We have already intimated that Tischendorf has chosen to make no addition to the numerical list of cursive manuscripts furnished by Scholz, preferring to indicate the fresh materials which have since come to light by another notation, derived from the names of the collators or the places where they are deposited. As this plan has proved in practice very inconvenient, it is no wonder that Dean Burgon, after casting away Scholz’s numbers from 450 to 469, on account of their evident inaccuracy, which has since then received definite proof, should have assigned numerals to the cursives unknown to Scholz from 450 to 737, still excluding, as far as was then possible, those whose location or character was uncertain. Burgon’s method, as laid down in his Letters in the _Guardian_ for July 5, 12, 19, 26, 1882, having the priority of publication, and being arranged with regard to the places where the manuscripts are deposited rather than to their actual collators, may as well be adopted as any other that might be made. The only important point to be secured is that all scholars should employ the SAME NUMBERS when speaking of the SAME MANUSCRIPTS. It is greatly to be regretted that Dr. C. R. Gregory, even upon advice tendered by other critics, if such was the case, should have neglected the important principle laid down in the preceding sentence, and in Part II of his very valuable Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s eighth edition, published seven years after the third edition of this work, should have helped to make confusion worse confounded in this large and increasing field. But it is not my object to assail one who has done this study very great service, but only to point out an inconvenience which I shall endeavour to minimize as far as I can. It is clear that Dr. Scrivener’s order, being the first out, and having been followed since then in quotations in books, and notably by the late learned Abbé Martin, cannot be allowed to drop. I have therefore followed it in the succeeding pages. But it has been my object to bring together the two lists as soon as possible after the close of Dr. Scrivener’s, and the end of the supplementary lists of Dean Burgon and the Abbé Martin, and to follow, as far as the case will admit, the lead of Dr. Gregory, where he has every right to prescribe the series of numbers. Unfortunately, this course is not always open, because when the time has arrived it is found that some MSS. have been already forestalled, and others are in arrear. It should be added, that the number of the MSS. as standing in Dr. Gregory’s list, where it varies from the present, is given at the end of the account of each manuscript; and reversely a table is added at the end of this volume of the varying numbers in this list which answer to the numbers in Dr. Gregory’s list.