Morning journal and courier., 1889-12-12
TEXTS OF THE DIVINE COMEDY.
As Varied and Uncertain as that O1 Many Ancient Classics.
 From the Spectator.)

as manuscripts still survive, exhibiting text already tempered with, which seems to have been written within q score of years after the poets death. But all our texts are second hand. It is reckond that there are nearly three hundred printed editions of the Com- media," and these printed books have as their foundation, more or less directly, some soc MSS, known and registered, besides number more still lying hid in unexamined libraries. Of conrse, the "Commedia" in its substance reappears in them all; but as soon as we begin to compare our copies, and to observe differences, we find an amount of variation, mostly minute, but not seldom i'm portant, which makes us feel the gap which there fig between the editions when we use, printed according to the rules of mordern Italian orthography, and in part grammar, and the poem as it came from the lips or the pen of it's author.
 When for instance we go from our Witteor Giuliani, with their smooth, familiar text to the fac-simile of the Monte Casino manus- cript, or Lord Vernon's reprint of the four first printed editions of the fifteenth century or even of the A1dine text with its repro auctions in the sixteenth, we seem introduce ed to 8 new language-at least, to new mode of representing it--nearer, probably, than anything of modern Italian, to the us. age of the poet. What ordinary reader would guess perokivegio stands for pero ch' 10 veg gioN Moore, p. li.) But this is the least part of the variation. What words did Dante write? is the question which arises, as book after book, and manuscript after manuscript, gives phrase, a construction, name, metaphor differently, making some difference, sone- times an important difference, to the sense or the beauty of the words. That is to say, that the text of the "Commedia," i" like the text of all ancient books, is,when minutely and care- fully examined, found to be less uniformly settled than we unconeciOusly assume when we take up the book as we have it in our cur rent editions. It is, of course, what any one accustomed to the critical study of classical authors would expect. The difference ia that for the dozen or score of manuscripts which form creditable critical outfit for the editor of classical author, we have for the Com | media" list of authorities which are count ed by hundreds; and with this greater num- Der of rival readings claiming to be accredit- | ed by some of these authorities.
 | The result has been that, though there has l been much talk in Italy about codici of the 'Oommedia," chiefly in setting forth the | merits of some favorite copy, nothing was 1 done, even toward the way of preparing the 1 way for the settlement of the text, till the subject was taken up by Witte. The Crusca Academicians,in in their edition Q590 appealed l to mauscripts for the readings which they ap- proved or condemned: but, besides that they avowedly Improved" readings. they, like most people at the time, only counted their manuscripts and did not weigh them, and l were not alive to what might have seemed an obvious truth, except that the critical world
 was 50 long finding it out, that there are man
 uscripts and manuscripts, geed copies and
 bad. Witte broke ground in attempting $ the thing to be done. He enlarged the area of comparison; he formed scholar-like | judgment on the value of his authorities; and he gave an example of a critical text. He ought to have the full and ungrudging praise due to clear view of what was needed, and great care and industry to carry it out with- in what was possible to him. But his work was done under the disadvantages of a first attempt, and he hardly faced the formidable difficulties of the problem which he would have to solve. He did, however, what no one had done before him, and what, perhaps, his successors must be for some time content to do, he prepared the way for dealing with it satisfactorily.
 The work which Witte began has been taken up by Dr. Moore in @ thorough and solid way, which is in the highest degree creditable to English scholarship. His vol- ume of Contributions is step in advance of anything yet said on the subject, not only in England, but in Germany. The immense l mass of materials which confronts the criti cal editor of the "Commedis," comprising l copies which go back to a time not far dis ! tuuV AIOm tuo WTItcIh uodtu, Luuh0S buo shifting and classification of there copies a necessity, if he would not be overwhelmed
 by an almost hopeless task.
 Dr. Moore has made beginning in this
 difficult work, though, with the caution and
 modesty of scholar, he proposes 1t only ai
 beginning. Can this multitude of copies
 be sorted and arranged on any principle'
 He selects number of passages where the
 readings vary, "test passages" as he calls
 them; and he examines and compares the
 readings given by as many manuscripts as
 he can get hold of. The number is large; he
 cites, mainly from his own inspection, ovel
 two hundred. All kinds of unaccountable
 anomalies present themselves; some of the
 most curious variations, and even blunders
 occurring in some of the oldest authorities
 and suggesting the possibilities of changes
 and corrections by the poet himself in cop
 les made in his lifetime. It is curious that
 though in many copies the dialect of the
 scribs-Venetian, Lombard, Tuscan-is SC evident it does not seem to supply mark
 for grouping. Still, in spite of all this ob
 scurity, Dr. Moore thinks that he 6ndi
 traces of one distinct group or family, whict he calls the "Vatican" family, from ia
 nous manuscript which is it's type. Wittt had also thought that he could trace Sisn nese family of copies, though his indications are fainter. This is the point to which the investigation has reached.