2n<> S. VII. Mar. 12. '69.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



211 



by a Latin translation of Gaspard de Bartb. 

 There are thus extant three Latin translations of 

 the TheopTirastus in addition to the original Greek 

 text. 



The reference of Gibbon for the passage above 



Juoted is to the eighth volume * of the Bihliotheca 

 ^atrum (pp. 664 — 665.), which contains, not the 

 Greek text, but only the Latin translation of Jo- 

 hannes Wolfius. The passage which should cor- 

 respond to the translation of Gibbon is the 

 following : — 



" Ipse ego hos viros vidi, et loquentes audivi, et vocem 

 adeo articulatam esse posse miratus sum. Instrumentum 

 vocis inquirebam, et auribus non credens, oculis judieandi 

 niunus remisi, atq' ore aperto linguam totam radicitus 

 evulsam vidi, ac stupefactus mirabar non sane quo pacto 

 vocem conformarent, sed quomodo conservati essent." 



It will be seen that the above passage does not 

 contain any allusion to the opinion of physicians 

 respecting the excision of the tongue. I have 

 examinecl the Greek text, as it was published by 

 Earth in 1655, and as it has since been published 

 in the 10th volume of Galland's edition of the 

 Bibliotlieca Patrum. I have likewise examined 

 the Latin translation of Traversari, and of Barth ; 

 but I have not found the trace of any passage 

 which could justify the translation of Gibbon. 



The real original of that translation is to be 

 found in Ruinart's edition of the History of the 

 Vandal Persecution by Victor Vitensis. Attached 

 to that work, in the 7th chapter of an'Historical 

 Commentary on the persecution, Ruinart has col- 

 lected the evidence for the power of speech attri- 

 buted to the African Confessors ; and amongst other 

 testimony, he quotes, word for word, the identical 

 Latin translation of Johannes Wolfius above tran- 

 scribed, and he gives, in addition, as part of the 

 quotation, the following woirds : " Dicit medicorum 

 doctrina, contestatiir etiam et natura, quia Ungues iti- 

 cisio interfectio est ejus a quo inciditur." It seems 

 evident that Gibbon made a condensed translation 

 of this passage. 



As far as Gibbon is concerned, there is a simple 

 explanation of his error. In note 90, to his 37th 

 chapter, in specifying the authorities for the Va7i- 

 dal Persecution, he makes honourable mention of 

 Ruinart, as one who " has illustrated the whole 

 subject with a copious and learned apparatus of 

 notes and supplement :" and in many other notes 



• The work referred to by Gibbon as Biblioth. Patrum, 

 and Biblioth. Maxim. Patrum, is an edition in 27 volumes 

 folio, printed at Lej'den 1677, bearing the title of Ma.xima 

 Bibliotlieca veterum Patrum et Antiquorum Scriptorum 

 Ecclesiasticorum. A copy of it is now in the reading-room 

 of the British Museum, Compartment 2006, with the 

 words " La Bigue, Bibliotlieca Patrum " lettered on the 

 back. It does not contain the Greek text of any author. 

 The edition of Galland, in 14 vols, folio (Venetiis, 1765 — 

 1781), has, with the omission of the word " Maxima," 

 precisely the same title ; but it contains, in vol. x. (pp. 

 6.29—664.), the Greek text of the Theophrastus as well as 

 the Latin translation of Johannes Wolfius. 



he gives a reference for his statements to Ruinart's 

 edition of Victor Vitensis. Probably Ruinart's 

 quotation directed his attention to JEneas of Gaza ; 

 and Gibbon may then have verified the passage 

 generally in his edition of the Bihliotheca Patrum. 

 Afterwards, as the Greek text of the Theophrastus 

 is not published in that edition, he unsuspectingly, 

 when in the act of translating, made use of Rui- 

 nart's quotation. In doing so, he omitted the 

 clause containing the expression of the spectator's 

 wonder at what he saw, probably from regarding 

 it as relatively of less importance than the opinion 

 of the physicians. And, indeed, any such wonder 

 would be in itself of trifling importance, unless we 

 could form some estimate of iEneas of Gaza's 

 anatomical knowledge, and of his accuracy as an 

 observer. 



The origin, however, of the error in Ruinart is 

 a difierent question, in reference to which it is not 

 easy to suggest a satisfactory explanation. Rui- 

 nart (b. 1657, d. 1709,) was a French Benedictine 

 monk ; and, besides his edition of Victor Vitensis, 

 he published several learned works, of which the 

 one best known is the Acta primorvm Martyrum 

 selecta et sincera ; of which there is a translation 

 both in French and in Italian. At first sight, the 

 possibility suggests itself that the words were 

 originally a Latin marginal note of Ruinart, which 

 at a subsequent period he inadvertently incor- 

 porated with the quotation. There is a difficulty, 

 however, in admitting this, as Ruinart's mind 

 must have dwelt for a certain time on the inter- 

 polated passage. For he makes it the foundation 

 of a suggestion that apneas of Gaza had lear^ied 

 the opinion of physicians from the account given 

 by Eusebius of St. Romanus : that is, not from 

 Eusebius's Greek History of the Martyrs of Pa- 

 lestine (ch. ii.), but from a sermon in a small col- 

 lection of Latin writings which bear the name of 

 Eusebius, but of which there is no Greek original 

 extant. Again, the idea may present itself to 

 some that Ruinart corruptly interpolated the quo- 

 tation from iEneas of Gaza, in the spirit of what 

 is called a pious fraud, in order to enhance the 

 supposed miracle of the tongues. But unless 

 other instances of literary dishonesty can be ad- 

 duced from Ruinart's writings, it would be hard 

 to accuse him of fraud in this one case, which 

 perhaps if he were alive he would be able to ex- 

 plain satisfactorily. And it is especially to be 

 remarked that the interpolated sentence is in such 

 bad Latin that it is difficult to understand how a 

 scholar like Ruinart could have written it. If he 

 wrote it, there was misplaced cunning as well as 

 misplaced piety in the fraud. His intention must 

 have been to imitate the bad Latin of some trans- 

 lations from Greek authors ; but the badness in 

 this counterfeit is carried so far, that it might 

 have furnished a clue for its own detection, as the 

 Latinity is decidedly inferior to the Latinity of 



