
1797) 
was prefented to the chapter of St. Ser- 
nin; which in the eighth century was a 
convent of monks, and in which it ap- 
pears to have lain entombed for fo mahy 
ages ? 
All that is certainly known, is, that - 
Charlemagne had a particular attach- 
ment and partiality for the city of Tou- 
Joufe. —Some learned men contend, that 
the church of St. Strnin was originally 
built by him, grounding their opiniom, 
with much appearance of plaufibility, on 
a charter of donation granted to that ab- 
bey, inthe year 1463, by king Louis XI, 
Jnthis charter, after mention is made of 
the beautiful /eggregium) monaftery of 
St. Sernin, of Touloute, of the order of St. 
Auguftine, we meet with the following 
explanatory fentence: Quod gloriofe@ re- 
cordationis Carolus magnus preedecefor nofier 
fundavit; & in quo prettofa corpora sex 
apoficlorum, S plurium fandtorum colloca- 
vit. Gregory of Tours, however, afcribes 
the building of St. Sernin to an earlier 
age, for he gives an account of the wife 
of Regnoald, taking refuge in’its fanc- 
tuary two hundred years prior to the 
reign of Charlemagne. Perhaps the dif- 
ficulty may be thus folved :—The word 
fundavit may reter to the donation of 
fands, with which Charlemagne endowed 
the monaftery. ‘Lhe French monks, 
{peaking of an opulent houfe, were ac- 
cuftomed to call it den fondée. Wad the 
build.ng of the monaftery been alluded to 
in the foregoing fentence, the word d- 
ficavit, one fhould imagine, would have 
been ufed as the more appofite term. 
It is well known, however, that Char- 
lemage fent his fon Louis to Teyloufe, 
who there fpent his firft years of infancy, 
_ and there received the rudiments of his 
education, under the infpection of his 
governor, Arnould. At length, this prince 
was recalled to the court of his father, 
the emperor; where after refiding for. 
fome time, he again returned to that 
city, where we find him in the year 736 ; 
and there, on feveral occafions, he con- 
voked the aflembly of the ftates, or the 
parliament. There is reafon to think 
that prince Louis continued to make 
‘Touloufe his refidence till the death of 
his father, which happened in 814; and 
that he never quitted it, unlefs to make 
incurfions into Spain againft the Saracens, 
who then had overfpread and conquered 
that country. It is alfo certain that 
this prince repaired and re-cftablifhed a 
numberof monafteries in different places ; 
and it is highly probable that, among 
others, that of the Auguftins of St. Ser- 
hin was not neglected by him. I may 
Correction of Michaelis. 
31 
fafely conclude, therefore, that this ma- 
nufcript was prefented to the chapter be- 
tween the periods of Charlemagne and 
Louis le Debonnaire ; although, from a 
deficiency of hiftoric monuments, it is 
impoffible to afcertain the exaét time 
with precifion. Your’s, 
Gate 25 LOT ANTIQUARIUS. 
Se aa 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SERy 
‘THE learned Michaelis has eftablithed 
it ‘as a rule, that, critical conjeétures 
are not to be admitted into the facred 
text : and yet confeffes, that fome emen- 
dations have forced themfelves upon him, 
which, in a profane author, he fhould not 
hefitate to adopt. One of thefe propofed 
readings( Vid. Marfh’s Michaelis, vol. II. 
p. 406) ref{pects Acts, chap. xxvii. v. 16. 
Nagioy cers umadpaprovres nvreprevoy Kraudrivy 
[49AES bY Uo AEY Tepiapelerc YEvVEraS ot TNS TALONS, 
where the critic would rejeét the article 
from ts oxapnc, becaufe it implies that 
they had before let down the boat into 
the fea, and had afterwards great diffi- 
culty in recovering it. This, fays he, is 
improbable; becaufe, ift, No reafon 
can be affigned, why they fhould have 
let it down into the fea ina ftorm. adly, 
If they bad let it down, they would have 
been able todraw it up again, unlefs we 
fuppote, what is contrary to reafon, they 
had let it entirely loofe. 3dly, Suppo- 
fing the boat to have been loofe, it does 
not appear that the circumftance of the 
fhip’s being near an ifland, has any con- 
nection with the recovery of this boat. {£ 
would therefore omit the definite article, 
and explain the pafage: ‘¢ Being- near 
an ifland, we fought for help, put could 
not procure a boat to our aihiftance.” 
Thus far Michaelis. ‘ 
Now, in the ift place, to fay nothing 
farther of this monftrous conftruétion, it: 
is impoilible to adopt it, becauie prorrc 
icxvoapey x. t. A, mutt fignify, we found 
a difficulty in gaining the boat,” and not 
that ‘we couldnot procure a boat at all.’ 
Bur, 2dly, a very eafy and obvious fup- 
pofition will remove all the objections 
urged by the profeffor againft the ac- 
knowledged reading of the MSS. Sr, 
Luke is defcribing the ftorm, in which 
St. Paul at laft fuffered fhip-wreck ; and 
it is well known to every perion at all 
acquainted with nautical affairs, that the 
boat, with every thing on deck is fre- 
quently wafhed overboard by the vio- 
lence of the waves. This feems to have 
happened in the voyage of St. Paul; and 
as the fea was running high, pors pro- 
_ perly 













