176 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2°<i S. VIII. Aug. 27. '59. 



entitled Britannicus, noted 61. in the first part of 

 Wetstein's New Testament, in the second 40., and 

 in the third 34. It contains the whole of the 

 New Testament, but is written in a modern hand, 

 and is probably of the sixteenth century. The 

 leaves are of thick glazed paper, which Ycard 

 mistook for vellum. It is preserved in the library 

 of Trinity College in Dublin, marked G 97. A 

 facsimile is given of the verse from this MS. by 

 Bruns (Eichhorn's Repertorium, iii. 260.), and by 

 Bishop Burgess, I think. It is justly objected to 

 this reading that it is ungrammatical, the articles 

 before the words irar^p, \6yos and Trvev/xa. aywv being 

 omitted, and the words iv r^ yfi being used instead 

 of iirl Trjs 77)y, and that it omits the words koI ol 

 rpus €is rb eV elaiv (and these three are one). II. 

 The MS. of the New Testament, No. 195., en- 

 titled Ravii or Berolinensis (No. 110. in Wet- 

 stein) : — 



" The very learned and sagacious La Croze," says Mi- 

 chaelis (n. viii. s. 6. p. 294.), " who being librarian in 

 Berlin, had this MS. frequently in his hands, and was 

 able to examine the subject with the utmost precision, 

 maintains that it is the work of an impostor, written long 

 after the invention of printing, even so late as the seven- 

 teenth century, and copied from the Complutensian Bible. 

 Even the errors of the press are copied in this MS." 



in. A MS. of the First Epistle of John, No. 131., 

 entitled Guelpherbytanus D. (Michaelis, ii. viii. 

 s. 6. p. 263.). Under the Greek text is written, 

 1. the translation of Castalio ; 2. the Latin trans- 

 lation of the Syriac text ; 3. the Vulgate ; 4. the 

 translations of Erasmus, Vatablus, and Beza. It 

 was written in the seventeenth century, and, in 

 the opinion of Michaelis, is entitled neither to a 

 collation nor a description. IV. The Codex Otto- 

 bonianus, No. 298. in the Vatican library, which 

 was first collated by Dr. Scholz for his new edi- 

 tion of the Greek Testament. This MS. is of the 

 fifteenth century, and has been altered, according 

 to Scholz, in many places, to make it harmonise 

 with the Latin Vulgate. Cardinal Wiseman sup- 

 plied Home with a facsimile for the last edition 

 of his Introduction (Wright's Appendix to Seller's 

 Hermeneutics, p. 616.). I will only add that its 

 existence in the Latin Vulgate dates probably 

 from the end of the fifth century, and that Vigi- 

 lius, Bishop of Thapsus in Africa, the supposed 

 author of the (so called) Athanasian Creed, had a 

 hand in its introduction either as a gloss or part 

 of the text (Wright, p. 628.). T. J. Buckton. 

 Lichfield. 



C. J. Hare's Orthographical Peculiarities (2°^ 

 S. viii. 129.) — A correspondent, S. S. S., asks, 

 ^' Did the late C. J. Hare, in any of his publi- 

 cations, give his reason for deviating from the 

 usual mode of spelling words, e. g. preacht., v^urpt, 

 &c. ?" 



I answer. Yes, in several places; but most fully, 

 perhaps, in an article in the first volume of the 

 (Cambridge) Philological Museum (1832), " On 

 English Orthography." 



The general purport of Mr. Hare's remarks is 

 this : — That preacht, usurpt, and the like are 

 really the English preterites of preach, usurp, &c., 

 as appears by this, that we pronounce the words 

 so, even when written preached, usurped. That 

 the cause of persons so writing them is an igno- 

 rant propensity to make verbs uniform in appear- 

 ance which are different in reality, and is a practice 

 contrary to the authority of our best writers in 

 former generations. The whole article is able and 

 interesting. 



With regard to your correspondent's other 

 Query, " Did Horsley ever say why he adopted 

 the antique form of the preterite of to lead, to 

 read, &c., viz. ledde, redde ?" 



I cannot at present turn to the passage, but the 

 reason in the case of redde is obvious enough, viz. 

 to distinguish the preterite from the present read. 

 In the common spelling there is no possibility of 

 knowing whether I read is present or past. We 

 might, indeed, make the preterite I red, like I led; 

 nor is it probable that any ambiguity would arise 

 from red the adjective. Lord Byron in his letters 

 used redde. 



Can any of your correspondents suggest a way 

 of distinguishing, in pronunciation, the preterites 

 of I ride and I row ? or the vegetables furze and 

 firs ? W. W. 



Conf. Amenities of Literature (D'Israeli), vol. ii. 

 p. 25., last edition : — 



" That a language should be written as it is spoken has 

 been considered desirable by the most intelligent scholars. 

 Some have laudably persevered in writing the past tense 

 red as a distinction from the present read, and anciently I 

 have found it printed redde. Lord Byron has even re- 

 tained the ancient mode in his Diarv." 



H. S. G. 



Torture (2"* S. vi. 432.) — The Query, Was 

 torture ever allowed by the laws of England ? 

 admits of a ready answer. It was never allowed 

 by the laws of England, but it was inflicted in 

 England from the reign of Henry Vt. to the 

 reign of Charles I., both inclusive, by virtue of 

 what was then considered the royal prerogative, 

 which at that period was also considered to be 

 above the law. 



It was inflicted by order of the Privy Council, 

 and as the books of the Privy Council commence 

 in the reign of Henry VIII., no earlier torture 

 warrants have been discovered. Mr. Jardine, the 

 Recorder of Bath, and one of the magistrates of 

 the Police Court at Bow Street, has in his ad- 

 mirable work, A Reading on Torture, shown fifty- 

 five instances of the infliction of torture. I say 

 instances, because in one instance ten persons are 

 included in one warrant. The warrants bear the 



