to abandon his attempt to distinguish between his 'Western' and his 'Alexandrian' readings, and thus destroyed the basis of what is called his theory, depends on a double misconception. The recognition of the fact that Origen sometimes used a MS either 'Western' or containing a large 'Western' element did indeed render it impossible to affirm that a reading found in Origen must needs be 'Alexandrian', that is, it prescribed special care in the interpretation of one single source of evidence; but it made no change in other respects: and the Meletemata of 1811, in which the recognition is conveyed, reiterate Griesbach's familiar statements in precise language, while they shew a growing perception of mixture which might have led him to further results if he had not died in the following spring.
255. It is not necessary to our purpose to pass under review the principles and texts of Griesbach's three great successors, all of whom have published texts of a substantially ancient type, and from each of whom, from Tregelles in particular, we have learned much. But we are bound to express our conviction that the virtual abandonment of Griesbach's endeavour to obtain for the text of the New Testament a secure historical foundation in the genealogical relations of the whole extant documentary evidence has rendered the work of all appreciably more imperfect in itself, and less defensible on rational grounds. Such corrections of Griesbach's leading results as have been indicated above (§§ 250—252) would have removed the difficulties which have unquestionably been felt by dispassionate judges, though they have also been distorted and exaggerated by partisans. In taking up his investigations afresh, we have, we trust, found a way not only to make a somewhat nearer approximation to the apostolic text than our immediate predecessors, but also to strengthen the critical bases on which their own texts are for the most part founded.
