ΤΟ ΑΙΜΑΜΟΥ ΠΟΤΟΝ * omits these 29 letters apparently alone. ca restores with perhaps ἀληθής in each case for ἀληθῶς. A new section begins at ἡ γὰρ σάρξ. N* apparently alone omits these 24 letters; A restores. A division at the ninth letter in lines 2, 3, and 4 would mean short lines and του occupies but little space. (11) Jn. xiii 31, 32 : овс ΕΔΟΞΑΣΘΗΕΝ [Αγτωειοθε ΕΔΟΞΑΣΘΗΕΝ] Αγτωκοθε ** stands apparently alone in omitting these 19 letters. (12) Jn. xv 9, 10: YMAC ΜΕΙΝΑΤΕΕΝΤΗ ΑΓΑΠΗΤΗ ΜΗ [ANTACENTOVAC 5 ΜΟΥΤΗΡHCETE ΜΕΝΕΙΤΕΕΝΤΗ ΑΓΑΠΗΤΗ ΜΗ] Aca restores. * stands apparently alone in omitting these 45 letters; ca restores with the spelling τηρησεται, μενιται. Line 4 is a long line, but a break at the tenth letter would make the line too short and the word were better finished. ΟΤΙ ΕΚ ΤΟΥΕΜΟΥ ΛΑΜΒΑΝΕΙ ΚΑΙ ΤΟ ΑΝΑΓΓΕΛΛειγΜΙ] ΜΙΚΡΟΝ * stands apparently alone in omitting these 70 letters; ca restores with the spelling εχει, λαμβανι, αναγγελι, which may have been the spelling of the archetype. Both πάντα (line 5) and διὰ τοῦτο (line 7) begin new sections. (14) Jn. xvi 17: HMIN [ογθεωρειτε ΜΕ ΚΑΙ ΠΑΛΙΝ] ΜΙΚΡΟΝ ΚΑΙ * apparently alone attests this omission of 29 letters; ca restores with the spelling ον θεωριται. (15) Jn. xvii 17, 18: ΑΥΤΟΥΣ [coγολογοco ECTIN N* apparently alone attests this omission of 2o letters (Β, however, and others including C* and L omit σου); Nca restores with the spelling αληθια. (16) Jn. xix 19 ff: ΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΕΝΟΝ ICONAZOPAI ocoBaciλεγε ΤΩΝΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ 5 [ΤΟΥΤΟΝΟΥΝΤΟΝ τιτλοςπολλοι ΑΝΕΓΝΩΣΑΝ OTIE TYCHNO 1Ο ΤΟΠΟCTH πολ εωτοπογεστρω ΘHOICΚΑΙ ΗΝ ΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΕΝΟΝ 15 Ρωμαιστι ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΤΙ ΕΛΕΓΟΝΟΥΝ τω πιλάτω OiaрxiЄpeic 20 ΤΩΝΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ Миграфе Bασιλεγε ΤΩΝΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ] αλλοτιεκει 25 NOCEITTENBA ΤΩΝΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ * apparently alone attests this omission of some 1go letters or 19 lines; perhaps, according to the mere number of letters, the eight lines 17-24 (68 letters) should be divided into seven. The division, however, I have given best represents to the eye the sense; there is a proper name in line 18, and lines 22 and 23 ought to stand out. The division of lines 14-16 is justified by the εβραϊστι ρωμαιστι· ελληνιστι οἱ μα, which restores the omission with the further abbreviations of lovda in lines 8 and 23 and of in line 12. The omission is too short for a column. Τοῦτον οὖν τὸν τίτλον begins a new section. spellings μvnov, Oewpt. About 100 letters are omitted, an average of Io to the line. Various slight alterations in lines 3-14 are possible, but the above appears to me most natural and any possible alteration would not affect the general result.1 1 It is, perhaps, worth while to notice (1) the omission in N* of kaì tồv xɩTŵva in John xix 23, although N* is here supported by a, b, ff2 and syrsch, and it is not certain that the prototype of N had this reading. It is an omission of 12 letters, or of K+9 letters, which is the reading of Nca. If the next two lines were HNDEOXITWNA the omission would be to some extent explained, but the division of apapos does In practically all the instances given above there is next to no doubt that the omissions are due to the carelessness of the scribe of &, and there is hardly in any case more doubt as to the reading of the exemplar from which that manuscript was copied.' They all, moreover, readily lend themselves to explanation by the cause to which I assigned the omission in the first example, and that without any undue pressing of any considerations which might probably have influenced the scribe of either manuscript. The average number of letters in the line is unusually small, but if, as has been pointed out already (p. 565), the letters were the size of those of & they would occupy about two inches, which would not make the width of the column without parallel (cf. Kenyon Palaeography of Greek Papyri p. 21). The length of line thus chosen would make the manuscript more costly both in material and labour, but it has this advantage that the line frequently ends with the end of a word, a reconstruction of the first fifty lines of & on this principle giving only four divided words as against twenty-one. However much this arrangement may have contributed to mistakes in copying, it made for clearness in reading and enabled important words or phrases to be isolated and so made prominent. It would also tend to ease of reference, especially if the first line of a section was indented, as I am inclined to think it was. The tentative colometry, if I may use the phrase, of the method suggests the sort of manuscript which a careful scholar, who knew the value of neat and clear arrangement, might make or have made for himself. Origen would be such a person and, especially with the experience of the Hexapla behind him, might very well have been directly or indirectly responsible for some arrangement of this sort. An exhaustive examination of the rest of the New Testament from this point of view would carry me far beyond the limits and purpose of this note. Moreover, the Gospel of St John, with its frequent repetition of similar phrases, naturally lends itself to this kind of transcriptional error, and we could not in any case expect the phenomena observed in St John to be repeated with anything like the same frequency elsewhere. A certain amount of caution is, therefore, necessary in making any deductions. An examination, however, of a fair number of passages not agree with my idea of the prototype of N; and (2) the omission in John xx 3 of kai nрxovтo eis тò μvnμelov (say 23 letters), which may, perhaps, be explained thus (with N): [KAIHPXONTO και τρεχο. Both omissions are, however, probably due to other causes. A No. 6 is the possible exception. in the other three groups of books (Acts-Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse) yielded practically no example which even suggested a line in their original of eleven letters. In the Synoptic Gospels, which I examined with some care, Mark i 32, iv 37, xii 25, and XV 47 with Luke x 32, xiii 14, and xvi 16, and perhaps one or two other omissions can be explained with more or less plausibility in the same way as the omissions in St John. There are, however, numerous other omissions in the Synoptic Gospels obviously due to a blunder of the scribe of N, and these either admit of no such explanation or suggest a different arrangement of the lines. The instances, indeed, in St John's Gospel are in comparison so convincing and so consistent that it looks as if St John stood by itself; in which case we have confirmation of the opinion which finds behind & not a codex or codices but a series of papyrus rolls. It is worth while just to point out that in John xvii 15 B omits the thirty letters enclosed below in brackets, and that the verse itself can be arranged as follows: INAAPHC AYTOYCEKTOY [KOΣΜΟγαλλ INATHPHCHC AYTOYCEKTOY] ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ. H. S. CRONIN. DEUX SERMONS INÉDITS DE BALDWIN, ARCHEVÊQUE DE CANTERBURY 1184-1190. LE second successeur de Thomas Becket a été plus étudié dans sa vie que dans ses écrits, et dans ses traités dogmatiques que dans ses œuvres parénétiques.1— En 1662, Bertrand Tissier édita 16 sermons, qui furent réimprimés par Migne3 en 1855; le manuscrit utilisé, venant de l'abbaye de Clairvaux, est aujourd'hui à Troyes (no 876, XIIIe s.); une copie, du xive s., qui donne les mêmes sermons dans le même ordre, est conservée à Londres, à la Lambeth Library (no 210); ce sont également des textes déjà connus que nous trouvons à Paris (Bibl. nat., lat. 14932, fol. 185, XIIe s.*; 1252, fol. 162 et 170 vo, XIIIe s.5), à Cambrai 1 Dictionary of National Biography, nouv. éd., vo Baldwin. 2 Bibliotheca patrum cisterciensium v 1-74. Patr. lat. CCIV 403-572. 4 Le sermon xvi des éditions. 5 Les sermons xvi et IV. |