PREFACE.

and he reports the readings of that same source, as did Feuardentius after him. However, I have learned both from those who have diligently surveyed that library and from letters from friends that it is now missing from that collection. Grabe professes to have used four manuscript codices, as I have said: namely, the one which belonged to Isaac Vossius, that excellent codex praised above, which Dodwell compared most accurately with the copy of Feuardentius, and from which he shared the collected variant readings with Grabe; the Arundel manuscript, now preserved in the library of the Royal Society in London, which he judges to be four hundred years old; and a transcript of variant readings which Grabe says Isaac Vossius had given to Dodwell to copy, having been extracted long ago by Josias Mercerus from two manuscripts of unknown location. But neither Grabe, nor Vossius, nor anyone else besides Josias Mercerus claims to have seen those two codices, nor indicates where they now exist. Indeed, the variant readings which Grabe reports from that transcript agree so thoroughly among themselves in almost everything that they seem to have been excerpted from one and the same codex, or at least from two where one was copied from the other; and both, if there be two, from a recent codex, and one of not very good quality. Unless my conjecture deceives me, I think the Ottobonian codex mentioned above is the very original from which the transcript was first made, and from this another was made: when both came into the hands of Josias Mercerus, he treated them as so many diverse codices. For whatever readings were sent to me from Rome from the Ottobonian manuscript are almost the same as those which Grabe cites from those two codices of Mercerus. Therefore, although the variant readings of those codices are cited by us from Grabe, I would wish the readers to be warned so they do not attribute more faith to them than they deserve and they deserve very little. The Arundel codex seems to have been interpolated altered with unauthorized text either by the scribe himself or by someone more recent; anyone who diligently weighs its readings would recognize this as most likely. Hence there remains only the Vossian codex, whose nature cannot be doubted. And indeed, having compared its readings with the Clermont codices and those which Feuardentius reports from his own ancient codex, I have found it to be ancient and of good quality; and it excels all others that now survive in this: that it alone, by Grabe's testimony, contains the last five chapters of the fifth book. Accordingly, I did not hesitate, where I had these three—the oldest and best of all—in agreement, to restore the text by their authority and to adhere strictly to them while rejecting others, unless they showed open signs of corruption.

Besides the manuscript codices, I did not find it troublesome to consult printed copies, especially the older ones, and sometimes to prefer them where the manuscript codices seemed either depraved or less sound. Thus it happened that I have corrected the text of Irenaeus in very many places where it was either spoiled by ignorance, mutilated by carelessness, or redundant and interpolated by the boldness of half-learned men. I have added what was missing, pruned what was excessive, and correctly separated what was poorly joined: so much so that few things now seem to remain in which the difficulty of the reading might delay the reader. Where the depravity of the copies was manifest, I did not hesitate to emend this either from the Greek words, if a supply of them was available, or from other parallel passages in which the same words occur repeated exactly, or from certain conjectures from elsewhere, also employing the advice of most learned men. This was done, however, rather rarely and with such reverence that the common reading original: "vulgata lectio", however openly corrupt, is preserved at the edge of the book in the margin. Furthermore, this license was restricted to individual words corrupted by the fault of scribes rather than the Latin translator; it never extended to doubtful passages, much less to entire clauses or full periods. I would have considered it a sin to substitute new ones for these on the authority of the Greek text or any other parallel passage. But where that Greek text seemed sounder, I thought it worthwhile to observe this and provide a new interpretation, more accurate than the old Latin one, but placed in the lower margin; so that the old reading might retain its place and authority. We have recorded various readings of any importance below, indicating the codices from which they were taken. If it seemed necessary to change or supplement anything based on their reliability, we did not neglect to warn the readers and provide the reasons for the change, with such reverence that it is to be feared our diligence may seem too subtle to some: but it is better for diligence to be blamed here than for it to be found wanting. Yet, lest we do what has already been done, we did not think that all the errors of prior editions which Feuardentius had already corrected should be brought back: we judged that only the edition of Feuardentius, which was in everyone's hands, should be emended; only those things being observed and reviewed among the variant readings which seemed more significant and sounder in other editions.

No less care was applied in reviewing that part of the Greek text which survives;