2 
vie 
Incram—On a Fragment of the Gospels. 23 
deposited by Dr. Todd until he should have chosen a definitive place 
for it amongst the other manuscripts on the shelves. 
I need not say with what interest the leaf, when found, was ex- 
amined ; and the result of the examination is to establish the correctness 
of Mr. Law’s statement that it is a fragment of the Codex Palatinus. 
That gentleman appears never to have seen the leaf, but formed his 
conclusion from a comparison of the descriptions of it given by Dr. 
Todd and Mr. Westwood with that of the Codex Palatinus given by 
Tischendorf. On a comparison of the leaf itself with Tischendorf’s 
account of the codex, the truth is at once evident—they are found to 
agree in every, the most minute, particular. The preceding leaf of the 
codex ends with the words which in the text of the Gospel come im- 
mediately before those with which the Fragment commences. The 
half-leaf of the codex following the lost leaf has also disappeared, but 
the blank portion will be exactly filled by the portion of text inter- 
vening between the close of the Dublin fragment and the contents of 
the remaining half-leaf. In addition to the other points of corre- 
spondence, which I need not give in detail, as they are mentioned 
by Todd and Westwood, I may notice a circumstance which seems to 
have escaped the observation of both those writers. The leaf presents 
on the top, at one side, part of the word ‘‘Secundum,”’ and, at the 
other, part of the word ‘‘ Mattheum,” and the same heading is found 
in the codex also. The Rey. T. K. Abbott, Professor of Hebrew in 
the University of Dublin, will shortly publish a new edition of the 
celebrated Codex Rescriptus of St. Matthew’s Gospel, commonly 
known as Z, preserved in the Library of Trinity College, with another 
Palimpsest in the same collection, and he will include in the volume 
a lithographed copy of the text of the leaf of the Codex Palatinus. 
The date assigned to the leaf by Dr. Todd is confirmed by the 
judgment of Tischendorf, who, in his edition of the codex, pronounces 
the latter to belong to the fourth or fifth century. Tischendorf was 
not aware of the existence of the Dublin fragment, though, after the 
publication of his work, Mr. Law informed him of it. Neither Dr. 
Todd, when writing his Paper, nor Mr. Westwood (to whom Dr. Todd 
communicated the leaf) could have identified it as belonging to the 
Codex Palatinus, that codex not being published when they wrote. 
It remains a mystery how this fragment was detached from the 
codex to which it belonged. Nothing is known as to the way in 
which the codex was acquired by the Library at Vienna: it was not 
there before the year 1800, and appears to have been first mentioned 
as being there in 1829 by Kopitar, the eminent Sclavonian scholar, 
who was custodian of the Library. Whether the leaf came from 
Vienna to Ireland, or the codex went from Ireland to Vienna, we 
have no means of determining. 
Thave thought it right that the recovery of this valuable fragment, 
and the verification of its origin, should be first publicly made known 
in this Academy, where Dr. Todd had preyiously described it. 
