440. (Act. 111, Paul. 221.) Camb. Univ. Libr. Mm. vi. 9 [xii], 7 × 5-½, ff. 288 (28), Eus. t., κεφ., τίτλ., lect., Am., syn. (later); prol. (Cath. and Paul.), subscr. (Paul.). From this copy Griesbach's readings in Cod. 236 were derived. Described below under Scrivener's v before Evan. 507.
441, 442, at Cambridge, must be removed from Scholz's list; they are printed editions with manuscript notes. Cod. 441 is Act. 110, Paul. 222; Cod. 442 is Act. 152, Paul. 223.
443. Camb. Univ. Libr. Nn. ii. 36, once Askew 624 [xii], 11 × 8-¼, ff. 235 (24), 2 cols, Carp., Eus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλ., Am., Eus., some lect. (later), syn., men., prol. The κεφάλαια proper are subdivided in this copy, e.g. the 19th of St. Matthew, into no less than thirteen parts (see p. [64], note 2). For the titles of the Gospels, see Evan. 69. Evan. 443 was bought for the University Library in 1775 for £20, at the celebrated book-sale of Anthony Askew [1722-74], the learned physician who projected an edition of Aeschylus. See Marsh on Michaelis, vol. ii. pp. 661-2.
444. (Act. 153, Paul. 240.) Brit. Mus. Harl. 5796 [xv], 10-¼ × 7-½, ff. 324 (26-29), κεφ. t., τίτλ., lect., ἀναγν., subscr., στίχ., syn., men., neatly written, sold in 1537 “aspris 500:[254]” bought at Smyrna in 1722 by Bernard Mould.
445. Brit. Mus. Harl. 5736 [a.d. 1506], chart., 8-¼ × 6, ff. 194 (24), κεφ., τίτλ., Am., lect., in the hand “Antonii cujusdam eparchi,” once (like Apoc. 31) in the Jesuits' College, Agen, on the Garonne.
446. Brit. Mus. Harl. 5777 [xv], 9 × 6, ff. 228 or 231 (25), κεφ., τίτλ., Am., lect., κεφ. t. (not Matt.), subscr. (Luke), syn., men. Mut. Matt. i. 1-17; Mark i. 7-9; Luke i. 1-18; John i. 1-22, by a person who mischievously cut out the ornaments. It is clearly but unskilfully written, and Covell states on the outer leaf that it seems a copy from his manuscript, noted above as Evan. 65. This codex is Cov. 5 (Bloomfield).
447. Brit. Mus. Harl. 5784 [xv], 7-¼ × 5-¾, ff. 329 (21), Eus. t., prol., κεφ. t., orn., κεφ., τίτλ., lect., subscr., στίχ., prol. (Paul.); well written, and much like
448. Brit. Mus. Harl. 5790 [dated Rome, April 25, 1478], 12-¼ × 8-½, ff. 299 (22), κεφ. t., pict., κεφ., τίτλ. in margin, subscr., beautifully written by John Rhesus of Crete a priest for Francis Gonzaga Cardinal of S. Maria Nuova: belonged to Giovanni Pietro Arrivabene.
449. Brit. Mus. Addit. 4950-1 [xiii], 5 × 3-½, 2 vols., ff. 146 and 171, [pg 240] (23), prol., κεφ. t., pict., κεφ., τίτλ., lect., Am., Eus., men., syn., clearly and carefully written; once Caesar de Missy's (see Evan. 44).
Out of this whole mass of 190 manuscripts, Scholz collated five entire (262, 299, 300, 301, 346), eleven in the greater part (260, 270, 271, 277, 284, 285, 298, 324, 353, 382, 428), many in a few places, and not a few seem to have been left by him untouched. His list of Oriental manuscripts (Evann. 450-469), as it is given in the first volume of his Greek Testament (Proleg. pp. xcvi-xcvii)[255], has been withdrawn from the catalogue of cursive copies of the Gospels, in deference to the wish of the Dean of Chichester (Letter iii addressed to myself in the Guardian newspaper, July 5, 1882). It must be confessed indeed that Scholz's account of what he had seen in the East about 1823 cannot be easily reconciled with the description of the Rev. H. O. Coxe of the Bodleian Library thirty-five years later (“Report to Her Majesty's Government of the Greek Manuscripts yet remaining in the Libraries of the Levant, 1858”); that most of the books which Scholz catalogued at St. Saba on the Dead Sea were removed before 1875, as Mr. F. W. Pennefather informs us, to the Great Greek Convent of the Cross at Jerusalem; and that at least four of them were brought to Parham in Sussex from St. Saba in 1834 by the late Lord de la Zouche. Instead of Scholz's seven (450-6), Coxe saw fourteen copies of the Gospels at Jerusalem; twenty of the Gospels (besides a noble palimpsest of the Orestes and Phoenissae) at St. Saba after the four had been subtracted, instead of Scholz's ten (457-466); at Patmos five instead of Scholz's three (467-469). In spite of one's respect for the memory of that zealous and worthy labourer, M. A. Scholz, with whom I had a personal conference regarding our common studies in 1845, I cannot help acquiescing in Dean Burgon's decision, though not, perhaps, without some natural reluctance.