Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

convenience, with little regard to the benefit of future generations.

the Syriac version, that the former had been altered from the latter; but it appears highly improbable, that the Syriac version should have been used in the cor

Granite and porphyry, on account of their extreme hardness, are difficult to work; but they would well repay the ex-rection of a manuscript written in a counpence for bridges and public buildings. It was of these stones that the Egyptians, and other nations of antiquity, constructed palaces and temples, which have endured the attack of time and the desolating hand of superstitious barbarians. The origin of some of these structures is prior to the oldest records of man, and they will exist when no vestige of the architecture of modern times shall remain. ROBERT BAKEWELL. Warwick Court, Gray's Inn.

For the Monthly Magazine.
On the CODEX BEZE, the CLERMONT MA-
NUSCRIPT, and the ORIGINALS of the
SCRIPTURES of the NEW TESTAMENT.
CORRESPONDENT having, in a

A former Number, requested some

information respecting the Codex Beza, the Clermont Manuscript, and the ori ginals of the Scriptures of the New Testa ment; I beg leave to offer the following observations, which probably comprehend the several subjects of his inquiries.

The Codex Bezæ is a Greek and Latin manuscript of the four Gospels, and of the Acts of the Apostles. It is, however, defective in some parts of the Gospels, and also wants some passages of the Acts. The Gospels are arranged in the usual order of the Latin manuscripts: Mat thew, John, Luke, Mark. The uncial letters, with the want of accents, of marks of aspiration, and of intervals be tween the words, prove the high antiquity of this manuscript, which, perhaps, is the most ancient that is now extant. Some writers have thought that the Greek text has been altered from the Latin version, but this opinion seems to rest on no solid foundation. Though a very great number of readings, peculiar to the Codex Beze, are found in the Volgate, yet this is no proof that those readings were actually borrowed from a Latin version, and translated into Greek. It is, at least, equally possible that they might have originated from the Greek, as from the Latin; and that this was really the case seems highly probable, if it be considered, that, when Jerom revised the Latin version, by order of Pope Damasus, he corrected it from Greek manuscripts. Some have thought, from the coincidence discoverable in a very great number of readings between the Codex Beza and

was

try where the Syriac language was wholly
unknown. The natural inference, there-
fore, is, that the readings of the Codex
Beza are for the most part genuine, and
of course preferable to those of modern
manuscripts. This manuscript
found by Beza, at Lyons, in the monas-
tery of St. Irenæus, in the year 1562, at
the commencement of the civil war in
France. Beza wrote, in the beginning
of this manuscript, the following account
with his own hand: "Est hoc exemplar
venerandæ vetustatis ex Græcia, ut
apparet ex barbaris quibusdam Græcis
ad marginem notatis, olin exportatum,
et in S. Irenæi monasterio Lugdunensi,
ita, ut hic cernitur, mutilatum, postquam
ibi in pulvere diu jacuisset, repertum,
Oriente ibi civili bello anno domini 1562,"
That the manuscript came originally from
Greece is only conjecture; but that it was
discovered in the monastery of St.
Irenæus in Lyons, in the year 1562, is
the direct and positive evidence of a man,
whose veracity is unimpeachable. The
two following circumstances render it
highly probable, that the Codex Beza
was written in the west of Europe:
The Latin translation was added with no
other design than to render the original
intelligible to those who were not skilled
in the Greek language, and it was not
added merely in consequence of the high
authority of the church, by which it was
used. In that case the transcriber would
have adopted some established text, from
which he would never have deviated; but
the Latin text of the Codex Bezæ is
found in no Latin manuscript, either
ancient or modern. This translation
would have been wholly superfluous if the
manuscript had been written for the use
of a Greek, to whom a Latin translation
was unnecessary.
2. The arrangement
of the Gospels in the Codex Beza was
never admitted by the Greek church, or
in any country subject to its authority,
but was the common arrangement of the
ancient Latin manuscripts. From these
circumstances it seems reasonable to
conclude, that the Codex Beza was writ-
ten in the west of Europe, in a country
in which Latin was better understood
than Greek, and which was subject to

1.

Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament.

the authority of the church of Rome. It was probably written either at Constantinople, or in some city of the Greek empire in Europe, for the use of some person or community belonging to the Latin church, between the time of Constantine and the final separation of the Greek and Latin churches. That the Codex Beza was written before the eighth century is certain, as appears from the shape of the letters, the want of intervals between the words, and of accents, and marks of aspiration; for in the eighth cen tury the Greek uncial characters degenerated from the square and round form, which is seen in the Codex Beza, to an oblong shape; marks of aspiration and accent were added, and the elegance of writing considerably decreased. From comparing the letters of the Codex Beza with the Greek inscriptions given by Montfaucon, it appears not only that it must be more ancient than the eighth century, but that it may be as ancient as the sixth, the fifth, or even the fourth, century. The probability however is, that, from the Euthalian sections being observed in the Codex Beza, it was not written before the fifth century. This manuscript was sent by Beza to the University of Cambridge, and published by that learned body in 1793, in letters of the same form and magnitude as the original bandwriting.

The Clermont manuscript is a Greek. Latin manuscript of the Epistles of St. Paul, the antiquity of which was estimated by Sabbatier at 1200 years. Beza, who had this manuscript in his possession, gave it the name of Claromontanus, from Clermont, in Bauvaisis, where it is said to have been preserved. From the hands of Beza it came into the Putean library, and was bequeathed by the proprietor, Jacques du Puy, with all his other manuscripts, to the royal li brary in Paris, where it is at present kept. Mill contended that the Clermont manuscript was the second part, or a continuation, of the Codex Bezæ; but Wetstein has sufficiently confuted this epiDion, and shewn that the former is by no means connected with the latter, as appears from the difference of their form, their orthography, and the nature of the vellum on which they are written.† It is supposed by Montfaucon, that the Clermont manuscript was written in the seventh century. Though in uncial let

Marsh on Michaelis. + Michaelis,

ters, yet it has accents and marks of aspi ration, which, Montfaucon says, appear to have been added by another hand, at no great distance of time after the ma nuscript itself had been written. This manuscript was probably written in the west of Europe, not only because it has a Latin translation, but because the Epistle to the Hebrews is found at the end; and in the catalogue of the books of the New Testament, which is placed after the Epistle to Philemon, the Epistle

This

to the Hebrews is not mentioned. Epistle is also written even by a later hand, and was therefore wholly excluded from the canon by the original writer of the manuscript. Now, as the Epistle to the Hebrews was, during a considerable time, rejected by the church of Rome, but not by the Greek church, it follows that the Clermont manuscript must have been originally written In a country under the dominion of the former.*

The original manuscripts of the New Testament, which were written either by the Apostles themselves, or by amanuenses under their immediate inspection, are all lost. Their preservation, during the space of seventeen centuries, could not be expected without the interposition of a miracle., "But what benefits," says Michaelis, "should we derive from the possession of these manuscripts, or what inconvenience do we suffer from their loss? No critic in classical literature enquires after the original of a profane author, or disputes the authenticity of Cicero's Offices, because we have not the copy which Cicero wrote with his own hand. An antiquarian, or collector of ancient records, will scarcely maintain that the probability of these books being genuine, is inferior to the probability that a record in his possession of the twelfth century, is an authentic document of that period; for though his record is only six hundred years old, and the works of Cicero are thrice as ancient, we are more exposed to imposition in the former instance, as the forgery of antiquities is often practised by those whose business and profit are to lead the curious into error. But, supposing that the ori ginal manuscripts of Cicero, Cæsar, Paul, and Peter, were now extant, it would be impossible to decide whether they were spurious, or whether they were actually written by the hands of these authors." In fact there is no reason to doubt that the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, of the

Marsh.

Apostles,

Apostles, were written by those whose names they bear. Nor is there any cause to doubt of the authors of all the rest. This may be proved by the testimony of those who wrote soon after them, and who have frequently quoted their writings, by the testimony of the Christian churches in all parts of the earth, which at all times unanimously allowed those writings to be genuine and authentic, and by an inspection of the books themselves, which bear no marks of corruption or deceit. That the books of the New Testament were in general use among Christians, at a very early period, is a uni versal opinion. "The book, called the New Testament," observes the bishop of Landaff, "consists of twenty-seven different parts; concerning seven of these, viz. the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, the second of Peter, the second of John, the third of John, that of Jude, and the Revelation, there were at first some doubts; and the question whether they should be received into the canon, might be decided, as all questions concerning opinions must be, by vote. With respect to the other twenty parts, those who are most acquainted with ecclesiastical history will tell you, as Du Pin does after Eusebius, that they were owned as canonical, at all times, and by all Chris tians. Whether the council of Laodicea was held before or after that of Nice, is not a settled point; but it is a great mistake to suppose that the greatest part of the books of the New Testament were not in general use amongst Chistians, long before the council of Laodicea was held." His lordship then quotes the following passage from Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History: "The opinions, or rather the conjectures of the learned, concerning the time when the books of the New Testament were collected into one

volume, as also about the authors of that collection, are extremely different. This important question is attended with great and almost insuperable difficulties to us in these latter times. It is, however, sufficient for us to know, that, before the middle of the second century, the greatest part of the books of the New Testament were read in every Christian society throughout the world, and received as a divine rule of faith and manners. Hence it appears, that these sacred writings were carefully separated from several human compositions on the same sub. ject, either by some of the Apostles themselves, who lived so long, or by their disciples and successors, who were spread MONTHLY MAG, No, 213,

abroad through all nations. We are well assured that the four gospels were colJected during the life of St. John, and that the three first received the approbation of this divine Apostle. And why may we not suppose that the other books of the New Testament were gathered together at the same time? What renders this highly probable is, that the most urgent necessity required its being done. For, not long after Christ's ascension into heaven, several histories of his life and doctrines, full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders, were composed by persons, whose intentions, perhaps, were not bad, but whose writings discovered the greatest superstition and ignorance. Nor was this all, productions appeared, which were imposed on the world by fraudulent men as the writings of the holy Apostles. These apocryphal and spurious writings must have produced a sad confusion, and rendered both the history and the doctrine of Christ uncer tain, had not the rulers of the church used all possible care and diligence in separating the books that were truly apostolical and divine, from all that spu rious trash, and conveying them down to posterity in one volume."

It is therefore evident, that the authenticity of the books of the New Tes. tament does not depend on the Codex Beza, the Clermont manuscript, or any other single copy whatever. On the contrary, it is highly probable that all our manuscripts of the New Testament proceeded from the collection of those books made after the death of all, or the greatest part of the Apostles. Ravenstonedale, April 11, 1811.

To

J. ROBINSON.

the Editor of the Monthly Magazine.

SIR,

ties instituted for the benefit of the MIDST the numerous public sociepeople, I never heard of one for the protection of indigence and misfortune against the tricks, chicanery, and oppres sion of the law and of legal pettifoggers.

The mischiefs perpetrated by swindlers, and sharpers, against whom there exist two or three active associations in London, and one in almost every county, are to those inflicted by the vipers and sharks of the legal profession, in the proportion of not more than one to ten thousand! Those take baubles; but the latter are wholesale dealers, and carry off house, land, skin, carcase, and all! 3 G

Such

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

moved toward the northern meridian. About five or six minutes after its first appearance to me, the eastern extremity of it passed under the polar star.

At the lowest height which can be assigned to it, its velocity must have been very great. And its gaining altitude as it passed northward, seems to indicate that it was far above our atmosphere.

I remember a similar white arch, May 27, 1781; but I do not recollect that it had such a remarkable, or indeed any, apparent motion.

Its light diminished as it receded northward,but was great enough even then to be seen with my night glass.

April 22.

CAPEL LOFFT.

For the Monthly Magazine.

CRITICAL REMARKS on SHAKESPEARE, HENRY V.-Act. I. Scene 2.

"Yet that is but a crush'd necessityWhile that the armed hand doth fight abroad, The advised head defends itself at home."

TH

HUS the old folio editions: the quarto reads "curs'd necessity:" Sir Thomas Hanmer, with more than critical license, "not o'course a necessity." Dr. Johnson recommends "crude necessity;" and Dr. Warburton says posi we should read 'scused necestively, sity." I imagine every reader would wish to be 'scused the necessity of adopt. ing any one of these various emendations, May we not venture, till something better is proposed, to read coward necessity, i. e. a necessity which fear only creates; a sense perfectly corresponding with the scope and spirit of the context, which deprecates the idea of being deterred from the invasion of France from the apprehended necessity of guarding against the petty incursions of the Scots at home.

-Peace to this meeting wherefore we are

met, &c.

The 5th act of this play was apparently. intended to open with this scene; but in vain do we look for the genius of Shakespeare in any part of it. The preellin, is certainly genuine; but the receding dialogue between Pistol and Flumainder of this play, and nearly the whole of the next, seem unquestionably borrowed from that feeble series of historic dramas which the stage had been in possession of long before the time of Shakespeare, and many of which he was employed to reconstruct; not scrupling, however, to make great occasional use

of the old materials.

[blocks in formation]

not written by Shakespeare, is an opinion founded on the strongest presumptive evidence. It bears no resemblance to his genuine productions in its versifica tion, style, or diction; and possesses no portion of his spirit. The 2d and 3d parts of this history originally published, A. D. 1600, under the title of "The Contention of York and Lancaster," were undoubtedly, as Dr. Johnson has remarked, designed to continue the series of transactions of which it pre-supposes the first part already known;"the former portion terminating with the courtship, and the latter commencing with the marriage of Margaret of Anjou with the king. The epilogue to Henry V. speaks of the history of Henry VI. "in infant bands" crowned King of France and England as having oft been shewn on the stage: but this by no means proves that Shakespeare was the author of the first part. If he wrote the second and third parts either wholly or in great measure, he would naturally take up the story where the former dramatist laid it down. That the second and third parts of this drama contain many scenes which could proceed only from the pen of this mighty poet, is undeniable: 'but they are blended with others of a totally different stamp and complexion; and completely assimilating with the first part, which exhibits no trace of the genius of Shakespeare, and of which it is probable that not a single line was written by him. The authority of the player

editors, who have ascribed to him such performances as Locrine, the Life and Death of Lord Cromwell, and Titus Andronicus, cannot be regarded as of the slightest estimation.

HENRY VI. Part II-Act. I. Scene 8.

Ask what thou wilt-that I had said and done! Have done for more I hardly can endure.

It is worthy of remark that the hereditary title of York to the crown is in this scene stated very clearly, and in a manner conformable to historical truth. But in the first part of Henry VI. the claim of the House of March, from whom the right of York was derived, is enveloped in strange and inextricable confusion; an additional proof that the former part was not the production of Shakes peare.

In Gray's Descent of Odin the spirit of the prophetess delivers her predictions with the same constraint and reluctance; and expresses a similar resentment and indignation at the forcible and presumptuous violation of her deep and iron slumber. The "hallowed verge" is an idea which does not occur in the tragedy of Macbeth, though very poetical and congruous to vulgar opinion. And other sparks we may discern of the “ Muse of fire" which was destined to produce that prodigy of dramatic art and genius.

War. Sweet York begin; and if thy claim be good, The Nevils are thy subjects to command.

Tork. Then thus ---~. Act II, Scene 2.

Act III. Scene 1.-The scenes which pass in the Abbey of Bury, displaying the machinations of the queen, the cardinal, Suffolk, and York, against the Duke of Glocester, are not of the genuine cast and colour of Shakespeare, whose magic pen nevertheless again appears in the description given by Warwick, of the murder of the duke; and still more conspicuously in the celebrated death bed scene of Cardinal Beaufort; the beauties of which, as Dr. Johnson emphatically observes," rise out of nature and of truth.

The superficial reader cannot miss them, the profound can image no. thing beyoud them." The greater part of the two last acts seems of very dubi ous authority.

HENRY VI. Part 3.

Act I. Scene 3. The interesting in cidents of this scene, seem to have awakened the genius of Shakespeare, which had long lain dormant, or if at all apparent, glimmering with faint and feeble lustre. The fury of Clifford, the malice of the queen, and the anguish of York, are painted in glowing colours, and in the style of a master.

HENRY VI. Part 3-Act II. Scene 5.

This battle fares like to the morning's war, When dying clouds contend with growing light, &c.

This speech of the king may rank among the most beautiful effusions of Shakespeare's Muse in her mournful moods; and presents amidst the tumult and hor ror of the battle, as our English Longi nus has observed, "a delightful glimpse of rural innocence and pastoral tranquillity." I am strongly disposed to think that the short speech in the quarto, of which this is so noble an enlargement, was written not by Shakespeare, but by his theatrical pre-cursor. It is too flat, too feeble, and too prosaic, to come from the pen of the great poet, whose alchymy, and whose alone, could produce gold of the purest lustre from the vilest Jross.

-For Warwick is a subtle orator, And Louis a prince soon won with moving Act III. Scene 1.

words.

Whether from ignorance or inadver

tency,

[merged small][ocr errors]
« ZurückWeiter »