EDITOR'S PREFACE. ix
avowedly quote the words, in such a way, that the point of their argument rests on the verbal accuracy of their quotation. The old MSS. differ often among themselves ; but this very difference makes their witness, where they all agree, the more forcible against the received text. Their differences are a surer test of genuineness, than the suspicious universal agreement of the multitude of modern MSS. : the agreement of the latter is pro bably the result of their mutually copying one another, the dis agreements being in course of time removed, so as to present the uniform text, which is found in the Constantinopolitan MSS. The "threefold cord" of the restorers of the true text — such as Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, of whom Bentley and Bengel were, in some degree, forerunners — is the agreeing testimony of three classes of independent witnesses, the oldest Greek MSS., the oldest Versions, and the earliest Fathers.1 ANDREW ROBERT FAUSSET, M.A.
Formerly Sch. and Sen. Classical Moderator, Trin. Coll.,
Dubl., Editor of Terence, Homer's Iliad, I. -VIII.
Livy, I-III., now Stipendiary Curate of
Bishop Middleham, Co. Durham,
July 1, 1857.
1 The Edition of Tischendorf referred to in this work is that of Leipsic, 1849. Recently he has published an Edition, in which he goes back to many of the readings of the more modern MSS. and of the Rec. Text. It is argued, that some older readings than those of the oldest extant MSS. may be pre served in the modern MSS. It is true that they may. But the question is, can we find any satisfactory test of such readings ? Is it not better to aim at that which is, in a great degree, positively attainable, viz. the text as it stood in the 4th century (at latest, and probably much earlier), rather than con jecture as to a text, which we have now no solid means of establishing, viz. that of the autographs themselves ? Tischendorf has perplexed the question by bringing in quotations of authorities comparatively modern and void of weight. I have, therefore, adhered rather to the few oldest authorities given in Lachmann ; adding, however, the very ancient Syriac, Memphitic or Coptic, and Thebaic or Sahitic Versions, which Lachmann does not notice. A fault also in Tischendendorf, which I have avoided, is his not referring to the precise passages of the authors whom he quotes. The Edition of Lachm. which I use is that of Berlin 1842, in 2 vols. 8vo.