APPENDIX (C).

Proof that HESYCHIUS is a copyist only in what he says concerning the end of S. Mark's Gospel.

(Referred to at pp. 57-58.)

§ 1. It was confidently stated above (at p. 58) that HESYCHIUs, discussing the consistency of S. Matthew's ὀψὲ τῶν σαββάτων (chap. xxviii. 1), with the πρωΐ of S. Mark (chap. xvi. 9), is a copyist only; and that he copies from the "Quaestiones ad Marinum" of EUSEBIUS. The proof of that statement is subjoined. It should perhaps be explained that the extracts in the right-hand column have been dislocated in order to shew their close resemblance to what is set down in the left-hand column from Eusebius :

268

HESYCHIUS, a Copyist only.

[APP. C. § 2. Subjoined, in the right-hand column, is the original text of the passage of HESYCHIUS exhibited in English at p. 57. The intention of setting down the parallel passages from EUSEBIUS, and from VICTOR of Antioch, is in order to shew the sources from which Hesychius obtained his materials,mas explained at p. 58 :

...

(VICTOR OF ANTIOCH.)

ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἔν τισι . . . πρόσκειται

...

(HESYCHIUS, or Severus.)

ἐν μὲν οὖν τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις ἀντιγράφοις τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον μεχρὶ τοῦ “ ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ,” ἔχει τὸ τέλος.

ἐν δέ τισι πρόσκειται καὶ ταῦτα. «Αναστὰς κ. τ. λ. δοκεῖ δὲ “Αναστὰς” κ.τ.λ. τοῦτο δὲ ἐναν τοῦτο διαφωνεῖν τῷ ὑπὸ Ματθαίου τίωσίν τινα δοκεῖ ἔχειν πρὸς τὰ εἰρημένῳ. . . .

ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένα

[τῆς γὰρ ὥρας τῆς νυκτὸς ἀγνώστου τυγχανούσης καθ ̓ ἣν ὁ Σωτὴρ ἀνέστη, πῶς ἐνταῦθα ἀναστῆναι “ πρωί” γέγραπται ; ἀλλ ̓ οὐδὲν ἐναντίον φανήσεται τὸ ῥητὸν, εἱ]

66 9

μετ ̓ ἐπιστήμης ἀναγνωσόμεθα καὶ γὰρ ὑποστῖξαι δεῖ συνετῶς Αναστ τὰς δὲ,” και οὕτως ἐπαγάγειν, “ πρωί πρώτῃ σαββάτων ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρία τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ.” ἵνα τὸ μὲν σε άναστ τὰς

[ἔχῃ τὴν ἀναφορὰν συμφώνως τῷ Ματθαίῳ, πρὸς τὸν προλαβόντα και ρὸν, τὸ δὲ “ πρωί” πρὸς τὴν τῆς Μαρίας γενομένην ἐπιφάνειαν ἀποδοθείη.]

(GREG. NYSS. Opp. vol. iii. p. 411, B, C, D: which may be also seen in Cramer's Catenae, [vol.i. p. 250, line 21 to line 33,] ascribed to “SEVERUS, Archbishop of Antioch,” [Ibid. p. 243.])

APPENDIX (D).

Some account of VICTOR OF ANTIOCH's Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel; together with an enumeration of MSS. which contain Victor's Work.

(Referred to at p. 60.)

"APRES avoir examiné avec soin les MSS. de la Bibliothèque du Roi," (says the Père Simon in his Hist. Crit. du N. T. p. 79,) "j'ai réconnu que cet ouvrage" (he is speaking of the Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel popularly ascribed to Victor of Antioch,) "n'est ni d'Origéne, ni de Victor d'Antioche, ni de Cyrille, ni d'aucun autre auteur en particulier. C'est un recueil de plusieurs Pères, dont on a marqué les noms dans quelques exemplaires; et si ces noms ne se trouvent point dans d'autres, cela est assez ordinaire à ces recueils, qu'on appelle chaînes a." It will be seen from the notices of the work in question already offered, (suprà, p. 59 to p. 65,) that I am able to yield only a limited acquiescence in this learned writer's verdict. That the materials out of which VICTOR OF ANTIOCH constructed his Commentary are scarcely ever original,-is what no one will deny who examines the work with attention. But the Author of a compilation is an Author still; and to put Victor's claim to the work before us on a level with that of Origen or of Cyril, is entirely to misrepresent the case and hopelessly to perplex the question.

Concerning VICTOR himself, nothing whatever is known except that he was "a presbyter of Antioch." Concerning his Work, I will not here repeat what I have already stated elsewhere; but, requesting the Reader to refer to what was remarked at pp. 59 to 65, I propose to offer a few observations with which I was unwilling before to encumber the

Kollar, (editing Lambecius,-iii. 159, 114,) expresses the same opinion.— Huet (Origeniana, lib. iii. c. 4, pp. 274-5,) has a brief and unsatisfactory dissertation on the same subject; but he arrives at a far shrewder conclusion.

270

Peltanus, Possinus, Matthaei,

[APP.

text; holding it to be a species of duty for those who have given any time and attention to a subject like the present to contribute the result, (however slender and unsatisfactory it may prove,) to the common store. Let abler men enlarge the ensuing scanty notices, and correct me if in any respect I shall have inadvertently fallen into error.

1. There exists a Commentary, then, on S. Mark's Gospel, which generally claims on its front "VICTOR, Presbyter OF ANTIOCH," for its Authorb. A Latin translation of this work, (not the original Greek,) was, in the first instance, published at Ingolstadt in 1580, by Theodore Peltanus. His Latin version found its way at once into "Bibliothecæ," (or Collections of Writings of the Fathers,) and has been a gain and again reprinted.

2. The Greek text of Victor was first published at Rome by Peter Possinus in 1673, from a MS. existing somewhere in Germany; which Bathazar Corderius had transcribed and presented to Possinus about thirty years before. Corderius gave Possinus at the same time his transcript of an anonymous Commentary on S. Mark preserved in the Vatican; and Possinus had already in his possession the transcript of a third Commentary on the same Evangelist (also anonymous) which he had obtained from the Library of Charles de Montchal, Abp. of Toulouse. These three transcripts Possinus published in a well-known volume. It is to be wished that he had kept them distinct, instead of to some extent blending their contents confusedly into oned. Still, the dis

The copies which I have seen, are headed,-BIKTOPOC (sometimes BIKTOPOC) ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΥ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΙΑΣ ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ ErArre^ION; or with words precisely to that effect. Very often no Author's name is given. Rarely is the Commentary assigned to Cyril, Origen, &c.— Vide infrà, No. iii, xii, xiv, xix, xlviii. Also, No. xlvii (comp. xxviii.)

Victoris Antiocheni in Marcum, et Titi Bostrorum Episcopi in Evangelium Lucae commentarii; ante hac quidem nunquam in lucem editi, nunc vero studio et opera Theodori Peltani luce simul et Latinitate donati. Ingolstad. 1580, 8vo. pp. 510.

"Ex hoc ego, quasi metallo triplici, una conflata massa, inde annulos formavi, quos singulos Evangelici contextus articulis aptatos, inter seque morsu ac nexu mutuo commissos, in torquem producerem, quo, si possem consequi, sancto Evangelistae Marco decus et ornamentum adderetur."-Præfatio: from which the particulars in the text are obtained.

D.]

and Cramer, edit VICTOR.

271

located paragraphs of Victor of Antioch are recognisable by the name of their author ("Victor Antiochenus") prefixed to each while "Tolosanus" designates the Toulouse MS. : "Vaticanus" (or simply " Anonymus") the Vatican.

3. At the end of another century, (1775) C. F. Matthaei put forth at Moscow, with his usual skill and accuracy, a new and independent Edition of Victor's Commentary * : the text of which is based on four of the Moscow MSS. This work, which appeared in two parts, has become of extraordinary rarity. I have only just ascertained (June, 1871,) that one entire Copy is preserved in this country.

4. Lastly, (in 1840,) Dr. J. A. Cramer, in the first volume of his Catenae on the N. T., reproduced Victor's work from independent MS. sources. He took for his basis two Codices in the Paris Library, (No. 186 and No. 188), which, however, .26. prove to have been anciently so exactly assimilated the one to the other [infrà, p. 279] as to be, in fact, but duplicates of one and the same original. Cramer supplemented their contents

. from Laud. Gr. 33, (in the Bodleian :) Coisl. 23: and Reg. 3. 4178 at Paris. The result has been by far the fullest and most satisfactory exhibition of the Commentary of Victor of Antioch which has hitherto appeared. Only is it to be regretted that the work should have been suffered to come abroad disfigured in every page with errors so gross as to be even scandalous, and with traces of slovenly editorship which are simply unintelligible. I cannot bring myself to believe that Dr. Cramer ever inspected the MSS. in the Paris Library in person. Else would the slender advantage which those abundant materials have proved to so learned and accomplished a scholar, be altogether unaccountable. Moreover, he is incorrect in what he says about them': while his reasons for proposing to assign the work of Victor of Antioch to Cyril of Alexandria are undeserving of serious attention.

On a comparison of these four Editions of the same work, it is discovered that the Latin version of Peltanus (1580),

• ΒΙΚΤΩΡΟΣ πρεσβυτέρου Αντιοχείας καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἐξήσησις Eis To Kaтà Mápkov dyιov evayyéλov: ex Codd. Mosqq. edidit C. F. Matthæi, Mosquae, 1775. f P. xxvii-xxviii.