we are not sure that the manner in which standard text' is mentioned by the learned Author in this work may not be considered by some of its readers as attaching that character to the received text. Dr. Laurence himself is too sound a scholar to sanction that notion: we intend the remark, not for him, but for his readers. The foregoing extract will convince some of our readers that he has exposed himself to animadversions not only by the style of his censure, but by the assumptions which he has introduced. To what established theories,' might a disciple of Griesbach inquire, does Dr. Laurence refer?

As an excess of fourteen readings assigns the manuscript A, on the preceding mode of comparison, to the Alexandrine class, in which, according to Griesbach, it ranks, Dr. L. remarks that he is not contending for the alliance of A to one class in preference to another, but solely for the true method of classification; and that possibly a more accurate investigation of readings may produce a greater difference in the result of their respective calculations. His next object therefore is to ascertain

the truth of this statement.

Rejecting the numbers of Griesbach as inaccurate, his learned examiner proceeds to consider the affinities of A, first with the Byzantine and the Alexandrine texts, and subsequently with the Byzantine and the Western; according to the numbers in his own Appendix, in illustration of the proposed mode of comparison, including both the agreements and disagreements of the manuscript. The manuscript A agrees with the received text in opposition to Origen or the Alexandrine text four hundred and forty-four times. The agreements of A with Origen, where the Byzantine reads alone, are one hundred and fifty-four, which constitute the agreements of A with the Alexandrine text. The latter amount deducted from the former leaves two hundred and ninety readings in favour of the agreement of A with the Byzantine text.-The result of the disagreements is as follows: A in conjunction with the Byzantine text deviates from Origen four hundred and forty-four times: A also deviates from both the Byzantine text and Origen one hundred and forty times, which make the disagreements of A with the Alexandrine text or Origen five hundred and eighty-four. After a similar mode the deviations of A in union with Origen, from the Byzantine text, are one hundred and fifty-four, to which, if the deviations of A from both texts, stated at one hundred and forty, be subjoined, the amount will be two hundred and ninety-four, and these form the disagreements of A with the Byzantine text; which deducted from five hundred and eighty-four, the disagreements of A with the Alexandrine text, leave two hundred and ninety, as in the case of the agreements, in favour of the agreement of A with the Byzantine.

The alliance of the manuscript A to the Byzantine text, being thus established on a comparison with the Alexandrine and the Byzantine texts, Dr. Laurence next investigates its affinity, on a comparison with the Byzantine and the Western texts; taking as an exemplar of the latter the Codex Boernerianus, or manuscript G, which was published by Matthaei, at Meissen, in Saxony, in 1791; and gives the following results. The agreements of A with the Byzantine text, in opposition to G or the Western, are two hundred and eighty: the agreements of A with G, or the Western text, in opposition to the Byzantine, are one hundred and twenty-three; which sum subtracted from the preceding, leaves one hundred and fifty-seven in support of the alliance of A to the Byzantine. Upon a similar computation of the disagreements, the deviations of A in conjunction with the Byzantine text from G, or the Western, amounting to two hundred and eighty, being added to the deviations of A from both, stated at one hundred and sixty-nine, make together four hundred and forty-nine. So also on the other side, A with G deviates from the Byzantine one hundred and twenty-three times, to which, if the deviations of A from both-one hundred and sixty-nine-be added, the amount will be two hundred and ninety-two, which deducted from four hundred and forty-nine, leaves a remainder of one hundred and fifty-seven against the affinity of A to G. From these remarks it appears that the affinity of the manuscript A is much greater to the Byzantine text, than either to the Western, or to the Alexandrine.

Dr. Laurence flatters himself that error does not often, if at all occur in his own case. In this supposition however he is mistaken. His errors are numerous, and that they may furnish the occasion of greater care in future collators, we shall point them out.

In animadverting on Griesbach, p. 41. for improperly attributing the reading + Ta. 1 Cor. ii. 15. to the manuscript G. Dr. Laurence himself furnishes an instance of the same mode of erring in his own citation from Griesbach, who does not quote the manuscript E in the list of authorities for that addition. P. 42. 7 instead of 17, is put with ADEF; and 1 Cor. vii. 13. instead of 1 Cor. vii. 32. Several other errors of the same kind occur in the Appendix; for example, p. 98. + 1 Col. i. 16. should be T. Ibid. ii. 11 + not ήμων. P. 109. 1 Cor. x. 1. 80 is put for 74, al. 6 instead of 6, and Hilary should be omitted. P. 112. Rom. ii. 5. avtaTodaσens is the reading of the Codex Alexandrinus, not arrazodows. This error occurs also in p. 68. The following errors are more important.

Page 95. BEVOUσ Rom. v. 17. is reckoned twice, constant and inconstant: so is aun Rom. ix. 12. so is xaap. ibid. ix. 13. and 'autov Coloss. i. 20. marta thougws 1 Tim. vi. 17. is

also reckoned twice, pp. 98, 106. 1 Cor. xiv. 8. (p. 97.) παρασκευάζεται should be transferred to the agreements of A with Origen. 2 Cor. xii. 7. p. 101. xorafiey should not have been reckoned, as the last two letters are wanting in the manuscript A, which makes its reading uncertain in this place. Besides these errors in the extracts from Origen, there are four readings p. 96. which should not have been inserted, as those verses are wanting in A. 1 Cor. vi. 3. + . ibid. 4. εξουθενωμένους for εξουθενημένους : ix. 2. + και. ibid. μου της for της έμης.

The following instances of agreement in A, C, and Origen, and of A with Origen, unnoticed by Dr. Laurence, will shew how imperfectly he has collated his authorities.

Rom. vii. 3. + yun after xnμation. A unnoticed by Griesbach, and strangely included by Dr. Laurence in the readings of A alone. P. 112. Rom. viii. 11.xas A, 39, 47. unnoticed by Griesbach. xii. 19. exdixnous for exdixnais. A unnoticed by Griesbach. 1 Cor. v. 8. εopтaloμey for Eоpтawμ. A D E unnoticed by Griesbach. vi. 16.. A. Epiph. Cyr. Ambr. unnoticed by Griesbach. vii. 34. τῷ σώματι και τῳ πνευματι for σωματι και πνευματι. A unnoticed by Griesbach. ix. 21. χριστου for Χριστώ, A B C D

E F G. x. 4. πνευματικον επιον πομα for by Griesbach. xiii. 11.de. ABD 67. Ambrst. unnoticed by πομα πνευματικον επιον unnoticed Griesbach. xiv. 8. παρασκευάζεται for παρασκευάσεται. Α. unnoticed by Griesbach. 1 Cor. xv. 19. εν χριστῳ ηλπικοτες εσμέν for ηλπικοτες EOMEY EV XPLOTY. A B D E F G, 17, 31, 37. Theop. Iren. Ambrst. noticed by Dr. Laurence in the agreements of A with G. Ibid. 28, Ta before the last Tara A. 2 Cor. ii. 16. + ex A C, occurs twice, reckoned only once by Dr. Laurence. Eph. iii. 6. Tw before x. A. Philip. ii. 5.=yap A B C, 17. 37. unnoticed by Griesbach. Coloss. ii. 2. Twv auapтia. 2 Thess. ii. 4. aπoduxvuorta for aоduxruva. A F G. 1 Tim. i. 1. των αμαρτιών, ADFG, 17. 31, 38. Vulg. Ambr. unnoticed by Griesbach. Ibid. ix. ras is given in the deviations of Origen, p. 103. it iş also wanting in A.

=

= κυριού.

In the derivations of the manuscript A. p. 112. there are the following errors. Rom. vii. 3. + yun (not before yum as Dr. Laurence by mistake inserts it. 1 Cor. v. 8. copraoμev. 1 Tim, i. 1.=xupio. belong to the agreements of A with Origen. 1 Cor. viii. 6. for, and xv. 23. TOU should not have been reckoned, as A agrees with the received text in those readings. These with 1 Cor. ix. 20. already noticed in the differences of AC from Origen, make six instances to be deducted from one hundred and forty, the deviations of A from Origen according to Dr. Laurence's computation-they will then be one hundred and thirty-four. To the agreements of A with Origen, reckoned by him to be one hundred and fifty-four, the above nineteen are to be added, making the number one hundred and seventy

three. From the deviations of Origen, which he calculates at four hundred and forty four, eleven are to be deducted, which reduces the number to four hundred and thirty three ;-but as Dr. Laurence adopts in his comparisons the number of readings as stated, p. 103, which are four hundred and forty four, excluding the larger number four hundred and fifty five, as it appears in p. 104, our corrections will leave the former as the sum. We have still to add, that in the deviations of Origen, Dr. Laurence's reckonings are strangely incorrect, as he has omitted many readings which occur in the second volume of the Symbolæ, which he professes to have very carefully collated. He informs us that he has given all the readings of Origen which a diligent investigation enabled him to discover in the Epistles of Paul. We have gone over the same ground, and can assure him that the omissions in his catalogue are not a few. In censuring Griesbach for his want of correctness, Dr. Laurence remarks that accuracy of collation, where it is easily obtainable, may be expected. In another part of his work, however, he very properly observes, that the extreme toil and irksomeness of making" extracts of this kind, are apt to confuse the eye, and weary the mind, and that in so dry and dull an investigation, error, If the benefit of these perhaps, is more or less unavoidable.

remarks be conceded to Griesbach, we are equally willing to allow it to his examiner, whose numerous errors in so limited a portion of the critical field, furnish a better apology for Griesbach, than any which we might elaborate on his be half.

(To be concluded in our next Number.)

Art. II. Voyage dans le Nord de l'Europe; consistant principalement de Promenades en Norwège, et de quelques Courses en Suède, dans l'Année MDCCCVII. Avec une Relation Descriptive des Costumes et Manières des Natifs, et des Sites extraordinaires de la Contrée. Suivi d'un Appendice, contenant des Remarques historiques et physiques, &c. &c. &c. et des Itineraires du Pays. Par A. Lamotte. Avec des Planches, et une Carte de Norwège, &c. 4to. pp. 244. Prix 21. 2s. Hatchard. 1813*.

NORWAY is the principal subject, as the title expresses,

of

this elegant volume; since the publication of which, a little affair has occurred relatively to that country, or to its inha

*There has appeared a second edition, in octavo, price 15s. We presume it contains all the plates. The price of the 4to. is rather exorbitant, even allowing for the beauty of those plates.

bitants; an affair which, indeed, could not, half a century since, have been spoken of in such diminutive terms without exciting considerable surprise in the hearer. The country with its people, or the people with its country, taken either way a perfectly traffickable property, has been transferred entire, in fee simple, to a new owner. This acquirer was detested by the human portion of his bargain; there was a war about the matter; but the combination of force, skill, treachery, and starvation, soon put it practically out of controversy; it ended with some. nauseous cajolery at taking possession; the friends of justice had a very short allowance of time to deplore and execrate, before other subjects presented themselves to draw their indignation; and now the whole transaction is nearly gone from remembrance. Such are the times in which we live.

"What thou doest do quickly." The period is, by the magnitude of its iniquities, and by the oblivion of each at the prompt appearance of the next, so incomparably auspicious to all those perpetrations which would be the most obnoxious to infamy in less disordered times, that it will be policy in such schemers of evil, on the great scale or the small, as would deprecate being the objects of the marked and protracted reprobation of their contemporaries, to take advantage of the season, and hasten the execution of their designs-unless indeed they judge there is little cause to fear any such slackening in the rapidity of the succession of odious transactions, as to give time for attention and detestation to fix long on theirs.

The country had enjoyed, at the time of our Author's visit, a very long period of tranquillity; and it was chiefly because the rest of Europe was not then in that state that the excursion took this northerly direction. Two young Oxonians, -Sir Thomas Ackland and another gentleman, had profited so much by the discipline of the college, as to be judged capable of reaping a wider field of instruction than the breadth of England could furnish; and Mr. Lamotte, a French gentleman who had resided many years, and obtained letters of naturalization, in England, received applications, conveyed, it seems, in the most flattering style of politeness, from the respective families, soliciting him to undertake the office of Mentor to the two young gentlemen during their foreign movements, but with what precise degree of authority over them is not stated. However that matter might be, it should seem he found no cause of complaint against them. He reports their behaviour as exemplary; and he was peculiarly gratified by the ability and activity of Sir T. Ackland, who, among other accomplishments, was qualified for the department of draughtsman, while the office of historian devolved on Mr. Lamotte him