« PredošláPokračovať »
ON THE CODEX RUPEFUCALDI.
The preface and titles to the Parallels are written in a bicolumnar form with about 40 lines to the column: the rest of the MS. is written in the ordinary manner, the initials and titles and authors' names being rubricated subsequently to the writing of the rest of the matter, but with such care that I have thus far only detected a single dropped initial, and the whole book is a marvel of exact calligraphy.
On f. 1 stands the superscription :
"Collegii Claromontani Parisiensis Societat. Jesu ex dono eminentiss. Cardinal. Rupifucaldi."
Between ff. 161 and 162 are eight leaves on paper in a modern hand, in which an attempt has been made to restore a missing quaternion or quaternions from the printed Vatican Parallels (beginning Par. Vat. 432 D èàv ομνύης and ending with Par. Vat. 462 Β σπηλαίον | ληστών.
The identity of the MS. with the missing book is evident not only from the headings and subscription but from a comparison with the Par. Rup. of Lequien, the John Monachus of Mangey, and the extracts from it in Halloix and other patristic writers. So valuable and complete (with the exception noted) is this MS. that if it had crossed my path earlier I should have made it the basis of almost all the subsequent work, and printed from it the greater part of the Philonea collected by Mai, Pitra, and Tischendorf, as well as those quotations which are current in the Melissa of Antony.
As it is, I have contented myself with noting the references and a few readings, and reserve a fuller account of the Patristic excerpts for a future tract on Ante-Nicene Patristic Fragments. But now, what are we to say about Tischendorf's description of this MS. ? The prolegomena to the vilith edition of the New Testament, or rather the fragmentary notice which stands in the place of prolegomena, says (p. xvi):
Dam par. cod i.e. Joh. Damasceni parallela sacra ex Cod. Rupefuc. Saeculi fere 8.
It is needless to say that by no reasoning can we identify this book with Cod. Rup. Tischendorf is evidently quoting from an uncial MS. Can it be that after all he is referring to Cod. Reg., and has made the hasty identification to which our own first thoughts were led under his influence ? Let us see some of the readings which he quotes from the book.
In general, as intimated previously, the references are given as follows: Matt. xxii. 8 OTL Dampar. 342 om.; Mark xii. 44 TEPLODEVOVTOS aŭtous (et Or. Dampar. cod.); Ura et mu Dampar. ed. TEPIOSEVMatos attw. In the last passage the references clearly refer to the printed parallels and to the edited text of Lequien. If we turn, however, to the critical apparatus of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we are astonished to find a new notation: e.g. Heb. xii. 1 Damparis tpexojev Heb. xii. 3 újwv Dam Paris om. xii. 4 Dam Paris avtekaTEOTITE, &c., all of which readings may be found in Reg. f. 341 b. While on xii. 7 we have els traidelay supported by Dam. ad h. 1. et parall 673 (et paris). The first of these references is, of course, to the commentary on the Pauline Epistles; the second to the printed text of parallels; while the third is from f. 260 of Cod. Reg. We have no doubt then that Tischendorf is really referring in these readings to our Paris MS., seeing that there is no other to which we can attach the mark of place (Parisiensis) nor of date (viii. sæc. fere) so as to agree both with his descriptions and citations.
FURTHER REMARKS ON COD. COISLIN. 20.
We have alluded to the uncial fragments of a MS. of parallels which are found at the beginning of Cod. Coislin. 20. A few more notes are added with regard to them in order to shew the close connection that subsists between them and the Cod. Reg.
The MS. from which they are taken is bicolumnar, and contained (as a little restoration of the damaged parts will shew) 36 lines to the column and about 16 letters to the line. The first leaf contains as follows: after four lines of a sentence whose beginning is wanting, μηδε γογγύσης ως ολίγον βραδύνων ίνα μηδέ ολίγον του όλου ζημίαν υπομείνης, the text follows as in Lequien 621, in the middle of a passage attributed to Chrysostom, όσον γαρ νηστεία κτε...έπιεν. It then continues with the fragment of the same homily (Lequien 622) beginning vno tela kai dénois... jóvov nepòs móvo. It then adds from Basil tepi vnatelas the fragment on 622, as far as dytleis: and so concludes the titles under N at the foot of the first column of the verso. In all this it is strictly following the order in Cod. Reg., with the single exception that it has avoided the transposition of the passage from Basil over the last of the extracts attributed to Chrysostom. Letter & then begins, precisely as in Cod. Reg., as follows:
The extracts then follow the order in Cod. Reg., viz. :
Gen. 'Avaßréyfas ’ABpadu kté. followed by a Scholium which is given completely in Reg., but only indicated by an abbreviation in Coislin, the bottom of the leaf where it probably was written being cut away.
Exod. II poonautov Kté.
Levit. εάν τις προσέλθη κτε. with which the first leaf ends.
The second leaf begins with ουκ οίδας άρτι κτέ. from the Gospel of John c. xiii.
This is followed by Matt. xiv. 6, 7 and a sentence του αγίου βασιλείου εκ των εις τον α' ψαλμόν Μη εναπομείνης τους κακώς βουλευθείσιν. .
These passages belong under the title, trepi opkov.
nepi óppanWN kai Xhp@n The passages are given in the order, Exodus xxii., Proverbs xxiii., Prov. i., Sirach iv., Sirach xxxv., i Tim. v. 5, i Tim. v. 11, i Cor., Jac. i., Philo, Tob., Ps. xciii., Zacharias. It will be seen that this order is confused; but the matter contained is almost exactly the same as that in Cod. Reg. The next title is
Tepi oinoy kai xpricewc aytoy the extracts being from Psalm ciii. and Proverbs as in Reg., and so the leaf ends.
On the whole it will be found that there is a much closer agreement between Coislin and Reg. than between Coislin and Vat. or Coislin and Rup. : the latter codex for instance has three additional titles thrust in between Tepi opkwv and trepi oppavớv. The Coislin fragment is, therefore, though not a part of the Cod. Reg., so like to it that there is either a relationship between them or they both are derived without much change from the primitive collection of parallels.
ON THE EDITED AND UNEDITED FRAGMENTS OF
proceed to the practical use of the special manuscript to which we have drawn attention. It has been already intimated that there seems very little prospect of publishing the text in full, or, which is nearly the same thing, of re-editing the Parallels of Lequien. We are accordingly obliged to make what use we can of the extracts (i) for the recension of the text of the Old and New Testaments, (ii) for the text of the earlier Fathers. Reserving the former for another opportunity, we have concluded that the most useful thing would be to select a new series of passages from the oldest Greek Fathers and identify and classify them as far as possible. And since Philo is one of the writers most frequently quoted, and one for whose text in late days least has been done, we have devoted the remainder of the present book to this writer alone. For it soon becomes evident that it is of little use merely to reprint the extracts from Philo contained in the Codex, unless a complete study be made at the same time of the fragments already edited, and rightly or wrongly ascribed to him. In other words we have done many months' hewing of wood and drawing of water for the next editor of Philo, who may bless us if he finds the work done well, but cannot altogether curse us when he finds references given to sources from which he can with greater fulness and certainty draw for himself.
A further reason why we have taken this in hand, besides the need of a re-edited and expanded text of Philo, lies in the fact that we have a profound reverence amounting almost to a cultus for the Alexandrian sage; to us his fragments are no mere chaff and draff, but such blessed brokenness of truth just dawning on the world that one would almost imagine him to be holding out to us what had previously passed through the hands of the