apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS. 83
his work 'Junii 20" 1631." After the first leaf, several leaves (apparently
four) have been lost; and the second existing leaf commences 'in
orationibus vaca indesinentibus etc' {Polyc. \), so that the whole of
the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans and the opening of the Epistle to
Polycarp are wanting.
The exact relation between these two transcripts might probably be
made out, if it were worth while to do so. For the most part the same
omissions and misreadings appear in both; but on the whole the advantage
is slightly in favour of the Dublin transcript, which adheres more
nearly to the spelling of the MS. It is .not easy to say which was the
earlier of the two ;
but if the Dublin transcript was written after the
other, the transcriber must have had the MS itself before him, while
copying out his previous work.
Both transcripts are full of inaccuracies. These arise sometimes
from indifference to spelling on the part of the transcriber, sometimes
from mere carelessness and inattention, but most frequently from ignorance
of the contractions, which in this MS are numerous and perplexing.
The very name of the donor is
wrongly given 'Brome' for 'Crome'^.
Such various readings as 'panem qui' for 'passionem quae' (Smyriu 5)
and ' oratione ' for ' resurrectione ' {Polyc. 7) are entirely due to the
transcriber's inaccuracy and minor errors are
; very numerous. Using
this very incorrect transcript, Ussher frequently mentions a discrepancy
in the mss of this Latin Version, when in fact the two have the
same reading.
2. Montacictianus [Lo], a parchment MS from the library of Richard
Mountague or Montacute, Bp of Norwich. Bp Mountague himself
quotes from this MS, while yet in his possession but he confuses the
;
version there given with the Latin of the Long recension which was
much more widely known ^ Ussher points out the mistake {Polyc. et
Igtiat. Ep. p. cxli). Since it was in Ussher's possession,
it has disappeared.
Ubi iam reperiendus sit,' writes Smith in 1708, 'ne investi-
'
I too have
gando quidem expiscari possum ' (6". Ign. Epist. pr^ef.).
angled for it in many waters, but enquiries made in all likely quarters
^
On July 28, 1631, Ussher writes to
^
See Ussher Polyc. et Ignat, Epist.
Ward, 'The copy of Ignatius Mr Bur- p. cxli, from whom the error has been
nett writeth unto me he hath received, transmitted to later writers (e.g. Zahn
but it is not yet come into my hands' /. v. A. p. 552).
(Z/e and Works xv. p. 54'2). This
fre^f^. ^.ri:/. p. 457 (a.d. 1640) Hanc
^
transcript is mentioned by Ussher on (lectionem) sequitur vetus interpres Adone
Aug. 9, 1632 with approbation: 'The Viennensi antiquior ; vertit enim £^0 ^«2>«
copy was well taken out and serveth me et post resurrectionem in came ipstim
to singular good use' {ib. xv. p. 559).
vidi.^
(5—2