(x.) Evan. 40 (= Coisl. 22.)
No Author's name is prefixed to the Commentary (fol. 103); which is a recension resembling Matthaei's. The Text is in extenso: the Commentary, in the margin.
(xi.) Evan. 41 (= Coisl. 24.) Fol.
This is a Commentary, not a Text. It is expressly claimed for Victor. The recension seems to approximate to that published by Matthaei. (See on No. viii.) One leaf is missing. (See fol. 136 b.)
(xii.) Evan. 50 (= Bodl. Laud. Gracc. 33.) 4to. The Commentary here seems to be claimed for Cyril of Alexandria, but in the same unsatisfactory way as No. iii and xiv. (See Coxe's Cat. i. 516.)
(xiii.) Evan. 299 (= Reg. 177: anciently numbered 22423).
The Commentary on S. Mark is Victor's, but is without any Author's name. The Text of S. Mark is given in extenso: Victor's Commentary, in the margin.
(xiv.) Evan. 300 (= Reg. 186: anciently numbered 692, 750, and 1882.) A noble Codex: but the work of different scribes. It is most beautifully written.
At fol. 94, the Commentary on S. Mark is claimed for Cyril of Alexandria, in the same equivocal manner as above in No. iii and xii. The writer states in the colophon that he had diversely found it ascribed to Cyril and to Victor. (ἐπληρώθη σὺν Θεῷ ἡ ἑρμηνεία τοῦ κατὰ Μάρκον ἁγίου εὐαγγελίου ἀπὸ φωνῆς, ἔν τισιν εὗρον Κυρίλλου Ἀλεξανδρέως, ἐν ἄλλοις δὲ Βίκτορος πρεσβυτέρον.)
See above, the note on Evan. 20 (No. iii),—a MS. which, as already explained, has been elaborately assimilated to the present.