The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 23

(viii.) EVAN. 37 (= Coisl. 21.) _Fol._

The Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for VICTOR at fol. 117. It seems to be very much the same recension which is exhibited by Coisl. 19 (_infra_, No. xviii.) and Coisl. 24 (_infra_, No. xi.) The Text is given _in extenso_: the Commentary, in the margin.

(ix.) EVAN. 39 (= Coisl. 23.) _A grand large fol. The writing singularly abbreviated._

The Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for VICTOR: but is very dissimilar in its text from that which forms the basis of Cramer's editions. (See above, on No. vi.) It is Cramer's "P." (See his _Catenae_, vol. i. p. xxviii; and _vide supra_, p. 271.)

(x.) EVAN. 40 (= Coisl. 22.)

No Author's name is prefixed to the Commentary (fol. 103); which is a recension resembling Matthaei's. The Text is _in extenso_: the Commentary, in the margin.

(xi.) EVAN. 41 (= Coisl. 24.) _Fol._

This is a Commentary, not a Text. It is expressly claimed for VICTOR. The recension seems to approximate to that published by Matthaei. (See on No.

viii.) One leaf is missing. (See fol. 136 b.)

(xii.) EVAN. 50 (= Bodl. Laud. Gracc. 33.) 4to. The Commentary here seems to be claimed for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, but in the same unsatisfactory way as No. iii and xiv. (See c.o.xe's _Cat._ i. 516.)

(xiii.) EVAN. 299 (= Reg. 177: anciently numbered 22423).

The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor's, but is without any Author's name.

The Text of S. Mark is given _in extenso_: Victor's Commentary, in the margin.

(xiv.) EVAN. 300 (= Reg. 186: anciently numbered 692, 750, and 1882.) _A n.o.ble Codex: but the work of different scribes. It is most beautifully written._

At fol. 94, the Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, in the same equivocal manner as above in No. iii and xii. The writer states in the colophon that he had diversely found it ascribed to Cyril and to Victor. (?p?????? s?? Te? ? ????e?a t?? ?at? ?????? ?????

e?a??e???? ?p? f????, ?? t?s?? e???? ???????? ??e?a?d????, ?? ?????? d?

???t???? p?es?t????.)

See above, the note on Evan. 20 (No. iii),-a MS. which, as already explained, has been elaborately a.s.similated to the present.

(xv.) EVAN. 301 (= Reg. 187: anciently numbered 504, 537 and 1879.) _A splendid fol. beautifully written throughout._

The Commentary on S. Mark is here claimed for VICTOR.

(xvi.) EVAN. 309 (= Reg. 201: anciently numbered 176 and 2423.) _A very interesting little fol.: very peculiar in its style. Drawings old and curious. Beautifully written._

The Commentary is here claimed for VICTOR. This is not properly a text of the Gospel; but parts of the text interwoven with the Commentary. Take a specimen(530): (S. Mark xvi. 8-20.)

??? ????T??S?? ?F?G?? ??? ??? ????????. ????? ?? ????S ?????S ???

??S??S?S. ?OS ??? ?O? ????????T????O? S????O?.

Over the text is written ???? (?e????? i.e. _Text_) and over the Commentary ??? (????e?a, i.e. _Interpretation_.) See the next.

(xvii.) EVAN. 312 (= Reg. 206: anciently numbered 968, 1058, 2283; and behind, 1604. Also A. 67.) _A beautiful little fol._

Contains only the Commentary, which is expressly a.s.signed to VICTOR. This Copy of Victor's Commentary is very nearly indeed a duplicate of Cod. 309, (No. xvi.) both in its contents and in its method; but it is less beautifully written.

(xviii.) EVAN. 329 (= Coisl. 19.) _A very grand fol._

The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor's, but is without any Author's name.

(See above, on No. viii.)

(xix.) REG. 703, (anciently numbered 958: 1048, and Reg. 2330: also No.

18.) _A grand large 4__to__._

The Commentary is here claimed for ORIGEN. Such at least is probably the intention of the heading (in gold capital letters) of the Prologue:-

O??G????S ?????G?S ??S ??? ????????? ??? ???? ?????? ???GG?????.

See on this subject the note at foot of p. 235.

(xx.) EVAN. 304 ( = Reg. 194. Teller 1892.) The text of S. Mark is hero interwoven with a Commentary which I do not recognise. But from the correspondence of a note at the end with what is found in Possinus, pp.

361-3, I am led to suspect that the contents of this MS. will be found to correspond with what Possinus published and designated as "Tolosa.n.u.s."

(xxi.) EVAN. 77 (Vind. Ness. 114, Lambec. 29.) Victor's Commentary is here anonymous.

(xxii.) EVAN. 92 (which belonged to Faesch of Basle [see Wetstein's _Proleg._], and which Haenel [p. 658 _b_] says is now in Basle Library).

Wetstein's account of this Codex shows that the Commentary on S. Mark is here distinctly ascribed to Victor. He says,-"Continet Marc.u.m et in eum _Victoris Antiocheni Commentarios_, foliis 5 mutilos. Item Scholia in Epistolas Catholicas," &c. And so Haenel.

(xxiii.) EVAN. 94 (As before, precisely; except that Haenel's [inaccurate]

notice is at p. 657 _b_.) This Codex contains VICTOR of Antioch's Commentary on S. Mark, (which is evidently hero also a.s.signed to him _by name_;) and t.i.tus of Bostra on S. Luke. Also several Scholia: among the rest, I suspect, (from what Haenel says), the Scholia spoken of _supra_, p. 47, note (x).

(xxiv.) In addition to the preceding, and before mentioning them, Haenel says there also exists in the Library at Basle,-"VICTORIS Antiocheni Scholia in Evang. Marci: chart."(531)

(xxv.) EVAN. 108 (Vind. Forlos. d. Koll. 4.) Birch (p. 225) refers to it for the Scholion given in the next article. (Append. E.)

(xxvi.) EVAN. 129 (Vat. 358.) ???????S. ?G ?????? ??? ??S ???? ??????. The Commentary is written along the top and bottom and down the side of each page; and there are references (a, , ?) inserted in the text to the paragraphs in the margin,-as in some of the MSS. at Paris. Prefixed is an exegetical apparatus by Eusebius, &c.

Note, that of these five MSS. in the Vatican, (358, 756, 757, 1229, 1445), the 3rd and 4th are without the prefatory section (beginning p????? e?? t?

?at? ?.)-All 5 begin, ?????? ? e?a??e??st??. In all but the 4th, the second paragraph begins saf?ste???.

The third pa.s.sage begins in all 5, ?s?d??ae? t??t?. Any one seeking to understand this by a reference to the editions of Cramer or of Possinus will recognise the truth of what was stated above, p. 274, line 24 to 27.

(xxvii.) EVAN. 137 (Vat. 756.) The Commentary is written as in Vat. 358 (No. xxvi): but no Author's name is given.

(xxviii.) EVAN. 138 (Vat. 757.) On a blank page or fly-leaf at the beginning are these words:-? ??t???af?? (_sic_) ??t?? ?st?? ? ??t??? ? t??

?a?d??e?a? ?st?? p????e?ta? t?? ????? ?????t?? e?ta??a. (Comp. No. xlvii.) The Commentary and Text are not kept distinct, as in the preceding Codex.

Both are written in an ill-looking, slovenly hand.

(xxix.) EVAN. 143 (Vat. 1,229.) The Commentary is written as in Vat. 358 (No. xxvi), but without the references; and no Author's name is given.

(x.x.x.) EVAN. 181 (Xavier, Cod. Zelada.) Birch was shewn this Codex of the Four Gospels in the Library of Cardinal Xavier of Zelada (_Prolegomena_, p. lviii): "Cujus forma est in folio, pp. 596. In margine pa.s.sim occurrunt scholia ex Patrum Commentariis exscripta."

(x.x.xi.) EVAN. 186 (Laur. vi. 18.) This Codex is minutely described by Bandini (_Cat._ i. 130), who gives the Scholion (_infra_, p. 388-9), and says that the Commentary is without any Author's name.