original. We regret to be obliged to say that we have come to a less satisfactory conclusion with regard to the work of Dr. Zenos, Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the Theological Seminary at Hartford, who has revised the translation of Socrates' Ecclesiastical History in Bagster's series,' and also with regard to that of Mr. Chester D. Hartranft, Hartford Theological Seminary,' who has produced a similar revision of the Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, and tells us he felt constrained to make every possible correction, and these have been very numerous and extended in caption [sic] and text' (p. 231). Both writers seem to us, after making a very liberal allowance for slips of the pen and the press, to repeat the errors of the translation which they are revising, and even to add to them with a frequency which sometimes suggests the doubt whether they are qualified by general and technical scholarship to undertake the task, and often leads to the conviction that they have not applied themselves to it with sufficient seriousness. It does not give us confidence in Mr. Hartranft's emendations, for example, to read: 'It is reported that Dominica, wife of Valens, furnished money,' the original, ¿nτòv μolóv, being rightly rendered in the older translation, and the first meaning in Liddell and Scott, s.v. both pntós and μiobós, being fixed wages, covenanted pay. Nor does the note which accompanies Dr. Zenos's correct emendation of the older rendering of the Creed of Arius,2 who was begotten of him before all ages,' impress us as an instance of full knowledge or care:

...

'The old English translation,' he tells us, 'rendered made on the assumption that the Greek was γεγενημένον, not γεγεννημένον. 5ο also Valesius read and translated factum; but Bright without mentioning any variant reading, gives yeyevvnuévov, and we have ventured to translate accordingly.'

Not a hint is given to the reader that the same Creed occurs again with slight variations within the covers of the book which is before him,3 where this clause reads: '. . . who was begotten from Him before all ages;' and Bright's text without a variant appears as an original authority, whereas it is only a convenient reprint of Hussey's, who is careful to note the variant from his text. But it is a still more serious omission that there is no reference to the important part which these words and their cognates occupy in the theological history of 1 Sozomen, vii. 1.

2 Socrates, i. 26, p. 28.

3 Sozomen, ii. 27, p. 277.

46 [Ita F. (i.e. Codex prior Florentinus) M. (i.e. Codex alter Florentinus) Sozom. natus est Epiphan. yeyevnμévov editt. vulg. et Niceph.]'

the century, or to the light which has been thrown on them by modern discussions.1 We have taken these examples as the book opens in our hands. We turn the pages again and open at p. 225. We wonder what the Hartford Theological Seminary would say to the composition of the following

sentence:

'The errors are numerous, as already suggested by Possevin, on dogmatic grounds; Du Pin, and more recently by Harnack, for historic reasons. They are due to the lack of a systematic chronology, and the blind copying of his authority, especially Socrates, and occasionally to his attempts to correct the order given by his authority.'

We think, however, we know what the writer means, as we do also when, on the same page, he writes about 'the Escorial' (sic); but the following sentence, which is from the same page, leaves us in real doubt:

'Admirable as is Heinchen's [sic] survey of Eusebian MSS., it is neither uniform [!] nor complete. No editor of Sozomen from Stephen down, has deemed it necessary to work up the detail even as well as Heinchen [sic].'

We must suppose that Mr. Hartranft means to express the opinion that no editor of Sozomen has given as much pains to a survey of the manuscripts of Sozomen as Heinichen gave to his survey of the manuscripts of Eusebius. We turn to the next page to see what the writer's opinion of the Oxford edition by Dr. Hussey is, and we read: 'Besides other not far-reaching collations, Hussey used a codex in the Bodleian . . . .,' and what this means we cannot even guess.

But to point out blemishes is an ungracious task, and we gladly pass on to the more pleasant duty of adding that, in spite of its frequent faults and serious shortcomings, there is much in this volume of real value; and if we think it is not worthy to stand by the side of the volume which preceded it in this series, it is nevertheless the first English translation of the two historians, Socrates and Sozomen, which has supplied the reader with introductions, tables, and indexes based upon the results of modern scholarship; and if the notes are rare they are sometimes valuable. In reference to the earlier volume we ventured to suggest that if other editions of the work are called for, as we sincerely hope they will be, there is still room for the watchful care of both editor and press-reader.' The same suggestion may be made with greater force of the volume now before us, but we fear we ought to add 'and retranslator.'

2

1 Cf. infra, pp. 282, 295.

2 Ubi supra, p. 115.

In opening the third volume we were disappointed to find that it does not come from the pen of the distinguished scholar to whom it was assigned in the original prospectus. The articles in the Dictionary of Biography by Canon Venables, and especially that on 'Theodoret,' had led us to expect a work of real value in his edition of this Father. We fully sympathize with the general editors on the difficult position in which they were placed, and congratulate them on the appearance of a volume which, if it is somewhat late, is, if all the circumstances are remembered, upon the whole creditable to all who are concerned in its production; but no one can know better than Dr. Schaff and Dr. Wace that such editorial difficulties are of the nature of inseparable accidents in a great undertaking like this; and no man ought to know better than they do that the quality of work is necessarily lowered if insufficient time is given to the worker. The issue of four volumes a year under the editorship of men who are actively engaged in practical work, and whose names are appearing in connexion with other literary work, could have but one meaning. The English publishers stated in their original prospectus :

'Although we at first thought that the issue of Two Volumes only in each year . . . would best suit the convenience of Subscribers, we eventually decided to adopt what was found to be more popular in America, namely, that there should be Four Volumes issued each year. . . .'

and experience has convinced them that their original opinion was right, for they now add:

'The difficulties which have arisen in issuing the Volumes at the very rapid rate proposed by the American company, though not altogether unforeseen by us, have practically resulted in the rate of issue of the Volumes being that which we had originally proposed. To have kept to the more rapid rate must have involved the editorial work being unduly hurried, and accuracy sacrificed to time.'

For our own part we wish that vol. ii. was still under process of correction, that vol. iii. was still being prepared upon the original lines of a full and carefully annotated edition of the Church History, Dialogues, and Letters of Theodoret, that the contents of vol. iv. had not been finally settled, and that even vol. i. was being revised under the fresh eye of an accurate scholar. If we are thankful-and we are really thankful for much, we would gladly have waited for more.

Let us take an example of the kind of inaccuracy which is the result of hasty work, and from which the subscribers

had, we think, a right to expect that the shield of the general editors would save them. Nazianzus (Natavţós) is a small and unimportant Cappadocian town which gave a distinguishing name to the Gregory who is called after it Nazianzenus, or, in English, Nazianzen. Sometimes, but less accurately, the town is called Nazianzum, but the adjectival form is of course constant. Dr. Wace is co-editor of one Dictionary and Dr. Schaff of another, in which the word occurs with perfect accuracy, though Dr. Schaff writes Nazianzum in his History. We expect equal accuracy in this series; what do we find ? There are ten instances in the Sozomen in which this term is used, and in five of them there are blunders. In the Socrates it seems to be used correctly, but a fatality attends it, for Dr. Zenos takes from Valesius a note pointing out that Gregory was made bishop, not of Nazianzus, but of Sasima. This place, well known to the readers of Gregory, he spells Sisima (p. 100, n.), which of course Valesius does not; and by way of another attempt, a few pages later, tries Sasimi (p. 111, n.). If we turn to the third volume we find that Dr. Richardson, whose accuracy is generally much in advance of that of his colleagues, supplies us at one opening of the book with the following varieties: 'Gregory, bishop of Nazianzan,' 'Gregory, bishop of Nazianzen,' 'Gregory Nazianzan' (twice), all of which are of course wrong; while, by way of showing us that he does know better, he once writes 'Gregory Nazianzen’ (pp. 382, 383). It is not surprising that the index ignores this single instance of what is right, and refers only to 'Gregory, bishop of Nazianzan,' which is doubly wrong. It may of course be urged that correction of minutia of this kind belongs to the work of the immediate and not to that of the general editor, but we feel that some one ought to see that it is done. A general editor should at least keep an open eye for mistakes of this kind. We have read the work with the eye of the reviewer, which should not look for errors, but when they are as thick as this even charity cannot be blind.

Nor is it in smaller matters only that we seem to miss the guidance of those who are responsible for the series as a whole. There is here and there a want of proportion in treatment, which is to some extent unavoidable, but which ought not to transgress defined limits.

Mr. Blomfield Jackson, in treating of Theodoret, for example, has a section of the Prolegomena headed, in large type, 'Manuscripts and Editions of Separate Works,' and all which he has to tell us of these editions of separate works is the editions of the Ecclesiastical History are the most numerous,

though of several others there are many'; and of the manuscripts of separate works nothing whatever. The five wellknown editions of the collected-not separate-works beginning with the princeps of 1556, and ending with that of Migne, on which the translation is based, are barely enumerated, and then we are told

'the MSS. [sic] authority for the works of Theodoret is strong. The afore-named editions are based on MSS. in the libraries of Augsburg, Florence, Rome, and Naples.'

Then follow references to three modern works, which are neither manuscripts nor editions. And that is all. For the student this section, which consists of some fifteen lines and occupies a quarto page, is useless; for the ordinary reader it is misleading.

Dr. Richardson in the same volume treats of the Lives of Illustrious Men by Jerome and Gennadius, in which the questions relating to text and editions are certainly of less importance than they are in the case of Theodoret. Here are some specimens of the way in which they are treated:

'The manuscripts of Jerome and Gennadius are numerous. The translator has seen 84 MSS. of Jerome and 57 of Gennadius, and has certain memoranda of at least 25 more and hints of still another score' (p. 354).

The following list of editions is printed as illustrative. It does not pretend to be complete, but is simply a list of such as have been personally examined by the translator up to date' (p. 355). (Here follows a paragraph which is too technical for quotation.)

'Text. It was proposed at first to make the translation from the text of Herding. This, and all editions, gave so little basis for scientific certainty in regard to various readings that a cursory examination of MSS. was made. . . . The translator hoped to finish and publish the new text before the translation was needed for this series, but classification of the MSS. proved unexpectedly intricate and the question of the Greek translation so difficult that publication has been delayed. The material has however been gathered, analyzed, sifted and arranged sufficiently to give reasonable certainty as to the body of the work and a tolerably reliable judgment on most of the important variations.'

"The following translation has been made first from the text of Herding and then corrected from the manuscripts in all places where the evidence was clearly against the edition. In places where the evidence is fairly conclusive the change has been made and a brief statement of evidence given in the notes. When the evidence is really doubtful the reading has been allowed to stand with evidence generally given' (p. 356),

and so on.