possible that it may be a vernacular form of superlative? The examples cited by Rönsch seem sufficient to establish this use. Thus malus malus''pessimus;' merenti merenti'' merentissimo;' 'fortis fortis,' 'pii pii,' 'felicis felicis'='fortissimi,' 'piissimi,' 'felicissimi.' It is true that all these examples are taken from inscriptions: but it is just in inscriptions, where vernacular speech comes out, that analogies should be sought for the Old Latin. Phenomena like these carry us back to a very early stage in the history of the Version. The common archetype of k and Cyprian is, if not quite, yet very nearly the most primitive form that we can trace. Every step that we take towards recovering it seems to widen the gap which separates it from the other stem or stems, including a b, and d. What precisely is its relation to these must be a matter of further inquiry1. For the present it must suffice to have definitely localised its use, and to have identified its two parallel offshoots in the texts of k and Cyprian. The close relation of these texts is a fixed point of great importance. Neither Irenaeus nor Tertullian furnishes anything comparable to it 2. Instead of explaining the complexities of the problem, they seem rather to increase them. The first and surest clue that we have to guide us through the maze is this affinity of k with Cyprian. § 11. Relation of k to e (Cod. Palatinus) in St. Matthew. The relation of k and Cyprian is, however, only a part of the problem more immediately presented to us; k is extant, roughly speaking, for half the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. In much of the remainder of these Gospels, and in the other two Gospels, its place It may not, perhaps, be out of place to mention that I am at present engaged on this inquiry in conjunction with Mr. H. J. White, M.A. of Christ Church. We hope to be able to publish some results before very long. In the meantime, if I speak somewhat guardedly and indefinitely, it is because the analysis of the oldest texts which we have begun is not yet complete. 2 For some of the reasons of this see Hort, Introduction, pp. 78, 160, also Studia Biblica, p. 245 Tertullian's evidence is confused by his practice of translating for himself directly from the Greek, and Dr. Hort places the Latin version of Irenaeus in the fourth century, not in the second. I hope to have more to say on Irenaeus and Tertullian later. is taken by the Vienna MS. e (Cod. Palatinus), which is about equal to it in date. The affinity which subsists between k and Cyprian, where they cover the same ground, is found also to subsist in a general way between e and Cyprian. What then is the relation of these MSS. to each other? Most fortunately we have an opportunity of judging of this. For though as a rule the two MSS. do not overlap, and where one is extant the other is wanting, yet there is one passage of considerable length, besides some smaller fragments, where both run together. The longer passage is nearly the whole of the chapter, St. Matthew xiii. The readiest way to exhibit the relation of the two MSS. will be to print their text side by side. And in order to bring to bear as much illustrative matter as possible we will place between them in a third column the parallel passages, so far as they are extant, in e from the other synoptic Gospels, and also the three available quotations from Cyprian. The other early patristic quotations have been collected, but do not supply anything of importance for our present purpose. The relation of e and k to each other, or to each other and Cyprian, as well as their relation to the other oldest texts (a b d), may be represented to the eye by the use of different type. Thick type denotes readings in which ek, or ek Cyprian, are combined against the other oldest texts. A double caret (A) denotes omissions found only in the same group of authorities. Ordinary type represents readings which are common to e and k, with one or more of the oldest texts. Italics denote readings which are peculiar (in the text of St. Matthew) to the MS. in which they occur. A single caret (^) denotes omissions of the same kind peculiar to the particular MS. or authority. Words or parts of words in small capitals are found in e and some other MS. or authority not k, or in k and some other MS. or authority not e. e (St. Matt. xiii.) e (St. Luke viii. 8.) k (St. Matt. xiii.) clamabat Qui habet aures audiendi audiat. 9 'Qui habet aures, A audiat. Interrogabant autem illum Qui habet aures, ▲ audiat. Cyprian Testim. ii. 27, e (St. Luke viii. 11.) k (St. Matt. xiii.) huius, et auricula peius obtura, et oculis eorum grauia, ne forte conuertantur Ʌ 16 Uestri autem felices ooculi quoniam uident, et aures uestrae quoniam audiunt. 17Amen ENIM ( = d) dico uobis quoniam multi profetae et iusti concupierunt uidere quae uidetis, et non AUDIERUNT ( = a), et audire quae audistis, et non uiderunt. 18 Uos ergo audite simili- 20 Quod autem in petrosis |