112. Generations not a few had passed before the Hieronymic revision had even approximately displaced the chaos of unrevised and imperfectly revised Latin texts; and during the period of simultaneous use the Latin Vulgate, as we may now call it, suffered much in purity by the casual resumption of many readings expelled or refused by Jerome. Scribes accustomed to older forms of text corrupted by unwitting reminiscence the Vulgate which they were copying; so that an appreciable part of Jerome's work had been imperceptibly undone when the Vulgate attained its final triumph. Partly from this cause, partly from the ordinary results of transcription, the Vulgate text underwent progressive deterioration till long after the close of the Middle Ages, notwithstanding various partial attempts at correction. At length the authoritative 'Clementine' revision or recension of 1592 removed many corruptions. Many others however were left untouched, and no critically revised text of the Latin Vulgate New Testament founded systematically on more than one or two of the best MSS has yet been edited. The text of at least two of the best as yet known, and a very few others comparatively good, has however been printed at full length.
113. The existing MSS of the Old Latin Gospels, distinguished by small letters, belong for the most part to the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries: one however (c), strange to say, was written as late as the eleventh century. Hardly any are quite complete, and those which contain more than inconsiderable fragments amount to about fourteen, of which on an average scarcely more than half are extant in any one passage: in this computation Ante-Hieronymic texts of all types are included. Among the few fragments not counted are two leaves which agree closely with one of the comparatively complete MSS: but with this exception all known MSS shew more or less textual individuality, and there are many traces of sporadic and casual mixture. Two of the MSS (e k) are substantially African, a large proportion of their texts being absolutely identical with that of Cyprian, where he differs from European MSS and Fathers; but each has also an admixture of other readings: both are unfortunately very imperfect, e having lost above two-fifths of its contents, chiefly in Matthew and Mark, and k above three-fourths, including the whole of Luke and John. Two other MSS (f q), and one or two fragments, must be classed as 'Italian'. The remaining ten, though
8
