marc, ii 34. 

in 10 Cod. Wirztb, 
Dg sand. AiJum. ii 


IV 1-8 Cod. 
2 Tert. Adv. 

homines t*] + iint ra mp^ ® homines et iumentA om ^ iumentfi] pecudes L 
ad] apud L veheracntcr] insUnter L de] a L sua] avra^v ©» 22 maligna] 
mala L et iniusta ad Jin, com.^ et ab iniquitate manuuin suanim diccntca L et 
dixenunt] f^fjovm <S[ 9. sett] scibit L si paenitebitur] + koi irapaKXrj$Tj<r€rai ^ 

(txc 91 163) « circffTpf^ei 68 87 91 et avertil] et avertet L prxai wapaxktf- 

0rj0«Tat 68 87 pr tevfaos Km vapaxXtjBijatTtu 91 158 iram] ab tra L *£ opyrit Gft 

a«o opT^^f % 10. opera] operam L unusquiaque] om 4^^ a viis suis 

malignis] a via sua mala L dm.] dominum Tert super mala] malitiam Cod. 

Wtrceh. de malign it ate L de maliCia Tert quae] quam Cod, Wirceb^ Ttrt qua L 

locutus est] dixerat Ttri ut faceret] facerc L Tacturum sc Ttrt eis] o*h Cod, 
Wttt^. illis Tfri ct non fecitj nee fecit Ttrt 

IV, I. contristatus C3t]+<tri tovtois 95 166 tristitia] tristia Cod. Wirttb. 

maestus factus est] confusus Cod, JVircfb. confundebatur L a> oravit] orabit 

Cod. I'Vintb, ad dom.] apud Deum L dixit] dicens L dme.]/rO Cod, 

JVintb. L /r ctf © f^ w &J E /ro) w Bj7 ««•* **** J3« haec sunt] tr Cod Wirrxb. om 

sunt© verba mea] + 170^0*' 51 62 95 147 185 + ow *AaA»?ffa A cum] dum 

Cod. fVircrb. in mea terra} in tcrram meajw Cod. Wirab. in terra L propter 
hoc] propterea Cod, Wirceb. Tert ideo L proposueram] prmeoccupaveram L 

praeveni Tert npotfp$aaa fi& fugere] profugcrc Tert in Tharsis] in 

Tarosos Tiri tts Bofitrtts G quoniam] quia Tert acicbam] scivi L cogno- 

veram Teri+tyw H^^ (raox improb.) q"!'*] o*'* 2Vrf tu] om Tert ^ 0s Q 

&] om Cod. Wirceb. L te esse Tett. 0m (Si 1^ }^ ct 3**] om S misericors 

I* ad Jin. com.^ Cod. Wirceb. — Cod* Weing. miserator ct bcncvolus patjens et 
misericors et paenitens in malignitatibus L misericordem et mlserescentem p>atienteia 
et plurimum misericordiac poenitcntem malitiarum Tert 3. quoniam] quiaCx^ 

Wirceb. est] om (S magis quam vivere] om magis Cod. Wirceb. ij jfiyi' /ti 

©B E JlJ itaXXov 1^ (ft «•) fijv {u K*^ <» (^ioAAw postea ras) 7 fiyr W^-^ AQ* '^ ij(ifr /i^ 
Q^ 4. Ionan] lonam Cod. Wirceb. laamv iSc ad Ionan si] om 68 87 91 

valde] vehementer Cod. H'ittMb. + <rw K* (improb. t*** * postea ras) 5. sedit contra 

civitatem] om Cod, Wirctk 




civitatem : et fecit ipse sibi tabernacuium ; et sedebat sub ipso in Cod. 

6 umbram ; donee videret quid accideret civitati : " Et praecepit dms, 
ds. cucurbitae : et ascendit super caput ionae ut esset umbra super 
caput eius : et oburabraret eum a mails ems : et gavisus est ionas super 

7 cucurbitam gaudio magno : ^ et praecepit dms. vermi antelucano in 

8 crastinum et percussit cucurbitam : et arefacta est; *et factum est 
con festim one nte sole : et praecepit ds. spin » . . [Cod. Wineb.^ Cod. Wi\ 

ustionis comburenti Et percussit sol super caput ionae 
et interestuabat et defieiebat anima eius et dixit bonum est niihi 

9 mori quam vivere * Et dixit dim, ad lonam si valde contri status es 
tu super cucurbitam et dixit valde contristatus sum ego usque 

iQ ad mortem "Et dixit dins, tu pepercisti super cucurbitam in qua 
non laborasli in cam neque nutristi earn que sub nocte nata est et 

ji sub node perit "ego autem non parcam nunc parcam ninevem 
civitatem magnam in qua commorantur plus quam cxx milia 
hominum quae non scierunt dextram aut sinistram et pecora multa 


L 4 * Comminans mari et arefaciens illud , . . , . TettulliaH. 

5 ■ Montes commoti sunt ab eo, et colles contremuenint et denudata Cyprian. 

6 est terra ante faciem eius, et omnes qui inhabitant illam. * A facie 

IV 9-1 1. Ludt Cal. D* santt. A than, ii 
Nakum I 4. Tert Adv. Marc. Sv so I 5 Spet 

cxxi I 5-7 Cypr, Tistim. iii 10 
tabentaculum] -am Cod. Wirceb. 


ipse] om ffi sibi] awrw €5^ 87 233 

in umbram] om Cod^ Wirctb. ffi" ttcu 36 48 accideret] tdrrtu (& civitati] 

^rfvK 6. super l" a**] supra Cod. Wirceb. ionae] dus Cod, Wirceb. 

umbra] pr cif K^-** (mox ras) eius l"] ionae Cod. Wirceb, et oburabraret 

eum a malis eius] ut a malis obunibrarct ilium Cod. Wirxeb, et obumbrarct] 

tov cicta(^u¥ (5 eius a"] aurai^ }<* (-rou K*-*!*^-*) 7, dms,] ©«of 

QS^iDlI Kvpior ecor A Q ^% t^ i^ 62 106 147 238 ow M* antelucano] 

roatutino Cod. Wirceb. 8. ds.] prusAQ 2ffi 153 apiri . . .] spu Cod. Wirceb, 

bonum est] om est Cc mihi] om Q* hab Q*^ mori] +^« ©b iLI^ (om fit K) 

vivere] + fu K*^* "j? 9. dnis.] e<o* ?&» dcus L Kipiot o ©loj H (wf 158 233 Kvpiot) 
J^ (#jr 68 87 91) W'^^A lonam] Id^^ar €r et dixit a*] om L ego] om L 

10. super] om L cucurbitam] cucurbitae L in earn] om L 6d 67 01 95 153 

185 «▼ avnjv K**« (^ us at/njv «'• ^ Q* neque] «cu m/K ^ (oviSf K"- ^) que] quae 
Lr}(& subnoctcnata est]/r®B2,3^ sub noctc a"]pcrnoctcm Z, it. nunc 

parcam] om L G Ninevem] in Nincve L wnp Ntvcvij ffi magnatdi] om A 

commorantur] habitant L + <>• outsj p'** plus quam] wAtiow iS^E J| wXioo K* 

(wXiow K****) + ij K*'**Q cxx milaa] centum vigtnti milliaZ. SvScMra ^tr/MaS^f <S 

quae] qui L otrivti 4K scierunt] scivcrunt L «yvaiaa» ^ dextram] -f auroiv ^ 
sinistram] + avran^ ffi 

I. 5. ab eo] ab Ulo S mr avrov Q* 163 et colics contremuenint et] om H* {hob M* ' •* 
partim rcacr partim inst K***) contremucrunt] tremuerunt S et denudata 

est ad Jin . com,^ et formidavit univcrsa terra et petrae confractae sunt ante euro S 
eius] -I' 9 ov^voffa 4& omnes] om 22 51 Compt 6. a Ikcic] ir^ wpooieww % 







irae eius quis sustinebit ? Et quis resistit in ira animi ipsius ? Ani- 
matio ipsius fluere facit principatus, et petrae dissolulae sunt ab illcx 
7^ Bonus Dominus illis qui eum sustinenl in die pressurae, et co- 
gnosceos illos qui eum timent 

I a "Haec dicit Dominus, princeps aquartim multamm 

14 " exterminabo sculptilia 

15 tua, et fusilia tua in sepuUuram . • . " Quia ecce vcloces 
pedes super montes evangelizantes et adnuntiantes pacem 

IL a " . . . . . . Considera viam, tene lumbos^ 

viriliter age in virtute nimis. M 

III. a ' . . non erat finis gentilibus illius . ^^1 

16 ^"Multiplicasti mercatus tuos super astra caeli . , . . 
19 " super quern 

non evenit malitia tua semper ? M 

Habakkuk. m 

L 5 ' Ut quid mihi ostendisti labores et dolores, ut viderem niiseriain 

et impietatem ? Adversus me ortum est iudicium et iudex accepit. 

4 * Propter hoc disiecta est lex et non perducitur in finem iudicium, 

quia impius per potentiam deprimit iustura ideoque exiet iudicium 


ij " cur inspicis super conteraptores? 

Tacebis ob hoc quod devoret impius iustam ? . . . . ■ 

IL 2 ^ Super custodiam meam stabo et gradum figam super petram 

I ia-15 S/«r. caoc I 15 Tcrt Adv. Marc. iii. 16 11 1 ,5^. cxix 

in 3, 16 Tycon. Reg. Quart, III 16 Spec, cxvi III 19 Tycon. R«g. Quart 

Habakkuk I i^ 4 Spec, x I 4. 13 Luc. Cid. De sand. Atkan, \ 35 

II 1 Cypr. De duplk, martyr, 39 M 

irae] om Q'^ «^ {hah. Q^ i^i) et quis resistit] ow €2 14. tua i^]om&m 

(kab A) scpuJturam] + cov U^ |L (om 153) ^ 15. Quia] quonlam 7>Wom,I 

^%{ptoTt9SlBb)^ veloces] om <Er pedes,"] pr a)t 25 super monies] in 

iDonte Tert cvangelbantes] -tis Tert tvayye\t(ofitvov © ct adnuntiantes] om 

IL a. in virtute] + aov 26 49 lOS 158 A f 

111, i6. Multiplicasti . . . caeli] om H* {kab H^'") merofttus] negotiatores S 

super] sicut Satt *<''•'* <u<nrtp ti"- ^ astra] atelks S 

I. 3. miseriam] pr cwi % A ortum est] ytyovtv iJS accepit] + ttptaut 63 

4. per potentiamjom© dcpriniit] oppressit L 13. Tacebis.*. lustum] 

iruftaoi^WTjiTrf fr rat Karampttv afff^i; to*' ItKcuov © devoret] uarainfiv H^'^ (rur5U3 

-rmi') Q* {-xivuv Q*^) lustum] + tm*^ auro^ 90 41^ 87 9l4wr<^ tutro 61 147 

IL I. et gradum figam] om Q* (hab Q"*^ 


■^^^^^^ NOTES AND STUDIES 3B3 ^ 

4 * iustus autem ex fide mea vivit, Cyprian. 

5 * Ille vero qui praesumit et contumax est, vir sui iactanSj nihil omnino 
proliciet \ qui diktavit tamquam inferi animam suam 

9*0 qui adquirit avaritiam malam domui suae \Imc, Cal,"] ut conlocet Sptadum^ 

in altum nidum suum ^**^' ^^' 

10 *" Cogitasti confusionem domui tuae . * . . peccavit Speculum, 
laanimatua . * , . "[Zr/<r. Ca/.] Vae qui aedificant civi- i.«c. C«/. 
tatem in sanguinibus et praeparant civita.tem in iniquitatibus 

16 ^* circumdedit te calix dexterae Sptodum* 

Domini et convenit injuria super tuum 

IIL 2 * Domine audivi auditum tuum et extimui. Consideravi opera TtrtulUan, 
tua et excidi mente. In medio duorum animaliuni cognosceris . _ 

S* lexit caelos virtus eius et Cj^naw. I 

4 laudis eius plena est terra. *Et splendor eius ut lux erit, cornua in fl 
manibus eius erunt ; et illic comtabilita est virtus gloriae eius, et ^^H 

5 constituet dilectionein validam. ^Ante faciem suam ibit verbum, et ^^H 
praecedet in campos secundum greges suos . . - , . ^^™ 

6 • . . . defluxerunt gentes, quassati sunt raontes vehementer, speculum. 
liquefacti sunt coDes aetemales ....... 

9 * fluminibus disnimpetur terra, Tirtultian. 

10 *" videbunt te, et parturient populi ; disperges aquas gressu ; dedit 

II 4 Cypr. Testim, 15; iit 4a ; Spec, xxjdv, cxxv II 5 Cypr. Epist. \ix j, 

Izirtii 4; Spec, xxxiv; Luc. Cal. De sand. Aikan. i 36 II 9 Luc. Cal. D* 

sand* AthaH, i 36 II 9, 10 Spec, zxii, xcviii II 1 3 Luc. Col. Dt 

sand. A than, i 36 II 16 Spec, cxxxin. Ill 3» 3, 4 Tert, Adv. Marc, iv aa 

111 3-5 Cypr. Testim, ii ai III 6 Spe&, cxxi III S-13 Tert. Ath. 

Marc, iv 39 

4. iuBtus] + flow Jt( A roea] om j^ 36 153 185 sua S (al = C) 5. vero] al 

autciD C praesumit et] al om C sibi placcns autem contemptor et vir 

superbus nihi! proficict J? placens et contemptor vir aupcrbus nihil proficiet qui 
dil^tavit sicut inferus animam L llle vero , . . est] 5t Marowfitvot icarat^/wmrrjf Cr 
et] om B kab B«* vir sui lactam] om (ZPiLl^ oyijp aXa(ojv B'*^"'9HAQ 

9, adquirit avaritiam] fundat fundationcm L altum] otK& K* (v^otN *•**»'■*) 

I a. qui acdificant] oiKoipfjLov ^ praeparant] *roifta(tuv 16. tc]pr«wt (ffir (om 

#r* Compl) convenit . , . tuum] om K* hab K*-* 

III. 3. extimui] *fc$r}6Tfif © 1L (<yrc 62 147 ev\a$rj6rjv'^ ^ consideravi] )*r «fu/>tf 
% 49 68 91 prM§ K 3. texit] opcruit Tert 4. Et splendor eius ut lux erit] 

Teri^ C ^av-faofta iparra ttrrxu avriu 62 147 crunlj om Cfli IL {v^^^PX*^ avrai 86 

62 147) f^ A (cura vwapx*i in charact. minorc) ct iliic . . . eius] mu *^fTO ayarniay 
Mparmav ioxuirt avrov ©2^ {exc 62 147) J^ *itu 4inffTfiputt<u 17 ^vtrafus rijr 30^171 ai/row 
62 147 (23 288) 5. praccedet] §(t\tv<Torrm Q^ (-otrai Q) 49 153 233 in 

campos] (If ircikav H^^ " *v irtitKois A Q26 '233 ut watiMtav % (exc i9 62 147 234} ||| 
{exe 26 49) secundum greges suos] 0/ sec grcgus suos at sec. grcssus suos C 

ttara iro3ar aurov B^ E {exc 153 233) J^ {exc 26 49) 04 woStf avrou A Q 26 49 163 288 
9. fluminibus] woTafni/v iB% {exc 95 185) jBt ("f 26) »aTa/*a/ K*** (postea-fiort') 26 
vorofUMX 95 185 to. disperges] aitopwk^'ur (fi {Ziaatt^ptit Compl) gressu] 


AiicL €. Fnlg. 



1 1 abyssus sonum suuin, sublimitas timoris eius data est " Sol et lima 

constitit in suo ordine, in lucem coruscationes tuae ibunt, in fulgorem, 

13 fulgor scutum tuum. " In comminatione tua diminues terrain, et in 

15 indignatione tua depones nationes. " Existi in salutem i>opuli tui 

ad salvos faciendos Christos tuos . . . [Atuf, contra Fulg. 

15 Donati\ " Imposuisti in man equos tuos, turbantes aquas multas 

17. . . [0'/''*l " Ficus non adfcret fhictum et non erunt 

nascentia in vineis, Mentietur opus olivae et campi non praestabunt 

cibum. Deficient a pabulo oves et non erunt in praesepibus boves. 

18 "Ego autem in Domiiio exultabo, gaudebo in Deo salutari raeo. 


Ami. c, Fulg. 

Luc, Cat. 

I. 3,3* Defectione deficiat a facie terrae, dicit Dominus ; • deficiat 
homo et pecudes, deficiant volucres caeli et pisces maris : et auferara _ 
iniquos a facie terrae * ■ 

7 ' Metuite a facie Domini Dei : quoniam prope est dies eius, 
quia paravit Dominus sacrificium suum, sanctificavit electos suos 

8 , . . [Auct. contra Fulg. Donai,'\ * Erit in die sacrificii 
Domini et vindicabo in principibus et in omnes vestitos veste aliena 

11 '' . , . [Speculum,^ disperierunt omnes qui exaltantnr 

13 in argento et auro, [Zw-r. CaL^ '■ Et erit in illo die scrutinabo 

Hierusalem cum lucema : defcndam super viros, qui contemptores 

sunt ne custodiant mandata 



aediiicabunt domos, et non inhabitabunt : et 


III 15 And. cmira Fulg. DoHai. Ill 17, 18 CypT. Ad Dtmet, xt. 

Ztpkaniah I J, 3 Cypr. Tesiim. iii 47 I 7 Cypr. Testim. ii 30 18 Auct. 

iOnUra Fulg. DonaL I 11 Spfc. ]adi I la Luc. Cal. Dtsand, Atftan, i 36 ; 

Sp*c. (Aug.) xvi I »3i 14 Cypr. Tesiim. iii 6t I 

woptiat avrou ^ Q 26 36 49 10(1 15& 233 e]aU est] ttnfp9ij ^ (i/^^o^i; Comp^ 

II. in lucem] tit tptat (ffi {*v <pain Compt) la. tua i**] om 6r E (*JW 95 185 

288) H (fxc 2fl 4&) hab, A 0"*fr tua i<»] om^lL (exc 283) }^ {exc 49) hab A Q^ 
depones] Mrr^m fl5 tt^raplui Q («»ra£. P""^) 1 3. ad mJvos faciendoa] tov a^ooi, S 
Christos tuos] TOK XP^*^'^<^ o^ou ffis (tovt x/^o-Taus E ]^ tt"^- * f^^> A Q) 15. Im- 

posuisti] />r Km G firi^(paj ©» tm&t&aoax % {txc 62 147) ^ H*** -4 Q aquas 

multas] yJwp troXy ^ ( vi^ara irokKa % J^ K*- *) 1 7. Ficus] priori ffi erunt] 

tfwapx^u^^v © tnrapfowrt % {txc 48 61 62 147 238) J^ {exci^ 68) in praesepibus 
boves] +<f iaiT*a« avrwif Q* («f iXaamn avrnfv (^) + t^iKaatvs avrwv A 26 153 
f^iXiKTiaiv aim/f 233 18. in i"] tm AQ in a*J <ff* CR 

1. J, dcfidat]fKXi^t«Tiut** (iKA*ir€Ta)jif<»TaN*-*)*jirXtTrfTMraKK<'-* 3, deficiat] 

ti€Kf\piTiu H* {*K\iw. K"- «r "^^ *) fHKtiwtToi A Q deficlaot] ^JcXiiftrot H* (*MXtw, K<* «,«• ») 
Q tit\uw€Taxfa» A maris] i- mu aaStVTjaovcty 01 affffitis {0«WiKut H* {aa sup ras K') 
Ci 1L ('-w 22 tctu ra OKavSaKa rots atrffft^t hku affBanjnoviTiy ot affifius) J^ 7. eius] 

rov Kvpiov <S 8. Erit] pr Km <K principibus] + moi •«■! toy otttov tov BaaiKtwt C 

1 1, in argento] om in © (A<t6 311) ct auro] ow ffi 1 3. 5«= Km/j' (#jt 

Hierusalem 5 Jerusalem Fwi^ lucemia S tn luce mis Vu^) ne custodiant mandata] 
«T( ra ^vXajfrnra avr<Liy (B 13» loibabitabtrnt] -f cv {urroit (S: (om CbfW/l) 


1 4 instituent vineas et non bibent vinum eanim. " Quia prope est dies 

15 vox diei Domini amara et dura, constituta dies potens. " Dies Spteulum. 
iracundiae dies ille, dies tribulationis et necessitatis, dies infelicitatis 

et exterminii, dies tenebranim et tempestatis, dies nubis et caliginis, 

16 ^^ dies tubae et clamoris super civitates firmas, et super angulos 

17 excelsos " eflundam sanguinem eorum sicut 

18 limum et cames eorum sicut stercora bourn, " et argentum et aurum 
eorum non poterit liberare eos in die irae Domini .... 

II. I, a^Convenite et congregamini popuius indisciplinatus ; 'prius 
quam efficiamini sicut flos praeteriens, prius quam superveniat super 
vos dies iracundiae Domini, antequam veniat super vos dies furoris 

3 Domini. • Querite Dominum omnes humiles terrae, aequitatem 
operamini et iustitiam quaerite, et respondete ea, ut protegamini in 
die iracundiae Domini. 

II *^ Praevalebit Dominus adversus eos et disperdet omnes Deos gentium ColL Carth. 
terrae, et adorabunt eum unusquisque de loco suo omnes insulae 

1 3 " Et extendet manum suam in Aquilonem et perdet Assyrium, et Tycomus. 

14 (ponet) illam Nineve exterminium sine aqua in desertum, "et 
pascentur in medio eius greges, omnes bestiae terrae, et chameleontes 
et hericii in laquearibus eius cubabunt et bestiae vocem dabunt in 
fossis eius, et corvi in portis eius, quoniam cedrus altitudo eius. 

I 14-18 Spec, xxvi II 1-3 spec, v II 3 Lucif. Cal. Desanct. Aihan, i 31 

II II Coa Carth. Gesfa. Iv II 13, 14 Tycon. Reg. Quaii, 

14. dies] om ^ 15. dies tribulationis et necessitatis] om A infelicitatis] 

aojpias ® % {excl5Z) Q 26 106 TaAaiira>/Maf 68 87 91 K^' ^ 1 7. effundam] wx^ti Cr 

J^ *Kx*oi % stercora bourn] fiokfitra (S 18. argentum] -f avrwi^ (&% (exe 95 

185) J^ non poterit] ov foj ^vi^^Trat CEr^ 1^ *>v MV ^vinjBrj % ov foi dvrwrrcu K* 


II. I. congregamini] awSc^c ® E (.*xc 62 05 147 185) J^ awZtrfBrjir* 62 95 147 
185 K^'" (rursus awU9^ a. praeteriens] + i7/<cpar 2^ prius . . . Domini z**] 

om K<'-^ dies i"] om i& {hob 180) 3. et iustitiam quaerite] mu {ffTri<rar€ 

^Kaioavrqv ^rjTrfaart wpaoTrjra % koi HiKcuoffwrpr (rpyjaart (ScJ^ ut protegamini] 

sicut tegamini L iracundiae] irae L 11. praevalebit] m^xunprtrat <Sr^ 

tvupapTis t<rrat K* {-<n*) A {-atrt ^^'• • -ffCTOi HP- * postea term nrvoc.) 49 62 95 106 
147 153 185 adorabunt] vpoaicwriati 68 87 91 wpoatcvyrfaotfcip (&% 13. ex- 

tendet] ticT€yoj ® J^ K<^ ^ postea .vi) AQT ticrwti % {exc 62 147 158 288) suam] 
nov ffi 15 N*- ^ (postea ovrov) AQT avrw % {exc 62 147 168 283) perdet] airoXw 
ffi J5 (exc 26 49 106) K'-^ (postea -Xi) Q r airoXci % (exe 158) ponet] Briaet Ji^ 

iexc 68 87 91) «*• * (postea -ci) T (htatt Qr E (*xc 168) Ulam] om ffi Nineve] 
Kivfwiv H* exterminium] pr «(r & in desertum] «r cptj/ior (& 14. pas- 

centur] ytftriatrai % y*fjaj<roirrai (Sc J^ (ytfjajBrjaoyrai T) omnes] prxtuiSi hericii] 
cX'Skoi Q* «x'»'o» ® Q^ corvi in portis eius] om H* (Jtab K^-*) altitudo] 

ovrdKkayiuL Q* ayojanj/ia G^ % JH^ ayaartfia Q* AT* 

VOL. V. C C 


IIL I * Civit^s contemneos quae habitat in spe, quae dicit in corde 
suo, Ego sum et non est post me adhuc ! qyomodo facta est in 
exterminiiira pascua bestiarum ! omnis qui transit per illam sibilabit, 
a et movebit manus suas. *0 inlustris el redempta ci vitas, columba 
quae non audit vocenif non recepit disciplinam, in Domino non est con* ■ 

3 fisa, et ad Deum suum non adpropinquavit. * Principes eius in ea ut 
leones frumentes, iudices eius ut lupi Arabiae non relinquebant in 

4 mane, * Profetae eius spiritu ekti viri contemptores, sacerdotes eius 

5 profanant sacra et conseelerant legem. * Dominus autem Justus in ^ 
medio eius non faciet iniustum .1 

Cypriatu 8 * Exspecta me, dicit Dominus^ in die resurrectionis meae in testi- 

monium, quoniam iudicium meum ad congregationes gentium, ut 
excipiam reges, et effundam super eos iram meam , , . , 

III 1-5 Tycon. Rtg, Quart. \ Luc CaL De sand. Athan. \ ^6 l\\ i, a Cypr. 
Ad Novai. V III 4 Sptc xlvi 111 8 Cypr. Ttstim. iii 106 ; JO* bono 

pat. xxi. 

III. I. Ci vitas] pratmj ffi in spe] fir tXviih © tv *Air. Q* {sup*r$cr, w Q* •**) 

3. ColuiTiiba non cxaudit voccm, id est pracdara et redempta civitas, non recepit 
doctrinam, et in Dominuni fidens non fuit C inlustris] quae erat splendida L 

quae] lom C£ vocem] -f ffou ftS 87 diaciplinani] ircuBiaT K* {-haif t*^-*i**^) 

non adpropinquftvit] non accessit L ovit T^T-yucf Q 15S 233 eivx rjftic^v (£ 1 (<jw 153 
233) 1^ 3. in ea] om L hab (Er {om Arm,) nt 1° a"] sicut L frcmenles] 

fremunt L non relinquebant] non subreliquienint L 4, spiritu clati] 

spiritales L eius a"] aman' V profanant ad Jin com'] contaminant se et 

impie agunt L contaminant sancta et reprobaut legem 5 sacra ct conseelerant] 

om H* {/tab H^' *) legem] pr «it rov % 5. iustus] + eat L non] pr et 

Z. G iniustum] iniustc L aSmav 62 147 a^ittov ^fu {^xc 62 117) ^ 8. Ex' 

specta] pr im tqvto ^ in die] cti rffifpar iQ (cf rj^tpa 42 240 CompT) iram 

meam] pr Tacray G E |!j pr ripr opyjjv juou % N*- * f***^ {posUa ras) 

W. 0. E. Gesterley* 


It is now more than twenty years since M. Noel Valois, by the 
publication of his study of the rhythmical system known as the ' cursus 
Leoninus ' or ' stylus Gregorianus \ as it appears in the Papal bulls of 
the middle ages \ awakened interest in the history and developeraent 

^ £ti4tU sur U rhytkmt des bulks pontijicaits : Bibl dt r£coU dis Char Us i88x. 




of the *cursus '. Since that time much has been written on the subject, 
especially on the earlier history of the system which after long disuse 
was 'restored' in the eleventh century. Its use has been traced further 
and further back by successive writers. By Mgr Duchesne it was 
shewn that the *cursus* introduced by Gelasius II and improved by 
Gregory VIII was professedly a revival of the usage of the time of 
St Leo'. M. Ldonce Couture traced the use of a similar system in 
liturgical formulae, and in the works of Christian writers from the third 
century to the time of St Gregory ^ M. Louis Havet shewed that the 
letters of Symmachus are permeated by a *cursiis' which is not a matter 
of rhythm and accent, but of metre and quantity '. Prof. W, Meyer, 
in a notice of M. Havet's work, advanced a theory of the metrical 
principle of the *cursus ' differing from that of M. Havet*. Prof. E. 
Norden has traced the use of the *cursus^ in classical writers, Greek as 
well as Latin, and brought together passages from various authorities 
to elucidate its principles, following and supporting the general theory 
of Prof. Meyer, though differing from him on points of detail*. So far 
as I am aware no systematic attempt has been made, save in certain 
papers by Dom A. Gros{>ellier', to shew the extent to which the *cursus' 
can be traced in the early sacramentariesj or the precise character of 
the *cursus' which they exliibit. 

In the following note I have attempted to deal with a part of this 
task for the Leonine saeramentary (Lfan). The final phrases of its 
prayers and prefaces form the natural starting-point for such an in- 
vestigation, and to these I have for the present limited my examination 
of its contents ', I have followed the text of Mr. Feltoe^s edition, but in 

» Notf sur Potigint du ' cursus ' ; Bibt, dt r£coIe dts CkarUs 1 889. 
■ R*vut dts qtastions kistoriquts 1893, 

' La prost mttrigtu dt Symmaqui H i§s origints m^riquis du * cur&us ' Paris 

* In Goiimgiscke gtlikrtt AnatigeH 1893. Prof. Meyer heldl that the * curstis' docs 
not depend upon the form of the last word^ but Is made up by combinations in 
which the cretic plays a speciat part. 

* Di* attiike Kunstprosa Leipzig 1 898, 

' Rfxmt du chant GrigorifH 1S97. The discussion of the 'cursus' in its relation 
to the Gregorian plainsong by Dom A. Mocquercau, In vol iv of PcUtographU 
Mus$cai*f proceeds, of course, on different lines. 

'' By * final phrase' I mean, of course, not the 'common form* beginning e.g. 
with ' Per ' or * Et idco ', but the phrase immediately preceding this * common 
form ' or separated from it by words which serve only to connect the ' common 
form * with the prayer or preface^ and which may be treated as belonging rather to 
the • common form *, In three cases it seemed uncertain where the division should 
be made, or whether any ' final phrase ' could be clearly separated from the rest of 
the prayer. Tliese I have left out of the reckoning. Where the MS seems to 
indicate alternative forms of final phrase f have reckoned both : where « prayer is 

C C 3 


ghnng references I have cited not the pages of that edition but the 
columns of Muratori's Uturgia Montana Vitus (1745), since that 
numeration is to be found in the margins of Mr. Feltoe's volume, and 
IS therefore equally useful for either text. 

In classifying and tabulating the endings of Leon, I have so far 
followed the system employed by M. Louis Havet in his examination of 
the letters of Symmachus {Sym) as to make my arrangement depend 
on the form of the fmal word or group of syllables. It is, I think, not 
impossible that for the composer or composers of the prayers the form 
of the last word did actually determine that of the word preceding — that 
they would, for instance, have described the ending *esse concede' 
{with Martianus Capetla) as formed by prefixing a trochee to a find 
molossus, rather than (with Terentianus Maurus) as composed of a 
cretic fallowed by a trochee: and in any case the relative frequency 
of particular forms in the final word seems to be a factor of which 
account should be taken in estimating the character of the *cursus' 
as it appears in a particular author or collection. But in following 
M. Havel's plan I have specially had in view the convenience of ready 
conii>arison with his record of the results of his observations with regard 
to the final phrases of Symmachus : the method does not imply dis- 
regard of the theory of the original principle of the ' cursus ' to which 
the investigations of Prof. VV. Meyer and Prof. E. Norden would seem 
to lead. 

In respect of the form of the final word or group of syllables there is 
less variety in Leon than in Sym. On the other hand, one t}'pe of final 
which is hardly found at all in Sym is not infrequent in Leon, The 
whole number of endings of which I have taken account is 1,340. In 
four of these the last word is a monosyllable, in thirty-five a dissyllable, 
in 605 a word of three, in 695 a word of four, and in one a word of five 
syllables. The four final monosyllables are all parts of a larger group — 
guae iusia sunt^ quae recta sunt^ txoria esf, qu&d suum est. In the 
following table these are classed among four-syllable endings. Of the 
final dissyllables thirty-four are preceded by a monosyllable with which 
they are closely linked, so that the endings in which they occur may be 
classed as three-syllable endings : and in the same way 154 of the 605 
final trisyllables are preceded by a monosyllable, forming a four-syllable 
group ^ 

divided into paragraphs, as in the CoHStcratto Eptscoporumj I have reckoned onlj 
the last 

' In seven out of the 154 cases it may perhaps be said that the monosyllable is 
more closely connected with the word which precedes than with that which follows 
it, or is, so to say, disconnected from both. For convenience of tabulation, however, 
I have reckoned these also as four ^sy liable groups. 







The principal types of final word or group represented in Sym are aH 
found in Leon : their relative frequency may be most clearly shewn in 
tabular form : — 

.Sym. Lton, 

Type of final 


Groups of 



Groups of 





— ^(A) 





















— w^(B3) 














Thus the whole number of final words or groups which belong to one 
or other of these five types is in Sym 799 out of about 940, in Leon 
1,230 out of 1,340. The great majority of the remaining finals oi Leon 

belong to one of two types : these are sj ^ (D) and ^ (E). 

The type D is represented in Sym by twenty-nine instances, all but one 
being four-syllable words : in Leon it appears forty-six times, forty-one 
being cases of a four-syllable word. The type E is hardly ever employed 
by Symmachus as the last word of a letter : in Leon it appears forty-nine 
times, thirty-one being cases of a four-syllable word, eighteen of a three- 
syllable word with preceding monosyllable. The fifteen remaining 
finals of Leon are divided as follows : w — »-» — occurs six times, five 
being cases of a single word ; this is hardly to be found as a final in 
Sym : w w ^ w is an apparent final in five cases in Leon, but is not used 

as a final in Sym : — (once in Sym\ o (thirteen times in Sym\ —\j\j 

(twenty-eight times in Sym\ and — w — c^ — (once in Sym\ each appear 
in a single instance in Leon, 

According to M. Havet's observations Sym furnishes 207 cases in 
which the last word of a letter is of the type A. In 204 of these the 
penultimate word or group supplies a trochee before the final word, 

producing the ending — »-» ^, the parent of the later * cursus planus *. 

Out of the 483 finals of this type in Leon, one is preceded by two 
monosyllables, 124 or 125 by a word of two syllables, the remainder 
by a word of three or more. The foot preceding the final word is in 
472 cases a trochee. In one case the text is apparently faulty; the 
most probable emendation gives the form *cuncta succedant'*: in 
* proficiendo sectemur ' it is likely that the syllable before the final word 
should be regarded as short. The remaining nine cases' substitute 
a spondee for the penultimate trochee. Leon supplies no instance of 

> The prayer in question is omitted in Muratori's text, where it should appear on 
col. 481. Bianchini's emendation seems better than that suggested by Mr. Feltoe. 
* Including ' possis audire *, which occurs thrice. 


a tribrach before a final word of type A, a combination which occurs 
three times in Sym, 

This variation is not mentioned by Martianus Capella, who, in commoii 
with other authorities cited by Prof. Norden, commends the ending 

— ^^ which he describes as produced by combining a trochee with 

final molossus. The substitution of a spondee for the penultimate 
trochee he regards as bad ; probably the few cases of this ending in 
Leon are due to the influence of accent. 

With the final molossus Martianus Capella connects the three types 
of fmal which appear in the table above as B i, B 2, B3* These he 
treats as dcvelopements or variations of the molossus, formed by 
resolution of its first, second, or third syllable. The form B i, which 
he also describes as *ionicus minor', may be combined either with 
a trochee or with a tribrach, the other two forms apparently with a 
trochee only \ All three types occur frequently both in Sym and in 
Lton^ but their relative frequency, as will be seen from the table above, 
is by no means the same in the two collections. In Sym B 3 is more 
common than the other two taken together ; in Leon the instances of 
B 2 outnumber those of B i and B 3. In both collections B i is the 
least common of the three types. In Sym all three types of final are 
regularly combined with a preceding trochee, thus furnishing the endings 

— w *-r ^ — ^ (the ' esse videatur ' of Cicero), which JuHus Victor describes 
as composed of a * paeon primus * followed by a spondee ; — w — w w ^, 
described by Terentianus Maurus as a cretic followed by a tribrach; 

and — v/ w i«i, which Terentianus Maurus describes as a cretic 

followed by a dactyl, Julius Victor as a doubled cretic. M. Havet 
points out that the ending * esse videatur * is a form which would tend 
to disappear when accent rather than quantity became the principal 
factor in determining the final cadence. Under this condition, while 
the distinction between the final B 2 and B 3 would be obscured, and 
the one type would be confused with the other, neither of them would 
be confused with a final of a different type : they would both be com- 

' Tdsyllabja clausulam terrninantibus lex eat, si modo cam velis molliter (luerc, 
ut trochaeo praecedcnte paenultimo molossus subsequatur, »iuc longain habeit 
nouissimam sylUbajn sitie breuera iurc metrico, ut illud est Tullii * mare nuctuantibus 
titus eiectia '. fit autem pessima clausula si pro trochaeo paenultimo spondeum 
praclocaueris ut si dicas ' mare fluctuantibus mpcs eiectjs'. . . . item bona clausula 
fit si pro noujssimo molosso ionieus minor ponatur post trochacum^ ut si dicas ' mare 
fluctuanfibus litus agitanti*, . , . si atilem paenultitno trochaeo mediam molossi 
solueds, pukbrara clauaulam feceris, ut si dicas *litus Acmiliae '. item trochaeo 
paenuUimopulchrc etiam tertia niolossj resoluitur ut si dicas * litus aequabilc'. item 
si trochaei pacnukiml: longam sotuerimus ct primam molossi ultimi, fit elegaos 
clausula ut est 'curas regcre animorum'* Mart. Cap. Dt nuptiis Phihhgiae it 
MtrtHrii v (533). The passage is mentioned by Norden Die atUiki Kunstprosa 
P' 939- 





bined with a trochee or with its rhythmical equivalent, and both pass 
into the later 'cursus tardus*. The tjrpe B i, on the other hand, would 
tend to be confused with the type C, a tendency which would be assisted 
by uncertainty as to the quantity of the first syllable. It would therefore 
be combined with such preceding words as would be suitable in the 
case of a final of the type C, and pass, like that type, into the later 
* cursus velox ' \ 

It might therefore be expected that the usage with regard to type B i 
would, as the influence of quantity declined before that of accent^ be less 
stable and constant than that which is observed with regard to B 2 and 
B 3. That this is actually the case in Zean will be seen from the follow- 
ing tabular statement : — 

Bi Ba B3 

Preceded by "- w 45 215 125 





— WW 





w w — 



— w — 






Total 73 228 131 

The number of exceptions to the rule shewn in this table should 
perhaps be somewhat reduced. I have classed as belonging to the 
type B I six cases in which the last word is * celebramus ' or * cele- 
bremus \ These ought perhaps rather to be classed as D. If they are 
deducted the total of instances of B i will be reduced to sixty-seven, of 
which forty-nine will be regular according to the rules of Martianus 
Capella. Two cases of an apparent penultimate spondee under B 2 are , 
perhaps really regular '. It is clear, however, that while in the case of 
B 2 and B 3 the few departures from rule are of the same kind which we 
have seen in the case of A, the more frequent irregularities in the case 
of B I are all of another character: they substitute for the trochee a foot 
with short penultimate, thus assimilating the ending to those which we 
find in the case of type C or D. 

The type C is more frequent in Sym and Zeon than any other save 
A. It is, of course, the * dichoreus \ which is regarded by the authorities 

^ See Havet La prose metrtqut di Symntaque p. 9. 

' These are ' renovando vivificent' and ' luds aeternae efficeret\ In the latter 
of these (470) ' aeternae ' is an alternative reading for ' perpetuae ' and should 
probably stand before, not after, * lucis'. It is just possible that in the phrase 
< convertere supplicibus ' ' convertere ' should be regarded not as imperative but as 
future indicative. The two cases of a dactyl before B 3 are the ending of a preface 
which occurs twice. 



cited by Prof. Norden as a final cadence complete in itself*. But 
Terentianus Maurus rejects the ending produced by adding a 'bacchius* 
to the cretic, i. e, an ending consisting of three trochees. This com^ 
bination is avoided in the case of a final of the type C by the common 
usage of Sym and Zeon^ which place before this type of final word 
a word or group of three or more syllables with short penultimate word. ■ 
In Leon this usage is almost invariable* Of the 315 finals of this type 310 
are preceded by a cretic, an anapaest, a dactyl or a tribrach : the cretic 
is the most frequent, the dactyl next, the tribrach the least common. 
In more than half the cases the syllable preceding the final word is long. 
In ^yw this is still more general '. Of the five apparent exceptions to the 
rule in Leon, one has before the final the words ' ostensum est ', another 
' gratae sunt " : the remaining three have a trochee ; but in two of 
these the last word is ' prosequaris * which might fairly, in view of the ■ 
uncertainty of late writers as to the quantity of ' pro ' in composition, 
be assigned rather to the type B i. In any case it is clear tliat in 
Leon the ending of three consecutive trochees is on the whole carefully 
avoided *. 

M. Havet treats the type D as a variant of the type C, having regard 
apparently to the facts that the usage of Sym, in respect of the pen- 
ultimate word or group of the phrase, is the same for both, and that 
both types, so treated, would pass into the later 'cursus velox '*. The 
same usage is found in Leon^ where, out of fortysix instances of a final 
of type D ", fortyone are preceded by a polysyllabic word or group of 
which the penullimale syllable is short. But it would be difficult to 
suppose that the type D was originally admitted as the equivalent of the _ 
* ditrocheus ' where the system was regulated by quantity* It maybe ■ 
observed that in Lean the syllable immediately preceding a final of this 
type is long in thirty cases or more out of the forty-six. It may be said 

that these cases yield an ending of the form — w ^, while othen 

would give the form w u u ^, and that it seems not altogether 

unlikely that the type D, at first treated as one of the elements in these 
combinations, was, at a later timCf under the infiuence of accent, or in 
some cases through uncertainty as to the quantity of its first two syllables, 

' M&rtianus Capella v (531) recogiiiizes it aa g^ood when compoaed of two 
<]issyJ1al>tes. A lacuna in his text te&yes it imcertain whether he gave any rule as 
to the form of the word preceding a quadrisyllable of this type, 

^ Sec Havet La prosi inetri<ju* ds Symmaqut p. 37. 

'On these cases see below, p. 394. 

* Cassiodorus, in a passage quoted by Prof. Norden {Die aniikt Kunstprosa p. 930% 
treats this ending as one which ought to be discarded ; 'trochaeum tripliceai lauda^ 
bills neglectus abscondat * {De insL dt'v. hit, 15). 

* La prose metrique d« Symmaqu* pp, 8, 36, 37. 

* I include * patronorum', • sacraverunt^ ' sacramentum \ 


assimilated to the t3rpe C In Lean out of the five cases in which it is 
not so treated it is preceded by a trochee in four, in one by the com- 
bination ' digni sunt ' '. 

The type E is of very rare occurrence in Sym, Its appearance in 
Leon is nearly as frequent as that of D. It seems to be treated as 
a variety of C, having before it in all cases but one * a word or group 
with a short penultimate syllable. The syllable before the final word or 
group is short in the majority of cases. The admission of this type 
is probably due in part to the influence of accent, in part to uncertainty 
as to the quantity of the second syllable, as in the cases of 'et pro- 
fectum", ' suflragantur ', ' suffragator ', 'suflragari'. 

The final ^^ — o — is preceded in one case by a spondee, in five by 
a trochee. In the rare cases of its occurrence in Sym the preceding 
foot is always a spondee; but the instances are too few to warrant 
the assertion of a rule. It seems most likely that all the instances 
should be regarded as cases of faulty endings. The five cases of final 
v^ w w w, a type not found in Sym, are all instances of the same phrase, 
'gratias tibi referimus'. I am inclined to think that these words 
should be connected rather with those which follow than with those 
which precede them, and do not constitute the true ending of the 
collects in which they occur. The words preceding 'gratias' furnish 
in each case an ending of a more regular kind *. With regard to the 
four isolated cases it may be observed that the instance of yj — , 
*iustificando capaces' (358) may be said to yield a 'dichoreus', that of 

, 'conferant vitam' (405) an ending of the form — v-» ; the 

instance of --v-»w, 'elegere super omnia' (446) is in accordance with 
the usage of Sym, The single case of a five-syllable final is * sequatur 
universitas' (333). 

M. Havet remarks • that the only monosyllables which Symmachus 
allows to stand at the end of a phrase are those which belong to the 
conjugation of the verb 'sum\ This rule holds good for the small 
number of final monosyllables which appear in Leon» Two of these 
are ' est ', two ' sunt '. At the end of a group of syllables preceding 
the final word * sunt * appears five times, * est ' twice, * sit * twice : there 

* See below, p. 394. 

' The ending in this case is * redemptionis exercetur* (304). It may be observed 
that the last word appears in the MS as * ezercitur*, and that in the variation of 
the same collect which appears in the Gelasian sacramentary the MS has * ezer* 
citum *. 

' The authority of Ausonius Idyll, iv 71 may perhaps favour the transference of 
the four cases of this final to the type C. 

* These are < dona sumentes ' (346), < perceptione satiati ' (348), ' recordatione 
satiati ' (40a), *dulcedine vegetati ' (396), and * dona caelestia * (367). 

' La pros* mitriqui tU Symmaqut p. 66. 


are no instances of any other monosyllable in this position, M. Havet 
remarks further that in Sym the monosyllabic in such a case seems 
to be treated as non-existent for metrical purposes, so that on the one 
hand it is a matter of indifference whether the syllable preceding it 
is short, long, or subject to elision, and on the other hand the word 
preceding the group of which a final monosyllable forms part has the 
same form as if the monosyllable were not there. In Leon^ except 
for the doubtful * lucis aetcrnae efficeret * mentioned above \ there is no 
case of elision or hiatus in a final phrase, except before the word * est * : 

* exorta est % * quod suum est ' are the only instances : in a penultimate 
group of syllables there is no other case besides ' ostensum est ' '. Bat 
I am inclined to think that in all cases in Zeon these monosyllables 
have the full value as syllables, and that in the three cases specified the 
hiatus is admitted. It may be that M, Havet's view that a long vowel 
before 'sunt' at the end of a phrase is in Sym practically regarded 
as shorty should be taken into account in the cases of ' digni sunt * and 

* gratae sunt ' before finals of type C or D. The other cases of final 
' est ', ' sit ', ' sunt ' are regular (apart from hiatus) if * est *, * sit ', * sunt ' 
have their full value : most of them would not be so if the monosyllable 
were removed. 

The conclusions which seem to result from this examination may be 
briefly stated ; they are these : — 

1. That the final phrases of I^oft are regulated by a metrical system 
which is for the most part strictly observed, 

2. That while the influence of accent may he traced in the assimilation 
of endings with a final of the type B i to those with a final of the type C, 
in the occasional combination of finals of the types A, B 2, B 3 with 
a preceding spondee, and in the admission of finals of the type E, this 
system agrees in the main with that which M. Havet has traced in the 
letters of Symmachus I 

3. That a large majority of the final phrases are instances of one or 
other of the three principal forms of the early ' cursus * *. 

* Sec p. 391, above, 

> Martiauus Capelljt| from bis instance ' curas regere animonim^ would sceio not 
to have had much scruple about hiatus, Bui it is avoided in L/eon as a general rule, 

* Perhaps we should aJao consider as due in part at least to the influence of 
accent the greater relative frequency of the type B a. 

* If we do not reckon those which have a final of the types B i, B 2, D or E, the 
regular endings are about sixty-seven per cent, of the whole. About thirty*fivc 
per cent, are of the form composed of crctic and trochee or spondee, about nine 
per cent, of the form of the double cretic (or crctic and dactyl), about twenty-three 
per cent, in the form of the Michoreus' (cretic with added syllable), (f we take 
into accounti as metrically regular, the endings In which a final of the types B i, 
B a is treated according io the rules of Martian us Capeila, the metrically n^^ukr 
endings will number more than eighty seven per cent, of the whole. 





On two questions which may be of some importance in their bearing 
on the subject of the formation of the Leonine sacramentary, the 
question whether the system which prevails in the endings of the 
prayers and prefaces is traceable through their whole structure, and 
the question whether exceptions to its rules are specially frequent in 
particular sections of the collection, I hope to say something in a future 

H. A. Wilson. 


Among the writings which pass under the name of the Egyptian 
Hermes the chief place is taken by the Poemandres, It consists of 
fourteen short treatises or chapters which are connected by their 
reference to a common subject. They deal with the creation of the 
world and of the soul ; the nature of God ; the deification of mankind. 
The character of the book was recognized by Casaubon who devotes to 
it the greater part of a section in his Exercitationes Baronianae de 
Rebus Sacris, No one, however, seems to have followed up the clue 
which he gives. And Zeller, while recognizing the Gnostic character 
of the first and thirteenth chapters, treats the rest of the book as an 
expression of paganism in its decline. It seems worth while, therefore, 
to reconsider the Poemandres in the light of some of the knowledge 
which has been added since the time of Casaubon. We shall have 
little difficulty in shewing as against Zeller that the book is in the main 
homogeneous and of a Christian origin. Not only so, our discussion 
will bring us into contact with the later Greek culture as it developed 
amid Egyptian surroundings, and will raise several problems of consider- 
able importance. Among other things we shall have to trace the way 
in which Hermes passes over into Christian tradition, and how the 
Greek representations of Hermes furnished Christian art with one of its 
earliest motives. We shall further find in it a bridge by which we may 
pass over from Greek philosophy and science to modes of thought 
which are properly Christian. And yet the writer still retains so much 
of the antique spirit that, as we have seen, he can actually be mistaken 
for an apologist of paganism. But if, on the one hand, we are enabled 
by recent discoveries to understand the Poemandres better than 
Casaubon was in a position to do, on the other hand the Poemandres 
throws fresh and unsuspected light upon these very discoveries. 


In preparing his edition of the Poemandres Parthey employed two 
MSS, one of the fourteenth century in the I^urentian library at 
Florence, plut. Ixxi 33, and one of the latter part of the thirteenth 
century, Paris 1220. Stobaeus, in the Eciogae Physicae^ furnishes an 
independent tradition for a large part of the second, fourth, and tenth 
chapters, Stobaeus gives a much better tradition than Farthey's MSS, 
and deserves to play a large part in constituting the ultimate text of 
these three chapters. The differences between Stobaeus and the 
MSS of the Poemandres^ however, are so great that it seenls impos- 
sible to explain ihem merely by the corruption of the MSS. Not 
only is there very great divergence in the order of the words, but con* 
structions are replaced by different but equivalent constructions, and 
particles are omitted or inserted in the most varied manner, Parthey, 
in his variant readings, includes some, but by no means all, the 
important instances from Stobaeus, and the result of comparing his 
edition with the text of Stobaeus is to inspire a feeling of distrust 
towards his work as an editor. 

Even before Stobaeus we find the Poemandres quoted : for example, 
by Lactantius (Epitome Div. Inst. 14) : * Trismegistus paucos admodura 
fuisse cum diceret perfectae doctrinae viros, in iis cognatos suos enume- 
ravit Uranum, Salurnium, Mercurium,' cf. Poem, x 5 ^. Also the same 
writer's r) y«P tva-i/iua yvilkri's itrn rov Otov {DtV. Inst, ii t6) may fairly 
be referred to Poem, ix 4 tvaifitia S^ icm $€ov yvuKn^, The slight 
variation is exactly of the same kind as the variations which we find in 
Stobaeys. The writer of the Co/tort, in Gtntihs 38 quotes from Hermes 
the saying iScov vo^o-at /xcv l<m ;^aX<woV, fftpdnTaL 8i aBvvarov {> kol vo^m 
Bwarov. Lactantius translates the words into Latin, and says that they 
begin a book which is addressed by Hermes to his son {Epitome Div> 
Inst. 4). They are not found in the Poemandres^ and cannot therefore 
furnish any evidence about its date. Parthey, therefore, makes a mis- 
take in his preface, which he fathers upon Casaubon, Casaubon did 
not argue from the reference in the Cohort* in Gent, to the date of the 

Of the earlier editors Vergicius supposes the author, Thoth, to be an 
Egyptian king who lived before the time of Moses, a view repeated by 
de Foix and Patricius (see Parthey's ed. Pref.). Casaubon introduces 
a more scientific standpoint He is surprised that such writings should 
be quoted by the fathers as if the most ancient Mercury were their 
author". He devotes a whole section to the Poemandres (De Rebus 

' References to the Poemandrts are given by chapter and paragraph fjrom 
'See Dt Rtbits Saeris 56 * Ubrum iDt^riun ease \l/tv9finypa/^v, utpotc qui sit 






uris 52 fr)» and one wonders how he could have been misunderstood 
or overlooked by the more recent editors and historians, Parthey, 
Menard, Zeller, and Erdmann. The Christian origin of some of the 
Hermetic writings did not escape Gibbon, who classes Hermes with 
Orpheus and the Sibyls as a cloak for Christian forgery {vol. ii p. 69, 
Bury's ed.). 

Menard's Hermh Trismigiste has probably been the means by which 
most students have approached these writings. He describes his 
translation as complete, but this is a misnomer. In addition to those 
works which Menard translates, Ideler Fhysid tt Mtdici Grata prints 
a medical tract, and other similar writings are enumerated (Christ 
Griedi. Lit} p. 697). Moreover any list of the Hermetic books must 
take account of Ostanes, about whom something shall be said later on. 
Not only is Menard's translation incomplete, but it gives a most mis- 
leading impression by presenting its varied contents in four books as 
though together they formed a system ; the Poemandres coming first, 
the Asdepius second, and various fragments as the third and fourth 
books. But it is impossible to understand the Hermetic collection so 
long as we fail to distinguish the Christian origin of the Foemandres. 
Menard makes the incorrect remark (pref. ii) that Casaubon attributes 
the books which bear the name of Hermes Trismegistus to a Jew or 
a Christian. Menard cannot have seen Casaubon's De Rebus Saais, 
or he would have been saved from such mistakes. 

Menard seems to have misled even Zeller, The historian of 
Greek philosophy, whom it seems almost ungrateful to criticize, has 
overlooked the unity of intention, which may be traced throughout the 
Poemandres^ and, like Menard, treats it as homogeneous with the 
Asdepius. He distinguishes indeed between the authorship of various 
parts of the Hermetic collection, and, in particular, the Gnostic elements 
in the first and thirteenth chapters of the PoemandrtSy but he overlooks 
the indubitable traces of Christian teaching, which Casaubon pointed 
out, in the other chapters. 

Erdmann confines his main exposition to the Pocmandres {Hist, PhiL 
tr, i 113, 2), and attributes the constituent treatises to different authors 
and times. Curiously enough the thirteenth chapter, in which Zeller 
sees Gnostic elements, appears to Erdmann of Neopythagorean tendency, 
because of the references to the ogdoad, decad, and dodecad, in which 
undoubtedly we are dealing with Gnostic ideas. At the same time 

Ctinstiani alicuius vel, tit dicam melius, scinichrifitiani roeruoi figmentum. Neque 
vcro dubitamus id cgissc auctorein til muUa piclatis Christianae dogmata quae ecu 
nova et prius inaudita reicicbantur, probarct ab ultima antiquitate sapientibus 
fuissc nota et ab illo ipso Mercurio in lileras fulsse relata, qucm non sohira Acgyptii 
aed etiam Gracci propter yetusiatcm et doctnnae opimonem tnagnopere suspicie* 
bant' {D* Rtbus Sacris 55). 


Erdmann comes nearest to what is probably the truth when he says, in 
passings 'these writings . . , contain also points of correspondence with 
gnosticj neoplatonic, patristic, and cabalistic ideas * {op. cit. 216), M 

It appears worth while, therefore, to reconsider the authorship and " 
composition of the Potmandres in order, if possible, to clear up some of 
the confusioHj which, as we have seen, prevails throughout nearly aU 
that has been written about it. 


A considerable part of this confusion is due to the fact that the reign- 
ing convention of Egyptian literature is overlooked. WTiat does it 
mean when a treatise or a saying is ascribed to Hermes ? In answer- 
ing this question it wil! be necessary to recapitulate facts which are now 
perfectly familiar even to the tyro in Egyptian studies, but were 
unknown to or overlooked by most of the writers whom we have 

The Egyptians lumped all their literature together under the name 
of Thoth. In the main he personified the profession of a scribe. 
Plato {Phikbtis 18 b) speaks of him as a god or divine person quite in 
the Egyptian way. The Egyptian priest and historian Manetho regards 
him as the remote ancestor by whom all sacred records were written 
{Synceiius I 73, Bonn). Clement of Alexandria groups him with 
Asclepius^'AXAA ical tiSv Trap' klyv7rriQi% ayOfimiruiV iroT€ yevofjLa'utv Si 
^vBpitiwtvj} 80^77 $€it)Vt 'Epjtiijc rt ©lyjSoToc Kat *Aa'tcXypnoi o M^/i^tt;? 
(Strom. I xxi 134). The convention by which all literature was 
attributed to him was recognized as such at any rate by some people. 
To use the phrase of the Pseudo-Iamblichus (D^ Mysitriis viii i), the 
Hermetic books are ' the writings of the ancient scribes'. Hence there 
is no necessary exaggeration when Manetho speaks of the 36,000 books 
of Hermes, or Seleucus of 20,000 (/i^.). Clement gives an interesting 
account of a collection of forty-two Hermetic books, which were used 
by certain Egyptian priests {Strom. VI iv 35 ff). Now there is very 
little doubt that the books of which Clement and Seleucus and Manetho 
speak were written in the Egyptian bnguage. Hence the presumption 
about writings referred to Hermes, is that they belong to the national 
Eg>'ptian literature, and are written in the native tongue. Of course 
many Egyptians were bilingual, and it is probable that the greater part 
of the extant Hermetic collection was composed in Greek by such 
persons, or by Greek-speaking foreigners. But in face of the facts 
there is nothing farfetched in supposing that a work like the Poemandrts 
may also have been current in a Coptic version. 

But Hermes or Thoth is not the only legendary Egyptian author. 
Masp^ro, following Goodwin, has shewn that Ostanes is the name of 







a deity who belongs to the cycle of Thoth {Proc, Soc\ BibL Arch, xx 142)* 
His name Ysdnw was derived by the Egyptians themselves from a verb 
meaning *to distinguish', and he was a patron of intellectual perception. 
As time went on^ he gained in importance. Under the Ptolemies he 
was often represented upon the temple walls (/. r.). In Pliny he appears 
as an early writer upon medicine {Nat, Hist, xxviii 6). Some of the 
prescriptions quoted as from him are quite in the Egyptian style {ib, 
256, 261). Philo Byblius, on whom to be sure not much reliance can 
be placed t mentions a work of Ostanes— the Octatetuh (Eus. Praep. Ev. 
I 10, 52). It is tempting to identify this with some such collection as 
the six medical books which occupy the last place in Clement's list 
(Strom. VI iv 37). Now Pliny^ as appears from his list of authorities, 
does not quote Ostanes directly. If we note that Democritus is men- 
tioned by Pliny in the same context, and that Ostanes is the legendary 
teacher of Democritus upon his visit to Egypt, we shall consider it at 
least probable that Pliny depends upon Democritus for his mention of 
Ostanes. The philosopher, whose visit to Egypt may be regarded as 
a historical fact, would in that case be dealing with a medical collection 
which passes under the name of Ostanes. Asclepius, Avho appears in 
the Potmandres^ will be the Greek equivalent of Ostanes. Thus the 
collocation of Hermes and Asclepius is analogous to the kinship of the 
Egyptian deities Thoth and Ysdnw. 

We shall next try to shew that the Foemandrti is not without prece- 
dent in the later Egyptian literature. Plutarch had access to good sources 
for the narratives which he gives De hide tt Osiride (Maspero Dawn 
0/ Civilization, tr, 173). In the legend of Osiris (cc. xii-xix) Typhon 
charges Horus with being a bastard ; but, with the advocacy of Hermes, 
Horus is adjudged by the gods to be legitimate. This is the Greek 
form of a legend which was very widely spread in Egypt In the 
Egyptian versions, however, Thoth appears as the judge or arbitrator 
rather than the advocate (Maspero, ap. cit, 177). After Plutarch has 
given the popular form of the legend, he proceeds to make a fresh 
beginning, and to enumerate the interpretations which were given by those 
who seemed ^iXoo-o^tfcwTcpoK rt Xiyuv (c. xxxii). First, he deals with 
those opinions which identify the Egyptian gods with natural objects, 
Osiris with the Nile, Isis with the land, and so on. Then he considers 
the interpretations of those who identify the gods with the sun and 
moon, &c. (c. xH), These speculations summarize for us, at first or 
second hand, some of the Hermetic books which were current in 
Plutarch's time, and enable us to trace the passage from the tentative 
explanations which already occur in the Book of the Dead to the free 
speculation of Roman times. Now Plutarch gives an explanation of 
the lawsuit between Typhon and Horus in the following terms : Horus 


ov f) *I<rif tht-Qva rov vorftov xaiTftov altrBfjTov ovra ycvi^. Aio iral Buapr 
<^€vy€w Xiyrrai voS^la^ vrro Tv^^ko«, b»c ov<c tiv KaBapo^ ovli. clXuc/xvitc oiw 
6 Tra-n^p Xoyo? auro? Kaff iavrov d^ity^ *f«w awa^a^s, dLXAA vcvo^cv/wof tj 
vAiy Sttt TO <rw/MiTixoi^ (c. liv). Horus wins the suit. For Hermes, that 
IS Q Koyotf bears witness ort irpos to i^otjrov 17 ^»>o-t? /uwTatrxT/fuiTt^o/jLeioy rw 
Korr^i^ airo&tSuxriv (il.). Such expressions as these are of the same 
philosophical tendencies as the extant fragments of the Hermetic 
literature, and render Plutarch an important source of information for 
the very period in which we are interested. 

Now let us torn to the title of the book. It is usually derived from 
v^otfirjv, after Casaubon (<?/. af. 57), who compares the phrase in the 
Fourth Gospel (x 1 4). Yet it is difficult to admit that such a compound 
as votfjuivSpr}^: could arise in this way. From iroifiTJv we find the form 
TTot/mi'tup (Aesch- Pers, 241 )♦ and by a similar syncopation we might 
have the form iro/^ai^pos, of which Poemander would be the proper 
Latin equivalent. Aiav^pc^ furnishes a parallel case of syncopation. 
But we have not yet the form required. I speak subject to correction, 
but I cannot find a derivative from ^y^jp which ends in -av^pujfi. There 
is one passage which seems to support this derivation : Xoyov yap tov o-w 
fr&tpaiv€i o VOV5 (xiii 19). But this expression is far from being 
equivalent to the meaning required for flot^i'Sp^, if it is derived from 
notp-^v and avijp. While, however, the name Poemandres does not 
answer to any Greek original, it is a close transliteration of a Coptic 
phrase. In the dialect of upper Egypt itsliiTpe means * the witness '. 
That the Coptic article should be treated as part of the name itself is 
not unusual ; compare the name Pior {Palladius ^isf, Laus. 8g). Such 
a title corresponds very closely in style with the titles of other works of 
the same period, for example the True Word of Celsus, or the Perfect 
Word^ which is an alternative title of the Asclepius, The term 
Poemandres, therefore, on this supposition contains an allusion to the 
widely spread legend of Hermes as the witness, a legend which is 
verified for us from several sources. But the writer has adapted the 
details to his purpose. Hermes is not himself the witness, but the 
herald of the witness. There is probably an allusion to the legend in 

xiii 13 avTTi Imlv 17 iraAiyyo'Ccrui, w tcickov, to prftcfTi ^avra2[co-^cu th 
rh €r(i}pa to fp^X^ BtoAiraTOVt Scot tqv Xoyov tovtov tov irtpi ttJs TraXtyynfttrla^^ 
cis ov xrTrfptnjpuarurapTpfj tva /xt; uip€V StdjSoAot tov TraKTo? <?« rovi iroXXov^^ 

€k 069 avros ov &i>^i B(6^. That is to say, the new birth consists, in one 
of its aspects, in recognizing the spiritual affinities of the visible world. 
And those who deny these affinities are compared to slanderers, to the 
part played by Typhon in the legend. This passage is important for 
the writer's attitude to Gnosticism. As we shall see, he recognizes the 
goodness of the creator of this world and appeals to the books of the 




Old Testament, In other words he separates himself from the sects 
both Christian and non-Christian who treated the visible world as evil 

Man was created cts tpytnv Bilmv yvokny koX i^writa^ ivipyQvaav fiaprvpiaVf 
Hal TtktfSof dv6p*inrisiv ftt TavTwv rSy wrr* ovpavov S*<nroruav Kal dynBiav 
hriyvtixrtv (tii 3). Thus the explanation of the litle which I venture 
to suggest is entirely consonant with the purpose of the book. 

If this is so, we are compelled to consider the possibility that the 
Poemandres is a translation from a Coptic original In that case we 
shall also be able to explain the striking variations which we find in the 
excerpts of Stobaeus and the manuscripts. At the same time we must 
remember that the Coptic writers took over bodily from the Greek the 
full vocabulary of religious and philosophical terms. And the trans^ 
lator of the presumed Coptic original would find half of his work 
already done \ The Coptic of the Fistk Sophia and the Books of Ie& 
borrows nearly all unusual terms from the Greek, 

I am surprised at the confidence with which Schmidt declares the 
Pistis Sophia and other Gnostic works to be translations from Greek 
originals'. There seems no adequate reason why such works may 
not have been composed in Coptic. The Egyptian Gnostic writings 
of the third century exhibit the same qualities of style as the 
Coptic biographies and apocalypses of the fourth and following cen- 
turies. And so I am prepared to believe that the Poemandns 
may have been first composed in Coptic, Or shall we say that 
the work was current from the first in both languages? We must 
not forget that over against the intellectual life of Alexandria, there 

' There is a curioua variant in Stcbaeus which furnishes an incidental proof of 
the existence of a Coptic version, or shall we put the argument at the lowest and 
aay that the variant seems to have originated in a Coptic scribe ! In the Potman- 
drts wc read if SrJ \pvx^ ital ain^ &fla tjs awa ftaBiwfp vtpt^oX^ r<^ wvuv^ari XP^t'^^* 
% 16. Here Parthey's manuscript B seems to have preserved the correct reading. 
Stobaeus, however, gives the striking variant xaMirtp {nrrfplrtf t^ irvfVftaTi xp^«"j 
a reading which Patricius corrected to l-mfpi-rfj, vinfp4nt can only have been due to 
ft Christian scribe to whom wtrtvfia suggested the Pauline distinction of nv*vfMTHc6f 
and ifrvxtMos. Hence he would stumble at the phrase which seems to make the 
Spirit the servant of the soul, and by a change of termination vTtrjpirtt for {rinjp^rp, 
arrives at the quite orthodox sentiment Ka$&n«p (unjpirif t^ wyvvpari ^/j^ra*. But 
since in the Po*ma»dr*s the term wyttifta regularly bears the physiological meaning:^ 
the alteration to iwfjpirtj makes nonsense, and this Patricius saw. But we have 
itill to explain the passage from wtpt&ok^ to {r^^r^. I am afraid the explanation 
which I am about to suggest will not be entirely convincing, but it inust stand ia 
default of a better one. wffoXjf is perhaps near enough to the Coptic woAov, the 
servant, to explain how to a Coptic scribe the words might be interchanged. The 
ijinost incredible mistakes which were made in transcribing Greek phrases into 
Coptic are iUustrated by Junker and Schubart in their article * Ein greichisch kop- 
llscbes Kirchengebet ' {Z*iis^/iir Afg. vol. xl i fl). 

• Gnostisch* Schriften in Koptischer Spracht 1 1, 
VOL. V. D d 


stood in contrast the native Eg>*ptian thought of the upper Nile 
Hermopolis (Ashmunen) and Panopolis (Akhmim) were the centres of 
religious and other influences which reacted even upon Alexandria. 
Plutarch gained part of his information from Hermopolis, de Is. et Os, 
cc, iii, 1. And the legends about Thoth were most Hkely to be current 
near the seat of his chief shrine. In fact Alexandria was regarded as 
being on the confines of Egypt rather than as an Egyptian city. Thus 
Macarius of Alexandria is distinguished from Macarius the Egyptian, 
So also the title of the Gos^i according to the Egyptians points us 
away from Alexandria for its origin. And it is remarkable that the 
Fotmandres^ which as we shall see is one of the most important sources 
of our knowledge of that Gospel, stands in close relation with native 
Egyptian life* 


Let us now proceed to the analysis of the Poemandres. But in order 
to avoid the confusion into which Menard and Zeller have fallen^ we 
will note the real character of the other chief Hermetic book, the 
Asciepius^ in order that we may leave it entirely on one side. The 
Aschpim or, to give it its Greek title, o rtXeio? Aoyo?, The Perfect W&rd^ 
was written as an apology for the moribund religion of Egypt at a time 
when there were signs of the approaching victory of Christian ideas. 
It has come down in a Latin translation wrongly attributed to Apuleius. 
The author casts his indignation and fear into the form of a prophecy. 
'A time was coming', he laments, 'when the national religion would 
have passed away into a legend no longer believed, mere records upon 
Bione * (c. 9). And, in a passage quoted from the Greek by Lactantius 
{Div, Inst, vii iS)^ he proceeds after the manner of a Jewish or 
Christian apocalypse to threaten the apostate world with a deluge or 
a destruction by fire. He interprets the national religion in the usual 
Neopythagorean manner. Polytheism and the worship of images are 
justified; they are approximations, symbols of the truth (c ij). Thus 
the temper and method of 5^ Perfect Wi^rd present very close 
resemblances to T/te IVus Word of Celsus. Celsus was far from 
being an Epicurean who attacked the popular religion generally; 
he was rather a champion of the national religions and especially 
of the Egyptian religion against Christian cosmopolitanism. And both 
these writers seem to have been dealing with Christian opponents 
of the Gnostic type. In the eyes of the author of Th€ Perfect 
Word^ the Christians were men who» in their weariness of soul, dis- 
dained the glorious universe and preferred darkness to light, death 
rather than life. This criticism made from the side of pagan religion 
was repealed by Plotinus from the side of Greek philosophy 





{Ennead IT ix 13 &c.). As we have already seen, it was one of the 
objects of the Foemandres to meet this attack by vindicating for 
Christian thought the spiritual affinities of the visible world. 

Let us now consider the words in which the author declares his 
purpose : imBilif BiXu^ ra mra koi vor^<Tai rijv rovrt^v <ftwTtv Koi yvwyai tqv 
BtGv (i 3). Here we have three leading topics indicated : the under- 
standing of nature, the Divine attributes, the process by which man 

attains yrtutr«. 

The hierarchy of being may be arranged thus :— The supreme God is 

o vov^. He apptvd^T^Xv? c5i/, ^cu^ Kox <^ais viTap\wVt an-iiorijGrc Xoyo) trtpov 
vovv 8i]rfU<n'jpyov, os: Bto^ tqv rrvpoi ^at TrvrvfjiOrot 5»v tS'TjfJMxvpyrjQ-t BioiKrjrd^ 
riva^ cTTTdt, ev kvkXoi^ Trcpu^^oi^ra? rov alfrBTtjrov koo-^ov kqx ^ SiotKijcrts; avrOiv 
tlfmpfiivr} KoXfirat {I 9). Hence we may mark off: {a) Divine beings, 
o voiky Sij/iioupyd?, 01 tTrra ^toiKrjTat ; (^) o vorfro^ Koa-fun: the author, 
like Philo, describes a creation before the material creation, f^ovkrf&tU 
Tov oparov Koa-fAXtv ravrovl ^rjfAiovpyrjfrm 7rpO€^(Tvtrov rbv vorp-ov (Philo 
Optf Mund. 4) ; (^) o aio-&Tp-oi Koa-fio'!. 

The seven Eiouajrai or planetary spirits who embrace and control the 
sensible world in i 10, answer to the alutv in xi 3 tov Koa-fjuov vir6 tov 
atujvof ffiw€pi€)(ttfitvov. Just as the EtotKrjam of the planetary spirits is 
called fate i g, so xi 5 ovvix^i Si rovroj' (sc. rov Kofifiov) 6 alwy, 
€tTt Si* dvdtyjojv €*T* Sict TTpovotav cire S<a ff>va-iv. Thus the aeon 
is treated as equivalent to the seven planetary spirits, a fact which 
throws light upon the number of the aeons in other systems. 

If now we turn to the third chapter of the Foemandres^ we shall find 
that this cosmogony, for all its Platonic origin, is presented, quite in the 
style of Philo, as a commentary upon Genesis i-iti. The planetary 
spirits act as intermediaries in the work of creation ; avrim 8< InauroK 
&to^ Sia T^t i^m? ^uj'ttjLtfaj? to TrpoaraxBkv avrta^ and created beasts and 
creeping things and birds and herbs and lastly mankind. There is also 
an obvious allusion to Gen, i 4 ff in Foem, in. Hence the phrase 
avia.v€(T$€ iv avfijo-it koX Tr\if\0vv€<r6€ iy ttAij^ci (Foem. iii 3), which has 
generally been recognized as an allusion to Gen. i 28, is but one 
instance out of many which prove the writer's familiarity with the Old 

Let us pass now to the second of our main topics, the Divine 
attributes. If the writer sets forth his cosmogony as a commentary 
upon Genesis, he has Isaiah xl in view when he portrays the nature of 
God. He adopts from the Jewish prophet the rhetorical question • 
•Who is it that set the boundaries to the sea? Who is it that 
established the earth?* But it is especially instructive to compare 
Isaiah xl 19-22 with the following passage: kqX avhpidvra pxv rj ciVofo 
^ciiplc dvS/Man-cwrotow 17 ^mypd^ov ovSei^ •^iTtrt yryofCKOi, rotJro Bk tto 

D d 3 



^fffuovprpjfAa x*^^^ hrffu/avpyov yfyoixv ; where the Egyptian writer 
to have understood the prophet to be arguing from the work to the 
workman^ instead of attacking the use of plastic representations of God _ 
{Paem, c. v). ■ 

Since the writer thus starts with the Jewish conception of God as the 
creator, it is not surprising that he should devote one chapter, 
the second, to refuting the Aristotelian view {a) that God is vw kixvtim 
voiliv^ {b) that God is the prime mover, Notttos yap irpCirov o <3cos iarw 
i^fUV ov^ cairpw {J^ocm, ii 5) ^^^ V o^ KtvrftTii rov Kocfiov koI travro^ ^uov 
vXiKOv ov)( viro rittv Karficros rov icocr/xoi/ (TVfAfiaivti ylvitrBai (l^. 8). From 
ii 9 the soul seems to be regarded as the source of motion. 

God's nature is most full/ revealed in creation : 6 dco? oparat. iv rf 
irtn€tM (xi 22; cf. v 9 Kxmv Km •n-otfii'). In another place He is said to 
be pure will, 17 yap rovrov ivipytux rj 6ikrj<rt^ i<m (x 2). 

God is not only the creator, He is also the father* But the fiither- 
hood of God is to be understood in a special sense ; and here we arc 
brought to the theory of yvwtni and Trakiyytvtcria. Man is naturally 
a child of this aeon, or of the planetary spirits. It is only so far as he 
receives w>v« and thus becomes capable of the knowledge of God, that 
he can be called * perfect ', or * the son of God '. ■ 

By yvm(ri% man rises from the purely ' sensible ' view of the world to 
the * rational ' one. He ' bears witness ', lest he should be * a slanderer ' 
of the Divine purpose. But this knowledge is only possible by the gift 

of God : yi'OKrts St i<mv iTncrnip.rfi to rcAos, ciricnnj/xiy Si B^pov TOv d<oi> 

(x 9), And this gift is pictorially represented as a laver, Kpan^p^ of 
reason, vov^ (iv 4) : oaroi /acv oTry truF^Kav rov KjjpvypjOToi KoX </?a3rTunwTO 
TOV voo?, oirroi p.€T€(rxov ttjs yviixretas »cai r<Xeu>i eytvovro avOptuTroi toy vow 
Btidfjbfvoi (tJ.). It follows that belief is identified with the activity of 
reason : to yap vorrftrcd i<m to irurrcvcrat, to d^rtcrr^crat ^ to /i^ vo^cnu 
(ix Xo)« So, roihro fiovov truynqpi<w dv&piMjnrt^ i<mv ^ yvwrt^ tov Beoi 
(k 15), The whole idea of the laver of regeneration in the Poemandru 
is obviously related to the teaching about baptism addnessed to 

This process^ which on the intellectual side is represented as 
a change from a * sensible * to a ' rational * view of the world, is, on the 
moral side, a change from the immediate impulses of the senses, to 
the control of such impulses : ri phf ow tov icpctWoKos arpca-tv ov pjww 

Tw cAo/utcKu» KoAXumy Ti'"yj(aK€i, TOV avOpweifay airo^cuxrat, oAAa «ccu tt;v wploi 1 

&*ov €wr{^€tav cirtSeticwcriv. The moral change which the new birth M 
involves is analysed in detail : cyvtu^a?, St t<«vok, t^? 7ra\iyy€V€a'ias tw ■ 
TpoiTOV, Tijs SeKaSo? -rrapaytvofifvrfi fnfvvriOrf votpa "yeVetrts (xiii lo). The 
decad consists of the ten virtues : yvonxk rov Btovj ynLtrK x'H^* 
iyKparitaf Kaprtpia^ ^ucouocfJvij, KOivmvia, aXqOtui, ^ya66v^ t*^h 4^ 





xidi 8ff). This list presents some suggestive resemblances to the 
corresponding list in the Shepherd of Hermas, S. ix 15: irtWw, 

owfo-ty, hfiovoia^ dyaTTfj. And yet in order that we may not identify this 
change with a purely moral process, it is referred to a personal agency ; 
regeneration is brought about by 6 rov $€ov irats, dyBptajro^ tht Btkr^^rk 
B€Q\) (xiii 4), a statement to be compared with St. John i 13. 

The figure used by the writer for the moral change varies between 
the new birth and the sowing of seed (iii 3, xiv 10), He is still at that 
early stage in the developement of doctrine, when metaphors, such as 
that of the new birth and the sower, are still fluids and have not yet 
crystallized into rigid and impassive forms of thought. By one of 
those curious accidents which may be traced in the history of ideas, 
a third kind of metaphor which found great favour with the Christian 
writers of the second and third centuries has passed away into 
oblivion. This same moral change is represented as an ascent to the 
highest spheres, and as a kind of deification. Although this metaphor, 
which is found frequently in Stoic writers, failed to obtain recognition, 
it had considerable influence upon Christian dogma so far as it 
involved the idea of apotheosis. In one place (i 24) the soul is said to 
rise through the planetary circles, laying its vices down in order until at 
the eighth stage it ' chants the father in company with ra oiTa \ Now 
just as the new birth is a metaphor, just as the farmer sowing seed is 
a metaphor, so is this rising through the planetary circles a metaphor: 
and the real meaning which underlies it is found in a moral change, in 
the discarding of vices and the acquisition of the virtues. That is to 
say, the writer does not treat the Gnostic ogdoad, or decad, or dodecad, 
as fixed schemes of thought, but as pictorial statements thrown out at 
certain moral facts. Hence we have to face this possibility, that the 
orthodox criticism of Gnosticism is largely based upon a misapprehen- 
sion, which insisted upon taking metaphor for doctrine. 

The writer of the Poemandrts lets it be seen clearly that he is 
consciously using figurative modes of speech, as when (x 15) he says 
that the knowledge of God is the ascent to Olympus- The seventh 
chapter contains traces of an interesting attempt to incorporate this 
notion of an ascent into Christian belief: /x^ <rvyicareKcx^« rotyo/jovv 
T«{i TToAA^ pci^jtJtartt dka^po/t^ h\ ^frrp-dftcvot 61 Suva/xcvot Xa^ccr(9a4 rov rijs^ 
trtiyn}piai Xt^cvot, ivopfua^npitvot tovtw ^rfn^art )((tpayuyyov rov oSijryTjNTawra 
v/jLas cVt Tas rrii yvaicreiy? $vpa^ ottqv ccrrt to kafiwpov <^<ji«, to Ka&a/MV 
VKOTov^f Sirov ov5e c(9 fuBvtiy dXXa. wdyrf^ vtji^ovfFiVi li^ptovrc^ T^ KapBuf. 

ft? TO*' opaOrjvai Oikovra. Now this whole passage receives a most 
suggestive commentary in the exposition which Hippolytus quotes from 
a heretical writer of the sect of the Naassenes (J?e/uL v 7 f ). The spiritual 


birth is, according to the Naassenes, o /xcyas lopSaviys, Sv ttdrm piavra 
teal KOikvovra ii€k&€tv tov« vlov5 ^l<rpaij\ <k y^s AtyvnTov , - . dveWctXir 
'Ii^o-ov? Koi iTTotTfa-tv avui pitiv. The same writer proceeds to explain the 
meaning of the door ; Xcyet o ^Ityrovs;' *Eyw ct/w tJ t^Xtj tj aXrj6ivij. In 
the third place the body is put off in a spiritual resurrection. It is 
a fair inference from these resemblances that the writer of the 
Faemandres and the Naasseoe writer are occupied with the same 
context— an inference which will lead us to some important further 


The traditional estimate of Gnosticism^ then, requires to be recon- 
sidered, in the light of the Fotmandres. It belongs to a time when 
religious definitions were still in the making ; a time therefore when the _ 
limits of free discussion were not yet straitly drawn. Hence the varied I 
presentations of religious belief which we find in Irenaeus, Hippolytus, 
Tertullian, would not be admitted by their exponents to be in conflict 
with the Christian faith^ but would rather be regarded as exhibiting 
new and fruitful applications of principles common to alL Ecclesias- 
tical opinion ultimately settled down in one direction rather than 
another. But until this process was complete, each living system of 
belief m