Of Origen also Victor was evidently very fond(519): and his words on two or three occasions seem to shew that he had recourse besides habitually to the exegetical labours of Apolinarius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Titus of Bostra.(520) Passages from Cyril of Alexandria are occasionally met with;(521) and once at least (p. 370) he has an extract from Basil. The historian Josephus he sometimes refers to by name.(522) But the Father to whom Victor is chiefly indebted is Chrysostom,—whom he styles “the blessed John, Bishop of the Royal City;” (meaning Constantinople(523)). Not that Victor, strictly speaking, _transcribes_ from Chrysostom; at least, to any extent. His general practice is slightly to adapt his Author’s language to his own purpose; sometimes, to leave out a few words; a paragraph; half a page.(524) Then, he proceeds to quote another Father probably; or, it may be, to offer something of his own. But he seldom gives any intimation of what it is he does: and if it were not for the occasional introduction of the phrase ὁ μέν φησι or ἄλλος δέ φησι,(525) a reader of Victor’s Commentary might almost mistake it for an original composition. So little pains does this Author take to let his reader know when he is speaking in his own person, when not, that he has not scrupled to retain Chrysostom’s phrases ἐγὼ δὲ οἶμαι,(526) &c. The result is that it is often impossible to know to _whose_ sentiments we are listening. It cannot be too clearly borne in mind that ancient ideas concerning authorship differed entirely from those of modern times; especially when Holy Scripture was to be commented on. I suspect that, occasionally, copyists of Victor’s work, as they recognised a fragment here and there, prefixed to it the name of its author. This would account for the extremely partial and irregular occurrence of such notes of authorship; as well as explain why a name duly prefixed in one copy is often missing in another.(527) Whether Victor’s Commentary can in strictness be called a “Catena,” or not, must remain uncertain until some one is found willing to undertake the labour of re-editing his pages; from which, by the way, I cannot but think that some highly interesting (if not some important) results would follow. Yet, inasmuch as Victor never, or certainly very seldom, prefixes to a passage from a Father _the name of its Author_;—above all, seeing that sometimes, at all events, he is original, or at least speaks in his own person;—I think the title of “Catena” inappropriate to his Commentary.