Part II – On the Writings of Saint Isidore

PART TWO. ON THE WRITINGS OF ISIDORE OF PELUSIUM.

^A Isidore of Pelusium, besides the epistles which we shall treat more fully later, also wrote other books which have not reached our age; and to prove this, it is not necessary to have recourse to the authority of Suidas and Nicephorus, since he himself has mentioned his book against the Greeks twice. For to Herminus the Count, who asked how it happens that wicked and criminal men very often have success in everything, while the upright, on the contrary, and those distinguished by piety, find themselves in the most bitter evils and calamities, he replied that he had solved this difficult question in his ^B *Discourse to the Greeks* as far as it was possible. That he also attacked the art of divination of the Greeks sharply in the same book, we know from the beginning of his letter to Harpocras the Sophist, in which he speaks of this matter in this manner: "That divination among the Greeks was a labor and was vainly noised abroad, has been demonstrated by me in my *Discourse to the Greeks*." It is certain, therefore, that he composed a book against the Greeks or the Gentiles; but whether this book is different from that *Upon the non-existence of Fate*, which he mentions in another letter to the same Herminus, or whether it is the same, seems to require a new inquiry. Rittershusius thinks them the same, with whom Dupin agrees, who, from the words of Isidorus himself, boldly argues that he treated of one and the same book in those three epistles. Fabricius disagrees, who, from the subject matter of the book against the Greeks, as described by me as far as possible, gathers the contrary. But the little book which Isidore wrote *On Fate* was written against the heathens, and in that book against the Gentiles, in which, as we have already said, he discussed the misery of pious men and the happiness of the wicked, it was undoubtedly an excellent occasion for speaking of fate. Wherefore, from the subject matter of both books, it is not permitted to conclude that both books were different from one another; nor, however, do I willingly admit that the contrary follows from that. But if anyone should object to me that Isidore brought forward two titles of books, and therefore it is necessary that there should also exist two books—in response to this, I reply that this double title can well suit one and the same book, provided we accept that Isidore composed his *Discourse to the Greeks Concerning the non-existence of Fate*. And what Heumann brings forward—who, for that very reason, to use his words, because Isidore deems the book *On Fate* to be called a *logidion* (little discourse) rather than a *logos* (discourse), determines that it is different from that which he wrote against the Greeks, which is twice honored with the name of *logos*—is not of great moment. For Isidore, highly praised by Herminus, out of the singular modesty in which he excelled, could well have called his book a *logidion*, although it was worthy of the name of *logos*. Wherefore, by all these things, it cannot be proved that Isidore's writing against the Greeks is different from his book *On Fate*. What if someone, for that reason, since both epistles—namely, those which we have praised in the first and third place—were addressed to the same Herminus, should try to contend and prove the contrary? For he could put forward reasoning of this kind, which is not far removed from probability: that just as it appears from that epistle of the second book to Herminus that Isidore replied to Herminus the questioner himself that he had already discussed this matter more fully in his book against the Greeks, there is nothing more likely than that the person to whom he owed an accurate adjudication of the question should have gently requested his friend to send that book. Nor, as we see from the other letter to Herminus, did he reject his prayers, but sent along with these letters the book which he had requested. Which opinion, although it may have pleased at first glance, nevertheless, whoever peruses the letters of the third book to Herminus with attentive mind will immediately reject it. For they are contained in these words: "Since you wrote to me recently that I had composed a little book on fate, which, by some having been exalted to the very heavens with great praises, and by others being preferred to all writings in which the same argument is treated, you have prayed that I send this book to you..."

I have sent it. And it appears, as I indeed believe, from the beginning of this letter, that the book on fate is not the same one which Isidore had commended to his familiar friend in the letter. For the words which Herminus used: "You have recently composed a book on fate," which we can elicit from the letter of Isidore sent to him, declare quite sufficiently, in my opinion, that he had not yet spoken of this book with his friend, neither by letter nor in personal conversation. If this is true, this little book on fate cannot be one and the same as the book which the Pelusiote composed against the Greeks. Fabricius and Heumann therefore judged correctly, even if they did not see the reason why one should think so.

Therefore, one might be allowed to leave this point and pass on to other writings of Isidore, were it not for the fact that there exists a long letter to Harpocras the sophist, which, since the opinion of those who believe in fate is refuted in it, one might take for the little book *peri tou me einai heimarmenen* [on the non-existence of fate], of which we have just spoken; especially since Isidore called another letter, which was written to Eulogius, a *logidion* [little discourse]. Since I can neither confirm nor refute this opinion with other arguments, I only advise that from that letter to Harpocras the sophist, we can best understand the mode and method which the Pelusiote followed while disputing on fate. ^B

The remaining points which must be stated concerning the lost writings of Isidore can be finished more briefly. For the writings of his that are mentioned by Evagrius as being to Cyril are, as has now been observed by Dupin, Ceillier, Fabricius, and Heumann, nothing other than Isidore's letters to this man, which Facundus, Nicephorus, and others, when the opportunity arose, attributed to other matters. Therefore, Cave is rightly criticized, for he included a book against Cyril among the lost writings of Isidore; but far more gravely to be criticized is Joannes Langus, the translator of Nicephorus Callistus. For he, as Jacobus Billius and Joannes Chatardus, and many others after them, have noted, rendered the words of Nicephorus: *Oios ekeinos Isidoros ho tou Pelousiou orous kathegesamenos; Neilos te kai Markos eti de kai ho ten sophian polys Theodoritos - hon eurys kleos kata ten poiesin* - in this manner: "Such was Isidore, who presided over the monks on the mount of Pelusium, Nilus and Marcus and the wise Theodoret, whose praise in poetry is great"; thus he makes them out to be eminent poets, when, however, as Jacobus Billius says, it is not recorded that any of them flourished in poetic studies.

But that nothing worthy of mention may seem to have been omitted by us, we must note in the fourth place that the anonymous author, of whom we have already spoken in the first part of this commentary, the author of the *Life of Chrysostom*, placed at the beginning of his catalogue of writers concerning the life of this man, under this title: *Hosoi eis ton bion tou Chrysostomou synegraphsanto*—included Isidore of Pelusium among them. Although I indeed well understand that it cannot be proven by the testimony of this anonymous author that the Pelusiote wrote the life of that most famous bishop, I have nevertheless deemed that this information should not be omitted, because, so far as I know, it has been mentioned by no one who has expressed an opinion concerning Isidore and his writings. It seems to be of greater significance that Hardt, in his catalogue of the Bavarian library's codices, ^D identifies the time in which Isidore lived.

^A Migne’s published work in manuscript, as it is testified to exist, is inscribed thus: *’Ισιδώρου τοῦ Πηλουσιώτου ἐρωτήσεις καὶ ἀποκρίσεις* (Questions and Answers of Isidore of Pelusium). This codex contains not only the questions and answers of Isidore, but also those of Chrysostom, Basil, Olympiodorus, Nilus, Marcus, Maximus, and Theodosius, which an anonymous author collected. For my part, because the opportunity was not given to me to inspect the codex itself, I do not dare to determine whether anything unpublished lies hidden within it; but I have a strong suspicion that a collector merely transcribed these questions and answers—all of which seem to pertain to the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures—from the works of Chrysostom, Basil, and others, just as he did from the epistles of Isidore, finding them suited to his own purpose. For this reason, I have little hope that there are unpublished items in that codex, just as Hardt (a) gathered from its title. Nor do I think anything remains unpublished in the book (b) whose title is this: *Isidorus Pelusiota de nativitate Domini* (Isidore of Pelusium on the Nativity of the Lord). However, the opportunity to inspect this little book was lacking. So much for that.

EDITIONS OF THE EPISTLES

There appeared at Paris in 1585, in folio: *S. Isidori Pelusiotæ epistolarum amplius mille ducentarum libri tres nunc primum Græce editi* (Three books of more than twelve hundred epistles of St. Isidore of Pelusium, now published for the first time in Greek). To these was added, on the facing page, the Latin interpretation of that distinguished man, Jacques Billi de Prunay, formerly superior of the monastery of St. Michael in the Desert. Prefixed to this ^B edition is a letter from Jean Chatard to Godofroy Billi, by which we are informed that Jacques Billi, his brother, translated the 1213 Greek epistles of Isidore into the Latin language, but that he himself was prevented by premature death from publishing this translation. Jean Chatard therefore assumed this duty and at the same time took care that those epistles were also printed in Greek. The diversity of the readings is noted in the margin. Appended are two books of Sacred Observations by Jacques Billi.

These three books of more than twelve hundred epistles of St. Isidore of Pelusium, translated by Jacques Billi, were reprinted in the *Magna Bibliotheca VV. PP.* (Great Library of the Holy Fathers), ed. Cologne, year 1618, vol. V, p. I, pp. 476–621. To these three books of epistles, Rittershusius added a fourth, and published them all under this title: *S. Isidori Pelusiotæ de interpretatione divinæ Scripturæ libri quatuor* (Four books of St. Isidore of Pelusium on the interpretation of Divine Scripture). The first three of these appeared for the first time twenty years earlier in Paris with the Latin interpretation of Jacques Billi. Now, however, having been recalled to the press, they have been significantly augmented, supplemented, and corrected through the aid of the Bavarian manuscript codex. The fourth book now emerges for the first time, new from the same Bavarian codex—corresponding to a Venetian codex in the library of St. Mark—transcribed and rendered into Latin by Konrad Rittershusius, Jurisconsult. From the Commelinian press, 1605.

Rittershusius diligently inscribed in the margin both the scriptural diversity which Jean Chatard noted, and that which he himself extracted from his own codex; so much so, indeed, that if one or more words were added in the Bavarian codex, he would note with a star the position which they held in the text, and would enclose in brackets the words omitted in that manuscript. ^C Appended are very rich indices and other items of lesser importance. Otherwise, this edition was reprinted in the same shop in the following year without a line being changed.

Finally, in the year 1623, Andreas Schott published 559 epistles of Isidore from the Vatican codex at Antwerp, in 8vo, under this title: *Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Πατρὸς Ἰσιδώρου τοῦ Πηλουσιώτου ἐπιστολαὶ ἀνέκδοτοι. S. Isidori Pelusiotæ epistolæ hactenus ineditæ de locis sacræ Scripturæ moribusque formandis; ex Vaticana pontificis bibliotheca nunc primum erutæ notisque et argumentis illustratæ ab Andrea Schotto, societatis Jesu presbytero* (Unpublished epistles of the holy Father Isidore of Pelusium. Epistles of St. Isidore of Pelusium, hitherto unpublished, on passages of Holy Scripture and on the forming of morals; now first brought forth from the pontifical library of the Vatican, and illustrated with notes and arguments by Andreas Schott, priest of the Society of Jesus). The following year, the same man published the Latin interpretation of these epistles at Rome.

At Frankfurt, however, in 1629, the same were reprinted in such a form that they could be joined to the Rittershusian edition, under this title: *S. Isidori Pelusiotæ presbyteri epistolarum, quæ in Billii et Rittershusii editionibus desiderantur, volumen reliquum; quas ex Vaticana S. Patris bibliotheca nuper erutas, nunc primum Græce et Latine conjunxit, notisque et argumentis illustravit R. P. Andreas Schottus, societatis Jesu presbyter* (The remaining volume of the epistles of the priest St. Isidore of Pelusium, which are missing in the editions of Billi and Rittershusius; which, having been recently brought forth from the Vatican library of the Holy Father, the Reverend Father Andreas Schott, priest of the Society of Jesus, has now for the first time joined in Greek and Latin, and has illustrated with notes and arguments).

Sed Lutetia finally saw the publication of five books of Isidore's epistles in 1638, in folio, under this title: *S. Isidori Pelusiotæ de interpretatione divinæ Scripturæ libri quinque; quorum tres priores ex interpretatione Jacobi Billii, quartus autem a Cunrado Rittershusio IC., qui et notas uberiores, et summas, et indices prioribus libris adjecit: et quintus ab Andrea Schotto, nunc primum in Gallia prodeunt* (Five books of St. Isidore of Pelusium on the interpretation of Divine Scripture; the first three of which are from the interpretation of Jacques Billi, the fourth, however, from Konrad Rittershusius, Jurisconsult, who also added better notes, summaries, and indices to the previous books; and the fifth by Andreas Schott; now appearing in France for the first time). In this edition, which abounds with many typographical errors, ^D

even this is to be censured: that the stars, by which ^A Rittershusius wished to signify in the Bavarian codex that one or more words had been added, were received into the text; yet the diversity of the readings was not indicated. What happened, therefore, was that Petrus Possinus, in the book with which we shall be dealing momentarily, believing these stars to indicate lacunae, often took a gloss for the true reading. In the same way, the brackets, which Rittershusius certainly employed with a specific plan, as was stated before, seem to have been heedlessly received in this edition.

Furthermore, all the letters of Isidore exist in Latin alone in the *Maxima Bibliotheca VV. PP.*, vol. VII, pp. 499-802.

^B In these editions of Isidore, I mean the Parisian and the Venetian, two thousand and twelve letters are printed. For the first book contains five hundred, the second three hundred, the third four hundred and thirteen, the fourth two hundred and thirty, and the fifth five hundred and sixty-nine. The anonymous author of the *Historia ecclesiastica*, which was published at Cologne, is therefore mistaken in thinking that two thousand, one hundred and seventy-nine letters of Isidore are printed. Ignatius Hyacinthus de Graveson, Caveus, and Fabricius are also mistaken, who affirmed that all of Isidore’s letters, two thousand and thirteen, have been printed. This error of these men, without a doubt, arose from the fact that Schott appended to the five hundred and sixty-ninth letter, which is the last of the fifth book, one letter of the fourth book which he had edited more accurately.

But in the year 1670, the Isidorian Collations were published at Rome, in which all the letters of St. Isidore of Pelusium edited up to that time are compared with many ancient manuscripts of the best quality, and hence are supplemented or corrected in about two thousand places. From the Barberini library. For Cardinal Francesco Barberini, through a man who—as he who provides the preface, Petrus Possinus, says—was a man of exceptional learning and at that time his own intimate, the late Francesco Arcudius, a Greek from Calabria and later Bishop of Noscara, had all the Isidorian letters compared with six excellent manuscripts of the most ancient hand—two Vatican, as many Altaems, one Sfortian, and a sixth Barberini—with the various readings and supplements being exactly inscribed in the margins of the Parisian edition, by the side of each place needing such help. This ^C copy of the Parisian edition was handed over by Carlo Moroni, prefect of the Barberini library, to Petrus Possinus of the Society of Jesus, who edited these collations, so called by him because—to use his own words—in them that Parisian edition of Isidore of which I spoke is compared with codices that are not a little better. "I have striven," he writes, "to explain all things in such a way that any reader could, with the greatest ease, by comparing my writing with the example of that edition, correct the faulty places in the printed text and supplement the mutilated ones. To this end, I have diligently noted the numbers of the letters, pages, and verses to which these observations pertain. For the most part, I have reported only what was different or new in the codices; sometimes I have interjected my own judgment; nor have I concealed conjectures arising from the signs of various readings concerning the archetypal writing; yet I have rarely done that, content ^D as if to have opened a field and offered an occasion, through the more critical, for each one to divine according to his own acumen."

The author of the edition which appeared at Venice in 1745, in folio, under this title: *Sancti Isidori Pelusiotae de interpretatione divinae*... made use of these Collations.

But if you wished to gather from these that we have two thousand and twelve of Isidore’s letters surviving, which have been printed in type, you would undoubtedly fall into error. For it has been beautifully observed by Tillemont that sometimes one letter has been cut into two, such as book IV, letters 206 and 207, and book I, letters 271 and 272, and that some are placed twice, of which he brings forward two examples. But many more were noted by Heumann, whose note regarding this matter I may be permitted to transcribe here: "Schott," he says, "published several from his Vatican codex which had already been published by Billius or Rittershusius. For book V, letter 239 is the same as book IV, letter 147; book V, letter 91 is the same as book IV, letter 147; book V, letter 138 is the same as book IV, letter 190; book V, letter 43 is the same as book IV, letter 199; book V, letter 139 is the same as book IV, letter 122; book V, letter 187 is the same as book IV, letter 124; book V, letter 324 is the same as book I, letter 233. Confer—for thus he continues—also book V, letter 116 with book I, letter 162; book V, letter 24 with letter 567, and book V, letter 374 with book II, letter 116, which you will find differ little from each other. Nor are letters already edited previously present only in the fifth book, but in the earlier books also some are found twice. Certainly book II, letter 1 and 39 are the same; book I, letter 29 and book IV, letter 188. Thus also book I, letter 303 occurs in almost the same words, and is indeed divided into two, no. 271 and 272 (as was already observed by Tillemont). Also book IV, letter 180 and book I, letter 185 are the same." To these things noted by Heumann must be added, as Petrus had already seen...

^A [Possinus (a), book 1, letter 4, which recurs in book V, where it holds place 195]. Finally, it also seemed to me that book V, letter 221 and book III, letter 203, of which we shall speak more fully later, are the same. Therefore, all these being calculated, it seems that one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven of Isidore’s letters have come down to our age; and since no one, as far as I know, has doubted that all of these were written by Isidore, we could immediately add to the manuscripts in which the letters of this man are contained that have become known, were it not for the fact that Heumann, whom Hamberger (b) follows, considers most of Isidore’s letters to be fictitious. Whose opinion must be examined a little more accurately.

Heumann (c) opines that most of Isidore’s letters, to use his own words, are fictitious and composed in a rhetorical manner, not so that those whose names are prefixed to them would receive and read them, but so that they might be specimens of eloquence for those whom Isidore had as students of the art of rhetoric. But before he explains the arguments for this opinion more fully, he brings forward the judgments of Suidas (d) and Ephraim of Antioch (e) concerning Isidore, from which it appears that he was both a rhetorician and distinguished by the praise of eloquence. Then, from the Epistles of the Pelusiote himself, he shows that he was sufficiently knowledgeable in the art of rhetoric, since in a letter to Nilus (f) he describes the virtues of speech according to Hermogenes, in another to Ophelius the grammarian (g) he discourses on the epistolary character, and writes to Elapius the bishop (h) that an intense love and zeal for eloquence had taken hold of the minds of mortals in that age. To these testimonies, he could have added the two hundred and seventeenth letter of the fifth book, in which Isidore, when he deals with the various kinds of rhetoricians, proves sufficiently and more than enough that he is skilled in this art. Finally, Heumann proves with many examples, which it is tedious to repeat, that rhetoricians were accustomed not only to the art of writing letters but also to fashioning ^B letters and exhibiting them to their students to be imitated.

But by all these things, as I guess, he wished to demonstrate nothing other than that Isidore could have produced such specimens for the use of his students, according to the custom of the rhetoricians of the age in which he lived. And not even this is sufficiently proven by those testimonies. For it remains to be shown that Isidore had students of the art of rhetoric. Which is a mere hypothesis of Heumann. But lest I fall into the suspicion of being overly doubtful, let us leave these things aside and pass to an accurate exposition and adjudication of the arguments which he has brought forward.

PART II OF THE COMMENTARY

But since below, where I shall explain Schroeckh’s opinion on Isidore’s letters, more needs to be said on this matter, let us leave it aside and proceed to review the remaining arguments that Heumann has brought forward. He continues with these words: "I refer here to several letters of the same argument; which itself is a certain sign that our rhetorician wished to show his own fluency of speech. Of this class are the second, third, and fourth letters of the fourth book, in which a certain passage of the Psalter is treated in the same way, but with words varied by art."

But, even though it cannot be denied in any way that the saying from the Psalter, which has already been dealt with in the second letter, recurs in the third and fourth, nevertheless, to us inquiring into the matter a little more accurately, it seemed probable that Isidore truly sent these three letters to Zosimus, whose name is prefixed to all of them. For in the second letter, Isidore mocks the stupidity of Zosimus, who, given over to wine and all pleasures, dares to pray: "Pierce my flesh with your fear." For, he says, this is the prayer of those who prefer eternal salvation to a luxurious life; but it does not befit those who, with their skin well-cared for, surpass the athletes themselves. For you seem to act as if, while clinging to the embraces of harlots, you wished to become composed in chastity. Cease, therefore, from leading a soft life full of pleasures; ^C restrain the infinite and dishonest desire for constant feasting, lest you make yourself ridiculous, when you wish to attain one thing and do another. This is the argument of the first letter to Zosimus.

From the other, however, it appears that that gluttonous man replied to Isidore, and by way of defense, as is wont to happen, asked from it, what meaning finally he should attribute to those words: "Pierce my flesh with your fear"? For Isidore writes back: "Since you asked me through a letter what that saying of the Psalmist means, listen. Underlying those words is this sentiment: May reverence toward God cause that, [your] desire... ^D

for the body’s pernicious force be diminished, once the bodily impulses have been extinguished ^A. Having understood this interpretation of the words, then, desist from using those words of the Psalmist; or, if you wish to use them rightly, cast off your dissolute morals and adopt new ones, especially since you are not serving your own stomach with food, but are a hanger-on at the tables of others. With the argument of each epistle thus set forth, who is there who does not see that the purpose of these letters is different? Who is there who does not understand that Isidore has not treated the statement repeated from the Psalms in these epistles in the same way and with words merely varied by art, as Heumann contends, but rather in a way that is altogether different? For in the former he shows Zosimus to be ridiculous, while in the latter he interprets the Psalmist's statement.

But we must also discuss the fourth epistle of this book, which certainly has a great similarity to the second. For Isidore teaches that a man endowed and adorned with virtue should invoke the divine power for assistance; but that he who, having abandoned virtue, dares to invoke the supreme power, will achieve nothing by these prayers. What then, he continues in this way, is this but madness, that while you lead a disgraceful ^B and wicked life, you dare to pray: "Pierce my flesh with your fear." This prayer does not only not befit you, as a petulant, luxurious, and drunken man, but is full of mockery, nay, of danger. For you are attempting to deceive God himself. Just as, therefore, Isidore, for whom nothing was more an object of concern than to recall petulant men to sober morals, had shown in the second epistle to Zosimus that his prayers were ridiculous and inept, so in the fourth epistle, whose argument we have just set forth, he tries to demonstrate to him that the invocation in his own mouth is impious and dangerous.

Wherefore, although it must be conceded to Heumann that a great similarity exists between both epistles, yet we believe it can be rightly argued that the purpose of each is different from the other; and so we judge that Zosimus did indeed receive these letters. To this opinion, that also seems to favor it, that many epistles to this same Zosimus exist by Isidore, from all of which it appears that he was such a man as is described in these letters ^C. Added to this is the fact that it is apparent from the epistle of the same [Isidore] given to Athanasius the presbyter that Zosimus’s vicious life was a cause of offense to other men as well, to whom the Christian religion was dear.

Nor are the remaining examples which Heumann brought forward to strengthen his own opinion sufficiently apt. For the same man, he says, you will find if you compare letters 289 and 519 in the fifth book, which, so that each one may be able to judge about this matter with easy effort, I have set down in Greek.

^D It is indeed true that there are some who are clever at deceiving so as to go unnoticed, and once caught, are clever at distorting the truth; but the wise man, being superior to these, will detect the deceit and will refute the cleverness.

In this [fourth epistle], however, Isidore speaks of the same matter in this way: "Even if there are some who are clever at deceiving so as to go unnoticed, and clever at distorting the truth once they are caught; yet the God-beloved man is found to be superior to these, being wise enough to perceive the deceit, and wiser still to refute the cleverness hidden in their words."

Certainly no one will deny that the same sentiment exists in each epistle; and no one will agree with Heumann, who boldly affirms that Isidore, in writing these epistles, wished to show off his own copiousness of speech and to set himself up as a model to his own disciples. For in truth, with significant skill, he varied his speech in each epistle, when in the former he calls fallacious men "those distorting the truth" (παραλογιζομένους) and in the latter "those deceiving" (ἀπατῶντας), and those whose frauds have been detected he calls in the former "those caught" (ἀλόντας) and in the latter "those detected" (φωραθέντας); when secondly, the man whom he named "wise" (σοφὸν) in the former, he calls in the latter a "God-beloved wise man" (θεοφιλῆ σοφὸν), and calls the one censuring the fraudulence of those men "wiser" (σοφώτερον); when finally he adds in the latter a few things of lesser moment. But who is there who would prove his own copiousness of speech by such arts? Who is there who, wishing to prove this, would begin with a hypothetical particle as Isidore does in both epistles; and then join, as was done by Isidore, the first and second announcement of words with the particles *men* (μέν) and *de* (δέ); and proceed, as Isidore does, with the particle *alla* (ἀλλά)? This certainly does not belong to a rhetorician who wishes to propose epistles for his disciples to imitate. But since I must recur to these epistles below, let it be allowed now to pass over them and pass on to the last example that Heumann brought forward.

He proceeds then with these words: "You will not easily find an epistle more wise as an exercise for a school of rhetoric than that one of the second book which holds the one hundred and fifty-third place." Here is some specimen of it from the mouth of the interpreter: "It would be fair for you to enter into a reasoning by which you might obliterate this persecution; you will obliterate it, however, if you return to a better frame of mind; but you will return, if you believe the Holy Scriptures to be true; you will believe, however, if you enjoy them continuously; you will enjoy them, however, if you understand their sense; you will understand, however, if you have had constant association with men endowed with divine wisdom; you will have this, however, if you have fled from vice; you will flee, however, if you have feared the punishments themselves that hang over you; you will fear, however, if you have believed that God exists; you will believe, however, if [...]."

they have emerged from that frenzy. But enough, for thus Heumann proceeds, and a second argument follows with equal gradation. Who, I ask, would seriously write to anyone in this way? Certainly no one in our times who has any taste. Nor would anyone in our times, who has a disciplined judgment, interpret the sayings of the Old and New Testaments as many have been explained by Isidore. Does it follow from that that Isidore is not the author of the letters in which absurd or ridiculous interpretations of the prophets or apostles are contained? This line of argument can be approved by no one; if we reject it, Heumann’s reasoning will fall at the same time. Furthermore, it seems to me that a teacher who proposes such a letter for his students to imitate is more worthy of ridicule than the one who sends letters of this kind to anyone.

^B But the other argument, by which Heumann wanted to show, as he himself says (a), that most of Isidore’s letters are fictitious, is drawn from the fact that some were written to those who had long since ceased to live: such as book 5, letter 437, to Oribasius, the physician of the Emperor Julian; and so long ago, as he says, carried off to the place from which no one returns. This must be proven by the testimony of ancient writers. For Julian finished his final day in the year 361, at which time Oribasius was perhaps thirty or forty years old, and was able to see the end of this age and the beginning of a new one, and nothing was preventing Isidore from sending a letter to that most celebrated physician. But let us grant that Oribasius, the physician of Julian, was already dead. From where, then, does Heumann have it confirmed that these letters of Isidore to Oribasius the physician were addressed to Oribasius the physician of Julian? Could another person endowed with the same name not have been able to live in the time of the Pelusiot? And if we establish this, Heumann’s opinion falls. It is permitted to assert, since no trace exists within the letter itself from which we can gather, that this was addressed to the physician of Julian.

As for the fact that Heumann contends that letter 391 of the same book was written to a certain physician, such that this too is an example of rhetorical variation, it is an error either of his own or of the copy of the text he used. For in my copy this letter is addressed to Domestius (b) the physician, and neither in the notes of Rittershusius nor in the Collationes of Petrus Possinus is any variation in the text noted that would support Heumann’s opinion.

What I said a little earlier concerning the letter to Oribasius can also be said regarding the letter of book 1, 108, to the sophist Proaeresius, a contemporary of Oribasius. Nor, as Heumann opines, does letter 186 of book 5 plainly reveal a scholastic fiction, ^C for the letter, as he himself says, is addressed to the children of the Greeks, and to those same children who are ordered to flee the public games and spectacles. For if you compare this with the letter that precedes it, you will understand how Isidore could have written to adolescents. For by the words of this letter, which was sent to Harpocras the sophist, Isidore declares in the final part that he was provoked by him for having written to adolescents who, because of bad upbringing, were accustomed to depraved habits (c). But if you think that these letters to Harpocras are not fictitious, you will not say that the letter written to the children of the Greeks is composed in the rhetorical style.

Quinto, Heumann brings forward letter 251 of book 2, inscribed to Peter the apostle. But it is inscribed "to Peter," to whom many other letters have also been sent. It is asked why he added the name "apostle." He himself answers: that he signifies this Peter, and not another of that age, we seem able to discern partly from the address (what name, he says, should I call you that would be equal to your merits), and partly from the subject matter of the letter. This is nothing but a pleasant expression, which Isidore occasionally used even in other letters sent to other people (d); this, in fact, proves the contrary. For in this letter, Isidore explains the reasons why mortals willingly received the doctrine of Christ and the apostles, and he posits that these were the "worthy word" and the "manner of those preaching." A monk of the fifth century, forsooth, had to explain all these things to the apostle Peter! What then? The Pelusiot speaks of the apostles as men long since dead, when he calls them "citizens of heaven," which he certainly would not have done if he had wanted to show students by example how one should write to the apostle Peter. Feeling this same thing, Heumann continues in this manner: "With greater and clearer right we place under the catalogue of fictitious letters book 5, letter 461, written to a woman by the name of Theano. The daughter or wife of Pythagoras did indeed use this name. Since she is read to have been a cultivator of philosophy, our Isidore not absurdly affixed this name to a Christian woman professing philosophy, whom he exhorts that, mindful of her profession, she not strive to please men." In these things many things are to be censured. ^D First, for Heumann must prove that it was necessary for Isidore to have affixed that name to a woman professing Christian philosophy. For from where does he have it confirmed that a woman adorned with this name did not live in the time of the Pelusiot? Secondly, it had to be demonstrated that in these letters it is a question of a woman philosopher, in which there is not one trace of this matter. Finally, it must be shown that the name was not absurdly affixed to a Christian woman. For what? The wife of Pythagoras... [the commentary continues, comparing the laudatory terms used for others].

woman who is the subject of these writings, as we have already said, is not certain; she was devoted to her father's or her husband's philosophy; but Isidore’s Theano, to the doctrine of Christ, which on her view certainly had no similarity with the tenets of Pythagoras. Wherefore Isidore would have acted absurdly if he had honored a Christian woman with the name of Theano. Nor did he do this, but he sent this epistle to Theano, a certain man; which from the inscription itself, ^A Θέανῳ, as it stands in all the manuscript books collated thus far, I judge can be gathered. For indeed, if it had been given to a woman, it would have been necessary to write Θέανου; which Heumann himself, sensing, believes the inscription must be corrected, and when we ask for the cause of this correction, "The thing itself," he replies, "cries out, that feminine adornment is marked with a censorious note." Which words, if I am not mistaken, concern the beginning of this epistle, which is contained in these words: "The love of ornamentation and the blossoming of stones, and the mixture of gold with these, and twisted braids, and the painting of the eyes, and the sophistry of beauty, and the tricks practiced concerning these, of which you," etc. But all these things alike suit men as much as women, and women as much as men who are eager to please. Do not many adolescents of our age adorn themselves with gems? Do they not wear gems set in gold? Do they not use curling irons, and use many other things which are instruments of luxury? ^B Wherefore, for my part, I do not see why we must concede to Heumann that feminine adornment should be marked with a censorious note. But even if these things were conceded, our case will remain safe, provided we establish that a Christian woman honored with the name of Theano lived in the times of Isidore.

Wherefore, neither has Heumann sufficiently confirmed his opinion with this other argument to which he attributes so much. Having explained these things, we may pass to the third which he has brought forward. "We confirm, he says, our opinion with a third argument, which the contumelious epistles of this work provide us. For how can we believe that those men, whom Isidore vexed with such sharp, nay, even petulant censure, left it unpunished? But if they truly punished him with many evils, how, I ask, has it come about that not even the slightest mention of this matter occurs?" What words Heumann could write, I for one cannot understand at all. For indeed, from those epistles of Isidore which we produced in the first part, one could understand that he was harassed by men into whose morals he had bitingly inveighed, if he had not read the epistle of Chatardus to Godfrey Billius, in which he proves by one example alone that the Pelusiote, a most sharp critic of vices, had incurred the hatred of many, and that many snares had been laid for him. But even if Isidore had lived quietly, ^C Heumann would have been able to bring forward a convincing argument to confirm his opinion. For as he claims to be unable to believe that those men, whom Isidore vexed with such sharp, nay, even petulant censure, left it unpunished, he falls again into error. For when thinking about the authority which the monks had attained at that time, and remembering the seditions which they are said to have stirred up in many provinces, and especially in Egypt, it seems to me that it could certainly have happened. Add to this that Isidore, the abbot of his monastery, was a man notable for the integrity of his morals and the abundance of his learning, and grave in his authority. Wherefore we conclude that all those epistles, which are counted by Heumann as fictitious because they were given to men who were, to use his own words, eminent in either civil or ecclesiastical dignity, were in truth sent to the men to whom they were written.

But we must return to the epistles which he called invectives, and which he tries to prove were written for the sake of practicing one's style from some epistle to Harpocras the sophist. ^D "For to this man," he says, "who had sent him a satire against Martinianus, Zosimus, and Eustathius, he writes back that he would not send it to them. For since these men are said to be implacable beasts, he would not bring it about that Harpocras should be challenged as if by some war by others." Now, what Isidore did not wish to happen to Harpocras, it is to be believed he did not wish to happen to himself either. I have transcribed all these words of Heumann here with the sole intention of proving by his example that a man otherwise prudent and learned can be swept away into various errors by a preconceived opinion which he conceived in his mind; so much so that he thinks that even things contrary to him favor him. I think this happened to Heumann when he was about to prove his opinion with these letters to Harpocras. For from these it appears that Isidore did not wish to pass the writing sent to him by that man to Martinianus, Zosimus, and Eustathius, because it contained a satire. For even if you, he says, had exhorted those petulant men in an epistle, I would have sent this to them; but it pleased me to retain the satire. For indeed, in Isidore's opinion, those who labor under vices are to be reproved, but to harsh words there must be added those full of humanity and gentleness. Having explained these things, it is not necessary that we speak more fully about each of the examples he has brought forward.

Furthermore, let those who favor Heumann's side see to it that they do not impute wicked and shameful morals to Isidore. For he himself writes to Maron, that he does not want to mock him, as many do, despairing altogether of the salvation of the wicked, but, when he had seen the conversion of many, he considers it his duty to recall every petulant person to sober morals. And if that holy man...

truly believed it to be his duty, Heumann, if he wishes his position to hold, must necessarily ascribe hypocrisy to him, seeing as he wrote these letters for the purpose of exhortation but did not send them to those whose names he prefixed to them, contenting himself with having recited them before his disciples. But if Isidore believed that this was not his duty, then he is a liar in writing that letter to Maron.

To ensure we do not consider Isidore a simulator and dissimulator, we depart from Heumann’s opinion, and we trust that every reader, having read the following seven letters with careful attention, will favor our side. See then, Lib. II, ep. 21, to Bishop Hermogenes; Lib. III, ep. 35, to the presbyter Hierax; Lib. III, ep. 70, to Ophelius the grammarian; ^B Lib. III, ep. 270, to Bishop Lampetius; Lib. III, ep. 282, to Archontius the government official; Lib. IV, ep. 205, to the presbyter and scholar Olympius; Lib. V, ep. 219, to Theodorus the deacon.

Many other letters can be compared with these, in which Isidore clearly declares that he has often sent letters to those petulant and luxurious men; as, for example, Lib. II, ep. 67, 90, 323, 397; Lib. V, ep. 84, 210, 285, 561.

Since, therefore, Isidore himself has declared in many places that he sent letters to Eusebius the bishop, and to Zosimas, Maron, Martinianus, and Eustathius the presbyters, it can hardly be understood how Heumann could conclude that all the letters directed to these men were composed in an "academic shadow," as he himself says, and not sent to those whose names ^C are prefixed to them; especially since he himself, on page 45, affirmed that he had read through Isidore’s letters and had scrutinized them with the proper attention.

But it is not enough to have refuted the opinions of others; I must explain my own opinion regarding Isidore's letters, which, if possible, ought to be proved by the testimonies of ancient writers and by firm arguments drawn from the very letters of this man. I myself believe that Schroeckh (a) was correct in his perception—that he acutely conjectured that most of Isidore’s letters did not reach our own age in the form in which they appear in the printed editions, but were excerpted by monks. And since he himself deemed it alien to the plan of his undertaking to prove this opinion of his with arguments, this province is left to us.

Moreover, in my judgment, that statement of Irenaeus, which we already cited in the first part of this commentary and whose words pertaining to this matter are as follows: "I have excerpted and translated all these (letters) of the blessed Isidore from his two thousand letters," favors Schroeckh’s conjecture. ^D These words can indeed be explained in a twofold way. For Irenaeus, as Lupus well noted, did not mean that he had transcribed all of Isidore’s letters contained in those most ancient codices of the Acoemetae monastery, but only those which he judged could be of use to his purpose. Still, both for the words and for the thing itself, the other way of explaining these words seems to me more suitable. For I maintain that Irenaeus intended this meaning by those words: "I have not transcribed all these letters of Isidore word for word, but I have excerpted them, and I have translated the excerpts into my own work." And certainly, he would have wasted his effort had he transcribed not only those words of Isidore by which he judged his own opinion could be proved, but also those that were completely irrelevant to the matter—everything, that is, that concerns the epistolary form, greetings, and other things of that nature. Since this is so easy to understand, I judge that not only Irenaeus, but many transcribers of these letters, have felt the same. Nor will anyone who compares Isidore’s letters, which exist in the Catenae of the Fathers, with those which are printed in the Parisian edition, take this opinion for a mere hypothesis. For from a deliberate comparison of the Catenae, it is very easily understood that the authors did not transcribe the Pelusiote letters religiously. Although I could show this immediately with certain examples, I may here omit all of those, since, not being alien to the intent of our project, we have noted everything while comparing the Catenae with the letters edited by Chatard, Rittershusius, and Schottus in order to share them with a benevolent reader, and since the opinion of Schroeckh, having been proved by other arguments as well, must be returned to.

Furthermore, it is rightly concluded from the fact that most of Isidore’s letters lack any epistolary form that they were not written by the author exactly as they appear in the Parisian edition. Cf. Lib. I, ep. 103, 161, 228, 236, 238, 244, 279, 294, 295, 296, etc.

The third, and indeed the most serious, argument by which we attempt to prove this opinion concerning Isidore’s letters is taken from the letters that exist twice in the printed exemplars. For in these, while they for the most part correspond word for word, it sometimes happens that a matter explained in many words in one is finished in a few in the other; so that a thought omitted entirely in one is added in the other, and finally, wonderful transpositions of many words are found. All of which, as I for my part judge, you will be able to explain correctly only if you favor Schroeckh’s opinion. But in order for every reader to be able to judge about this matter, it is necessary that certain examples be brought forward.

LIB. II, EP. 162. Since you have written that you marvel how there could be any trouble in Zosimas being ordained, who is seen to be a presbyter, it does not seem to be any trouble to him who illegally ordained him...

LIB. V, EP. 116. Since you have written that you marvel how there could be any trouble in Zosimas being ordained, it does not seem to be any trouble to him who illegally ordained him; I reply that you indeed...

rightfully feel indignant—for no one can dispute this—out of a hatred of wickedness and a love of goodness. But I also thought it proper to advise you to keep your tongue free from calumny. For if he, as you have written, is worthy of ten thousand deaths, not having been improved by his office, but having used the priesthood as a weapon of wickedness and daring the undarable, then he will also, unless you are fighting against the truth, be required to pay most severe penalties by the impartial judge; for God is not unjust. Yet, you are not righteous to defile your own mouth by mocking his filthy deeds. ^A

BOOK IV, EPISTLE 56

The heresy, I suspect, was born either from the love of power or from prejudice—two passions difficult to contend against; for the one part, not deeming it worthy to be among the submissive, nor having accepted being taught, have cast the seeds of new teachings, not deigning to remain in the status quo. ^B

BOOK I, EPISTLE 271

Human nature, my admirable friend, is neither incapable of evil, nor does it possess evil by nature; but by its own will, it admits these things and suffers a falling away from good things.

BOOK I, EPISTLE 272

The first man suffered what he wrote; but the second man restored to him his former form, having become that in a way past understanding, and having divinely corrected it. ^C And the first man fell from salvation; the second man, who was from him, restored to him the true nature which he had received within himself—for being truly God, he truly became man; being one Son of God from two natures, not changed into what we are, in becoming what he was.

BOOK V, EPISTLE 474

To Paul.

Honor the virtues, do not cultivate prosperity; for the former are an immortal possession, while the latter are easily extinguished.

BOOK II, EPISTLE 136

To Paul concerning the feasts.

Honor the virtues, do not cultivate prosperity; for the former are an immortal possession, while the latter are easily extinguished. So much for that. But do not be unaware that God, both long ago and now, has bound the memorials of his benefits to the feasts, so that those observing the festivals, having the memory of these things ringing in their ears, might not turn to drunkenness, but to thanksgiving and virtue. ^D

BOOK V, EPISTLE 239

Human nature, my admirable friend, is neither incapable of evil, nor does it possess evil by nature; but by its own will and sloth, it suffers a falling away from good things—which the first man also suffered, and of the terms...

His, quas ultimo loco attulimus, litteris inter sese collatis solis luce clarius apparet, virum qui huic Isidori epistolae addidit inscriptionem quique longiorem ejus tradidit recensionem, eam si non ad verbum, at certe religiose descripsisse; hunc vero ethicum illud præceptum magni æstimantem, et quid Pelusiota de festis censuerit parum curantem omisisse. Quæ mea sententia mirum in modum eo confirmatur, quod Cotelerius in Ecclesia Græca Monumentis in codice manuscripto, ex quo Patrum apophthegmata ad ethicen spectantia collegit, primam tantum hujus epistolæ partem exstare tradidit.

Postremo in medium proferre placet, quas p. ultimo loco attulimus Isidori epistolas:

BOOK V, EPISTLE 221

To Eutonius the deacon.

Know, my good man, that if we should commit sins that are bearable, and light, and curable, and suffer something grievous here, we might wipe them away...

BOOK III, EPISTLE 203

To Eutonius the deacon.

If we should commit sins that are bearable, and light, and curable, and suffer something grievous here, we might wipe them away...

but if they were inhuman and terrible, we shall also be punished there; it is lighter, if we happen to suffer something here, but heavier, if we depart having suffered nothing. ^A However, that you may not have it to say that this is a pronouncement and not a proof, the argument will proceed through trustworthy witnesses. Regarding those, then, who wipe away their sins here, the divine Apostle is an unimpeachable witness, saying concerning those who have partaken of the mysteries unworthily: "For this reason many among you are weak and sickly, and many sleep. For if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged; but when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord, that we may not be condemned along with the world." And what was said to the rich man who was being roasted is of this same meaning, that "You received your good things in your lifetime, and likewise Lazarus the evil things"; that is to say: If you have done anything good, you have received it, having lived in luxury and having experienced no change; but if anything has been missed by him, he has received it, having been consumed in inconsolable poverty. Concerning those who have paid the penalty here and will pay it there too, the Judge Himself declared in the Gospels: "It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that city." For the Sodomites and the Jews also paid a penalty, the former having been consumed by fire, the latter having been surrendered to war and famine, and having fallen into such destitution as even to taste of their own children. For necessity compelled them to go beyond what is natural. ^C Although I do not deny that a great difference exists between the individual words of these epistles, nevertheless, to me, considering and thinking about the immense similarity of both—if the sequence and connection of the thoughts is examined—it seemed likely that those who wished to bring forth Isidore’s opinion on the distribution of punishments were men who had excerpted one and the same epistle of his in different ways. The same must, in my opinion, be decided regarding those epistles which have been brought forward by us here. ^D With this accepted, the number of epistles which I indicated above would be diminished, were it not that Fabricius notes that Michael Glykas, in his 81st epistle to Joannicius, cited Isidore of Pelusium as follows in his letters: "Just as the body of the Lord, having fallen to the teeth of Hades, received corruption at that time, but did not see decay, so also now this very body of the Lord, falling to our teeth, while it undergoes corruption in the same way, yet it did not know decay, but being immediately made incorruptible, it is given not only to be united with the essence of the soul, but also remains forever with the souls of the just." These words, in fact, I have not been able to find among the epistles edited by Chatard, Rittershusius, and Schottus. Wherefore, if you truly believe them to have been written by Isidore, you have one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight surviving epistles of his that have been printed in type. But it is more likely that he wrote many more. For from

the four manuscripts of the Acoemetae monastery, which are the most ancient of all — as Irenaeus and an anonymous author, whose testimonies we have cited on pages 13 and 14, have related — Tillemont and Fabricius judge that there were two thousand epistles, which are the same as those we have in printed form. I myself, however, can offer nothing by which the opinion of these most learned men might be either weakened or confirmed.

The Codices of Billius and Chatard

You might rightly wonder at the negligence and carelessness of those who edited the epistles of Isidore, and who did not accurately describe the manuscripts they used. For Chatard, in his letter to Godofredus Billius which is prefixed to his edition, says on page 4, "Louis Barus, besides many other copies of our Isidore, sent the Greek epistles, elegantly written, from the museum of Cardinal Sirlet to your brother, our translator. These were all the more welcome to him, in that the codices he was using at that time were quite corrupt and abounded with errors." Nor could I find a more accurate description of these manuscripts anywhere else.

The Bavarian Codex of Rittershusius

One may with equal justice criticize Rittershusius, for in the letter to Janus Gruterus prefixed to his edition, he says nothing about the manuscript he used, other than that it was handed to him from the library of the Prince of Bavaria. ^B But Hardt, in his catalogue of the manuscripts of the Bavarian Royal Library (Vol. I, pp. 247–248), says of codex XLIX: "It is on paper, with solid and smooth leaves, with illuminated titles and initials, in small and elegant script, with marginal corrections; it is a folio, transcribed by Petrus Carneades of Epidaurus at Venice in the sixteenth century, 420 folios in number, excellently preserved and inscribed." Contained therein are:

Fol. 1 – fol. 175.

Epistles of Saint Isidore of Pelusium for the Interpretation of Holy Scripture, on the Creation of the Universe, on the Crown of the Year, and the Wheel of Genesis.

fol. 173 – fol. 250. There exist 489 other epistles of Isidore, the first of which was written to Nilus (Book I, ep. 1) and the last to Zosimus (Book II, ep. 298), and Hardt collated these with the Venetian edition which was published in 1745, and noted whatever was different in it, as he himself says. Yet it could not be otherwise than that all the textual variants which he transcribed pertained to the inscriptions of the epistles, since the epistles of Isidore exist in that edition in Latin only. Wherefore he seems to have wasted his effort entirely, especially since almost everything had already been noted by Rittershusius, with these exceptions only:

Book I, ep. 394, Bavarian cod.: *Edikio* — Venetian ed.: *Ecdicio.* Book II, ep. 109, Bavarian: *Maron* — Venetian: *Marco.* Book II, ep. 235, Bavarian: *Aphrasio* — Venetian: *Aphrasio.* Book II, ep. 161, Bavarian: *Paulō presbyterō* — Venetian: *Hermino comiti.*

To this manuscript book, codex L of the same library is similar, in which the same epistles of Isidore exist from fol. 249 onwards. For Hardt, in the same place (p. 277), says: "Since they do not differ from those which are found in codex 49, I refer the reader there if he seeks more."

Furthermore, having been informed by Hardt of what Montfaucon recorded regarding these two codices in his *Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum* (p. 588, E, n. xcv and xcvi), you will be able, with little effort, to both supplement and correct the entries. Cf. Harles on Fabricius’ *Bibliotheca Graeca*, Vol. X, p. 482, lines 2–7.

But as I speak of the Bavarian codex of Rittershusius, permit me also to commemorate other manuscript books of the same library, in which fragments of the epistles of Isidore exist.

Codex CCLXXVII, fol. 332:

Of Saint Isidore of Pelusium, a response concerning the brevity of the Lord’s Prayer.

^A Codex CCLXXVI. Of Isidore of Pelusium, concerning the resurrection of our Savior. — Init. "I am greatly amazed and astonished" — Fin. "refusing to believe the truth." Cf. Hardt, in the same place, Vol. IV, p. 184.

*Schott's Codex.* Just as Chatard and Rittershusius did, so Schott said nothing about the codex he used, which was from the Vatican.

*The six codices of Franciscus Arcudius.* Vaticanus 649. Vaticanus 650. Altæmsis 1. Altæmsis 2. Sfortianus, which is perhaps the same as the one that Montfaucon, enumerating the codices of Cardinal Sforza (cf. his *Bibliotheca bibliothecarum*, p. 699, D), reported to contain 58 epistles of Isidore. Furthermore, there exist in another manuscript of the same library epistles of the Pelusiote to Theognostus the presbyter regarding the three days of the resurrection, and to Timothy the lector on the same subject. Cf. Montfaucon, in the same place, p. 699, B.

*Barberinus 6.* We cannot treat all of these more accurately, because Petrus Possinus, who published the collations of Arcudius, did not describe them by so much as a word; nor have we found them mentioned in other catalogues of codices.

*Codex of the library of Cardinal Ottoboni* contains epistles of Isidore. — Cf. Montfaucon, in the same place, p. 185, A.

*Codex of the monastery of Grottaferrata,* written in the year 986 A.D., contains 1600 epistles of Isidore; cf. Montfaucon, in the same place, p. 199, B. — Same author, *Diarium Italicum*, p. 368. Same author, *Palæographia graeca*, p. 45, from the edition of Paris, 1708.

*Codex in some Roman library,* the name of which has escaped Montfaucon, contains epistles of Isidore, Synesius, and Libanius. Cf. Montfaucon, in the same place, p. 201, D.

*Laurentian Codices.* Bandinius, in his catalogue of the Greek codices of the Laurentian Library, Vol. II, p. 606, n. VIII, reports that in codex XVI, pluteus 60, there is contained: "Epistles of the holy Isidore of Pelusium with *technologia*." There are ten epistles: ... 2) *To Zosimus*. inc. "I would gladly ask..." 5) "The kingdom of heaven is likened to leaven..." ... "to those in need of help." The same Bandinius, in the same place, Vol. III, p. 298, n. IV, mentions 411 epistles of Isidore in codex VIII. ^B affirms that a double recension exists, one according to the order in which the letters are presented in the codex, with the beginnings of each added, and another according to the letters of the alphabet. However, I do not know if this codex is the same as the one that Montfaucon, in the same place, p. 106, A, reported to exist in the same library and to contain 312 epistles.

*Codices of the library of St. Mark in Venice.* Sixtus Senensis reported that he had found in a library book a codex containing 1148 epistles of Isidore, and Montfaucon, citing Fabricius (in *Diarium Italicum*, p. 42), testifies that this same codex, which he dates to the XIV century, contains 1200 epistles; you may compare these with the catalogue of the manuscript books which Bessarion gave as a gift to the Venetian senate, which the same Montfaucon exhibits in his *Bibliotheca bibliothecarum*, pp. 467-477. For in this volume, on p. 473, A, a paper codex of the 1148 epistles of Isidore is mentioned. Having finished this catalogue, Montfaucon says on p. 477: "From such a rich supply, I was able to obtain only this very brief note of the codices: 'Codex of the XIV century. The Epistles of the holy Isidore of Pelusium for the interpretation of Sacred Scripture: concerning the creation of the universe. The beginning of the first epistle is: Since the form of time is circular (this was also noted by Sixtus Senensis).'" Therefore, he continues, the epistles, to the number of 1200, which are sent to various people and which contribute to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, are arranged according to the order of the books and verses of the Old and New Testaments. ^C But since among the epistles of Isidore, which were written to the number of three thousand, many are engaged in explaining passages of Sacred Scripture, I would not dare to say whether they are the same or different from those that appear in that codex. So far Montfaucon. Fabriicius, however, from the beginning of the codex, "Since the form of time is circular" — which, as has already been noted by Cave, does not correspond to any of the published ones — gathered that many as yet unpublished epistles of Isidore lie hidden in this codex. But the man, otherwise cautious and diligent, erred. For that is the beginning of the first epistle of the fourth book; which I see has already been noted by Rittershusius in his note on this epistle, in which he says: "That to me is sufficient proof, besides other things which I have at home, that [the text] was copied from that Venetian codex which corresponds to the Bavarian one, from which we first brought these epistles into the public domain." Therefore, he also caused it to be printed on the title page of his edition: "The fourth book now comes out new for the first time, from the same Bavarian codex, ^D which corresponds to the Venetian one in the Library of St. Mark." And indeed, it supports this man's opinion that Hardt, in the catalogue of the Bavarian codices, whose words we have brought forward above, reported that Rittershusius's codex was copied at Venice in the XVI century by Petrus Carnead of Epidaurus. But however that may be, I hold it most certain that Lorenzo Tiepolo affirms in the Greek library of St. Mark that there exists in codex CXXVI, on paper, written in the XIV century, the 1148 epistles of S. Isidore of Pelusium, and that all of them had already been published in the Parisian edition, except one...

^A (lib. III, ep. 216), but the last is to Lycaena (lib. I, ep. 179). It should be further noted that among the epistles there is one which I did not find among the epistles edited by Rittershusius and Schottus, namely the twelfth to Thalelaeus the monk, whose title and beginning are: Thalelaeo monacho. In the scene of the theaters, fitting, who will not mock you, etc. Cf. Montefalc. Bibl. bibl. p. 550, B.

III. Codex CCXIII, containing twelve epistles of Isidore, the first of which to Theodosius the scholasticus begins thus: The superfluous or alien. — Cf. Montefalc. Bibl. bibl. p. 548, B.

IV. Codex CIV is, according to Kollarius, on paper, of three hundred and sixteen folios, written at the beginning of the XV century. However, it contains, as he relates in the first book of the supplements to Lambecius’s commentaries, pp. 644, 645, 414 epistles of Isidore of Pelusium from folio 281 onwards. The author’s name, he continues, does not appear on the front of the book, but the illustrious Tegnagelius had indicated both that and the number of the epistles, with this title in his own hand: 414 epistles of S. Isidore of Pelusium. The holy leaders and guides of monastic philosophy ^B were given to Nilus the monk, which occupies the first place even in the printed copies. Concerning this codex, the judgment of our Forlosia was as follows: The order of the epistles, he says, is exactly the same as that which is preserved in the Paris edition of Jacobus Billius; but it happened that we observed many variant readings from it in passing. — Cf. Montef. Bibl. bibl. p. 562, A.

But as to what Fabricius contends in his *Bibliotheca Graeca*, lib. V, cap. 37, § 3, p. 255 (cf. ed. Harl. vol. X, p. 480), that Lambecius in book I, p. 149, testifies that a codex of 2000 Greek epistles exists in the Vienna library, this seems to me, indeed, to be an error of that excellent man. Truly, Lambecius from p. 147 onwards attempts to prove that the Constantinopolitan library of Antonius Verderius abounds in many errors. To this end, he presents a catalog of 174 books, provided by some grammarian, in the same way that Verderius had it printed, and at the same time adds a better reading of this catalog from the Imperial codex. Therefore, having brought forward many examples by which he might prove his opinion concerning the library of Verderius, at p. 149 he continues in this manner: ‹Epistles of Isidore of Pelusium, 1002 in number. In the Imperial codex it is written ^D *chiliades duo* (two thousands), or two thousand.›

Codices of the Parisian library. Cod. MDCCCXXXII contains 1213 epistles, and that codex is said to have been written in the XIII century. Cf. Montefalc. Bibl. bibl. p. 732, A, p. 775, D. Cod. DCCCCXLIX, some epistles. — Cf. Montefalc. l. c. p. 731, A. Cod. DCCCCLXVII, n. IX, 7 epistles. Cod. MCCLIX, a fragment of Isidore on the canonical books. Cf. Appendix ad Catal. CODD. Paris. vol. II, p. 619. Cod. MCCCLXXII, n. 28, ep. 3; n. 33, ep. 1.

^A Cod. MMMXXVI, n. 6, epistle to Cyrus. Furthermore, the items we brought forward above should be compared.

*Turin Codices.* Codex CLXXII, fol. 1 – fol. 46: Epistles of Isidore. Cf. catalogue of the codices of this library by Joseph Pasinus, vol. I, p. 259. Montfaucon, *Bibl. bibl.*, p. 1398, E. The same Montfaucon, p. 1597 A, reported that a codex exists in this library in which the Ascetica of Didymus and Isidore of Pelusium are found. In the library of the Monastery of Saint Germain, there exists, according to Montfaucon—fol. 16—a codex containing 6 epistles of Isidore to Cyril.

*Gudian Codex.* In the catalogue of the library of Marquard Gude, which appeared at Kiel in 1706, a manuscript book in 8vo is recorded on p. 543, and in it many epistles of St. Isidore of Pelusium are said to exist. There are seven epistles in it, which the generosity of the most learned Ebert kindly granted me. 1) Lib. I, ep. 209. The inscription of the epistle is missing in the codex. Line 1: *h deest in cod.* — line 2: P. *eisēphrēse*, C. *epeisēphrēse* — line 6: P. *toutou theou*, C. *toutou tou theou* — line 7: P. *tynchanein*, C. *tynchanousin*.

2) Lib. I, ep. 213. 3) Lib. I, ep. 214. P. *Dometiō*, C. *Dometiō*. The inscriptions of other epistles are missing in the codex. Line 1: *to* is missing in the codex — 4: P. *euteleian*, C. *ateleian* — 5: P. *phesa*, G. *apheisai* — 8: *hymin* is missing in the codex. — line 9: P. *epharmozei*, C. *apharmozei*. 9: P. *met’ autōn*, C. *mēn*.

4) Lib. I, ep. 215. The inscription is missing in the codex. Line 2: P. *kai ekeinos*, C. *kakeinos*. — 9: P. *elenchon*, C. *eis elenchon*.

5) Lib. I, ep. 216. *Zēnōni presbyterō* is missing in the codex. — 3: P. *hyperaironta*, C. *hyperairontai* (perhaps *hyperairōn tauta*). — 5: P. *eleos*, C. *eleon*. — Line 6 is missing in the codex.

6) Lib. I, ep. 217. P. *tō autō*, C. *Zēnōni*. Line 1: *ei* is missing in the codex. — 1: *ta* is missing in the codex. — 2: *ta* is missing in the codex. — 3: *te* is missing in the codex.

7) Lib. I, ep. 51. In the codex, the epistle lacks any inscription. Line 3: *en oligais hōrais tēn aiōnion heautō kataskeuazōn kolasin* is missing in the codex. — 4: *pasan* is missing in the codex. — 5: *polytrepton* is missing in the codex. — 8: P. *tynchanousin*, C. *eisin*.

*Upsala Codices.* Cf. *Catalogus centuriae librorum rarissimorum manuscriptorum et impressorum, qui asservantur in bibliotheca academia Upsalensi*, by Sparvenfeld. Upsala 1706. I) Codex XLVI, from p. 445: *Selections from the epistles of Isidore of Pelusium*. It contains 131 epistles, namely: Lib. II, ep. 30, 76, 86, 165, 105, 214, 293. Lib. I, ep. 49, 66, 67, 68, 74, 124, 129, 137, 138, 140, 143, 144, 145, 146, 157. II) Codex XLIV, from p. 196: *Epistle of Isidore of Pelusium*, ^B which begins thus: *akoai me sklērai exet.*. — *Of the same.* Lib. I, ep. 390. Starts: *machais chaironta kai thorybois terpomenon* etc.

*Bodleian Codices.* Montfaucon in *Bibl. bibl.*, p. 645 D, reported that codex CXCIX contains six Isidore epistles. But in the catalogues of the manuscript books of England and Ireland collected into one volume, which appeared at Oxford in 1697, among which the catalogue of the Bodleian Library holds first place, it is recorded that codex CXCVII of the Barocci library, which is joined with the Bodleian, contains 6 epistles of Isidore of Pelusium, namely: Lib. I, ep. 349, ep. 455, ep. 359, ep. 153, ep. 37, ep. 151. Then in codex CCXIII, ep. 564 of Isidore exists. Furthermore, sayings of Isidore are found in cod. V — cod. LXXVI — cod. CCXC, n. 19 — cod. CCXCI, n. 5 — cod. DCCX, n. 2.

*Wellensis Codex.* In the other volume of those catalogues, which contains catalogs of manuscript books of cathedral churches and other famous libraries, is recorded on p. 404, n. 4054, a folio codex of the Church of Wells, in which the epistles of Isidore of Pelusium are said to exist.

*Nanianus Codex.* Among the Greek codices that are preserved by the noble Venetian Nani family, there exists, as one can see from their catalogue which appeared at Bologna 1784: Codex CXXVII, n. 18, which contains the epistles of Isidore. ^D Otherwise cf. cod. XXXVI, p. 46 — cod. LXX, n. IV, p. 135 — cod. XCI, n. II, p. 180.

However, Harles falsely affirms in *Fabr. Bibl. gr.*, vol. X, p. 481, note m, col. 2, end of verse, that many epistles of Isidore exist in some codex of the Paullina library at Leipzig. For he wrongly interpreted these words: "Isidore on the books of Scripture," which Montfaucon recorded in his *Bibl. bibl.* from the catalog of that library published by Fellner, cf. p. 595, E. For the codex which Fellner and Montfaucon discuss contains commentaries of Isidore of Seville on many books of Holy Scripture, and other philosophical writings of this man.