(xx.) EVAN. 304 ( = Reg. 194. Teller 1892.) The text of S. Mark is hero interwoven with a Commentary which I do not recognise. But from the correspondence of a note at the end with what is found in Possinus, pp. 361-3, I am led to suspect that the contents of this MS. will be found to correspond with what Possinus published and designated as “Tolosanus.” (xxi.) EVAN. 77 (Vind. Ness. 114, Lambec. 29.) Victor’s Commentary is here anonymous. (xxii.) EVAN. 92 (which belonged to Faesch of Basle [see Wetstein’s _Proleg._], and which Haenel [p. 658 _b_] says is now in Basle Library). Wetstein’s account of this Codex shows that the Commentary on S. Mark is here distinctly ascribed to Victor. He says,—“Continet Marcum et in eum _Victoris Antiocheni Commentarios_, foliis 5 mutilos. Item Scholia in Epistolas Catholicas,” &c. And so Haenel. (xxiii.) EVAN. 94 (As before, precisely; except that Haenel’s [inaccurate] notice is at p. 657 _b_.) This Codex contains VICTOR of Antioch’s Commentary on S. Mark, (which is evidently hero also assigned to him _by name_;) and Titus of Bostra on S. Luke. Also several Scholia: among the rest, I suspect, (from what Haenel says), the Scholia spoken of _suprà_, p. 47, note (x). (xxiv.) In addition to the preceding, and before mentioning them, Haenel says there also exists in the Library at Basle,—“VICTORIS Antiocheni Scholia in Evang. Marci: chart.”(531) (xxv.) EVAN. 108 (Vind. Forlos. d. Koll. 4.) Birch (p. 225) refers to it for the Scholion given in the next article. (Append. E.) (xxvi.) EVAN. 129 (Vat. 358.) ΒΙΚΤΟΡΟΣ. ΠΓ ΑΝΤΙΟΧ ΕΡΜ ΕΙΣ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ. The Commentary is written along the top and bottom and down the side of each page; and there are references (α, β, γ) inserted in the text to the paragraphs in the margin,—as in some of the MSS. at Paris. Prefixed is an exegetical apparatus by Eusebius, &c. Note, that of these five MSS. in the Vatican, (358, 756, 757, 1229, 1445), the 3rd and 4th are without the prefatory section (beginning πολλῶν εἰς τὸ κατὰ Μ.)—All 5 begin, Μάρκος ὁ εὐαγγελιστής. In all but the 4th, the second paragraph begins σαφέστερον. The third passage begins in all 5, Ἰσοδυναμεῖ τοῦτο. Any one seeking to understand this by a reference to the editions of Cramer or of Possinus will recognise the truth of what was stated above, p. 274, line 24 to 27. (xxvii.) EVAN. 137 (Vat. 756.) The Commentary is written as in Vat. 358 (No. xxvi): but no Author’s name is given. (xxviii.) EVAN. 138 (Vat. 757.) On a blank page or fly-leaf at the beginning are these words:—ὁ ἀντίγραφος (_sic_) οὗτος ἐστὶν ὁ Πέτρος ὁ τῆς Λαοδικείας ὅστις προηγεῖται τῶν ἄλλων ἐξηγητῶν ενταῦθα. (Comp. No. xlvii.) The Commentary and Text are not kept distinct, as in the preceding Codex. Both are written in an ill-looking, slovenly hand. (xxix.) EVAN. 143 (Vat. 1,229.) The Commentary is written as in Vat. 358 (No. xxvi), but without the references; and no Author’s name is given.