¹ Mémoire sur L'Établissement du Texte de la Vulgate (Collectanea Biblica Latina, Vol. VI) par Dom Quentin, Henri. Rome and Paris, 1922.Google Scholar

² Ibid., p. ix.

³ Besides the misprints noted by Burkitt (Journal of Theological Studies, XXIV (1923), pp. 406 ff.)Google Scholar, the following should be added to the list of errata on p. xi. P. 105: I have not accessible Estienne's edition of 1528, but hardly think it would have (unless as misprint) ‘contuleremus’; p. 182, 1. 29, read ‘matériel’; p. 291, 1. 8, read ‘ał’ (not ‘at’); p. 427, 1. 36, read ‘VIII–IX’; p. 453, 1. 5, read ‘trois’; p. 463, 1. 34, read ‘eius’; p. 463, 1. 39, read ‘littéralisme’; p. 486, 1. 30, read ראשו;, p. 511, 1. 26, read ‘pour cette’; p. 512, 1. 14, read ‘n'ont’; 1. 33, read ‘l'essemble des.’ I will refer to Dr. Burkitt's article as ‘J.T.S.’

⁴ P. ix.

⁵ Dom de Bruyne, Revue Bénédictine, XXXV (1923), p. [72]. I will refer to this article as ‘R. B.’Google Scholar

⁶ P. 94.

⁷ As Burkitt points out (J. T. S., p. 407), this result is not new, but it has nowhere been set forth in such detail.

⁸ To Conrad Celtes, to whom he says: “Vetus et novum Instrumentum graece, latine et hebraice nondum impressi, sed parturio.” The letter is printed in A. A. Renouard, Annales de l'Imprimerie des Aides,² 1825, III, p. 274Google Scholar. See also Firmin-Didot, A., Aide Manuce et L'Hellénisme à Venise, 1875, p. 180.Google Scholar

⁹ A facsimile is given by Renouard, op. cit., III, p. 44.

¹⁰ See Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, XXXIV (1923), pp. 138 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹ Dom Quentin refers (p. 155) to a list, drawn up not long after 1561, of Bible manuscripts (saec. VIII–XV) possessed by the Monastery; see Bibliotheca Casinensis, I (1873), pp. XCIII–XCV. The use of palaeographical terms (literis longobardicis, literis gallicis or antiquis) and the modern method of indicating the dates (circa Annum Domini septingentesimum, Anno ottingentesimo quinquagesimo, etc.) are noteworthy. The document is of importance for the history of palaeography in the Renaissance and should be added to my treatment of that matter in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, XXXIV, pp. 83 ff.Google Scholar

¹² Dom Quentin (p. 156) states that Monte Cassino has today only seven complete Bibles, none of which is written in Beneventan or Cassinian script. But of course that was not necessarily the case with all — or even any — of the manuscripts designated in the list as written “literis longobardicis.” See Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, XXXIV. pp. 84 f.

¹³ P. 159.

¹⁴ P. 181.

¹⁵ Mention might have been made of the plans of Firmin-Didot for a new polyglot; see his Aide Manuce, p. 180.

¹⁶ Burkitt, J. T. S., p. 413, is disposed to question the accuracy of Dom Quentin's collation. He points out one or two misprints and one important case of uncertainty, such as will occur in any work containing so many details; but that is not enough, it seems to me, to arouse any suspicion as to the general accuracy of Dom Quentin's work.

¹⁷ ‘Untersuchungen zur Ueberlieferungsgeschichte der ältesten lateinischen Mönchsregeln,’ in Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters I, 3 (1906), p. 50. He cites Corssen for the like opinion of the interrelations of the manuscripts of the Vulgate.Google Scholar

¹⁸ In his critical edition of Ovid's Metamorphoses, Berlin, 1914, p. ixGoogle Scholar. See the writer's review in Classical Philology, XI (1916), pp. 51 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁹ In his introduction to “Le Lai de L'Ombre par Jean Renart,” Paris, 1913. He declares (p. xxvi) that the general tendency to find two classes in the manuscripts of a given author is a kind of editorial myth — a Kantian category, I suppose, like space and time. Classical scholars, incidentally, will not recognize any such law in editorial practice. M. Bédier gives up the idea of classifying the manuscripts, for the reason that one can argue well for several methods of classification (p. xli). His own method is to choose what seems the best manuscript as a basis and to use the others eclectically. This is a method of despair. One may be forced to it when the manuscripts of a tradition are hopelessly crossed, as may be the case with the texts with which M. Bédier deals. But to announce such a principle in general terms, as he appears to do, cannot be regarded as other than unfortunate.Google Scholar

²⁰ These symbols are a trifle misleading. One would not infer from (2) that A and C agree with each other, and yet they do by Dom Quentin's supposition (“le second témoin est isolé, contre le premier et le troisième qui sont d'accord”). There is also no apparent reason for using < to denote the agreement of B C against A and > to denote that of A B against C. I should express the formulae thus: A > B C; B > A C; C > A B. To avoid confusion, however, I will employ Dom Quentin's symbols throughout this paper.

²¹ P. 221: “Dans ces cas le zéro indique le manuscrit le plus proche de l'archétype des deux families et qui sert d'intermédiare entre elles.”

²² As set forth, for instance, by Stählin, O., Editionstechnik², 1914, pp. 36 ff., a work to which Dom de Bruyne refers with approval in his article on Dom Quentin's studies (R. B., p. [73]).Google Scholar

²³ I have not followed Dom Quentin in including A with the other manuscripts. It is the archetype or text itself, which is never thus specified in the apparatus in any editions with which I am familiar. The 21 manuscripts devised by Dom Quentin run from B to Z, excepting I, J, and U.

²⁴ See above, pp. 200, 202.

²⁵ Theo, 320 × 230 mm.; Anic, 325 × 235; Hub, 325 × 245. The measurements are those of Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, pp. 390, 405, 412. All references to Berger are to this work.

²⁶ 248; against 349, Theo, and 348, Anic.

²⁷ Anic has “de 62 à 63” (Berger, p. 412).

²⁸ According to Delisle (Berger, p. 178), the scribe may have had before him either one of the two preceding Bibles or a copy like them. It can be shown, I believe, that the latter supposition is the more probable. Berger believed that Theo is the immediate ancestor of Gep — a view that we will examine later.

²⁹ J. T. S., p. 209.

³⁰ Pp. 231 ff.

³¹ See below, p. 216.

³² X deserves considerable praise for making no errors of its own. Its deviations from the tradition of BHK consist entirely in its borrowings from C.

³³ A clear case of three in a row is furnished by MSS. Par. lat. 7794 (saec. IX), Bern. 136 (saec. XII), and Par. lat. 1479 (saec. XV) of Cicero's ‘Cum senatui gratias egit’ and other orations. See Peterson's preface (pp. vii ff.) to his edition of these orations (Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis, 1910).

³⁴ To be exact, Dom Quentin should allow for a copy between K and X, in which certain C readings were inserted, between the lines or in the margins, whence they were put into the text by X.

³⁵ See above, p. 214.

³⁶ As always, Dom Quentin's results are based solely on his 91 select readings from the entire text of the Octateuch. For Θ there are but 75, since those in the chapter of Genesis, which is lacking in Hub, are not considered.

³⁷ See above, pp. 214 ff.

³⁸ The fourth case, “74. Theo (isolé)” I do not understand. Here Bern reads ‘has nationes’ with Theo and all the other Θ manuscripts, and not ‘nationes has,’ which certain others have. “74” is apparently a misprint. It would have cost little space, and greatly saved the reader's time and patience, if the variants had been written out in these important cases.

³⁹ The two cases are Nos. 78 and 3. In 78, Anic agrees with Hub; in 3, with Theo¹ and Bern. If the apparatus (p. 236) is correct, the numerical reference must again be a misprint.

⁴⁰ Op. cit., p. 147.

⁴¹ Ibid., p. 146; Manitius, , Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, I (1911). pp. 537 ff.Google Scholar

⁴² See Traube, , Textgeschichte der Regula S. Benedicti, in Abhand. d. kgl. Akad. d. Wiss., III Cl., XXI, 3 (1898), pp. 631, 693, with facsimile (Pl. IV).Google Scholar

⁴³ See Lindsay in Classical Philology, IV (1909), pp. 113 ff., with facsimile.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini I, 540 (ed. Dümmler).

⁴⁵ Pp. 171 ff.

⁴⁶ See Dümmler's edition, pp. 532 ff. Exclusive of insignificant spellings, there are 11 errors of Theo not found in Anic. Some of them might have been emended by Anic in the act of copying, but not, I think, the entire list. (Praefatio) 8 typica] typice; 54 agmina] acmina; 75 est positus] empositus; 89 humana] humane; 111 praeventos] preuentis; 116 At decimae] Ad decime; 130 sunt tres] sun tres; 161 Quumque] cumque; 168 tu] tum; 175 quae non causa] qua en clausa; 216 Nec] Haec. Similarly, there are 14 errors of Anic not found in Theo: (Praefatio = I) 32 Samariam] Samaria; 56 vehit] uenit; 85 hinc] om.; 104 laudansque] lausque; 157 mundana] mandana; 170 miro] mir; 187 quum] quam; 198 hac] ac; 210 omni] om. (Epilogus = II) 1 struxit] struxi; 21 fluvium] plurimum; poterit] poteris; 25 tempne] sperne; 36 et] it.

It would appear, at least in this brief stretch of text, that Theo is the more careful scribe. Some of his errors (I 89, 111, 116) are apparently due to mental confusion, induced by the attempt to memorize small sections of text. Anic, on the other hand, is more minute in his method; he copies words rather than clauses and syllables rather than words (I 32; II 21) — hence he is more prone to omit words and syllables (I 85, 104, 170, 210). The original copied by Theo and Anic (Θ or Θ¹?) was probably in rustic capitals, so often employed for poems in Carolingian Bibles (I 54, 56, 216; II 21). There were abbreviations here and there (I 75, 175). Theodulf favors the Spanish spelling ‘quum’ (I 161, 187), as is natural enough for a Visigoth, but it was evidently not the usual practice of the scribes at Fleury. The author has also revised his work; the variant ‘sperne’ for ‘tempne’ in II, 25 points to a doublet in Θ (Θ¹).

⁴⁷ So regarded by Traube, for instance in the case of the lost Verona manuscript of Pliny's Letters; see Merrill, E. T. in Classical Philology, X (1915), p. 19Google Scholar. Mr. Merrill is, rightly I think, doubtful of the correctness of Traube's views in this case. We should note that the Vallicellianus, which hardly has affiliations with Spain, is written with three columns on the page; see Berger, op. cit., p. 197. Various instances are given by Thompson, E. M., An Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography, 1912, pp. 55 fGoogle Scholar. The author's statement that Theo and Anic, no less than Hub, have three columns, is not in accord with the explicit statements of Berger (p. 405) and Dom Quentin (p. 250), which may be verified by the facsimile in Album Paléographique, 1887, Pl. 18.

⁴⁸ See above p. 212.

⁴⁹ See the outline of the dissertation of Carey, F. M., ‘De Scriptura Floriaeensi,’ in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, XXXIV (1923), pp. 193 ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Facsimiles are given by Dom Quentin, pp. 254, 259, and by Kenyon, F. G., Facsimiles of Biblical Manuscripts in the British Museum, 1900, Pl. XV.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Berger, p. 180, speaks of an omission in Hub in the text of Judith which apparently was that of a column of its original. Does it, or does it not, coincide with a column in either Theo or Anic? Berger believes that Hub derives, though not immediately, from Theo. He thinks also that Gep takes now the first and now the second hand in Theo. But see below pp. 236 f.

⁵² See below, pp. 236 f.

⁵³ See above pp. 216 ff.

⁵⁴ Pp. 465 ff.

⁵⁵ Quentin, pp. 392 ff.

⁵⁶ See below, p. 250.

⁵⁷ See Burkitt, J. T. S., p. 410.

⁵⁸ See above, p. 218.

⁵⁹ I also deliberately refrained from reading the articles of Dom de Bruyne and Burkitt (see above, pp. 200, 198) until I had put my own argument into shape.

⁶⁰ Pp. 166 ff. Dom de Bruyne, p. [74] suggests that the former letter may stand for “Alcuin” and the latter for “Spanicus.” For specimens, see the facsimile of Theo in Album Paléographique, 1887, Pl. 18.

⁶¹ P. 291, Ex. 9, 4.

⁶² See above, pp. 219 f. A point noticed by Corssen and Berger (p. 151) is illustrated profusely in the apparatus of Dom Quentin, namely the Spanish spelling ‘quum,’ ‘quur,’ ‘loquuti,’ etc. Of course, as we have observed these spellings in Theodulf's own poems (see above, p. 221), we cannot surely say that they prevailed in his basic text. Curiously, Mar (Turon. 10) has ‘quur’ (Ex. 2, 18), ‘persequuti’ (Jos. 2, 22), and one or two more such. Possibly the text of Mar is crossed with something Spanish — but possibly not, for ‘quum,’ ‘quur,’ and the like occur even in Irish texts, sporadically; it is only their constant use that indicates a Spanish origin.

⁶³ On this manuscript, see below, pp. 242 f.

⁶⁴ See below, pp. 233 f.

⁶⁵ I am considering not only the 91 selected readings (pp. 235 ff.) but the entire collation of the selected chapters, pp. 235 ff.

⁶⁶ See above, p. 225. Like the instance just given are Jos. 2, 9: tradiderit dominum vobis] Am Ott Span(alii) Hub Bern: trad. vobis dom. Span (alii) cet. Θ; 14 dominus terram] Alc etc. Hub Bern: terram dominus cet. Θ.

⁶⁷ Dom Quentin's discussion of the nature of significant variants (pp. 231 ff.) is questionable in more instances than one. A good corrective is furnished by Dom de Bruyne, R. B., pp. [72] f.

⁶⁸ See also Gen. 2, 13: die altero] die altera Hub Berg Osc (these two manuscripts are of the tenth and twelfth centuries respectively). Jud. 2, 4: angelus domini verba haec] verba haec angelus domini Hub: angelus domini (verba haec om.) Osc. If this is not a case of independent carelessness, Hub and Osc may derive from a manuscript in which ‘verba haec’ was written in the margin or between the lines. Jud. 2, 5: et] om. Co Hub. Ruth 2, 13 qui] quia Cav Hub.

⁶⁹ Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae, 1751, I, p. 139.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ The Old Testament in Greek, 1887, p. xxvi.

⁷¹ See below, p. 248. It is to be hoped that the new examination of Tol may be undertaken at the earliest possible date — preferably by Dr. Lowe himself.

⁷² See above, p. 232.

⁷³ P. 179.

⁷⁴ Novum Testamentum Latine, I, pp. 707, 709, 719. A similar conclusion is reached by Burkitt, J. T. S., p. 411.

⁷⁵ See above, pp. 222 f.

⁷⁶ See above, p. 221, note 46.

⁷⁷ E.g. Jos. 2, 3: exploratores] explatores; 18 matrem] marem; Jud. 2, 8: et]om.; 9 Thamnathsare] thamnatsare Anic Hub: tamnathsare Theo; 22 experiar] experiatur. This last reading is not an idiosyncrasy of Theo, but was evidently a marginal reading in Θ, coming from Alc. It is just as good evidence in the present case, for none of the other MSS of Θ have it. Theo here falls into the blunder which Berger (p. 174) charges Anic with frequently committing, namely the substitution of Theodulf's apparatus for his text.

⁷⁸ In Jos. 2, 16, Theo and Gep¹ read ‘innosci’ for ‘innoxii,’ but the virtual identity of pronunciation makes independent error easy. In Jud. 2, 1, Theo and Hub agree in interpolating ‘vos,’ and in Jud. 2, 14, in interpolating ‘est’; but these words might have been in the margin of Θ and hence adopted independently.

⁷⁹ E.g. Ex. 2, 12: circumspexisset] circumpexisset; Jud. 2, 16: eos] om.

⁸⁰ Jos. 2, 8: ad eos] ad illos Anic Gep might be significant, if it were backed up by other instances, but I have noticed none of any importance. Similarly, the agreement of Anic with Hub in omitting ‘per’ in Jud. 2, 17 might indicate an interdependence if there were other cases of the same kind.

⁸¹ Ruth 2, 2: cui illa] cuilla; 3 post terga] posterga; 7 remanentes] + et; 13 inveni] Gep² inueniam Gep¹ Hub; 17 collegerat] colligerat Gep¹ Hub; 18 quo sat] quos sat.

⁸² See above, p. 231.

⁸³ See above, p. 213.

⁸⁴ Ex. 2, 12 circumspexisset] circumspexissent; Ruth 2, 12] ad quem venisti et sub cuius confugisti alas] sub cuius confugisti alas et ad quem venisti Gep¹; 23 in horreis] om. Gep¹.

⁸⁵ As I have indicated, the connection of Gep and Hub is by no means proved as yet. Perhaps Gep belongs on the Θ¹ branch, while Hub descends from Θ².

⁸⁶ Pp. 180, 401.

⁸⁷ Mr. Friend is impressed with the similarity of the ornamentation in Brit. Mus. harl. 1775 (Gospels) and add. 5463 (Gospels) to that in Theo. The text of these books should be examined, therefore, with an eye to that of the Theodulfians as well as to the considerations set forth by Berger (pp. 91 ff.) with regard to the latter book.

⁸⁸ Burkitt declares, J. T. S., p. 410: “I conclude therefore that the textual evidence does not even point towards Dom Quentin's conclusions about the Theodulfian group.”

⁸⁹ Dom de Bruyne, R. B. p. [76], observes: “A priori je trouve la base trop étroite.”

⁹⁰ See Berger, pp. 227, 235.

⁹¹ It is to be noted that Dom Quentin has collated of his leading manuscript only the selected chapters. He has a collation of Gen. and Ex. made by Dom Cottineau, but his estimate of the book is based, apparently, on only this amount of the text of the Octateuch.

⁹² For a brief account of what seems to me the probable history of the script of St. Martin's, see ‘The Vatican Livy and the Script of Tours,’ by Rand, E. K. and Howe, G., in Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, I (1917), pp. 19 ff. I will refer to this article as The Vatican Livy.Google Scholar

⁹³ As in the facsimile given by Dom Quentin, p. 275.

⁹⁴ It is not in Berger's list.

⁹⁵ In the forthcoming volume in honor of His Eminence Cardinal Ehrle, Miscellanea Ehrle.

⁹⁶ Op. cit., pp. 198, 287 ff.

⁹⁷ Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1894, pp. 855–875; Berger, p. 288.

⁹⁸ Pp. 292 ff. See also Boinet, A., La Miniature Carolingienne, 1913, Pl. CXXI, who dates it in the third quarter of the ninth century.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ See The Vatican Livy, pp. 23 ff.

¹⁰⁰ Pp. 282 ff.

¹⁰¹ See above, pp. 229, 236.

¹⁰² Palaeographia Latina, I (1922), pp. 62 ff. See also The Vatican Livy, p. 20.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Lowe in his review of Pal. Lat. I (Class. Rev. XXXVII, 1923, pp. 135 f.) suggests an important modification of Liebaert's views, namely that the four styles of Corbie represent two main varieties, which he calls, for purposes of convenience, that of Luxeuil and that of Tours, and that all four were practised at the same time, the two streams of influence (‘Luxeuil’ and ‘Tours’) flowing “side by side for nearly a century.” This is a wholesome warning to anybody who would follow too schematically the course of any movement in script or art. Periods were not ushered in by the ringing of a bell. At the same time, it seems to me that Liebaert was right in placing the scripts in the order which he assigned to them. That does not mean that the periods would not overlap; of course they would, since aged scribes would tend to retain the manner to which they were accustomed. Lowe finds it an untenable view that “a Merovingian type (a-b type), was allowed to re-appear, and to be cultivated to the highest point of perfection, despite the fact that under abbots Leutchar and Maurdramnus a simple, clear, and extremely legible minuscule had been developed.” On the contrary, this reversion to an earlier type seems natural enough. Its character is essentially archaistic, as may be illustrated I believe, not only in the a-b type of Corbie, but in an archaistic manner practised at Reichenau towards the end of the eighth century. We meet with similar movements later in the Middle Ages; on an archaistic hand of Fleury, see the outline of Carey's dissertation, Harv. Stud. Class. Philol. XXXIV, p. 194.

¹⁰⁴ See The Vatican Livy, p. 24.

¹⁰⁵ How Dom de Bruyne, who appreciates the weakness of Dom Quentin's estimate of the Theodulfians, can find the classification of the Alcuinians “entièrement satisfaisant” (op. cit., R. B., p. [73]), is a mystery. Burkitt is not satisfied (J. T. S., p. 411).

¹⁰⁶ See above, pp. 217 f.

¹⁰⁷ Is ‘triginta’ really omitted? As ‘Zared’ precedes ‘venimus’ we should imagine that the omitted words included ‘venimus — Zared.’ Still, there is no telling what a scribe can do.

¹⁰⁸ See Berger, pp. 213,401. The book is badly mutilated, Berger states, but all of the Octateuch is preserved from Ex. 16, 28 on.

¹⁰⁹ When I examined them, with no knowledge of the nature of their text, I was inclined, with some hesitation, to call them both “pre-alcuinian.” Berger puts them under Alc (p. 213), but does not appear to have studied them very thoroughly. If the text is surely Alc, then they belong in the same stratum as 11514. Possibly they were written in some scriptorium influenced by Tours. See above on 11514, pp. 239 f.

¹¹⁰ P. 455.

¹¹¹ It is noteworthy that in several instances the dates assigned to the members of this group do not accord with those assigned by Lowe in his “Beneventan Script” (1914). The chief point of difference is that none of the manuscripts here cited is given by Lowe an earlier date than the eleventh century, whereas Dom Quentin ascribes three of them to the tenth. If he has fresh evidence on so important a point, it ought to be presented.

¹¹² See his article ‘On the Date of the Codex Toletanus’ in Revue Bénédictine, XXXV (1923), pp. 1 ff. Lowe thinks it possible that an incomplete or mutilated copy of the eighth century was later supplemented in the tenth. Cf. again the case of the Morgan Gospels; see above, p. 241.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Paris. nouv. acq. lat. 1740. See above, pp. 224, 229, 236. This book, if written at Lyons, would have been accessible to Theodulf. Its style of uncial script antedates the development of minuscule at Lyons as exhibited by Delisle in Album Paléographique, Pl. 19 ff., where four specimens take us from the archbishopric of Leidrad (798–814) to that of Remigius (852–875).

¹¹⁴ So Dom de Bruyne finds it; see R. B., p. [73].

¹¹⁵ See Dom de Bruyne, R. B., pp. [73], [75].

¹¹⁶ Pp. 391–392.

¹¹⁷ See above, p. 218.

¹¹⁸ Cf. his wavering treatment of Zur and Rorig in Alc. See above p. 247.

¹¹⁹ He conveniently repeats his 91 cases (pp. 350 f.), citing merely the groups Alc, Theod, Tolet.

¹²⁰ R. B., p [74]; J. T. S., p. 412.

¹²¹ Dom Quentin (pp. 484 ff.) gives reasons against the view held by some that this gathering was once a part of a manuscript from Cassiodorus's own library. In the judgment of Professor Morey, the character of the illumination still furnishes ground for such a belief.

¹²² P. 435. It is curious, then, if Dom Quentin is right as to the connection of Ott and Θ, that there is no trace of them in Θ.

¹²³ But this survey by no means corroborates his method of classifying the manuscripts, which is conspicuous for its deficiency in “good sense.” The kind of consideration that Dom Quentin now bestows on critical problems should have been exercised at every stage in the previous discussion.

¹²⁴ Some of these are discussed by Dom de Bruyne and Dr. Burkitt. The latter (J. T. S., p. 413) criticizes Dom Quentin for reporting the readings on Gen. 3, 15 (‘ipsa conteret’) with apparent inadequacy (compared with Berger). On Gen. 4, 6 (J. T. S., p. 412; R. B., p. [74]) both critics reject his defence of ‘maestus’ (Am. Tur). To my mind, Dom Quentin here proves his point.

¹²⁵ Cf. ‘cuncta animantia’ in v. 17.

¹²⁶ See Burkitt, J. T. S., p. 436.

¹²⁷ At least one case is recognized by Dom Quentin, No. 70 (p. 484) Ex. 2, 14: ‘occidere me vis.’

¹²⁸ Burkitt, J. T S., p. 412, arguing against accepting ‘maestus’ in Gen. 4, 6, calls Dom Quentin's reference to St. Jerome's desire for variety “a reasonable plea,” and adds, “but if we bear it in mind, it is scarcely cogent when comparing ‘venationem tuam’ (Am Tur) with ‘de venatione tua’ (Ott) in Gen. 27, 7 to argue for the former because the accusative is the form in the Hebrew and the Greek and the Old Latin.” He apparently would charge Dom Quentin with inconsistency, but agree with him on ‘venationem.’ I should say that each case should be settled on the score of the greater probabilities.

¹²⁹ R. B., p. [74].

¹³⁰ Having ‘their feet’ for ‘his feet.’ After all, the phrase ‘introduxit eum in hospitium’ takes care of the entertainment of the servant of Abraham; what follows (‘destravit camelos deditque paleas et foenum et aquam ad lavandos pedes’) might well be thought to refer to the accommodation of his beasts and his men. It may be a reasoned error on the part of St. Jerome.

¹³¹ Dom de Bruyne, R. B., p. [74], evidently is not satisfied with Dom Quentin's demonstration of the faulty archetype.

¹³² R. B., p. [75].

¹³³ See Dom Quentin's admirable remarks, p. 183.