Chapter I

_Variae lectiones Vulgatae Bibliorum Editionis, quas Carolus Vercellone sodalis Barnabites digessit._ Tom. II. Romae, apud Josephim Spithoever, anno 1864, 4^o, pagg. 561.

The minute attention which Biblical students have paid to the original Hebrew and to the Septuagint version, with a view to fix the genuine readings of the text, has hitherto not been given to the Vulgate. Not to speak of the labours of Mill, Kennicott, and others, the Italian priest, John Bernard De Rossi collated more than seven hundred MSS. of the Hebrew text; and in his private library at Parma, 712 such codices were brought together by his industry. Walton's Polyglot, the publications of Tischendorf, and the collections made by Cardinal Mai, have contributed much to establish with accuracy the text of the Septuagint. It remained for Father Vercellone to undertake, in our day, a similar task in favour of the Vulgate. His master, the learned Father Ungarelli, had already commenced the work, and between 1830 and 1845, had amassed a considerable amount of materials for a book on the _variae lectiones_ of the Vulgate. In 1845, shortly before his death, he confided these materials to his disciple, Father Vercellone, of whose erudition and critical judgment he had had so many proofs. To the old riches his master had brought forth from his storehouse, the scholar added new treasures of his own; and the result of his labours upon and among both, is to be found in the work under notice.

We shall now briefly state the method which the author has followed. As the basis of his researches, he has taken the Clementine edition of 1592, purified from typographical errors, according to the other Vatican editions of 1595 and 1598. The editors of the Clementine of 1592, did but correct the text of the Sixtine edition of 1590. From the documents belonging to the congregation appointed by Sixtus V. to edit the Vulgate in that year, it appears that the editors took as the foundation of their corrections the text of the folio edition published by the Dominican Father, John Hunter, in 1583. But as the Hunterian edition of 1583 is identical with the Louvain folio edition published by Hunter in 1547, it follows that the Louvain text of 1547 may be considered as the basis upon which all the subsequent Vatican corrections have been made.

To correct this text, Father Vercellone has directed his studies, and in the volumes before us the fruit of his labours has been given to the world. How arduous these labours have been, and what confidence we may feel in his selection of readings, will best be learned from an enumeration of the sources whence, with incredible pains, he has drawn the information required for the execution of his design. These sources may be classed under three heads: Vatican papers, MSS. codices, and printed books. As to the first class, Pius IX. has assisted Father Vercellone by placing at his disposal the treasures stored up in the Vatican archives. Hence, our author has been enabled to examine, 1^o, the documents of the corrections proposed and adopted by the congregation appointed to edit the Vulgate under Saint Pius V. in 1569, which documents he has compared with the writings of Cardinal Serleto, who had a great share in making those corrections; 2^o, the documents concerning the corrections proposed or adopted in a similar congregation, under Sixtus V. in 1588 and 1589; 3^o, the Sixtine edition of 1590; 4, notes of the corrections discussed in the congregations appointed under Gregory XIV. and Clement VIII. to free the Sixtine edition, from its many mistakes of the press; 5^o, the readings proposed by the learned Angelo Rocca; 6^o, the annotations of Cardinal Toleto, preserved in the Vatican; and 7^o, the Clementine edition of 1592.

As to the MSS., our author has confined himself to a few, but these few are of the highest authority. Of the twenty consulted by him, the remarkable Florentine Codex of Monte Amiata is deservedly placed first. Saint Pius V. had caused the Benedictines of Florence to collate 12 codices, and the archivist of Monte Cassino to examine 24 others. The notes of both these undertakings are still in the Vatican, and have been of great assistance to Father Vercellone.

Of printed editions prior to the Clementine of 1590, the author has consulted more than 80, many of them the work of excellent critical scholars. To these are to be added liturgical books, for example, the works of the B. Cardinal Thomasi, the Mozarabic liturgy, edited by Cardinal Lorenzana, and the Roman liturgy. To these again we must add, the Latin Fathers, whose works give much valuable assistance in determining the text of the Vulgate. Finally, F. Vercellone has carefully studied the commentaries of Hesychius, Rodolphus, Bruno of Asti, and the publications of Cardinals Mai and Pitra. This is the labour of a life, and few indeed could be found with the qualities required to undertake it and bring it to a happy termination.

We shall now set before our readers a few specimens of the practical results of F. Vercellone's researches. The first volume treats of the various readings that occur in the Pentateuch; the second volume of those in the books of Josue, Judges, Ruth, and the four books of Kings. It is a well known fact that there are to be found in the Vulgate some additions (_additamenta_) which are wanting in the Hebrew text, and even in the best codices of St Jerome's version. These additions have been distributed by F. Vercellone in four classes: 1^o, those found only in codices of no great antiquity; 2^o, those found in old and accurate editions of the Vulgate; 3^o, those allowed to stand in the Sixtine edition; 4^o, those allowed to stand even in the Clementine. It must not be believed that the Vatican editors were ignorant of the character of these additions, or that they admitted them through carelessness; for, in their preface, they distinctly say, "Nonnulla quae mutanda videbantur, consulto immutata relicta sunt, ad offensionem populorum vitandam".... These additions found their way into the text, according to our author, from four sources; 1. most of them from the Greek version, or the Vetus Itala; 2. not a few from a double version made of a verse, and transcribed as if the translation of two distinct verses; 3. from marginal glosses; and, 4. lastly, from parallel passages in the Scripture.

In the first two books of Kings, the author discovers sixty-nine such additions. Of these, thirty have been allowed to remain in the Clementine, fifteen more in the Sixtine, and nine more in the early editions, making in all fifty-four, fifteen others being found in MSS. of no great antiquity. The fifteen in the Clementine which we daily use, are as follows:--I. _Reg._, iv. 1; v. 6, v. 9; viii. 18; ix. 25; x. i; xi. 1; xiii. 15; xiv. 22; xiv. 41; xv. 3; xv. 12-13; xvii. 36; xix. 21; xx. 15; xxi. 11; xxiii. 13-14; xxx. 15. II. _Reg._, i. 18; i. 26; iv. 5; v. 23; vi. 12; x. 19; xiii. 21; xiii. 27; xiv. 30; xv. 18; xv. 20.

A few of these examples will show the author's method of dealing with such additions. I. _Reg._, iv. 1, we read, _Et factum est in diebus illis, convenerunt Philisthiim in pugnam_, et egressus est Israel obviam Philisthiim in praelium et castrametatus est, etc. Now, the words _et factum est_, etc., are additions; and upon an examination of MSS. and editions, the author traces them to the LXX. version (vol. ii. page 194).

In II. _Reg._, i. 26, we read: "Doleo super te frater mi Jonatha decore nimis et amabilis super amorem mulierum. _Sicut mater unicum amat filium suum ita ego te diligebam._" The words _sicut mater unicum_, etc., are wanting both in the Hebrew and in the Greek, and are probably a marginal gloss, inserted in the text through the ignorance of copyists. They are an explanation of the phrase, super amorem mulierum, as our author shows at page 322.

We need not say any more to show how important is the addition to our Catholic Biblical literature made by F. Vercellone.