Sacred Texts Bible Apocrypha Index Previous Next
3. The next business is to describe the AUTHORITIES FOR THE TEXT of Philo.
(a) We will take the printed edition of 1527 first (of which the four others of 1538-50-53-99 are mere reprints). Its symbol shall be A. In his preface, addressed to the monks of Fulda, Sichardus, like many editors of the Renaissance period, tells us but little of the manuscripts he used. The substance of what he says is as follows. At one time he had hoped to be able to remedy the many corruptions of the manuscripts, of which he had two; but he gradually came to despair of doing so, and resolved to give the text as he found it. His two manuscripts were as like each other as two eggs, so that he could not doubt that one was a copy of the other, though they were preserved in libraries far apart. He employed the Fulda copy, and had previously obtained the use of one from Lorsch Abbey, which was very old, and had expected that these would provide the materials for a satisfactory edition; moreover, he had got wind of the existence of another copy. But his manuscripts proved disappointing, and he is well aware that the present edition is inadequate. In preparing it he has aimed at following his manuscripts as closely as possible, and in issuing it now has judged that the evils of delay are greater than those of haste; especially as he looks forward to putting forth a greatly improved text in the future. 1
(b) We have seen that the Fulda MS. is traceable in the library catalogues late in the sixteenth century. Until lately it was thought to have been lost, along with the bulk of the Fulda MSS.: but it has been identified, first by Dr. Cohn, and then, independently, by Dr. P. Lehmann, with a MS. at Cassel (Theol. 4° 3) of the eleventh century. The Lorsch MS. still remains undiscovered.
The identity of the Cassel MS. with that used by Sichardus is not doubtful. In its cover is an inscription by him stating that he had it rebound in 1527. It also retains the old label, of the fourteenth century, with the title Liber Philonis Antiquitatum, and the old Fulda press-mark.
The book which furnishes this information is a special study, published by, Dr. Lehmann in 1912, of the libraries and manuscripts used by Sichardus for the purpose of his various editions of ancient authors. Dr. Lehmann has collected, à propos of Sichardus's Philo, notices of all the MSS. of the Latin Philo known to exist, and has succeeded in increasing the number, from three which were known to Dr. Cohn in 1898, to sixteen, eleven of
which contain the text of the Antiquities. They are as follows-
Admont (an abbey in Austria) 359, Of cent. xi., containing Ant. and Quaest. in Gen.
Cassel, theol. 4° 3, of cent. xi. (the Fulda MS.), containing Ant. and Quaest.
Cheltenham) Phillipps 461, of cent. xii, from Trèves, containing Ant.
Cues (near Trèves), 16 (or H. II), Of 1451, paper, containing Ant. and Quaest.
Munich, lat. 4569, of cent. xii., from Benedictbeuren, containing Ant. and Quaest.
Munich, lat. 17,133, of cent. xii., from Schäftlarn, containing Ant. and Quaest.
Munich, lat. 18,481, of cent. xi., from Tegernsee, containing Ant. and Quaest.
Rome, Vatican, lat. 488, of cent. xv., containing Ant. and Quaest.
Vienna, lat. 446, of cent. xiii., containing Ant.
Würzburg, M. ch. f. 210, of cent. xv. (paper), containing Ant.
Würzburg, M. ch. f 276, of cent. xv. (paper), containing Ant. and Quaest.
Besides these, there are at Augsburg, Florence, Rome, Trèves, MSS. containing Quaest. only, and at Coblenz one of which no particulars were forthcoming.
For the purposes of the present volume only four of the above authorities have been employed, namely, the Fulda-Cassel MS. as represented by Sichardus's edition (and with it we must allow for some use of the lost MS. from Lorsch), the Cheltenham, Vatican, and Vienna MSS. The fact that Dr. Cohn was known to have in contemplation a full critical edition precluded others from trying to cover the whole ground, and, even had it been otherwise desirable to do so, the investigation would have been very difficult for anyone outside Germany. There are, for instance, no printed catalogues of the Admont, Cassel, or Würzburg libraries.
However, the paucity of authorities here brought to bear is of little importance. What Dr. Lehmann tells us 1 is sufficient to show that none of the MSS. present a completer text than we already know. All must go back to an ancestor which was already mutilated when our first transcripts of it were made. Upon this point more will be said. At present we will take account of what Dr. Lehmann has to say of Sichardus's MSS., and proceed to the description of the MSS. actually used, and of some subsidiary authorities.
Of the Fulda MS. we now learn that it is the work of more than one scribe, of the eleventh century. The Antiquities occupy ff. 1-65a, and have a title in a late medieval hand: Libri Philonis Iudei de initio mundi, which, or the like, is "usual in the MSS." The Quaestiones, entitled (in the original hand): Filonis Questionum in genisi et solutionum, follow on ff. 65a-89a, and in them is a noteworthy feature. On f. 86, in the middle of the page the MS. omits, without any sign of a break, a long passage containing the end of the Quaestiones and the beginning of the De Essaeis, and corresponding to pp. 82, l. 40-84, l. 16 of Sichardus's edition. At this point Sichardus has a marginal note: "Here the copies differed, but we have followed that of Lorsch, as being the older." Now this same gap is found in most, if not in all, of the other MSS., and not all of these are copied directly from the Fulda MS. We may say, therefore, that all MSS. showing this gap are independent of the Lorsch MS., but not necessarily dependent on the Fulda MS.
It is clear from what has been said that Sichardus was wrong in regarding the Fulda MS. as a copy of that of Lorsch, and that the latter represented an old and valuable tradition: and, further, that he exaggerates greatly when he says that the two MSS. were as alike as two eggs. 1 Dr. Lehmann's final remark is that the disappearance of the Lorsch MS. is very much to be deplored, for, judged by the Greek fragments and the Armenian version of the Quaestiones, it represented a better tradition than all the extant Latin MSS.
Of the other MSS. in the list given above, it may be observed that the Cues MS. (written at Gottweih in 1451) and the two Würzburg MSS. are not likely to be of very much value: and that, of the three Munich MSS., that from Tegernsee (18481) is to all appearance the parent of the other two. Probably the monk who wrote to Tegernsee to borrow a Philo (see p. 10) was a member of Benedictbeuren or Schäftlarn. The Schäftlarn copy (17133) was written between 1160 and 1164. 2
I now proceed to give a detailed account of the three complete MSS. which I have been able to use, and of certain subsidiary authorities. The three MSS. are those mentioned by Dr. Cohn in his article, and I have been led to examine them during recent years by my interest in the text, and without serious thought of using them for the purposes of an edition. They are the copies preserved at Cheltenham, Vienna, and Rome.
P. The Phillipps MS. 461 is a small vellum book (6 5/8 x 4 3/4 in.) of 124 leaves, with 20 lines to a page; a few leaves palimpsest, over not much older writing. It is of cent. XII., clearly written: on f. 1a the provenance is stated, in this inscription: Codex SX (?) Sci. Eucharii primi Trevirorum archiepi. siquis eum abstulerit anathema sit. Amen. A hand of cent. XV. adds the word Mathie. Then follows the title, of cent. XV.: Philo iudeus de successione generacionis veteris Testamenti. On f. 1b is Jerome's account of Philo (de virr. illustr. c. XI.): the text of the book begins on 3a: Adam genuit, and ends on 119b without colophon. It is followed by a few pieces of medieval Latin verse, of no great interest. The first begins; Carnis in ardore flagrans monialis amore. Another is on Chess: Qui cupit egregium scacorum noscere ludum Audiat. ut potui carmine composui.
V. Vindobonensis lat. 446, a small folio of 53 leaves, with 31 lines to a page, in a tall, narrow, rather sloping hand, doubtless German, by more than one scribe: of cent. XII. late or XIII. early. There is an old press-mark of cent. XVI.: XI°. 68. The text is preceded by Jeronimus de Phylone in catalogo uirorum illustrium. It begins Incip. Genesis. INITIUM MUNDI. Adam genuit, and ends on 53a without colophon, occupying the whole volume.
R. Vaticanus lat. 488, of cent. XV., in a very pretty Roman hand, in double columns of 35 lines. The first 8c, leaves contain tracts of Augustine, Prosper and Jerome. Our book, to which is prefixed the extract from Jerome, begins on f. 81. It is headed: Genesis, and begins: Inicium mundi. Adam Genuit. The colophon is: Explicit ystoria philonis ab initio mundi usque ad David regent. It is followed by the Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesim, which occupy ff. 129-148 (end). The arms of Paul V. and of Cardinal Scipione Borghese the librarian are on the binding: there is no other mark of provenance.
P is thus the only one of the three manuscripts whose old home can be definitely fixed. It belonged to the abbey of St. Eucharius, otherwise called of St. Matthias (whose body lies there), just outside Trèves.
(c) Next come certain manuscripts which contain extracts from the text.
Ph. The Phillipps MS. 391, Of 92 ff., of cent. XII. early, contains principally tracts of Jerome, notably Quaestiones Hebraicae. On ff. 87-8 it has the four extracts which I printed in 1893 (see above). It belonged to Leander van Ess, and has an old press-mark C I or C 7.
T. No. 117 in the Town Library at Trèves. A paper MS., dated 1459. It contains five of the same tracts as Ph and two of the extracts from Philo. It retains its old press-mark, B II, and an inscription showing that it belonged to the abbey of S. Maria ad Martyres at Trèves. The contents of the book and the text of the extracts make it clear that T is a copy of Ph or of a sister-book, while the form of the press-mark shows that Ph and T belonged to the same library. Thus T is only important as helping to "place" Ph.
F. MS. McClean 31 in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (fully described in my catalogue of the McClean MSS.), is a remarkable copy of the Aurora, or versified Bible, of Petrus de Riga. It is of cent. XIII., and is copiously annotated. Among the marginalia are many extracts (a complete list will be found at the beginning of the Appendix on various Readings) from Philo, uniformly introduced under that name, and for the most part abridged. The manuscript may have been written in the Rhine Provinces, or in Eastern France.
J. The Hebrew Chronicle of Jerahmeel, edited in an English translation by Dr. M. Gaster (Oriental Translation Fund, New series IV., 1899), was compiled early in cent. XIV. somewhere in the Rhineland. It contains large portions of Philo, some in extenso, some abridged. A list is given in the Appendix. Dr. Gaster will have it that the Hebrew is the original text; but Hebraists do not agree with him, and it is, in fact, possible to show that the Hebrew writer was translating from Latin, and from a manuscript which contained misreadings common to those we now have. See the Appendix of Readings on III. 10, VII. 3.
(d) Glancing back over the list, we see that for all but one of the items a German origin is established. The Vatican MS. is the exception, and even this presents certain indications of German origin. Near the beginning of the book (III. 3) is a speech beginning Deleam. R reads Vel eam.
[paragraph continues] Now it is a habit with German scribes of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries to write their capital D's with a sharply-pointed base, making the letter very like the outline of the conventional harp, and also very like a capital V; nor do I know any other script in which the likeness between D and V is so striking. My guess is that the scribe of R, encountering the puzzling letter near the beginning of his work, made the mistake, which he does not repeat; and I regard it as an indication that his archetype was a German book of the same age as V (and, I may say by anticipation, presenting a remarkably similar text to that of V).
Thus the geographical distribution of the authorities combines with the evidence of the literature to show that in the Middle Ages Philo was circulated within very narrow limits, and practically confines those limits to Germany and Northern France.
(e) Of these authorities I have transcribed A, collated P (on the spot),and R (from a photograph) in full; have examined and partially collated V (on the spot), and have transcribed Ph, T, and F: J is in print, and I have collated that also.
The complete copies which are known to us are all ultimately derived from a single imperfect ancestor. All exhibit the same lacunae. The text, as we have it, ends abruptly in the midst of Saul's last dying speech: "Say to David: Thus saith Saul: Be not mindful of my hatred nor of my unrighteousness." How much further the story went we shall discuss later on. That it is imperfect is clear, and all our copies agree in the imperfection. Two other obvious lacunae occur about two-thirds of the way through the book, in the story of Abimelech. After the death of Gideon (XXXVII. 1) we read that "he had a son by a concubine who slew all his brethren,
desiring to be ruler over the people. Then came together all the trees of the field to the fig-tree, and said: Come reign over us." Thus we pass from the first entry of Abimelech to a point somewhere in the Parable of Jotham. I think we must assume that at this place a leaf was missing in the ancestor of all our copies. None of them make any attempt to fill the gap. At the end of the story of Abimelech is another bad place (XXXVIII. 1): "After these things Abimelech ruled over the people for one year and six months, and died (under a certain tower) when a woman let fall half a millstone upon him. (Then Jair judged Israel twenty and two years.) He built a sanctuary to Baal," etc. The words in parentheses represent the supplements of P. The text as read in A would imply that Abimelech built a sanctuary to Baal; but it was in fact Jair who did so. Here, then, is another gap, the extent of which is uncertain. The immediate successor of Abimelech in the Bible is Tola. Our historian may or may not have noticed him: he does, later on, omit one of the minor judges, Ibzan. At most, another leaf is wanting at this point: at least, a few lines have been lost by casual damage.
There are, further, indications that the imperfect archetype was an uncial MS. with undivided words. In the early pages of the book much space is occupied by lists of names, which, being invented by the author, could not be corrected by recourse to the Bible. The many disagreements as to the divisions of the names (e.g. Sifatecia Sifa. Tecia, Lodo. Otim Lodoothim, filii aram filiarum, etc.) point to a stage at which the scribe had no guidance in this matter. So do such variants as memoraret artari for memorare tartari, in chaoma tonata for in chaomate nata. Again, in XIX 15 certain unintelligible
words (istic mel apex magnus) are written in capitals in V, which I interpret as an attempt on the part of the scribe to represent exactly the ductus litterarum of an ancestor.
A minuscule stage is evidenced by frequent confusions (in proper names) of f and s, of c and z, of ch and di, and an occasional r for n or the converse. This last error, were it more frequent, might point to an "insular" ancestor somewhere in the pedigree. There is an a priori likelihood that a rare text current in the Rhenish district would have attracted the notice of Irish monks and have been preserved by them. A closer study of the variants may perhaps confirm this notion. 1
External and internal evidence combined lead me to the conclusion that our text was preserved in a single imperfect copy written in uncials, and containing the Antiquities, the Quaestiones in Genesim, and De Essaeis, which had survived at some centre of ancient culture in the Rhenish district, most likely in or near Trèves.
(f) The authorities used in this book fall into three groups: (1) Lorsch and Fulda, represented by the printed text, which I call A; (2) The Trèves group P, Ph, T; (3) VRFJ. This is a rough division. Sichardus gives us no means of distinguishing readings peculiar to either of his MSS. and, as we have seen, is probably wrong in saying that they were very closely allied. The Trèves MSS. are in more frequent agreement with A than VR. V and R, if not parent and child (and probably they are not) are at least uncle and nephew. Generally speaking I am of opinion that, though manifestly wrong in a number of small points, A is preferable to any one of the complete MSS. that I have seen.
It will be readily understood that, in an edition like this, a complete exposition of the evidence for the text is impossible: but by way of illustration we will take a short passage for which all our authorities except J are available, and in which the grouping is (if imperfectly) shown. The Song of David before Saul (LX. 2 sqq.) runs thus in APPhTVRF. A is taken as the basis.
Tenebrae et silentium erant (erat RF) antequam fieret seculum, et locutum est silentium et apparuerunt tenebrae.
Et factum est tunc (om. tunc RF) nomen tuum in compaginatione extensionis quod appellatum (+ est VRFPhT) superius coelum, inferius vocatum (invocatum. V) est terra.
Et praeceptum est superiori ut plueret secundum tempus eius (suum F) et inferiori pracceptum est (praec. est inf. F: om. praec. est R) ut crearet escam omnibus quae facta sunt (homini qui factus est VRF).
Et post haec facta est tribus spiritum uestrorum (nostrorum F).
Et nunc molesta, esse noli tanquam secunda creatura (factura VRF).
Si comminus memoraret artari in quo ambulas A.
Si comminus memorarer artare, etc. PPhT (artare rather obscure in T).
Si quominus memorare tartari (tractari R) in quo ambulabas VRF.
Aut non audire tibi sufficit quoniam per ea quae consonant in conspectu tuo multis (in multis VRF) psallo?
Aut immemor es quoniam de resultatione in chaoma tonata (in chaomate nata VRF) est uestra creatura?
Arguet autem tempora noua (te metra noua VRF) unde natus sum, de quo nascitur (de qua nascetur VRF) post tempus de lateribus meis qui uos donauit (domauit P, domabit PhTVRF).
VRF here show themselves the best in some important readings. The first (homini for omnibus) is the least obvious: but it will be quickly seen that the point of the invective is that evil spirits are a secondary creation, and particularly that they are inferior to man. If not actually created after man, at least they came into being after the earth, which was to supply food to him. Moreover, a similar variant occurs early in the book (III. 2), non diiudicabit spiritus meus in omnibus (AVR: hominibus P) istis, The
[paragraph continues] LXX of Gen. 63, ἐν τοῖσ ἀνθρώποισ τούτοισ, shows that P is right.
But VR (F is rarely available) are not uniformly successful. They sometimes shirk difficulties. In IX. 13 Moses "natus est in testamento dei et in testamento carnis eius" (i.e. was born circumcised). Here VR read "in testamentum carnis, which makes nonsense: and a few lines later, where it is said of Pharaoh's daughter: "et dum uidisset in Zaticon (sc. διαθήκην) hoc est in testamento carnis," the whole clause is omitted by VIZ.
In III. 10, we have "et reddet infernus debitum suum, et perditio restituet paralecem suam." This is the obviously right reading of AP: VR read partem suam, and J betrays itself not only as a version from Latin, but as dependent on a Latin MS. allied to VR, by saying "and Abaddon shall return its portion."
When Pharaoh has determined to destroy the Hebrew children, the people say (IX. 2): "ὠμοτοκείαν (ometocean cett.) passa sunt viscera mulierum nostrarum." All the authorities, including F, keep the strange word, but V writes "Ometocean id est passa sunt," showing that at some stage there was an intention to insert a Latin equivalent. Still, the word has survived.
The shirking of difficulties is not confined to VR. The priestly vestments, epomis (XI. 15) and cidaris (XIII. 1), become ebdomas and cithara in AP, but not in VR. In a list of the plagues of Egypt (X. 1), one, pammixia, is omitted by AP and retained by VR. This word pammixia (panimixia in the MSS.) deserves a passing note, for it does not seem to have made its way into dictionaries or concordances. It is intended to mean the plague of all manner of flies, for which the LXX and Vulgate equivalent is κυνομυια, coenomyia. Jerome, writing on this, says it ought to be κοινομυια, signifying a mixture of all manner of flies, and adds that Aquila's word for it was παμμικτον. Older editors read παμμυιαν for παμμικτον, but Field, or some one before him, corrected it, and our text confirms the correction.
VR do not always go together: R, as being later, has corruptions of its own. Psalphinga, a trumpet, is a favourite word with our author: R at first writes this as psalmigraphus; later, when he has realised that this is nonsense, he reproduces psalphinga as he should.
We have not yet cited examples in which the Trèves MSS. stand apart. I will give two specimens, one of a few words, the other longer, in which this is the case.
i. XXII1. 4. Una petra erat unde effodi patrem uestrum. et genuit uir scopuli illius duos uiros A. P has: incisco petre illius, which is nearly right: VRF have "incisio petre illius," which is quite right.
ii. In the Lament of Jephthah's Daughter (XL. 6 seq.) all our authorities are available except F. J is very loose and paraphrastic, and its evidence will be given after the rest.
The first clause has no important variants. After that, taking A as the basis, we have--
(a) Ego autem non sum saturata thalamo meo, nec repleta sum coronis nuptiarum mearum.
(b) Non enim uestita sum splendore sedens in genua mea.
Non enim uestita sum splendore sedens in uirginitate mea P.
Non enim uestita sum splendore sedens in ingenuitate mea PhT.
Non enim uestita sum splendore secundum ingenuam meam VR.
(c) Non sum usa Mosi odoris mei.
" " preciosi odoramenti mei PPhT.
" " moysi odoris mei VR (om. usa R).
(Sichardus conjectured Moscho for Mosi: Pitra prints non sunt thymia odoris.)
(d) Nec froniuit (fronduit V) anima mea oleo unctionis quod (quibus R) praeparatum est mihi AVR.
Nec froniuit animam meam oleum unctionis quod praeparatum est mihi PPhT.
(e) O mater, in uano (uanum V) peperisti unigenitam, tuam AVR.
O mater, in uano peperisti unigenitam tuam et genuisti eam super terram PPhT (see below, (g)).
(f) Quoniam, factus est infernus thalamus meus.
(g) et genuam meam super terram A.
et genua mea super terram. VR (om. mea R).
P PhT have the equivalent above in (e).
(h) et confectio omnis olei quod praeparasti mihi effundatur.
(om. et) confectio omnis olei quam preparauit mihi mater mea eff. PPhT.
et confectio omnis olei quam preparasti mihi effundetur VR.
(i) et alba quam neuit mater mea tinea comedat eam.
et albam (alba Ph) quam neuit tinea comedat PPhT.
et albam quam neuit mater mea tinea comedet eam VR.
(k) et corona quam intexuit nutrix mea in tempore marcescat.
et corona quam intexuit mea nutrix in tempore marcescat PPhT.
et flores corone quam intexuit nutrix mea in tempore marcescant (marcescet R) VR.
(l) et stratoria quae texuit in genuam meam de Hyacinthino. et purpura uermis ca corrumpet.
et stratoria quae texuit mihi de iacincto et purpura uermis ea corrumpat PPhT (corrumpet P).
et stratoria quae texuit ingenium meum de iacinctino et purpuram meam uermes corrumpant V.
et stratoriam quae texuit ingenium meum de iacinctino et purpuram meam uermis corrumpat R.
(m) et referentes de me conuirgines meae in gemitu per dies plangant me.
et referentes de me conuirgines meae cum gemitu per dies plangant me PPhT.
et referentes me conuirgines meae in gemitum per dies plangant me VR.
The passage reads thus in J, p. 178 (a): "I have not beheld my bridal canopy, nor has the crown of my betrothal been completed. (b) I have not been decked with the lovely ornaments of the bride who sits in her virginity. (c) nor have I been perfumed with the myrrh and the sweet smelling aloe.
(d) I have not been anointed with the oil of anointment that was prepared for me.
(e) Alas, O my mother, it was in vain that thou didst give me birth.
Behold thine only one (f) is destined for the bridal chamber of the grave.
(g) Thou hast wearied thyself for me to no purpose.
(h) The oil with which I was anointed will be wasted.
(i) And the white garments with which I was clothed the moths will eat.
(k) The garlands of my crown with which thou hast exalted me will wither and dry up.
(l) And my garments of fine needlework in blue and purple the worm shall destroy.
(m) And now my friends will lament all the days of my mourning."
It will be seen that J has some equivalent for every clause (though in (g) he has wandered far from the text).
In (b) he read sedens in uirginitate or ingenuitate with the Trèves MSS.: in (k) "garlands of my crown" seems nearer to flores corone of VR. For the rest he is too paraphrastic to be followed closely.
It is very odd that three times over in this short passage the words in genua mea, genuam meam, in genuam meam should occur in one of the groups, each time disturbing the sense, while another group somehow avoids the difficulty. It looks suspicious for the group which does so. But the evidence of the Trèves group is not to be lightly dismissed. It would justify a theory that where the words first occur they are corrupt for ingenuitate, that on the second occasion an obscurity of a few letters genu . . . eam, present in the ancestor of the other MSS., was not in that of the Trèves group: and that in the third case the words are merely intrusive--perhaps wrongly inserted from a margin. Another blurring of a few letters would account for the differences between moysi and preciosi, and between odoris and odoramenti. But I do not regard this as a really satisfactory explanation.
12:1 The important sentences in the original are : ut sensimus . . . exemplaria, quorum duo habuimus, tam constanter p. 13 tamque ex composito mendos suos tueri, consilium, quod mutandorum quorundam coeperamus, plane abiecimus, imitati id quod utrumque exemplar haberet, quae tamen ita erant inter se similia, ut nec ouum diceres ouo magis, ut dubium mihi non esset, quin ex altero esset alterum descriptum, utcunque magno loci intervallo dissita. Quippe attuleramus commodum illud Fuldense uestrum, cum antea ex Laurissensi coenobio impetrassemus pervetustum quidem illud, et quod nobis felicissimae editionis magnam spem fecerat: sed progressos paululum non modo foede destituit, sed et fecit ut praeproperae nos editionis plurimum. poeniteret . . . dedimus operam ut ab exemplaribus quam minimum discederemus, ut sicubi fortasse extaret aliud exemplar, id quod tum inaudieramus, eius collatione nostra . . . absolverentur.
15:1 P. Lehmann: Johannes Sichardus und die von ihm benutzten Bibliotheken und Handschriften (Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Lateinische Philologie des Mittelalters, IV. 1. 19 12).
16:1 Dr. Lehmann quotes a number of instances in which Sichardus has deviated from the MS. in spelling: he is also clear that conjecture was resorted to. This last statement applies especially, I think, to the Quaestiones.
16:2 The printed catalogue gives the title of the Antiquities in 4569 and 18481 as Historia ab initio mundi usque ad Dauid regem. In 18481 it is preceded by Jerome's notice of Philo.
21:1 In XVI. 7 in syna seems to be a mistake for in gyro.