b o o k The fecond edition was publiihed at Stockholm, Ì67 2, by
. vu' , the learned Stiernhielm ; it differs from that o f Junius, in
giving the text in Latin, and not inGothick chàràóters.
Notwithftandfng the reputation o f thofe two learned editors
for their critical fkill and exaftnefs, yet Benzelius, firft
librarian of the univerlity, and afterwards archbiihop o f Up-
fala, upon comparing their texts with that o f the original,
difcovered fo many falfe readings and omiffions, that he
again collated thè mariufcript, rectified the miftakes, and
made a literal tranflation in the Latin tongue. And as the
Got hick types o f the firft edition publiihed by Junius were
preferved at Oxford, he tranfmitted thefe collations and tran-
flation, together with various obfervations, to Mr. Edward
L ye o f Oxford, who had already diftinguiihed himfelf by his
knowledge-of the aritient Northern languages ». The work
was cheerfully undertaken, and faithfully executed, by that
judicious fcholar ; and the third edition made its appearance
in the year 3750 'printed at the Clarendon prefs.g To the
obfervations of Benzelius, Mr. Lye .added many learned remarks
upon the text and 'verfion, and a Gothick Grammar.
This impreffion isefteemed,by thofe who have had it in their
power to compare it with the original Codex, a moft
complete work, and redounding greatly to thè 'honour of the
editor’s accuracy.
The Codex Argenteus has given rife to . a c u r io u s contro-
verfy among the learned. In the examination of'this ma-
nufcript, different perfons have thought that they difcovered
a fimilitude in the characters to thofe of the Greek, Latin,
Finnilh, Runick,Dani(h,German, orGothick ; each adopting
an opinion according to" his favourite hypothefis, and refer-
* Hilt. Bib. U p .
ring
U P S A L A .
ring its original to the anceftors o f his own country. Nor is chap.
this a matter o f any furprize; for as the barbarous nations,
who were converted to Chriftianity by the Greeks and Romans,
received from them either a new alphabet, or, at leafly
feveral new characters; it neceflarily follows, that moft o f
the antient letters ufed by the Goths, Franks, Huns, Sclavo-
nians, and other bordering nations, mlift bear in many points
a great affinity to each other, fo that a framer o f a fanciful
fyftem may readily conceive a refemblance in the whole,
which exifts only in a few parts. But without entering into
an inquiry which may lead us too far, the queftioi; concerning
the original tongue o f the Codex Argenteus is reduced to
two opinions; the firft, that it is written in the fame language
and character as were ufed in the fourth century by
the Goths o f Msefia, the anceftors o f the prefent Swedes, and
is a true copy o f the verfion made by Ulphilas; the fecond,
that it is a tranflation in the Frankiih idiom.
The firft opinion is ftrongly fupported by Junius, Stiern-
helm, David Wilkins, Benzelius, and L y e ; the fecond, as
warmly defended by Hickes, La Croze, Wetftein, and Mi-
chaelis. To enter into a difcuffion o f all the arguments
advanced on both fides with equal erudition, would require
a larger compafs than the nature o f this work will admit;
and to give a partial abftracft o f them would only invalidate
their refpctive ftrength. Thus much iscertaln, that as the
reafonings admit not o f any pofitive evidence on either fide,
but are chiefly drawn from vague conjetures, an unprejudiced
inquirer will find it no eafy matter to form a decifive
and fatisfatory judgement. I ffiall refer, therefore, the in-
quifitive reader, for further information, to the feveral writers
■upon this fu b je t ; and ihall add only that with re fp e t to my
own opinion, after having minutely weighed the arguments
V ol. II. H h h on