Forgery Case against Alexandrinus based on Clement Epistle
Peregrinus Proteus: An Investigation into certain Relations subsisting between De Morte Peregrini, the Two Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians, the Epistle to Diognetus, the Bibliotheca of Photius, and other Writings. (1879)
p. 58
https://books.google.com/books?id=TvEDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA58
Peregrinus Proteus: An Investigation into certain Relations subsisting between De Morte Peregrini, the Two Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians, the Epistle to Diognetus, the Bibliotheca of Photius, and other Writings. By J. M. COTTERILL. (Edinburgh : T. and T. Clark, 1879. 8vo, pp. 359.]
The object of this book is startling enough. It endeavours to prove that the following writings are forgeries, produced by one author,
or one group of authors, during the revival of learning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries :
Lucian, De Morte Peregrini.
The Apocryphal Gospel of St. Thomas.
Both Epistles of St. Clement of Rome.
Photii Bibliotheca, codd. 126, 232, 244, 250, 279.
Galen, De Prænotione ad Epigenem.
Basil, De Legendis Libris Gentilium and De Spiritu Sancto, capp.
xxix., xxx.
Justin Martyr, Oratio ad Græcos and Epistola ad Diognetum.
Joannes Damascenus, Epistola ad Theophilum and Prefaces to
Sacra Parallela.
Achilles Tatius, Clitophontis et Leucippes Amores.
The Third Book of Maccabees.
All these documents (it is said) are composed on nearly the same plan, are closely linked together amongst themselves, are connected together in certain writings which they used in common. The arguments advanced in favour of this hypothesis involve such a minute examination of the impugned writings themselves, and such a close comparison of other Greek authors, that it is impossible for us to pass them in review in these pages. We are sorry to say that they are not so lucidly stated as we could have wished, nor is the book well arranged.
The author perceives that the main interest will attach to the First Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians; and he has laboured to make the case against its genuineness as strong as possible. He maintains that it was compiled (as a literary exercise rather than for any polemical purpose) by some scholar of the fifteenth or the sixteenth century, who incorporated into it the quotations from St. Clement found in ancient fathers, and who betrays in the other portions of it the reminiscences of his own reading. For instance, evidence is adduced to show, from words and phrases occurring in the epistle, that the writer of it was acquainted with the fragments of Euripides as they are given in succession by Stobæus, with the scholia on the Plutus of Aristophanes, and especially with Lucian De Morte Peregrini. It would not be fair to give specimens of the suspicious phenomena brought forward, as the indictment is based on the accumulation of them, and not on their significance when taken singly.
But we certainly consider that in preferring so serious a charge,
the external evidence ought not to be passed over so lightly as it is. No doubt, Mr. Cotterill would say that having proved the epistle to be spurious from internal evidence, he must leave other inquirers to deal with the external. But the charge against St. Clement's Epistles is a charge against the Codex Alexandrinus, which contains them. Our author contends that the three existing MSS. of St. Clement are three forgeries, written by the same man from one archetype or original draft, the departures from it being so contrived as to furnish three, apparently, independent witnesses. Does he consider the whole of the Codex Alexandrinus to be a forgery of the same ingenious description? If not, what grounds has he for separating the Epistles of St. Clement from the rest? If he does, he is taking up a position of such astounding boldness, that he is bound to defend it at length. The Codex Alexandrinus is of far too much importance to be dealt with in the following summary manner :
"We have already said that Cyril Lucar, the reforming Patriarch of Constantinople, gave the Codex Alexandrinus, to which A.1 is appended, to Charles I. in 1628. We need not doubt that he brought it with him from Alexandria; and we may think, if we please, that he took it with him to Alexandria. The ownership of A. cannot be traced beyond Cyril."
The discovery of the other two manuscripts of St. Clement within the last five years is certainly remarkable. It has forced upon Mr. Cotterill his theory of triple forgery, and his position is thereby hampered more than it would have been, if he had had to account for one MS. only.
It is possible, however, that he has done good service in pointing out how many were the inducements and facilities for the forgery of ancient documents in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. There was an enormous demand for manuscripts; every monastery was ransacked for them, and every scholar tried to collect them; when they were once produced, an inquiry into their history was almost impossible. The art of writing books on parchment was not lost, but practised constantly in all its forms. The imitation of classical authors was a favourite exercise among students, and many scholars were competent to produce writings, the style and diction of which would enable them to pass as genuine works of the ancients. Mr. Cotterill dwells particularly on the life and character of Henry Stephens (1528-1598). It is shown that he had abundant oppor
• The Epistles of St. Clement are in the same hand as the latter part of the New Testament (Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T., p. 80). The letters A., C., and S. are used to denote the three manuscripts of St. Clement's Epistles.
tunities for perpetrating literary frauds of this kind, that his honesty in such matters is not above suspicion, and that he had studied with interest the art of forming parodies or centos from celebrated authors. Whatever verdict may be pronounced on Mr. Cotterill's book as a whole, no one can deny that his first two chapters contain many valuable suggestions.
