by which to test the genuineness of any work, which is written in that language; and if, in addition to this vocabulary, we are familiar with all the niceties of grammar, construction, idiom, and style, which prevailed in any period of its history, and are able, moreover, to trace the alterations which have taken place in these respects, from age to age, together with the changes that have occurred in the meaning of words and of peculiar modes of expression;- we are furnished with ample means of ascertaining the Genuineness of any work purporting to be ancient. Every age has its peculiarities in all these respects. Language, as such, like every thing else earthly, is in a state of continual change. It has its rise, its progress, and decline. It has, moreover, hues and tones, inversions and affectations, innovations and corruptions, which are peculiar to each successive age of its existence; and thus furnishes, what has been aptly called the "latent history of the people through whose lips it passes." Horace says very truly, "mortalia facta peribunt, Nedum sermonum stet honos, et gratia vivax. Quem penès arbitrium est, et jus, et norma loquendi." And he who forges any writing, intending to palm it upon the world, as a production of a previous period, must, in consequence, forge all these minute peculiarities of language belonging to the period, to which he chooses to assign his work. This is obviously impossible. Such attempts always fail. They always must fail. The very efforts which are made to give to a pretended work these minute marks of genuineness, only serve, like all other attempts at deception, to furnish to the skilled and practised observer, new means of detecting the imposition. A memorable, though now almost forgotten, instance of the searching power of this test, is furnished by the controversy respecting the alleged poems of Ossian. The unhappy attempt of the eminently gifted Chatterton, to impose his writings on the world, as the works of certain ancient poets, is another case in point. And the critical accuracy of this same test is remarkably and most successfully manifested in the labors of modern scholars, and particularly in those of Germany, in their inquiries into the genuineness and integrity of the text of the ancient classical writers, and of the scriptures. Language has, therefore, been well compared to a mirror, which reflects all the communicable ideas of a people who, at at any given time, employ it. And as every change in their condition must involve a corresponding change in their language, and as the events and circumstances which produce this change, are often known or ascertainable, these successive changes occurring in an author, may serve to fix the date of his work. Thus, for example, if there should be a dispute a thousand years hence, concerning the genuineness of a book, in the English language, in which were found particular references, or allusions, more or less distinct, to the power of steam in propelling machinery; or to rail roads; or to certain systems of political economy; or to tariffs; or to mooted maxims of inter-communication between nations; or to the abolition of slavery in the British West India Islands; or to the extinction of Poland as a nation, by the overwhelming power of Russia; or to the fact, that the poor remnant of the natives of North America were removed one step nearer to their final resting place in the Pacific Ocean; or to magnificent enterprises of missionary, and all kinds of philanthropic societies; or to associations or lyceums for mutual improvement; or to the fact that a popular cast is attempted to be given to all science and all literature, so that what was formerly locked up in ponderous folios, and deemed to be wholly inaccessible except to the learned few, is now brought into open day, epitomized, familiarly explained, and sown broad-cast over the land; — if, we say, allusions or references should be made to circumstances like these, as being of recent, prevalent, or peculiar, interest, in a book whose genuineness shall be disputed a thousand years hence, they would clearly indicate the fact, that it was to be ascribed to the first third of the nineteenth century. And if, moreover, these references should be found to coincide accurately with that degree of information, which, from other and independent sources, is ascertained to exist in regard to each of these subjects, at this particular period of time, it would be an additional fact in confirmation of the same result. Thus, then, in Internal Evidences alone; - namely, in sources of proof derived from books themselves, as well as in the nature and progress of language, there exist rich and available materials for ascertaining the genuineness of books, purporting to be ancient, and this too, though there were not an ancient manuscript in existence. II. But it is well known that manuscripts, believed to be ancient, do exist, and in great numbers. We pass, then, in the next place, to consider what facts and arguments there are by which the genuineness of these is to be authenticated. We commence this division of the subject, with two preliminary remarks. One is, it is obvious, that if in respect to any work regarded as ancient, an unquestionable autograph copy, that is, a copy in the hand-writing of the author can be found, all further question in regard to its genuineness is precluded. But there are few such autographs, even of any modern writer; and none of any ancient one. Yet, as we shall presently attempt to shew, such a near approximation can be made to this degree of certainty, by means of the circumstances attending the original writing, and the preservation and transmission of manuscripts, that the genuineness and antiquity of a work is scarcely less certain, than if the first copy in the hand-writing of the author were still extant. The other introductory remark is this. It is not necessary to trace the history of manuscripts lower down than to the invention of printing; that is, to the beginning of the fifteenth century, because at that time, or shortly after, most of the Greek and Latin, or what are commonly called classic authors, passed through the press. Their existence at the period that this took place is thereby obvious. And as a printed book cannot be materially altered by the pen, or by any other known mechanical means, without detection, it cannot be successfully interpolated or corrupted. It also bears a date, or if it do not, the period of its origin can ordinarily be ascertained by other means. And if, as is the fact with almost all the remains of ancient literature, it were issued in different forms, and in diverse places, any material change of the text, without affording at the same time the means of discovery, would be all but impossible. Thus, for example, a certain work, by Saint Augustine, entitled "de Civitate Dei," was printed in Italy, (and the second book printed there, as Dibdin* says), in 1467. It was reprinted at Rome, in 1468, and twice subsequently before the close of the year 1470. Now these different printed editions show conclusively in the first place, the existence of a manuscript of this work in the fifteenth century. And if, further, they should be found *"Introduction," &c. Vol. I. p. 224. to agree in the main, but to differ from each other in some small matters of a merely verbal kind, it is to be inferred that they were derived from different manuscripts, and not copied from each other; and means also are thus afforded of testing the purity and integrity of any extant text of the book. In ascertaining, therefore, the genuineness of this alleged work of Augustine, we need not follow the proof further down. than the concluding part of the fifteenth century. And the same reasoning applies in all analogous cases. The inquiry then before us, is, — What are the means by which the date of manuscripts, anterior to this period, may be ascertained? Manuscripts, particularly those of the Hebrews, have been divided into two classes,-namely, autographs, or those written by the authors themselves, of which, as we have said, none remain; and apographs, or copies made from the former, by subsequent transcriptions. These apographs again have been divided into the more ancient, which were of the highest authority among the Jews, but of which no specimen remains; and into the more modern, which are still extant. These last are again subdivided into the rolled, which are used in the synagogues, and into the square manuscripts, which are in private use. M. De Rossi has divided this kind of manuscripts into three classes, viz. 1. More ancient, or those existing before the twelfth century; -2. Ancient, or those written in the thirteenth and fourteenth century; 3. More recent, or those written at the end of the fourteenth, or at the beginning of the fifteenth century. It is not necessary, for any purpose we have at present in view, to recognise these distinctions, and we only state them here as an example of the extreme accuracy with which this subject has been examined. Our remarks will have reference to the methods of authenticating the age of ancient manuscripts generally. These are very various. 1. The history of some manuscripts is accurately known. They were considered, as we shall hereafter see, in former times, as extremely valuable. They were, in consequence, so accurately described by successive scholars, as to leave no doubt of their identity; and they were mentioned, moreover, in the catalogues of the libraries to which they belonged. And, if in any instance, they were transferred to other persons, the circumstances of such a transference were authentically recorded. 2. Some manuscripts are dated by the persons who copied them, and if there be no reason to question the genuineness of this date, it is obviously decisive of the period to which they belong. 3. Many manuscripts exhibit marginal notes, added evidently by a subsequent writer. The age of these notes may, not unfrequently, be settled by means of some allusions to particular persons or events, or by the form of the letter which is used, or by some other means; thereby referring the original writing to an earlier period. 4. The age of a manuscript may be indicated by the material of which it is composed; that is, whether it be Soft Leather; or Parchment; or Vellum; or the Papyrus of the Nile; or the Bombycine, or Cotton Paper; since all these different materials were used for manuscript writing in succession, and at periods which are well ascertained. It will be useful in estimating the force of the argument drawn from the materials which were thus used for writing, to give a succinct account of them. But before proceeding to a consideration of this subject, it may serve to give some completeness to the inquiry, to advert, in passing, to that subsidiary aid which is to be derived from those more durable inscriptions, which were made on harder substances. It is obvious, as almost innumerable specimens of writing of this description exist, and belong to every age, even to the very earliest; and as these, moreover, bear in most cases, some date, or some internal evidence of the period in which they were written, that they furnish examples of the successive changes that have taken place in the forms of letters and modes of writing. And these, being thus authenticated, it is plain, may be used in ascertaining the age of manuscripts, so far as the character of the writing is concerned. The most ancient remains of writing are those which have Authors differ in regard to the numerical proportion of the manuscripts thus dated. Mr. Taylor speaks of such as being "a large proportion." Mr. Horne, on the other hand, says that "by far the greater number of manu. scripts have no subscriptions or other criteria [of a like kind,] by which to ascertain their date." Of course, opinions on this point will differ according to the manuscripts consulted. |