Part 23 (1/2)

(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._