It should also be noted that the printed text of Oecumenius prefixes to the exegesis a good deal of ‘Euthalian’ matter: (i.) Avjynots rept rod aylou amocrédou ILavA\ov, Hvdadiov diaxdvou mpodoyos : (ii.) arodnutar ILathov roi dmoord)ov : (ili.) papripcov TlavAov rod dmocrddov: (iv.) trdPeors THs mpos ‘Pwualovs émurodjs, [inc. ravrny émurrédder]: (V.) kepddrara THs mpds ‘Pwualous émorodijs, [ine. a evay- yeah ‘OacKadla): (vi.) ox ddcov mplv émldnunoae Ilad\oy . . «3 similar matter to Nos. iv.-vi. is given with the other Pauline epistles. See below, on Euthalius, pp. 526, 527.
The edition of Donatus was repeated—without alteration of the Greek, so far as appears, but with the addition of the preface and Latin version
* Perhaps identical with Paris gr. 219 (=Medic. Reg. 1886), swe. xi., a copy of Oecumenius-Arethas which certainly at one time belonged to John Lascaris. .
+ So, too, on Eph 416 the name Oecumenius is attached in the margin to the sentence dpa ci zeya ivouson® obre yoep Exepnre Te 70d paxaplov [sc. Chrysostom] vojeous of the text.
486 PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
of Joannes Hentenius, A.D. 1545*—in the edition of F. Morel, Paris ‘sumptibus Cl. Sonnii,’ 1631; and the edition of Morel is incorporated in Migne’s Patrologia Greca, vols. 118,119. Thus we are still using Oecumenius on the authority of the MS of John Lascaris, modified, as Donatus’ preface tells us, by other (apparently non-Oecumenian) MSS.
Who Oecumenius was—beyond the fact that he is said to have been bishop of Tricca in Thessaly— we do not know; as to his date, if the editions were right in making him use Photius (on which, however, see below, p. 488), he must be later than the middle of the 9th: but, if once the name Photius is removed, no obstacle remains to a much earlier period. See, further, p. 523.
2. Next of the great compilers to Oecumenius, both in order of history and in order of publica- tion, comes Theophylact, archbishop of Bulgaria c. 1075 A.D. His commentary on the Pauline epistles was first published at London in 1636 as a posthumous work of Dr. Augustine Lindsell, bishop of Hereford, who died at the end of 1634. From the preface, addressed by T. Baily to archbishop Laud, it appears that the commentaries were copied out from a ‘codex vetustus’ of the earl of Arundel, and that the copy was compared with two Oxford MSS ;+ at Lindsell’s death the edition was almost complete. The Greek text is accom- panied by.a Latin translation, based on that of Philippus Montanus, Antwerp, 1564.
As vol. ii. of a complete issue of the writings of Theophylact, the commentary on the Epistles was reprinted at Venice in 1755; the Greek was simply repeated from the edition—‘ satis nitidam et accuratam,’ as the new preface calls it—of Lindsell, some ‘manifest errors’ only of the Latin being removed. The Venetian editor’s contribu- tion to the criticism of the text is, in fact, confined to the list on pp. 771-776 of readings from a Venice MS—presumably codex 32 of Zanetti’s catalogue, szec. xiv.—from which list, as he informs us with obvious satisfaction, he excluded everything (i.) that was manifestly wrong, (ii.) that injured either the style or the sense, (iii.) that the London edition had already noted as read in the Oxford MSS. No wonder that, though the variants were ‘satis multe,’ he sueceeded in reducing them ‘ad medi- ocrem numerum’! Yet he tells us enough to show that the differences even among the MSS hitherto known are very considerable; the com- ments in one are now longer, now shorter, than in the rest ; while at other times, though the general sense is the same, the language varies so much that the result is practically ‘expositiones diverse.’ The most considerable merit of the Venice edition lies in its two indexes, Greek and Latin. The whole is reprinted in Migne, Patrol. Gr. vol. 124.
According to Ehrhard (in Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur 2, 1897, p. 134), Theo- phylact shows a certain independence in the com- mentary on the Pauline epistles, and in particular cites many more names of earlier Fathers than in his commentaries on other books of the Bible—- Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Basil and the two Gregorys, Cyril of Alexandria, pseudo- Dionysius ; but even here the majority of the ex- planations are quoted anonymously. Chrysostom is of course still the chief stand-by of the com- mentary : in his case, Theophylact even takes into
* Hentenius also rendered into Latin the commentary of Euthymius Zigabenus on the Gospels, 1544.
} The Arundel MS was the present British Museum Arundeli- anus 534, sec. xiv., and the two Oxford MSS were Barocci 146, sec. xv. (the Barocci MSS came in 1629), and Miscell. 20, sec. xiv. (this MS is in the 1620 catalogue, and probably was given in 1604 by Winwood). Lindsell’s apparatus criticus is confined to (i.) a considerable number of brief variants in the margin, to which the symbol yp(éLoy) is prefixed: (ii.) notice of a few
more substantial divergences in which the two Oxford MSS agree against the Arundel, pp. 1033-1041.
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
consideration the varie lectiones of the Scripture text (ber dem er sogar die abweichenden Lesarten des Schrifttextes bericksichtigt). Ehrhard is an authority from whom, speaking ordinarily, there is no appeal ; but the present writer has been unable to find in either of the editions the references to the Fathers by name of which Ehrhard speaks.