The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 17

a?t? t? ??? e??e? t?? pa?da ???a????ta: a clause which owes its existence solely to the practice of ending the lection for the ivth Sunday after Pentecost in that unauthorized manner.(411) But it is not only in cursive MSS. that these words are found. _They are met with also in the Codex Sinaiticus_ (?): a witness at once to the inveteracy of Liturgical usage in the ivth century of our aera, and to the corruptions which the "Codex omnium antiquissimus" will no doubt have inherited from a yet older copy than itself.

(15.) In conclusion, I may remark generally that there occur instances, again and again, of perturbations of the Text in our oldest MSS., (corresponding sometimes with readings vouched for by the most ancient of the Fathers,) which admit of no more intelligible or inoffensive solution than by referring them to the Lectionary practice of the primitive Church.(412)

Thus when instead of ?a? ??aa??? ? ??s??? e?? ?e??s???a (S. Matth. xx.

17), Cod. B reads, (and, is almost unique in reading,) ?????? d?

??aa??e?? ? ??s???; and when Origen sometimes quotes the place in the same way, but sometimes is observed to transpose the position of the Holy Name in the sentence; when again six of Matthaei's MSS., (and Origen once,) are observed to put the same Name _after_ ?e??s???a: when, lastly, two of Field's MSS.,(413) and one of Matthaei's, (and I dare say a great many more, if the truth were known,) omit the words ? ??s???

entirely:-_who_ sees not that the true disturbing force in this place, from the iind century of our aera downwards, has been _the Lectionary practice of the primitive Church_?-the fact that _there_ the lection for the Thursday after the viiith Sunday after Pentecost began?-And this may suffice.

IV. It has been proved then, in what goes before, more effectually even than in a preceding page,(414) not only that Ecclesiastical Lections corresponding with those indicated in the "Synaxaria" were fully established in the immediately post-Apostolic age, but also that at that early period the Lectionary system of primitive Christendom had already exercised a depraving influence of a peculiar kind on the text of Scripture. Further yet, (and _this_ is the only point I am now concerned to establish), that _our five oldest Copies of the Gospels_,-B and ? as well as A, C and D,-exhibit not a few traces of the mischievous agency alluded to; errors, and especially _omissions_, which sometimes seriously affect the character of those Codices as witnesses to the Truth of Scripture.-I proceed now to consider the case of S. Mark xvi. 9-20; only prefacing my remarks with a few necessary words of explanation.

V. He who takes into his hands an ordinary cursive MS. of the Gospels, is prepared to find the Church-lessons regularly indicated throughout, in the text or in the margin.

A familiar contraction, executed probably in vermillion [? over a?], ??, indicates the "beginning" (????) of each lection: a corresponding contraction (e over t, te, te?), indicates its "end" (t???s.) Generally, these rubrical directions, (for they are nothing else,) are inserted for convenience into the body of the text,-from which the red pigment with which they are almost invariably executed, effectually distinguishes them.

But all these particulars gradually disappear as recourse is had to older and yet older MSS. The studious in such matters have noticed that even the memorandums as to the "beginning" and the "end" of a lection are rare, almost in proportion to the antiquity of a Codex. When they do occur in the later uncials, they do not by any means always seem to have been the work of the original scribe; neither has care been always taken to indicate them in ink of a different colour. It will further be observed in such MSS. that whereas the sign where the reader is to begin is generally-(in order the better to attract his attention,)-inserted in _the margin_ of the Codex, the note where he is to leave off, (in order the more effectually to arrest his progress,) is as a rule introduced _into the body of the text_.(415) In uncial MSS., however, all such symbols are not only rare, but (what is much to be noted) they are exceedingly irregular in their occurrence. Thus in Codex G, in the Bodleian Library, (a recently acquired uncial MS. of the Gospels, written A.D. 844), there occurs no indication of the "end" of a single lection in S. Luke's Gospel, until chap. xvi. 31 is reached; after which, the sign abounds. In Codex L, the original notes of Ecclesiastical Lections occur at the following rare and irregular intervals:-S. Mark ix. 2: x. 46: xii. 40 (where the sign has lost its way; it should have stood against ver. 44): xv. 42 and xvi.

1.(416) In the _oldest_ uncials, nothing of the kind is discoverable. Even in the Codex Bezae, (vith century,) not a single liturgical direction _coeval with the MS._ is anywhere to be found.

VI. And yet, although the practice of thus indicating the beginning and the end of a liturgical section, does not seem to have come into general use until about the xiith century; and although, previous to the ixth century, systematic liturgical directions are probably unknown;(417) the _need_ of them must have been experienced by one standing up to read before the congregation, long before. The want of some reminder where he was to begin,-above all, of some hint where he was to leave off,-will have infallibly made itself felt from the first. Accordingly, there are not wanting indications that, occasionally, ????S (or ?? ????S) was written in the margin of Copies of the Gospels at an exceedingly remote epoch. One memorable example of this practice is supplied by the Codex Bezae (D): where in S. Mark xiv. 41, instead of ?p??e? ???e? ? ??a,-we meet with the unintelligible ?????? ?? ????S ??? ? O??. Now, nothing else has here happened but that a marginal note, designed originally to indicate the end (?? ????S) of the lesson for the third day of the iind week of the Carnival, has lost its way from the end of ver. 42, and got thrust into the text of ver. 41,-to the manifest destruction of the sense.(418) I find D's error here is shared (_a_) by the Pes.h.i.+to Syriac, (_b_) by the old Latin, and (_c_) by the Philoxenian: venerable partners in error, truly!

for the first two probably carry back this false reading to _the second century of our aera_; and so, furnish one more remarkable proof, to be added to the fifteen (or rather the forty) already enumerated (pp.

217-23), that the lessons of the Eastern Church were settled at a period long anterior to the date of the oldest MS. of the Gospels extant.

VII. Returning then to the problem before us, I venture to suggest as follows:-What if, at a very remote period, this same isolated liturgical note (?? ????S) occurring at S. Mark xvi. 8, (which _is_ "the end" of _the Church-lection_ for the iind Sunday after Easter,) should have unhappily suggested to some copyist,-?a?????af?a? _quam vel Criticae Sacrae vel rerum Liturgicarum peritior_,-the notion that the entire "_Gospel according to S. Mark_," came to an end at verse 8?... I see no more probable account of the matter, I say, than this:-That the mutilation of the last chapter of S. Mark has resulted from the fact, that some very ancient scribe _misapprehended the import of the solitary liturgical note_ ????S (or ??

????S) which he found at the close of verse 8. True, that he will have probably beheld, further on, several additional st????. But if he did, how could he acknowledge the fact more loyally than by leaving (as the author of Cod. B is observed to have done) one entire column blank, before proceeding with S. Luke? He hesitated, all the same, _to transcribe_ any further, having before him, (as he thought,) an a.s.surance that "THE END"

had been reached at ver. 8.

VIII. That some were found in very early times eagerly to acquiesce in this omission: to sanction it: even to multiply copies of the Gospel so mutilated; (critics or commentators intent on nothing so much as reconciling the apparent discrepancies in the Evangelical narratives:)-appears to me not at all unlikely.(419) Eusebius almost says as much, when he puts into the mouth of one who is for getting rid of these verses altogether, the remark that "they would be in a manner superfluous _if it should appear that their testimony is at variance with that of the other Evangelists_."(420) (The ancients were giants in Divinity but children in Criticism.) On the other hand, I altogether agree with Dean Alford in thinking it highly improbable that the difficulty of harmonizing one Gospel with another in this place, (such as it is,) was the cause why these Twelve Verses were originally suppressed.(421) (1) First, because there really was no need to withhold more than three,-at the utmost, five of them,-if _this_ had been the reason of the omission.

(2) Next, because it would have been easier far to introduce some critical correction of any supposed discrepancy, than to sweep away the whole of the unoffending context. (3) Lastly, because nothing clearly was gained by causing the Gospel to end so abruptly that every one must see at a glance that it had been mutilated. No. The omission having originated in a mistake, was perpetuated for a brief period (let us suppose) only through infirmity of judgment: or, (as I prefer to believe), only in consequence of the religious fidelity of copyists, who were evidently always instructed to transcribe exactly what they found in the copy set before them. The Church meanwhile in her corporate capacity, has never known anything at all of the matter,-as was fully shewn above in Chap. X.

IX. When this solution of the problem first occurred to me, (and it occurred to me long before I was aware of the memorable reading ?? ????S in the Codex Bezae, already adverted to,) I reasoned with myself as follows:-But if the mutilation of the second Gospel came about in this particular way, the MSS. are bound to remember _something_ of the circ.u.mstance; and in ancient MSS., if I am right, I ought certainly to meet with _some_ confirmation of my opinion. According to my view, at the root of this whole matter lies the fact that at S. Mark xvi. 8 a well-known Ecclesiastical lesson comes to an end. Is there not perhaps something exceptional in the way that the close of that liturgical section was anciently signified?

X. In order to ascertain this, I proceeded to inspect every copy of the Gospels in the Imperial Library at Paris;(422) and devoted seventy hours exactly, with unflagging delight, to the task. The success of the experiment astonished me.

1. I began with _our_ Cod. 24 ( = Reg. 178) of the Gospels: turned to the last page of S. Mark: and beheld, in a Codex of the xith Century wholly devoid of the Lectionary apparatus which is sometimes found in MSS. of a similar date,(423) at fol. 104, the word + ????S + conspicuously written by the original scribe immediately after S. Mark xvi. 8, as well as at the close of the Gospel. _It occurred besides only at ch._ ix. 9, (the end of the lesson for the Transfiguration.) And yet there are _at least seventy_ occasions in the course of S. Mark's Gospel where, in MSS. which have been accommodated to Church use, it is usual to indicate the close of a Lection. This discovery, which surprised me not a little, convinced me that I was on the right scent; and every hour I met with some fresh confirmation of the fact.

2. For the intelligent reader will readily understand that three such deliberate liturgical memoranda, occurring solitary in a MS. of this date, are to be accounted for only in one way. They infallibly represent a corresponding peculiarity in some far more ancient doc.u.ment. The fact that the word ????S is here (_a_) set down unabbreviated, (_b_) in black ink, and (_c_) as part of the text,-points unmistakably in the same direction.

But that Cod. 24 is derived from a Codex of much older date is rendered certain by a circ.u.mstance which shall be specified at foot.(424)

3. The very same phenomena reappear in Cod. 36.(425) The sign + ????S +, (which occurs punctually at S. Mark xvi. 8 and again at v. 20,) is found besides in S. Mark's Gospel only at chap. i. 8;(426) at chap. xiv. 31; and (+ ????S ??? ??F??) at chap. xv. 24;-being on every occasion incorporated with the Text. Now, when it is perceived that in the second and third of these places, ????S has clearly lost its way,-appearing where _no_ Ecclesiastical lection came to an end,-it will be felt that the MS. before us (of the xith century) if it was not actually transcribed from,-must at least exhibit at second hand,-a far more ancient Codex.(427)

4. Only once more.-Codex 22 ( = Reg. 72) was never prepared for Church purposes. A rough hand has indeed scrawled indications of the beginnings and endings of a few of the Lessons, here and there; but these liturgical notes are no part of the original MS. At S. Mark xvi. 8, however, we are presented (as before) with the solitary note + ????S +-, incorporated with the text. Immediately after which, (in writing of the same size,) comes a memorable statement(428) in red letters. The whole stands thus:-

F??????? G?? + ????S +- [cross] ?? ??S? ?O? ????G??FO?.

?OS O?? ????????? ? ??

?GG???S??S: ?? ??????S ??. ??? ????? F?????? +- ???S??S ??. ???? ??O?? S?????O?.

And then follows the rest of the Gospel; at the end of which, the sign + ????S + is again repeated,-which sign, however, occurs _nowhere else_ in the MS. _nor at the end of any of the other three Gospels_. A more opportune piece of evidence could hardly have been invented. A statement so apt and so significant was surely a thing rather to be wished than to be hoped for. For here is the liturgical sign ????S not only occurring in the wholly exceptional way of which we have already seen examples, but actually followed by the admission that "In certain copies, _the Evangelist proceeds no further_." The two circ.u.mstances so brought together seem exactly to bridge over the chasm between Codd. B and ? on the one hand,-and Codd. 24 and 36 on the other; and to supply us with precisely the link of evidence which we require. For observe:-During the first six centuries of our aera, no single instance is known of a codex in which ????S is written at the end of a Gospel. The subscription of S. Mark for instance is _invariably_ either ???? ??????,-(as in B and ?): or else ???GG????? ???? ??????,-(as in A and C, and the other older uncials): _never_ ????S. But here is a Scribe who first copies the _liturgical_ note ????S,-and then volunteers the _critical_ observation that "in some copies of S. Mark's Gospel the Evangelist proceeds no further!" A more extraordinary corroboration of the view which I am endeavouring to recommend to the reader's acceptance, I really cannot imagine. Why, the ancient Copyist actually comes back, in order to a.s.sure me that the suggestion which I have been already offering in explanation of the difficulty, is the true one!

5. I am not about to abuse the reader's patience with a prolonged enumeration of the many additional conspiring circ.u.mstances,-insignificant in themselves and confessedly unimportant when considered singly, but of which the c.u.mulative force is unquestionably great,-which an examination of 99 MSS. of the Gospels brought to light.(429) Enough has been said already to shew,

(1st.) That it must have been a customary thing, at a very remote age, to write the word ????S against S. Mark xvi. 8, even when the same note was withheld from the close of almost every other ecclesiastical lection in the Gospel.

(2ndly.) That this word, or rather note, which no doubt was originally written as a liturgical memorandum in the margin, became at a very early period incorporated with the text; where, retaining neither its use nor its significancy, it was liable to misconception, and may have easily come to be fatally misunderstood.

And although these two facts certainly prove nothing in and by themselves, yet, when brought close alongside of the problem which has to be solved, their significancy becomes immediately apparent: for,

(3rdly.) As a matter of fact, there are found to have existed before the time of Eusebius, copies of S. Mark's Gospel which _did_ come to an end at this very place. Now, that _the Evangelist_ left off there, no one can believe.(430) _Why_, then, did _the Scribe_ leave off? But the Reader is already in possession of the reason why. A sufficient explanation of the difficulty has been elicited from the very MSS. themselves. And surely when, suspended to an old chest which has been locked up for ages, a key is still hanging which fits the lock exactly and enables men to open the chest with ease, they are at liberty to a.s.sume that the key _belongs_ to the lock; is, in fact, the only instrument by which the chest may lawfully be opened.

XI. And now, in conclusion, I propose that we summon back our original Witness, and invite him to syllable his evidence afresh, in order that we may ascertain if perchance it affords any countenance whatever to the view which I have been advocating. Possible at least it is that in the Patristic record that copies of S. Mark's Gospel were anciently defective from the 8th verse onwards _some_ vestige may be discoverable of the forgotten truth. Now, it has been already fully shewn that it is a mistake to introduce into this discussion any other name but that of Eusebius.(431) Do, then, the terms in which _Eusebius_ alludes to this matter lend us any a.s.sistance? Let us have the original indictment read over to us once more: and _this_ time we are bound to listen to every word of it with the utmost possible attention.

1. A problem is proposed for solution. "There are two ways of solving it,"

(Eusebius begins):-? ?? ??? [t? ?ef??a??? a?t?] t?? t??t? f?s???sa?

pe????p?? ??et??, e?p?? ?? ? ?? ?pas?? a?t?? f??es?a? t??? ??t????f???

t?? ?at? ?????? e?a??e????: t? ???? ????? t?? ??t????f?? ?? ????S pe?????fe? t?? ?at? t?? ?????? ?st???a? ?? t??? ?????? ?.t.?. ???

?p????e?, "?a? ??de?? ??d?? e?p??, ?f????t? ???." ?? t??t? s?ed?? ??

?pas? t??? ??t????f??? t?? ?at? ?????? e?a??e???? pe??????apta? ??

????S(432) ... Let us halt here for one moment.

2. Surely, a new and unexpected light already begins to dawn upon this subject! How is it that we paid so little attention before to the terms in which this ancient Father delivers his evidence, that we overlooked the import of an expression of his which from the first must have struck us as peculiar, but which _now_ we perceive to be of paramount significancy?

Eusebius is pointing out that _one_ way for a man (so minded) to get rid of the apparent inconsistency between S. Mark xvi. 9 and S. Matth. xxviii.

1, would be for him to reject the entire "Ecclesiastical Lection"(433) in which S. Mark xvi. 9 occurs. Any one adopting this course, (he proceeds; and it is much to be noted that Eusebius is throughout delivering the imaginary sentiments of another,-not his own:) Such an one (he says) "will say that it is _not met with in all_ the copies of S. Mark's Gospel. The accurate copies, at all events,"-and then follows an expression in which this ancient Critic is observed ingeniously to accommodate his language to the phenomenon which he has to describe, so as covertly to insinuate something else. Eusebius employs an idiom (it is found elsewhere in his writings) sufficiently colourless to have hitherto failed to arouse attention; but of which it is impossible to overlook the actual design and import, after all that has gone before. He clearly _recognises the very phenomenon to which I have been calling __ attention_ within the last two pages, and which I need not further insist upon or explain: viz. that _the words_ ?? ????S _were_ in some very ancient ("_the accurate_") copies _found written after_ ?f????t? ???: although to an unsuspicious reader the expression which he uses may well seem to denote nothing more than that the second Gospel _generally came to an end_ there.

3. And now it is time to direct attention to the important bearing of the foregoing remark on the main point at issue. The true import of what Eusebius has delivered, and which has at last been ascertained, will be observed really to set his evidence in a novel and unsuspected light. From the days of Jerome, it has been customary to a.s.sume that Eusebius roundly states that, in his time _almost all the Greek copies_ were without our "last Twelve Verses" of S. Mark's Gospel:(434) whereas Eusebius really _does nowhere say so_. He expresses himself enigmatically, resorting to a somewhat unusual phrase(435) which perhaps admits of no exact English counterpart: but what he says clearly amounts to no more than this,-that "_the accurate_ copies, at the words ?f????t? ???, circ.u.mscribe THE END (?? ????S) of Mark's narrative:" that _there_, "in almost all the Copies of the Gospel according to Mark, is circ.u.mscribed THE END." He says no more. He does not say that _there_ "is circ.u.mscribed _the Gospel_." As for the twelve verses which follow, he merely declares that they were "_not met with in all_ the copies;" i.e. that some copies did not contain them.

But this, so far from being a startling statement, is no more than what Codd. B and ? in themselves are sufficient to establish. In other words, Eusebius, (whose testimony on this subject as it is commonly understood is so extravagant [see above, p. 48-9,] as to carry with it its own sufficient refutation,) is found to bear consistent testimony to the two following modest propositions; which, however, are not adduced by him as reasons for rejecting S. Mark xvi. 9-20, but only as samples of _what might be urged_ by one desirous of shelving a difficulty suggested by their contents;-

(1st.) That from _some_ ancient copies of S. Mark's Gospel these last Twelve Verses were away.

(2nd.) That in _almost_ all the copies,-(whether mutilated or not, he does not state,)-the words ?? ????S were found immediately after ver. 8; which, (he seems to hint,) let those who please accept as evidence that there also is _the end of the Gospel_.

4. But I cannot dismiss the testimony of Eusebius until I have recorded my own entire conviction that this Father is no more an original authority here than Jerome, or Hesychius, or Victor.(436) He is evidently adopting the language of some more ancient writer than himself. I observe that he introduces the problem with the remark that what follows is one of tho questions "for ever mooted by every body."(437) I suspect (with Matthaei, [_supra_, p. 66,]) that _Origen_ is the _true_ author of all this confusion. He certainly relates of himself that among his voluminous exegetical writings was a _treatise on S. Mark's Gospel_.(438) To Origen's works, Eusebius, (his apologist and admirer,) is known to have habitually resorted; and, like many others, to have derived not a few of his notions from that fervid and acute, but most erratic intellect. Origen's writings in short, seem to have been the source of much, if not most of the mistaken Criticism of Antiquity. (The reader is reminded of what has been offered above at p. 96-7). And this would not be the first occasion on which it would appear that when an ancient Writer speaks of "_the accurate copies_", what he actually _means is the text of Scripture which was employed or approved by Origen_.(439) The more attentively the language of Eusebius in this place is considered, the more firmly (it is thought) will the suspicion be entertained that he is here only reproducing the sentiments of another person. But, however this may be, it is at least certain that the precise meaning of what he says, has been hitherto generally overlooked. He certainly does _not_ say, as Jerome, from his loose translation of the pa.s.sage,(440) evidently imagined,-"_omnibus __ Graeciae libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus_:" but only,-"_non in omnibus Evangelii exemplaribus hoc capitulum inveniri_;"

which is an entirely different thing. Eusebius adds,-"Accuratiora saltem exemplaria FINEM narrationis secundum Marc.u.m circ.u.mscribunt in verbis ?f????t? ???;"-and, "In hoc, fere in omnibus exemplaribus Evangelii secundum Marc.u.m, FINEM circ.u.mscribi."-The point, however, of greatest interest is, that Eusebius here calls attention to the prevalence in MSS.

of his time of the very _liturgical peculiarity_ which plainly supplies the one true solution of the problem under discussion. His testimony is a marvellous corroboration of what we learn from Cod. 22, (see above, p.

230,) and, rightly understood, does not go a whit beyond it.

5. What wonder that Hesychius, because he adopted blindly what he found in Eusebius, should at once betray his author and exactly miss the point of what his author says? ?? ?at? ?????? e?a??????? (so he writes) ???? t??

"?f????t? ???," ??e? ?? ????S.(441)

6. This may suffice concerning the testimony of Eusebius.-It will be understood that I suppose Origen to have fallen in with one or more copies of S. Mark's Gospel which exhibited _the Liturgical hint_, (?? ????S,) conspicuously written against S. Mark xvi. 9. Such a copy may, or may not, have there terminated abruptly. I suspect however that it _did_. Origen at all events, (_more suo_,) will have remarked on the phenomenon before him; and Eusebius will have adopted his remarks,-as the heralds say, "with _a difference_"-simply because they suited his purpose, and seemed to him ingenious and interesting.

7. For the copy in question,-(_like_ that other copy of S. Mark from which the Pes.h.i.+to translation was made, and in which ?? ????S most inopportunely occurs at chap. xiv. 41,(442))-will have become the progenitor of several other copies (as Codd. B and ?); and some of these, it is pretty evident, were familiarly known to Eusebius.

8. Let it however be clearly borne in mind that nothing of all this is in the least degree essential to my argument. Eusebius, (for aught that I know or care,) may be _solely_ responsible for every word that he has delivered concerning S. Mark xvi. 9-20. Every link in my argument will remain undisturbed, and the conclusion will be still precisely the same, whether the mistaken Criticism before us originated with another or with himself.

XII. But _why_, (it may reasonably be asked,)-_Why_ should there have been anything exceptional in the way of indicating the end of this particular Lection? _Why_ should t???? be so constantly found written after S. Mark xvi. 8?

I answer,-I suppose it was because the Lections which respectively ended and began at that place were so many, and were Lections of such unusual importance. Thus,-(1) On the 2nd Sunday after Easter, (????a?? ?? t??

???f????, as it was called,) at the Liturgy, was read S. Mark xv. 43 to xvi. 8; and (2) on the same day at Matins, (by the Melchite Syrian Christians as well as by the Greeks,(443)) S. Mark xvi. 9-20. The severance, therefore, was at ver. 8. (3) In certain of the Syrian Churches the liturgical section for Easter Day was S. Mark xvi 2-8:(444) in the Churches of the Jacobite, or Monophysite Christians, the Eucharistic lesson for Easter-Day was ver. 1-8.(445) (4) The second matin lesson of the Resurrection (xvi. 1-8) also ends,-and (5) the third (xvi. 9-20) begins, at the same place: and these two Gospels (both in the Greek and in the Syrian Churches) were in constant use not only at Easter, but throughout the year.(446) (6) _That_ same third matin lesson of the Resurrection was also the Lesson at Matins on Ascension-Day; as well in the Syrian(447) as in the Greek(448) Churches. (7) With the Monophysite Christians, the lection "feriae tertiae in albis, ad primam vesperam,"

(i.e. for the Tuesday in Easter-Week) was S. Mark xv. 37-xvi. 8: and (8) on the same day, at Matins, ch. xvi. 9-18.(449)-During eighteen weeks after Easter therefore, _the only parts_ of S. Mark's Gospel publicly read were (_a_) the last thirteen [ch. xv. 43-xvi. 8], and (_b_) "_the last twelve_" [ch. xvi. 9-20] verses. Can it be deemed a strange thing that it should have been found _indispensable_ to mark, with altogether exceptional emphasis,-to make it unmistakably plain,-where the former Lection came to an end, and where the latter Lection began?(450)

XIII. One more circ.u.mstance, and but one, remains to be adverted to in the way of evidence; and one more suggestion to be offered. The circ.u.mstance is familiar indeed to all, but its bearing on the present discussion has never been pointed out. I allude to the fact that anciently, in copies of the fourfold Gospel, _the Gospel according to S. Mark frequently stood last_.