me? And Jesus said, But [11] Jesus said, Some Somebody hath touched me: one [12] did touch [14]

for I perceive that me: for I perceived [15]

virtue is gone out of that power [16] had [17]

me." gone forth [18] from [19]

me."

Now pray,-Was not "the meaning _fairly expressed_" before? Will you tell me that in revising S. Luke viii. 45-6, you "_made as few alterations as possible_"? or will you venture to a.s.sert that you have removed none but "_plain and clear errors_"? On the contrary. I challenge any competent scholar in Great Britain to say _whether every one of these changes_ be not either absolutely useless, or else _decidedly a change for the worse_: six of them being downright _errors_.

The transposition in the opening sentence is infelicitous, to say the least. (The English language will not bear such handling. Literally, no doubt, the words mean, "said Peter, and they that were with him." But you may not so _translate_.)-The omission of the six interesting words, indicated within square brackets, is a serious blunder.(896) The words are _undoubtedly_ genuine. I wonder how you can have ventured thus to mutilate the Book of Life. And why did you not, out of common decency and reverence, _at least in the margin_, preserve a record of the striking clause which you thus,-with well-meant a.s.siduity, but certainly with deplorable rashness,-forcibly ejected from the text? To proceed however.-"Mult.i.tudes,"-"but,"-"one,"-"did,"- "power,"-"forth,"-"from:"-are all seven either needless changes, or improper, or undesirable. "_Did touch_,"-"_perceived_,"-"_had gone forth_,"-are unidiomatic and incorrect expressions. I have already explained this elsewhere.(897) The aorist (??at?) has here a perfect signification, as in countless other places:-?????, (like "_novi_,") is frequently (as here) to be Englished by the present ("_I perceive_"): and "_is gone out of me_" is the nearest rendering of ??e????sa?(898) ?p? ??? which our language will bear.-Lastly, "_press_" and "_crush_," as renderings of s??????s? and ?p??????s?, are inexact and unscholarlike. S????e??, (literally "to encompa.s.s" or "hem in,") is here to "throng" or "crowd:" ?p????e??, (literally "to squeeze,") is here to "press." But in fact the words were perfectly well rendered by our Translators of 1611, and ought to have been let alone.-This specimen may suffice, (and it is a very fair specimen,) of what has been your calamitous method of revising the A. V. throughout.

So much then for the Revised _English_. The fate of the Revised _Greek_ is even more extraordinary. I proceed to explain myself by instancing what has happened in respect of the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE.

(_b_) _Next_,-_In respect of the New Greek Text._

On examining the 836(899) Greek Textual corrections which you have introduced into those 1151 verses, I find that at least 356 of them _do not affect the English rendering at all_. I mean to say that those 356 (supposed) emendations are either _incapable_ of being represented in a Translation, or at least are _not_ represented. Thus, in S. Luke iv. 3, whether e?pe d? or ?a? e?pe? is read:-in ver. 7, whether ??? or ??:-in ver. 8, whether ?????? t?? Te?? s?? p??s????se?, or ???s????se?? ?. t?? T.

s??; whether ??a?e d? or ?a? ??a?e?; whether ???? or ? ????:-in ver. 17, whether t?? p??f?t?? ?sa?? or ?. t?? p??f?t??; whether ?????a? or ??apt??a?:-in ver. 18, whether e?a??e??sas?a? or e?a??e???es?a?:-in ver.

20, whether ?? ?f?a??? ?? t? s??a???? or ?? t? s??a???? ?? ?f?a???:-in ver. 23, whether e?? t?? or ?? t?:-in ver. 27, whether ?? t? ?s?a?? ?p?

???ssa??? t?? p??f?t?? or ?p? ???ss., t?? p. ?? t? ?.:-in ver. 29, whether ?f???? or t?? ?f????; whether ?ste or e?? t?:-in ver. 35, whether ?p? or ??:-in ver. 38, whether ?p? or ??; whether pe??e?? or ? pe??e??:-in ver.

43, whether ?p? or e??; whether ?pest???? or ?p?sta?a?:-in ver. 44, whether e?? t?? s??a????? or ?? ta?? s??a???a??:-in every one of these cases, _the English remains the same_, whichever of the alternative readings is adopted. At least 19 therefore out of the 33 changes which you introduced into the Greek Text of S. Luke iv. are plainly gratuitous.

_Thirteen_ of those 19, (or about two-thirds,) are also in my opinion changes _for_ the _worse_: are nothing else, I mean, but subst.i.tutions of _wrong for right_ Readings. But _that_ is not my present contention. The point I am just now contending for is this:-That, since it certainly was no part of your "Instructions," "Rules," or "Principles" _to invent a new Greek Text_,-or indeed to meddle with the original Greek at all, _except so far as was absolutely necessary for the Revision of the English Version_,-it is surely a very grave form of inaccuracy to a.s.sert (as you now do) that you "adhered most closely to your Instructions, and did neither more nor less than you were required."-You _know_ that you did a vast deal more than you had any authority or right to do: a vast deal more than you had the shadow of a pretext for doing. Worse than that. You deliberately forsook the province to which you had been exclusively appointed by the Southern Convocation,-and you ostentatiously invaded another and a distinct province; viz. _That_ of the critical Editorship of the Greek Text: for which, _by your own confession_,-(I take leave to remind you of your own honest avowal, quoted above at page 369,)-you and your colleagues _knew_ yourselves to be incompetent.

For, when those 356 wholly gratuitous and uncalled-for changes in the Greek of S. Luke's Gospel come to be examined in detail, they are found to affect far more than 356 words. By the result, 92 words have been omitted; and 33 added. No less than 129 words have been subst.i.tuted for others which stood in the text before; and there are 66 instances of Transposition, involving the dislocation of 185 words. The changes of case, mood, tense, &c., amount in addition to 123.(900) The sum of the words which you have _needlessly_ meddled with in the Greek Text of the third Gospel proves therefore to be 562.

At this rate,-(since, [excluding marginal notes and variations in stops,]

Scrivener(901) counts 5337 various readings in his Notes,)-the number of alterations _gratuitously and uselessly introduced by you into the Greek Text of the entire N. T._, is to be estimated at 3590.

And if,-(as seems probable,)-the same general proportion prevails throughout your entire work,-it will appear that the words which, without a shadow of excuse, you have _omitted_ from the Greek Text of the N. T., must amount to about 590: while you have _added_ in the same gratuitous way about 210; and have needlessly _subst.i.tuted_ about 820. Your instances of uncalled-for _transposition_, (about 420 in number,) will have involved the gratuitous dislocation of full 1190 words:-while the occasions on which, at the bidding of Drs. Westcott and Hort, you have altered case, mood, tense, &c., must amount to about 780. In this way, the sum of the changes you have effected in the Greek Text of the N. T. _in clear defiance of your Instructions_,-would amount, as already stated, to 3590.

Now, when it is considered that _not one_ of those 3590 changes _in the least degree affects the English Revision_,-it is undeniable, not only that you and your friends did what you were without authority for doing:-but also that you violated as well the spirit as the letter of your Instructions. As for your present a.s.sertion (at p. 32) that you "adhered _most closely_ to the Instructions you received, and _did neither more nor less than you were required to do_,"-you must submit to be reminded that it savours strongly of the nature of pure fable. The history of the new Greek Text is briefly this:-A majority of the Revisers-_including yourself, their Chairman_,-are found to have put yourselves almost unreservedly into the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort. The result was obvious. When the minority, headed by Dr. Scrivener, appealed to the chair, they found themselves confronted by a prejudiced Advocate. They ought to have been listened to by an impartial Judge. _You_, my lord Bishop, are in consequence (I regret to say) responsible for all the mischief which has occurred. The blame of it rests at _your_ door.

And pray disabuse yourself of the imagination that in what precedes I have been _stretching_ the numbers in order to make out a case against you. It would be easy to show that in estimating the amount of needless changes at 356 out of 836, I am greatly under the mark. I have not included such cases, for instance, as your subst.i.tution of ? ?? s??, ????e for ????e, ?

?? s?? (in xix. 18), and of ?????? ?p?d?te for ?p?d?te t????? (in xx.

25),(902)-only lest you should pretend that the transposition affects the English, and therefore _was_ necessary. Had I desired to swell the number I could have easily shown that fully _half_ the changes you effected in the Greek Text were wholly superfluous for the Revision of the English Translation, and therefore were entirely without excuse.

_This_, in fact,-(give me leave to remind you in pa.s.sing,)-is the _true_ reason why, at an early stage of your proceedings, you resolved that _none_ of the changes you introduced into the Greek Text should find a record in your English margin. Had _any_ been recorded, _all_ must have appeared. And had this been done, you would have stood openly convicted of having utterly disregarded the "Instructions" you had received from Convocation. With what face, for example, _could_ you, (in the margin of S. Luke xv. 17,) against the words "he said,"-have printed "?f? not e?pe"?

or, (at xxiv. 44,) against the words "unto them,"-must you not have been ashamed to enc.u.mber the already overcrowded margin with such an irrelevant statement as,-"p??? a?t??? _not_ a?t???"?

Now, if this were all, you might reply that by my own showing the Textual changes complained of, if they do no good, at least do no harm. But then, unhappily, you and your friends have not confined yourselves to colourless readings, when silently up and down every part of the N. T. you have introduced innovations. I open your New English Version at random (S. John iv. 15), and invite your attention to the first instance which catches my eye.

You have made the Woman of Samaria _complain of the length of the walk_ from Sychar to Jacob's well:-"Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither _come all the way_ hither to draw."-What has happened? For ????a?, I discover that you have silently subst.i.tuted ??????a?. (Even d?????a? has no such meaning: but let _that_ pa.s.s.) What then was your authority for thrusting d?????a? (which by the way is a patent absurdity) into the Text? The word is found (I discover) _in only two Greek MSS. of had character_(903) (B ?), which, being derived from a common corrupt original, can only reckon for _one_: and the reasoning which is supposed to justify this change is thus supplied by Tischendorf:-"If the Evangelist had written ???-, who would ever have dreamed of turning it into d?-????a??"... No one, of course, (is the obvious answer,) except the inveterate blunderer who, some 1700 years ago, seeing ???????O??? before him, _reduplicated the antecedent_ ??. The sum of the matter is _that_!...

Pa.s.s 1700 years, and the long-since-forgotten blunder is furbished up afresh by Drs. Westcott and Hort,-is urged upon the wondering body of Revisers as the undoubted utterance of THE SPIRIT,-is accepted by yourself;-finally, (in spite of many a remonstrance from Dr. Scrivener and his friends,) is thrust upon the acceptance of 90 millions of English-speaking men throughout the world, as the long-lost-sight-of, but at last happily recovered, utterance of the "Woman of Samaria!"... ?pa?e.

Ordinary readers, in the meantime, will of course a.s.sume that the change results from the Revisers' skill in translating,-the advances which have been made in the study of Greek; for no trace of the textual vagary before us survives in the English margin.

And thus I am reminded of what I hold to be your gravest fault of all. The rule of Committee subject to which you commenced operations,-the Rule which re-a.s.sured the public and reconciled the Church to the prospect of a Revised New Testament,-expressly provided that, whenever the underlying Greek Text was altered, _such alteration should be indicated in the margin_. This provision you entirely set at defiance from the very first.

You have _never_ indicated in the margin the alterations you introduced into the Greek Text. In fact, you made so many changes,-in other words, you seem to have so entirely lost sight of your pledge and your compact,-that compliance with this condition would have been simply impossible. I see not how your body is to be acquitted of a deliberate breach of faith.

_(c) Fatal consequences of this mistaken officiousness._

How serious, in the meantime, _the consequences_ have been, _they_ only know who have been at the pains to examine your work with close attention.

Not only have you, on countless occasions, thrust out words, clauses, entire sentences of genuine Scripture,-but you have been careful that no trace shall survive of the fatal injury which you have inflicted. I wonder you were not afraid. Can I be wrong in deeming such a proceeding in a high degree sinful? Has not the SPIRIT p.r.o.nounced a tremendous doom(904) against those who do such things? Were you not afraid, for instance, to leave out (from S. Mark vi. 11) those solemn words of our SAVIOUR,-"Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city"? Surely you will not pretend to tell me that those fifteen precious words, witnessed to as they are by _all the known copies but nine_,-by the Old Latin, the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac, the Coptic, the Gothic and the aethiopic Versions,-besides Irenaeus(905) and Victor(906) of Antioch:-you will not venture to say (will you?) that words so attested are so evidently a "plain and clear error,"

as not to deserve even a marginal note to attest to posterity "that such things were"! I say nothing of the witness of the Liturgical usage of the Eastern Church,-which appointed these verses to be read on S. Mark's Day:(907) nor of Theophylact,(908) nor of Euthymius.(909) I appeal to _the consentient testimony of Catholic antiquity_. Find me older witnesses, if you can, than the "Elders" with whom Irenaeus held converse,-men who must have been contemporaries of S. John the Divine: or again, than the old Latin, the Peschito, and the Coptic Versions. Then, for the MSS.,-Have you studied S. Mark's Text to so little purpose as not to have discovered that the six uncials on which you rely are the depositories of an abominably corrupt Recension of the second Gospel?

But you committed a yet more deplorable error when,-without leaving behind either note or comment of any sort,-you obliterated from S. Matth. v. 44, the solemn words which I proceed to underline:-"_Bless them that curse you_, _do good to them that hate you_, and pray for them which _despitefully use you and_ persecute you." You relied almost exclusively on those two false witnesses, of which you are so superst.i.tiously fond, B and ?: regardless of the testimony of almost all the other COPIES besides:-of almost all the VERSIONS:-and of a host of primitive FATHERS: for the missing clauses are more or less recognized by Justin Mart. (A.D.

140),-by Theophilus Ant. (A.D. 168),-by Athenagoras (A.D. 177),-by Clemens Alexan. (A.D. 192),-by Origen (A.D. 210),-by the Apostolic Constt. (IIIrd cent.),-by Eusebius,-by Gregory Nyss.,-by Chrysostom,-by Isidorus,-by Nilus,-by Cyril,-by Theodoret, and certain others. Besides, of the Latins, by Tertullian,-by Lucifer,-by Ambrose,-by Hilary,-by Pacian,-by Augustine,-by Ca.s.sian, and many more.... Verily, my lord Bishop, your notion of what const.i.tutes "_clearly preponderating Evidence_" must be freely admitted to be at once original and peculiar. I will but respectfully declare that if it be indeed one of "_the now established Principles of Textual Criticism_" that a bishop is at liberty to blot out from the Gospel such precepts of the Incarnate WORD, as these: to reject, on the plea that they are "plain and clear errors," sayings attested by twelve primitive Fathers,-half of whom lived and died before our two oldest ma.n.u.scripts (B and ?) came into being:-If all this be so indeed, permit me to declare that I would not exchange MY "_innocent ignorance_"(910) of those "Principles" for YOUR _guilty knowledge_ of them,-no, not for anything in the wide world which yonder sun shines down upon.

As if what goes before had not been injury enough, you are found to have adopted the extraordinary practice of enc.u.mbering your margin with doubts as to the Readings which after due deliberation you had, as a body, _retained_. Strange perversity! You could not find room to retain a record in your margin of the many genuine words of our Divine LORD,-His Evangelists and Apostles,-to which Copies, Versions, Fathers lend the fullest attestation; but you _could_ find room for an insinuation that His "Agony and b.l.o.o.d.y sweat,"-together with His "Prayer on behalf of His murderers,"-_may_ after all prove to be nothing else but spurious accretions to the Text. And yet, the pretence for so regarding either S.

Luke xxii. 43, 44, or xxiii. 34, is confessedly founded on a minimum of doc.u.mentary evidence: while, as has been already shown elsewhere,(911) an overwhelming amount of ancient testimony renders it _certain_ that not a particle of doubt attaches to the Divine record of either of those stupendous incidents.... Room could not be found, it seems, for a _hint_ in the margin that such ghastly wounds as those above specified had been inflicted on S. Mark vi. 11 and S. Matth. v. 44;(912) but _twenty-two lines_ could be spared against Rom. ix. 5 for the free ventilation of the vile Socinian gloss with which unbelievers in every age have sought to evacuate one of the grandest a.s.sertions of our SAVIOUR'S G.o.dHEAD. May I be permitted, without offence, to avow myself utterly astonished?

Even this however is not all. The 7th of the Rules under which you undertook the work of Revision, was, that "_the Headings of Chapters should be revised_." This Rule you have not only failed to comply with; but you have actually deprived us of those headings entirely. You have thereby done us a grievous wrong. We demand to have the headings of our chapters back.

You have further, without warrant of any sort, deprived us of our _Marginal References_. These we cannot afford to be without. We claim that _they_ also may be restored. The very best Commentary on Holy Scripture are they, with which I am acquainted. They call for learned and judicious Revision, certainly; and they might be profitably enlarged. But they may never be taken away.

And now, my lord Bishop, if I have not succeeded in convincing you that the Revisers not only "_exceeded their Instructions_ in the course which they adopted with regard to the Greek Text," but even acted in open defiance of their Instructions; did both a vast deal _more_ than they were authorized to do, and also a vast deal _less_;-it has certainly been no fault of mine. As for your original contention(913) that "_nothing can be more unjust_" than THE CHARGE brought against the Revisers of having exceeded their Instructions,-I venture to ask, on the contrary, whether anything can be more unreasonable (to give it no harsher name) than THE DENIAL?

[16] The calamity of the "New Greek Text" traced to its source.

There is no difficulty in accounting for the most serious of the foregoing phenomena. They are the inevitable consequence of your having so far succ.u.mbed at the outset to Drs. Westcott and Hort as to permit them to communicate bit by bit, under promise of secrecy, their own outrageous Revised Text of the N. T. to their colleagues, accompanied by a printed disquisition in advocacy of their own peculiar critical views. One would have expected in the Chairman of the Revising body, that the instant he became aware of any such _manuvre_ on the part of two of the society, he would have remonstrated with them somewhat as follows, or at least to this effect:-

"This cannot be permitted, Gentlemen, on any terms. We have not been appointed to revise the _Greek Text_ of the N. T. Our one business is to revise the _Authorized English Version_,-introducing such changes only as are absolutely necessary. The Resolutions of Convocation are express on this head: and it is my duty to see that they are faithfully carried out.

True, that we shall be obliged to avail ourselves of our skill in Textual Criticism-(such as it is)-to correct '_plain and clear errors_' in the Greek: but _there_ we shall be obliged to stop. I stand pledged to Convocation on this point by my own recent utterances. That two of our members should be solicitous (by a side-wind) to obtain for their own singular Revision of the Greek Text the sanction of our united body,-is intelligible enough: but I should consider myself guilty of a breach of Trust were I to lend myself to the promotion of their object. Let me hope that I have you all with me when I point out that on every occasion when Dr. Scrivener, on the one hand, (who in matters of Textual Criticism is _facile princeps_ among us,) and Drs. Westcott and Hort on the other, prove to be irreconcileably opposed in their views,-_there_ the Received Greek Text must by all means be let alone. We have agreed, you will remember, to 'make _the current Textus Receptus the standard; departing from it only when critical or grammatical considerations show that it is clearly necessary_.'(914) It would be unreasonable, in my judgment, that anything in the Received Text should be claimed to be 'a clear and plain error,' on which those who represent the two antagonistic schools of Criticism find themselves utterly unable to come to any accord. In the meantime, Drs. Westcott and Hort are earnestly recommended to submit to public inspection that Text which they have been for twenty years elaborating, and which for some time past has been in print. Their labours cannot be too freely ventilated, too searchingly examined, too generally known: but I strongly deprecate their furtive production _here_. All too eager advocacy of the novel Theory of the two accomplished Professors, I shall think it my duty to discourage, and if need be to repress. A printed volume, enforced by the suasive rhetoric of its two producers, gives to one side an unfair advantage. But indeed I must end as I began, by respectfully inviting Drs. Westcott and Hort to remember that we meet here, _not_ in order _to fabricate a new Greek Text_, but in order to _revise our _'Authorized English Version.'"... Such, in substance, is the kind of Allocution which it was to have been expected that the Episcopal Chairman of a Revising body would address to his fellow-labourers the first time he saw them enter the Jerusalem chamber furnished with the sheets of Westcott and Hort's N. T.; especially if he was aware that those Revisers had been individually talked over by the Editors of the work in question, (themselves Revisionists); and perceived that the result of the deliberations of the entire body was in consequence, in a fair way of becoming a foregone conclusion,-unless indeed, by earnest remonstrance, he might be yet in time to stave off the threatened danger.

But instead of saying anything of this kind, my lord Bishop, it is clear from your pamphlet that you made the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort _your own Theory_; and their Text, by necessary consequence, in the main _your own Text_. You lost sight of all the pledges you had given in Convocation. You suddenly became a partizan. Having secured the precious advocacy of Bp. Wilberforce,-whose sentiments on the subject you had before adopted,-you at once threw him and them overboard.(915)... I can scarcely imagine, in a good man like yourself, conduct more reckless,-more disappointing,-more unintelligible. But I must hasten on.

[17] Bp. Ellicott's defence of the "New Greek Text," in sixteen particulars, examined.

It follows to consider the strangest feature of your pamphlet: viz. those two-and-thirty pages (p. 43 to p. 75) in which, descending from generals, you venture to dispute in sixteen particulars the sentence pa.s.sed upon your new Greek Text by the _Quarterly Review_. I call this part of your pamphlet "strange," because it displays such singular inapt.i.tude to appreciate the force of Evidence. But in fact, (_sit venia verbo_) your entire method is quite unworthy of you. Whereas I appeal throughout to _Ancient Testimony_, you seek to put me down by flaunting in my face _Modern Opinion_. This, with a great deal of Reiteration, proves to be literally the sum of your contention. Thus, concerning S. Matth. i. 25, the Quarterly Reviewer pointed out (_supra_ pp. 123-4) that the testimony of B ?, together with that of the VIth-century fragment Z, and two cursive copies of bad character,-cannot possibly stand against the testimony of ALL OTHER copies. You plead in reply that on "those two oldest ma.n.u.scripts _the vast majority of Critics set a high value_." Very likely: but for all _that_, you are I suppose aware that B and ? are two of the most corrupt doc.u.ments in existence? And, inasmuch as they are confessedly derived from one and the same depraved original, you will I presume allow that they may not be adduced as two independent authorities? At all events, when I further show you that almost all the Versions, and literally _every one_ of the Fathers who quote the place, (they are _eighteen_ in number,) are against you,-how can you possibly think there is any force or relevancy whatever in your self-complacent announcement,-"We cannot hesitate to _express our agreement with Tischendorf and Tregelles_ who see in these words an interpolation derived from S. Luke. _The same appears to have been the judgment of Lachmann._" Do you desire that _that_ should pa.s.s for argument?

To prolong a discussion of this nature with you, were plainly futile.

Instead of repeating what I have already delivered-briefly indeed, yet sufficiently in detail,-I will content myself with humbly imitating what, if I remember rightly, was Nelson's plan when he fought the battle of the Nile. He brought his frigates, one by one, alongside those of the enemy;-lashed himself to the foe;-and poured in his broadsides. We remember with what result. The sixteen instances which you have yourself selected, shall now be indicated. First, on every occasion, reference shall be made to the place in the present volume where my own Criticism on your Greek Text is to be found in detail. Readers of your pamphlet are invited next to refer to your own several attempts at refutation, which shall also be indicated by a reference to your pages. I am quite contented to abide by the verdict of any unprejudiced person of average understanding and fair education:-

(1) _Four words omitted in_ S. Matth. i. 25,-complained of, above, pp.

122-4.-You defend the omission in your pamphlet at pages 43-4,-falling back on Tischendorf, Tregelles and Lachmann, as explained on the opposite page. (p. 416.)

(2) _The omission of_ S. Matth. xvii. 21,-proved to be indefensible, above, pp. 91-2.-The omission is defended by you at pp. 44-5,-on the ground, that although Lachmann retains the verse, and Tregelles only places it in brackets, (Tischendorf alone of the three omitting it entirely,)-"it must be remembered that here Lachmann and Tregelles were not acquainted with ?."

(3) _The omission of_ S. Matth. xviii. 11,-shown to be unreasonable, above, p. 92.-You defend the omission in your pp. 45-7,-remarking that "here there is even less room for doubt than in the preceding cases. The three critical editors are all agreed in rejecting this verse."

(4) _The subst.i.tution of_ ?p??e? for ?p??e?, in S. Mark vi. 20,-strongly complained of, above, pp. 66-9.-Your defence is at pp. 47-8. You urge that "in this case again the Revisers have Tischendorf only on their side, and not Lachmann nor Tregelles: but it must be remembered that these critics had not the reading of ? before them."

(5) _The thrusting of_ p???? (after ?p?ste?e?) into S. Mark xi.