160 
that it is so. In a letter with which I have been favoured by Mr 
Wilde, the compiler of the annals, to whom I applied for informa- 
tion, he says, — “ I have just seen a person from Doneraile, who 
informs me, that it is the most thickly wooded part of the county 
of Cork, and that the timber there is chiefly pine.” 
2. Some Remarks on the Roman Edition of the Vatican 
Manuscript. By the Rev. Dr Robert Lee. 
Dr Lee commenced with a general account of the existing MSS. 
of the Greek Scriptures, and particularly of the Uncial MSS. 
These, though few in number in comparison of the Cursive MSS., 
are of peculiar value, on account of their greater antiquity and the 
superior purity of their text. Fac-similes of several of the most 
important of these interesting documents were exhibited. After 
making some remarks upon the Alexandrian, the Ephraem, the 
Beza, and Clermont MSS., Dr Lee remarked that all of these were 
now, and most of them had long been, available to Biblical scholars 
by means of the excellent copies which had been issued, the posses- 
sors of the documents having afforded every facility and encourage- 
ment. The only exception vras the Vatican MS., of which he had 
now to speak, and which had hitherto been withheld from inspec- 
tion, for reasons which might be guessed but could not be justified. 
He then proceeded to describe this Codex, chiefly from the accounts 
of Hug and Tischendorff, concluding, with them, that its age could 
not be later than the fifth, perhaps not later than the fourth century. 
The lately issued Roman edition was then considered. The prefaces 
threw no light upon the delay and obstruction which had occurred— 
they spoke much, indeed, on the subject, but really said nothing. 
Dr Lee censured this work on several grounds. 1. Because it 
wanted Prolegomena, which, in this case, were necessary, and, in- 
deed, indispensable — the more so as the jealousy of the authorities 
at the Vatican had prevented free access to those who were desirous 
to examine the Codex. 2. Because the work was gone about in a 
way which could not but produce manifold mistakes and maculae , 
which had accordingly been produced. 3. Because the title gave a 
false description of the Book, which was not “ The Old and New 
Testament according to the Vatican Manuscript,” as the title held 
forth, but the Greek Scriptures from the Vatican MS., and from 
various other MSS. of different and often uncertain date, of inferior 
