ilk (dated INIarch 1, 1589) prefixed, in which Sixtus affirmed with characteristic decision the plenary author- ity of the edition for all future time. "By the fulness of apostolical power" (such are his words), "we decree and declare that this edition . . . approved by the au- thority deliveretl to us by the Lord, is to be received and held as true, lawful, authentic, and unquestionable, in all public and pi-irate discussion, reading, preaching, and explanation." He further forbade expressly the pid)lication of various readings in co()ies of the Vulgate, and pronounced that all readings in other editions and IMSS. which vary from those of the revised text " are to have no credit or authority for the future" (" ea in iis qua^ huic nostrse editioni non consenserint, nullain in posterum Hdem, nuUamque auctorilatem haliitura esse decerninuis"). It was also enacted that the new revision should be introduced into all missals and service-books, and the greater excommunication was threatened against all who in any way contravened the constitution. Had the life of Sixtus been prolonged, there is no doubt that his iron will would have enforced the changes which he thus peremptorily proclaimed; but he died in August, 1590, and those whom he had alarmed or of- fended took immediate measures to iiinder the execu- tion of his designs. Nor was this without good reason. He had changed the readings of those whom he had employed to report upon the text with the most arbi- trary and unskilful hand; and it was scarcely an ex- aggeration to say that his jjrecipitate " self-reliance had brought the Church into the most serious peril." j During the brief pontificate of Urban VII nothing could be done, but the reaction was not long delayed. On the accession of Gregory XIV, some went so far as to pro- pose that the edition of Sixtus should be absolutely prohibited, but Bellarmine suggested a middle course. He proposed that the erroneous alterations of the text ! which had been made in it ("qii;¥ male mutata erant") : "should be corrected with all jiossible speed, and the Bible reprinted under the name of Sixtus, with a jirefa- I tory note to the effect that errors {aliqua ei-7-ata) had crept into the former editio:i by the carelessness of the ; printers." This pious fraud, or rather daring falsehood I — for it can be called by no other name — found favor with those in power. A commission was appfiinted to revise the Sixtine text, under the presidency of the car- dinal Colonna (Columna). At first the commissioners made but slow progress, and it seemed likely that a year I would elapse before the revision was comi)leted (Unga- ' relli, in Vercellone, Pi-oleg. Iviii). The mode of pro- ceedings was therefore changed, and the commission moved to Zagarolo, the country-seat of Colonna ; and, if we may believe the inscription which still commem- orates the event, and the current report of the time, the work was completed in nineteen days. But even if it can be shown that the work extended over six months, it is obvious that there was no time for the examination of new authorities, but only for making a rapid revision with the help of the materials al- ready collected. The task was hardly fiinshed when Gregory died (October, 1591), and the pidilication of the revised text was again delayed. His successor, Iiuiocent IX, died within the same year, and at the be- ginning of 1592 Clement VIII was raised to the pope- dom. Clement intrusted the final revision of the text to Toletus, and the whole was printed by Aldus Jlanu- tius (the grandson) before the end of 1592. The pref- ace, which is moulded upon that of Sixtus, was written bv Bellarmine, and is favoralily distinguished from that of Sixtus by its temperance and even modesty. The text, it is said, had been prepared with the greatest care, and though not absolutely perfect, was at least (what is no idle boast), more correct than that of any former edition. Some readings, indeed, it is allowed, had, though wrong, been left unchanged to avoid pop- ular offence ; but yet even here Bellarmine did not scruple to repeat the fiction of the intention of Sixtus to recall his edition, which still disgraces the front of
VULGATE
833
VULGATE
the Roman Vulgate by an apology no less needless than untrue. Another edition followed in 1593, and a third in 1598, with a tri[)le list of errata, one for each of the tliree editions. Other editions were afterwards pub- lished at Home (comp. Vercellone, civ), but with these corrections the history of the authorized text properly concludes.
The respective merits of the Sixtine and Clementine editions have often been debated. In point of mechan- ical accuracy, the Sixtine seems to be clearly superior (Van Ess, Gesch. 3G5 sq.); but Van Ess has allowed himself to be misled in the estimate which he gives of the critical value of the Sixtine readings. The collec- tions lately published by Vercellone place in the clear- est light the strange and uncritical mode in which Six- tus dealt with the evidence and results submitted to him. The recommendations of the Sixtine correctors are marked by singular wisdom and critical tact; and in almost every case where Sixtiis departs from them he is in error. This will be evident from a collation of the readings, in a few chapters, as given by Vercellone. Thus in the "first four chapters of Genesis the Sixtine correctors are right against Sixtus: i, 2, 27,31; ii, 18, 20; iii, 1, 11, 12, 17, 21, 22; iv, 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 19; and, on the other hand, Sixtus is right against the cor- rectors in i, 15. The Gregorian correctors, therefore (whose results are given in the Clementine edition), in the main simply restored readings adopted by the Six- tine board and rejected by Sixtus. In the book of Deuteronomy the Clementine edition follows the Six- tine correctors where it differs from the Sixtine edition: i, 4, 19, 31 ; ii, 21 ; iv, 6, 22, 28, 30, 33, 39; v, 24; vi, 4; viii, 1 ; ix, 9; x, 3; xi, 3 ; xii, 11, 12, 15, etc. ; and eve- ry change (except, probably, vi, 4; xii, 11, 12 j is right ; while, on the other hantl, in the same chapters there are apparently only two instances of variation with- out the authority of the Sixtine correctors (xi, 10, 32). But in point of fact the Clementine edition errs by excess of caution. Within the same limits it fol- lows Sixtus against the correctors wronglv in ii, 33; iii, 10, 12, 13, 1(5, 19, 20: iv, 10, 11, 28,42; vi, 3; xi, 28; and in the whole book admits in the following passages arbitrary changes of Sixtus: iv, 10; v, 24; vi, 13; xii, 15, 32; xviii, 10, 11; xxix, 23. In the New Test., as the report of the Sixtine correctors has not yet been ]niblished, it is impossible to say how far the same law holds good; but the following comparison of the varia- tions of the two editions in continuous passages of the gospels and epistles will show that the Clementine, though not a pure text, is yet very far purer than the Sixtine, which often gives Old Latin readings, and some- times appears to depend simplj' on patristic authority (i. e. pp. 11.) :