History of the transmission of ancient books to modern times; or, A concise account of the means by which the genuineness and authenticity of ancient historical works are ascertained: with an estimate of the comparative value of the evidence usually adduced in support of the claims of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures

Front matter

0000^05=1555

HISTORY

TRANSMISSION OF ANCIENT BOOKS

Chap. I. Antiquity and genuineness of

THE EXISTING REMAINS OF ANCIENT LITER- ATURE. — Proof derived from the history of Manuscripts — from quotations and references — from the history of Language 9

Chap. II. Facts illustrative of the history of manuscripts. — Materials of ancient books — instruments of writing — inks — changes in the modes of writing — form of ancient books — illuminations, &c— the copyists— places most celebrated for the transcription of books 43

Chap. III. Indications of the existence of ancient literature from the decline of learning in the seventh century, to its restoration in the fifteenth. — Cele- , brated writers of the middle ages, whose works being extant, give evidence of their acquaintance with ancient literature .86

Chap. IV. Methods of ascertaining the credibility of historical works. — Moral and intellectual qualifications of historians — means of information they possessed — time and

VI CONTENTS.

circumstances of the first publication of their works — exceptions to their testimony on particular points 110

Chap. V. Confirmations of the evidence of

HISTORIANS DERIVED FROM INDEPENDENT

sources. — Remains of general literature — geographical facts — permanent customs of nations —

monuments of art 144

Chap. VI. General principles, applicable

TO QUESTIONS OF GENUINENESS AND AU- THENTICITY 176

Chap. VII. Relative strength of the evidence WHICH SUPPORTS THE GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE HOLY SCRIP- TURES 197

Appendix

1. Specimen of various readings 241

2. Restorers of learning in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries 247

3. The Jesuit Hardouin 25

5 >

Introduction

No one thinks of calling in question the principal facts of ancient history, or of disputing the authenticity of the works from which chiefly our knowledge of antiquity is derived. This confidence in the certainty of history is so firm, and is known to be in general so well ^founded, that it might seem unnecessary to adduce in form the various evidence on which it actually rests.

But on this subject, as well as upon some others, there often exists at the same time too much faith, and too little ; for, from a want of acquaintance with the details on which a rational conviction of the genuineness and validity of ancient records may be founded, many persons, even though otherwise well informed, feel that they have hardly an alternative between a simple acceptance of the entire mass of ancient history, or an equally indiscriminate suspicion

INTRODUCTION'.

of the whole. And when it happens that a particular fact is questioned, or the genuineness of some ancient book is argued, such persons, conscious that they are little familiar with the particulars of which the evidence on these subjects consists, and perceiving that the controversy involves a multiplicity of recondite and uninteresting researches ; or that it turns upon the validity of minute criticisms, either recoil altogether from the argument, or accept an opinion, without inquiry, from that party on whose judgement they think they may most safely rely.

And certainly such controversies may, for the most part, very properly be left in the hands of critics and antiquarians, whose peculiar tastes and acquirements qualify them for investigations that must be utterly uninteresting to the mass of readers. Nor are the facts to which these controversies relate often of any importance to the general student of history; for they do not extensively affect the integrity of that department of literature to which they belong. But yet it must be allowed that the principles on which such questions are argued, and the common facts that are connected with the transmission of ancient literature to modern times, are in themselves highly important, and well deserving of more attention than they often receive. Nor are these facts, when separated

INTRODUCTION. tf

from particular controversies, at all complicated, abstruse, or difficult of apprehension. Indeed much of the information that bears upon the subject is in itself highly curious and interesting, as well as important.

Even in relation to those works of genius whose value consists in their intrinsic merits, and which would not be robbed of their beauties though discovered to be spurious, an assurance of their genuineness is felt by every reader to conduce greatly to the pleasure they impart. But a much stronger feeling naturally leads us to demand this assurance in the perusal of works which profess to have reality only for their matter. — Truth is the very subject of History. — Satisfactory evidence, therefore, of the integrity of its records may well be deemed an indispensable preliminary to a course of study in that department of knowledge.

Besides its peculiar propriety in connection with the study of history, the argument in support of the genuineness and authenticity of the existing remains of ancient literature is singularly fitted to afford a useful exercise to the reasoning faculties ; and perhaps, better than any other subject, calls into combined action those powers of the mind that are too much separated by mathematical, physical, or legal pursuits, and which in the actual occasions of common life can subserve our welfare only so far as they move in unison.

But reasons of still greater moment recommend the subject of the following pages to the attention of the reader ; for every one, whether or not he is contented to admit without inquiry the authenticity of profane history, has the highest personal concern in the truth of that particular portion of ancient history with which the Christian religion is connected ; and every one is bound to acquire a full conviction of the genuineness of the books in which its principles are contained. And as the facts on which this proof depends are of the same kind in profane, as well as in sacred literature, and as the same principles of evidence are applicable to all questions relating to the genuineness of ancient books, it is highly desirable that the proof of the genuineness of the Sacred Writings should be viewed in its place, as forming a part only of a general argument, which bears equally upon all the literary remains of antiquity. For it is only when so viewed that the comparative strength and completeness of the proof that belongs to this particular case can be duly estimated ; and when exhibited in this light it will be seen that the integrity of the records of the Christian faith is substantiated by evidence in a tenfold proportion more various, copious, and conclusive, than that which can be adduced

INTRODUCTION. O

in support of any other ancient writings. So that if the question had no other importance belonging to it than what may attach to a purely literary inquiry, or if only the strict justice of the case were regarded, the authenticity of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures would never be controverted till the entire body of classical literature had been proved to be spurious.

Many, perhaps most persons, in perusing works on the evidences of revealed religion, are apt to suppose that the sacred books only, or that these books more than any others, stand in need of laboured argumentation in support of their authenticity : while, in truth, these books, far less than any other ancient writings, need a careful investigation of their claims ; for the proof that establishes them is on all points obvious and redundant. Indeed this very redundancy and variety of evidence, especially if it happens to be unskilfully adduced, may actually produce confusion and hesitancy, rather than affirmed conviction in unpractised minds. And this perplexity is perhaps increased by the very idea of the vast importance of the subject. Thus it may often happen that those very facts which, if compared with others of a similar kind, are susceptible of the most complete proof, are actually regarded with the most distrust.

The subject of the following pages constitutes what may be termed — the History of the Records of History ; and our object is to trace the extant works of the ancient historians retrogressively, from modern times, up to the age to which they are usually attributed; and then to explain the grounds on which, under certain limitations, the contents of these works are admitted to be authentic and worthy of credit. This inquiry therefore consists of two perfectly distinct parts, of which the Jimt relates to the antiquity, genuineness, and integrity of certain books, now extant ; and the proposition to be established is this, namely, that such and such books were written in the age to which they are usually assigned, and by the authors to whom they are commonly attributed, and that they have not suffered material corruption in the course of transcription.

The second part of the inquiry relates to the degree of credit that is due to such of these ancient works as profess to be narratives of facts ; and the proposition to be maintained is this, namely, that such or such an author wrote what he believed to be true, and that he possessed authentic information on the subject of which he treats. The proof in this case must be drawn from the style and character of the work itself; from the circumstances that attended its first publication ; from the corroborative evidence of contemporary writers ; and from the agreement of the narrative in particular instances with existing relics of antiquity.

Satisfactory evidence in support of the first proposition will prove that the works in question are not forgeries: — evidence establishing the second, will show that they are not fictions,

It is obvious that these propositions are not only distinct, but quite independent of each other : — one of them may be conclusively established, while the other is either disproved, or remains questionable. A book may contain a true narrative of events, though not written by the author, or in the age that have commonly been supposed. Or, on the other hand, it may undoubtedly be the production of the alleged author, but deserve little credit as a professed record of facts. Thus, for example, the Cyropaedia is, on the best evidence, attributed to Xenophon ; but there is little reason to suppose that it deserves to be considered as more than an historical romance : — the genuineness of the work is certain ; but its authenticity as a history is very questionable. But the first of these propositions is more independent of the second, than the second can be of the first. For when the proof of the proper antiquity and genuineness of an historical work is clearly demonstrated, it is seldom difficult to fix the degree of credit that is due to the author, or to discover those particular points on which there may he reason to suspect his veracity, to question the soundness of his judgment, or to doubt the accuracy of his information,

Chapter I

ANTIQUITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE EXISTING REMAINS OF ANCIENT LITERATURE.

The antiquity and genuineness of the extant remains of ancient literature maybe established by three lines of proof that are altogether independent of each other ; and though, in any particular instance, one, or even two out of the three should be wanting, the remaining one may alone be perfectly conclusive : — when the three concur they present a redundant demonstration of the facts in question.

The Jirst line of proof relates to the history of certain copies of a work, which are now in existence.

The second— traces the history of a work as it may be collected from the series of references made to it by succeeding writers.

The third — is drawn from the known history of the language in which the work is extant.

I. History Of Manuscripts

The antiquity and integrity of a work are, it is obvious, liable to no dispute so far as the

10 HISTORY OP MANUSCRIPTS.

existence of any one copy of it can be traced back with certainty to the time of its first publication. If, for example, a manuscript of a work in the author's hand writing were still extant, and if the fact of its being such could be proved, our argument would be concluded, and all other evidence must be deemed superfluous. There are however few such unquestionable autographs to be found even of modern works, and none of any ancient one. Yet the circumstances attending the preservation and transmission of manuscripts are, in some instances, as we shall see, such as to prove the antiquity and genuineness of a work with little less certainty than as if the very first copy of it were in existence.

But before we enter into the particulars of this proof it should be mentioned, in conformity with the plan of the argument, which requires us to follow the order of time retrogressively, that it is unnecessary to trace the history of manuscripts later than the early part of the fifteenth century, when most of the classic authors passed through the press. For the invention of printing has served as well to ascertain, beyond doubt, the existence of books at certain dates, as to secure the text from interpolation and corruption. A printed book is not susceptible of subsequent interpolation or alteration by the pen : it bears also a date, and the issuing of different editions of the same work from distant places, would render any falsification of date in one of them, or any material corruption of the text hy an editor, an absurd and nugatory attempt. There are for example, now extant, printed copies of the history of the Peloponnesian war, dated " Venice, 1502 ;" other copies of an edition of the same work dated " Florence, 1506 ;" others, dated " Basil, 1540;" and others, printed within a few years of the same time at Paris and Vienna. On being compared with each other, these editions are found to agree in the main ; and yet to disagree in many small variations of orthography, syntax, or expression ; so as to prove that they were separately derived from different manuscripts, and not successively from each other. These printed editions, therefore, sufficiently prove the existence of the work in the fifteenth century; and also that the text of the modern editions has not been materially impaired or corrupted during the last four hundred years.

Let it be imagined, that there are no other means of ascertaining the antiquity and genuineness of the classic authors than such as may be collected from the history of existing manuscripts : and our object then will be to discover to what age they may clearly be traced ; and to deduce from the facts of the case some inference relative to the length of time during which those works have probably been under the process of transcription.

The date of ancient manuscripts may be ascertained by such means as the following.

1. Some manuscripts are known to have been preserved in the libraries where they are now found for several centuries : — for not only have they been mentioned in the catalogues of the depositories to which they belong, but accurately described by eminent scholars of succeeding ages ; so that no doubt can remain of their identity. Or if they have changed hands, the particulars of the successive transfers are authentically recorded.

2. A large proportion of existing manuscripts are dated by the hand of the copyists, so as to leave no question as to the time when they were executed.

3. Many have marginal notes, added evidently by a later hand, which by some incidental allusion to persons, events, or particular customs, or by the use of peculiar forms of expression, indicate clearly the age of the notes, and therefore carry that of the original manuscript somewhat higher.

4. The remote antiquity of a manuscript is often established by the peculiar circumstance of its being discovered beneath another writing. These rewritten manuscripts — palimpsests, or rescripts, as they are termed, afford the most satisfactory proof of antiquity that can be imagined. Parchment, always a costly material, was greatly enhanced in price when the paper manufactured from the papyrus of the Nile began to be scarce, and before the time when that formed from cotton, called charta bombycina, came into general use. At the same period, owing to the general decline of learning, the works of the classic authors fell into neglect. The copyists, therefore, and especially the monks, whose libraries often contained large collections of parchment books, availed themselves of the valuable material which they possessed, by erasing or washing out the original writing, and then substituted lives of the saints, romances, meditations, or such other inanities as suited the taste of the times. But often, the faithful skin, tenacious of its pristine honours, retained the traces of the original writing with sufficient distinctness to render it still legible. These rescripts therefore, present a double proof of the antiquity of the work which first occupied the parchment; for in most cases the date of the monkish writing is easily ascertained to be of the twelfth, or even the ninth century. Theirs* writing therefore must be dated considerably higher ; for it is much more probable that old, than that very recent books should have been selected for the purpose of erasure. Many invaluable manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures, and not a few precious fragments of classic literature have been thus brought to light.

5. The age of a manuscript may often be ascertained, with little chance of error, by some such indications as the following : — the quality or appearance of the ink ; the nature of the material ; that is to say, whether it be soft leather, or parchment, or the papyrus of Egypt, or the bombycine paper ; for these materials succeeded each other in common use at periods that are well known ; — the peculiar form, size, and character of the writing ; for a regular progression in the modes of writing may be traced by abundant evidence through every age from the remotest times ;—■ -Jthe style of the ornaments or illuminations, as they are termed, often serves to indicate the age of the book which they decorate.

From such indications as these, more or less definite and certain, the ancient manuscripts now extant are assigned to various periods, extending from the sixteenth to the fourth century of the Christian era ; or perhaps, in one or two instances, to the third, or second. Very few can claim an antiquity so high as the fourth century : but not a few are safely attributed to the seventh ; and a great proportion of those extant were unquestionably executed in the tenth ; and many belong to the following four hundred years. But it is to be observed that some manuscripts executed so late as the history op manuscripts: 15

thirteenth or even the fifteenth century afford clear internal evidence that, by a single remove only, the text they contain may claim a real antiquity, higher than that even of the oldest existing copy of the same work. For these older copies sometimes prove, by the peculiar nature of the corruptions which have crept into the text, that they have been derived through a long series of copies ; while perhaps the text of the more modern manuscript possesses such a degree of purity and freedom from all the usual consequences of frequent transcription, as to make it manifest that the copy from which it was taken, was so ancient as not to be far distant from the time of the first publication of the work.

Most, if not all the royal and university libraries in Europe, as well as many private collections, contain great numbers of these literary relics of antiquity ; and some of them could furnish manuscripts of nearly the entire body of ancient literature. There are few of the classic authors that are not still extant in several manuscript copies ; and of some the existing copies are almost numberless.

Although all the larger ancient libraries, such, for example, as those of Alexandria, of Constantinople, of Athens, and of Rome, were destroyed by the fanaticism of barbarian conquerors ; yet so extensive a diffusion of the most celebrated works had previously taken

16 HISTORY OP MANUSCRIPTS.

place throughout the Roman empire, that all parts of Europe and Western Asia abounded with smaller collections, or with single works in the hands of private persons. When learning declined among the people, the religious houses became the chief receptacles of books ; for in almost every such establishment there were individuals who still cultivated literature and the sciences with ardour ; and who found no difficulty in buying up almost any quantity of this generally neglected property.

Happily for literature, religious houses were places of greater security than even the fortresses or palaces of kings, which by conquest or revolution were, from time to time, violently rent from their possessors ; while these sacred seclusions were usually respected, even by the fiercest invaders. And through a long course of ages they were occupied by an order of men who succeeded each other in a more tranquil course of transition than has taken place, perhaps, in any other instance that can be named. The property of each establishment (and the literary property was always highly prized) passed down, from age to age, as if under the hand of a permanent proprietor, and was therefore subjected to fewer dispersions or destructions than the mutability of human affairs ordinarily permits.

Every church, and every convent and monastery had its library, its librarian, and other officers, employed in the conservation of the books.

HISTORY OF MANUSCRIPTS. 1J

Connected with the library was the scriptorium, where the elder monks employed themselves in making copies of such books as were falling into decay, or of such as there was still some demand for, out of their own establishment.

By these means the literature of more enlightened ages was preserved from extinction ; and when learning revived in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, a large portion of those long hoarded volumes flowed into the collections of the munificent founders of libraries, and there, becoming known to the learned, were soon afterwards consigned to the immortal custody of the press.

The places in which the remains of ancient literature were preserved during the middle ages were too many, too distant from each other, and too little connected by any kind of intercourse, to admit of a combination or conspiracy for any supposed purposes of interpolation or corruption. Possessing therefore as we do, copies of the same author, some of which were drawn from the monasteries of England, others from those of Spain, and others collected in Egypt, Palestine, or Asia Minor, if, on comparing them, we find that they accord, except in variations of little moment, we have an incontestable proof of the care and integrity with which the business of transcription was generally conducted. For if the practice of mutilation, interpolation, and corruption, had been to any considerable extent admitted, the existing remains of ancient authors could, after so long* a time, have retained scarcely a trace of integrity or uniformity. From a licentious principle of transcription, operating through one or two thousand years, must have resulted, not the connected and consistent works we actually possess ; but a heterogeneous mass of mangled fragments.

But if the general accordance of existing manuscripts attests the prevailing care, and even the scrupulousness of those through whose hands they passed, the specific nature of the diversities that do exist among the several copies of the same author serves to establish a fact which, if we did not know it by other means, it would be of the highest importance to prove : namely, that these works had already descended through a long course of time, when the existing copies were executed. This fact is especially apparent in the earlier Greek authors ; for while some MSS. retain uniformly the peculiarities of the dialect in which the author wrote ; in others, these peculiarities are merged in those commoner forms of the language which prevailed after the time of Alexander. These deviations in orthography or construction from the author's text were evidently made by copyists in compliance with the tastes of purchasers in different countries ; nor were they likely to have been effected by transcribers of the middle ages, when these books were no longer in use by readers to whom the language was vernacular, and to whom alone an accordance with the colloquial forms of the language could be a matter of importance.

Books in a dead language, intended for the use of the learned only, will never be accommodated to the colloquial fashions of an intermediate period. If, for example, in examining two editions of the poems of Chaucer, one of them is found to retain all the original peculiarities of orthography proper to the author's time, while in the other, those peculiarities are softened down into the forms adopted in *he reign of Elizabeth, we should certainly at-* tribute the edition to that period rather than suppose the corrections to have been made by a modern editor.

Again : — some MSS. present instances in which, when a passage is compared with the same in another copy, it is easy to perceive that an early transcriber, having fallen into an error, more than one succeeding transcriber has attempted a restoration of the genuine reading ; for the last conjectural emendation has plainly been framed out of two or three prior corrections.

Thus the existing manuscripts of the classic authors are traced, either by direct evidence, or by unquestionable inferences, very near to the age, and, in many instances, quite up to the age when these works were universally diffused, familiarly known, and incessantly quoted; and when, therefore, the history of each work may be easily and abundantly collected from the testimony of contemporary and succeeding authors. The various facts above alluded to serve to connect the literary remains of antiquity, now in our hands, with the period of their pristine existence. — We traverse the long era of general ignorance, that wide gulf which separates the intelligence and civilization of antiquity from the intelligence and civilization of modern times, and we land, as it were, upon the native soil of these monuments of mind, and once more find ourselves surrounded by that abundance of evidence which belongs to an advanced state of knowledge. We need not wish to trace the history of manuscripts further, than to the confines of that former world of learning and refinement.

Indeed we need not be solicitous to trace the history of these literary relics a step further than fairly into the midst of the dark ages. For if all external and correlative evidence were wanting, if nothing were known concerning the classic authors except that, such as they now are, they were extant in the tenth cen-

HISTORY OF MANUSCRIPTS.

tury, enough would be known to make it abundantly certain that these works were the product of a different, and of a distant age. The men of those times might indeed be the transcribers and conservators, and perhaps even the admirers of Thucydides, of Xenophon, of Aristophanes, of Plato, of Virgil, of Cicero, of Horace, and of Tacitus ; but assuredly they were not the authors of books such as those which bear these names. The living pictures of energy, wisdom, and liberty, which these monuments of taste and genius contain, were never imagined in the cells of a monastery, or composed in an age when nothing was to be seen abroad but ignorance, violence, and slavery; and nothing found within but a dreaming philosophy, and a degrading superstition. It is not the prerogative of the human mind, however great its native powers may be, to pass far beyond the bounds of the scene by which it is immediately surrounded, or to frame homogeneous images, which, in their elements, as well as in their adjuncts, belong to an order of things altogether unknown. To the genius of man it is given to imitate, to select, to refine, and to exalt, but not to create.

The general result of the facts brought together in the preceding* section is this, namely, that the books now extant, and usually attributed to the Greek and Roman writers, have, such as we find them, descended from a very remote age. But this general affirmation must always be understood to include an exception of those smaller omissions, additions, and alterations in the text, which have taken place either by design or inadvertency in the course of repeated transcriptions.

The actual amount and importance of these corruptions of the text of ancient authors is very likely to be much overrated by general readers, who, seeing the subject continually alluded to in critical works, and knowing that criticisms upon " various readings" often occupy a space five times exceeding* that filled by the text, and that they not seldom become the subject of voluminous and angry controversies, must be led to suppose that questions upon which the learned are so long and so seriously employed cannot be otherwise than weighty and substantial. With a view of correcting this impression, so far as it may be erroneous, we shall now briefly explain the general nature, causes, and extent of these variations and corruptions.*

* In the appendix the reader may see some specimens of these " various readings.''

By far the greater proportion of all various readings — perhaps nineteen out of twenty, are purely of a verbal kind, and such as can claim the attention of none but philologists and grammarians : a few deserve the notice of every reader of ancient literature ; and a few demand the particular consideration of the student of history. Taken in a mass, the light in which they should be regarded is that of their furnishing a most significant and conclusive proof of the care, fidelity, and exactness with which the business of copying was ordinarily conducted. For nothing less than a high degree, both of technical correctness and of professional integrity on the part of those who practised this craft, could have conveyed the text of ancient authors through a period (in some instances) of two thousand years, with alterations so trivial as those which, for the most part, are found actually to have taken place.