Thus the testimony of the Naples MS, late as it is, definitely vindicates for Evagrius, and there- fore for the pre -Euthalian edition of St. Paul, something more than codex H in its mutilated condition was able to do, namely Zacagni’s No. iii. Putting the evidence of the two MSS together, we see that before the year 600—and if we are right in treating codex H as already a rather corrupt exemplar of the edition, we might say before the year 500—a certain Evagrius published an edition of the Pauline epistles, with the text arranged ‘colometrically’ in sense lines; with OT references marked in the margin, and num- bered through for each epistle; with an elaborate arrangement of chapters and subdivisions of chapters in black and red; with calculation of the stichometry, not only of the text itself of the Epistles (guaranteed by a mark at every 50th orixos), but even of the editor’s chapter headings; with a subscription to each epistle giving geo- graphical and personal information ; and, finally, with some prefatory matter, including at least a continuous table of ‘lections’ for the whole series of Epistles, in which the number of chapters, citations, and orixo. contained in each lection was separately enumerated.
(¢) In ate ae to fix with more precision the date of the edition of Evagrius, the evidence of the early Syriac MSS of the Pauline epistles will have to be taken into account. Wright’s British Museum catalogue comprises several MSS anterior to the time of Euthalius, and three or four of them may possibly contain Euthalian matter. Cod, exxxili. (Add. 14476), sec. v.-vi., divides Romans into 21 sections by Greek letters, and has a further mark, found occasionally throughout the Epistles, consisting of a single Syriac letter; but no de- tails are given which would make it possible to say whether or no these are Euthalian (Evagrian) chapters. Cod. exxxiv. (Add. 14480), see. V.-Vi., has the same place-colophons as Evagrius,—in- cluding 1 Corinthians ‘from Philippi of Macedonia,’ and 1 Timothy ‘from Laodicea,’—and also a reckoning of the orlxo. for each epistle. In cod. exxxviiil. (Add. 14477), seee. vi.-vii., the colophons give not only the place of writing and the number of crixo, but also in each case the bearers of the
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
epistle ; * and for 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon the same personal details as in Zacagni’s text (and therefore in the case of Titus, see p. 528°, above, the same as in codex H). On the other hand, the stichometry of these MSS does not appear to coin- cide with that of Euthalius. Finally, cod. exli. (Add, 14478), A.D. 622, has marginal notes, in- dicating the sources of the Apostle’s quotations, which would seem to be of ‘Euthalian’ (Evagrian) origin. Further investigation of this line of in- quiry, which promises to be not without fruit, must be left to Syriac scholars ; but even without Syriac evidence there is ground enough on the Greek side to push back the Evagrian nucleus of the Euthalian edition into the 5th century.
(ad) This being so, the witness of the Martyriam Pauli to a precise dating at the end of the 4th cent. acquires enhanced importance. It has been seen that that document (Zacagni’s No. ii.) is dated by its writer in 396, while one branch of the MS tra- dition adds the supplementary date of a redactor in 458. The document is so brief that it hardly seems likely to have been borrowed, rather than composed, for the edition of the Epistles ; and if it was composed for it, the whole Evagrian edition is naturally brought into immediate connexion with that year. But, again, an Evagrius who was writing in 396 could surely be no other than the well-known theologian and writer who was trained by Basil and his brother Gregory, who, after varied
experiences in Cappadocia, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, sought refuge among the ascetics of Nitria and Scetis, where he numbered Rufinus and Palladius among his pupils, and where he poured out book after book, for the benefit of his fellow ascetics, till his death in 398 or 399. One phrase in the Evagrian colophon of codex H, rév kad’ jpis ddehpGy, suggests that the writer was living the monastic life, and so far would bear out the hypo- thesis; but it remains a hypothesis still, and nothing is more necessary in threading our way through the mazes of the Euthalian labyrinth than to keep clear the distinction between hypo- thesis and ascertained fact. The value of such a hypothesis at this stage is rather to suggest lines of inquiry, and to give point and direction to the further investigation of manuscripts which must precede final judgment.
We have now enough material at our disposal to turn back to the list of Zacagni’s Euthalian matter (p. 526*), and to distinguish roughly how much of it is Evagrian, or, at any rate, pre- Euthalian. The true authorship of the first piece, the prologue, is the most difficult, as well as the most important, problem left for discussion, and cannot be settled off-hand. But for the rest a rapid summary will suffice. No. ii, is dated at 396 (458) A.D., and is therefore pre - Euthalian, whether or no it is Evagrian. No. iii. is vindicated for Evagrius by the Naples MS. Nos. iv. and v. go together, as do Nos. vili. and ix.: these two pairs of documents are alternative to one another, and therefore of different authorship ; the probabilities are that the one pair is Evagrian, the other Euth- alian, and, if so, the simpler method and briefer statement of Nos. iv. and v. indicate the ear- lier editor. Nos. vi. and vii. may be Evagrian, but are in any case less important. Nos. vili and ix. are probably, as has just been said, Euthalius’ de- velopment of Nos. iv. and v. Nos. X., Xl, Xi. are not Evagrian, and indeed are inconsistent with Evagrius: their source isin the pseudo-Athanasian synopsis: but if we regard Euthalius as a compiler, there is no reason why it should not have been he who engrafted upon the Evagrian stock material borrowed from pseudo-Athanasius. Nos. xiii. and