(COD. REG. 186.) (COD. REG. 188.) (1) Matth. xxvi. 70. αυτων παντων λεγων αὐτῶν λέγων (2) Mk. i. 2. ώς κάθως (3) Mk. i. 11. ῷ σοι (4) Mk. i. 16. βάλλοντας ἀμφιβάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον ἀμφίβληστρον (5) Mk. ii. 21. παλαιῷ: παλαιῷ: εἰ δὲ μή, αἅρει εἰ δἐ μή γε αἱρεῖ απ᾽ τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτοῦ αυτοῦ τὸ πλήρωμα (6) Mk. iii. 10. ἐθεράπευσεν ἐθεράπευεν (7) Mk. iii. 17. τοῦ Ἰακώβου Ἰακώβου (8) Mk. iii. 18. καὶ καί Μ. τὸν τελώνην καὶ Θ. Ματθαῖον καὶ Θ. (9) Mk. vi. 9. μὴ ἐνδέδυσθαι ἐνδύσησθε (10) Mk. vi. 10. μένετε μείνατε In the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th of these instances, Tischendorf is found (1869) to adopt the readings of Reg. 188: in the last four, those of Reg. 186. In the 1st, 4th, and 5th, he follows neither. (iv.) EVAN. 24 (= Reg. 178.) _A most beautifully written fol._ Note, that this Codex has been mutilated at p. 70-1; from S. Matth. xxvii. 20 to S. Mark iv. 22 being away. It cannot therefore be ascertained whether the Commentary on S. Mark was here attributed to Victor or not. Cramer employed it largely in his edition of Victor (_Catenae_, vol. i. p. xxix,), as I have explained already at p. 271. Some notices of the present Codex are given above at p. 228-9. (v.) EVAN. 25 (= Reg. 191: anciently numbered Colb. 2259): 1880. _Folio: grandly written._ No Author’s name to the Commentary on S. Mark. The text of the Evangelist is given _in extenso_. (vi.) EVAN. 34 (= Coisl. 195.) _A grand folio, splendidly written, and in splendid condition: the paintings as they came from the hand of the artist._ At fol. 172, the Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for VICTOR. It will be found that Coisl. 23 (_infrà_, No. ix.) and Coisl. 195 are derived from a common original; but Cod. 195 is the more perfect copy, and should have been employed by Cramer in preference to the other (_suprà_, p. 271.) There has been an older and a more recent hand employed on the Commentary. (vii.) EVAN. 36 (= Coisl. 20.) _A truly sumptuous Codex._ Some notices of this Codex have been given already, at p. 229. The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor’s, but is without any Author’s name. (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 (_infrà_, No. xviii.) and Coisl. 24 (_infrà_, 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.