caution on provenance of mss from 5th and 16th centuries

[Steven Avery]

Joseph Mortland Cotterill (f. 1880-1885) took the position that Alexandrinus was a forgery, or produced much later than currently thought However, his evidence involved material from Clement of Rome that is in the ms. that Cotterill believed was later than the date ascribed to Alexandrinus. Since the accusation bumped up against three manuscripts, at this time it can not be given a lot of consideration.

However in checking out the information, I came across a very interesting quote that can use more research about the earlier times, by a writer who had shown some of the difficulties in the Cotterill position:

The Foreign church chronicle and review, Volume 4 (1880)
https://books.google.com/books?id=TvEDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA60

It is possible, however, that he has done good service in pointing out how many were the inducements and facilities for the forgery of ancient documents in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. There was an enormous demand for manuscripts ; every monastery was ransacked for them, and every scholar tried to collect them; when they were once produced, an inquiry into their history was almost impossible. The art of writing books on parchment was not lost, but practised constantly in all its forms. The imitation of classical authors was a favourite exercise among students, and many scholars were competent to produce writings, the style and diction of which would enable them to pass as genuine works of the ancients. ... (he actually almost points a finger at Stephanus)

The editor at the time was Frederick Meyrick (1827-1906), so he was likely the author of this section.