3. More importance than the brief account in Karo-Lietzmann (No. lii., op. cit. p. 601) would suggest seems to attach to the Catena on the Corinthian, Galatian, and Ephesian epistles con- taimed in Vat. gr. 692, foll. 1-93. These scholars attribute the MS to the 12th cent., and name Cyril, John Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Origen, Severus, Theodoret, Theodore, and (on 2 Corin- thians) ‘ Ac,’ as the writers more frequently cited ;
* Tf this is correct, and not really a confusion with Severian, the last note on p. 507 above should be modified. But, in the case of the Catena next to be mentioned, Karo and Lietzmann have wrongly expanded 3:» into Severus instead of Severian.
t Of the many books which came by gift from Essex to the
Bodleian in .p. 1600 a considerable number were printed in Spain and Portugal.
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
Clement, Gennadius, Isidore, and Gregory Nyssen as cited respectively three times, twice, twice, and once. But the date should be moved back to sec. X.-xi.; the names of Nicolas, Methodius, Basil, Eusebius, Photius should be added to the list of Fathers cited ; from Clement of Alexandria not three only, but at least five quotations are made ; Di(dymus) is very common on 2 Corinthians : Severian is once named in full (fol. 59a), and the substitution of this Father’s name for Karo and Lietzmann’s Sev(erus), proposed on p. 489% above, is thus amply justified. On many occasions the catenist compares expressly the views of different authors—e.g. Clement, Eusebius of Czesarea, Gre- gory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Severian, Theodoret, Cyril—and sometimes adds to his authors’ names precise references to their books. On comparing this Catena with the last, Vat. gr. 762, for the Corinthian epistles, it results that the quotations common ‘to both are briefer in 692 than in 762: and this is what the relative bulk of the two MSS would lead us to expect.
See above, pp. 489* (Karo-Lietzmann) ; 507» (Se- verian) ; 521 (Clement) ; too little was known of this Catena for full use to be made of it in the foregoing pages.
4. The most important addition that has to be made to Karo-Lietzmann’s list of Pauline Catenz is a MS that has once been mentioned above (p. 515"); in connexion with Pusey’s edition of Cyril of Alex- andria— Athos Pantocrator cod. 28. According to the catalogue of Sp. Lambros (i. 95), the MS is of the 9th cent., and contains the (Acts and) Pauline epistles, the names most frequently cited being Isidore of Pelusium, John Chrysostom, Se- verian, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Apollinaris. Photographs of eleven pages of this MS, covering 1 Co 784-114, were taken by Prof. Kirsopp Lake, and are now in the Bodleian (MS gr. th. f. 8): the principal authors in these pages are Chrysostom, Severian, Cyril, and Theo- dore of Mopsuestia. The absence of Theodoret is
noticeable ; and as all the eight writers known to
be used in the Catena are earlier than Theodoret, it is possible that its origin goes back to the period anterior to the publication of his commentary. If that is so, it ranks with our earliest Catenze ; but a serious drawback to its value is that the evidence of its Cyril texts (see above, note on p. 515”) seems to suggest that the catenist may have not only abbreviated but otherwise re-cast the passages he extracted from his sources.
5. Patmos ofy’ (=No. 263, p. 127 of Sakkellion’s catalogue), ssec. x., is described as containing, on foll. 1-119, not. a continuous commentary, but a series of notes on the Acts and some of the Catho- lic and Pauline epistles (2 Cor., Eph., Phil., Col., 1 and 2 Thess., 1 and 2 Tim., Titus), with an un. usually extensive range of authorities : Athanasius, Ambrose, Anastasius of Antioch, Apollinaris, Ar- chelaus the bishop, Basil, Ceesarius, Cyril of Alex- andria and of Jerusalem, Eusebius, Gennadius, Gregory Nazianzen and Nyssen, Hyp(atius ?), Trenzeus, [Isidore] the Pelusiote, John Chrysostom, John [Damascene], Josephus, Leontius. the Monk, Maximus the Monk, Methodius of Patara, Origen, Severian, Theodore, Theodoret. From the speci- mens given in the catalogue it would seem that the quotations are, for the most part, so brief as to promise little in the way of profitable result.
Of other anonymous Catens, the editing of Cramer’s Munich Catena on Romans appears to be a much better piece of work than that of his Paris Catena on the shorter epistles: to Karo-Lietzmann’s account of their No. vii. Catena, from Vienna, the present writer has nothing to add: of their No. viii. something will be said below, at the end of the account of Oecumenius, p. 524".
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES 523
B. Catene of known authorship.—
1. Those who have followed down to this point the argument of the present article will have gathered that the origin of the Catenz in general is to be looked for in a more remote age than it has been customary to ascribe to them. In par- ticular, the Catena of Oecumenius (see pp. 489, 486", 488°) is to be placed not, as hitherto, after the time of Photius, but before it. Recent investiga- tions tend still further to accelerate this backward movement, and make it probable that the true date of Oecumenius is about 600 A.D.
In a 12th cent. MS at Messina, cod. S. Salva- toris 99, a complete commentary on the Apoca- lypse under the name of Oecumenius has been lately found by a German scholar, Fr. Diekamp of Miinster (see a paper by him in Sitzwngsberichte der k. preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Ber- lin, 1901, pp. 1046-1056) ; and the internal evidence of the commentary is sufficient to establish roughly both the date and the theological standpoint of the writer. The comment on 1! éy raxe states that ‘a period of more than 500 years had elapsed ’ since the date of St. John’s vision. The Christ- ology is Cyrilline or even Severianist rather than Chalcedonian: é mpbcwmoy kal play daboracw Kal piay évépyevay is the nearest approach to a formu- lated doctrine of the Incarnation. The writer was therefore, if not actually a Monophysite, at any rate one of those who still sought for a common ground with Monophysitism.