Daniel Heinsius and the Textus Receptus of the New Testament
A. study of bis Contributions to the Editions of the Greek Testament printed by the El^eviers at Leiden

in 1624 and 1633
Presented to participants in the 26th General Meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testament! Societas, August 23-26,1971, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands


Leiden. Netherlands All rights reserved.Copyright 1971 by E. photoprint. microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS . microfilm. J. by print. Brill. No pari of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form.

. The contributions of Heinsius to the Elzevier Greek Testaments of 1633 and 1641: the preface and the panegyric on the New Testament. The author of the preface to the Elzevier Greek Testaments of 1633 and 1641 II. According to the manuscript text . a) The Greek text 1. . The manuscript text 2. The printed text b) A translation of the panegyric 1. . A. C. .CONTENTS Foreword by F. The panegyric on the New Testament. 2. III. The preface a) The Latin text b) A translation of the preface B. . . According to the printed t e x t . Wieder Introduction I. . . The editor of the Elzevier Greek Testament of 1633 IV. The editor of the Elzevier Greek Testament of 1624 Conclusions Appendix Index nominum vn l 5 29 29 30 33 38 38 38 39 39 39 40 48 57 65 66 67 .


I should like to take this opportunity to thank the organizing committee of the Congress and the author for making it possible for this memento of the SNTS meeting at Noordwijkerhout to be presented to those taking part. August 1971 F.FOREWORD It is very pleasing that Mr de Jonge has been able to solve a three-hundred-year-old problem and show that it was in all probability indeed Daniel Heinsius who wrote the Introdtiction to the Elzevier Nen> Testaments of 1633 and 1641. and though we must now accept that the University Librarian was all too inclined to look upon some of the volumes entrusted to his care äs a handy source of scribbling paper. C. WIEDER Jr . The evidence is most persuasive. we can certainly be grateful for the new light this discovery sheds upon the closeness of the relationship between Heinsius and the most notable learned Publishing house of his time.


2 These words were printed for the first time on f. the ampersands. also at Leiden. capitals. when. in the first person singular. *3r.4 Except for the lay-out. punctuation. of the second edition of the Greek Novum Testamentnm published by Bonaventura and Abraham ELZEVIER in 1633 at Leiden. .5 But there is one single difference. *2v. 'nobiscum'). apparently. all has been exactly reproduced. who. they wrote 'ut cum Augustino loquar'.'TYPOGRAPHI LECTORIBVSdehaceditione'. They form pari of the address of the printers to the readers. their attention had begun to wander. But the very correction shows that the original reading was not merely an insignificant slip of the pen. Spelling. At the end of their preface. 'nostro'.3 They were repeated on f. the preface of 1641 is identical with that of 1633: not one jot or tittle has been changed. had made a small but notable mistake. which runs 'ut cum Augustino loquamur'. nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus'.INTRODUCTION Few* sentences outside the bible have been quoted so often by New Testament critics l äs the Latin period 'Textum ergo habes. In 1633 the 'Typographi'. of the preface to the third edition which appeared in 1641. The error was promptly corrected in the preface of 1641. The original 'loquar' would seem to indicate that the preface was not written by one of the publishers. who had consistently spoken of themselves in the first person plural ('dedimus'.

1 The period. Von DOBSCHÜTZ. Referring to the supposition that the author of the poem was the editor of the text. . indeed confused with the problem of the editorship of the Elzevier New Testament—not only of the edition of 1633 to which the preface was prefixed for the first time. who wrote in the name of the 'Typographi'. On the contrary. would not have been likely to forget one another. In Chapters III and IV we shall concern ourselves with the editors of 1633 and 1624. INTRODUCTION as relatives and associates. has been cited in Latin or translated by APPEL. GROENEN. The question is: who was responsible for the text of the preface to the Greek Testament issued by the Elzeviers in 1633. GREENLEE. but even of that of 1624 which had no preface at all. HEINSIUS preceding the text of the New Testament in the Elzevier edition of 1633. GREEVEN. BOVER. . It has often been connected. Smit Sibinga gave it as his opinion. FEINE-BEHM-KÜMMEL. dr J. it has been the subject of scholarly discussion for centuries. CULLMANN. GROSSOUW. SMIT SIBINGA had not on December 18th 1970 spoken to us about the Greek disticha of Dan. Von GEBHARDT. or at least its greater part. but—as indeed was and is often done— by another person. To begin with we shall consider the question raised just now: who is the author of the address to the readers in the Elzevier Greek Testaments of 1633 and 1641. that some inquiry in the Leiden University Library might very well throw fresh light on the much disputed editorship of the Elzevier text. This question is not new. but whose mask slipped towards the end. BURKITT. .2. NOTES * The present pages would not have been written if Prof. GREGORY-ABBOT. It might however be helpful to distinguish one question from the other. BAUMGARTEN. GREGORY.

Von TISCHENDORF. . . 8. MARTIN.' The misinterpretation. VAN LEEUWEN. quae membra dicimus. the ideal number (Orator 221: 'Constat enim ille ambitus et plena comprehensio e quattuor fere partibus. The less they were conscious of this. TAYLOR. perfecta comprehensio est') so that the füll period numbers four such membra. LAKE. O. omits mmc before ab (!) and replaces damus by est . The sentence in question consists of two comprehensiones. K. the logical structure of a period \vith inner harmony and balance of its constituent parts. METZGER. That structure and punctuation cannot be neglected but to the detriment of the right Interpretation is apparent from a translation like 'thus you now have a text accepted by everyone . Cicero. These comprehensiones are not too long and are both of them composed of two membra (cf. MICHAELIS. which is. which clearly indicates that mmc belongs to ab Omnibus receptum. MEYER. ROSENMÜLLER. TREGELLES. KNOPF-LIETZMANN-WEINEL. VAGANAY. not to babes. VoGELS-J. von SODEN. WETSTEIN. SCRIVENER. G. C. . P. Ed. the two middle membra each 8 syllables. ROBERTSON. Br. HUG. A. Qrator 223: 'non longa. KENYON-WILLIAMS. PARVIS. J. P. One author quotes the passage leaving out ab before o?nnibus. WIKENHAUSER. Wilh. not unusual indeed. consequently the structural pattern of the füll sentence forms at the same time an inclusio and a chiasmus (6. KENYON. another replaces ergo by mmc (!). Moreover. STÄIILIN. 2 The numerous authors who have quoted this passage have obviously fallen undcr the subtle spell of its perfect rhetorical structure. SOUTER. Wilh. 6). STEUNENBERG. and others. Among the works which remained unavailable to us is that of SCHAFF. Herrn. Th. KLIJN. McNEiLE-WiLLiAMS. separated by the colon. HALL. both of them consisting of two membra. SCHMID.—This analysis is supported by the original punctuation in the printed text of the prefaces of 1633 and 1641. id est membris. MASCH. SCHÄFER.) But this is not all. each of them having 14 syllables. the first and the fourth membrum have each 6 syllables. ex duobus enim versibus.' instead of 'thus you have the text which is now receiveä by all . according to Cicero. ut et auris impleat et neque brevior sit quam satis sit neque longior'. REUSS. POTT. . Vinc. VACCARI. T. the strenger appears the natural force of what CICERO called concinnitas. they are also Ισοσύλλαβοι.8. . MEINERTZ. K.INTRODUCTION 3 B. . HOLTZMANN. The two comprehensiones are not only ίσόκωλοι. Gotl.. äs given above (text). is due to the neglect of the comma. WESTCOTT-HORT. SEVENSTER. MANGENOT.

of Bibl. 7) with one of 1633 (Den Haag. expresseramus] expresserant + Regii (sie! This 'Regii' alters the meaning of the Elzevier text). These editions are reprints of Elzevier 1641 (not 1656. That Leers copied the preface of the Elzeviers is not such a shameless fraud äs Hall suggcsts. . Leers. University Library 1146. 46). A.. and that in the preface of 1641 a comma has been added. which appears from the fact that their preface reads 'loqua^/w' instead of 'loquar' although the superscription 'TYPOGRAPHI' of the Elzeviers had been adapted to Lcers' circumstances and altered to 'TYPOGRAPHUS'. äs stated by Is. 4 The fourth to seventh and last Elzcvier cditions appearcd in 1656. The Elzevier preface of 1633 and 1641 figures also in two editions of the Greek Testament ex officma Arn. H. for Leers did not change Only the heading of the preface' (thus Hall. singular. \ve noticc here Leers' modifications of the Elzevier preface of 1641. indicating by this that he did not claim to have been the publisher of the iirst Impression of the New Testament alluded to in this preface. Journ. HALL.. Lit. We omit matters of punctuation and orthography. cf. and Exegesis. On Mill's Statement of the Origin of the Elzcvir Grcek Text of 1624'.4 3 INTRODUCTION For a füll transcript of this prefacc. expressimus] expresserunt. The readings after the brackets are those of Leers. of tbe Soc. entitled 'TYPOGRAPHI Lectori' in 1656 and 1662.1662. p. But that is all. 45. Roterodami 1654 and 1658. p. dcdimus] dederunt. concedcremus] conccdcrent. TYPOGRAPHI] -PHUS. denuo2] om. denuo] om. A translation has becn added. 24. 46). but also a number of othec words.. June 1887. 26) prevented us from noticing in time that the preface of 1641 has a where that of 1633 had a (both times). Royal Library 224. In Order to clear Leers from the blame cast on him by Hall. In these the longer prefacc of 1633 and 1641 has been replaccd by a shorter one. p. on f. and 'TYPOGRAPHUS Lectori' in 1670 and 1678. 5 The difficulty \ve had in comparing a copy of 1641 (Amsterdam. n. editionem novam] editionem hanc. in nostro aut] om. *2r. H.1670 and 1678 at Amsterdam. sce chaptcr II.

he is misinterpreting the words of Wetstein. he believed that WETSTEIN was right in denying the authorship of the preface of 1633 to HEINSIUS on the ground that Heinsius rejected the punctuation in I Cor. als hier [in the Elzevier text] angetroffen wird: daher er [Wetstein] mutmasset. Heinsium für den Verfasser dieser Vorrede gehalten haben. J. Thysius von den Elzeviren dazu [to write the preface (?)] sey gebraucht worden. 29 eine andere Unterscheidung des Textes anneme und behaupte. Jac. BAUMGARTEN. welches nach der πινάκι alhier [in the editions of 1633 and 1641] folget.' If we understand Baumgarten correctly. äs far äs we know.3 If this is indeed what Baumgarten means. that of S. vii. dass Ant. dass Heinsius I Gor.1 This scholar wrote in 1752: 'Dass einige Dan. Heinsius. For in the . scheinet von dem kurzen griechischen Gedicht 2 herzurüren. mit Recht dagegen erinnert. in novi foederis libros. BIBAE. Wetstein in der Einleitung zu seiner Ausgabe des N. 7.CHAPTER ONE THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE TO THE ELZEVIER GREEK TESTAMENTS OF 1633 AND 1641 The oldest testimony concerning the authorship of the preface prefixed to the editions of 1633 and 1641 is. ΚΑΚΩΝ ΠΑΝΑΚΕΙΑ &c. 29 äs given by the Elzevier text. Allein es wird vom Joh. Test. mit beigefügtem Namen Dan.

5 So the same observation which prevented Wetstein from believing that Heinsius prepared or supervised the 'prima Elzeviriorum editio' (1624). but—äs he saicl disertis verbis—with the 'Altera quaestio. and produces a line of argument that does not hold water. refelluntur [. vii.]. but also to the accuracy of Baumgarten's Statement quoted four lines above äs a whole.]'. therefore. there are other possible objections not only to attributing the preface of 1633 to Heinsius. that of 1624] praefuisse: at illi ex ejusdem V.. And so Baumgarten misses the point of Wetstein's argument. Cogitavi denique de Antonio Thysio [. VII. Danielem Heinsium huic editioni [vi%. published about a year before the appearance of Baumgarten's Nachrichten. Exercitat. . a quo & qua autoritate prima Elzeviriorum editio sit curata'. 29 äs given by the Elzevier text by no means excludes the possibility that he wrote. to impair the reliability of the view of those who occasioned him to write 'Dass einige Dan.4 And it is in connection with this question.6 THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 'Prolegomena' to his Novtim Testatnentum. However. For the fact that Heinsius rejected in his Exercitationes sacrae (1639) the punctuation of I Cor. Cl. . Cor. ad I. Wetstein had not concerned himself with the question of who wrote the preface of 1633.. Heinsium für den Verfasser dieser Vorrede gehalten haben'. 29. Baumgarten's reference to the argument of Wetstein cannot be considered. leads Baumgarten to the conclusion that Heinsius cannot have been the author of the preface of 1633. a preface to that text on behalf of the Elzeviers. that he said Tutarunt alii. . anonymously.

The first to do so was J. jussit adnecti'. If this suspicion is justified. The other was J. Heinsius was the author of the preface of 1633. 1633. [. WETSTEIN. according to Baumgarten.' added to the five disticha 'IN NOVI FOEDERIS LIBROS' adopted in the Elzevier editions of 1633 and 1641. the attribution of the preface to Heinsius is a mere guess. only two scholars before Baumgarten connected the name of Dan. welches nach der πινάκι alhier [in the editions of 1633 and 1641] folget. äs we have already noticed. asserts that the tables of the κεφάλαια of the Gospels and the εκθεσις κεφαλαίων of Acts and all the Epistles which have been added to the Elzevier editions of the New Testament of 1633 and 1641 are due to 'Daniel Heinsius. J. HEINSIVS.THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 7 Firstly. Heinsius'. The attribution of the preface to Heinsius 'scheinet von dem kurzen griechischen Gedicht herzurüren. one cannot but share the suspicion of Baumgarten himself that the attribution of the preface to Heinsius was founded merely on the subscription 'DAN. A. Neither Fabricius. nor Wetstein says that Heinsius was the author of the preface of 1633. Heinsiumfür den Verfasser dieser Vorrede gehalten haben'? As far äs we know.12. of 1624] praefuisse'. Secondly.] mit beigefügtem Namen Dan..T. who was not all too scrupulous in his Interpretation of the . 'Dan. Heinsius with the Elzevier editions of the Greek Testament.. if before the middle of the eighteenth Century some people really thought that Dan. who. But Baumgarten. said: Tutarunt alii. just who are the 'einige' who. in 1717. FABRICIUS 6 who. qui [ea] editioni N. Daniekm Heinsium huic editioni [the first. Elzevirianae A.

F. in which any prefatory note is lacking. Consequently.W. Heinsius to be the author of the foreword of 1633 is without any foundation.MEYER (1804) and T. ROSENMÜLLER (1797). DIBDIN (1827). For no other scholar has linked the name of Thysius with the Elzevier Greek Testament. MASCH. G. qui tunc temporis Lugduni Batavorum vixit'. Masch' attribution of the preface to Thysius äs well äs his denial of its authorship to Heinsius. and Baumgarten about the preface to the second edition.8 But Wetstein did not suggest that Thysius was responsible for the foreword of 1633—äs Masch infers—. F. It is therefore clear that there is no reason to suppose that any people really attributed the preface of 1633 to Heinsius at the time. wrote in 1778: TIujus praefationis auctor a nonnullis habetur Daniel Heinsins: majori vero jure adscribitur Ant. . A. Heinsium für den Verfasser dieser Vorrede [1633] gehalten haben'. Thysio. it seems that Baumgarten's Statement that sorne people have taken Dan. G. Yet. ROSENMÜLLER 9 gives nothing but a füll and clear reprise of the confused view of Baumgarten: 'Für den Verfasser jener im Namen der Verleger verfertigten Vorrede halten viele Daniel Heinsius. K. As Wetstein spoke about the first edition. obviously took Wetstein's remark 'Putarunt alii Danielem Heinsium huic editioni [1624] praefuisse' to mean 'Dass einige Dan. This assertion is clearly dependent on the exposition of WETSTEIN.? for example. is of no value. Baumgarten is not alone in drawing this false conclusion from the words of Wetstein. bloss aus dem Grunde. but for the edition of 1624.8 THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 \vords of Wetstein. The same applies to the remarks of E.

Anton Thysius habe jene Vorrede verfertiget'.BIBAE. What Dibdin says about Thysius is a translation of Masch' words: 'majori vero jure adscribitur Ant. with more justice. . qui tunc temporis Lugduni Batavorum vixit'. T/ysio. Allein Wetstein erinnert in den Prolegomenen zu seiner Ausgabe des neuen Testaments gegen diese Meynung. As the opinion of Baumgarten has been proved to be utterly unfounded.-. the comments of Rosenmüller need no further refutation. welches nach der auch in der ersten Ausgabe befindlichen Πίναξ folgt. who lived in Leyden at the time'. A new error was added to the train of misunderstandings when in 1827 DIBDIN u wrote: '[The second edition of the Elzevirs . .λ. With reference to Rosenmüller and Masch G. als die in dieser Ausgabe befindliche. Heinsius. daher er muthmasset. In novifoederislibros. VII. The bare reference to Rosenmüller and Masch makes it plain that we are not dealing here with reliable Information. Heinsius' is the . ΚΑΚΩΝ ΠΑΝΑΚΕΙΑκ. That Others' ascribed the preface 'to D. to Thysius. eine andere Unterscheidung annehme und behaupte. 29. deren Vorrede nach Einigen von Daniel Heinsius.THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACK OF 1633 9 weil das kurze griechische Gedicht. which some have ascribed to Beza (who. dass Heinsius I Cor.] contains a short preface. however. and others. Dan. died twenty-eight years before the publication.12. Heinsius unterschrieben ist. W. MEYER 10 speaks in 1804 of 'der zweiten Ausgabe 1633. nach Ändern von Anton Thysius herrührt'.) others to D. The source of these remarks is obviously the misrepresentation which Baumgarten gave of Wetstein's observations and hypotheses.

cui non pauci viri. Evidently this passage was the source of MILL'S statement 13 about the Elzevier edition of 1624: 'in Editione biennio post [sc. qui ad regium exemplar & optimas quasque editiones eum cum cura expresserunt'. ultimately based on a somewhat unfortunate remark of MILL. Lugduni prodijt. two years after the appearance of the first edition of the Elzevier Greek Testament. the product of misunderstanding and confusion. eruditione & pietate praestantes praefuere. So Mill implies that BEZA. once again. The preface to this edition of 1626 contains the following passage: 'In textu Graeco secuti sumus eum. post 1624] ad hujus amussim adornata. Be%a notat Editioni Elzevirianae praefuisse viros haud paucos eruditione & pietate praestantes'. This book provided the Greek text accompanied. printed at Leiden but published by Henricus LAURENTIUS 12 at Amsterdam. This allegation is. however. which Dibdin may also have copied from Masch. a reprint appeared of the Elzevier text of 1624. when Dibdin says that some have ascribed the preface of 1633 to BEZA (f 1605). In 1626. The question whether Mill's form of speech is to be accounted for by supposing a real slip of the pen. Something new comes in. ex adverso. äs we shall now explain. who died in 1605. or by the supposition that he used the name 'Beza' äs a current and convenient designation of every Greek-Latin edition .10 THE AüTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 well-known and widespread misinterpretation of the words of Wetstein. qui anno MDCXXIV. by Beza's Latin version of the New Testament. was the author of the preface in Laurentius' edition of 1626.

He says: 'Quod enim Mittlns [. qui jam A°. And so äs the result of three misunderstandings Wetstein unjustly infers that Mill took Beza to be the author of the preface to the Elzevier text of 1633. qui primae editioni. scribi potuit [Did Mill himself believe that he was citing Beza in person?]: denique in hac Praefatione sermo non est de iis. & non de üs. has gone completely astray. is impossible to answer. the question 'who wrote .. qui Textum editionis secundae amendis typothetarum purgarunt. Nam editio secunda non biennio. that he supposed Mill to have spoken with reference to the Elzevier preface of 1633. sed qui secundae praefuerunt. From this last passage of Wetstein it appears. in his criticism of Mill's Statement quoted above. It is this mistake of Wetstein that DIBDIN repeats in saying that 'some have ascribed' the foreword to the edition of 1633 £ to Beza'. whereas in reality Mill had cited the preface of Laurentius' Greek-Latin New Testament of 1624.] inquit [the words of Mill are quoted] non uno laborat vitio.. no one has ever considered Beza äs the author of the preface in question.THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 11 containing the Latin text of Beza. [But Mill does not even mention the 'second' Elzevier edition]. qui Textum editionis primae concinnarunt. & ad primam recognoverunt'. 1633. At any rate. In fact. After Dibdin (1827) no more attempts seem to have been made to resolve the problem of the authorship of the preface to the second edition of the Elzevier Greek Testament. sed de iis. Wetstein.14 While the editorship of the Elzevier text has remained a much disputed topic.. sed integro novennio post primam fuit adornata A°.-neque Praefatio a Bety. 1605 diem obierat.

'Wetstein muthmasset'. 'nonnulli'. But the opinion of those Others' was constantly deduced and teconstructed from what previous writers had said. in view of the discouraging number of mistakes by which the small piece of Forschungsgeschichte described above is marked. 'viele'. 'einige'. &c. äs shown by the following diagram: Laurentius 1626 Mill 1707-10 Wetstein 1751-2 Baumga±ten 1752 Maschl778 Rosenmüller 1797 .12 THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 the preface to the edition of 1633' has fallen into the background.Meyer 1804 Dibdin 1827 . which is indeed just äs well. then. 'andere'. we must say that those who have written about the authorship of the preface to the Elzevier Greek Testament of 1633 and 1641 have never given expression to their own and personal view on this matter: they intend only to say what they think afher s have said on the question: 'alii'. Summarizing the above.

ex quo Foedus Nouum Graece. It is the object of the present contribution. Paralipomena I-II of PROCOPIUS of Gaza (f c. 50 (i. 538). from the University Library at Leiden. for a great part traditional. Consequently. first lines at the top of the page: 'Anni sunt iam aliquot. P. G. the alleged hypotheses of Others' according to wliich Heinsius.. Thysius and Beza are the result of. that is to say. As such they have been noted down and transmitted. äs such they deserve to be unmasked and dismissed.1S The catenae of Procopius end on f. Thysius or Beza would have been the author of the foreword of 1633 and 1641. But it is what follows Procopius' text that is of special interest to us.THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 13 Unfortunately the scholars mentioned seldom succeeded in giving a faithful rendering of what their predecessors really had said. misunderstandings. It was no small surprise for us to read on f. This Library preserves under the shelf mark B. to produce it from there. These hypothetical attributions have only existed äs the supposed opinion of 'alii'. The answer to the question 'who wrote the preface of 1633' is still in the lap of the gods. Bibliotheca Publica Graeca 50) a Greek manuscript of the second half of the sixteenth Century. e. containing the Commentarii in Octateiichum. however. The attributions of the preface to Heinsius. 523 r. Amice Lector..] fide ac cura dedimus . 524r.. The foregoing forces us to conclude that the author of the longer Elzevier foreword has in fact never been identified. have never been conceived and formulated by any scholar äs his personal view.. ex Regijs editionibus [. Reges.

the entire text of the preface of the Elzevier editions of 1633 and 1641. 525 r. one reads. The most salient feature of the manuscript text is. Some passages of the printed text are missing in the manuscript.14 THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 expressimusque. provides. 524r. on f. äs if they had been written along with their context. Further. [&c. G. (See accompanying photograph of f. The opposite also occurs. third line from the bottom: είνσιος.]' This is. f. Does the manuscript offer any indication of the identity of the hand to which the text is due? The answer to this question is simple. Long lines connect these additions with the places where they had to be inserted. 50. however. f. P. their text having been added afterwards under the original draft. One small piece of text17 has been added on the left-hand page.). the opening of the preface to the Elzevier Greek Testament of 1633! It seemed to us 16 that the manuscript Leiden. There. 523 v. its arrangement: three passages that are integrant components of the whole in the printed text. 524r. except for some smaller Fragments. it needs hardly be said. are lacking in the context äs given by the manuscript. . One only needs turn the page to find the name of the writer of the folia under consideration. there is a great number of smaller discrepancies between the printed text and that of the manuscript. University Library. In the edition of 1633 all these passages have been incorporated in the text proper. B. The obvious conclusion is that we here have to do with a brouillon of the preface printed in the Elzevier Greek Testament of 1633 and 1641. (see photograph of that page).

524r.. That. Lugduni Batavorum 1640. the hand which wrote the poem on f. fil. orator and medical Student Vincentius FABRICIUS 21 (1612-67) by no less a person than Dan. is also clear from the following observations. 524 and 525 of Leiden. [(44)] of Dan. beginning at the top of f. is the signature of the author's own hand under the draft of a poem which was published on f. bearing. HEINSIVS. the subscription 'DAN. e.'. in red. 50 was written by DANIEL HEINSIUS. Heinsius. G. [*8]v.19 The poem was printed a second time on p. and in the third edition of the Greek Testament published by the Elzeviers at Leiden in 1641. University Library.. HEINSIVS. is identical with that to which we owe the text of the Elzevier preface on f. p. 1640. in Danielis Heinsii Poemata auctiora. [*8]v. 525 r.. The poem will be found. editore Nicolao Heinsio Dan. Heinsius' own elaborate commentary on the New Testament. the word εί. Orationes. Over the Greek poem subscribed είνσιος another poem has been written.20 The poem also appeared in the reprint of the Exercitationes issued at Cambridge. 285. again subscribed 'DAN.THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 15 It admits of no doubt that the text on S. 32.18 For firstly. g. of the New Testament printed by the Elzeviers in 1633. p..'νσιος on f. his Exercitationes sacrae of 1639.'. further. 22 äs well äs in the 'Carminum adoptivorum über' of Vincentii Fabricii . there. p. P. 525 r. patrij tutela Lycei. . in Latin. B. 525 r. This poem would seem to be a panegyric addressed to the poet. Its first line runs: Dousa pater vatum..

earlier phases of development of the same poem may be found on the other side of the leaf. corrected and repeatedly rewritten until the page was completely filled. coming nearest to the printed text form of the poem. but. poemata . accurante Friderico Fabricio. the other way about. 525 r. Francofurti & Lipsiae 1685. it is beyond all doubt that Dan. which bears clear evidence of the whole process of birth and growth of the poem. wrote a definite recension of the poem. 526r. and subscribed with the füll name of the author DANIEL HEINSIUS. f.. . fil. This means that the poem dedicated to Fabricius is the terminus post quem for the composition of the Greek disticha. Heinsius.. Now it may be easily seen from the accompanying photographs that the hand that wrote the Latin poem on f. On that page it has been drafted. Accordingly..—were evidently written. and the Latin poem on f. where we have already noticed it. The redaction of f... Heinsius is the author of the preface on f. 525r. but the preceding..23 In the latter collection the poem is headed 'In Amores Nortvicenses. whereas these . 524r. Some importance attaches to the order in which the three texts under consideration—the foreword on f. 524 r. 672. Then the author. 524 r. is the same äs is responsible for the text on f. on the contrary. f. Vincentii Fabricii sui'.. In fact.. the Greek verses.16 THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 dissertationes. 525 r. the poem destined for Vinc. it is certain that in this manuscript Heinsius did not work in the normal direction from front to back. f. 525r. Fabricius does not only occur on f. 525r. It is worth noting that for this last recension he did not take the following page. 525v. epistolae. p.

37). MDCXXXIII.' (July 27th 1633). 1632' (January 14th 1632) 24to 'A.25 The last letter. VI. Febr. 5. 1633.' This addition to the poem justifies the conclusion that Fabricius' 'secessus' from Noordwijk should be dated about July 27th 1633. Kalend. and a fortiori. Now the date of the poem In Amores Nortvicenses. It appeared that in the autograph of Fabricius the poem has been subscribed 'Nortvici. in secessu' meo. Aug. Huygens) and accompanied by an elegiac poem dedicated to Huygens. that of July 27th 1633. 1633' (OctoberSrd 1633).THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 17 Greek verses form in their turn the termimis post quem for the text which was to become the preface to the second edition of the Elzevier Greek Testament. this date is the earlier limit for the dating of Heinsius' Greek disticha and his preface to the Greek Testament of the Elzevier s. Octobr. published in 1633. The first letter following upon that of July from Noordwijk was v/ritten 'Lugd.26 In this letter Fabricius refers to the 'migrationis tumultus' äs then being over.D. Hugenium' (Const. Among the letters of Vincentius Fabricius we found those written at 'Nortvici' (Noordwijk) to be dated from '19. Batav. Consequently Heinsius' poem In Amores Nortvicenses can hardly have been written before January 14th 1632. was addressed 'ad Const. We were fortunate enough to find both the letter and the poem among the letters of Huygens in the University Library at Leiden (Hug. the terminus ante quem is provided by . Kai. On the other hand. Non. Vincentü Fabricii sui may be approximately fixed from the following indications. At the same time.

and on the 3rd of October bis removal was a thing of the past. but probably not after 3 October 1633. namely somewhere about July 1633. He was 'in secessu' on July 27th 1633. von dem berühmten. Eb.T. All in all we may say that the preface to the second and third editions of the Elzevier Greek Testament was written after January 1632. just like the panegyric on Fabricius written by C. Barlaeus' poem follows immediately upon that of Heinsius. . In the manuscript the Latin panegyric of Heinsius figures on the same page äs his Greek one on the New Testament. From this we may conclude that the Latin panegyric was written before 3 October 1633. It is indeed quite probable that it was on the very occasion of Fabricius' departure that this Latin poem was composed. presumably by about August 1633. issued in 1633. In Fabricius' 'Carminum adoptivorum über' mentioned above. They may well have been written at about the same time. NESTLE once wrote.18 THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 Fabricius' departure from Noordwijk. The poem on the New Testament was apparently intended to be published together with the preface. For both these panegyrics a date in July 1633 would probably be correct. This means that the composition of the preface cannot be of much later date than the disticha. referring to the 'fünf griechische Distichen auf das N.27 This calculation proves to agree remarkably well with the date of publication of the Greek disticha and the foreword to the New Testament of the Elzeviers. possibly before 27 July 1633. BARLAEUS. entitled InSecessus Nortvicenses doctissimi Juvenis Vincentii Fabricü Epigramma.

'28 The question must be answered in the affirmative. volumen nondum editum'. A short time after at least. Ich weiss nicht. 140. catalogued. p. ob sie hier erstmals veröffentlicht sind. and did not resign until 1653. 1623. Lugduni-Batavorum (Ex officinä Isaaci Elzeviri). 89. s. at the age of twenty-seven.THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 19 1655 verstorbenen holländischen Philologen Daniel Heinsius.L. in May 1634. Dan. Heinsius makes mention of a 'mira atque inusitata chartae penuria' at Leiden. p. and . It is not even impossible that lack of paper did play a part. which he obtained in 1607.29 Both these catalogues were compiled by Daniel Heinsius himself in his capacity äs Praefectus bibliothecae publicae. Such things happened at the time. the Leiden University Librarian seems to have had no scruples in availing himself of the open space in a manuscript belonging to the Library. then.30 In want of some scribbling paper. s. Yet he was not the owner of the manuscript. third title.a. As early äs 1614 the codex was in the possession of the Leiden University Library.. Exactly the same title (but 'Comm-') occurs in the Catalogus bibliothecae publicae Lugduno-Batavae. third title: 'Procopij Epitome commentariorum in octo priores Veteris Testamenti libros Graece. Heinsius used the blank leaves at the end of the Procopius manuscript äs his rough-copy book. In that year it is mentioned in the Catalogus Hbrorum bibliothecae Lugdunensis.31 For this many excuses can be advanced.32 Daniel Heinsius not only acquired. Thus it is clear that some time between January 1632 and October 1633 Dan.

In his Exercitationes sacrae 35 of 1639 Heinsius cites once again some words of 'Procopius [. . published in 1627.20 THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 'supplemented' the manuscript. successu tarnen impari. made use of the manuscript of Procopius. όπερ ουκ εσχεν ή των Ελλήνων δια μιας λέξεως παραστηναι φωνή: cujus vim vocaboli νηα eademque voce Graecorum. In his Aristarchus sacer. dum ex aere paulatim descendit ac defertur. not yet edited in Greek'..36 It is most striking indeed.38 Thus it is not too surprising that Heinsius. nondum Graece editus. ώσεί. Principio Geneseos.37 In view of the rather great number of Procopius quotations scattered throughout the Exercitationes. sive ad Nonni in lohannem metaphrasin exercitationes [. from those parts of Procopius' commentaries which had not been edited by Meursius. καί πνεύμα Θεού έπεφέρετο επάνω των υδάτων. that the passages quoted by Heinsius in his Exercitationes sacrae from Procopius. Procopius. vt ipsi Graecorum Critici notarunt. inquit. we find also evidence that he read in it. 32. περιστεράν m John i.. voce *]Π"1 expritnunt Hebraei. have been derived. about thirty in number.] in Commentariis ad Exodutn.. it is likely that Heinsius in preparing his Exercitationes has had the Procopius manuscript constantly at hand. without any exception.33 he quotes some words of 'Procopius. Interrupting for a moment his work at the Exercitationes sacrae in order to write—äs he .]. Dwelling at the meaning of the words καταβαΐνον. Hellenistae έπιφέρεσθαι dixerunt. Heinsius writes: 'Hüne columbae motum.34 It is obvious that Heinsius appeals here to the Procopius manuscript under his charge in the University Library. nondum Graece editis'. in need of some writing-paper.. lingua exprimere non potuif'.

FabrJcius' stay . however.THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 21 offen did—some short texts on behalf of the Elzeviers. Heinsius took from his desk. Let us first sum up the results reached in this part of our study. Heinsius made use of the remaining space at the end of a manuscript belonging to the Leiden University Library of which he himself was Librarian. The question. University Library. and not having the necessary paper immediately available. As appears from the signature ε'ίνσιος subjoined to some Greek disticha of Dan. 524r.. one finds the draft of the preface. and from the identical handwriting of ff. 'who wrote the f oreword to the edition of the Greek New Testament published by the Elzeviers in 1633' is directly and sufficiently answered by the ff. Concerning the authorship of the preface of the Elzevier Greek Testament of 1633 the learned tradition appeared to dispose of anything but reliable Information. it is to none other than DANIEL HEINSIUS that the text of the preface to the second edition of the Greek Testament of the Elzeviers is due. 525r. or from the shelf. the much consulted codex of Procopius always lying ready for use at that time. On f. . 524 and 525. For this. Again and again scholars refer to people ascribing the preface to some author. What exactly he wrote may be seen in the following chapter. but on examination these references proved to be merely due to misunderstandings of the Statements of previous critics. As the text of Heinsius' preface must have been written during Vinc. Heinsius occurring on f. turned to the blank leaves at the end of the manusc ript and began to write . G. P. B. 50. 524 and 525 of the manuscript Leiden.

J. n. (Ex officinä Elseviriorum) 1639.. ίνα και οί έχοντες γυναίκας. reperiri.το λοιπόν εστίν. Quibiis Aristarchns sacer.] Quo magis mirum. 60. . the Thysius referred to seems to be the father Antonius Thysius (1565-1640). 4 J. \vas professor of divinity at Leiden. . p. 208-9. in red.. emendatior nee pa/tlo amtier. 3 DANIEL HEINSIVS. δ καιρός συνεσταλμένος το λοιπόν εστίν. . J. . metuo ne recentiori hie non accedendum sit interpreti. immediately precedes the text of Mattheiv in the Greek Testaments issued by the Leiden Elzeviers in 1633 and 1641. Erster Band . pupil of Beza and Casaubon. . & si qui alii.'. quibus ad alia transire solet. in both of them on f. accedtmt. . 46 ss. HEINSIVS. Heinsius wrote this preface for the Elzeviers after the middle of January 1632 and before 3 October 1633. ex more suo. see p.1. see chapter II. . Heinsius' poem In Novi Foederis Libros.\ (ad I Cor. &c. Amstelaedami 1751-2. το λοιπόν εστίν [sc. hoc est. p. de qua dicebamus. 2 Dan. quam vt peculiares μεταβατικάς. Nihil vsitatius Apostolo. o καιρός συνεσταλμένος. p. tempiis contractum est in posterum. vii. a panegyric on the New Testament consisting of five Greek disticha. Thysius' is the signature that Wetstein found appended to a note prefixed to a collation of his ms. 1619-40. probably in July or August 1633. quod interpretatur. 63. Scaliger died 1609. Bat. 382. . See A. The poem bears the subscription 'DAN. 29): 'Cum autem additur. van der AA. Sacranim exercltationnm ad Novnm Testament/im libri XX . Novnm Testamentum Graecum editionis receptae cum lectionibus variantibus . 1. . The father. [*8] v. NOTES 1 Nachrichten von merkwürdigen Büchern. not his son of the same name (1603?-65). For the text and a translation of the poem. 383 . WETSTENIUS. p.' The 'recentior' is Beza. indicesque aliquot . tuentur. qui distinctionem cum recentiori. Biographisch Woonhnboek der . a much-travelled scholar. Quanto enim melius Robertus Stephanus. . 152. As Thysius states 'we have got this collation from Scaliger'. adhibeat notas [. Lugd.post ό καιρός συνεσταλμένος]. 5. and for Thysius' words p. Halle 1752. . just like the words 'IN NOVI FOEDERIS' which form the upper line of the title. 5 Ά.22 THE AUTI-IOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 at Noordwijk. 12 (= GREGORY 10). qui haec conjungit. .

180. 20. Göttingen 1797. adiuv. d. Boerneri iteratas ctiras ordine disposita. J. Bibliotheca Sacra fast cl. continuata. I. p. MASCH. 21-1220. cl. 11 T. 87. Hamburg! 1717. . Elfte Abtheilung. ROSENMÜLLER. kön.]. DIBDIN. dt. Vol. 7 A. () 2v. cap. On p. voortgezet door K. 6 J... 10 Gottlob Wilhelm MEYER. (A copy is in the University Library at Amsterdam). Lud. F. Novnm Testamentmn Graecum cum lectionibus variantibus Mss. 194 wrote: 'In 1633Elzevier[Bonaventura or Abraham?] wrote in a preface: textum ergo habes mmc [<ab>] omnibus receptum in qtio nihil imrmitatum auf corrnptum damus ('thus you noa> have a text accepted by everyone in which we offer you no alteration or corruption'). p. Schotel. Dritter Band. lesu Christi Testamentnm novum Gr. p.. V. 1. F.. 72 one reads:'Codex non laudatur apud A. Theodore Be%a interpr. 7 ss. MILLIUS. p. An Introduction to the Nem Testament. D. vv. Lugd. 'De editionibus Textus Originalis'. . 138.. XVIII.. 13 J. Liber IV. Band. Jacobi le Lang et C. p.' 15 MIGNE. F. Anno 1626. E. Codices Manuscripti. . Amsterodami. paragr. Ss. Patrum et Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum. 71-2. Prolegomena. I. zu . KUSTERUS. Roterodami MDCCX (= 1710).—P. 8 Op. p. A. I. Geschichte der Schrifterklärung. For a description of the ms. 1965. see K. 12 D. Prioribus editionibus multo accuratius et a multis mendis expurgattim. Rahlfs. sumptibus Henrici LAUR<ENTII>. [&c. Codices Bibliothecae Publicae Graed. VIII. A. Typis loannis Cornelii Wourdani. FABRICIUS. 6. Nieuwe Uitgaaf. de MEYIER. Lat. KLIJN. F. Göttingen 1804. Versionum.. van Harderwijk en G. Haarlem 1876. dt. v. R. suppleta. n. Gesellschaft d.N. J. Pars I. rec. Halae 1778. p. p. 1626. Exemplarium. J. Wiss. 222. in: Geschichte der Künste und Wissenschaften. Theologie. 14 It was not meant äs a contribution to the solution of the Problem at issuc when A. p. Geschichte der Exegese. Editionum. Leiden 1967. 114-119. 8 E. emendata. IV. G. loc. Bibliotheca Graeca . 227. 1307. K. &c . HULSHOFF POL. Bat. . [902]: Lvgdvni Batavorvm.THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 23 Nederlanden. Handbuch für die Literatur der biblischen Kritik und Exegese. V. G. p. .s. 308. 134-5. An Introduction to the Knowledge of Rare and Valuable Editions of the Greek and Latin Classics together tvith an Account of . London 18274.. P. Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments (Nachrichten v. Greek Testaments . Bibliotheca Unimrsitatis Leidensis. p.

p XIII Leiden B P G 50 äs described by De Meyier can claim no place. JCtus und Medicus. 525. p 404. col 494 'FABRICIOS (Vincentius). etc . (f 525) duo carmma. II. Nouveile biograpbte generale depms les temps les plus remles jnsqu'a nosjoiirs.24 THE AUTHOR OF THL PREFACE OF 1633 Gottingen Philol-histor Klasse 1914 Beiheft). gebohren 1612 [ ] zu Hamburg. op ctt. Allgemeines Gelehrten Lexicon . p 379 sq ' The statement is correct. welche möglicherweise oder sicher dem XVII Jahrh angehören '. vel in editiombus quas hactenus secuti fuimus' They are missmg on the photographs in this booklet. etc . quos lusit amores". ut videtur. η 12 18 K A de MEYIER. 1644 Syndicus.alterum βίβλε. [col 495] wurde 1640 zu Bourges Licentiat der Rechte. but not wholly to the point äs RAHLFS has obviously omitted the ms designedly. welche von occidentalischen Schreibern im XVI Jahrh geschrieben sind 3) Hss . col 965 . conscripta multis deletis atque additis (f 524) praefatio ad quoddam opus "Anni sunt lam aliquot. Redner. but the fifth line of the same poem. ja endlich 1666 Burgermeister zu Dantzig Er starb zu Warschau auf dem Reichs-Tage 1667. θεανθρωποιο. sq ] [The poem was publishedasearlyas!640. thcrefore. ein Poete. m an earlier phase of the genesis of the poem it was the first hne See photograph off 525 r . however. considerationes moneiales. Paris 1856. XVI. ex quo Foedus Nouum Graece. DeJ Cf p 15]. et iteratio aliquot versuum ex primo carmme m f 525 ' 19 Cf n 2 20 Cf n 3 21 Chr G JOCHER. machte sich zu Leiden mit Hemsio bekannt. ex Regijs editiombus". orat . cf n 31 and ch Π. die nur Excerpte enthalten. etc [This is. welche von seinem Sohne [ ] heraus gegeben worden AE Fa Mol' Cf J C F HOEFER. [ ] schrieb Positwnes medicas. 2) Hss ." etc [Daniehs Heinsu poemata latma et graeca (Amstelod 1649). in Rahlfs' Vei ^eichms 16 7 January 1971 17 Vt% the words 'vel hie. Leipzig 1750. cf bis paragraph 'Absichtlich ausgeschieden sind 1) jüngere Hss . Amice Lector. 1643 Rath bey dem Bischoff von Lübeck. epistolas und andere Wercke. (f 526) carmen "Nortwicum teneres Dousae. 526-527 Exempla prima aliquot a Dan Hemsio (f 1655). alterum "Dousa pater vatum. hne 5 De J ]. poemata. not a different poem from the one just mentioned Dousa pater. p 71-2 '[ ] ff 524-527 quae conscripsit aha manus eiusdem tempons (Daniehs Hemsii') [ ] F 524.

NESTLE. 1620. 285. even bis feuds were nothing compared with the severe sufferings and death of bis wife Ermgard. . . but also personal grief. de BALZAC and the imminent friction with Cl. As Librarian he must have known that the ms. B. Of this fact Heinsius can hardly have been unaware. of the letter is in Leiden. Illness. Lugd. p. Barmen 1903.. cit. This appears from the 'Notae quaedam' added at the end of Meursius' edition. G. 1632 until Oct.. the ms. p. SALMASIUS. In April 1633 he wrote to ROVERIUS: 'Si laborum meorum Annales audias. MEURSIUS edited his Procopii Ga^aei in libros Regum et Paralipomenon scholia. universam supellectilem librariam transferre.. op.'. " Without exception these marginal readings prove to have been derived from Leiden. 120. Pap. 8). the so-called editio belgica. p. 28 Eb.' (Quoted from D. Libr. in zwangloser Folge. cit. 5. p. H. non mireris quod tardius rescribam.. 29 In the catalogue of 1623 the remark 'volumen nondum editum' has simply been copied from that of 1614. . Meursius commentarios in Reges . ter HORST. (Salz und Licht. J.B. ut cum chirurgo etiam hoc tempore tes nobis sit. 25 Op. part of the ms. So De MEYIER is quite right in stating. 24 Op. Bat.THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 25 22 De Mey'ier. cit. p. . ac migrare coactus sum. eil. Vom Texins recepti/s des Griechischen Neuen Testaments . refcrs to the edition which appeared nine years later. 2)... 'Ex hoc codice edidit Joh. who dicd 12 September 1633. There was not only the quarrel with J. of this book was not available to us. op. 26 Op. 50. 23 The first edition. L. 287. or: leg]: adeo. removal and a serious inJury to bis leg. Utrecht <1934>.. 27 It may be noticed in passing that this period from Jan. Univers. 1633 was not the easiest of Heinsius' life. p. Leiden 1934. . Daniel Heinsius. p. U. 266. in which the editor States several times 'Ad oram codicis nostri adscriptum erat . Vix defunctus morbo. whereas Heinsius was not so in repeating the note 'volumen nondum editum' in 1623. diss. having been edited äs early äs 1620. cit. although it was certainly from this codex that Joh.. had been used by Meursius. P. even if Meursius did not honour the library with a copy of his book: it does not occur in . 72. Vorträge und Abhh. (1580-1655). tibiam gravissime offendi [iibia= shin-bone. 72. Vix ingressus aedes novas. G.

p. p. SELUN. op.. But the ms. n.. The 'mirror-writing' shows moreover that whcn Heinsius had finished the whole preface and closed the ms. und Carl I. Heft). This text has not taken him vcry long! 32 If it was no merc pretencc. .26 THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 the Catalogns 1623. e Bibliothcca mea depromptum' (op.. it cannot have been on the occasion of Meursius' departure that the ms. 31 Those who in justification of Heinsius' proceedingmightobject that the leaves used by Heinsius did possibly not yet belong to the ms. before it came into the possession of the University Library is not wholly exempt from objections. 15 May 1634. when serving äs his scribbling-paper. Besides. in its present form. 12). Cf. cit. 18). had belonged to the University Library since 1614 at the latest. one reads on this left band page the words 'vel hie. but what actually are letters taken off from the opposite side. 30 Ter HORST. But compare Heinsius' habit in his function of Secretary to the Senate (1610-54) of Leiden University: 'de secretaris had blijkbaar niet altijd wit papier ter zijner beschikking. 12.. 147. . Paul R. KEMKE. at a later date. n. These things confirm that Heinsius did use the Procopius ms. Did Meursius speak the truth when writing 'e Bibliotheca mea'? As it was not until 1625 that Meursius accepted the professorship of History at the Danish university of Soroe. n.d. the ink of even the first line at the top of the page had not yet become dry. an addition to the text of Heinsius which could not be inserted on the right-hand page.. and guess that they may have been added to the ms. II. Bibliothekar der Könige Jacob I. (Cf. dedicat. 'epist.'). 17. Daniel Heinsius and Stuart England. in question passed from the library of Meursius to that of the University. p. and eh. Patricias Jimitis (Patrick Yoimg). en notuleerde dan maar waar hij in zijn aanteekeningen van . cit. this unexpected shortage of paper caused a Stagnation in the execution of printing-work committed to the Elzeviers. in: Joh. Mitteilungen aus seinem Briefwechsel (Sammlung Bibliothekswissenschaftlicher Arbeiten . Leipzig 1898. being the blank verso of the last leaf containing text of Procopius. vel in editionibus quas hactcnus secuti fuimus'. IV. 65 (füll title: eh. This last verso shows many traces of what looks like mirror-writing. Meursius admittedly speaks (1620) of the codex he used äs 'Procopium hunc vulgärem. 523 v. It may be added that it looks äs if the Suggestion of De MEYIER that Meursius was the possessor of the Procopius ms. are sufficiently refuted by the aspect of f. Leiden-London 1968. von Eng/and. 73. Heinsius' letter to Patrick YOUNG d.

XVII contains several lettcrs written by the Elzeviers at Leiden from Sept. den Min. 1628?. see n. 1. C. Epistolae .i.—For Heinsius' words 'nondum Graece editus'. . On Oct. . Academ. Dan. Barberini at Rome. 322. p. VIII. 5-6. v. id [a revised Latin edition of Procopius] tentavit B. Cittä del Vaticano. Zz. n. 's-Gravenhage 1911. 'Instante losepho Scaligero. ORBAAN.]. Vulcanii. HEINSIUS 'Procopium intra biennium abhinc proximum vix dabit' (Luc. lOth 1650 Heinsius wrote to his son Nicolaas: 'In Procopio • · . f. . Bronnen tot de Gescbiedenis der Leidscbe Universiteit. Dan. Bescheiden in Italie omtrent Nederlandsche kimsienaars en geleerden.J. pars posterior. 33 Lugd. ep. MOLHUYSEN. s. F. in: P. Typograph. [v. 37 On Meursius' edition. whose commentary he quoted so often. his own note on the ms. Holstenius. p. but of Procopius Caesariensis. Vat. ad G. Suffering from blindness. Vulcanius: deinde incoepto destitit. 1614 at Leiden. Scaligero [|1609] teste. diligenter recensenda versari iam statui'. 290)..] Negotium in se ultro receperat Daniel Heinsius. a. Binnenl. senio confectus. but not of Procopius Gazaeus. lat. (C. Burm. Ultrajecti 1697. A. Further the ms. P. F. II. Bibl.. ]. E/menhorsthim.TUE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 27 vroeger nog wat onbeschreven gedcelten vond'. (ms. cum eruditione certabat'.). Exe. U. 's-Gravenhage 1916. Gndii . Rijks Geschiedkundige Publicatien uitgegeven in opdracht van Z... 19.B.. 1634 until Jan. I. 226. BURMANNUS. but παραστησαι. Rome. HOLSTENIUS. 38 Incidentally it may be observed that Heinsius had also long planned to make an edition of PROCOPIUS. p. eil. cf. a former Student of Heinsius' at Leiden. no. Ex Officinä Bonaventurae & Abrahami Elzevir. M. 8 v. 4. Kleine Serie 10. to Luc. [VULCANIUS dicd Oct. does not read παραστήναι. 330). The Elzeviers ask for collations with a view to a planned edition of Procopius with the Latin translation of Vulcanius emended by Heinsius (cf. 77 years of age. 173. in the catalogues of 1614 and 1623 quoted above: 'volumen nondum editum'. 36 P... Vat. at the time in the service of the Cardinal Fr. 34 Op. the historian and contemporary of the former.. and succeeded in 1610. 35 Cf. Barber. 29. 3631 (XLII: 177). adHeinsium. . 3. he had been assisted in his duties äs Secretary to the Senate by Heinsius from 1609. The ms. v. line 13. 1636. . Bibl.-Bat. Apost.. p. turn iuvenis [in 1614 he was 34] in quo diligentia. Leiden. Maltretus. et interpretatione . . Heinsius.

e ij. 'At illum [Heinsium] alia studia sie averterunt. 4th leaf). scven years after the death of Heinsius in the preface to bis Procopii Caesariensis Historiarnm siti temporis libri VIII [Gr. ut promissi munus haud comparuerit'. .28 THE AUTHOR OF THE PREFACE OF 1633 Nie. thus C. et Lat. f.]. Parisiis 1662. 101-110. MALTRETUS.

B. we think it will be useful to give both texts in columns side by side. Letters wrongly omitted by Heinsius are supplied between pointed brackets. Letters or words deleted by Heinsius are given between double square brackets. Dots under words indicate uncertain letters. 50. äs noted down by HEINSIUS in the ms. A. We shall first deal with the text of the preface. of which several are likely to interest the reader. Leiden. G. THE PREFACE As the draft texts in the manuscript show many differences when compared with the printed text. P.CHAPTER TWO THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF HEINSIUS TO THE ELZEVIER GREEK TESTAMENTS OF 1633 AND 1641: THE PREFACE AND THE PANEGYRIC ON THE NEW TESTAMENT In this chapter we aim at making known to the reader the text of the preface to the Elzevier Greek Testaments of 1633 and 1641 and that of the panegyric on the New Testament adopted in the same editions. Words which Heinsius added inter lineas by way of correction are marked by an asterisk. University Library. From various sides it was suggested that a translation . The left column presents the manuscript text.

[Headpiece. ex quo Foedus Novum. . 1633: ff. ex 3 Regiis ac caeteris * editionibus. Graece.30 THE PREFACE OF 1633 AND 1641 might be desirable. Leiden. non industria. ex quo Foedus Nottum Graece. Editio Elzeviriana. ea fide 5 ac religione 6 dedimus expressimusque.-*3v. P. Amice Lector. 1641: ff.* concederemus iis quas expresseramus. Headpiece. vt nee elegantia editio-\ nis.^l *sibi ANni * jam sunt aliquot? Amice ac Christiane Lector. neque diligentia concederemus ijs quas expresseramus."1 ut non elegantia editionis.. a) The Latin text Ms. also in two columns. =*-2r. University Library. *2r.-*3r. Annisunt *iam aliquot. 524r. quae maxime ac prae caeteris nunc omnibus probantur. B. ac caeteris. G.. quae solae nunc habentur \elegantes\ *emendatae \_ac \ emendatae\ *nitidaeque ea fide ac cura *dedimus expressimusque. ex Regys editionibiis. This has therefore been appended to the Latin text. 50. f. 1641: RAHIR 21]* TYPOGRAPHI LECTORIBVS de hac editione. Neque hie \ \stetimus\ *cura *nostra \*substiiit.. A few notes have been added to the text proper. 1633: RAHIR 17.

Quod cnm accurate ab ijs \ factum esset. bis praesidijs mimiti. de-\nuo doctorum oculis subiecimus. quas hactetms secuti fuimus \ cnm cura toilerentur. E qua disces. lubens volens. sed vere talem ac divinam. \ ad editionem novam. & versus quos nunc vocant. V t si quae. Quod cum accurate ab iis factum esset. praeter caetera. aut in iis. memor tabernaculi16 sub prisco Foedere. quod ita cremt?) ad editionem novam. quisque symbolam ad ερανον commune. (quis enim memor \templi\ *tabernacuü sub \antiquö\ *prisco foedere. Exemplaribus 9 distractis w ac divenditis. editionem.. exhibemus. \elargitus est. denuo \ accessimus. ornamentum quisque excogitavit. libris. vel12 minutissimae. bis praesidiis17 muniti.u non Poeticam. vel in \ editionibus.11 denuo doctorum oculis subjecimus. nam ad hanc Pandoram. In qua *praeter *caetera. omnibus acceptam. qui qualesque .l contulit. quos secuti stimits.^ new praetermissa quidem veterum distinctione. \Distractisl plaribus.THE PREFACE OF 1633 AND 1641 31 *satisfecit. ornamentum quisque \contulit. (nam13 ad hanc Pandoram. *distractis *ac *divenditis. \ quod ita crevit. In qua. snperessent mendae. ab hac nostra satis aliena: quam sub finem. omnibus acceptam. vt si quae \restarent\ *superessent mendae vel \ leuissimae^ vel hie. editionem. accuratius notavimus.^ quis enim Deo ac divinis quicquam neget. ne quid desit. vel morosissimi desiderarent. {vf\ ne qmc-\ quam amplius \desiderarenf~\·. *quisque symbolam ad έ'ρανον | commune.l *excogitavit. & versus accuratins distinximus. in nostro. denuo accessimus. cumjiidicio ac cura tollerentur. lubens volens contulit.

\ in quo nihil immutatum. qui utiles non curiosi volumus videri) ut investigandi labor absit. qui vt lapides \ & monumenta veterum. \ qui vel optimo successu.\ quos contactu\. cum lapides 22 ac monumenta antiquorum quidam venerentur ac religiöse repraesentent. \ aut \pe\ corruptum. ita \ istas ad hosc<e> non admittimus.l ab omnibus receptum. utilissime dividinms. iam \recep-\ ff/m. quasin στίχους (an ubique satis commode. nihil novita^\ti \datum\. Qui majores ita vulgo nunc vocamus partes.\ita ad-\ mi\:· ita ab bis sacris.32 THE PREFACE OF 1633 AND 1641 Textum habes. nihil \ curiositati. nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum 21 damus. multo magis chartas has. relligiose \ vindicandas arbitramur. Qui. Textum 20 ergo habes. \ ita chartas has. fnennt. omnino aliter quani fit a nobis. quos in sua iterum κεφάλαια. dedimus. quos τίτλους nuncupabant. quaerendum aliis relinquimus. quemadmgdum a cibis \ muscae merito arcentur. vindicandas a mutatione ac corruptela judi- . ab argumento 23 θεοπνεύστους. \ aliquid esui dant. olim dividebant.

f 524 r Draft of the preface to the Elzevier Greek Testament of 1633-41 (Copyright Universiteitsbibhotheek Leiden) . Umvcrsity Library.d('r Λ ^ fi V/ · . Huf A*fT+tt»fl crnlJ) intie(i>w4 vrn ηι<η> te^jftnf^mt/vf^' *'' {vttiifttr/tjfttrr fnril·.trtl4tr?r>inv.'^" K:^7^j^^t^^ ?r.( f-f>t\mi\ efft\tftjf e)ihi>nf"' pffiurr*/ ζ/t Artr'SUfy/ tri'trrrt'. <Ά tu* fst's/i*f#'H'trr>fff„vtfA •-ejy +lW>»n~l. sli r»tf iUt''fßfaa.w/ri!K/lii<t'/>Mr>.MHp/*&> nw< /7//W^££&. .jh****i'SßÜbiwJi &eK*j>lfrr>i^/etfrhi>r>rrr.. irCa*J"Z~ irr/»·/ *£ifrr/if-it·^ Λ·(β»γ·ΐΓΚ*ί. ι · χ <··(**·fff^-ί / . *~ffAt fiftH-r^frfrTflrtivlvt nrt ei(/Zrrb" i'Jfh** .*+./κ fi*'( - " ^^ί^^ψ^^Γ^^^^^^ ". 2^^ 0)W*U*bv.Τ'ί" i·*« <ifiM A^T^-r/^Ä'/^ -^^^IW''/V/^T% WXJ/XSLiS^^ n^.*t t«hn<.-rÄ· ^ Ä ^ ^ ^ n V Ä ^^^^tW^^^^^^- Ms Leiden. B P G 50." /i'fkr.-f.)l· ttmn etto-n-ihf qf. (£vn..

f 525 r Draftofapanegync onthe N T οίεινσιος (thirdlmefromthebottom) (Copyright Universiteitsbibhotheek Leiden) .n'ff Sag»**·/ nttnt wtf/nt t+u*j-~ /ts frfMv/ \sfrt>itt>#T)tt> vf tf! mirtvs.lln1lsnstjHi ·' γ~Ϋ **·' l ftiai l. U net tri*Y> ΙΊ+Τ Λ f fint't ff*·* mrtttihi f f f Ms Leiden.yj/w· ' ' ΐ * ft'/fiUl. iV. B P G 50. University Library. ^»y /»t/>i" ifjiitn'fy nee minu) yw' Μ/??· f'fiYi'hr'Jtniftw'UM! "/. ar/lot i^fr/> /«β. f te. n' hl r t / .

\ exhibebit. quanto minus negligendum fuit in diMno instru.\ *καί *ευωνον. terminatnr. f.\ \ {quae nulla morte. 50. ac fave. Quae 26 cum ipsam quoque supellectilem commendent. περιφόρητον.*9 exhibebit? Vale. και φίλην. ut ille alt. P. 1633 & 1641 THE PRINTERS TO THE READERS on the Present Edition. ut28 cum Augustino loquar. Leiden.THE PREFACE OF 1633 AND 1641 33 Et nobiscum quisquis ad \ relligionem sapit. \ Formam \ vides. & nobiscum quisquis 2i ad religionem sapit.30 b) A translation of the preface Ms. camus. exhibebit^ \ quae nulla\fin\ morte fimetnr.φόρητον και εΰωνον: hoc est.u>\i\st<in>us loquitur. Editio Elzeviriana. cujus usum 27 vita ista habet. Formam habes περι. University Library. Ou\pd\ae cum \quisque\ in su-\pellectilem comendat et. όλίγην 25 •^zpariter. vt Aug<. cuius vsum vita ista habet. . G. *ώς *καλοΰσι. vulgärem illum ac humanis ministeriis accommodatum. fructum verum altera. 524t. in qua nihil praeter usum spectant homines. quae nulla morte finietur.mento. B. [ & vsui accommodatam. quanto minus negligendum in divino instrumento. vt cum Augustino loquar. fructum altera \habebit. vulgärem illum \_atque\ ac humanis \rebus\ \ lcommodu\ *ministeriis *accommodum. \vsibus humanis\ in qua nihil praeter \ vsum spectant homines.

in order that all errors. We produced our New Testament with such devotion and bestowed so much care on it. even the most insignificant. which has been accepted by all.\Sold ouf\ The copies [of the first impressiotj] *being *completely *sold *out we have aneiv submitted our edition. either in the elegance of our edition or in diligence. in order that all errors. since we *edited and printed the New Testament in Greek. We produced our New Testament so faithfully and carefully. But even at this point \we did did not come to a stand\ *our *care \_did not come to a half\ *wasnotyet*satisfied. even the smallest. dear Christian reader. on the basis of the Royal editions and the other ones which are now considered äs especially \eleganf\ *correct \and correcf\ *and *beautiful. that we jielded to none of the [publishers whose~\ editions we had taken äs the basis for ours. might It is alreadj some years. The copies [of the first impression] being completely sold out we have anew submitted our edition. since we edited and printed the New Testament in Greek.34 THE PREFACE OF 1633 AND 1641 It is *already some jears. that might \be left\ still *remain either here or in the editions we followed till now. äear reader. to the ejes of the learned. which has been accepted by all. to the ejes of the learned. that might still remain either in our work or in those which we followed. that we jielded to none of the [publishers whose\ editions we had taken äs the basis for ours. might be removed with discernment and . on the basis of the Royal and other editions that now enjqy especially great approval.

we undertook the new edition. strengthened by this support. care. has not been omitted. remembering the tabernacle under the former covenant which arose in the same manner?'] n>e undertook the neiv edition. From this. one rvill kam what were the so-called τίτλοι. which were formerly subdivided each into . rather different from ours.THE PREFACE OF 1633 AND 1641 35 be removed with care. For n>ho would ivithold anything from God and from ivhat is mder his sanction). In this edition n>e have. also marked the verses more carefully \thaf\ lest \one should find\ even the most meticulous should find something more to be desired. also marked more carefully mhat noivadays are called 'verses''. *among *other *things. When this had been carefully done by them (for on behalf of this Pandora—not invented by a poet. In this edition we have. among other things. strengthened by this support. Even the division ofthe ancients. When this had been carefully done by them (for on behalf of this Pandora everyone \contributed\ *devised something to adorn her with. but assuredly of a like nattire and divine— everyone devised something to adorn her with. We shall provide it at the end. that nothing shall be lacking. * everyone lbestomd\ contributed mllingly and spontaneously his share to the common έ'ρανον [feast]. everyone contributed willingly and spontaneously his share to the common έ'ρανον [feasf]. (For who would mthhold anything from God and from what is ander his sanciion) remembering the \temple\ *tabernacle under the \old\ *ßrmer covenant which arose in the same manner]. it is true.

we leave this q/iestion to others. \Just äs from food flies are rightlj fended off. But äs we want to make otirselves useful. which its own κεφάλαια. For nowadays we are accustomed to fall by that name [κεφάλαια] sections of greater length. and in order to eliminate the trouble of tracing a certain passage. nothing to Innovation. nothing [kft] to strangeness.36 THE PREFACE OF 1633 AND 1641 You have here the text which is now \received\ generally received. Thus jou have here the text that is now generally received^ in which we give nothing changed or corrupted. a system that bas proved to be extremely useful. \though it might be asked} whether this division into verses always corresponds sufficimtiy well to the sense of the text. not to be officious. in which nothing \is given\ changed or l'pe'] corrupted. iv-e divide these greater sections \chapters} into στίχοι [verses]. . different way from ours. so ive do not permit these [corruptive facfors] to contammate the present [food}] \sopermi-\ :· so from these sacred leaves. in qm.

θεόπνευστοι. everjone endowed with a correct appreciation of religion will be agreed.. the fortnat of the book is περιφόρητον land adapted to practice\ *καί *ευωνον. and of reasonable price\. bas been given by US. [stich äs to enablejoit to carry it with jou. \inspired\ in respect to their content. should be defended aeainst change J o o and corruption. And [on that]. it is miich more necessary that these leaves. *ώς *καλοΰσί. and \to thepractice\ in whichpeople have nothing in view but Utility— that ordinary \and\ Utility For ive are of the opinion that. so tbese leaves have to be dcfended with meticulous care. δλίγη äs well äs φίλη \small but pleasant]. Asyoii see. that is to say. while certainpeopk have agreat veneration for stones [with inscriptions\ and montiments of the ancients and reproduce them with meticalotis care.. And äs these qualities are a recommendation even for domestic furniture. everjone endowed with a correct appreciatioti of religion will be agreed. and of reasonable price. in which people have nothing in view but Utility—that ordinary Utility adapted to the employ- . And [on that]. For ive are of the opinion that.THE PREFACE OF 1633 AND 1641 37 indeed with the happiest result provide nourisbment. even äs stones [ivith inscriptions] and monnments of the ancients. äs it is called] äs \everjone\ th\is\ese qitalities are a recommendation for domestic furniture. äs the great poet expressed it. The format of the present book is περιφόρητον και εΰωνον \such äs to enable jou to carry it withjou.

θνητον ανακτά τον άθάνατον προσ'ιδοιμιίΠρδς] *Είς βίον εκ θανάτου συν σοι [άνερχομε] άνιστάμενος. will be received in the next that will be brought to an end by no death. Τ Ω ν πόθος ουρανίων στήθεσιν έμπέφυε. f. P. . Σύν και Αριστοκλέους. Farewell and regard us and our work tvith favour. hoivever. Ιτε πανυστη] της άνδρομέης λελαθοίμην. Βίβλε. G. 50. THE PANEGYRIC ON THE NEW TESTAMENT a) The Greek text 1. και παθέων [α] [ανάκη. the fruit of which. cf. σόφον μελέδημα. Βουλή. hoiv much less should one lose sight of this in a dlvine Instrument.] πανάκη. University Library. Σοι προσφύς.σταμέν[ος]ου. to quote Augustine. äs Augustine says. θεανθρώποιο πανυστατίη διαθήκη. σοφίης. ""Κλίμαξ ούρανίη. the fruit of which.38 THE PANEGYRIC ON THE NEW TESTAMENT *adapted to the \affairs\ \convenience\ *employ ments of man. και |μ] πινυτή. hom much less should one lose sight of this in a divine instrument.. homver. πασι μέλουσα. Leiden. συν και. the use of which is enjoyed in this life. εΐνσιος. 525r. B. Βίβλε.. to quote Augustine. photograph. [Πρδςΐ *Είς βίον εκ θανάτου πασιν ανι. Σύν σοι. the use of which is enjoyed in this life. ments of man. Ms. will be \possessed\ received in the next \that by no death. comes to an end^ that will be brought to an end by no \end\ death. Αριστοτέλους. B. θεηγενέος βασιλήος. χθονός ουρανέ.


remedy healing all evil. yet immortal. Muse. wise care of the God-begotten King. counsel. heeded by all in whose heart a longing for the heavenly things has been implanted. [going up] rising with you from death [toj unto life. O Book. Master. cling to you. wisdom and grace from heaven. both of 'Aristokles' and that of Aristotle. heeded by all in whose heart a longing for the immortal world has been implanted. when I shall have changed life for death—with you. forget the wisdom of men. both of 'Aristokles' and that of Aristotle. forget the wisdom [final] of men. earthly heaven. Master. DAN. May I. May I. 2. . earthly heaven. dear gift of the God-begotten King. May I behold with you the mortal. Life of men on earth. final Testament of Hirn who graciously bestowed life out of death upon all men. HEINSIUS O Book. yet immortal. adopted in the Elzevier editions of 1633 and 1641 TO THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. fc| wisdom. HEINSIVS. Book.40 THE PANEGYRIC ON THE NEW TESTAMENT Ladder to heaven. and remedy of all sorrow. cling to you. According to the printed text. May I behold with you the mortal.

441. How the editor of Elzevier 1624 picked and chose his readings äs he liked. 2 3 aliquot: nine. In the edition last mentioned the authority is quoted of eight mss. Those of 1546 and 1549 are known äs the editiones mirificae on account of the opcning words of their preface Ό mirificam Regis nostri optimi et praestantissimi principis liberalitatem .: Anni simt *'iam). ex Regiis . cf.'.. The third edition. bears on its title-page the inscription Βασιλεϊ τ' άγαθω.. *3: 'Anni jam sunt plures. The editor of Elzevier 1624 followed now one and now another edition or combination of editions most eclectically. 5 . A Plain Introduction Cambridge 18833. . Vir Nobilissime'. which alleges to be 'Ex Rcgijs alijsque optknis editionibus cum curä expressum'. A Füll Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Cod. C. But other editions were used äs well. Ev. Bat. f. Amstelodami 1649. Catalogne d'ime collection nnique de volumes imprimes par les Elsyvier . H' ΚΑΙΝΗ' ΔΙΑΘΗ'ΚΗ. 4 caeteris editionibus: equally an allusion to the title of 1624. Appendix B. Cf.. By Regiis the cditions of R. NOVUM TESTAMENTUM. postrema. .'s Library.. of 1624. 604 . . given by H. from King Henry II. SCRIVENER. his three principal editions (1546-49-50) having been issued from the Royal Press. referring substantially to the editions of BEZA. those of Beza. Dan. fide . cf. dedicatory letter. 3. 427.. editio . . S. the remaining Stephanus editions. p. p. Colinaeus. Fleurons et marques typographiques des Elzevier de Leyde et des Elzcvier d'Amsterdam. Lugd. the same preface began: 'Anni jam sunt plurimi.. editionibits: allusion to the title of the first Elzevier edition of the Greck New Testament.. in honour of Henry II. indnstria concederemus: cf. STEPHANUS are meant. n. the Complutensian and the Aldine Bible. . RAIIIR. Vir Nobilissime'. HEINSIUS..THE PREFACE OF 1633 AND 1641 41 NOTES * E.. . Editio nova . lange auctior. HOSKIER. London 1890. . 436-7. In the Poemata auctiora. Poemata latina et graten. CURCELLAEUS. 1 ANni jam sunt: (ms. Paris 1896.. of 1550. with the support afforded to their variants by the editions of Erasmus. becomes clear from the list of differences between the editions of Stephanus 1550 and Elzevier 1624. κρατερφ τ' αίχμητη. 1640.

. earthly heaven. counsel. May I. Master. adopted in the Elzevier editions of 1633 and 1641 TO THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. forget the wisdom of men. Life of men on earth. and remedy of all sorrow. [c] wisdom. when I shall have changed life for death—with you. earthly heaven. Master.40 THE PANEGYRIC ON THE NEW TESTAMENT Ladder to heaven. cling to you. DAN. wisdom and grace from heaven. May I. both of 'Aristokles' and that of Aristotle. HEINSIVS. dear gift of the God-begotten King. forget the wisdom [final]] of men. [going up] rising with you from death [to] unto life. yet imtnortal. wise care of the God-begotten King. heeded by all in whose heart a longing for the heavenly things has been implanted. cling to you. yet immortal. remedy healing all evil. May I behold with you the mortal. Book. Muse. May I behold with you the mortal. both of 'Aristokles' and that of Aristotle. HEINSIUS O Book. O Book. According to the printed text. final Testament of Hirn who graciously bestowed life out of death upon all men. 2. heeded by all in whose heart a longing for the immortal world has been implanted.

. κρατερφ τ' αίχμητη. The third edition. NOVUM TESTAMENTUM. with the Support afforded to their variants by the editions of Erasmus. 3 3 aliquot: nine. becomes clear from the list of diflferences between the editions of Stephanus 1550 and Elzevier 1624. . . HOSKIER. his three principal editions (1546-49-50) having been issued from the Royal Press. editio .. . 441. 604 . STEPHANUS are meant. Cf. of 1550. the remaining Stephanus editions.. H' ΚΑΙΝΗ1 ΔΙΑΘΗ'ΚΗ. 1 ANni jam sitnt: (ms. from King Henry II. . referring substantially to the editions of BEZA. lange anctior. A Fall Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Cod.. *3: 'Anni jam sunt plures. The editor of Elzevier 1624 followed now one and now another edition or combination of editions most eclectically. . Bat. those of Beza. C. CURCELLAEUS. Those of 1546 and 1549 are known äs the editiones mlrificae on account of the opening words of their preface Ό mirificam Regis nostri optimi et praestantissimi principis liberalitatem . .: Anni sttnt *iam). A Plain Introduction . Poemaia lalina et graeca. 427. By Regiis the cditions of R. given by H. Paris 1896. HEINSIUS.'s Library.. . Fleurons et marques typographiques des Elzevier de Leyde et des Elzevier d'Amsterdam. . f. Ev. London 1890. RAIIIR. n. 4 . dedicatory letter. Lugd. Appendix B. Catalogiie d'une collection tinique de vohimes imprime's par /es Eiserner . Colinaeus.. In the Poemata aiictiora. bears on its title-page the inscription Βασιλεΐ τ' άγαθω. the same preface began: 'Anni jam sunt plurimi. 5 fide . Vir Nobilissime'.'. SCRIVENER. indiistria concederemtis: cf. Editio nova . cf. In the edition last mentioned the authority is quoted of eight mss... the Complutensian and the Aldine Bible. But other editions were used äs well. . ex Regiis .THE PREFACE OF 1633 AND 1641 41 NOTES * E. cf. caeteris editionibus\ equally an allusion to the title of 1624. Dan. Cambridge 18833. which alleges to be 'Ex Regijs alijsque optimis editionibus cum curä expressum'. p. p. 436-7. Amstelodami 1649.. 3. Vir Nobilissime'.. postrema. 1640. editionibus: allusion to the title of the first Elzevier edition of the Greek New Testament. in honour of Henry II. S. of 1624. How the editor of Elzevier 1624 picked and chose his readings äs he liked..

Elzev. 8 industria: = diligentia. 14 Pandoram: cf. vel .v. . s. . 6 7 religione: = cura. these words do not occur on f. HALL.. the reading of the ms. H. 45. . Ergo. to keep their second edition free from any mistake.. . 4).. but to that of 1633. 523v.. phil. omnibus acceptam in order to elicit criticism and. BAUER. chapter I. 442). . LEWIS and SHORT. the addition runs vel hie. nemini antecedentium fide aut industria cedentes . cit. p. cf. 1962. . 'distraho': 'temporibus recentioribus abiit in significationem simplicem vendendi (cf. 1. in doing so.. So it is of the edition of 1624 that they speak äs that omnibus acceptam. Thes. . 31. Berl. 1090 sqq. VIII). τήνδε γυναίκα Πανδώρην. What the 'Typographi' mean is this: since the copies of the edition of 1624 are disposed of. Ob- 12 . Lat. written at the bottom of f.: 'hoc nostro aevo Elzevirii. the reading of the ms. 1543] sehr. this parenthesis was a later addition. . 'typis suis describere'. 1542.). .'.v. s. . col. n. vel in editionibns qi/as bactenns secnti fitimus. submitted to the eyes of the learned their first editiomm. ότι πάντες . they have.42 THE PREFACE OF 1633 AND 1641 Amstekedami. I. f. expressimus: 'exprimere' = 'describere et imprimere'.. ... they form a later addition for \vhich Heinsius could find no place on the right-hand page. p. but on f. 9 Exemplaribiis . In the ms. . plainly misses the point in saying that this Omnibus acceptam does not refer to the edition of 1624 (äs SCRIVENER had affirmed in bis Plain Introd. (Introduction. p. HESIODUS. see photograph of that f. 'distraho'. 17. 10 distractis: äs a mercantile term 'distrahere' is a synonym of 'divendere'. seeuti stimm: in the ms. V1. 80-2: Θεών κήρυξ ονόμηνε . 1 1 omnibtis acceptam: Is. 524r. 1658. 1893 p. Ex Off. cf.. NESTLE in the preface to bis Novum Testamentnm Laune.. 18833. before proceeding to the printing of the second edition (1633). Wochen-[col. Gr. *2v. n. ita crevit): in fact. 13 (nam ad harte Pandoram . and I. 524r. Schmalz. δώρον έδώρησαν. Preface. 19122: 'Divenditis exemplaribus primae impressionis' (quoted from bis Novitm Test. Stuttgart 1954. .. divenditis: imitated (?) by Eb. . . art.2. . Accordingly this passage is not found on our photographs. et Lat.A.

T^et^iae.. . 171: 'Graeca enim quaedam praemisimus.. . cit. . . Bat. Bat. Moreover. quorum Pandora merito agmen ducit: antiquissima Naturae filia. Even the most brutal detractator of Heinsius must admit 'Het Pandora-verhaal stond in het middelpunt van de bclangstelling des bewerkers . de 19 . on which see chapter III. But in his Arisiarchns sacer .' In a later edition he wrote. . . (1640. procrcation'... and in the inside of the right-hand page. in Hesiodum eiusqite interpretes. της άλληλο-[. In 1603 Heinsius edited bis ΥΜΝΟΣ ΕΙΣ ΠΑΝΔΩΡΑΝ ΗΣΙΟΔΟΥ. ad . άλληλογονίας. item nofae. Accessit Über . 42). The latter work appeared also in 1603: ΗΣΙΟΔΟ Υ ΑΣΚΡΑΙΟ Υ τα ευρισκόμενα Cn?n Graccis scholiis ProcK. Hier zien we hem op zijn allerbest'. Hymnus in Pandoram Hesiodi. 28. Heinsii Hesiodo prodibit. p. Heinsius considered Pandora äs the 'prototype of mutual generation.. 16 17 15 tabernacttli: Ex. J. dividimtts: the greater part of the passage dealing with the different Systems of division applied to the New Testament is lacking in the ms. p. äs he expressed it in the letter by which hc dedicated his Graeca et e Graecis versa in the Poemafiim edifio tertia . . in quo doctrina Ε"ργων και Η'μερών . text and must have been inserted afterwards. & index. divinam ornamentum qttisque symbolam . p. H.. l j-j·. 4 ss. . Singnlorum ratio redditur in introductione ad librum Ε"ργων και Η'μερών. 36. 35. bispraesidiis: the alleged contributions of the learned. . observationes. contulit: this passage was paraphrased by CURCELLAEUS. op. Lugd. 48-9. p. D. καϊΗ'μέρας: . ostenditur. . & si Hesiodicae sapientiae credimus. 11-16. äs follows: '(ne jam plures alios commemorem). cit. 1610 to Isaac CASAUBON. . emendationes. .τ/ν]λογονίας πρωτότυπον. the first word of each verse commencing with a capital letter. (n. but in that of 1633 in the outside margin of the left-hand page.. .in^L"f^y. Moschopitli.. 1627. ter HORST. Lugd. äs indeed did the wholc work of Hcsiod. qui ad divinum istud opus ornandum singuli symbolam suam alacriter contulerunt'. HEINSIUS had devoted a whole chapter to this subject: Caput XIII. . .posteriorpars. ne . . more correctly. lubens . 3-7. 30. . the text of 1633 is broken up into the separate verses. 18 versus accuratius notavimits: in the edition of 1624 the numbers of the verses had been placed in the inside margin of each page. quae ctim Dan. .THE PREFACE OF 1633 AND 1641 43 viously thefigure of Pandora strongly intrigued HEINSIUS. op. 25. 5).

. 257 he speaks of the evidence concerning the division of the Gospels used by EUTHYMIUS. capitula σλβ[232] habere dicitur. si vis. To this description the Leiden Codex evv. 524r. n. On p. A qua aliquantum Catalogus Theophylacti abit.. separarunt'. 6. Libr.. 254-263. 20 . see Introduction. . and adds. 259: 'Quae in manuscripto meo Evangeliorum antiquissimo. 21 corrnptum: in the ms. T. 2. y>e] in the ms. column at right-hand side of the page. Barmen 1903. & cum eo Graeci ponunt. Nam quod nunc primum. Vt sit primus. but up till now the name of Heinsius has never been mentioned äs that of a possible possessor of the ms. has rightly been stressed by Eb. Nestle. περί του εν κάνα γάμου . p. modo in superiori. just äs ordinary food against flies· Possibly this interesting comparison sounded a bit disrespectful. Note that Heinsius wrote this passage äs a later addition. fully corresponds. in zwangloser Folge. in the definitive Version of the text Heinsius abandoned this passage altogether. p. 8). Textum ergo habes: On this period. see photograph of f. Graecorum. which appears to be entirely different from 'divisione nostra'. Sie Evangelista noster titulos ιη[18]. Anyhow. Univ. NESTLE. Nam κεφάλαια minores ibi sectiones sunt. Gron. Eb. titulos ιη Suidas.. There Heinsius had already pointed out that Greek writers used to designate sections of greater extent äs τίτλοι ('tituli'). each of them being a potential source of errors. In the former case we have the original under our eyes. aut. vt Praefationem. 137 [= GREGORY 435]. Heinsius concludes (p. p. p. sc.. and smaller ones äs κεφάλαια ('capitula') (one 'titulus' consisting of thirteen 'capitula' on an average). In Evangelista nostro [John]. Ein erweiterter Vor/rag (Salz und Licht. 258): 'Secutus autem est divisionem suam. Vom Textiis receptus des Gr. there follows a comparison between th e mental food of the Bible and normal food: the Bible has to be protected against textual errors. l and 3. ad verbum notata invenias'. . in the latter we are separated from the original by a chain of mss. Vorträge und Abhh. modo in inferiori parte paginae. pe<rditum> ? 22 lapides ac momimenta: that there is in fact a great difference between the accurate reproduction of an inscription and the constitution of a text like that of the New Testament.44 THE PREFACE OF 1633 AND 1641 Capitum ac Commatum divisione'. N. Then Heinsius gives the list of the eighteen 'tituli' ofjohn.

p. qnanto minus negligenditm: the construction is inconsistent. 58: δόσις S' όλίγη τε φίλη τε. (Biblioth.v. p. I.. According to HEINSIUS. fructus. 'ab'.. ολίγον τε φίλον τε. p. rud. Od. 'a true understanding'. 25 . The edition of 1641 has a comma before quisquis. negligmdae would have been a more logical continuation. when there is no question of wisdom or knowledge in a stricter. Oevres de S. finire morte non poterit' (Civ.3 'nee morte finitur'. ut ad illarum [rerum aeternarum] perfructionem pervenire possimus' (Doctr. He who succeeds in 'enjoying' the eternal things 'non indiget Scripturis (!) . . s. όλίγην τε . or discernment] in aliqua re. 3. commendant . Heinsius' words reflect more the language (usus. . (see n. Min. xiii. in: G. 'a right consciousness'. 336. FARGES. fructus: on this famous Augustinian distinction.. cum de re quapiam agitur' [that is. 'a correct appreciation'. Itaque multi . his exemples. 22). 43). 'with regard to'. COMBES et J. 6. more or less philosophical sense].. But cf. ehr. see. This can hardly be correct. 'in respect oP. 18'. . 167 (Achilles to Agamemnon): το γέρας . To Augustine. . 24 qnisqitis ad re/igionem sapit: we are afraid that NESTLE. Aug. cf. 558-561. . 'äs to'. Oxford 1968. 27 usus . XXXIX. Doubtless the Scriptures belong to the 'caeteris' of which Augustine says 'Caeteris autem utendum est. 5 is wrong in translating 'jeder. 26 Quae cum . 8]' (Doctr. 11. . F. op. Le magistere chretien. ehr. sive scientia evacuabitur [I Cor. Λα means 'in point oP. sub 25. . . Ilias l. 20). καΐ φίλην: a Homeric formula. .. Fase. I. . der es mit der Religion hält'. etiam in solitudine sine codicibus vivunt. 28). . p. and sapit might be translated by 'has a due sense'. 'Notes complementaires. 'äs regards'. CAYRE. All things considered.THE PREFACE OF 1633 AND 1641 45 23 ab argnmento: ab means 'in respect of'. . 9. 19. V. Unde in illis arbitror jam impletum esse quod dictum est: Sive prophetiae evacuabuntur. the one and only object of 'frui' is the Holy Trinity. Opuscules). De cat. 'in relation to'. D. cit. . ehr. 208 and 14.g. apart from the fact that nulla morte finietur may echo Augustine's'.u. sive linguae cessabunt. s. . De doctr. Fei. 'Sapere ad aliquid' = 'sapere [to have sense. AUGUSTINE considered the Holy Scripture äs an object not only of usus but also of fructtis. nulla morte finietur') than the thoughts of Augustine. 37. 'sapio'. XXII.. cf. FORCELLINI. . August. e. or something similar... I. Oxford Latin Dictionary. We do not believe that he really quotes a passage of Augustine.

HOMER. Cf. . n. p. in: Poemata Graeca . πανόλβιε. (3) in bis Exercitationessacrae . nicht einmal mehr jedem Philologen unserer Tage sofort gegenwartig sein wird: Aristokles neben Aristoteles ist Beiname Platos nach seinem Grossvater'.. line 33. See our Introduction. την μέσην τε και νέαν Άκαδημίαν καταστησαμένω. | Των μεν Αριστοκλέους (sie) ή ποικιλόφωνος αηδών | Ήρξατο. 1610. e. . cap. 43). πανυστατίη Stands for καινή. p. Heinsii Poematum editio tertia . [n. . 'Prolegomena'. 12.. 190: 'In Platonis scripta' ( = Εϊς τάς του Πλάτωνος βίβλους). Lugd. Lugd. 14) "Ιλαθι πασιμέλουσα.Lugd. 70 Αργώ πασι μέλουσα cf. ibid. 9. Od. running down two lines. and line 7 of Heinsius' own Hymnus in Pandoram (cf. Bat.. from the Pepltts. . SOPHOCLES. Dissertatio' (in Exerc. cum in caeteris disciplinis. 1. In both editions the words IN NOVI FOEDERIS havc been printed in red. (5). 647.. line 1). 37 . the only comment of Eb. äs if not 'jeder Philologe unserer Tage' knows this designation of PLATO to be usual in the works of Heinsius. 1639. D. ortu. NESTLE onthe disticha of Heinsius was the following: 'Zu ihrem Verständnis will ich nur bemerken. . progressu.. 12.. Lugd. p. Oed. Od. III (ibid.. . . Πολλοί σοΐς Ακάδημε ποτ' εν κήποισι πέτοντο | Όρνιθες. 'fave conatibus nostris'. Col. dt. line40). 5). vsuque. Bat. was nicht mehr jedem Theologen. 34 χάρις ούρανίη. (op. 730. more correctly. turn. 19-20. 36 35 For προσφύς cf. cf. HOMER. 1640. Αριστοκλέους.. p. 22]. p.πότνα θεάων (quoted from the Poemata Graeca et e Graecis Latine reddita . 433. . p. . 1640. &c.. . &c. On this correction. 25: Εις Άρκεσίλαόν τε και Λακύδην. I. sacr. μετά τον Σωκράτη και Πλάτωνα. loquar: the edition of 1641 has. τω.g. . p. loquamur. 1752 χάρις ή χθόνια. fave: 'nos cocptaquenostra favoreacbenevolentia complectere'. πασι μέλουσα..46 28 THE PANEGYRIC ON THE NEW TESTAMENT fit cumAuguslino loquar: HEINSIUS used exactly thc same formula at least three other times: (1) in the 'Prolegomena ad Aristarchum sive De verae criticae apud veteres. in Sacris. . σοφίης μοΰσαν άεισάμενοι. Bat.. 32 33 29 30 31 Initial B in red. p. first line: Παίδες Άριστοκλέους(Ι) . . cf.. Bat. (2) in bis Aristarcb/is sacer . Another exemple.

or äs a λιπογραφία for ανάγκη). (3) ανάκη apparently derived from άνακέομαι 'repair'. The name 'DAN. 19-20) σωής. the printer's error σωής for ζωής occurs only in the edition of 1633. 1639-40. . in both editions. therefore deleted and replaced by πανάκη. and βουλή by Μούση.THE PANEGYRIC ON THE NEW TESTAMENT 38 47 θνητόν . but non-existent (unless äs a geographical name. 4). 40 39 . text of the poem. in the third Elzevier edition of the Greek Testament. HEINSIVS' has been printed in red. άθάνατον δια την εκ νεκρών άνάστασιν (On the Pascha. 'care'. 1654-8. äs well äs in the reprints of LEERS. . It has been corrected in the editions of the Exercitationes sacrae. (see Introduction.—Here we may add three notes on the second of the two additional lines in the ms. (2) Note that in the final recension of the poem πινυτή has been replaced by σοφίη. άθάνατον. \ve should perhaps mention the comment of MELITO of Sardes on this common antithesis: θνητόν δια την εν τγ] γγ) (εις γήν?) ταφήν. n. 11. 1641. (1) The deleted μ may be the first letter of the stem μελ-.

has always been considered a model of typographical excellence and much the more perfect of the two editions of 1624 and 1633 by every writer on the subject before SCRIVENER. .CHAPTER THREE THE EDITOR OF THE ELZEVIER GREEK TESTAMENT OF 1633 The foreword to the Elzevier Greek Testament of 1633 was written by Dan. in 1890 HOSKIER published an exhaustive . others just äs gross are retained.1 Moreover. it is true. Of real variant readings between the two Elzeviers he noted but eight instances. the Complutensian. and contributed willingly to the joint undertaking. however. in order that all errors of the first edition might be taken away. Now it is very easy to prove that these learned and their alleged emendations and contributions are a bare fiction. Can he also be regarded äs the editor of the text? On behalf of the 'TYPOGRAPHF Heinsius says that copies of the first Impression were submitted to the eyes of the learned. HEINSIUS. pointed out that. . in six of which the text of 1633 follows . according to Heinsius. very accurately. Scrivener. to which have been added a number peculiar to the edition of 1633 itself. although some of the worst errors of the edition of 1624 are amended in that of 1633. The edition of 1633. These learned did their work.

'From this analysis it may be easily seen that 1633 is certainly not more correctly printed äs a whole than the previous edition of 1624. ne quid desit. himself . Heinsius' preface is silent. He only says '. nor with the insertion of the tables of ancient chapter-headings occurring for the first time in the edition of 1633.THE EDITOR OF 1633 ' 49 collation of the editions of 1624 and 1633 together with a thorough analysis of their divergences and errors. we should mention a remark of CURCELLAEUS.. We learn more of this matter from J. The responsibility for the second edition lies fully with the editor himself. The printing-ink used in 1633 was about the only improvement'. As to the originator of the latter improvement. A. however. this being the very first thing we hear about the editor of the Elzevier text of 1633.]...] sub finem.. we find 1633 247 times in fault against 147 times in 1624 [... exhibemus'.. Before proceeding to discuss the Statement of Fabricius. . not to perpetuate them. it is most improbable that he was assisted by scholars who £cum judicio ac cura' proposed corrections in the text of 1624.2 From this it may be inferred that whoever may have been the editor of 1633.]. Curcellaeus. although it proves to be more correct in the matter of accents and iota subscript [. FABRICIUS. versus accuratius notavimus' and—with reference to the newly adopted lists of titles—'quam [. and indeed. And the lang list of errors common to both should be taken into consideration. Remarkably enough Heinsius does not credit the learned collaborators mentioned in his preface with the revised division of the verses. äs it was the duty of 1633 to correct these. Steph.

. Elzevirianae A. .] editioni N. and bears on a striking particular.. the name of Heinsius had never been mentioned. and cannot be considered äs an independent testimony. A most interesting Statement. HEINSIUS: 'Singularum pericoparum inscriptiones Graecae sive argumenta paucis verbis comprehansa [. T. of course.s In an exposition about the ancient divisions of the New Testament text this polyhistor makes mention of the fact that the lists of κεφάλαια at the end of the Elzevier editions of 1633 and 1641 were inserted in accordance with directions given by Dan. 1633.4 It need not be more than indicated here. A. on the other hand. FABRICIUS (1717).].. we owe to J. 12 jussit adnecti'. teils that the Elzeviers in preparing their repeatedly reprinted editions had been assisted by 'plures alios [.. But äs his information does not show any indication of having been put forward by way of supposition or conjecture.] Daniel Heinsius [. In this .. Unfortunately it is not obvious how Fabricius came by such knowledge. is nothing but a paraphrase of part of the preface to the Elzeviers of 1633 and 1641.50 THE EDITOR OF 1633 editor of a Greek Testament issued by the Elzeviers in 1658. The significance of this remark becomes clear in the light of the fact that in the literature dealing with the Elzevier editions previous to Fabricius. qui ad divinum istud opus ornandum singuli symbolam suam alacriter contulerunt'. äs far äs we see.3 This information. by Fabricius. we are inclined to think that we are concerned here with scholarly tradition from a reliable source. recorded for the first time.

] vertrieben. in 1856: 'Who the editor employed by the printers may have been.. HUG says. TREGELLES was. In the second half of the eighteenth Century J. of the Elzevier editions äs 'von einem gänzlich Unbekannten zusammengesetzt'. 1624. in 1883: Of the person entrusted with its superintendence we know nothing'.6 G. in 1826: 'die Elzevire [. in 1804. P..8 The view of S. SCRIVENER. and chose their readings'. W. But about the beginning of the twentieth Century Eb. For how could Heinsius 'have ordered the lists of chapter-headings to be added' if he had not some control over the edition? For almost two centuries the knowledge communicated by Fabricius concerning Heinsius' contribution to the Elzevier edition of 1633 was forgotten.7 J. is wholly unknown'. without always making a clear distinction between the edition of 1624 and that of 1633. MICHAELIS confines himself to the Statement One cannot guess which scholar had the supervision of this edition. L. diese Recension [von Beza] in mehreren [. H..10 Of these critics only the last mentioned refers more especially to the edition of 1633. A. NESTLE wrote the following lines: 'Welche Gelehrten sie ['die Buchhändler Elzevir'.].9 that of F.THE EDITOR OF 1633 51 connection it may be observed that Fabricius seems to have thought that Heinsius was something like 'Supervisor' of the Elzevier edition of 1633. As to the editorship of the Elzevier text critics from then on confess again and again their ignorance. MEYER speaks. D. Ausgaben'.1633] an der Hand hatten —wenn man hier überhaupt noch von Gelehrten reden darf—ist . ohne auch mit einer Sylbe des Verfassers zu erwähnen.

Elzevirianae a. We are now able to add that it was also certainly Heinsius who composed the preface .13 This concludes our historical survey of what has been said with regard to the editor responsible for the text of1633. qui [illa] editioni NT.]. von DOBSCHÜTZ re-edited.52 THE EDITOR OF 1633 unbekannt. der eigentliche Urheber des Textus receptus' (italics of the present author). Nach Fabricius [it was] Daniel Heinsius.. Heinsius'. KENYON. G. Danach wäre dieser grosse Philologe. There is scarcely any reason for supposing that this is not true. the Einführung of Nestle he could safely record that 'die Leydener Buchdrucker Isaak. wiederum erst in der Ausgabe von 1633.. HEINSIUS. By far the most valuable Information is that of FABRICIUS : according to this scholar the tables of chapter-headings at the end of the edition of 1633 were added at the direction of Dan. 1633.12 Unhappily this result seems to have been overlooked by F. nor to any of its successors'.11 Nestle's Statements are somewhat inconsistent. Apostelgeschichte und Briefen. 12 iussit adnecti [. auf 34 nichtgezählten Seiten die Tafeln der κεφάλαια zu den Evangelien. [and some lines further down Nestle signalizes] am Schlüsse des Ganzen. but have the great merit of rescuing from oblivion the Information provided by FABRICIUS. in 1923. der in der PRE noch keinen Artikel hat. And when E. Bonaventura und Abraham Elzevier' published their editions of the Greek Testament 'vielleicht mit Hilfe des berühmten Philologen Dan. who äs late äs 1926 repeats the standpoint of the eighteenth and nineteenth Century: 'No editor's name is attached to the edition of 1624.



to this edition, and consequently, that his wotds 'at the end we shall append the chapter-division of the ancients', in the first person, may literally be understood äs referring to himself. We for our part venture to presume that the same applies to the first person in his assertion 'in this text we give nothing changed or corrupted', that is to say, that it is indeed Heinsius who prepared the Elzevier text of 1633. We know that at the time of the appearance of the edition of 1633, Heinsius was deeply engaged in his New Testament studies; on May 16th 1633 he himself wrote: 'in exercitationibus ad N. Testamentum serio versamur'.14 It is moreover most unlikely that Bonaventura and Abraham Elzevier would have published a Greek New Testament in which their friend and, one might say, Managing Editor the famous and qualified New Testament critic Daniel Heinsius was allowed to write the preface, a Greek panegyric, and the lists of ancient chapter-headings, without entrusting the same scholar with the constitution of its text. Our hypothesis is indeed far from new. Eb. Nestle was the first to speak of Heinsius äs 'der eigentliche Urheber des Textus receptus'. But there still remain two questions: first, why was the editorship of Heinsius kept so secret, and second, is the editorship of Heinsius confirmed by agreements between the text-critical remarks made by Heinsius in his Exercitationes sacrae (1639) and the text of the Elzeviers? The former question may be answered with a simple reference to the rather modest quality of the Elzevier editions of the New Testament from a scholarly point of




view. We need not repeat what has been said on this matter at the beginning of this chapter. The judgment of Hoskier was that in the edition of 1633 'the printing-ink was about the only improvement'. Heinsius is likely to have foreseen that he had a personal interest in not being known äs the editor of such an edition.15 As to the latter question, this much is plain that if by chance Heinsius rejects in his Exercitationes readings or punctuations supported by the Elzevier text of 1633—äs he certainly does—, this can by no means be considered äs throwing doubt upon the supposition that he himself was responsible for the text of the Elzeviers. In the first place, one may change one's mind about the solution of text-critical problems. In the second place, it is quite natural that Heinsius should not impair the value of his Exercitationes by publishing bare results six years before in an anonymous text edition. And finally, Heinsius must have been well aware of the trifling scientific merits of the Elzevier text, and—äs previously stated—would certainly have avoided revealing himself äs its editor, whether by bringing the Elzevier text into accord with his personal text-critical views äs set forth in his Exercitationes, or by adopting the Elzevier text without alteration äs the basis of his commentary. Let us try to come to a cautious conclusion. It is true, of course, that the evidence offered above in favour of the hypothesis that HEINSIUS was the editor of the Greek New Testament issued by the ELZEVIERS at Leiden in 1633, is not perfectly conclusive. Heinsius' responsibility for this Elzevier text cannot be established



with documentary proof, äs it could for the preface, and presumably this is exactly what Heinsius intended. But that Heinsius was involved in this edition is absolutely certain. We see no reason to assume that the contributions of Heinsius confined themselves to the preface (1), the panegyric on the New Testament (2), and the tables of chapter-headings (3) at the end of the edition. On the contrary, his narrow relation with the publishers (4), the active part he used to play in their undertakings (5),16 and in particular his own engagement in the field of New Testament criticism at the time (6) leave no doubt äs to his editorship of the Elzevier text. There is no reason for denying the editorial responsibility for the Elzevier Greek Testament of 1633 to Dan. HEINSIUS. The doctorum oculi referred to by Heinsius in the preface are in all probability none other than his own. NOTES
F. H. A. SCRIVENER, A Plain Introduction .... Cambridge 18833, p. 442. 2 H. C. HOSKIER, A Füll Account and Collation o/ ... Cod. Ev. 604 . . ., London, 1890, Appendix C, p. 25. 3 Op. dt. (see eh. II, n. 5), f. *2v. 4 Cf. eh. II, n. 15. 5 J. A. FABRICIUS, Bibliotheca sraeca, Lib. IV, Hamburg! 1717, c. V, p. 222. 6 J. D. MICHAELIS, In/eidtng in de Godlijke Schriften van het Niemve Verband, uit het Hoogdnitsch naar den derden . . . druk in 't Nederdiutsch vertaald, ander het opsgcht . . . van Fr. G. Chr. RÜTZ, I, 2, VGravenhage 1778, p. 1284-5: 'Men kan niet gissen, welke Geleerde daarover het opzicht gehad, en de leezingen verkoozen hebbe'. 7 Op. dt. (see eh. I, n. 10), p. 181. 8 J. L. HUG, Einleitung in die Schriften des N.. T.. Erster Theil, Stuttgart-Tübingen 18263, p. 326.

also J. p. dt. T . Groningen 1901. 66]. 14 Letter to Patr. 442. TREGELLES.56 THE EDITOR OF 1633 9 S. (see n. T.T. p.. p.' 11 Eb. Eberhard Nestle's Einführimgin das Griechische N. p. The Latin of the preface and its allusion to Pandora could only confirm what those who knew something of Heinsius may simply have taken for granted. A. 124. 68. in op. wie voor deze uitgaaf de behulpzame band hebben geboden. Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the N. 13 F. Göttingen 19093. 1). HÖRNE. Einführung in das Griechische Neue Testament. Göttingen 1923. 65. p. IV of T. p. p. An Introdiution to the Textual Criticism of the N. [see p. The influence he exerted on the business of the Elzeviers was common knowledge.. dt. M. 594: Onbekend is. 10 Op. H. An Introduction to the Critical Stiidy and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. London 185610. Geschiedenis van de Bocken des Nieuwen Verbands. = Vol. 32 of eh. S. and Heinsius himself was ill-famed for the way in which he used this influence (cf. KENYON. 272. von DOBSCHÜTZ. 16 See Appendix. NESTLE. (see our 11. 15 There is indeed reason to believe that for Heinsius' learned contemporaries bis editorship of the Elzevier Greek Testament was nothing but a matter of course. WILLEMS. YOUNG. 12 E. . G. . Las Elzevier . I). P. p. . BALJON. Cf. 14-5. CLXIX-CLXXV). London 19262.

J. J. But Laurentius leaves us in uncertainty äs to the source of bis Information about the 'non pauci viri. Laurentius' words 'ad regium exemplar & optimas quasque editiones eum cum cura expresserunt' allude to the title of the Elzevier edition of 1624. prepared the Elzevier edition. eruditione & pietate praestantes praefuere. according to him. Neither does he mention any of them by name. WETSTEIN It only remains for us to say a few words on the most obscure question in this connection: 'who was the editor of the Elzevier text of 1624?' As early äs 1626 we learn from the address to the reader prefixed to the Greek and Latin text edition of the New Testament published by Henricus LAURENTIUS : 1 'In textu Graeco secuti sumus eum. eruditione & pietate praestantes' who. Lugduni prodijt. His Information therefore may deservedly be suspected of having been invented only äs . which announces itself äs Έχ Regijs alijsque optimis editionibus cum cura expressum'. qui ad regium exemplar & optimas quasque editiones eum cum cura expresserunt'.CHAPTER FOUR THE EDITOR OF THE ELZEVIER GREEK TESTAMENT OF 1624 Consulid de hac re viros doctos in Belgio: at frustra. qui anno MDCXXIV. cui non pauci viri.

Although Laurentius' Statement conveys little conviction to the reader. 29.2 That Mill attributes the words of Laurentius to Beza. autoritate publica Belgice fuit conversum. Discussing the question 'a quo & qua autoritate prima Elzeviriorum editio sit curata'.T. refelluntur'. is due to the fact that in the edition of Laurentius the Greek text of the New Testament was accompanied by the Latin translation of Beza. . Cl.3 The most striking remark of Wetstein is that 'some . ] Putarunt alii. We now turn to the consideration of this problem by WETSTEIN. [ . quo N. cum Editio prima Elzevirii prodierit eodem tempore. we need not dwell further upon it. it was on the authority of Laurentius that J. Suspicabar. In exactly the same way Heinsius was to pretend that the second edition of the Elzeviers was due to the collaboration of several docti. p. Wetstein teils us: 'Consului de hac re viros doctos in Belgio: at frustra. ad 1. quod responderent. . praeter conjecturas. nor indeed upon the numerous misunderstandings that have been called up by it. pro 'Laurentius'. . Gor.58 THE EDITOR OF 1624 a recommendation for the edition of Laurentius himself. without being founded on fact. v. MILL wrote: 'Be%a [sie. Exercitat. 10] notat Editioni Elzevirianae praefuisse viros haud paucos eruditione & pietate praestantes'. and which have been treated in the first chapter of this publication. forte eosdem fuisse Interpretes Beigas & Editores textus huj us Graeci: sed instituta comparatione statim rem aliter se habere deprehendi. VII. As the Statement of Mill is entirely dependent on that of Laurentius. nihil enim habuerunt. Danielem Heinsium huic editioni praefuisse: at illi ex ejusdem V.

This opinion is not met with in the literature antedating the Trolegomena' of Wetstein and seems to have been picked up by Wetstein from oral tradition. . does he proceed to make reference to the opinion of those ('alii') who took Heinsius to be responsible for the Elzevier text.4 But for the various reasons sei out in the preceding chapter such discrepancies between the text of the Elzeviers and that supported by Heinsius can be no reason for denying to the latter the editorship of the Elzevier New Testament issued in 1624. It is true that Heinsius rejects in his Exercitationes sacrae the punctuation of I Cor.THE EDITOR OF 1624 59 people have thought Daniel Heinsius prepared this edition'. Be this äs it may. and not until he has proved this supposition to be untenable. Wetstein knew of certain people holding the opinion that the Elzevier text of 1624 had been edited by Heinsius. he first gives one of his own hypotheses. Judging from his words one would not say so. From the train of Wetstein's thoughts one gets the Impression that his 'alii' should not be identified with some of the 'viri docti in Belgio' previously mentioned. vii. for after making mention of his contact with the Dutch scholars and their conjectures. It is not wholly clear whether this is one of the 'conjecturae' suggested by the Dutch scholars whom Wetstein says he consulted. 29 äs it was presented by the Elzevier text of 1624. which do not seem to have been worth while. It should of course be clear that this tra'dition is not disproved by the objection of Wetstein. according to which the 'Statenvertalers' might have been the editors of the Elzevier text of 1624.

Laurentius' view is under the serious suspicion of being dictated by his wish to augment the authority of his own reprint of the Elzevier text. KENYON (1926): 15 'No editor's name is attached to the edition of 1624'. .62 THE EDITOR OF 1624 E. but it cannot be denied that there is a case for the standpoint of Wetstein's alii. de ZWAAN (1949):16 Op grond nu van al het voorafgaande [vi%. that of LAURENTIUS who maintained that the edition had been prepared by 'several erudite and pious men'. The alii of Wetstein might claim (1) that the relations between Heinsius and the Elzeviers certainly date from a time before 1624. G. von DOBSCIIÜTZ (1923): 14 'Die Linie Erasmus-Stephanus-Beza setzen die Leydener Buchdrucker Isaak. H eins i u s'. HEINSIUS äs the editor of the Elzevier text of 1624. There is certainly something to be said for the view of those who believed the Elzevier text of 1624 was constituted by Heinsius. who regarded Dan. F. and nothing against it. and that of the alii mentioned by WETSTEIN. (2) that in 1624 Heinsius was certainly working at his Aristarchns sacer17 which 'marked his debut äs a serious Student of the New Testament'. Henceforth only two Standpoints deserve attention.18 and (3) that in all probability Heinsius was the editor of the second Impression of the Elzevier Greek Testament. dielater vereerd zou worden met de titel receptus'. vielleicht mit Hilfe des berühmten Philologen Dan. This list does not claim to be exhaustive. The evidence is scanty. ßonaventura und Abraham Elzevier fort. J. Stephanus and Beza] heeft een onbekende in 1624 het eerst voor de Elzeviers de tekst geconstrueerd. the Complutensian and the editions of Erasmus. An evaluation of all that has been said about the editor of 1624 leads to the following conclusion.

Leipzig 1909. p. C. . versionum etpaimm recensuit et lectionis varietatem adjecit. GREGORY. part i. G. REUSS. p. GREGORY. cum hac annotatione praefixa: ". Zesde . 9 Ed. 459. Prolegomena. n. Ed. Verhandeling over de Tekstkritiek des Nieuwen Verbonds. p.. eh. London 19262. . 3. I. Quatt. 1. Vol. 297. Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci cuius edd. . 13. 687. Göttingen 19093. p. 6 J..v. s. ititgegeven door TE YLEK'sgodgeleerd Genootschap. REUSS. DOEDES. o/>. (Verbandelingen. 7 H. 8 J. Amsterdam-Brüssel 1949. Textum ad fidem codicum. 110. MARSH. See eh. I. ab initio typograpbiae ad nostram aetatem impressas quoiquot reperiri potuerunt collegit digessit illustravit. Göttingen 1923. Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Neuen Testaments. C. . Pastoris Ecclesiae Gallicanae Londini. p. 14 E. Vijfde Deel. 4 See eh. GRIESBACII. III. Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes. KENYON.. 83. rakende de natuurlijkc en geopenbaarde Godsdienst. Prolegomena. 13 Eb. Deel). Cf. I. p. 272. dt. Tischendorf. I. . 15 F. P. Brunsvigae 1872. 5] ac-|curatiorem ante hos trcs annos inveni in Bibliotheca V. a Clarissimo viro Domino Scaligero habuimus A. 938. See eh. R. Hos Codices inter se collatos diligentissime a quodam viro bono. Lipsiae 1884. NESTLE. . 46-7: 'Collationem hujus codicis [Stephani iS = Reg. p. sec. op. 65. n. R. Pars prior. . n. 12 . TREGELLES. Caesaris de Missy. 11 C. Haarlem 1844. p. Eberhard Nestle's Einfühnmgin das Griechische Neue Testament. (Lecti/res. (see eh. adscriptam editioni typis excusae in folio. recensuit . R. Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. ΧΧΧΠ j·. III. 'Bijbel' in: Winkler Prins Encyclopaedie. J. et Londini. . . p. Thysius". Einführung in das Griechische Neue Testament. 1842. p. p. I. 9). Novum Testamentum Graece .THE EDITOR OF 1624 63 NOTES See eh. . 5. 111. 1796. n. p. Braunschweig 18876. n. Vol. Halae Sax. . quoted by) S. I. de ZWAAN. I. druk. 14. von DOBSCHUTZ. 2865 = Küster Paris. «V. 12. . XXXIV. Novum Testamentum Graece. 5 WETSTEIN. 4. 2 3 1 n. Anm. p. 16 J. 217. 10 Ed. n. Ew.

64 THE EDITOR OF 1624 17 D. H. p. 35-6. General Series No. ter HORST. with a shorttitle checklist of the ivorks of Daniel Heinsius (Publications of the Sir Thomas Browne Institute Leiden. p. 3). diss. J. R. Utrecht <1934>. LeidenLondon 1968. Daniel Heinsins and Stilart England. 18 P. 99. . SELUN. Leiden 1934. Daniel Heinsitis (1580-1655).

1. Leiden Rapenburg 95 . It is very possible that the ELZEVIER Greek Testament of 1624 was edited by Daniel HEINSIUS.CONCLUSIONS For the reader's convenience we shall sum up here the main conclusions reached in the foregoing chapters. 2. Up to the end of the nineteenth Century the Greek text of the New Testament generally followed on the continent was that issued by the printing and publishing house of the Elzeviers on the Rapenburg at Leiden. The author of the preface to the Greek Testament published by the ELZEVIERS in 1633 (and 1641) is Daniel HEINSIUS. 3. It is in the highest degree probable that Daniel HEINSIUS was the editor of the text published by the ELZEVIERS in 1633. The part which Heinsius had in these Elzevier editions was to become of far-reaching significance.

ou nous crqyons reconnaitre le style et Γ elegante latinite de ce savant dans la plapart des epitres dedicatoires et avertissements que. WILLEMS. „Cette rapide esquisse serait incomplete si nous omettions de parier d'un homme qui. .APPENDIX DANIEL HEINSIUS AND THE ELZEVIERS Extract from the biography of Bonaventura ELZEVIER (1583-1652) in: A.' 1 Italics of the present author. Les Elzevier ne se guidaient que d'apres ses conseils. n'en a pas moins exerce sur eux une influence preponderante. a ete a vrai dire l'äme de toutes leurs entreprises. ils lui communiquaient le manuscrit. sans attache officielle aupres des Elzevier. histoire et annales typographiques. et dont le nom est inseparable du leur. suivant Fusage du temps. Bruxelles-Paris-La Haye 1880. II y a plus: ou nous nous trompons fort. et s'il y avait Heu. p. c'est a lui qu'ils se referaient toutes les fois qu'ils hesitaient sur le merite ou l'opportunite d'une publication. CLXIXCLXX. ils 1 mettaient en tete de leurs editions". c'est de lui qu'il s'agit. Daniel Heinsius. Les Elzevier.

23 Dobschütz. 56. 42 Harderwijk. 43. 27-8 Henry II. 21.46 Augustinus 33. A. 63 Griesbach 60. 22-3. 3 Hall. 16 Fabricius. 62 Euthymius 44 Fabricius. De 25 Barberini.INDEX NOMINUM Aa. 46 Aristoteles 38-40. Nie. 15-8. Dan. Frid. 38. 23. 12 Behm 2 Beza 9-11. Fr. H. 61. 52-3. 5-9. 7. 61-2 Bover 2 Burkitt 2 Burmannus 27 Casaubon 22. 22. 27 Holtzmann 3 . Bon. 23. 49 Dibdin 8-12. J. 42 Baumgarten 2. 45-6 Baljon 56 Balzac. 24 Elmenhorst 27 Elzevier. 41. 52. 49-52. Abr. var. L. B. Von 2 Greenlee 2 Greeven 2 Gregory 2. 24 Farges 45 Feine 2 Forcellini 45 Gebhardt. Van der 22 Abbot 2 Academus 46 Aldus 41 Appel 2 Arcesilaus 46 Aristokles (= Plato) 38-40. 41 Hesiodus 42-3 Hoefer 24 Holstenius. 27 Barlaeus 18 Bauer. 44. 15. l. 62-3 Doedes 61. I. Is.. 63 Groenen 2 Gronovius 44 Grossouw 2 Gudius 27 Hall. 43 Cayre 45 Cicero 3 Colinaeus 41 Combes 45 Cullmann 2 Curcellaeus 41. 62. 13.) passim Erasmus 41. Von 2. 58. 4. 55 Fabricius. Vinc. 63 Dousa 15. 27. 66 Elzevier(s) (and orthogr. passim Heinsius. Van 23 Heinsius.

18. 41 Rahlfs 23-4 Reuss. E. 56 Parvis 3 Plato (see also Aristokles) 46 Pott 3 Procopius Caesariensis 27-8 Procopius Gazaeus 13. 25. 56. G. 42. J. 44. 56. 51. T. 3 Schotel 23 Scrivener 3. 64 Sevenster. 62 Leers 4. 51-3. 23 McNeile 3 Meinertz 3 Melito 47 Metzger. A. 17 Jocher 24 Kemke 26 Kenyon. J. C. 47 Leeuwen. 35. van 3 Lewis 42 Lietzmann 3 Maltretus 27-8 Mangenot 3 Marsh 61. Eb. 62-3 Klijn 3. G. 19-21. 61. F. W. 23 Roverius 25 Rutgers. De 23-26 Michaelis. 8-9. 58. 3 Meursius 20. 63 Schafer. 27. 25-7 Rahir 30. 52. 8-9. 12. D. 3 Short 42 Smit Sibinga 2 Socrates 46 Soden. 3. 60 Hulshoff Pol. 64 Hort 3 Hoskier 41. 57-8. 51. 3 Masch 3. 22. 23. J. 55. 61 Missy. 23. los. K. 3 Rosenmuller 3. 43. 48. 48. J. von 3 Sophocles 46 S outer 3 . 63 Lacydes 46 Lake. W.68 INDEX NOMINUM Migne 23 λΐϋΐ 10-2. 3. 60 Michaelis. 63 Robertson. 60 Meyier. M. Ermgard 25 Rutz 55 Salmasius 25 Scaliger. Ter 25-6. 51. 3 Schaff 3 Schmalz 42 Schmid. Ed. 54-5 Hug 3. 46. 23. 23 Knopf 3 Kümmel 2 Küster 23. 8-10. Herrn. 23 Huygens. K. 63 Martin. 3 Laurentius 10-2. 61. 3 Pandora 31. 25-7 Meyer. Th. 63 Orbaan 27 Homerus 45-6 Hörne 56 Horst. P. De 63 Molhuysen 27 Nestle. Br. 55. 41-2. C. 51. G. 46. 3. 42-3. 55 Sellin 26. 12. 12.

C. 5-6. Patr.INDEX NOMINUM Stählin. 8-9. 60. 3 Wourdanus 23 Young. 56. 41. 63 Tregelles 3. Ant. 63 Vaccari 3 Vaganay 3 . 63 Tischendorf. 60-1. O. 61-3 Taylor. A. 56 Zwaan. 5-12. C. 3 Theophylactus 44 Thysius. Steunenberg 3 Suidas 44 Vogels 3 Vulcanius 27 Weinel 3 Westcott 3 Wetstein 3. 22. 13. 3 Stephanus. 22. S. Vinc. Von 3. De 62-3 69 22. 56. 66 Williams. 26. 51. 57-63 Wikenhauser 3 Willems. Rob.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful