PREFACE.

It is clear that it was suggested to the holy Doctor that he should render the entire Latin version into agreement with that the Greek exemplar by means of obelisks and asterisks, according to the truth of the original Greek text. That this was indeed performed by him, even without having to conjecture, is a manifest indication. These arguments, which are well-posed in appearance, yet possess the force of what they call a negative argument, are completely refuted by the singular history of the deed. Jerome praises only six books—those which they call "by name"—as having been corrected by his own study, not because he did not bestow the same effort upon others, but because, as he says elsewhere, he had already committed only these to the honor of publication. Nor could he, in truth, vouch for the reliability of any others than those which had been brought to light; nor was it in his interest to mention the others one by one in the prefaces to his version from the Hebrew, since they were contained within his house, shut up in a cabinet, and could not be consulted by the reader to establish the veracity of the matter. Moreover, perhaps many things had already been compiled by some unknown person, for the holy Interpreter himself complains of this in the end of his 134th letter to Augustine:

I cannot obey your commands, he says, especially regarding the edition of the Seventy, which is distinguished by asterisks and spits an archaic term for the obelisk symbol; for we have lost most of the former work through the fraud of some person.

Thus, it was not to his advantage to mention by part those labors which he himself now lacked. It is fortunate for our purpose, however, that he calls "most things" those which were then commonly available and which now still survive, so that you may understand from this very place that the entire edition had been reviewed by him.

Now, as to the fact that the small prefaces themselves, with which he was accustomed to fortify each book, are missing, even though those which he prepared for the lost books of Solomon and Chronicles survive: this is by no means an indication that the other books were not corrected. Rather, it proves exactly what we were saying—that they were not published by him. For the holy Doctor was in the habit of prefixing prefaces to his works only when he was making them public property and dedicating them to one of his friends. Finally, it is false to claim that no other works were known to ancient writers besides those mentioned. Saint Augustine himself, in a letter among those of Jerome (116), having previously only admired the version of Job, indicates later that he had been made aware of the review of the entire Canon; and he says to Jerome:

I beg you to send your interpretation of the Seventy, which I did not know you had published.

Cassiodorus is much clearer, who indicates that those very parts which Jerome had lost were found by him and restored to the body of that edition. The third division, he says, Instit. Divin. ch. 13, is in a larger codex written in clearer letters, which has 95 quaternions, in which the translation of the Old Testament by the Seventy Interpreters is contained in forty-four books. To this are joined twenty-six books of the New Testament: and they are altogether seventy books, in that number of palms, etc.

This text, varied by the translation of many, was corrected by the diligent care of Father Jerome and left compiled. In this way, the context and title of his chapter, Concerning the Hieronymian Emendation of the Translation according to the Seventy Interpreters, prove that the author speaks of this: and the editor's note in the margin advises that that text is called the Seventy Interpreters corrected by the blessed Jerome.

Truly, I do not deny that I have some doubt whether the care of Father Jerome, which Cassiodorus praises, should be referred to the review of the New Testament alone. But the testimonies of the holy Interpreter himself are greater than any exception, by which, when he says that the edition of the Seventy was corrected by him from the Greek into Latin haplos simply/plainly, and opposes it to the other translation from the Hebrew, it is manifest that he denotes not a few books, but the entire Canon. That famous place is in letter 112, to Augustine, no. 19:

Regarding your question as to why my former interpretation of the Canonical books has asterisks and little lines marked beforehand, and why I later edited another translation without these signs, if I may speak with your permission, you seem not to understand what you asked. For that interpretation is of the Seventy Interpreters; and wherever there is a little line, that is, obelisks, they signify, etc.

And a little later:

I have not tried to abolish the old things, which I translated corrected from the Greek into Latin for the men of my own tongue, so much as, etc.

More clearly in the prologue to the books of Solomon from the Hebrew: If the edition of the Seventy Interpreters pleases anyone more, he has it corrected by us. And book II against Rufinus: Have I spoken anything against the Seventy Interpreters, whom I gave to those studying my own tongue many years ago, having corrected them most diligently? And likewise in book III, in almost the same words: I gave the edition of the Seventy to the men of my tongue many years ago, having corrected it most diligently. He has similar things in letter 71, to Lucinius: I do not doubt that you have the edition of the Seventy Interpreters, and I handed it over to the studious many years ago, having corrected it most diligently. Finally, to omit others, in letter 106 to Sunnia and Fretela, where he teaches how much there is between the Common Koine Common and the Hexaplar edition...