Second Account

because of a mistaken understanding of the Scriptures and the perverse superstition of those times, abandoning his legitimate vocation, he embraced the monastic life. ^A And these things, if they testified to their own, might be bearable for Catholics, who have perceived the petulance of heretics: but when they add that they refer to this on the authority of Nicephorus, book xiv, chapter 54, who could well tolerate it? Who could tolerably bear that such an atrocious crime, even with a lie, should be imputed to a writer who is not at all guilty of this crime, so that they might deceive those who are blinded in mind and simple? But this must be granted to the heretics, who spin webs as if from themselves, like spiders.

To these things, the same centuria adds, in chapter 10, after those senseless things about Nilus being ^B a bishop and martyr, which we will see later, regarding the chapters of Saint Nilus: *Precepts on good works set forth according to the sequence of the Decalogue, to which are inserted sentiments regarding the rewards of good works and the punishments of evils.* Which are also contained in certain Greek gnomologies. Furthermore, he says nothing about faith or other parts of doctrine. But he speaks inappropriately, that a merciful man is justified by a drink of cold water. Who would not now contend with his voice? O men of straw, unhappy, and beggars of roasted chickpeas, who are unable either to read writings, or to understand the things read, nor to discern. Deprived of winds, who forbids you at least to use oars? Who would assert that Nilus says nothing about faith and other parts of doctrine? Who would blame Nilus because he wrote about the rewards of good works and the punishments of evils? Who would attribute to Nilus the Constantinopolitan the saying about the cup of cold water? Let him approach the writings. In them he will find most illustrious and most excellent things about faith and Catholic doctrine, if he is not blind: nor will he be turned away from the judgment he pronounced regarding the rewards of good works and the punishments of the wicked. But let us grant this infamy to these most base critics, that while Nilus was writing this and that, he kept silent on some points of dogma. ^C Then it should be noted that he dealt very often with men as heavy as lead, and quite inept at understanding dogmas, and only devoted to bodily exercises so that they might reconcile God to themselves: wherefore those higher and more elevated mysteries were not to be unfolded. But when he was treating with those excelling in intellect, then, with dissensions purged and the doubts of the clouds dispelled by ^D favorable winds, he poured forth the mysteries of the faith, carried into the heavens. Do you not believe? Peruse the books, and you will admire the dexterity of his genius in handling matters. And to impose an end upon my speech, in whom do you trust, you who bring the history that reports about Nilus of Rossano down to the Constantinopolitan disciple of Chrysostom? The saying about the cold water, the disciple of Rossano gives not with unwilling hands to the Rossanese. Do you mutilate the thousandth year by five hundred years, and do you not shudder at shortening the space of so many years? Hear his disciple, from whom Baronius has his own records. Nicolaus the protospatharius says to Nilus of Rossano: "Father, why does the Gospel say that whoever ^A gives a small cup of cold water will not lose his reward?" He replied: "On account of this, it was said for those who have nothing, so that no one might be excused, who does not even have firewood with which to heat water. But what will you do, you who take away cold water from the poor?" Christ pronounces the same, to show—for so the doctors, even the greatest among them, hand down—that a small and easy benefit, and of almost no estimation among men, nevertheless has a reward ordained by God, and that not a small one; for the things that God has promised cannot be small; they are greater than could be estimated by those who are about to receive them. The cold water sufficiently indicates zeal and diligence in showing a kindness, however small. For God estimates works more from the zeal and divine impulse of the mind than from the magnitude of the matter. These things Christ says; and Nilus, by recalling the same things again and again, pronounces them. Can it seem more appropriate and apt? Christ speaks, who holds wisdom with a full heart ^B and of Himself. Speak you more appropriately, who know with a more divine mind and counsel. Nilus repeats the words of Christ; and you are not afraid to assert that Nilus speaks inopportunely, when he says a drink of cold water justifies a merciful man, and you do not fear the reproach of the crowd? Thus at length, fashion both the Gospel and the words of Christ to your own whim, and return badly formed verses to the anvil, that you may be able to remedy the inconveniences that tear your mind apart.

The most learned Possinus, in his *Menologii Græci*, changes Mauritius to Marcian; which fits the matter aptly. For who could have lived under Mauritius, who began his reign in the year of the Lord 583, and enjoyed a common spirit, who is asserted to have been a disciple and contemporary of John Chrysostom, whose death is placed by historians in the year 407? He would have lived at least 175 years, even excluding the years in which it cannot be denied he adhered to Chrysostom to obtain his education. ^C And who would believe in spans of Nilian age so long? This same Possinus, in his preface to the *Epistles of Nilus* to the Most Eminent Barberini, notes another hallucination of Caryophilus concerning the age of Nilus: "Of which the first is that antiquity is such, that he who would have had enough to impute a thousand years is found to have subtracted from the true sum nearly three hundred years, the whole interval, indeed, during which the reign of Arcadius, the true and certain age of our Nilus, precedes the Emperor Mauritius, in whose time, however, a man otherwise learned ^D wrote that Nilus had flourished."

^A

He is mistaken. And he adds in the margin: John Matthew Caryophilus in his Preface to the Life of St. Nilus the Younger. The words of Caryophilus are these: "But as this Nilus of ours, the Italo-Greek of Rossano, bore the title of 'the Younger,' there was an admirable congruence of parallels with the elder Nilus, whom the splendor of monastic piety and the illustrious monuments of his genius rendered immortal for his institute of solitary life. He lived under the Emperor Mauritius, and served as praetor in Constantinople; then, having made a vow of chastity with his wife, he himself professed the monastic rule in Egypt along with his son Theodulus, and became a priest, while his wife withdrew with their daughter into a convent of women, and both attained the laurel of sanctity. But Nilus the Younger, although he was never a priest, yet after leaving his wife, made such progress in the monastic profession that he clearly emerged as the founder of hermitic monks, and marvelously illustrated the order of Basil the Great in Italy. His writings, indeed, though none are extant, yet bear witness to many excellent epistles composed by him, as he who committed this illustrious history of his Life to posterity testifies."

That he was a disciple of Chrysostom, I hold from the History of Callistus, book 14, chapter 30: ^B "Nilus the inspired ascetic, and Isidore of Pelusium, and the much-celebrated ascetic Mark, having been disciples of John the Great." And elsewhere: "You did not reasonably send John into exile, being persuaded by bishops who were not sound in their judgment, out of great levity: 'How, then, do you desire to see Constantinople freed from the frequent earthquakes and the incoming of heavenly fire, when myriad atrocities are committed there, and when evil is practiced with great boldness, having exiled the pillar of the Church, the light of truth, the trumpet of Christ, John?'" ^C

"Let not the Jew deceive you, saying that because of other sins they were alienated from Palestine; for it is not because of other sins, but because of the deicide, that they have suffered these irreparable things. For formerly, when they were idolaters, and slayers of prophets, and sacrificed their daughters and sons to demons, they were delivered by God into captivity to the gentiles, and after a few years, by the divine will, they were brought back to the land of promise. But from the time that they dared the incurable deed of laying hands upon the Son of God, they have been given over to utter destruction. Behold, therefore, the five-hundredth year, and nowhere is there any divine visitation, no aid, no consolation, no prophet warning and supporting, as Ezekiel and Daniel and the others were in Babylon; for God no longer wishes to converse with them, loathing them."

Bellarmine, in his *De Scriptoribus*: "St. Nilus lived as a disciple of John Chrysostom in the time of Theodosius the Younger." Gretser, *De cruce*, book 1, chapter 55. Labbé in his *Bibliotheca*, and John Andreas Questadt.

But why do I seek the testimonies of outsiders in investigating the age of Nilus? Nilus himself is a sufficient witness for himself, and firmly asserts his own age, and indicates under which emperor he lived. Let the letters to the Emperor Arcadius be read, if one wishes, which we publish here with others, as did Possinus, who sets forth his sentiment regarding the exile of John in the very indictment: "You did not rightly send John into exile, having been poorly persuaded by certain insane bishops out of much levity." ^D

The entire corpus of the sacrosanct epistle is appended. From the time that the Jews, with present intent, laid hands upon the Son of God and performed the capital execution upon Him, and were therefore delivered over to perpetual destruction, it is the five-hundredth year, indicated not by contracted letters or brief marks of numbers, but by extended and complete characters, so that the error might not be attributed to the laziness of the writer. From the year of the Nativity of the Lord, the five-hundredth is the tenth of the Emperor Athanasius [Anastasius] and the second of Pope Symmachus. The year in which John Chrysostom was exiled

^A so that, if this Nilus was writing while John Chrysostom was not yet dead, as we saw above, he would have been, when writing these later things, ninety-three years of age. If to this you add at least thirty years, during which he cast off manners suited to softness under his master Chrysostom and, instructed in the liberal arts, gained authority and a freedom of speech such that he could censure the faults and stains of emperors, not with common disparagement, but with a noble frankness, he would then have been numbered at one hundred and twenty-three years: perhaps this will not seem absurd. For perhaps the nature of the places, the temperance, and the disposition of the soul, which in no way harm the health of the body, brought this about.

When I was dwelling in the town of Bene, in the Neapolitan province known by the less common name of Basilicata, I knew two individuals from the plebeian dregs who had nevertheless grown wealthy, and I lived alongside them. They were exceedingly strong in the constitution of their bodies, most firm in their compact sinews, possessing almost all their teeth, and, to put it in a word, more robust than athletes themselves. Three or four hours before dawn, even in winter, when all things freeze with the biting winds and snowdrifts, they would wake up, jump from their beds exultant with joy, and afterward, with the movements of their exercised arms, would beat their chests and sides in a circular rhythm; and drawing in wine—which in that region is by far the most excellent in sweetness, pleasantness, and grace—they would ingest it while pouring it down, grabbing a piece of white bread, or sometimes even dirty or dark bread, as fate had provided, for they did not seek the blandishments of desires. Finally, with a hay scythe or a spade slung over their shoulders, they would hasten to the houses and descend into the fields: and for the whole length of the day they would consume much labor, exhausting themselves with tasks, with only one hour taken away, which they spent in upscale and sumptuous banquets away from home, until, with the sun setting toward night, they returned home, dined, and already drowsy, would lie down on their beds, anxious about new labors. And one of them had completed one hundred and fifteen years of his life, and the other one hundred and twenty. However, how many years were added to their lives after my departure from Basilicata, I have not yet discovered: indeed, no desire for this possessed me.

But the thing I am about to tell almost took me out of myself. While a boy traveling from the island of Chios to Rome with my maternal grandfather, Michael Neurida, since I was delayed from entering the college of the Greeks in Rome due to my tender age, the regulations of that college forbidding it, I stayed in Paula of Calabria with the most illustrious Marius Spinellus, who embraced me with extraordinary charity and loved me very clearly, and, as that age permitted, handed me over to be instructed by preceptors steeped in the liberal arts. While I was wandering around the crossroads for the sake of relaxing my mind with my companions, a gray-headed, doting old man, with a cadaverous face and clearly ^B a walking corpse, approached me in my haste. Beside him accompanied boys, old men, young men, and many from the vile dregs of humanity, who were amused by his ridiculous deeds and words. I inquired what this was about. Everyone, and especially the more prudent, responded that he was an Acherontic old man, and therefore dim, unable to distinguish a white color from a black one. For this reason, the bystanders were making games of his misfortunes: for he had already completed one hundred and thirty years. As a little boy, I was not moved by this at the time. But older men, and those old in mind, were present and engaged in the jests: "The matter is in a good state," they shouted. And who would not be convinced by an eyewitness that this was so? Others said, "We do not appeal to witnesses, who are non-existent, but to ecclesiastical records." The saying pleased everyone, and they immediately proceeded to the church; having summoned the parish priest, they curiously examined the book in which the names of those baptized in the sacred font are recorded, and they clearly and expressly found the name and surname of the man whose age was in doubt for the year 1462, and from this it was gathered that around the year 1520, he was very familiarly associated with Saint Francis and had discussed many things with him in conversation. And that doting old man, finally, while hastening with a quick step along the stairs of the building, before I left Paula, tumbled headlong and gave up his spirit.

I have brought forward these things concerning longevity, explored by my own experience, so that we might gather that the five-hundredth year mentioned by Nilus in this epistle—by a sufficiently probable conjecture, and subsequently the even longer life of the same man, concerning whose duration nothing certain is reported—approaches very close to the truth. But if this does not seem convenient, let us say that in that epistle Nilus used an integral and complete number for an incomplete and truncated one, so that by a similar adjunction he might gain weight for his demonstration against the Jews; instances of which are frequent in the sacred Scriptures themselves: but I follow the greater heights of matters. But the years of Mauritius are very far removed. For then Nilus would have extended the boundaries of life to the year 176. I, for one, fear to believe this, and by whose faith am I to believe it? I believe God can do this: but whether He did, let each add or subtract belief according to his own judgment.

But Caryophilus was mistaken. So be it. But with the Greeks in the Menologium of the Greeks—now also add the most accurate Sirletus—who, as is probable, preferred to be mistaken in his own Translation, not from his own mind but from Greek codices, and perhaps very ancient ones, rather than to be called into criminal accusation for bad faith in his Translation by removing the name of Mauritius, and to have to write commentaries for his own purgation after being summoned to judgment. What if he were to say that this Nilus is another, and not the Constantinopolitan? That is not proven either from the Menologium of the Greeks nor from Sirletus, since the writings and deeds of the Constantinopolitan are for the greater part described and attributed to both on the same day. There were also others more effusive in the praises of this Nilus. Franciscus Zinus, in his letter to Augustinus...

Valerius, Bishop of Verona, concerning Saint Ephrem, Nilus, Marcus, and Isaiah: "They would not be unbecoming for your episcopate. For they are frugal men, of small expense and great utility. They know how to keep silent in their place, and, when there is need, to speak. They are talented. They possess great experience of affairs, and are endowed with learning and singular prudence. They will dwell joyfully with your household on account of their holy and gentle manners. If your churches are to be visited by you, whether in the city or in the whole diocese—a duty of visitation [which is] the gravest of all, and the most laborious, yet you perform it most diligently; if your monasteries of virgins or monks, if your seminaries, or the ancient [seminary] for acolytes instituted by Pope Eugenius IV, and always well administered by former bishops and the chapter of canons, but by you wondrously increased and adorned, or the new one, erected and enriched by your own incredible study, care, and diligence, according to the decree and institution of the holy Council of Trent; if the shelters for destitute men and women, into which you have gathered all the poor of both sexes who were previously wandering everywhere, so that no longer is any needy person or beggar found roaming the city; if the hospitals, of which you take primary care; if litigations, discords, and enmities are to be settled; if peace is to be reconciled everywhere among citizens, [you do this] ever with a certain sweet urbanity and that Christian eloquence which you deliver so elegantly and learnedly in that brilliant rhetorical discourse of yours," etc. And the epistle prefixed to the *Opuscula* of Nilus and Marcus, addressed to Aloysius Lipomanus: "These abbots are indeed grave in authority, very experienced in affairs, and learned in heavenly doctrines. You will admire their keen gravity in correcting vices, their remarkable diligence in teaching virtues and good character, and their singular learning in expounding the Scriptures. They know and pursue and refute the perverse opinions of this age concerning faith, grace, and works, as well as other errors and the flagrancies of men in such a way that they seem not to have lain buried in darkness, far removed from the custom of men for many centuries, but to have been assiduously conversant with us." Photius in the *Bibliotheca*, cod. 201, and others whom we shall see below. Now, however, it will not be irrelevant to set these two distichs, from manuscript codices, before this holy account. Also those from the *Menologium* of the Greeks:

Nilus waters the ravines of the waterless land, And Nilus waters the hearts of the faithful. The river of Nilus saw the earth to be watered. The discourse of Nilus the monk saw the souls to be gladdened. Nilus waters Egypt, but by the Word He also waters creation, having died, a great Nilus.

[Translated by the most learned Possinus:] Nilus Canopus, this one greater than the fountain, The whole world wets, and though dead, Nilus waters it.

Joined in marriage to a most honorable matron, he took from her two children, a male and a female. His wife, instructed by the same, immigrates together with her daughter to the monasteries of Egypt. He himself occupies Mount Sinai with his son Theodulus, in order to enjoy the custom of the holy Fathers. Theodulus, taken captive by the Barbarians, after many perils and tortures of life, was finally ransomed by a bishop, and having fulfilled a holy and religious life, rendered up his soul to God. The Greeks venerate and honor him, as they do the rest of the men eminent in sanctity, on the fourteenth day of January.

^{A B C D}

Basilian Menologium: On this same day is the commemoration of our holy Father Theodulus. He was the son of the wise Nilus, who was eparch of Constantinople, but renouncing the glory of the world, departed to Mount Sinai, and lived the monastic life together with his son. While they were both remaining there and passing through the ascetic life, Barbarians suddenly fell upon them and began to slaughter the holy Fathers. Nilus himself was able to escape, but his son Theodulus was held captive with another young man, and being bound, they were dragged away. The Barbarians were angry, and wished to slay the young men and sacrifice them to the star that rises before the sun. And one indeed escaped; but the Barbarians having fallen asleep, and the sun having risen, and the star being hidden, they did not slay Theodulus. Wishing to sell him, they were accepting only two pieces of gold, and one, having unsheathed his sword, wanted to slaughter him; then the bishop bought him and released him, and having lived well, he fell asleep.

And Sirletus in the *Menologium* of the Greeks: On the same day of January, Saint Theodulus. He was the son of the wise Nilus, who, having left the world, betook himself to Mount Sinai, where he practiced the life of a monk with his son. That he left many monuments of his genius to posterity is certain and indubitable, a not insignificant part of which sees the light with the protection of the press, part lies hidden in manuscript in the most celebrated libraries, and part has perished by the injuries of time. For neither his abundantly speaking wisdom, nor the explanation of obscure things in the Scriptures, nor his zeal for disseminating the fine arts and good customs, nor that supreme [gift] were lacking to him. Nicephorus Callistus lib. XIV:

Logos...

^A [cap. 53], holding fast by his power, and reinforced by divine grace, left behind diverse writings which incite to asceticism, being so composed [in choice] of phrasing and thought as to render the reader full of an ineffable grace. And since he excelled by force of eloquence and was strong in the sinews of divine grace, he left behind various writings which instruct in the exercise of the monastic life, composed in words and sentiments such that they refresh the reader’s mind with incredible grace.

Versed in every upright study and humane pursuit, Philippus Labbeus says in his *Nova Bibliotheca*: "Many works of Nilus of Constantinople, disciple of St. John Chrysostom, lie in the Parisian and other libraries, which, as I hear, are being made ready for public utility by a learned translator." And on page 95: "Diverse works of the Patriarch Nilus of Constantinople [are found] in the royal codices, [numbered] 378, 498, 615, 932, 944, 722, 1067, 1662, 1387, 1588, 2005, 2218. Many works of the same St. Nilus were also in the Sirletian library, which it remains for others to note." Thus Labbæus here and elsewhere; Josias Simler in his *Epitome of the Gesnerian Library*, [and] Georgius Draudius in his *Bibliotheca classica* [concur].

Others, one by one, call this our holy ascetic Nilus an archbishop and bishop of Constantinople, deceived by the notorious carelessness of manuscript codices. Joannes Andreas Quenstedt [writes]: "Nilus the monk was born at Constantinople, a disciple of John Chrysostom, who wrote much on the institution of monks, as witnessed by Nicephorus, Hist. lib. XIV, cap. 53. Certain of his [works] exist in the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, volume V, edition 2. But the book of St. Nilus *On Christian Philosophy* exists separately, by which name he signifies the monastic life." Photius in his *Bibliotheca*, codex 201: "The book of Nilus the monk was read, divided into one hundred and fifty-three chapters, in which this divine man unfolds the pattern for prayer. And many other noteworthy [writings] of his are carried [in circulation], referring to diverse subjects, both in the epistolary style and brought together into written treatises, attesting both to his perfection in [good] works and to his power in discourse."

In the same place, Andreas Scottus reviews other works of the same Nilus, which are said to exist in Italy, in the Royal and Augustan libraries. Nevertheless, he doubts whether all are by the one Nilus. The same Photius, in the same *Bibliotheca*, writes out in their own words fairly long excerpts from his *Orations on the First and Second Paschal [Feasts]*, [and] *On the Ascension of the Lord, First, Second, and Third*. Here, not without a note of negligence, one must point out the gross error of Gesner and Simler, who in their *Bibliotheca* confound the *Theological Works* of Nilus with the *Chapters* of Diadochus. ^B St. Nilus's *Monastic Orations* [are] in the Vatican, [as are] certain *Theological Works*, and the *Chapters* of [Diadochus] Photice. And what is more, the Magdeburg centuriators (cent. 5, cap. 10) [say] that Nilus’s *Monastic Orations* exist in Greek at Rome in the Vatican. Likewise [there are] fifteen *Theological Works*, and the *Chapters* of Photice. Likewise a book to Bishop Baricles. And below: "He provides, however, almost a conjecture, because a certain writing of the *Chapters* of Photice is commemorated," etc. And Nicephorus, etc. If anyone else, then certainly Photius himself—not to draw out the matter with the testimonies of many—openly refutes a similar error. For he says: "The inscription says 'the discourses of Diadochus,' [referring to him as] Bishop of Photice in Old Epirus." The inscription itself makes the author Diadochus, bishop of that Photice, which is in Old Epirus. And below, while dealing with the *Synodical Epistle* of Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem: "And the bishop of Photice, [by] name Diadochus." — And [that he is] a bishop of Photice named Diadochus.

No one has yet gathered all the works of this man, which are very numerous, into a proper volume. Nevertheless, some have been rendered into Latin and edited. [There is the] *Oration to God against the incursions of the Barbarians, civil wars, pestilence, famine, and the present violence of death*, with Joanne Sambucus Pannonius as translator: "P. Almighty Lord God, Father of the unbegotten Son." Published in Latin only at Padua, the year 1555; it exists in manuscript in the Imperial Library at Vienna.

Petrus Franciscus Zinus of Verona translated it into Latin and published it at Venice, the year 1557, in octavo.

[The] *Ascetic Book of Nilus*, or *On the Life and Morals of Monks*. P. Many from the Greeks, and not a few from the Jews. *On the Institution to Monks*. P. Fasting removes the intemperance of the stomach. *Seven Orations against the Vices*. *On Gluttony*, orat. 1. P. The principle is the flower of progress. *On Luxury*, orat. 2. P. Temperance begets modesty. *On Avarice*, orat. 3. P. Avarice is the root of all evils. *On Anger*, orat. 4. P. Anger is akin to fury and insanity. *On Sadness*, orat. 5. P. The monk ignores carnal pleasure. *On Acedia*, orat. 6. P. Acedia is the weakness of the mind. *On Vain Glory*, orat. 7. P. Vain glory is a perturbation of the mind contrary to reason. *On Pride*, orat. 8. P. Pride is a tumor of the mind, full of corruption. *Diverse Chapters*. P. Retain the fear of God and [zealous] study. *On Prayer*, cap. 153. P. Whoever desires odorous incense. *On the Institution to Younger Monks*. P. The youth seeks rest in the body. *Epistle to Anastasius the Bishop*. P. John, an admirable priest of the Church of Constantinople.

On the Overly Long Prefecture*. P. The observers of natural things relate. In the *Library of the Ancient Fathers*, edited at Cologne: A fragment from a certain *Parænetic* book. P. Is it possible that the angels, or powers, etc.? *On the Eight Vicious Thoughts*. *On Gluttony*. P. On the eight vicious thoughts, or affections. *On Fornication*. P. The spirit of fornication through the flesh. *On Avarice*. P. The war of avarice is external. *On Anger*. P. When anger once occupies the breast. *On Sadness*. P. When the wicked spirit of sadness. *On Sloth*. P. The spirit of sloth the spirit of sorrow. *On Vainglory*. P. The affection of vainglory is manifold. *On Pride*. P. The most grievous and most ferocious of all. *On Prayer*, 150 chapters, section 147. Exclusively in Latin, translated by Francis Turrianus, who, along with the chapters *On Spiritual Perfection* by Diadochus, bishop of Photice, took care to have it published at Antwerp by the Plantin Press, in the year 1575, in 12mo. Whence it was derived into the *Libraries of the Ancient Fathers* by Margarinus de la Bigne. *An Ascetic Work*. *Institution to Monks*. *Eight Orations against the Primary Vices*. *Brief Institution to Younger Monks*. *Epistle to Anastasius the Priest*, with two fragments. *Treatise on the Eight Vicious Thoughts*, in Latin, translated by Jacques Billius Prunaeus, coenobiarch of St. Michael in the Desert, who published it with the works of John of Damascus at Paris, in the year 1577. He also appended the little works of Eugenius on the same subject. These have been published in both Greek and Latin. The same author’s *Chapters, or Paræneses*, that is, *Sententious Precepts*, translated by Francis Turrianus—who corrected the previous translation by collating three very old exemplars and adding scholarly notes—at Florence, by Bartholomæus Sermartellius, 1578, in 8vo. Together with the one hundred chapters on *Spiritual Perfection* by Diadochus, bishop of Photice, in Old Epirus. These also in Greek. In Latin, at Leiden, from the Plantin Press, 1590, in 8vo; at Basel, by Robert Winter; and at Cologne, by Gymnicus. Item: in Greek and Latin, translated into the Latin tongue, and illustrated with both sacred and profane testimonies, by the work and labor of Stephanus Schoningius: printed at Franchera by Ægidius Radæus, printer to the Estates of Friesland, 1608, in 8vo. Added to these are the *Parænetic Chapters* of Agapetus, and the book of Aristotle *On Virtues and Vices*, translated and expounded by the same Stephanus. The same works, rendered into verse by Michael Toxites, were printed at Strasbourg by Craton Mylius. The epitomizer Gesnerus, who, however, makes no mention of this version in his epitome, just as Gesner himself does not in Toxites.

Gold of Nilus, Bishop and Martyr, *Chapters*, or *Sententious Precepts*

These same *Paræneses* were published in Greek and Latin by Paulus Minerva of Bari, a Dominican, with Scholia or Commentaries; at Naples, by Constantinus Vitalis, 1604, in 4to. What he achieved in illustrating them, he himself narrates to the reader: "Whatever, therefore, you find in these, be assured that it has been drawn from the doctrine of the holy Fathers; and for that reason we have cited them all; and since they were ordered in the highest degree toward political and moral life, we have touched upon the axioms of the pagan philosophers as well, in order to strengthen and confirm them, so that those who lead that province with the reins of life relaxed may know that the Christian law is the law of the virtues, which most of the pagans, illuminated by the natural light, pursued and extolled with wondrous praises. What if they had been born Christians? They would surely excel in excess of sanctity." Yet this man, such and so great a one, even while debating the author of these *Paræneses*, strips them of Nilus the Ascetic and the Constantinopolitan, and ascribes them to Nilus the Bishop and Martyr. It is uncertain, indeed...

as is noted in the *Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum*, volume III, printed at Basel, whether this was the Nilus, the Egyptian bishop, whom Eusebius mentions in his *Ecclesiastical History*, book VI, chapter 14. And that he was an Egyptian is evident from the very inscription: Νείλου ἐπισκόπου, καὶ μάρτυρος κεφάλαια, ἢ παραινέσεις, "Chapters, or Paræneses, of Nilus, Bishop and Martyr." Although Margarinus de la Bigne has struck out "Bishop Nilus" and inscribed him as "Nilus, father of the monks," whom he makes the author of these sentences, supported solely by the testimony of Nicephorus Callistus, this is his only argument. Nicephorus writes that Nilus the monk collected the Chapters, some handled more loosely, others more concisely. Therefore, he who wrote these Chapters was not Nilus the Egyptian bishop. However, it does not follow from this that these Chapters were not the work of a bishop and martyr. For it is possible that both men composed Chapters, and in different ways; this was a common practice among most holy men and Greek writers. Furthermore, Anthony the Monk in his *Melissa* identifies several sentences as being from "Nilus" without any other epithet, and others from "Nilus the Bishop." Therefore, these must belong to Nilus the Bishop and Martyr, and no other: since the sentences of Nilus the Bishop are seen to be ordered, as is shown in the paraphrastic *Catena* of the same arranged by Paul. That they are attributed to Nilus without a title was done through the error of authors who believed they were not those of Nilus the Bishop. Thus, therefore, by the title of bishop and martyr from the Greek inscription, [we conclude] that the Nilus who is the author of the Chapters, is Nilus, and that he is a bishop and martyr. Nor should it be said that the inscription is a forgery: for then no book would be worthy of belief on account of its title. Add Sixtus of Siena, who did not say a word about sentences of this kind in Nilus, although he did mention his *Commentaries on Job*; though this reasoning does not seem of such great weight if someone should reply that Sixtus of Siena did not take upon himself the duty of mentioning all the writings of Nilus, but only those which contained an explanation of the Holy Books. Petrus Riccordatus also, in his *Historia scholastica*, having addressed Nilus the Ascetic and his writings, does not say a word about these *Paræneses*. Finally, as an most valid argument, he adduces the testimony from the *History* of Mutius, Bishop of Justinopolis, who makes Nilus the Bishop and Martyr the author of these *Paræneses*, since under the name of Nilus, as the legitimate author, he cites several parts extracted from this work. Hence Paul ascends triumphantly to the Capitol: Who, he says, would affirm that they belong to another Nilus, and not to the Bishop and Martyr, when this testimony is most excellent? Or ^B will you say that Mutius wrote without reflection? Or that he attributed them to Nilus the Bishop, but took them away from Nilus the non-Bishop? If he had not read them under the title of "Nilus, Bishop and Martyr," surely he would not have affirmed them to be of Nilus the Bishop. What, then, was the reason for Mutius to attribute the work to Nilus the Bishop, and to take it away from Nilus the non-Bishop? But afterward, he states it more mildly, that it could be objected that the sentences are not those of Nilus the Bishop and Martyr, just as he testifies he had been challenged by some individuals: that given the persecution, the bishop did not have the time to publish a book, and that in his *Acts* there is no mention of these *Paræneses*. He replies that martyrdom and persecution did not interpolate the writing of books, and he shows this with several examples. Hence he concludes that Margarinus de la Bigne did not rightly take away from Nilus the Bishop and Martyr what was his, and attribute it to Nilus the non-Bishop. But if he should bring forward the latter point—namely, that many very learned men in this age hold the opposite, to wit, that they are not by Nilus the Bishop and Martyr, but by another Nilus—we respond that, on the other hand, a hundred other most excellent men exist holding that Nilus the Bishop and Martyr is the author of these *Parænetic* sentences.

But to start from the place where Paul broke off his *Apology*, that they are not by Nilus the Bishop, but by another, is the opinion of most learned men, he replies; yet on the other side, a hundred other most excellent men hold that he is Nilus the Bishop. And yet, not long before, when he was attempting to defend this with the testimony of illustrious writers, he produced no more than three: Anthony the Monk in the *Melissa*, Petrus Riccordatus, and Mutius of Justinopolis, who do not utter a single word about the episcopacy of Nilus, the writer of these *Paræneses*. And now, suddenly, they are led ^C to the contrary. But let it be, that they have conceded them to Nilus the Bishop. Have they therefore denied them to Nilus the Ascetic or Monk? Not at all. The Ascetic was known under various titles, with which his writings were honored by scribes. Hence, in many, under the name of Nilus prefixed, no one else is designated but this Constantinopolitan, as he is more illustrious by this name. To others he is a monk, to others an ascetic, to others an abbot, to others a bishop, to others an archbishop, and, what is more admirable, a Constantinopolitan; to others a martyr. Wherefore, if from the titles of the inscriptions it is right for us to imagine various authors, how many Niluses will arise for us! Or into how many Niluses will our one Nilus be miserably torn apart and groan! From various offices, dignities, professions, cares, and lots, various personae are imposed upon one and the same man, and, with various reasons introduced, they are described variously in monuments, nor do they on that account differ from themselves, or change in the slightest. And that our Nilus was an ascetic, the thing itself teaches; that he was a priest with his son Theodulus, we prove in this little tractate on Nilus; that he was also a martyr, and a bishop, and if you wish even an archbishop, what forbids it? But this is not related in the writings. What then? Should we not believe what is not committed to letters, and yet hold without any doubt that it was so? And perhaps we would find all these things in our Nilus, if the devouring time had left his deeds for us. And perhaps also those who are to come will prevail, when we see daily similar things being brought into the light from the shadows, and growing for the public convenience. I will not summon arguments from outside. From the *Life of St. Nilus, Bishop and Martyr*, which you recite from the translation of Johannes Christoforson, concerning the writings of the said saint, less

than nothing, yet in your generosity you make him the author of the *Ascetic Discourses*. From where do you ferret out that he wrote them? He may have written them. Other men of the same age and dignity have written. I grant this, not even unwillingly. But that *he* wrote them, unless better evidence is produced, I will not say. And even if Nilus the bishop wrote them: is this bishop and martyr the same one you mean? No sensible person would deny that there were several men named Nilus at that time, and that among them were bishops and martyrs, and that they also wrote commentaries for posterity. Would it not be foolish for someone to conclude, for example, that Nilus the bishop and martyr of the Patrae was the author? To this work the title is prefixed: *The Ascetic Discourses of Nilus the Bishop and Martyr*. Therefore, this Nilus is none other than the Bishop of the Patrae. For if they were written by Nilus the ascetic, there would be no addition or expression of "bishop and martyr." If the Greek interpretation were read without the title and epithet, the sentiments would certainly not be those of Nilus the bishop. For it is not intelligible that they were not by Nilus the bishop. Who would attribute them to Nilus the bishop and martyr? And yet, similar things are observed before our eyes regarding this same Nilus the ascetic. In some of his treatises, "of Nilus, Archbishop of Constantinople," is prefixed. Therefore, the "ascetic Nilus" must be rejected, and Nilus the Archbishop of Constantinople must be investigated. In some, it says "of Nilus the Abbot"; therefore, the ascetic must be rejected, and Nilus the abbot must be searched for. But Nilus the ascetic was neither a bishop nor a martyr. Where do you get that? He is not even known by the title of priest, and yet I learn from the same source that he was endowed with the priesthood. But Sixtus of Siena made no mention of such views. Be it so; it is true, as he did not write about other treatises either, but only those which concern the explanation of the holy Scriptures. Why, then, did he not commemorate his explanations on the *Song of Songs*, on the Gospel of Luke, on the Psalms, and on other books of holy Scripture, which manuscript codices retain to this day? It cannot be said that Nilus's commentaries on Job were long-winded, and that in others the expositions were collected here and there from his works: since in Job it is the same way, and the commentary on the *Song of Songs* is entire.

The *History or Narratives of Nilus the monk and hermit*, in which the slaughter of the monks of Mount Sinai and the captivity of his son Theodulus are described—*On the slaughter of those at Mount Sinai, and on the captivity of his son Theodulus*—extracted from the 74th manuscript codex of Carolus de Monchal, Archbishop of Toulouse, and dedicated to the same with his new interpretation and notes, under the title: *Certain works of Nilus not yet published*, was published at Paris by the most learned Petrus Possinus, at the press of the king's printer, Sebastian Cramoisy, in quarto. He added a eulogy of the same Nilus on Albianus, in Greek and Latin. Concerning this history, the Greek *Menologium* for November 12th says: "And since the blessed Nilus, having occupied the mountain with his son, was among the Fathers, some barbarians suddenly arrived, and like wild beasts took his son Theodulus captive along with many others, whom he mourns more than is proper for such a man, as can be seen in the writing composed by him." Hence, when the blessed Nilus was enjoying the company of the holy Fathers on the occupied mountain, certain barbarians, rushing in like wild beasts, carried off his son Theodulus captive along with many others; his father laments his misfortune, more than would be seemly for such a man, as can be seen in the Commentary written on this matter. Nicephorus Callistus, in the cited passage, says: "Among whom the martyrdom of the divine Fathers on Mount Sinai is also recorded, so brilliantly and at the same time so pathetically, that it is possible from that source to discern what the man was in terms of both the copiousness of his speech and virtue; for there he also recounts his own affairs and those of the children with moderation, tragically lamenting their captivity, with the barbarians, who were called Blemmyes, having rushed down and committed no small slaughter; which he also left as a sort of spiritual relish for those fond of learning." He also wrote of the death and martyrdom of the divine Fathers on Mount Sinai with such eloquence and language that it is possible to deduce from it how outstanding the man was in doctrine and virtue, where he also commemorates the miserable events of himself and his children in a few words, as if in a tragedy, also deploring the captivity when the barbarian Blemmyes in their raid caused a huge slaughter: which little work he left as a sort of spiritual delight for students. When the *Narratives* were read in Greek, the most learned Possinus seized the opportunity to divide the book into seven Narratives, as he judged this could be done with some convenience for the reader, and with no detriment to the author or the work.

Concerning the interpretation which was published by Lipomanus, here is the decision of the most excellent Petrus Possinus regarding his own interpretation: "This one thing I had received at the beginning: and this they, who have every claim to my merit, had only discussed with me: that I should review the old interpretation of this little work, which was formerly published by Lipomanus, and compare it with the Greek. But when I had offered to friends as a specimen that interpretation, which had already been interpolated and recanted by me in several pages—which had seemed the same to the one writing before me as to those reading it—I realized that if I were to proceed as I had begun, I would derive no benefit from the drudgery of such menial labor, which caused me great fatigue. And certainly, that I may discharge it as quickly as possible—even though I cannot omit it, as, for the sake of modesty alone, that one thing remains—I will fulfill the criticism of the other's labor, and it is permitted to affirm, as briefly as it is true, that there is no kind of fault or disgrace that ought to be guarded against in that kind of work which has not been omitted in this most perverse version due to haste. For the author's meaning is obscured everywhere, and not rarely it has been forged and twisted at the whim of the interpreter. Already on almost all pages, in a wretched manner, the writer's speech has been torn to pieces, and mangled; then from beginning to end, in no place is it found clean, but contaminated with barbarian stains.

^A If anyone thinks that these things were said by me in a spirit of accusation, I shall not, however, lose my labor before him by a long and drawn-out defense of my own cause, bringing forward certain testimonies for every point. But if he thinks it worth the effort to know the whole matter, and to compare those Latin versions of the old translator with the Greek of the author, so that he may blink at other things—if he has any fairness at all, he will perceive throughout the work that not just clauses or whole sentences, but pages and even entire treatises are passed over in conscious silence, and he will judge that that translator, whoever he is, wrote in haste, and that I have not accused him calumniously. And from this, excellent reader, you understand well enough how not lightly, or out of desire, but of necessity, I undertook the plan of starting a new translation. When someone—I know not who—had noticed these things, he attached this note to the foot of the Barberini published codex: "These three manuscript codices agree so well that they seem to have been copied, as it were, from a single exemplar; otherwise, they differ widely from the published edition: for they change many things, add some, and excise a great many, in which you can easily recognize the hand of Simeon Metaphrastes, who loved to interpolate and change ancient and sufficiently long writings of this kind regarding the deeds of the saints." Furthermore, that edition of his, which those codices represent, was followed by an ancient Latin translation first published by Lipomanus, which Father Possinus attacks in his Preface—perhaps he would have acted more mildly had he noticed that the discrepancies and even errors did not originate from the translator, but from Simeon Metaphrastes the interpolator, as in fact they should have. These points are handed down against Possinus, against the addition of Lipomanus, and against the name of Simeon Metaphrastes, which walks magnificently throughout the mouths of men. But one must forgive a man who is ignorant of how much the judgment of Possinus is worth, and what the dignity of Metaphrastes is in promoting ecclesiastical affairs through the administration of public and private matters, his full expertise, and whether he was a white or black man. For who, unless he wished to dream nonsense and attempt to chatter to others, would boast that Simeon Metaphrastes, born of noble and equestrian rank, a minister among the foremost of the Constantinopolitan militia, a man of the emperor's letters and secrets, was, in both prose and metrical speech, not without eloquence and dexterity: and if anyone contends that errors and discrepancies proceeded from such and so great a man, and that he interpolated the lives of the ancient saints, harming such a great name, will he grant him pardon, but [not ask that he] be successful? But to those who are little skilled in practice, and who easily pronounce judgment on everything, one must not give [their words] against their will.

We say, therefore, and firmly assert, that Metaphrastes by no means interpolated the lives of the saints in such a way that he changed many things, added many, and cut away others. But he changed them, having become more cautious, knowing what in the monuments of other writers were held in a different manner entirely, and [which he knew] to be against justice and divine law. ^B He added things worthy of knowledge, having been taught by others, things that were passed over, however, by the ancient writers of the Lives. He cut out what was related in the writings of others, but [only what was] excessive, superfluous, fabulous, ridiculous, and introduced by the malice of perverse men. And is this, my good man, to interpolate the Lives of the saints? And will this be the case: to have changed the Lives in certain places, to have cut them, and to have added to them? Metaphrastes left the Lives, which were correctly and wisely composed, intact, not seeking any fame for himself from the studies and labors of others, but from the beginning to the end of the deeds, as they were done, he set them forth in his own proper style and genus of speaking, in such a way that one instructed in the oratorical art might discern that he has used none of the periods, or even formulas and markers, of other writers. It is so. The lives of the ancient saints published by others before Metaphrastes are extant, which were afterwards edited by the same man, with singular faculty of speech, into a better and more accurate tenour, many of which I have clearly designated in my Diatriba on the Simeons. Take them in your hands, read them attentively, and then, having judged wisely and well, bring forth your sentence. You will be clear, if you declare that Metaphrastes interpolated and changed the ancient and sufficiently long deeds of the holy men, and [are] understanding that the judgment of the most learned Possinus concerning this history of Nilus in the Latin [version] of Lipomanus is not correct, and [that he] prudently or unjustly vexed it. For if it is not so, in the transcribing of the volumes of the ancients, the carelessness of the scribes—not in doctrine, nor in excellence of erudition—and if the codices on which he relied, confused by depraved and distorted letters or by ambiguities, had not intruded—whether by malice, or by the fleeing of time—words faulty due to the similarity of their syllables? It is unfair to attribute such things to Metaphrastes. And lest I be too long, see what Psellus constructeth with care in his Encomium of the man regarding Metaphrastes' manner of dictating and structuring words, our Diatriba concerning the Simeons and their writings, in which we have collected many things about this same matter from various authors. And lest some charming and festive "saperda" suspect that we are agitating similar things from our own imagination, take to yourself, reader, what Lipomanus handed down to memory in his writings on behalf of the same Metaphrastes. ^C Moreover, the common opinion of the men of old of the Eastern Church regarding Metaphrastes [is that] he reduced the Lives of the saints from the diverse books of authors into one volume, and that he left those which were inscribed under the name of some man under this title; but those which had been described by others, though in a rude and insipid style, he himself embellished with many labors and sweats, and set them forth with his own erudition, just as Theodore Balsamon and Psellus [state], and that therefore he was named "Metaphrastes," for *metaphrazein* in Greek, in Latin, is to interpret some writing in clearer words, yet with the sense and matter retained. But those things which had as yet been written by no one, but were received as if by hand and tradition from the Fathers, and were held as true, these he described in an elegant and refined style, and proposed them to the Church to be read; and this book went forth into the light with such authority that among the Eastern Church,

^A who might have written the Lives of the saints, besides Simeon Metaphrastes alone, neither is he sought after, nor is he found. Nay more, in its Menaia and the sacred [books] of the saints, it recites the Lives, and reads none other than those taken from these, as being certain, true, and authentic, confirmed by the authority of all. Indeed, the Greek Church would not have placed the prayers and orations of Metaphrastes immediately after the supplications of Basil and Chrysostom if he had been an author of recent time. Nor would he be cited by Balsamon, who flourished more than 400 years [ago], and Psellus, who [flourished] more than 500. Finally, nor would he be cited among the doctors of the Church at the Council of Florence to confirm the dogma of the faith. These things remained as matters to be noted concerning this man. And in the Preface to Vol. ^B V: That truly is the first thing, that all these Lives were recently translated from Greek into Latin by our exhortation and with our aid by Gentianus Hervetus, a learned Frenchman, and that the Western Church now receives them for the first time; how great and what a treasury she had hitherto been deprived of by reason of ignorance of them, after you have perused the whole volume, you yourself will be the best judge. And of this indeed Lipomanus—if he looked at what came before with eyes at once in front and behind, that is, at the latter part of the fifth volume—will be said to have had more of the bug's blood, if I may so speak, than of reason. For what more inconsiderate, or more ill-advised could have been done than to attribute to Simeon Metaphrastes all the Lives of the saints which bore no author's name on their title, with no truth explored to clarity? Whence afterwards did so many wounds to his fame, and stigmas against an innocent man, and one most remote from every fault, come to be leveled by the most wicked and most basely defamed heretics, and dealers in fabulous stories? Concerning which we [have spoken] elsewhere more fully. Now I will only add to those things regarding his age what Nicephorus Gregoras [says] in the Life of Saint Theophano, wife of Leo the son of Basil the Macedonian, Emperor of Constantinople, treating of the studies restored by the same Leo in the city of Byzantium: ^C "And the strength of oratorical diction, and at that very time, if it ever did at any other, reached a great peak, with both emperors having given to them very great weight and honor. And one could see the associations of holy men, and the theatres of wise orators, and every display of the virtue of words, with many gathering from all sides, and bringing about another Socratic and Platonic Stoa and Academy and Lyceum [in] the palace. On account of these things, therefore, the comeliness of the Church of God also received great advancement at that time. For not only did the emperor adorn many of the annual feasts and solemnities with his own discourses and odes, but he also ordered many of the learned men of that time to do the same. Of whom one was he who then translated other things into a more eloquent style, and wrote the Lives of the majority of the ascetics and athletes of virtue; whence he also obtained the name of Metaphrastes." The same Gregoras expressed the same thing word for word in the Life of Michael Syncellus, handed down, which will have been in the hands of one perusing the same life ^D with little trouble, lest, being little cautious, and observing other things in his mind, some malevolent detractor of the praises of Metaphrastes might fall into suspicion. And Constantine Meliteniota in Orat. 2, *On the Procession of the Holy Spirit*: "Since they would not be far removed from learned men, if only they were willing to grasp his meaning. And in another way also, even if their thought concerning this should falter in the slightest, they will be able to consider in themselves the writer, who, since he lived at the very first outbreak of the schism, and was well aware of the contradiction of the dogma, would never have composed and arranged such a statement in this way, if he himself were equally at variance with the Latins, as were the many." And this writer of the life of Dionysius the Areopagite is, through the same author Meliteniota, Simeon Metaphrastes. Hear: "who also narrated the deeds of the saints and their contests in a varied style in the martyrdom of Dionysius the Areopagite, I say, the interpreter of secret things." Infer [this] far, far from any doubt. Metaphrastes flourished at that time when the first schism between the Greeks and Latins emerged concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, [which] disturbed the very close relationship of the Greeks with the Latins: to such a degree that the Emperor Leo himself, a man from the school of Photius, exercised his style in favor of his Photius regarding that same procession from the Father alone. And we anxiously and more fully search for the age of Metaphrastes, and we will show him in the clearest words to be most recent, and a schoolmaster, and a compiler of old wives' tales.

^A We are, says Salmasius, to edit that account (namely, concerning the slaughter of the elder Fathers) in the Preface to the reader of the Opuscula of Nilus on the primacy of the pope, rendered into Latin in short order, if God grants it.

Regarding Albinianus, whom Nilus pursues with praises, read the suspicion of Possinus in his own work: for whether you read Albianus, or Albinus, or Albanus, it matters little. ^B The story of the monks slaughtered on Mount Sinai used to be read in manuscript in the Sirletan library, cod. 39, and it is now read in the Vatican codd. 117, 118, 1790, 1806, and Palatinus 351. Bollandus, for the 14th of January, reports the struggle of the holy martyrs killed on Mount Sinai by the barbarians, written by St. Nilus in Greek, and rendered into Latin by himself or some other unnamed person, and illustrated with brief notes as is customary.

The same Peter Possinus unearthed 355 letters of the same Saint Nilus from the Medicean library, and published them translated into Latin, with the Greek text and notes, and dedicated them to the most eminent prince, Francesco Barberini; and he added a Fragment of Didymus against the Manichaeans, and the Dissertation of Symeon the abbot of Saint Mamas at Xerocercus concerning the altercations of soul and body, translated into Greek and Latin by himself, at Paris from the Royal press, 1657, in octavo. Concerning these letters, and their translator Possinus, I suspect that Labbæus is to be understood when he writes: “Many letters of Nilus, archbishop of Constantinople, are held in ms. codices, which I hear are being prepared for print by a learned translator.” But I would be doing a most unworthy deed if, after the attempt of such a great prince, I were to allow the second investigation that followed to be snatched away by the winds, not with reluctant hands. This prince, most instructed in the disciplines of the great arts, delights to ponder and read through with mature judgment, as often as public and ecclesiastical affairs allow, the Commentaries of such great Fathers and other most ancient men, whether they excel in Greek or Latin abundance of speech; and having become more instructed from this, he moderates morals and customs, repairs ecclesiastical antiquity, examines opinions concerning the faith, and, sharp-eyed toward everything, he cuts down what new reformers disseminate among the unwary. Among so many other Fathers, and those most holy ones, this one is Nilus, whom he had often turned over in his mind, and he seemed worthy to be sent to print in Greek and Latin, with Attic flavor and singular eloquence, in order to bridle the mouths of heretics and to return to the anvil the lives of men who are not well-sounded and are badly turned. And so that this might happen more conveniently, he chose the most renowned man, Lucas Holstenius, then prefect of the Vatican library, and myself, although unequal to the virtue of Holstenius, as a companion in such great labor, so that with similar small effort he might lead us to the temple of honor. The sentence having been pronounced, by chance Holstenius received his remaining short works, and I received the letters. The fatal end of life broke off the studies of Holstenius, and his life, not surviving, did not spread ^C them further. Since not all the letters were held in one codex, but were scattered vaguely in several, having collated, as best I could, the Roman volumes, I gathered the bundle into one, bringing them into the open, having noted their various readings in favor of the studious, which other codices offered to me. Then I applied myself to their version, the edition of which, now however made, the same munificent prince commands for the public good. And this matter seems to have been announced through the information of the most learned François Combefis, in his reviewed authors of the Bibliothecæ Patrum Concionatoriæ concerning Nilus: “The letters of Nilus could have been given by the most learned Leo Allatius, if it had been sufficient for the wishes of the most eminent cardinal Francesco Barberini, offering them to me for the press, when he had him as a guest in royal Lutetia: for he was by far the greater [in this], excluding the work of the man [Holstenius], in the investigation of Greek affairs, and in the skill of our age he is easily the prince.”

Before I proceed to other things, it seems to me in no way fitting to consign to oblivion that which the most outstanding man, and most sagacious in unfolding the writings of the ancients, Emericus Bigotius, often admonished: that the letter of St. Nilus to Xeno of the Memorials, edited by Possinus, in the Parisian edition, no. 260, had been extracted from St. Basil’s exposition on Psalm xxxii. It is in my collection, book 1, letter 36, and begins: 'Ο Θεὸς ἡμῶν ἀγαπᾷ ἐλεημοσύνην καὶ κρίσιν. I have examined it diligently, and I discovered it to be the pure truth. The meaning is the same, and the words are also for the most part the same. Our Nilus, however, with most things changed and added, made it his own. Which is not new among the Fathers. For indeed in that Church the more recent Fathers, using the older ones as venerable, and constantly reading through the most august heads by day and night, whatever was opportune for instituting morals and revealing sacred eulogies, and whatever had occurred to their desire, they noted down on slips, and then, fortune eventually removed, they promoted the studies of those exercising themselves and communicated them to others as well. That Nilus did this not only in this letter, but in many others, which were evident to the more curious, is likely. But so that you may learn the manner, and can follow it by imitating, after you have read the letter of Nilus, take for yourself the very words of Basil, and compare them with those of Nilus: 'Αγαπᾷ ὁ Θεὸς ἐλεημοσύνην καὶ κρίσιν, οἷονεὶ πάρεδρον ἑαυτῷ τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην ποιησάμενος, καὶ προβληθεῖσαν τῷ βασιλικῷ τῆς κρίσεως θρόνῳ, οὕτῳ παράγει εἰς κρίσιν ἕκαστον. « Ἐὰν ἀνομίας παρατηρήσῃς, Κύριε, Κύριε, τίς ὑποστήσεται; » Οὔτε ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη ἄκριτος, οὔτε ἡ κρίσις ἀνελεήμων. Πρὸ τῆς κρίσεως οὖν ἀγαπᾷ ἐλεημοσύνην, καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην ἔρχεται ἐπὶ τὴν κρίσιν. Ταῦτα δὲ ἀλλήλοις συνέζευκται, ὁ ἔλεος μετὰ τῆς κρίσεως· ἵνα μήτε ὁ ἔλεος μόνος χαυνότητα ἐμποιήσῃ, μήτε μόνη ἡ κρίσις ἀπόγνωσιν ἐνεργάσηται. Βούλεται σε ἐλεῆσαι, καὶ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ οἰκτιρμῶν μεταδοῦναι ᾗ κριτής· ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν εὕρῃ σε μετὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ταπεινόν, συντετριμμένου, πολλὰ μετακλαυσάμενον ἐπὶ τοῖς πονηροῖς ἔργοις, τὰ γενό-

γενόμενα κρυφῇ, ἀνεπαισχύντως δημοσιεύσαντα, δεηθέντα ἀδελφῶν συγκαμεῖν σοι πρὸς τὴν ἴασιν, ὅλον ἐλεεινόν σε γενόμενον, ἐὰν ἴδῃ, ἄφθονόν σοι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἐλεημοσύνην ἐπιχορηγεῖ. Ἐὰν δὲ καρδίαν ἀμετανόητον, φρόνημα ὑπερήφανον, ἀπιστίαν τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ μέλλοντος, ἀφοβίαν τῆς κρίσεως, τότε ἀγαπᾷ ἐπὶ σοὶ τὴν κρίσιν. Ὡς γὰρ ἰατρὸς ἐμμελὴς καὶ φιλάνθρωπος, καταντλήμασι πρότερον καὶ περιπλάσμασιν ἀπαλοῖς πειρᾶται καταστεῖλαι τὸ οἴδημα· ἐπὰν δὲ ἴδῃ ἀνενδότως καὶ σκληρῶς ἀντιτυποῦντα τὸν ὄγκον, ῥίψας τὸν ἔλεον, καὶ τὴν μαλακὴν ἀγωγὴν, αἱρεῖται λοιπὸν τὴν τοῦ σιδήρου χρῆσιν. Ἀγαπᾷ οὖν ἐλεημοσύνην ἐπὶ τῶν μετανοούντων, ἀγαπᾷ δὲ καὶ κρίσιν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνενδότων. Τοιοῦτόν τι καὶ ὁ Ἡσαΐας λέγει τῷ Θεῷ, ὅτι « Ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη σου εἰς σταθμόν. » Καὶ γὰρ κἀκεῖνος τὴν μετὰ κρίσεως ἐλεημοσύνην παρίστησι, ζυγῷ, καὶ ἀριθμῷ, καὶ σταθμῷ κατὰ τὴν ἑκάστου ἀξίαν ἀντιμετροῦντος. ^A Ὁ ἑκουσίως φονεύσας ἔχει ἐπιτίμιον. Περιπίπτουσι πλημμελήματα. Ἐπάν παιδείας οἱ ἅγιοι γεγόνασι. Ἀλλὰ καὶ λίαν ἐνοχλεῖσθαι. Εἰδότας. Κἂν ὕμνοις καὶ αὐτοῖς ἀναγκαῖοι εἰσὶ.

Ὅτι διαφέρουσι τῶν ἐν πόλεσιν ἀσκουμένων οἱ ἐν ἐρήμῳ ἡσυχάζοντες, κἂν πολλοῖς τῶν ἀπείρων τὸ ἐναντίον δοκῇ

Περὶ ἀκτημοσύνης πρὸς Μάγνον διάκονον Ἀγκύρας. Πρὸς Μάγνον· πρὸς Μαγνησίλαν τὸν διάκονον Ἀγκύρας. Πρώην μὲν πρὸς τοὺς ἀμελέστερον μετιόντας τὸν μοναδικὸν βίον. Ἀσκητοῦ παραίνεσις. Ρ. Μάθε σὺ ὁ μονάζων καὶ πιστὸς ἄνθρωπος.

Λόγος ἀσκητικὸς περὶ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ φιλοσοφίας. Ρ. Φιλοσοφεῖν ἐπετήδευσαν μὲν καὶ Ἑλλήνων πολλοί.

Πρὸς νεωτέρους μοναχοὺς διδασκαλία. Ρ. Δεῖ τὸν νέον ἀσκεῖν σώματος ἡσυχίαν.

Κεφάλαια διάφορα. Ρ. Ἀλλ᾽ ὑμᾶς, ὦ μακαριώτατοι, μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων.

Πρὸς Εὐλόγιον. Ρ. Οἱ τὸν οὐράνιον χῶρον τοῖς πόνοις νεμόμενοι.

Πρὸς Ἀγάθιον μονάζοντα. Ρ. Ἔθος ἔχοντί μοι τὰ πολλὰ τὰς ἀκαίρους τῶν Ἑλλήνων.

Ἐπιστολὴ ἔχουσα κεφάλαια. Ρ. Ἐὰν μηδεὶς διώκει σε τύραννος Ἕλλην.

Περὶ προσευχῆς. Ρ. Τέλος πασῶν ἐντολῶν προσευχή.

Γνῶμαι ἀπάγουσαι τῶν φθαρτῶν καὶ προσκολλῶσαι τοῖς ἀφθάρτοις τὸν ἄνθρωπον. Κεφάλαια στ'. Ρ. Ὁδὸς εἰς ἀρετὴν ἡ τοῦ βίου φυγή.

Ἄλλαι. Ρ. Φόβον ἔχε Θεοῦ καὶ πόθον.

Κεφάλαια. Ρ. Ἐὰν ὠφελήσῃς τινά.

Ἀσκητικά. Ρ. Οἱ γὰρ μετριώτερον ἐπὶ ταῖς συμφοραῖς ἀτυχοῦντες.

Κεφάλαια νηπτικά. Ρ. Πάντα μὲν ὁρᾷ ὁ Θεός.

Περὶ ἐργασίας νοός. Ρ. Τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς κατὰ Θεὸν ὠφελείας ποιεῖσθαι ἔχομεν.

^B Hoc etiam antiquissimis scriptoribus, et ante Christum natis in more fuisse positum, ex Clemente Alexandrino, et aliis satis fuse probavi in tractatu meo De conscribendis epistolis. Quare hic plura dicere supersedeo.

Ejusdem exstant expositiones in Canticum canticorum, una cum Nysseni Gregorii, Maximi commentariis, carminibus politicis Michaelis Pselli Græce et Latine eodem Zino interprete, tomo Actuarii Bibliothecæ Veterum Patrum Græco-Latini, anno 1624: et tom. XIII Morellianæ editionis.

In bibliothecæ Scoriacensis Indice, opera et studio Alexandri Baruarii facto exstat Catena in Cantica canticorum, et in eam Enarrationes Theodoreti præsertim, Gregorii Nisseni, Nili, Eusebii, Maximi, et Pselli versibus politicis, Labbæus 177; Idem, pag. 274.

Enarrationes in Cantica canticorum Nili in bibliotheca Regia, cod. 278. Idem pag. 306: Nili nonnulla opuscula Enchiridion Christianum cum interpretatione in codice Regio 2218.

Josias Simlerus in Epitome Gesneriana scribit Nilum episcopum Constantinopolitanum librum scripsisse Adversus Græcæ superstitionis sectatores.

Notanturque alibi Sententiæ Morales ex Græco in Latinum versæ a Bilibaldo Pircheimero, Argentinæ, 1516.

Et tandem Labbæus, pag. 382, ubi agit de scriptis Nicolai Cabasilæ, Nili ex præfecto Constantinopolitano monacho Enchiridion pœnitentiale. Incipit: Ὁ ἑκουσίως φονεύσας ἔχει ἐπιτίμιον. Desinit: Περιπίπτουσι πλημμελήματα. Horologium monasticum. Incipit: Ἐπάν παιδείας οἱ ἅγιοι γεγόνασι. Desinit: Ἀλλὰ καὶ λίαν ἐνοχλεῖσθαι. Instructio monastica hoc principio exorta: Ποῦ τοὺς μὴ εἰδότας. Desinit: Κἂν ὕμνοις καὶ αὐτοῖς ἀναγκαῖοί εἰσι. Et pag. 101, cap. 53, in cod. Regio 1788. Est edita inter Epistolas.

Sed longe longeque plurima, et permulto etiam clariora supersunt edenda hujus sanctissimi viri opuscula, quæ faxit Deus, ut tandem aliquorum studio et diligentia in lucem veniant, quæ hac subjecta notione testata in omne tempus venient.

Duas, quas postremas vidimus epistolas ad Heliodorum, et Olympiodorum, in septima synodo generali, act. 4, uti Nili germanus partus scripto reddite sunt, ad eorum errorem reprimendum, qui asserebant Nilum contra imagines scripsisse. Et postremam ad Olympiodorum, ab eisdem depravatum fuisse corroboratur. Ipsi enim pro eo quod dixit Nilus: Hinc et inde pinge, Dealba posuerunt. Et ex duabus convincitur. Ecce ostensum est liquido, quia ipse sanctus, et egregius pater Nilus sanctas icones suscipiebat: accusatus est autem a pseudosyllogo illo, quod contra icones locutus fuerit.

Tract. Qui in eremis acquiescunt, multo illis esse præstantiores, qui in civitatibus recoluntur, licet multi inexperti contrarium teneant. P. [Ita legunt nonnulli codices. Alii legunt... alii... Alii... De hoc Magna diacono vide Palladium in Lausiacis: Sunt adtextæ ad alias epistolas, quas jam edidi.] [alt-version omitted]

^A And other minor items, ^B and uses among various authors, which you will be able to collect from the sacred matters of Leontius, and of the priests John, from Anastasius the Sinaite, from various questions, and from the *Melissa*. The various interpretations of the books of Holy Scripture from the *Catenae* on the *Hexaemeron*, on Deuteronomy, on Job, on the Psalms, and on the Song of Songs by Procopius, on the Gospels and Luke, and especially those which were compiled by Macarius Chrysocephalus, Bishop of Philadelphia, and Nicetas, deacon of the Great Church.

Furthermore, you may read many things of the same author in the *Ladder* of John Climacus; in the *Ecloga* of the Fathers, among others, Nilus is also mentioned from his *Epistolae*, in his *Dubia et Solutiones* concerning various theological questions from the Holy Fathers. In the *Eclogae Parallelae* of John of Damascus, Labbe adds on page 283: "When the sayings of the Fathers are praised, the maxims of Nilus also have their place." And Bonaventura Vulcanius [mentions this] to the reader in the treatise of Nilus of Thessalonica *De primatu papae*. In the *Catalogue* of the library of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the ten orations of the monk Nilus against Mahomet are cited. In the *Dioptra* of Philip the Solitary, translated into Latin by Jacobus Pontanus and printed at Ingolstadt, 1604, in-8, among other Fathers who are cited, Nilus has his place.

Finally, Nilus himself in Book XIII, Epistle 11, to Polychronius the deacon, relates that, at the earnest request of many, he had composed a sufficiently ample book *περὶ κατανύξεως*, on compunction. "It will not grieve my heart, the reading of the epistle, if you have been well purified beforehand, and have become superior to all worldly things. Wherefore I shall give it to you here: I congratulate you for the love toward God, and for the love that is incorruptible and celestial, inasmuch as you ask of us discourses on the compunction of the soul. But such a request is a sign of purity within the soul; for it is not possible, unless one has first been well purified and become superior to all worldly things, to arrive at this desire for such discourses. And this is easy to perceive from those who are, even for a short time, possessed by this love; those who receive such a sudden transformation, that they are immediately moved toward heaven, and walk in the ether with a blessed disposition. Whence I, having eagerly accepted the command of your sincere love, have composed an entire book on compunction and have sent it to you and the God-fearing friends residing with you, beseeching and entreating you, who have boldness toward God, to requite it with your holy prayers. For you can, as I well know, appease the Divine on our behalf."

^C But other excellent discourses of his have also been composed, not lacking spiritual grace; among which I believe the first to be held is the one he inscribed *To the Greeks*, and those composed by him *To Eulogius*. He compiles chapters, some spread out at length, but many abridged, presenting the spiritual fruit in a way that is easily viewed and ready at hand, like some nectar or ambrosia.

Among the works of our Nilus, some also seem to list that which is frequently published under the name of the philosopher Epictetus, and is called the *Enchiridion*, and which has been translated from Greek into Latin and frequently promulgated by many very learned men—Angelo Poliziano, Thomas Naogeorgius, Jerome Wolf—and finally, along with the *Table of Cebes* and other works, as well as the *Life of Pythagoras*, sentences leading to intelligible realities, and the *Cave of the Nymphs* which is described in the *Odyssey*, by the study and diligence of the most renowned and learned Lucas Holstenius, at Cambridge, by the academic press at the expense of John Morden, in the year 1655, in-8. And because the codices of Poliziano, which that same translator had used, seemed to be corrupt, so that the man, otherwise happy and very learned in translating, had hardly attained the shadow of the true meaning, those few points of Poliziano were supplemented from another translation at Geneva by the heirs of Eustathius Vignon, 1594, in-8. This *Enchiridion*, however, with some things removed that smacked of paganism—namely, the names of the gods, of Jupiter, Fate, Fortune, and other pagan philosophers, etc.—and with some things changed to a more honest, upright, and Christian-appropriate sense, is read. ^D But if you compare the bulk of the book with the altered parts, few things are indicated; indeed, they even retain the color and original appearance which the first author gave them, so that it is thought to be nothing else. Which is foreign to the genuine offspring of our Nilus, and therefore is held to be ambiguous. As though indeed I should confess the truth, in

^A neither changing the juice, nor the color of the Nilan diction, nor do we behold its form. And Nilus, who is otherwise most eloquent and a promoter and guardian of Christian philosophy, as is discovered from his other writings, does not seem likely to have derived the safeguards of Christian life from Stoic philosophy. And how would a man who was the very exemplar of the Christian religion have endured to do such a thing? Would he not have set foot in a foreign choir, if he had determined to impose a method upon Ascetics from the customs of the Gentiles and Stoic philosophy? And how could he, who in this treatise so despised and abhorred the names of the ancient philosophers that he deliberately deleted them from this treatise, have sought from the same men precepts of living that were absolute in all the numbers of virtue, and to which nothing could be added or taken away? Would it not have been crafty and cold to breathe such things from the same mouth? I myself have seen a Greek manuscript codex, and a very ancient one, containing the written works of Nilus: in it, individual treatises, even the smaller ones, have the name of Nilus fixed to them, with others also placed at the end. In the *Enchiridion*, which was read among them, it was marked by that name neither on the front nor at the end, but served only to refer to it: *Epicteti Enchiridion*. That it is not the work of Nilus, evidently, but of Epictetus, by whomsoever it may have been corrupted. Add these things. Thus this *Enchiridion* of Epictetus, together with that which is assigned to Nilus I know not by what reason, has suffered the same corruption. Since it has been stated and noted with regard to that one, not without deliberation, that it is not of Epictetus. Let the authority of Simplicius, who is before all others, be mine, who in his Preface to the said *Enchiridion* writes thus: "Arrian recounted the life and death of Epictetus in prolix words. Whence it can be known what sort of man he was. The same Arrian also composed this little book, which is inscribed *Enchiridion*: then, having read the places of philosophy most necessary from the discourses of Epictetus, and those that move the soul, as he himself testifies in the letter to Masgalenus, to whom he dedicated the work itself as to his greatest friend and warmest admirer." Which things are found almost the same and in the same words scattered in the writings of Arrian concerning the exercises of Epictetus. ^B [alt-version omitted] the Greek text: "Regarding the life and death of Epictetus, Arrian wrote, he who compiled the discourses of Epictetus in many-lined books. And from him it is possible to learn what sort of man he was in life. But this book, inscribed the *Enchiridion* of Epictetus, the same Arrian also drew up. Having selected the most vital and necessary points in philosophy, and those most moving to the soul, from the discourses of Epictetus, as Arrian himself wrote in the letter to Masgalenus, to whom he dedicated the composition, as to one most dear to himself, and one who admired Epictetus above all; and the same things almost and in the same names are found scattered in the writings of Arrian 'On the discourses of Epictetus' in the written accounts." And as to not appearing to use force by suspicion of the honor given on behalf of the child, nor to demand the stay more despotically, he allowed everything that seemed right to his judgment to be done, having only in this one thing tyrannized over us, that he imposed the priestly yoke upon those who were unwilling. For we, indeed, considering the burden of the ministry, were moaning, troubled, and could not bear the weight laid upon our shoulders, which scarcely befits even the saints, so far as the consideration of life is concerned. For even to them it appeared heavy, and they confessed, when called, that the honor exceeded them. ^C Hence Salmasius in his Notes on Simplicius concludes: Therefore, the author of this *Enchiridion*, who is also of the *Dissertations*, is indeed Arrian. But it is strange that those things which this Simplicius testifies that Arrian committed to memory concerning the life and death of Epictetus are not found in the present *Dissertations*. So also many things are cited from the *Enchiridion* by Stobaeus, which are either not found at all in this manual, or are written differently. And Daniel Heinsius agrees in his letter to Theodorus Gresuvinckel: "With great pleasure, and equally with care, I read Epictetus: especially the *Enchiridion*, which you now have here, compiled by Arrian from the oracles of that divine man." And are we seeking more certain things about the *Enchiridion* of Epictetus? The same is not to be affirmed of the Nilan one. Consider the matter more attentively: then at length give your judgment; bring forward witnesses to these things, if you can. But it holds a place among his writings. Yet declare whose name it bears. Or has this little book been substituted by some foreign author?

Also this should be noted, that our Nilus, this Ascetic, is honored by many with the title of martyr, by others of bishop. Nicolaus Classerus notes: And if it is not certain concerning the martyrdom of Nilus, it is manifest from the same author, as also from the Annals of Osiander, that he suffered from the barbarians, with his children (read: with his son). Therefore he is perhaps referred to among the martyrs under this name. He is thought to have flourished around the year of Christ 309. I have added this Latin translation, such as it is, so that it might be compared with that of Neander, if by chance it is allowed to be held in the hands, so that by a collation of both, more light might come. You will also have the sentences distinctly divided into decades, as far as the end, so that the Latin version placed after the Greek text may correspond more conveniently. And plainly concerning the martyrdom, although he did not undergo martyrdom in the work itself, nor shed his blood for the one God of Christ, nor expose his life; it is certain, however, and sufficiently clear from his writing, that he was always most desirous of doing so. Regarding the episcopacy, I myself think that, after so many calamities, some bishops, having considered the virtue and doctrine of such a man, at least in the parts of Egypt, in which there was a great scarcity of similar men, having taken counsel among themselves, promoted him to such a dignity, and deservedly so. But this is a mere suspicion. Be it so. Certainly, it cannot be denied that they who were the first to attribute the title of bishop to such a great man had some certain evidence. Not dissimilar would be the suspicion concerning Theodulus his son, who was not conspicuous for any sacred orders before his captivity, if I were to call him a deacon; and yet he himself says that he was compelled by a bishop to obtain a similar order: and he was truly promoted:

^A and they spoke against God for a long time, putting forward their own unworthiness, and declined the ordination, making excuses, although they were more suited for the work than any of those of the present day, and were able, from their practice of virtue, to have boldness in their worship before the Master. But he said that the prize should be appropriate to their toils, and, as he thought, he gave the dignity as a reward for the labors of the struggle. According to the version of Petrus Possinus: Yet the same man, when he saw us unwilling, set a limit to the duty; lest, remembering the price spent on redeeming the boy, he might seem to wish to keep him as a slave by right of mastership. For that reason, he permitted it to our own discretion, whether we wished it or not; yet he obtained this one thing alone—persisting in friendly fashion with gentle tyranny—that he should impose upon us the yoke of the priestly office. For we, regarding the burden of such a ministry, were saddened by this counsel of his and wept; nor could we easily bear to have such a weight of office imposed upon us, which demands a manner of heavenly life so amended and sublime that the saints themselves would barely dare to claim it for themselves. For indeed, this task seemed grave even to them themselves. Nor did they dissemble this when they were called; they said that the dignity was greater than what was appropriate for them; and for a long time they even dared to make excuses for this to God, who was offering this honor, deprecating the imposition of hands out of a consciousness of their own unworthiness and weakness—even though they were, by no small measure, more fitted for that task than all who now are, and by reason of their long profession of a holier life and their exercise of virtues, could have approached the treatment of the mysteries and the function of the sacrifice with greater confidence. To these, he, on the contrary, said that it seemed to him right to reward with the title of this dignity the labors performed in such a difficult struggle, to the victors of which it pleased him to add this as a prize. Finally, when we had decided to depart from there and return home, he, having generously furnished us with travel money for that long journey, and having heaped us with prayers, and praying for the grace of God to be our companion on the journey and for the fruit of peace at home after we had arrived there, thus at last dismissed us most obligingly. ^B Showing no right of his own, and not boasting of the benefit of the redemption nor of the power he had acquired over a head bought for a price—which perhaps some other less humane person would have done—but rather he seemed to alleviate that very calamity of being sold with much consolation. Behold here Theodulus, and, what is more, Nilus himself, after so many laborious and difficult toils of the priest, are invested by the bishop with the laurel of the priesthood, by his art and skill, although before this they shone with no ecclesiastical dignity. Why, then, could not Nilus, on account of these same noble gifts of soul, and his excellence in learning, and his devoted work for the Christian republic, have obtained a reward from a bishop who was a model of ancient religion? I certainly do not doubt, although it may not be recorded in writings, that he did attain it. So that, deservedly, by the writers of that age, for whom more popular and celebrated titles were common, he has come down to posterity invested not only as a martyr but also as a bishop: even if the Commentaries that dealt with him have vanished and perished utterly. Unless anyone, being harsh and unlearned, should dare to say that this was also the result of the carelessness of copyists who confused that Egyptian bishop and martyr Nilus with our own Constantinopolitan one. At length, Justin the Younger, on the death of this Nilus, transferred him—as Nicephorus narrates in book XIV, chapter 54, in that which was built by the princes of the apostles themselves, Peter and Paul, at the orphanage—and placed him in the temple, in the foundation of the more sacred Altar. ^C When he had finished his life, Justin the Younger removed him from that place and laid him to rest upon the base of the sacred altar of the house built by him in honor of Peter and Paul, the chief of the apostles, in the orphanage. ^D

OF OUR HOLY FATHER NILUS THE ASCETIC, DISCIPLE OF JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, FOUR BOOKS OF EPISTLES

TO THE SERENE PRINCE RAYNALDO D'ESTE, LEO ALLATIUS

The noble character of your genius, Most Serene Prince, in which the lights of both nations from which you trace your origin bloom in abundance, while it delights all of Italy, those nevertheless are carried away with joy above all others who have earned the privilege of being enrolled in the service of your uncle, the Most Eminent Cardinal Barberini. And indeed, they would be most unjust if they did not honor and hold in high regard one whom he loves most fervently, and of whom he rightly augurs such great honors for the Christian commonwealth. Hence, since there is no one who professes himself to be more obligated than I am to the great benefits of His Eminence, I feel myself bound by a religion greater than others to attest to the joy of a grateful spirit by some monument that will endure for posterity. Accept, therefore, Most Serene youth, this Nilus whom we dedicate to your name—that excellent doctor of the Church, who not only redolent of the doctrine of Chrysostom, from whose school he emerged, but everywhere breathes a piety to be feared by heretics: Nilus, I say, yet not the one whom we have seen emerge in recent years from the darkness in which he had long been hidden, but one greater, and not unlike the river Nile, not as it bursts from its sources—slender and meager (such it was once, though clear and most bright)—but as it pushes into the Mediterranean sea with seven-fold mouths. But perhaps you ask whence his increase came; and you ask that which I myself—and if you did not ask, since it adds immense value to my task—would willingly reveal. Now you see whom my speech designates, namely that same Most Eminent person. For while he gathered the monuments of this holy writer from the Vatican, the Altempsian, and especially his own library, he made this Nilus shift from a popular to a royal status, as if he had brought back to the channel so many little streams of water that had been wandering far from their bed. From this arises no small hope that, by him, the fields of the Church will be so irrigated, spread far and wide, that they, rendered more fertile, will provide an even more abundant harvest for Christ the Lord than before, and that the oracle of the Davidic psalm will be fulfilled: " The river's flow gladdens the city of God (a)." The royal prophet desires a flow in this river: but to what end? Waters that flow gently provide more gladness than those that rush headlong. But such is the mind of the Prophet, that we are to understand that this river, to which he attributes so much, does not draw its origin from this valley of tears, but descends from heaven. If this is so, we boldly assert that it portrays our Nilus, since he appears, with good reason, not to tumble down from a terrestrial paradise, as does the Egyptian, but to descend, swelling with the divine Spirit, from the supercelestial one. Let no one, therefore, accuse of folly someone who might believe in blessedness if he knew the origin of the Nile, provided he sought its source, not the Coptic one; for he would be scrutinizing not the causes of natural things, but divine ones. I would add more to the praise of this writer, continuing the simile once begun, if