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 ??? t?? sa?t?? (chap. xxviii. 1), with the p??? 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:-
(EUSEBIUS.) (HESYCHIUS, or SEVERUS.) t? ??? sa?t?? ? t?? t? d? ??? sa?t?? ?? t??
?spe????? ??a? t?? et? ?sp??a? t?? et? t??
t?? ???a? t?? sa?t?? d?s?? t?? ????? d???? ...
???es?a? ?p?????e?
???? t? ?ad? ?a? ??? t?? ???? ... t? ??d??? ?a?
???t??. p??? d?est???? ...
??t? ??? ?a? ??? t?? ??a? ?a? ??? p?? ?a? ??t??
e???ae? ???e??, ?a? ??? ??? s????e? ???e??, ???
t?? ?a????, ?a? ??? t?? t?? ?a???? pa?a?????a?; ??e?a?; ?? t?? ?sp??a? ??? t?? ??a?, ??? t??
d?????te?, ??d? t?? et? ??e?a?; ???? t?? ?sp??a?, ????? d?s?? ??????, t? ?a? t?? et? ????? d?s??
d? sf?d?a ??d??? t??t? ?????? d????s??; ???? t?
s?a????te? t? t??p?; ??d??? ... t?? t??p??
t??t?? ?????s?.
??e? ?spe? d?e???e??? ? ?at?a??? ... ?spe?
a?t?? ?a?t?? ? ?at?a??? ????e??? ?a?t??, ?p??a?e et? t? ??? sa?t??, t? ?p?f?s???s? e?? ?a?
?p??a?e t? ?p?f?s???s? sa?t??.
e?? ?a? sa?t??.
???? d? ???? t?? ?d??da s?at?? d? t?? p?sa?
s?at?? ?a?e??. ?d??sa ?a?e?? ??a????
???eta? ???? pa?? t??? a?t??a ???? ??
??a??e??sta?? t? ?? t?? e?a??e??sta? t? ?? t??
sa?t??; sa?t?? fas?; ?? d? t? s????e??, ??t? d? ?a? ?? t?
de?t??a sa?t??, ?a? s????e?? ?e????e?a, t??t? sa?t??. de?t??a? sa?t??, ?a?
t??t? sa?t??.
(EUSEBIUS ad Marinum, (GREG. NYSS. [_vid.
_apud_ Mai, vol. iv. p. supra_, p. 39 bto 41.]
257-8.) _Opp._ vol. iii. p. 402.)
- 2. Subjoined, in the right-hand column, is the original text of the pa.s.sage of HESYCHIUS exhibited in English at p. 57. The intention of setting down the parallel pa.s.sages from EUSEBIUS, and from VICTOR of Antioch, is in order to shew the sources from which Hesychius obtained his materials,-as explained at p. 58:-
(EUSEBIUS.) (HESYCHIUS, or SEVERUS.) t? ???? ????? t?? ?? ?? ??? t???
??t????f?? t? t???? ????est????? ??t????f???
pe?????fe? t?? ?at? t?? t? ?at? ?????? e?a???????
?????? ?st???a? ?? t??? e??? t?? "?f????t?
?????? ?.t.?. ??? ???," ??e? t? t????.
?p????e?; ... "?a? ??de??
??d??, e?p??, ?f????t?
(EUSEBIUS ad Marinum, _apud_ Mai, iv. p. 255.) (VICTOR OF ANTIOCH.) ?pe?d? d? ?? t?s? ... ?? d? t?s? p??s?e?ta? ?a?
p??s?e?ta? ... "??ast??" ta?ta. "??ast??" ?.t.?.
?.t.?. d??e? d? t??t? t??t? d? ??a?t??s?? t??a d?af??e?? t? ?p? ?at?a??? d??e? ??e?? p??? t?
e??????.... ?p??s?e? e?????a; [t?? ??? ??a? t?? ???t??
????st?? t???a???s?? ?a??
?? ? S?t?? ???st?, p??
??ta??a ??ast??a? "p???"
????apta?; ???? ??d??
??a?t??? fa??seta? t?
??t??, e?]
??t?? ??a???s?e?a; et? ?p?st???
"??ast?? d?," ?a? ??a???s?e?a; ?a? ???
?p?st??a?te? ?p???e?, ?p?st??a? de? s??et??; "p??? t? ?? t?? sa?t?? "??ast?? d?," ?a? ??t??
?f??? ?a??? t? ?pa???e??, "p??? p??t?
?a?da????;" ??a t? ?? sa?t?? ?f??? p??t??
"??ast??"- ?a??? t? ?a?da????." ??a t? ?? "??ast??"
(VICTOR ANTIOCH, _ed.
Cramer_, vol. i. p. 444, line 19 to line 27.) [??? t?? ??af????
s?f???? t? ?at?a??, p???
t?? p???a??ta ?a????, t?
d? "p???" p??? t?? t??
?a??a? ?e??????
?p?f??e?a? ?p?d??e??.]
(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 examine avec soin les MSS. de la Bibliotheque du Roi," (says the Pere Simon in his _Hist. Crit. du N. T._ p. 79,) "j"ai reconnu que cet ouvrage" (he is speaking of the Commentary on S. Mark"s Gospel popularly ascribed to Victor of Antioch,) "n"est ni d"Origene, ni de Victor d"Antioche, ni de Cyrille, ni d"aucun autre auteur en particulier. C"est un recueil de plusieurs Peres, dont on a marque les noms dans quelques exemplaires; et si ces noms ne se trouvent point dans d"autres, cela est a.s.sez ordinaire a ces recueils, qu"on appelle _chaines_."(507) It will be seen from the notices of the work in question already offered, (_supra_, 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 enc.u.mber the 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 Author.(508) A Latin translation of this work, (not the original Greek,) was, in the first instance, published at Ingolstadt in 1580,(509) by Theodore Pelta.n.u.s. His Latin version found its way at once into "Bibliothecae," (or Collections of Writings of the Fathers,) and has been again 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 one.(510) Still, the dislocated paragraphs of Victor of Antioch are recognisable by the name of their author ("Victor Antiochenus") prefixed to each: while "Tolosa.n.u.s" designates the Toulouse MS.: "Vatica.n.u.s" (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:(511) 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.