(_Continued from_ Vol. iii., p. 87.)
(39.) Does any one now feel inclined to vindicate for Inchofer, Scioppius,
Bariac, or Contarini, the authorship of the _Monarchia Solipsorum_?
Notwithstanding the testimony of the Venice edition of 1652, as well as the
very abundant evidence of successive witnesses, in favour of the
first-named writer, (whose claim has been recognised so lately as the year
1790, by the _Indice Ultimo_ of Madrid), can there be the smallest doubt
that the veritable inventor of this satire upon the Jesuits was their
former associate, JULES-CLEMENT SCOTTI? For the interpretation of his
pseudonyme, "Lucius Cornelius Europaeus," see Niceron, _Mem._ xxxix. 70-1.
(40.) Mr. Cureton (_Ant. Syr. vers. of Ep. of S. Ignat._ Preface, p. ii.,
Lond. 1845) has asserted that--
"The first Epistles published, bearing the name of St. Ignatius--one to
the Holy Virgin, and two to the Apostle St. John, in Latin,--were
printed in the year 1495. Three years later there appeared an edition
of eleven Epistles, also in Latin, attributed to the same {139} holy
Martyr. But nearly seventy years more elapsed before any edition of
these Epistles in Greek was printed. In 1557, Val. Paceus published
twelve," &c.
Two connected Queries may be founded upon this statement:--(1.) Is not Mr.
Cureton undoubtedly in error with respect to the year 1495? for, if we may
believe Orlandi, Maittaire, Fabricius (_B. G._), and Ceillier, the three
Latin Epistles above named had been set forth previously at Cologne, in
1478. (2.) By what mysterious species of arithmetic can it be demonstrated
that "nearly _seventy_ years" elapsed between 1498 and 1557? The process
must be a somewhat similar one to that by which "A.D. 360" is made
equivalent to "five-and-_twenty_ years after the Council of Nice." (Pref.,
p. xxxiv.) In the former instance "_seventy_" is hardly a literal
translation of Bishop Pearson's "_sexaginta_:" but whether these
miscalculations have been already adverted to, and subsequently amended, or
not, I cannot tell.
(41.) In the same Preface (p. xxiv.) a very strange argument was put
forward, which, as we may learn from the last _Quarterly Review_, p. 79.,
where it is satisfactorily refuted, has been since repeated by Mr. Cureton.
He maintains that the Syriac text of the Ignatian Epistles cannot be an
epitome, because that "we know of no instances of such abridgment in any
Christian writer." To commence with the West,--is not Mr. Cureton
acquainted with the manner in which Rufinus dealt with the _History_ of
Eusebius? Have we here no specimens of abbreviation; no allusion in the
prologue to "omissis quae videbantur superflua?" Has Mr. C. never looked
into that memorable combination of the independent works of three
contemporaries, entitled _Historia Tripartita?_ and, not to wander from the
strictest bounds of bibliography, will any one presume to boast of having a
copy of this book printed prior to that now near me, (a spectacle which De
Bure could never get a sight of), "per Iohannem Schueszler regie vrbis
Augustensis ciuem," anno 1472? But let us go to the East in search of
compendiums. Did not Theodorus Lector, early in the sixth century, reduce
into a harmony the compositions of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret? How
does Assemani speak of the first two parts of the Ecclesiastical History of
Zacharias Rhetor, supposed to have been written _in Syriac_, about the year
540? "Prima est _epitome_ Socratis, altera Theodoreti." (_Biblioth.
Orient._, tom. ii. cap. vii.) On this occasion, manifestly, ancient records
are encountered in an abridged Syriac form; a circumstance which will not
strengthen the Curetonian theory relative to the text of the Ignatian
Epistles. Again, bearing in mind the resemblance that exists between
passages in the interpolated Epistles and in the Apostolic Constitutions,
with the latter of which the _Didascalia_ of Ignatius seems to have been
commingled, let us inquire, Did not Dr. Grabe, in his _Essay upon the
Doctrine of the Apostles_, published in 1711, unanswerably prove that the
_Syriac_ copy of this _Didascalia_ was much more contracted than the
_Arabic_ one, or than the _Greek_ Constitutions of the Apostles? Is it not
true that extracted portions of these Constitutions are found in some old
MS. collections of Canons? Has not Cotelier furnished us with an
"_Epitome_," compiled by Metaphrastes from Clementine counterfeits,
concerning the life of S. Peter? And, to descend from the tenth to the
sixteenth century, are we not indebted to Carolus Capellius for an
"_Epitome Apostolicarum Constitutionum, in Creta insula repertarum_," 4to.,
Ingolstad. 1546?
(42.) When MR MERRYWEATHER (Vol. iii., p. 60.) was seeking for monastic
notices of extreme longevity, did he always find it feasible to meet with
Ingulphus's History of Croyland Abbey "_apud Wharton, Anglia Sacra_, 613?"
and if it be not enough to have read an account of an ecclesiastic who is
said to have attained to the delectable age of 168 years, is it not
questionable that anything will suffice except it be the narrative of the
_Seven Sleepers_? The third "Lectio" relating to these Champions of
Christendom, as it is given in a Vatican MS., makes the period of their
slumber to have been about 370 years. Who was the author of that
finely-printed and illustrated quarto volume, the _Sanctorum Septem
Dormientium Historia, ex Ectypis Musei Victorii expressa_, published, with
the full approbation of the Censors, Romae, 1741? "Obscurus esse gestio" is
his declaration about himself (p. 63.). Has he remained incognito?