Annotations of Henri de Valois

HENRI VALOIS' ANNOTATIONS ON BOOK II OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF THEODORET

^A *On Chapter I.* PAG. 69. "Two years and four months." I cannot agree with Theodoret, who writes that Athanasius remained in exile in Trier for the space of two years and four months. For he was sent into exile towards the end of the year 335, in the consulship of Constantius and Albinus. For the Synod of Jerusalem, which gathered for the dedication of Constantine’s Basilica, was assembled in the month of September, as I observed in my Annotations to Book IV of Eusebius’ *Life of Constantine*. After this synod, when the bishops summoned by Constantine to give an account of their proceedings had accused Athanasius before him, the Emperor, deceived by them, relegated Athanasius to the Gauls. The same man was afterwards recalled from exile in the year of Christ 337, on the 15th before the Kalends of July, as I demonstrated in Book I of my *Ecclesiastical Observations on Socrates and Sozomen*, chapter 1. From which it follows that Athanasius did not remain in exile for an entire two years.

*On Chapter II.* "It happened that he was sent." The reading is correct in the Savilian codex. But the word that follows should be deleted; for it is read neither in Athanasius nor in Socrates. Wherefore Sirmondus rightly expunged it. "To abound." It is read more correctly in the Basel edition: *empleonazein*. PAG. 70. "Citizens and choreticoi." The Alexandrians commonly called rustic men *chorikoi*, as I observed in my Annotations to Eusebius, page 130, and perhaps it should be so written in this passage. For the word *choretikoi* does not please me. For rustics are called by the Greeks *choritai*, from which *choritikos* can be formed, just as from *naus* comes *nautikos*, which signifies a sailor. Theophanes in his *Chronicle*, page 159, speaking of the election of Dioscorus the Younger, Bishop of Alexandria, says: "The multitudes of the *chorikoi* departed." Where Anastasius the Librarian rightly interprets this as "the multitude of rustics."

*On Chapter III.* PAG. 71. "And often to visit." I have no doubt that Theodoret wrote *kai chama phoitan par' auton ekeleueto*. For so it is in Book I, Chapter 21, where he treats of Eusebius of Nicomedia: "And often visiting the Emperor," for thus it is read in the Basel edition; although it would be written more appropriately there as *para basilea*. We have, therefore, followed the edition of Sirmondus in this place. "And observing the channel." It is written more correctly in the codex of Leo Allatius as *euripiston*. ^B For *euripos* is not customarily used as an adjective. "The interpretation of the Divine Gospels." That is to say, of Matthew and John, as Jerome testifies in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, writing thus: "Theodorus, Bishop of Heraclea in Thrace, of elegant and clear speech and more historical intelligence, published under the Emperor Constantius Commentaries on Matthew, and on John, and on the Apostle, and on the Psalter." A little earlier for *ton epilogon*, in the Basel edition *ton allon* is read, which I approve more.

*On Chapter IV.* "Following the law of the Church." It is obscure what law Theodoret understands here. Is it the law by which it is ordered that a sentence should not be pronounced unless both sides have been heard? Concerning which law Athanasius speaks in *Apology 2 Against the Arians*, page 799; or the law by which it was permitted for a Roman bishop to summon the accused and the accusers to Rome? But the former explanation is more pleasing. "And they who knew the drama, as also..." The last three words are missing in the Savilian codex and in the Basel edition. Wherefore we have expunged them, especially since the word *eidotes* occurs a little later in this period.

PAG. 72. "Six years and... of the wild beasts." In this place Theodoret rightly enumerates the years during which Gregory, Athanasius having been driven out, held the Alexandrian see. For Gregory was ordained at the Council of Antioch which was celebrated at the dedication, in the consulship of Marcellinus and Probinus, in the year of Christ 341. But he died some months after the Council of Serdica, as Athanasius testifies in his *Epistle to the Solitaries*, that is, in the year of Christ 347. Therefore Theodoret rightly corrects in this place the error of Socrates and Sozomen, who hand down that Gregory was removed shortly after his ordination. But as for what Theodoret adds, that he was torn apart by the Alexandrians, I fear lest he be mistaken in this, and has confused Gregory with George. For Athanasius testifies that Gregory died a natural death in his *Epistle to the Solitaries*, in these words: "Then, some ten months after the death of Gregory, he summons Athanasius back." "Which he gathered." In the Basel edition I found *synelese* written, which does not displease.

*On Chapter V.* "But at this time he did not allow him." In this place Theodoret corrects the error of Socrates and Sozomen, who write that Paul fled to Constans together with Athanasius before the Council of Serdica, and that he was restored finally at the Serdican synod. On the contrary, Theodoret affirms that Paul at that time, when the Serdican synod was celebrated, had obtained the Constantinopolitan episcopate, with no one forbidding him, and did not attend the Serdican council, but was forbidden by his own fellow-citizens from betaking himself there. ^C Certainly, from the synodical epistle of the Eastern bishops at Serdica, it is clearly gathered that Paul did not attend the Serdican council.

*On Chapter VII.* PAG. 73. "Two hundred and fifty." Concerning the number of bishops who attended the Serdican synod, see what I have noted regarding Book II of the *History of Socrates*.

*On Chapter VIII.* PAG. 74. "For putting forward a spurious..." In Athanasius’ *Second Apology Against the Arians*, where this synodical letter of the council of Serdica is referred to, it is written: "For putting forward a spurious doctrine," etc. In the Basel edition also, *hypoballontes* is read. "The city of Sardica." We have followed in this place the reading of the Basel edition, which for *Sardeon* has *Sardikesion*. In Athanasius, *Sardeon* is read. For the Greeks are accustomed to confuse this city, sometimes with the island of Sardinia, sometimes with the Sardis of Asia. Below, however, the Basel edition has, "To the city of Sardeon," etc., with the accent changed. ^D

^A "And your ears also." In Athanasius this passage reads thus: "And perhaps also your ears," etc., just as James Sirmond edited it. Epiphanius Scholasticus, however, reads this passage thus: "as also our ears," etc. For he translates it thus: "Perhaps also detractions of this kind have reached your own selves, just as they have attempted to stir our ears." And the codex of Leo Allatius also has written, *ws kai tas hemeteras akoas*. To me, indeed, this reading is very pleasing. The ancient interpreter, however, in the fragments of the book on Synods in Hilary, deletes the particle *e*, while retaining it in the other vulgate readings.

PAGE 75. "And through himself [the] ascent into heaven." In Athanasius, in the second Apologeticus, it is written: "And through himself [the] ascent into heaven to us all he has granted." That is to say, He who opened the way for us all into heaven by his ascension. Our codices, however, change nothing: and Hilary and Epiphanius Scholasticus maintain the vulgate reading. For Hilary translates it thus: "For the Lord is the governor of the Churches, who for the Churches and for us all endured death, and for those Churches granted to us all the ascent into the heavens." Epiphanius, however, interpreted it thus: "And through them he granted the ascent to the heavens to us all."

"Those around Eusebius and Maris and Theodorus." In Athanasius, in the second Apologeticus against the Arians, this passage reads far differently. For there is mention of only one Eusebius, who sent letters against Athanasius to Julius, bishop of the city of Rome. The names of the other bishops, however, are not held. This reading is confirmed by Hilary in the fragments, where the names of the bishops Menophantus and Stephanus are omitted, which is in my judgment excellent. For this epistle, which Eusebius of Nicomedia wrote to Julius, was sent some years before the Antiochene council which was celebrated at the dedication, as we showed in book 1 of the *Ecclesiastical Observations*. And yet at that time Stephanus did not yet hold the Antiochene episcopate; but Flaccillus, who participated in the Antiochene synod, as the epistle of Pope Julius to the bishops who had gathered at Antioch teaches. Therefore, Theodoret, or whoever else it may have been, wrongly placed the names of Menophantus and Stephanus here. I confess that there were many who wrote letters to Pope Julius together with Eusebius against Athanasius. For Julius himself testifies to this manifestly in the epistle to the Orientals, which Athanasius reports, p. 745. But that Stephanus was not of their number, I hold for certain.

"And they wrote also from the other parts." The Serdican Fathers mean the synodical epistle of the bishops of Egypt, written to Julius and to all the bishops of the Catholic Church, which Athanasius reports in the first place in the second Apologeticus against the Arians; and of which Julius makes mention in the epistle to the Orientals in Athanasius, p. 745.

"If even very much." In Athanasius it is written: "and if even very much," etc. I would prefer, however, to write *ei kai de ta malista*, etc., as Camerarius reads.

"To these and to be brought face to face." Hilary translates: "For those who have the confidence to prove those things which they say while absent, they are prepared to convict [when] present." And so generally do the other interpreters, with one exception, Camerarius, who did not take the word *toutois* in the neuter, but understood it as referring to the accused men themselves. For he translates thus: "For those who are confident that they will prove the things they said about others, they do not even fear to accuse them to their face."

PAGE 76. "At least our fellow-minister has risen." The interpreters—namely Epiphanius, Camerarius, and Christophorson—translated this passage very badly, as they thought that Bishop Theodulus had appeared at the Serdican council. And yet Theodulus in this passage is expressly called *makariths*, that is, of blessed memory. Which is accustomed to be said only of the dead, as everyone knows. Rightly, therefore, did Hilary translate this passage thus: "For our most blessed co-bishop has departed ^B Theodulus, fleeing their infestation." Concerning this Theodulus, bishop of Trajanopolis in Thrace, see Athanasius in the epistle *To the Solitaries*, p. 821; and in the *Apologeticus* which he wrote concerning his flight. From which places, however, it seems to be gathered that this Theodulus was still surviving after the Serdican council. But if this is so, then in this passage *aneste* must be translated, "has departed," or "has left his see." Moreover, in the vulgate edition of Athanasius this word is missing.

"For being ashamed." In Athanasius this passage reads thus: "For they were ashamed to confess the things which they had done; but because they were unable [to do so] anymore," etc. Yet Hilary and Epiphanius Scholasticus defend the vulgate Scripture. Although Hilary also recognizes the word *homologein*, which is read in Athanasius, in his own version. For he has it thus: "Considering these things, therefore, they perceived that they were held in a strait: ashamed indeed to confess the things they had committed, because they could no longer hide them for the future."

PAGE 77. "And of those lamenting." After these words two words were missing in the vulgate editions, which were supplied from the manuscript codices of Savile and Allatius, and from Athanasius in the second *Apologeticus* against the Arians.

"Otherwise they say." This passage reads otherwise in Athanasius, in this way: "Otherwise the documents which they say they have against him consist of [evidence appearing] from one side only." How James Sirmond edited it. And there is no doubt that this reading is to be placed before the vulgate reading. Certainly Hilary reads *synesteke*, as appears from his version.

"And to deny." In Athanasius and in the edition of James Sirmond it is read *kai dielegchthai* without any sense. And so I would prefer to read *kai di-elegche*, etc. Our emendation is confirmed by Hilary in the *Frag.*, who translates this passage thus: "For the commentator of all the malice, Ischyrus, said that he had snatched a certain book of the divine Scriptures from Athanasius; and having been convicted of this, he began to confess," etc.

PAGE 78. "And those formerly accused." [The codex] of Savile reads the same as in Athanasius, *katherthentas*, as the codex of Savile also has written. And thus Hilary reads, as appears from his own version.

"And from the presbyters." The interpreters have taken this passage badly, if I am not mistaken. For the holy Fathers do not say simply that the Arians promoted certain presbyters to the episcopate (for that would not have been a grave crime); but they object to the Arians that they not only received into communion many who had been lawfully deposed, whether deacons or presbyters, but also raised them to a higher rank, *apo presbyteron*. Therefore they are those deposed from the order of the presbyterate: just as *apo episkopon*, they are bishops deposed, as is read in Palladius in the *Life of John Chrysostom*.

PAGE 79. "Macarius from Palestine." So it is read in all the copies and in Athanasius himself. It should be written, however, *Areion*, as it is read in Hilary in the *Fragments*. For so Athanasius calls him elsewhere. And among the bishops who subscribed to the Serdican council, Arius from Palestine is listed, and Asterius from Arabia.

"Because of threatening and commanding." In Athanasius it is read *kai epaggellesthai*. If this is the true reading, it must necessarily be said that the words were transposed, and the word *epaggellesthai* replaced in the prior position. We can, however, comfortably interpret the vulgate reading as concerning the mandates of the Emperor Constantius, which he had given to various judges against those who had withdrawn from the company of the Orientals.

PAGE 80. "If even fearing." More correctly in Athanasius it is written: "if even, fearing, he had not arrived." And a little later, "to have been deposed because he also this one," etc. For these things are said concerning George alone, who, fearing for himself, had remained at home, and had not come to the council with the remaining bishops of the East. Certainly the things which follow openly signify that only George of Laodicea is understood here. For he, while he was ^C

presbyter, by Alexander bishop of Alexandria had been deposed, as Athanasius testifies, both in his *Apology to Constantius* and in the book *On the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia*. But Hilary also, in his *Fragments*, reads and accepts this passage in no other way than Athanasius.

^A *Ὁμοφωνίαν διασώζεσθαι*. In these words the synodical epistle of the Council of Serdica concludes, both in Athanasius in his second *Apology against the Arians*, and in Hilary in his *Fragments*. And after these words a solemn salutation is added in this manner: *Ἡ θεία πρόνοια καθωσιωμένους ὑμᾶς καὶ εὐθυμοῦντας διαφυλάττοι, ἀγαπητοὶ ἀδελφοί*. In Hilary, however, these words are added: *Optamus, fratres, vos in Domino bene valere*. The rest which follows in Theodoret concerning the exposition of the faith is spurious and adulterated, as the most certain author Athanasius teaches in his synodical epistle to the Antiochians, page 576 of the Paris edition. Where he says that these things had been added by certain men, without the consent of the bishops who had participated in the council. The remaining bishops resisted these men fiercely, proclaiming that they were content with the Nicene faith and that nothing further ought to be added to it, lest the faith published by the holy Fathers might seem imperfect, and lest an opening should be given to evil men to fabricate new formulas of faith from time to time. And truly I cannot wonder enough that Theodoret ignored this, or if he knew it, dissembled it. Neither of which can be excused in Theodoret.

^B Since it is absent from the manuscript codices, and is not found in the Basilean edition, nor in the version of Epiphanius the Scholastic, I have deservedly expunged it, even though Sirmundus retained it, and for *ὅπερ* corrected it to *ὄσπερ*.

*Ὃ ἐστι λόγος πνεῦμα οὐκ ἔχων*. In the Basilean edition the two last words are included in parentheses, and they are not found in the version of Epiphanius the Scholastic. I, however, would gladly expunge even the former ones, as they disturb the sense of this passage. But if anyone should wish to retain them, the passage must be punctuated in this way: *μηδὲ εἶναι δύνασθαι Ὃ ἐστι λόγος, πνεῦμα οὐκ ἔχων*. That is, "nor can the Word be without the Spirit."

*Οὐ πάντοτε γάρ εἶναι*. I perceived long ago that the words in this passage were transposed. Therefore, before these words, the period which follows must be placed, in this way: *ὅτι ὁ πάντοτε ὢν, ἀρχὴν οὐχ ἔχει Λόγος*. Thus all things are plain.

*Ἀληθῆ δὲ Υἱὸν παραδίδομεν*. The two previous words are missing in the manuscript codex of Savile and in the Basilean edition.

*Διαφέρει δὲ τῇ κοινῇ κτίσει*. In the codex of Leo Allatius *κατὰ κτίσιν*, which is best, in my judgment. For thus the Apostle speaks of the resurrection. Therefore, the holy Fathers say that Christ is called the firstborn according to his humanity. Although, however, he is the firstborn of men, he is nonetheless superior to other men on account of the glory of the resurrection.

PAG. 85. *Δύο δὴ οὖν τῶν εἰς τὴν σαρδικήν*. He understands Vincent of Capua and Euphratas, bishop of Cologne, who were sent from the Synod of Serdica to Constantius, who was dwelling at Antioch at that time, intending to ask him that he might allow the bishops restored by the synodal sentence to return to their sees, as Athanasius teaches in his epistle *To the Solitaries*, page 822, where he also narrates that scene of the harlot hired by Stephen and introduced into the sleeping quarters of the bishop. Concerning which Theodoret speaks in the following chapter.

*Σαλιανὸς δὲ τούτῳ*. I translated it *Saliam*, rather than *Salianum*. For *Salianus* is not a Roman name. But *Salia* was a man most celebrated at that time, who was consul in the West the following year, which was the year of Christ 348; but the Synod of Serdica was celebrated in the year of Christ 347. Mention of this *Salia* is made both in the consular fasti and in Prudentius, who testifies that he himself was born into the light when he was consul. For he was consul in the West, as I have already said. I therefore think that this *Salia* is the person designated here by Theodoret, because he was sent by Augustus Constans to Constantius in the year of Christ 347. Whence, when he had returned, he received the consulship on account of having completed the legation. There was also another Salia, count of the treasuries under Emperor Valens, as Marcellinus writes in book XXIX.

*Ὅτι γεννητός ἐστιν ἅμα καὶ ἀγέννητος*. This passage is most corrupt, and the interpreters could draw no useful sense from it. I, however, think that by a very slight change it ought to be restored thus: *γεννητός ἐστιν ἅμα καὶ γενητός*, for this was the heresy of the Arians, who said that the Son of God was at once begotten and made; and by those two words, which differ between themselves by a single letter, *γεννητός* and *γενητός*, they used to delude unlearned men. The most holy Fathers therefore condemn these men, or rather those who composed this appendix. Furthermore, how much difference there is between those two words, there is no one who does not see. The same must be said of those two words *ἀγέννητος* and *ἀγένετος*. Nicetas in the *Thesaurus of the Orthodox Faith*, book II, chapter 34, notes this difference in these words: "For it must be known that *ἀγένητον*, if it is written with a single *nu*, signifies that which is neither created nor made: but *ἀγέννητον* with a double *nu*, signifies that which is not begotten." Now, by the former meaning, essence differs from essence: for one essence is uncreated or *ἀγένετοs* with a single *nu*, and another also is *γενητή* or created. By the latter meaning, however, essence differs not at all from essence. For every first hypostasis of a species of living beings was *ἀγένετος*, that is, uncreated, but not *ἀγέννητος*, that is, unbegotten, etc. Now if you follow the former meaning, those three divine hypostases agree among themselves. For they are consubstantial and uncreated: but if you follow the latter, they by no means agree. For the Father alone is unbegotten, etc. Long before Nicetas, Epiphanius had noted the same in the heresy of the Origenists, chapter 8, where he reproves Origen, who in the Preface to his commentaries on the Psalms, had called the Son of God *γενητὸν θεόν*. And indeed he writes that some, excusing Origen, had contended that *γεννητόν* and *γενητόν* are the same. But Epiphanius affirms to the contrary that these two differ far between themselves. For *γενητόν* is that which is made and created.

PAG. 81. *Οὕτως ἑαυτούς*. The codex of Leo Allatius is one word longer here, in this way: *οὕτως γὰρ αὐτοὺς νοεῖν*, etc. But I have no doubt that the following things must be corrected: *ὅτι οὗτος εἷς τῶν γεγενημένων ἐστί*. That is thus: "for thus they profess to understand the begotten, because he is one of those things which were made." Our correction is confirmed by Epiphanius in the cited place.

*Γένεσιν ἔχει*. The Genevan printers added the first word from the book of Christophorson. But ^C since it is absent from the manuscript codices, and is not found in the Basilean edition, nor in the version of Epiphanius the Scholastic, I have deservedly expunged it, even though Sirmundus retained it, and for *ὅπερ* corrected it to *ὄσπερ*.

*Ὃ ἐστι λόγος πνεῦμα οὐκ ἔχων*. In the Basilean edition the two last words are included in parentheses, and they are not found in the version of Epiphanius the Scholastic. I, however, would gladly expunge even the former ones, as they disturb the sense of this passage. But if anyone should wish to retain them, the passage must be punctuated in this way: *μηδὲ εἶναι δύνασθαι Ὃ ἐστι λόγος, πνεῦμα οὐκ ἔχων*. That is, "nor can the Word be without the Spirit."

*Οὐ πάντοτε γάρ εἶναι*. I perceived long ago that the words in this passage were transposed. Therefore, before these words, the period which follows must be placed, in this way: *ὅτι ὁ πάντοτε ὢν, ἀρχὴν οὐχ ἔχει Λόγος*. Thus all things are plain.

*Ἀληθῆ δὲ Υἱὸν παραδίδομεν*. The two previous words are missing in the manuscript codex of Savile and in the Basilean edition.

*Διαφέρει δὲ τῇ κοινῇ κτίσει*. In the codex of Leo Allatius *κατὰ κτίσιν*, which is best, in my judgment. For thus the Apostle speaks of the resurrection. Therefore, the holy Fathers say that Christ is called the firstborn according to his humanity. Although, however, he is the firstborn of men, he is nonetheless superior to other men on account of the glory of the resurrection.

PAG. 85. *Δύο δὴ οὖν τῶν εἰς τὴν σαρδικήν*. He understands Vincent of Capua and Euphratas, bishop of Cologne, who were sent from the Synod of Serdica to Constantius, who was dwelling at Antioch at that time, intending to ask him that he might allow the bishops restored by the synodal sentence to return to their sees, as Athanasius teaches in his epistle *To the Solitaries*, page 822, where he also narrates that scene of the harlot hired by Stephen and introduced into the sleeping quarters of the bishop. Concerning which Theodoret speaks in the following chapter.

*Σαλιανὸς δὲ τούτῳ*. I translated it *Saliam*, rather than *Salianum*. For *Salianus* is not a Roman name. But *Salia* was a man most celebrated at that time, who was consul in the West the following year, which was the year of Christ 348; but the Synod of Serdica was celebrated in the year of Christ 347. Mention of this *Salia* is made both in the consular fasti and in Prudentius, who testifies that he himself was born into the light when he was consul. For he was consul in the West, as I have already said. I therefore think that this *Salia* is the person designated here by Theodoret, because he was sent by Augustus Constans to Constantius in the year of Christ 347. Whence, when he had returned, he received the consulship on account of having completed the legation. There was also another Salia, count of the treasuries under Emperor Valens, as Marcellinus writes in book XXIX.

*Ὅτι γεννητός ἐστιν ἅμα καὶ ἀγέννητος*. This passage is most corrupt, and the interpreters could draw no useful sense from it. I, however, think that by a very slight change it ought to be restored thus: *γεννητός ἐστιν ἅμα καὶ γενητός*, for this was the heresy of the Arians, who said that the Son of God was at once begotten and made; and by those two words, which differ between themselves by a single letter, *γεννητός* and *γενητός*, they used to delude unlearned men. The most holy Fathers therefore condemn these men, or rather those who composed this appendix. Furthermore, how much difference there is between those two words, there is no one who does not see. The same must be said of those two words *ἀγέννητος* and *ἀγένετος*. Nicetas in the *Thesaurus of the Orthodox Faith*, book II, chapter 34, notes this difference in these words: "For it must be known that *ἀγένητον*, if it is written with a single *nu*, signifies that which is neither created nor made: but *ἀγέννητον* with a double *nu*, signifies that which is not begotten." Now, by the former meaning, essence differs from essence: for one essence is uncreated or *ἀγένετοs* with a single *nu*, and another also is *γενητή* or created. By the latter meaning, however, essence differs not at all from essence. For every first hypostasis of a species of living beings was *ἀγένετος*, that is, uncreated, but not *ἀγέννητος*, that is, unbegotten, etc. Now if you follow the former meaning, those three divine hypostases agree among themselves. For they are consubstantial and uncreated: but if you follow the latter, they by no means agree. For the Father alone is unbegotten, etc. Long before Nicetas, Epiphanius had noted the same in the heresy of the Origenists, ^D chapter 8, where he reproves Origen, who in the Preface to his commentaries on the Psalms, had called the Son of God *γενητὸν θεόν*. And indeed he writes that some, excusing Origen, had contended that *γεννητόν* and *γενητόν* are the same. But Epiphanius affirms to the contrary that these two differ far between themselves. For *γενητόν* is that which is made and created.

PAG. 81. *Οὕτως ἑαυτούς*. The codex of Leo Allatius is one word longer here, in this way: *οὕτως γὰρ αὐτοὺς νοεῖν*, etc. But I have no doubt that the following things must be corrected: *ὅτι οὗτος εἷς τῶν γεγενημένων ἐστί*. That is thus: "for thus they profess to understand the begotten, because he is one of those things which were made." Our correction is confirmed by Epiphanius in the cited place.

*Γένεσιν ἔχει*. The Genevan printers added the first word from the book of Christophorson. But [the text] can also be extended to brothers who are not twins, who have been brought forth from the same womb.

*In caput IX.*

PAG. 84. *Τὰ κατὰ τῶν ἀρίστων παρανόμως*. I restored this passage from the manuscript codex of Henry Savile, in which it is read *τὰ κατὰ τῶν ἀστῶν*. Most excellently, in my judgment. The word *ἀρίστων* was wrongly repeated from the line above, and has no sense. In the other royal codex, from which Stephanus transcribed the variant readings, *τῶν εἷς τῶν* is read corruptly.

PAG. 85. *Τοὺς παρανόμους δικαστὰς ἔσεσθαι*. I corrected this passage from the manuscript codices of Savile and...

*Ὁ τῶν ὠδίνων κοινωνός*. The interpreters thought that a colleague and a sharer of cares was signified by these words. I, however, would have preferred to believe that a brother was intended. And thus Camerarius took it, who translated thus: "He promises that he will do all things which the companion of his painful birth might wish." Which interpretation is indeed barbaric and unworthy of Camerarius, a man most learned in the Latin tongue: yet it correctly expresses the sense of Theodoret. Properly, indeed, *κοινωνός τῶν ὠδίνων* signifies twin brothers, who are of the same birth.

^A *The catastrophe.* Camerarius translates it "last act," but Sirmundus, "catastrophe." *That his head be brought.* I prefer the reading of Allatius's codex, which the Basel edition also confirms; for in these is read *that his head be brought.*

*NOTES OF H. VALESIUS* Allatius in this manner, *expecting that they would be the judges of that iniquity.* And Jacobus Sirmundus edited it thus as well. But he interpreted the passage poorly in this way: *calling them wicked who trusted they would be judges of impiety.* Yet Enfratas and Vincentius by no means hoped to be judges. For how could they have been judges, who were to act the part of accusers? It should therefore have been translated: *calling them unjust, who hoped that they would shortly have judges and avengers of this iniquity.* For Theodoret did not say *that they would be judges*, but simply *that there would be judges*.

*On Chapter X.* PAG. 86. *Leontius.* Athanasius always numbers this Leontius among the Arian bishops, and calls him *apocopus*, that is, castrated. Nevertheless, his eulogy exists in the *Chronicon Alexandrinum*, in the consulship of Sergius and Nigrinianus, which was the year of Christ 350. I do not know why Raderus called that Chronicle "Alexandrian." I certainly would prefer to call it "Antiochene." For the author of that Chronicle is most diligent in recording the affairs of the Antiochenes, and he constantly uses their months, as I noted long ago in a letter to James Ussher. *And once and twice.* In the Savile codex and the Basel edition, the words are transposed in this way: *And once, and indeed twice and thrice.*

*On Chapter XIII.* PAG. 87. *He sent forth Sebastian the general.* Sirmundus incorrectly translated this "master of the soldiers" (*magister militum*). For Sebastian was not the master of the soldiers, but the Duke of Egypt, as I have long since noted on Book XXIII of Ammianus Marcellinus. Furthermore, Theodoret also seems to me to be mistaken, who thought that the duke or *strategos*, whom Athanasius mentions in the place cited below, was Sebastian. For Athanasius does not mean Sebastian, but the Duke Syrianus, as he himself testifies in his letter to the *Solitarii*, where he narrates these things more distinctly. *Stationing the soldiers together.* Epiphanius Scholasticus translated this passage thus: *Stationing the soldiers gathered together among themselves, that no one of those going out could escape their hands.* And Sirmundus also interpreted it in this way, *Placing dense soldiers around,* etc. Christophorsonus, however, did not understand the word *synageirein* as soldiers being densely joined to one another, but as the same ones being placed as close as possible near the church.

PAG. 88. *Coming down they were dragged.* Athanasius was then sitting on his chair, as he himself testified above. But the bishops' chairs were placed above the apse, which had steps, as I said in my *Eusebian Annotations*. *And that the people should answer.* I think it should be written *hypēchein*, that is, that the people should sing the refrain of the psalm in chorus. Epiphanius Scholasticus certainly seems to have read it thus, who translated this place: *I commanded that the deacon should read a psalm, and the people should answer: For his mercy endureth forever.* The Greeks properly called this *hypēchein*; so Basil in Epistle 65 to the clergy of Neocaesarea.

*On Chapter XIV.* *Having lit a fire.* In the manuscript codices of Savile and Allatius and in the Basel edition, it is read *having lit a fire*, with little difference.

PAG. 89. *And plunderings.* In Athanasius, in the *Apologeticus*, page 701, it is read *and bread*. And the place is distinguished in this way: *plunderings and thefts and bread.*

PAG. 90. *To you who are buried.* In the Savile manuscript and in the Basel edition, it is read *burying*, which reading does not displease, provided we read *hymin* (to you). For if you read *hymon*, the vulgate reading must be retained, since the letter was written to the Virgins. Furthermore, this letter of Athanasius, to my knowledge, does not exist today.

*On Chapter XV.* *To assemble a synod.* It would be better written *synageirai*, just as Jacobus Sirmundus edited it. However, the vulgate reading is by no means to be rejected, against the consensus of all the books. *Each one in Tyre.* Jacobus Sirmundus expunged the first word in his edition, quite audaciously, since it is found in all our copies. But I myself think this word should not be expunged at all, but merely transposed, in this way: *in the deposition which took place in Tyre, each one of them...* which reading I have followed in my translation.

*On Chapter XVI.* PAG. 92. *Dialogue of Liberius.* Translators have translated it "Dialogue." But I more approve of the version of Joachim Camerarius, who translates it "Colloquy of Liberius the Roman Bishop and the Emperor Constantius." In the ancient codex of the Thuanian library, it is inscribed "Disputation of the Emperor Constantius and Liberius the Roman Pontiff." But if we wish to speak properly, it should be called neither a *dialogue*, nor a *colloquy*, nor a *disputation* of Liberius with Constantius, but rather the *Interrogation of Liberius the Roman Bishop carried out in the consistory*, or *Acts held in the consistory in the presence of Constantius Augustus.* The Emperor Constantius said, etc. For this was the form of the Acts in the consistory, as one may see in the Theodosian Code, in the title *Concerning those things which were sold by administrators*. And in the title *Concerning the faith of witnesses and instruments*, a part of the Acts held before the Emperor Julian Augustus is cited, in the consulship of Mamertinus and Nevitta, on the Kalends of April in the consistory, with Jovius, the most illustrious quaestor, standing by, and Anatolius, master of the offices, and Felix, count of the sacred largesses, etc., the Emperor Julian Augustus said, etc.

PAG. 93. *He mocks the time.* Epiphanius Scholasticus translates, *But he, as from the beginning, mocks the time.* In the Thuanian manuscript codex which I cited above, *inludit* is read. Camerarius translates in almost the same way. But he mocks everyone from the earliest times. *Not judging, they condemned.* The reading I found in the two codices of Savile and Allatius, and in the Basel edition, seems to me much more elegant: *not judging, they condemned (themselves).*

*And in the council they voted.* In the codex of Leo Allatius, it is written *in which they voted*. Which I prefer. *They voted irrationally.* The last word is missing in the codex of Allatius, nor is it had in the version of Epiphanius Scholasticus.

*In the council at Nicaea.* I do not know what this Eunuch intended by this. For it is certain that Athanasius contended fiercely in the Nicene Council for the Catholic faith, and was not declared alienated from the Catholic faith by the Nicene Fathers. But the fool speaks foolish things. And perhaps the adverb *irrationally* ought to be referred to this period in this way: *as the eunuch said.* However, the word *apedeichthē* signifies "to have appeared" or "to have been seen."

*Five only judged.* In the codex of Leo Allatius it is written *judged*, just as Jacobus Sirmundus edited it. But here it may rightly be asked how it is true what Liberius says, that only five bishops condemned Athanasius in the Synod of Tyre, when there were very many bishops in that synod. It seems this must be answered to this objection as follows: five bishops were sent into Mareotes by the Synod of Tyre in order to investigate on the spot concerning the sacred cup which was said to have been broken by Athanasius, and concerning other crimes which had been objected to him. When these five bishops had come into Mareotes, they [composed] there false acts...

Their records, when they were later brought to the synod, immediately resulted in the condemnation of Athanasius upon their word. Therefore, these five alone are rightly said to have condemned Athanasius, since it was upon their false report that Athanasius was condemned.

^A *Of those who sailed with him*. The word "with him" is missing in the codex of Leo Allatius and seems entirely to be deleted. For these five bishops did not sail to Mareotes together with Athanasius; indeed, Athanasius complains everywhere that the investigation held in Mareotes took place in his absence. In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile, this whole passage is read as: "only five of those who were commanded to sail with him."

*Of those sent*. Joachim Camerarius translated this passage thus: "From those sent for this cause, the votes at Sardica were gathered." Sirmond, however, explained it thus: "A judgment on this matter was requested of them at Sardica." Christophorsonus, on the other hand, interpreted it so: "By those sent for this purpose, a judgment on this controversy was delivered in the Sardican council." This interpretation is far to be preferred over the other two. But who would not wonder that three most learned men did not notice the defect in this passage, nor see that instead of "from those" [ἀπὸ τούτων] one must write "against those" [κατὰ τούτων]? That is, that a judgment was delivered in the Sardican synod against these five who had been sent by the synod of Tyre to Mareotes. Nothing is more certain than this emendation, which is confirmed by the synodical letter of that same council; in which, however, no mention is made of Mare, the bishop of Chalcedon, at which I am sufficiently surprised.

*The books in the synod*. He means the profession of satisfaction which Ursacius and Valens offered to Julius, praying that they might be received back into communion. However, beware of understanding that this document was offered in the Sardican synod. It was offered at Rome to Pope Julius, as Athanasius teaches in the second *Apologetic against the Arians*, Hilary in the *Fragments*, and Socrates and Sozomen, two years after the Sardican synod, that is, in the year of Christ 349. Wherefore, under the name of the synod, the Roman synod is to be understood here.

*By those who now have voted against them*. He means the Sardican Fathers, by whom Ursacius, Valens, and Theodore had been condemned, as we learn from the synodical letter of the Sardican council. Indeed, it must be noted that of the five bishops whom Liberius mentioned above, only three of those I mentioned were condemned in the Sardican council. About Theognius and Mare, however, nothing is said in the synodical letter, perhaps because they were less guilty than the other three; and because Theognius had already departed from the living.

*Having reasoned [concerning] the King*. Long ago I conjectured that this passage should be emended thus: "As one who had outwitted [συλαγωγησάμενος] the King." For I do not think that in Greek one can say "to reason against someone" [συλλογίζεσθαί τινα] for "to overcome someone by debating"; but "to outwit" [συλαγωγεῖν] is aptly used. For thus did the Apostle Paul say: "That no one may outwit [συλαγωγήσῃ] you." But the vulgate reading can be tolerated. For thus speaks Theodoret in his *Philotheus*, chapter 8: "Having been reasoned with [συλλογισθείς] by the justice of the [statement of] defense."

*Condemn a man*. The reading of the Allatian codex, "to condemn" [καταδικάζεις], pleases me more. Shortly after, from the same codex, I emended [it] to "to proceed" [προχωρῆσαι], where formerly it was read as "to provide" [προχειρίσαι]. This emendation is confirmed by one of the royal codices.

*And he who takes their part*. Camerarius translated "and their defenders." That is, the patrons and supporters of both the accused and the accusers.

*Bringing to the man*. In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile, and in the Basle edition, it is read: "bringing [something] to the man" [εἰσφέρων πρὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον].

*Against Magentius*. I would prefer to write "against Magnentius and Silvanus" [κατὰ Μαγνεντίου καὶ Σιλβανοῦ].

*To be tested to be inscribed*. In the codex of Leo Allatius it is written "to be disturbed" [ταραχθῆναι]. Which pleases me more.

^B *Or to think*. "To think" [ἐννοῆσαι] is better written in the codex of Leo Allatius, which is the aorist passive imperative. In the same codex it is read, "And if you wish: having-written-below" [καὶ εἰ βούλει: ὑπογράψας], etc.

*Five hundred pieces of gold*. In the Basle edition it is read "solidorum" [ὁλοκοττίνους]. In the codex of Leo Allatius, "five hundred gold pieces" [πεντακόσια ὁλοκότινα], which term whether it be Greek or barbarian, I truly do not know. Nor do I remember reading it elsewhere. However, I agree with Epiphanius, who translates it as "solidi." For "όλος," which occurs in the composition of this name, signifies a solidus. Jacobus Sirmond, for "ὁλοκοτίνους," published "χρυσίνους," which I do not know whence he derived. I found the word "ὁλοκότινα" at last in Theophanes, in the deeds of Leo the Isaurian, page 545: "each milarision for a solidus." Anastasius translated: "For each solidus, one silver coin."

*Become a Christian*. Eusebius, who was in charge of the bedchamber, was an Arian, as everyone knows. The Catholics, however, did not hold the Arians as Christians, as Athanasius teaches in his letter *To the Solitaries*, pages 829, 831, and likewise the Luciferians at the beginning of their dialogue.

*In Chapter XVII*. *Of those in office and in dignities*. In the codex of Allatius and Savile, and in the Basle edition, it is better read as "and of the dignitaries" [καὶ ἀξιωματικῶν]. And they are "dignitaries" [ἀξιωματικοί], as I noted on book 14 of Ammianus Marcellinus.

*In Chapter XIX*. Page 97: "From the [land] of...". This synodical letter exists in Socrates in book II of his *History*, chapter 37, where you may see, if you like, what I have noted. Page 98: "We thought it absurd." The verb "we thought" [ἐνομίσαμεν] is missing in the codex of Leo Allatius and in the Basle edition, nor is it had in Athanasius and Socrates, as I noted there.

*In Chapter XX*. Page 100: "But indeed that which was announced to us." This whole passage is read quite differently in Socrates in book II of his *History*, chapter 37. But even the interpretation of the whole letter differs much from this version of Theodoret. Theodorus the Reader placed the version of Socrates in his *Extracts* or *Collectanea*, because it was more elegant and plainer than that other version of Theodoret. Furthermore, the interpretation of Socrates is had also in Athanasius at the end of his book *On the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia*. For the word "we were announced" [ἀπηγγέλμεθα], the Savile codex has "we were promised" [ἐπηγγέλμεθα].

*In Chapter XXII*. Page 102: "To the brothers established in Illyricum." This letter of Pope Damasus was recently published in the Roman collection of Lucas Holstenius, page 165: but the title of the letter is conceived there differently than in Theodoret, in this manner, to wit: "Damasus, Valerianus, Vitalianus, and the others who have gathered in the city of Rome for the hearing of the cause of Auxentius and for the setting forth of the faith, to the Catholic bishops established throughout the East, greeting in the Lord." I have already warned, in my annotations on Book 6 of Sozomen, chapter 23, that there is an error in the Roman collection, where this letter of Damasus is said to have been written to the bishops established throughout the East. The reader will therefore consult our annotations, lest we be forced to repeat here those things which we have observed there.

*Your holy faith*. In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile and in the Basle edition, it is read as "our" [ἡμῶν], in which way it is also written in Sozomen in book 6, chapter 25. Nor does Epiphanius the Scholasticus read it otherwise, as appears from his version.

*That you hold this*. In the codex of Leo Allatius and in Sozomen, the word "you" [ὑμᾶς] is missing, which nevertheless seems necessary if in the prior member we read "our holy faith." Certainly Epiphanius the Scholasticus, who in the former place had read "our faith," reads "you" here.

^A *Page 103.* "κἀτακεκρίσθαι προγέγραπται." The Codex Savilii and the Basel edition have "προσγέγραπται." Damasus, however, understands that Auxentius had already often been condemned before that for the Arian heresy. "Καὶ οἱ ἐκ τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἁγιωτάτης ἐπίσκοποι." This whole passage is missing from the Savilian codex and the Basel edition, nor is it found in Sozomen or Epiphanius Scholasticus. In the Roman collection, however, these words are read: "Our predecessors, the 318 bishops," and partly I read it thus: "the most holy bishops of the city of Rome having been directed, when the council was finished at Nicaea, they erected this wall against diabolical arms." Therefore, it is not without cause that I have judged these words should be retained. So far as the word "ἐπίσκοποι" is concerned, I have corrected the text from Sozomen, Epiphanius, and Theodore the Reader. In this, I trust that diligent readers will agree with me. For bishops were not sent from the Roman see to the Council of Nicaea; rather, the presbyters Vito and Vincentius were.

*In Chapter XXIII.* *Page 104.* "Καὶ ὡς δράματα μὴ ἔχοντα ἰσχύν." Jacobus Sirmundus corrected "δράματα" from the Epistle of Athanasius to the Africans. But we must see whether Athanasius ought not rather be corrected by Theodoret. For I do not understand how synods of the Arians can be compared to "handles" (manipuli) possessing no strength: as if handles could possess strength. Therefore, I prefer the reading of our codices. For the formulas of the Arians are rightly compared to fables or figments. In Athanasius it is read in the singular: "ὡς δρᾶμα μὴ ἔχον ἰσχύν." Thus also in the codex of Leo Allatius it is written: "ὡς δράμα μὴ ἔχον ἰσχύν."

*Page 105.* "Καὶ τὰς παρ' ἐκείνων." In the edition of Robert Stephanus page 104, and in the Basel edition, it is read "καὶ τὰ παρ' ἐκείνων." The first Geneva printers corrected the "τὰς" from Athanasius's epistle to the Africans. Nevertheless, the other reading can be tolerated. For it preceded, "τὰ δὲ ἐν τῇ Θράκῃ πραχθέντα," etc. A little later, where "καὶ ὁμολογήσαντες" was read, I corrected it to "ὡμολόγησαν," as it is read in the Basel edition and in Athanasius.

*In Chapter XXIV.* *Page 106.* "Αὐτουργὸς γενόμενος τῆς τόλμης." I prefer the reading which Robert Stephanus exhibited in the various readings at the end of his edition from another royal codex, "τῆς τομῆς." Theodoret, however, understands the first canon of the Council of Nicaea, which is about those who cut themselves off. "Κεχωρισμένος." In the Basel edition "κεχωρισμένως" is printed as an adverb, which I prefer. "Τὴν μὲν δι' οὗ πρόθεσιν." Joachim Camerarius, in the margin of his version, warned the reader that "διά" should be written, not "δι' οὗ," whom Jacobus Sirmundus followed, printing "διά" in his edition. But both seem to me to be mistaken. For they thought that "glorification" or "doxology" was nothing other than that verse which is commonly sung at the end of the psalms, "Glory to the Father and to the Son," etc. In which opinion Epiphanius Scholasticus also seems to have been: although "doxology" is generally called any glorification which was accustomed to be added by Christians as much at the end of psalms as at the end of prayers and homilies, as we learn from Basil the Great in Book II, *On the Holy Spirit*. Furthermore, at the end of prayers and sermons to the people, the ancient Fathers commonly said: "Through whom to the Almighty be honor and glory," etc., as can be seen both in Basil in the said place and in the opuscula of Eusebius Pamphili formerly edited by Jacobus Sirmundus. See Philostorgius, Book III, chapter 13. "Κατὰ τῶν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας." I embrace the reading of the Allatian codex, in which it is read: "Κατὰ τῶν τῆς ἀληθείας ἐτεχνάσατο συνηγόρων." And thus Epiphanius Scholasticus reads it, as appears from his interpretation. Jacobus Sirmundus also edited it thus.

*Page 107.* "Ἐκ διαδοχῆς ᾄδειν." Regarding this custom of singing antiphonally, see what I noted on Socrates, page 78. "Τοὺς τῶν θείων ἐραστάς." He seems to understand the monks. For Flavian collected a multitude of these at Antioch, as Philostorgius writes in Book I, chapter 13. "Καὶ τοὺς συνεργάτας." We have corrected this to "συνεραστάς" from the manuscript codices of Savilii and Allatius. Sirmundus, however, edited "ἐραστάς," which the translation of Epiphanius seems to favor. But our emendation is far superior. For lovers of Flavian and Diodorus are not understood here, but those who, together with them, burned with a love for divine things. Who, since they were previously accustomed to pass the night at the basilicas of the martyrs outside the city, and to sing psalms there, afterward, at the exhortation of Leontius, did this in the churches inside the city.

*In Chapter XXVI.* *Page 110.* "Περὶ πρωτείων." The seventh canon of the Council of Nicaea had provided the occasion for this contention, which had ordered that the honorific rank which the bishop of Jerusalem had held from the last times should be preserved for him, while still saving the metropolitical dignity for the bishop of Caesarea. By which canon, however, all power and jurisdiction had been reserved to the bishop of Caesarea, but to the bishop of Jerusalem nothing except honor and reverence had been granted. "Τοῖς κοινωνοῖς." Jacobus Sirmundus rightly corrected this to "τοῖς κοινοῖς," as it is written in the codex of Leo Allatius and in another royal codex, whose variant readings Stephanus edited. "Ὁ Κύριλλος τοῦ συνεδρίου." In the manuscript codex of Henry Savilii these words are added: "καὶ τῶν βουλευμάτων." Which, although they are not read in the other codices, nevertheless appear acceptable to me, and not to be rejected.

*In Chapter XXVII.* "Κωνστάντιος γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς ἑσπέρας." I began chapter 27 with these words, having followed the Basel and Robert Stephanus editions. For in these editions chapter 27 begins with these words, marked with a numerical sign, which in the Basel edition is indeed prefixed to the chapter, but in the edition of Stephanus it is written to the side. However, the title of the chapter itself, which is prefixed to the second book in the codex of chapters, I have corrected by conjecture. For I have attached the former part, which was about the Council of Seleucia, to the title of chapter 26, in which the Council of Nicaea is treated. That this has indeed been done by us rightly and with judgment, no one, I believe, will deny. For the matter itself demanded it.

*Page 113.* "Τὴν τοῦ θείου βαπτίσματος λειτουργίαν." The interpreters understood this place about the sacrament of baptism. I, however, would rather understand it about the feast of the Epiphany, when Christ was baptized in the Jordan. For the Jerusalemites used to celebrate this day with particular honor, because Christ had been dipped among them. And on that day infants used to be baptized among them, as I remember reading in the *Typicon* of the monastery of Saint Sabas, where the office of that day is also referred to. Therefore, "λειτουργία" in this place signifies either the mass of that day or the entire office. Thus Theodoret uses "λειτουργίαν" above in chapter 24 of this book, page 107. Moreover, from this place it appears how old the custom of sacred vestments is in the Church.

*Page 112.* "Γεώργιος δὲ ὁ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων." Gregory Nyssenus attests the same regarding Aetius in Book I *Against Eunomius*, where he describes the life of Aetius: "In addition to these, after the kingly power of the great Athanasius had been transferred from the Church of the Alexandrians, and George the Tarbashenite was tearing apart that people, Aetius was again an Alexandrian," etc. "Κωνσταντινουπολιτῶν Ἐκκλησίας Εὐδόξιος." This was done under Constantius Augustus and Julian Caesar as consuls, in the year of Christ 360, on the 27th day of the month of January, with 72 bishops present: Maris, Acacius, George, Serras, Uranius, Theodosius, Eusebius, and the others whose names are enumerated in the *Chronicon*.

1557 Alexandria. But in that *Chronicon* it is wrongly printed as *Mariakeslou*, with two words run together into one. These are the bishops who attended the Council of Constantinople, of which Theodoret speaks here, and in whose presence the great church was dedicated at Constantinople, in the presence of Constantius, in the month of February, as is read in the same *Chronicon*. Nor indeed do I agree with Baronius, who assigns the Council of Constantinople to the year of Christ 359, although he is forced to admit that it was extended into the following year.

*On Chapter XXVIII.* PAG. 114. Σερᾶς καὶ Στέφανος [Serras and Stephen]. In the manuscript codex of Savile and Allatius, and in the Basle edition, it is read more correctly as Σερρᾶς. This Serras was first a presbyter in Libya, at the time of the Council of Nicaea, as Jerome teaches in his *Dialogue against the Luciferians*. Later, however, he was made bishop of Libya by Secundus, bishop of Ptolemais, together with Stephen, as Athanasius teaches in his book *On the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia*, and Philostorgius in Book III. He was bishop of Paraetonium in Libya, as Epiphanius testifies in his *Heresy of the Semi-Arians*, where, among the bishops of the party of Acacius who subscribed to the Seleucian Council, he is listed as: Σερρᾶς ἐπίσκοπος ἐκ Παρατονίου τῆς Λιβύης [Serras, bishop of Paraetonium of Libya]. Concerning Stephen, Heliodorus, and Theophilus, see Philostorgius. Furthermore, *Serras* should be written with an acute accent on the first syllable, as is read in the Basle edition.

'Απὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων μέχρι νῦν [From the apostles until now]. The first three words are missing in the codex of Leo Allatius. Epiphanius Scholasticus, however, seems to have read those words in his own codex. For he translates this passage thus: "For he said that he presumed harsher things, and said that he affirmed that the things which God had until then concealed from the apostles had been revealed to himself." This interpretation seems to me more correct than that of Christophorson and Sirmond: "that God had revealed to him those things which He had hidden from apostolic times."

Μετὰ τοὺς μανικούς [After the Manichaeans]. In the Basle edition, it is read as μετὰ τοὺς μανικούς, with a slight difference. Συμπεριεψηφίσθημεν αὐτοῖς [We have been reckoned with them]. I suspect this word is corrupt. For I have nowhere read this verb used in that sense. And perhaps it should be written συμπεριηνέχθημεν [we have been borne with]. For the verb συμπεριφέρεσθαι frequently occurs in the writings of the ancients in that sense. And Epiphanius seems to have read it thus, for he translates it as: "Nevertheless, we, held by much patience, have sustained them for a long time," etc.

PAG. 115. Διά φιλανθρωπίαν ἀνθρώπων [On account of the philanthropy of men]. More correctly, it is read in the codex of Savile as διὰ φιλίαν [on account of the friendship], as Jacob Sirmond also edited it. And another Royal codex, whose various readings Robert Stephanus published at the end, also had it written so.

Πλ̣εῖον φροντίσαντες [Caring more]. For these words, we have added the full passage from the codex of Leo Allatius and from another Royal codex, whose variant readings Stephanus printed at the end of his edition. Therefore, the whole passage should be read thus: Καὶ φιλίαν ἀνθρώπων, τῶν κανόνων τῆς Ἐκκλησίας καὶ τῆς πρὸς ἡμᾶς φιλίας προτιμήσαντες τότε, etc. [And having then preferred the friendship of men to the canons of the Church and to the friendship toward us, etc.] Correctly does Epiphanius Scholasticus read it, as appears from his version. For he translates it thus: "But if they remained without repentance, and preferred the friendships of men to the royal Church and our concord, then them," etc.

*On Chapter XXX.* PAG. 117. Περιττὸν εἶμαι καὶ πάρεργον [I am superfluous and a side-issue]. The emendation of this passage is owed to the codex of Leo Allatius, in which it is read καὶ παρέλκον [and redundant], as Jacob Sirmond also edited it.

PAG. 118. Ὑπερκλύζον τὸ χῶμα [Overflowing the mound]. In the manuscript codex of Savile, and in the Basle edition, it is read ὑπερέχον [exceeding], which is doubtless more correct. For it signifies in Greek *to overflow* or *to spring forth*, as Hesychius testifies. Shortly after, from the same codices, I have corrected it to σφοδροτάτην οὖσαν τὴν προσβολήν [the attack being most violent], whereas previously it was read in the genitive as σφοδροτάτης, etc. But the codex of Allatius also confirms our emendation.

1558 Τὴν ῥώμην οὐκ ἐνεγκόν [Not having borne the force]. More correctly, in the manuscript codices of Savile and Allatius, it is read ῥώμην [force]; and shortly after, for ἀκμητί, it is written in the same codices as ἀκοπιᾶτι. In the Basle edition, however, it is read ἀπονῆτι.

Τὸν θεῖον Ἰάκωβον [The divine Jacob]. Theodoret is here mistaken in multiple ways. For first, he confuses the two sieges of the city of Nisibis with one another. Then, he wrongly assigns the time of the siege which he describes here to after the Council of Ariminum and Seleucia, that is, after the year of Christ 359. And this double error of Theodoret was noted long ago by Dionysius Petavius in his *Annotations on the First Oration of the Emperor Julian*. A third error of Theodoret is one not at all noticed by Petavius. For he says the second siege of Nisibis was dissolved by the prayers of Jacob, bishop of Nisibis; when, however, at the time when the second siege of Nisibis took place under Constantius, that is, in the year of Christ 350, it was not Jacob but Vologesus who was bishop of the city of Nisibis, as the author of the *Alexandrian Chronicle* teaches. Regarding, however, the three sieges of the city of Nisibis under Constantius, see what I have noted on Book XX of Ammianus Marcellinus, page 181.

*On Chapter XXXI.* PAG. 120. Τρίτος Μελέτιος [Third, Meletius]. The first sermon which Meletius delivered to the people of Antioch is reported by Epiphanius in the *Heresy of the Semi-Arians*, cap. 29, where he adds much about Meletius, and what the judgment of the men of his age was concerning him.

PAG. 121. Τὴν ἐν τῇ καλουμένῃ παλαιᾷ [That in the so-called "Old"]. One must supply *palatia* (arch). For Antioch consisted of many parts, as I have noted above from the *Antiochicus* of Libanius. One of these was called *palaia*, which, that is to say, had been built first. In that region of the city of Antioch was situated the church which Theodoret calls "apostolic," that is, founded by the apostles, in which the apostle Peter had first sat; whence that church was also called *palaia*, both because it was the most ancient and as it were the mother of the others, and because it was situated in the region of the city so named. [aut-version omitted] Certainly the author of the *Alexandrian Chronicle* calls that church *palaian* when he treats of the return of Meletius in the reign of Julian. Athanasius also, in his synodical letter to the Antiochians, calls that church by that name.

Τριάκοντα μὲν γὰρ ἔτη [For thirty years]. Eustathius was stripped of the Antiochene bishopric in the year of Christ 330, as I have noted in my *Eusebian Annotations*, page 255. After his deposition, Theodoret writes, the Catholics remained mixed with the Arians, and did not separate themselves from their communion for 30 years, until, with Meletius driven out, Euzoius the Arian occupied the Antiochene see. That happened in the year of Christ 361. For Meletius had been translated to the Antiochene see in the year of Christ 360, if we believe Baronius. For it seems more true to me that this translation of Meletius can be assigned to the year of Christ 361. Indeed, Meletius, after Eustathius was driven out, was made bishop of Sebaste at the Council of Constantinople in the year of Christ 360, as I noted above from the *Alexandrian Chronicle*. Nor is it likely that in the same year he was translated to the Antiochene see, or that in the same year two great councils were celebrated, namely at Constantinople and Antioch. Certainly Socrates, in Book II, states clearly that the Antiochene council of which Theodoret makes mention here was celebrated in the consulship of Taurus and Florentius, that is, in the year of Christ 361. Furthermore, Theodoret has recorded both the translation and the deposition of Meletius together in this chapter, because a small space of time had intervened between the two. The cause of the deposition, or rather its pretext, is reported by Jerome in his *Chronicle*, and by Epiphanius in the *Heresy of the Semi-Arians*, which is that he had received into communion clerics deposed by Eudoxius.

*On Chapter XXXII.* PAG. 121. Τὸν ἔγγραφον ἔλεγχον [The written refutation]. In the manuscript codex of Savile, it is written as ἔγγραπτον. The codex of Leo Allatius, however, has ἀνάγραπτον.

ἀνάγραπτον.

HENRI DE VALOIS' ANNOTATIONS ON THE THIRD BOOK OF THEODORET'S ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

^A *In caput III.* PAG. 127. Καὶ πελτῶν καὶ δοράτων. I would prefer to read *απελτῶν*. For *πάλτη* in Greek signifies a javelin, thus derived from *πάλλειν*, which is to vibrate. Yet the vulgate reading can be tolerated: for *πέλτης* also signifies a javelin, according to Hesychius. Whence a *καταπέλτης* (catapult) seems to have been named as a war-machine.

*Ἀμυήτοις γὰρ συμπολεμεῖν.* I hold this narrative of Theodoret concerning Constantius to be very suspect. For how could Constantius have been unwilling to have soldiers in his army who were not at all bathed in the sacred laver, when he himself at that time had not yet been baptized? Indeed, long afterwards, when he had undertaken an expedition against Julian, he was baptized at Antioch by Euzoius the bishop.

^B *In caput IV.* *Ὁ ἐκ τῆς Ἰταλίας.* More correctly in the Basilian edition it is printed in the plural number *οἱ ἐκ τῆς Ἰταλίας*, although Hilary was not from Italy, but originated from the Gauls.

*Ἐν τῇ καλουμένῃ παλαιᾷ.* Theodoret makes mention of the same place in his *History*, book 5, ch. 31, where I noted that the church was also named after the place in which it was situated. Indeed, the author of the *Alexandrian Chronicle* clearly testifies to this, writing thus concerning the return of Meletius: "Thus therefore also Meletius, who had been deposed for impiety and other evils, having returned to Antioch, seized the old church, there having run together to him also those who had already been canonically deposed from the clergy by the holy synod. Among whom was especially Diogenes from the presbyters, running together more than the others and aiding the faction: and Vitalis the layman, who had always lived in attacks and impostures. Who indeed, advancing from a long time, and later having been grieved after a period towards Meletius, seceded from him, and founded a heresy of ridicule, and one itself worthy of such, etc." Because the interpreter did not understand this passage, I shall here append it translated into Latin: "Thus therefore Meletius, who had been deposed for impiety and other crimes, having returned to Antioch, seized the old church by force: there being added to him the clerics who had already before been legally deposed by the holy synod. Among whom the chief was Diogenes, formerly a presbyter, who more than all the rest ran together and aided the parts: and Vitalis the layman, who had always exercised frauds and impostures. This one, having progressed further, and at the end offended by Meletius, broke off from him, and he himself also founded a ridiculous heresy." These are of the best note, and described from a certain ancient author who by no means favored Meletius. And, unless the opinion fails me, that writer was an Arian, from whom the collector of the Alexandrian Chronicle took these things. For as I observed above, he wonderfully praises Leontius of Antioch, who nevertheless is constant to have been an Arian.

*Τὰς λειτουργίας ἐπετέλουν τὰς θείας.* Hence Athanasius calls the Meletians "those gathered in the old [church]," distinguishing them from those who were under Paulinus, that is, from the Eustathians, as can be seen in his synodical epistle to the Antiochians, pages 575 and 576.

^C *In caput V.* PAG. 120. *Πέντε γὰρ καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα ἔτη.* Baronius, in his account of the year of Christ 408, chapter 31, says that the codices of Theodoret in this place are corrupt. For he says that that discord of the Church of Antioch did not last for the space of eighty-five years, but only forty-five. For he says this schism began from the ordination of Paulinus, which took place in the year of Christ 362. But with the leave of that great man be it said: Theodoret does not date that discord from that time, but from the very deposition of Eustathius, which happened while Constantine was reigning, in the year of Christ 330, as I noted on book 1, ch. 31. For from that time the Eustathians held separate assemblies. Nor indeed is Theodoret to be heard, who in the said ch. 31 of book 1 writes that after the deposition of Eustathius, the healthier part of the Church, that is, the orthodox, patiently endured for 30 years the perfidy of the Arians, awaiting some change of times. But after they saw Meletius driven into exile and Euzoius the Arian placed in the Antiochene see, then at last they departed from the Arians and held assemblies separately in the Old Church. That, indeed, is true concerning the followers of Meletius; who, though they had at first communicated with the Arians, after the deposition of Meletius separated themselves from their communion. But the Eustathians had already before separated themselves from the Arians and performed gatherings separately, from the time when Eustathius had been stripped of the episcopate through the fraud and calumny of the Arians, as Theodoret himself testifies in book 1, ch. 22. The reader will therefore note the error of Theodoret, who, too prone toward Meletius, calls the followers of Meletius the healthy part of the Church. For thus he does in ch. 31 of book 5. And in this chapter he calls them *τοὺς τῆς εὐσεβείας ἀντεχομένους*. As if that applied only to the followers of Meletius, and they had nothing in common with the Eustathians. From these things therefore it appears that that discord of the Antiochene Church began from the deposition of Eustathius, that is, from the year of Christ 330, or certainly 329. To which if you add eighty-five years, it becomes the year of Christ 414 or 415, in which Alexander, Bishop of Antioch, joined the Eustathians to the rest of the body of the Church. This being posited, the death of Alexander of Antioch did not happen in the year of Christ 411, as Baronius wishes, but necessarily happened later.

*Ἐπωνυμίαν εἰλήφασι.* In the Savile codex and in the Basilian edition it is read *ἐδέξαντο*.

^D *In caput VII.* PAG. 130. *Ἐν τῇ Κωνσταντίνου.* Epiphanius Scholasticus [has] *Κωνσταντίου*, which I approve more. Yet the vulgate reading is confirmed by the author of the *Alexandrian Chronicle* in the deeds of Julian.

*Διονύσῳ τῷ γυναιώδει.* More correctly in the Basilian edition it is read *τῷ γύνιδι*, as it is also read in Epiphanius Scholasticus. But *γύνις* is the same as *Androgynos*, as Suidas testifies. Which indeed fits Bacchus exceedingly well, whom the fables of the poets portray as an Androgynous. It is also called *γύννις* with a double nu, as it is written in Philostratus in *The Life of Aelian the Sophist*.

*Τοῦ τῆς Θράκης ἁπάσης ἄρχοντος.* Jacobus Sirmond translates this as "the governor of Thrace," ignoring the word *ὅλης* (entire), which however is by no means redundant. For there were many provinces of the Thracians, each of which had its own governor. But the entire diocese of Thrace obeyed one vicar, under whom

were the provinces written below: Europe, Thracia, Haemimontus, Rhodope, Moesia secunda, and Scythia, as the *Notitia imperii Romani* teaches.

PAG. 131. *Δυοῖν θάτερον δρᾶσαι*. The word *δρᾶσαι* is missing both in the Basel edition and in Robert Estienne's edition; it was added by the Genevan printers from Christophorson's book. Certainly, in the manuscript codex of Henry Savile, the same word is read in this way: *δοᾶσαι δυοῖν θάτερον ἀναγκάζοντες*.

*In caput XI.* PAG. 134. *Τοῦτον ἤραντό τινες*. Theodoret took this whole story from book X of Rufinus's *Ecclesiastical History*, where Rufinus himself testifies that he sought it out from Theodore.

*In caput XII.* *Ἰουλιανῷ δὲ τῆς ἑῴας ὑπάρχω*. Epiphanius and the rest of the translators wrongly rendered this "Prefect of the East." Nay, Sirmond, in order to explain the matter more clearly, translated it "Praetorian Prefect of the East." But Julian, the uncle of the Emperor Julian, was not Praetorian Prefect, but only *Comes Orientis* (Count of the East), as Ammianus Marcellinus teaches in book XXIII, at the beginning, where he writes about his death. *Ἐλπίδιος δέ*. Libanius speaks of this Elpidius in his *Oration for Aristophanes the Corinthian*, page 218, where he lists the friends and supporters of Aristophanes, [who were] the foremost among Julian's friends. And first indeed [he mentions] the philosophers Maximus and Priscus: then truly Elpidius and Felicius. And indeed he says this about Elpidius: *Ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ Ἐλπίδιος, ὃν κατὰ σοφίαν μὲν λείπεσθαι συμβαίνει τοῖν ἀνδροῖν. Τῇ δὲ περὶ τὸ θεῖον σπουδῇ καὶ τῷ περὶ σὲ φίλτρων μάλιστα αὐτοῖν ἐοικέναι*, etc. That is: "But not even Elpidius, who, as far as wisdom goes, happens to be inferior to [those] two men. But in his zeal for the divine and in his love for you, he is most similar to them," etc. *Κόμητα πριτάτεν*. It should be written *προβάτων*, as it is read in the Savile manuscript codex and in the Basel edition.

*In caput XIII.* PAG. 135. *Ἀποκρίσεως κόπρον*. The last word is missing in the Basel edition and in Henry Savile's manuscript codex, and it seems to me altogether superfluous.

*In caput XIV.* PAG. 136. *Τῆς παρ’ αὐτῆς κηρυττομένης*. The Savile codex has written *παρ’ αὐτῶν*; however, the vulgate reading seems more correct. PAG. 137. *Εἰς τὴν καμάραν καθίσασα*. Epiphanius Scholasticus and Christophorson translated it as "chamber"; but Camerarius and Sirmond as "closet": for my part, I would rather believe that a *basterna* is meant, which was a litter for matrons. Moreover, *basternae* were covered in the manner of chambers. Whence Jerome calls them "cages of the *basternae*." Theodoret therefore says that that matron had placed that youth with her in the carriage and had led him to Meletius the bishop. But if you interpret *καμάραν* as "bedroom," I do not see why that matron would have ordered the youth, dressed in womanly attire, to sit with her in a bedroom.

*In caput XV.* *Παρρησιαστικώτερον*. In the Basel edition is read *παρρησιαστικώτερον*, with slight distinction. *Πεζέταιροι*. More correctly in the Savile manuscript codex and in the Basel edition is read *πεζέταιροι*. This name is drawn from the army of Alexander the Great, who instituted that the more honorable cavalry should be called *ἑταῖροι*, but the infantry *πεζέταιροι*, as Anaximenes teaches in Harpocration. Although in Harpocration’s *Lexicon* it is written corruptly *πεζαιταίρους*. Furthermore, regarding these soldiers, Juventinus and Maximus, there exists a homily by Joannes Chrysostomus. See also what I noted on book XXII of Ammianus Marcellinus, page 229.

*In caput XVI.* PAG. 137. *Τῶν ὁμοτραπέζων ἐκείνων*. I would prefer to write *ἐκείνῳ*: which reading I have followed in my version. And Epiphanius Scholasticus seems to have read it thus. *Τῶν ἐν τέλει καὶ ἀξιώματι*. The Savile codex has written *καὶ ἀξιωμάτων*. The Basel edition, however, *ἀξιωτάτων*. To me it seems it should be written *καὶ ἀξιωματικῶν*. I noted the same error above in book I. PAG. 139. *Τοῖς γὰρ στρατιωτικοῖς καταλόγοις*. Gregory of Nazianzus attacks this fraud of Julian against the Christian soldiers in his first invective against Julian, page 84 of the Paris edition. Where he also adds that narrative about certain Roman soldiers who, when they had received gold from the prince, and having imprudently burned incense, later, acknowledging their crime, threw the gold at the prince's feet. Which matter Theodoret reports in the following chapter. *Παρέθηκεν*. The reading that he found in the Basel edition, *παρέθηκε*, pleases me more.

*In caput XVII.* PAG. 140. *Ἔφθη Ῥωμανός*. This appears to be Romanus, a tribune of the *scutarii*, who, with Vincentius, also a tribune, is said by Marcellinus in book II, page 222, to have been sent into exile. *Κακομήχανος*. In the Savile manuscript codex and in the Basel edition is read *κακότεχνος*.

*In caput XIX.* PAG. 141. *Ἰωάννης γὰρ ὁ τῶν ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ*. The author of the *Menologium* believed that John Chrysostom was designated here by Theodoret. For he writes thus: "On the 9th day of the month of October, the holy Publia, in the reign of Julian, in the city of Antioch, most celebrated for the integrity of her morals, having used her husband’s custom for a few years, brought forth a fruit worthy to God, that admirable John surnamed Chrysostom." But Baronius, at the year of Christ 362, chapter 133, refutes the author of the *Menologium*, and considers that another John is meant here, not John Chrysostom. For Chrysostom's mother was called Anthusa, not Publia: nor was she an old woman at that time, as Baronius rightly proves in the same place. Furthermore, what Theodoret says, that this John, son of Publia, was for a very long time an archpresbyter of Antioch, does not befit John Chrysostom. Nor indeed was he for a very long time a presbyter of the Antiochene Church. Moreover, Henry Savile had noted these things in the margin of his codex at this place: "Some falsely opine that this was Chrysostom." Therefore, I understand here by John the one who was later ordained bishop of Apamea by Meletius, as Theodoret reports in book V, chapter 4. *Τινὶ τῶν δορυφόρων*. James Sirmond edited *τοῦ* (of the), I know not which codices he followed. For our [copies] change nothing.

*In caput XX.* PAG. 142. *Συναπέστειλε ἄρχοντα*. He refers to Alypius, as witnessed by Ammianus in book XXIII, at the beginning. *Καὶ ἅμας καὶ κοφινίδας*. The Basel edition has written *καὶ ἅμας καὶ κοφίνους*. Which I more approve. *Τοὺς παντελῶς ἀμυήτους*. I understand the Gentiles. For these are completely uninitiated into the divine sacraments. Theodoret therefore says that such was this earthquake, so that it might even terrify those who did not recognize the true God: much less the Jews, who are not completely *uninitiated*.

*In caput XXII.* PAG. 144. *Τῶν γὰρ αὐτόθι πολιτευομένων*. Curiales or decurions are called by the Greeks *πολιτευόμενοι* or *πολιτευταί*, as I have long since noted in the Commentaries on Ammianus Marcellinus. It is strange, however, that all the translators have erred in the interpretation of this word, except Epiphanius Scholasticus.

One thing, however, I do not approve of in Epiphanius’s version: he translates “the nobles” (nobiles) as *τοὺς ἐν τέλει*, whereas he ought to have translated it as “decurions” (*decuriones*). Certainly, decurions and men of honor are often joined together in ancient inscriptions, as I have noted in my Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus. Furthermore, in this passage, the Savile manuscript and the Basel edition have it written as *τοὺς ἐν τέλει καὶ ἀξιωτάτους*, just as is found earlier in chapter 16.

^A In Chapter XXV. Page 146. *Ἄλλοι μέν τινα*. I have no doubt that it should be written with the words separated, *ἀλλ’ οἱ μέν*, etc., since *οἱ δέ* follows, etc.

^B *Δῆλον ὡς δέ*. Sirmond, in his edition, ordered this passage to be printed thus: *δῆλον ὡς τοῦτο δέδρακε τῶν θείου νεύματος γεγονώς ὑπουργόν*. Our own manuscripts, however, change nothing.

In Chapter XXVIII. Page 148. *Τῶν Ἀντιοχέων θήσω φωνήν*. Sirmond edited this passage as follows: *Τὴν ἀξιάγαστον αὐτῶν ἐνθήσω φωνήν*, as it is read in one of the Royal manuscripts, from which Robert Estienne excerpted various readings; except that the Royal manuscript has *θήσω*. In the Basel edition, this passage is read without the prepositional particle: *ἐγὼ δὲ ἀξιάγαστον τῶν Ἀντιοχέων θήσω φωνήν*.

*Τὴν ἄξιον λήθης Ἰουλιανόν*. In the manuscript of Henry Savile, it is written *τὸν ἐξάγιστον Ἰουλιανόν*, just as Jacques Sirmond also edited it, except that he also marked the last word for deletion.

*Ἐκεῖνος ἔφη σαφῶς*. It is read more correctly in the Basel edition as *εἴδει σαφῶς*; *εἴδει* is used for *ᾔδει*, that is, “he knew.”

THE ANNOTATIONS OF HENRY VALOIS ON THE FOURTH BOOK OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF THEODORET

In Chapter I. Page 151. *Τοῖς ἀγῶσι τοῖς μείζοσι*. That is, “in the contests for the faith.” For these contests are more serious than warlike contests.

*Ἐπὶ τὰ χείρω*. What change he understands here is unclear—whether a change of faith and religion, or a change of factions. I would prefer, however, to understand it as a change of religion. For the Roman soldiers had deserted the Christian religion for the cult of the Gentiles during the reign of Julian.

*Μαθήμασιν εὐσεβέσι*. In the manuscript of Savile, and in the Basel edition, it is read *μαθήμασιν εὐσεβείας*.

In Chapter II. Page 152. *Τῆς πολεμίας ἐξέβαλε*. The verb *ἐξέβαλε* does not suit this passage. Therefore, it seems to me that it should be restored to *ἐξέλαβε*. Certainly, the translators rendered this passage as if they had read *ἐξήγαγε*.

*Γραφῆναι αὐτῷ παρακαλῶν*. In the Basel edition it is read *γραφῆναι οἱ παρακαλῶν*. Which, to me at least, seems more elegant.

In Chapter III. *Ἐπιστολὴ συνοδική*. Baronius, at the year of Christ 363, chapter 132, thinks that this letter was written by Athanasius at Alexandria in a synod of the bishops of all Egypt, whom Athanasius had immediately summoned to Alexandria after receiving the edict of the emperor Jovian. This conjecture is indeed very probable. I suspect, however, that this letter was written by Athanasius at Antioch, to which place he had betaken himself, along with several bishops of Egypt and Libya, in order to salute the emperor Jovian there. And when the emperor Jovian had demanded a rule of faith from him and the other bishops, as Gregory Nazianzen testifies in his funeral oration on the praises of Athanasius, Athanasius, having held a consultation with the bishops of Egypt and Libya who were accompanying him, wrote the letter concerning the faith to Jovian. Our conjecture is confirmed by the title of the letter itself, which reads as follows: *Ἀθανάσιος καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἐπίσκοποι, οἱ ἐλθόντες ἐκ προσώπου πάντων τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Αἰγύπτου*, etc., that is, “Athanasius and the rest of the bishops who came in the name of all the bishops of Egypt,” etc. For these words are to be interpreted in this way. Christophorson wrongly translated it thus: “Athanasius and the rest of the bishops, who by the name of all the bishops of Egypt, the Thebaid, and Libya, came together into one.” Which interpretation of Christophorson seems to have misled Baronius. Yet Theodoret does not say that those bishops came together into one. For in the Greek there is not *οἱ συνελθόντες*, but only *οἱ ἐλθόντες*. By which word it is indicated that those bishops who were with Athanasius had been sent by all the bishops of Egypt and Libya to bear witness for Athanasius before the emperor Jovian. For the Arians who were living in Alexandria had sent their own envoys to Antioch to accuse Athanasius before the prince Jovian, as is evident from a petition of the same Arians, which is published in the second volume of the works of Athanasius. Therefore, in order to refute them, the bishops of Egypt sent some of their number to Antioch, who would speak testimony on behalf of Athanasius before Jovian.

Page 155. *Καρδίαν ἔχοις*. In the Savile manuscript and the Basel edition, it is read *ἔχεις*, just as Epiphanius Scholasticus also reads it. However, in Athanasius it is written *ἔχοις*. The latter part of this period, however, is missing in the common editions of Athanasius; Baronius thinks it was added by some Arian who wanted to mock Athanasius as a false prophet. For the reign of Jovian did not last long. To me, however, nothing here seems adulterated or interpolated. Nor is Athanasius to be blamed on that account if Jovian did not live as many years in his principate as Athanasius had hoped he would live.

*Αἱρέσεως καὶ σχισμάτων*. Perhaps it should be written *διαιρέσεως*, that is, they had been the authors of division and schism in the Catholic Church.

*Οἱ ἅγιοι τελειοθέντες*. It can also be translated, in this

^A sense, as "the saints who have been perfected," as I have noted in my *Annotations on Eusebius*, p. 253.

*Ἀδόλως γινωσκομένη*. The Genevan printers added the first word from Christophorson’s version and from the book of Athanasius. In all our copies, however, it is not present, nor in the version of Epiphanius Scholasticus.

*Τινὲς μὲν αὐτὴν τὴν ἐν Νικαίᾳ*. In the common editions of Athanasius this passage is read differently; but it must be corrected from Theodoret. For Athanasius here attacks two types of Arians: of whom some utterly rejected the word *ὁμοούσιον*, asserting that the Son of God was created from nothing; others, however, did indeed admit the *τὸ ὁμοούσιον*, but interpreted it wrongly, nor did they believe that the Holy Spirit was God—of which sort were the Macedonians. The same is attested by Gregory Nazianzen in his funeral oration on the praises of Athanasius, speaking of the confession of faith which he wrote to the Emperor Jovian.

PAG. 154. *Ὑπὸ τριακοσίων δέκα καὶ ὀκτὼ ἐπισκόπων*. In the common editions of Athanasius, the number of the bishops is not present. Certainly that number of three hundred and eighteen bishops who gathered together at Nicaea, although it may be found handed down by ancient Fathers, yet in Athanasius, if I remember rightly, it is nowhere read complete. For in his *Epistle to the Solitaries*, p. 854, he says that more or less three hundred bishops gathered at Nicaea.

*In caput IV.*

PAG. 155. *Ἐβεβαίωσεν*. Christophorson has interpreted this passage very poorly in this way: "The understanding which the emperor had imbibed concerning divine matters." But Theodoret does not say this; rather, that Jovian, having received the letters of Athanasius, had issued a law by which the Nicene faith was confirmed. If anyone, however, should prefer to follow the sense of Christophorson, I shall not greatly object, especially since Jovian had issued no law concerning religion, but left to each person free power of worshipping his deity according to his own judgment, as Themistius teaches in his oration to Jovian.

*Καὶ νόμον ἕτερον ἔγραψε*. This is the second constitution of Jovian for the Churches. For his first constitution had been about recalling bishops from exile and restoring them to their sees, as is read in chapter 2 of this book.

*Τὸ τριτημόριον*. This passage has been deformed by poor punctuation. Therefore I think it should be distinguished thus: *Τὰς εἰσφοράς, τῆς Κωνσταντίνου συντάξεως τὸ τριτημόριον*, etc., which distinction Theodoret himself confirms in Book I, chapter 11.

*In caput V.*

PAG. 156. *Αὐξεντίου γάρ*. Theodoret observes no chronological order here, for when he sets out to relate the acts of the Emperor Valentinian in the Church—who began to reign in the year of our Lord’s birth 364—he begins them from the death of Auxentius and the ordination of Ambrose, which took place in the year of Christ 374, ten full years after the beginning of Valentinian’s reign.

*Ἡμετέρας ὑποκλίνωμεν κεφαλάς*. Christians formerly were accustomed, when bishops met them, to bow the head, that they might receive a blessing from them. Many traces of this custom remain in ancient books. For first, Hilary, in his book *Against Constantius*, writes thus: "You greet the priests with a kiss, by which Christ was betrayed: you bow your head for a blessing, that you may cloak your faith. You deem yourself worthy of a banquet, from which Judas went out to his betrayal. You remit the poll-tax which Christ paid, lest He should cause a scandal." Philostorgius writes in his *Ecclesiastical History* that Leontius, the bishop of Tripoli, when all the other bishops approached Empress Eusebia, the wife of the Emperor Constantius, and worshipped her according to custom, could never be brought to visit her, except on condition that the Augusta would rise for him when he approached, and bow her head, ^B asking that she might be blessed. The words of Philostorgius are reported by Suidas in (the entry for) Leontius. Similar is that which Marcus the Deacon writes in the *Life of Porphyry*, Bishop of Gaza, that Empress Eudoxia did not once but often come to meet them as they came into the Palace, and greeted them first, and bade them sit, and with bowed head asked that they should bless her. The same is also testified concerning the same Augusta by Sozomen in Book VIII, chapter 13, where he speaks of Ammonius and the brother monks who were called the "Tall Ones." Palladius, in the *Dialogue on the Life of John Chrysostom*, where he speaks of him proceeding into exile, says that he told Olympias and Pentadia and Salvina that whoever was elected bishop without intrigue, they should bow their heads to him just as to himself. Here I think it impious to pass over a remarkable passage of John Chrysostom from his 3rd Homily to the people of Antioch, where he speaks thus of Bishop Flavian, who had departed to the prince’s court: "He is a ruler himself, and more venerable than that ruler. For the divine laws, carrying the holy heads subject to his hands, bow them before him." The author of the *Life of Saint Fulgentius* speaks of the same custom: "All contending as to who should greet first, who should put his head forward for a blessing." Finally, the unknown author of the *Questions of the Old and New Testament*, quest. 109: "Our priests, however, daily lay the name of the Lord and the words of blessing upon many. But in few is there effect. There is, again, a time when the better ones bless themselves. For although a man may be a saint, he yet bows his head to receive a blessing." Lastly, the Emperors Honorius and Valentinian, concerning the accusation of a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, write thus to the illustrious praetorian prefect: "We dare indeed to speak, taken by more than the usual fear, concerning the holy and venerable priests, and second priests, or even Levites; and to name them with all fear, to whom the whole earth bows its head."

*In caput VIII.*

PAG. 158. *Αὐτοκράτορες μέγιστοι*. Baronius in his *Ecclesiastical Annals* thinks that this letter was not written by the Emperor Valentinian, as Theodoret writes, but rather by Valens, in the year of Christ 365, in which Valentinian and Valens were consuls. But, with his leave, he is twice mistaken: both in the year in which this letter was written, and in the fact that he assigns it to Valens. For since in the title which is prefixed to the letter, Gratian is also named Augustus together with Valentinian and Valens, without a doubt this letter could not have been written before the year of Christ 367. For in that year Gratian was named Augustus, as is evident from Ammianus Marcellinus and the *Fasti* of Idatius, in the consulship of Lupicinus and Jovinus. The arguments, however, on which Baronius relies to assign that letter to Valens do not deserve refutation. For he says first that the name of Valens is placed first in the title of this letter: which is most false, as appears from our Theodoret and from the version of Epiphanius Scholasticus. Next, because he says that the affairs of the Asian diocese belonged in no way to Valentinian, neither is that true. For we have learned from Ammianus Marcellinus that Valentinian the Elder, although he had granted the empire of the East to his brother Valens, yet moderated all things according to his own will; and that Valens, to use the words of our Ammianus, was always obedient to him like an attendant. Finally, as to what Baronius adds, that Valentinian was then in the Gauls, and not in Illyricum, I indeed admit that. For Valentinian did not leave the Gauls and set out for Illyricum until the year of Christ 374, in the consulship of Gratian and Equitius, as the same Marcellinus teaches. But nothing prevents him, while stationed in the Gauls, from having heard the legates of the Illyrian synod sent to him. Furthermore, the historian Theophanes also mentions this letter of Valentinian to the bishops of Asia in his *Chronicle*, and calls it an edict.

^A *αροφρυγίας Πακατιανῆς*. This is read in all our manuscripts, and in Epiphanius Scholasticus. Sirmundus, however, after the word *Carophrygia*, added a comma, as if there were three Phrygias: namely, Phrygia properly so called, Carophrygia, and Phrygia Pacatiana. But since only two Phrygias are named in ancient books—namely, Phrygia Pacatiana and Phrygia Salutaris—I would prefer to write *Carías, Phrygías Pacatianês* here. The names of the other provinces of the Asian diocese are, however, missing here. If anyone wishes to know them, they are recorded in the *Notitia imperii Romani* in this order: Pamphylia, Lydia, Pisidia, Lycaonia, Phrygia Pacatiana, Phrygia Salutaris, Lycia, Caria.

*Πατέρας καὶ Υἱοῦ*. It is read more correctly in the Savilian codex and in the Basle edition: *Patéra kai Uión kai hágion Pneûma* (Father and Son and Holy Spirit).

*Οὐδὲ ὅλως ἐκκλίνοντες*. Christophorsonus translated this passage very poorly, for the incorrect punctuation of this place was his undoing. For after the verb *ekklínontes*, a comma was placed both in the Basle edition and in Robert Estienne’s edition. But Henry Savile and Jacques Sirmond deservedly expunged that punctuation. By *leitourgías* we must understand not ecclesiastical office, but public functions, from which, although clerics were declared exempt by Constantine’s rescript, the Illyrian bishops nevertheless did not wish to be free, as Valentinian here testifies, following that evangelical saying: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Matt. XXII, 21). Valentinian also testifies to the same below in these words: *kai ta dêmósia katà nómous eiskomízein ísasi*.

*Ὅτι ἀνίκαμεν*. Savile’s codex has *hóti anêkes*. The Basle edition, however, has printed *hóti ouk thrêskeía* without the subscript, which in my judgment is excellent: that is, "But let no one say: The religion of the prince has come."

PAG. 159. *Τὰ τῆς ἀποδείξεως ὑμῶν*. Christophorsonus translates this as "decrees," Sirmond as "pleas." I would prefer to explain it as "profession of faith." For the emperor speaks thus at the beginning of this epistle: *Apédeixan hoi trismakariótatoi*.

*Παύσασθαι ἀποκρᾶσθαι*. Here Valentinian forbids those who were of a different opinion and sect from persecuting the orthodox bishops who followed the Nicene faith; nor, because Emperor Valens favored them, should they take the opportunity to attack others who did not think the same as they did. He says that among them some are found to be good, pious, and religious men. Indeed, Valentinian the elder left to everyone the free power of observing his own religion, as Ammianus Marcellinus testifies in book XXX.

*Ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐχρησάμεθα τῷ ἄλφα*. This passage is very obscure. And Epiphanius Scholasticus indeed translates it thus: "And we indeed are subjected to him, who is the first and the last: but you arrogate to yourselves." Which interpretation, in my judgment, cannot be borne. Camerarius indeed interprets it thus: "We indeed have proceeded in order from the first to the last in our treatment: but you yourselves have alienated." But Christophorsonus translates it thus: "We have always used patience from the beginning to the end: you, on the contrary, have yielded to your own lack of self-control." Jacques Sirmond followed his interpretation in part: for in the translation of the latter part, he preferred to follow Epiphanius Scholasticus. To me, the word *chrêsthai* in this place seems to mean the same as "to communicate" and "to have intercourse." Such is that which is in the Gospel: "The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans" (John IV, 9).

*Μὴ θέλοντος αὐτὸν ἀνελεῖν*. Jacques Sirmond in his edition ordered *mê thélontes* to be printed, and shortly after *parakletheís*. This was quite bold, since the manuscript codices change nothing. As to what Valentinian adds, that Pilate, turned toward the rising sun, washed his hands... this is not in our Gospels as far as I know. Therefore I suspect it was taken from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. And Valentinian seems to have added this because he was addressing the Eastern bishops who were in the Asian diocese.

*Μεταξὺ τοῦ παρακεκλημένου*. This whole passage is shrouded in dense darkness. Joachim Camerarius indeed translates it thus: "And with him confirmed to suffer tortures, [having the] testament of his own as it were in the blood of Zacharias." But Christophorsonus interpreted it thus: "Lest, we ourselves now reigning, you attain no benefit from this, but later, together with the author of the crime, you fall into the losses which are of his testament, which happened in the blood of Zacharias." Jacques Sirmond translates in almost the same way. But as for what concerns these words *metaxù toû parakeklēménou*, I agree with Christophorsonus and Sirmond who interpreted it as "the inciter of the crime." For it is the same as what Valentinian says a little later: *metà toû syndramóntos autoîs daímonos*. But for the verb *patheîn*, I affirm that *pateîn* should be written, which is "to trample." For Valentinian alludes to the history of Zacharias, who was killed near the altar a little before the coming of Christ, as it is read in the Gospel. At which time the sanctuary of the Lord was trampled by the soldiers who, having entered into the sanctuary, killed Zacharias near the altar. Furthermore, the author of the *Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum* relates that the traces of the blood of Zacharias remained in his own time, in these words: "In the house itself where the temple was which Solomon built, in the marble before the altar, you would say the blood of Zacharias was spilled there today. The traces of the nails of the soldiers who killed him also remain on the whole floor, as you would think [it were] fixed in wax."

*Ἐπ' Ἀμεγετίου*. In the Basle edition these names are written otherwise, in this way: *Ep' Ametetíou kaì Kikeroníou*. But in Epiphanius Scholasticus they are read thus: "We have commanded these things in Megetius, and in Cicerionius, and Damascus, and Lampon, and Brintisius." And Baronius indeed thinks these were presbyters of the Roman Church. But I would more willingly have believed these were legates of the Illyrian synod, who had been sent to Emperor Valentinian to signify the acts of the synod to him. For that had been the custom since the times of Constantine.

*Πατέρας ἐκείνους καλοῦντες*. He understands the bishops of the Antiochene council which was celebrated at the dedication. For the Semarians were accustomed to call these "Fathers," as Socrates teaches in book II, near the end, where he speaks of the Seleucian synod.

PAG. 160. *Ἀλλὰ γράψαντα*. The reading of the Savilian codex pleases me more, in which *grápsanta* is read. And Jacques Sirmond also edited it thus. Nevertheless, Epiphanius Scholasticus confirms the vulgate reading.

*Καθὼς ὁ υἱός*. I would prefer to write *kathôs ho huiós*, etc.

*In caput IX.*

*Οἱ ἐπίσκοποι τοῦ Ἰλλυρικοῦ*. Baronius in his *Annals* places this Illyrian synod in the year of Christ 365. But the epistle of Emperor Valentinian which Theodoret reported in the previous chapter openly refutes his opinion. For in the title of this epistle, Gratian is named Augustus along with Valentinian and Valens. Furthermore, Gratian was named Augustus by his father in the year of Christ 367; therefore this Illyrian synod could not have gathered before this year. But Baronius was impelled to think thus by the synodal letter of the Illyrian council recorded here by Theodoret, in which mention is made of Eustathius the bishop. Baronius thinks this Eustathius is the bishop of Sebaste, who had been sent as a legate to Liberius from the Lampsacene synod along with two other bishops in the year 365. But Socrates refutes this opinion of Baronius in book IV, chapter 12, where he assigns this legation of Eustathius to the year of Christ 368. Therefore let the reader consult what I have noted there.

^A *Elpidii tou presbyterou*. Baronius indeed thinks that this is Elpidius, a presbyter of the Roman Church, who had once been sent with Philoxenus by Pope Julius to the Eastern bishops. Yet one might rightly doubt whether this Elpidius was a presbyter of the Roman Church. For the Illyrian bishops write explicitly that this Elpidius was sent by them to the Asians. But if Elpidius had been a presbyter of the Roman Church, and indeed a legate from Pope Liberius, as Baronius wishes, the Illyrian bishops would never say that they had sent him to the Asians. Add that they call Elpidius their brother and fellow-minister. By which titles a bishop seems to be designated rather than a presbyter. Therefore I think that this Elpidius was a bishop of Illyricum, whom the Illyrian bishops sent as a legate to the bishops of the Asian diocese, to inspect whether those things which Eustathius of Sebaste had reported to them were true: namely, that the Asians did not believe the Holy Spirit to be consubstantial with the Father and the Son. This is our conjecture about Elpidius. Certainly in the manuscript codex of Henry Savile, for *presbyterou* it is written *presbytou*. Finally, at the end of the epistle, they say that this Elpidius was sent from their body to the Asians *hena ek panton*, that is, one chosen from them all to undertake this legation. By which words it is openly declared that Elpidius was from the number of the bishops of Illyricum. If my conjecture does not deceive me, this is the Elpidius the bishop to whom Basil the Great wrote epistle 322. For in that epistle Basil asks Elpidius that, if he should judge it necessary, he indicate the time and place of the council, and write letters to the bishops so that they might convene on a certain day. Which perfectly suits this Elpidius of ours, who had been sent by the bishops of Illyricum into Asia to establish the right faith.

*Ego de Christou*. These three words are missing in the manuscript codex of Savile and in the Basle edition, nor does Epiphanius Scholasticus acknowledge them.

Pag. 161. *On autothi keryssete*. The verb *keryttein* in this place is taken for preaching or doctrine. For in this sense it is used throughout the rest of the epistle. Therefore the word *phobon* which is joined to this verb, we must take for blasphemy or impiety, which the bishops of the Asian diocese were preaching, separating the Holy Spirit from the substance of God the Father and the Son. Moreover, here it occurs to one to wonder how Eustathius of Sebaste could have accused the bishops of Asia in the Illyrian synod of thinking wrongly about the Holy Spirit. For he himself was a legate of the Macedonians, who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. But the Macedonians at that time were still concealing their impiety and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, nor did they bring it out into the open. However, for the word *phobon* I would more willingly read here *alogon*, that is, disgrace.

*Apo tes basileuouses Romaion arches*. Jacobus Sirmundus distinguished this passage differently. For having expunged the comma which is placed after these words in our copies, he explained the passage thus: "But necessity has been laid upon us to send to you our lord and fellow-minister Elpidius, bearing letters from the royal Roman principate." In which Sirmundus seems to have followed the version of Epiphanius Scholasticus. For he says thus: "Wherefore we have found it necessary to send to you our lord and fellow-minister Elpidius, bearing these letters from the royal Roman principate." But this version cannot be maintained. For *basileuousa tes Romaion arches* is without a doubt the city of Rome. Therefore Camerarius and Christophorsonus more correctly explained this passage concerning the city of Rome. But it is ambiguous whether Elpidius is said to be sent from the city of Rome, or rather that Elpidius is to be understood as from the city of Rome, that is, a presbyter of the city of Rome. For so both Greeks and Latins were accustomed to speak, especially when they speak about bishops.

*Mede heterodoxein*. Jacobus Sirmundus, I know not following which codices, published *heterodoxein*, most poorly.

^B *Kai hypomnesin echontes*. This passage Christophorsonus interpreted excellently in this manner: "While we were writing to you about this matter, we were reminded that we should write also in these our letters about the institution of bishops." Which interpretation Jacobus Sirmundus followed in part. Moreover, the Illyrian bishops had been warned by Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste, to write about the ordinations of bishops; because it is likely that ordinations were being done poorly among the Asians. Certainly, that this evil flourished in Asia for a long time in the times of John Chrysostom, Socrates, Sozomen, and Palladius teach.

*He katastathenton*. Camerarius interprets this word in the past tense, when yet it ought to be understood as the future. Thus above in this epistle *katamathonta* is put for *katamathēsonta*. Rightly, therefore, does Jacobus Sirmundus translate: "Concerning the fellow-minister bishops created or to be created."

*Ton en telei chresamenon episkopon hygieis*. Christophorsonus indeed translates this passage thus: "That if it may be possible in any way, those from the magistrates who have held the episcopate, and have been of approved and manifest faith, may be co-opted." Which interpretation can by no means be endured. For what do these things mean for themselves: "that from the magistrates who have held the episcopate, bishops may be ordained"? Jacobus Sirmundus saw this. Therefore, that he might remedy this fault, he expunged the word *episkopon*, and replaced *hygiei* for *hygieis*; boldly indeed, but unsuccessfully. For who has ever spoken thus in Greek, or what sense does this interpretation of his have: "If indeed [they] shall have been from those who have functioned in the healthy and upright magistracy." But I think this to be the sense of these words, that if any sons of bishops already deceased are found to be orthodox, they should be preferred to all the rest. Therefore the preposition *en* must be erased, as being superfluous. But someone will say what example we have of this thing. We have an example, and indeed an illustrious one, in Domnus, who was made bishop of the Church of Antioch when he was the son of Demetrianus, bishop of the same city, as is read in Eusebius in book VII of his *Ecclesiastical History*.

*Syn Huio kai hagio Pneumati*. In the Basle edition it is read only *syn hagio Pneumati*: which reading pleases more.

Pag. 162. *Polychronios, Telemachos*. These and those who follow were bishops of Illyricum, asserters of the Arian perfidy, and for that reason were deposed by the Illyrian synod. Moreover, this synod was held under the pontificate of Damasus, and, if I am not mistaken, after the synodical epistle written by the same Damasus to the bishops of Illyricum, which Theodoret reported above in book II, and Sozomen in book VII.

*Euchometha to Patri*. Epiphanius Scholasticus translates: "We pray for your health in the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit," in the same way that Jacobus Sirmundus also translates. Camerarius and Christophorsonus, however, preferred to translate "in the Father and the Son, etc." Yet it could be translated in this manner: "We pray the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, that you may be well for as long as possible."

*In caput X.*

*Aronetos gegeneme*. I restored this passage from the Basle edition and from the manuscript codex of Henry Savile, reducing into one two periods, which had been wrongly severed. Our correction is confirmed by Theodoret in book IV of *Heretical Fables*, chap. 10.

*Epeide de tines*. I expunged the particle *de*, following the authority of the codex of Henry Savile and the Basle edition.

*In caput XI.*

Pag. 163. *Euchitas*. In the manuscript codex of Savile and in the Basle edition it is written *euchitas*. For more things on this see in Epiphanius in his book on heresies.

^A *Ως πονηράν* (As wicked). In the Savilian codex and in the Basle edition it is read *poneran*. Which I approve more.

*Καὶ Ἀδέλφιος* (And Adelphius). Regarding this monk Adelphius, Nilus speaks in the book *On voluntary poverty*. I shall append the passage here, because that author has not yet been published: "But see that by the constant occupation of holy men in divine things, we do not open a door of idleness for the disciples of Adelphius of Mesopotamia, and of that Alexander who for a short time troubled Constantinople, as a cover for their sloth regarding work, pretending that they persevere in prayer at all times, to both young boys and men still flourishing in the strength of their body, and who ought to have exhausted this by many labors, legislating that they should not work; inciting within themselves passions by their relaxation, and giving the mind license to occupy itself in the materials of these things, until the supposed prayer—which is not in reality what it is called—perishes entirely." That is: "But see that we do not open a door to sloth for the disciples of Adelphius the Mesopotamian, and of that Alexander who troubled Constantinople for a short span of time, by the constant occupation of holy men in divine things. For they covered their own laziness in doing work with this veil, as if they were perpetually intent on prayer. And they prescribed to adolescents and men who were still vigorous in bodily strength, and who ought to have consumed that vigor with much labor, that they should not work: stirring up disturbances of the soul in them by laziness; and granting free opportunity to their thinking to be delighted in the material of those disturbances, until their imaginary prayer, which is not really prayer at all, might utterly perish."

*Ἀποκρύπτουσι τούς* (They hide the). I have corrected this passage from two manuscript codices, namely the Savilian and the royal, in which it is written *apokeryttousi* (they proclaim publicly). This reading is confirmed by Theodoret himself in his 4th book of *Haereticarum fabularum*, chapter 41, writing thus about the Messalians: "They easily anathematize those who say anything of these people."

*Ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ περιφέρουσι* (They carry around in the soul). The Savilian codex and the Basle edition have written *en tais psychais* (in the souls).

*Ἀμφιλόχιος* (Amphilochius). In the Savilian manuscript codex and in the Basle edition it is written *Antiochios*, more correctly if I am not mistaken. Several epistles of Basil the Great to him are extant.

*Ἀμφιλόχιος* (Amphilochius). He gathered a synod of twenty-five bishops against the Messalians in the city of Sida, concerning which Photius has much worthy of knowledge in his *Bibliotheca*, chapter 52.

Pag. 164. *Ἐν Ἐδέσσῃ* (In Edessa). The Basle edition has written *Edession*. Furthermore, these things happened during the reign of Theodosius. For then Flavian was promoted to the bishopric of the church of Antioch; under whose administration was Edessa and all the provinces of the East. Therefore Theodoret, having seized upon the occasion of the Messalians, anticipated the order of events.

*Ἐλέγξει σε τὸ σόν στόμα* (Your own mouth shall convict you). In the other royal codex, whose variant readings Robert Stephanus printed at the end of his edition, it is written *exelenxei*, and a little later likewise *katamartyresai*, just as James Sirmond also published it.

^B In chapter XII. PAG. 165. *Στρατιάν τε συναθροῖσαι καὶ* (And to gather an army). More correctly, in the Savilian codex and in the Basle edition this passage is written in this way: *stratian synathroisas strateusai*, etc. Regarding this expedition of Valens against the Goths, consult Ammianus Marcellinus.

*Οὐ δορυάλωτος μόνον* (Not only a prisoner of the spear). I have expunged the word *monon* and the conjunction which follows, following the authority of the Savilian codex and the Basle edition. In which the whole of this passage is written thus: *kai gegonen ou doryalotos; all' apate ton gynaikeion rematon ypekoos* (and he became not a prisoner of the spear; but obedient to the deception of womanly words).

In chapter XIII. PAG. 166. *Στρατιωτικὸν ἀμπεχόμενος* (Clothed in military [attire]). Two things should be noted in this narrative, or rather three. First, that the bishop assumes military habit, that is, a chlamys and a belt. Secondly, that he places a tiara on his head. From which it appears that bishops at that time did not wear a tiara. For if bishops were accustomed to wear it, Theodoret would not have noted it in Eusebius as something new and unusual. Eusebius therefore assumed the tiara, according to the custom of the Syrians and Persians, who covered their head with a tiara against the heat of the sun. The third thing that occurs here to be noted is the ordination not only of presbyters and deacons, but even of bishops. Which things, all being contrary to ecclesiastical laws, were done extra-ordinarily by Eusebius of Samosata, the divine spirit impelling him to these things so that he might resist the fury of the Arians. Many such things were done then and at other times by preeminent bishops. Who, when they saw the Christian religion in danger, were accustomed to hold the rules and canons of the Church in low esteem, provided they kept the Church herself safe and sound. And in such crises, this rule was valid: Let the safety of the Church be the supreme law.

In chapter XIV. *Ἑσπερινὴν λειτουργίαν* (Vespertine liturgy). Epiphanius and the rest of the interpreters understood this passage as the evening office. I, however, would prefer to understand it as the sacrifice of vespertine masses. For *leitourgia* is not accustomed to be used except for the solemnities of the Mass. Vespertine masses, however, were held during Lent. Which custom remained for a very long time in the Church, as Amalarius teaches in his book *De Eccl. officiis*, chapter 7.

*Παρ' αὐτοὺς γάρ* (For among them). In the Savilian codex and in the Basle edition it is written more correctly *par' ayto gar tou asteos to peribolo* (for by the enclosure of the city itself).

PAG. 167. *Καὶ ἑκὰς κειμένην* (And lying far off). In the Basle edition and in the manuscript Savilian codex it is read *kai hekas keimenen*, which I think is more true. For Theodoret is accustomed to use poetic vocabulary.

In chapter XV. *Τῶν τὴν πόλιν οἰκούντων* (Of those dwelling in the city). The Savilian codex inserts the word in this way, *ten polin ekeinen oikounton* (of those dwelling in that city).

*Ἐν τοῖς θόλοις* (In the domes). Thus speaks Ammianus Marcellinus in book XXVIII: "When they had entered the domes of the baths, accompanied by fifty servants for each," etc., and before him Athenaeus in book II had said *balaneion tholous* (domes of the baths).

PAG. 168. *Διὰ τῶν τοῦ ὄνου ποδῶν διαβῆναι* (To pass through the feet of the ass). More correctly in the manuscript Savilian codex and in the Basle edition it is read *ekkylisthenai* (to move by rolling). For it is not proper to *diabainein* (walk through) a pile, but to *kylisthai* (roll).

*Πυρ ἀνάψαντες* (Having kindled fire). One could write *pyran hapsantes* (having lit a pyre), and perhaps more correctly. For it follows *kai ten sphairan dia tou pyros akontisantes* (and having hurled the ball through the fire). But it would be inelegant to repeat the same word in the same line. I know indeed that James Sirmond published *dia tes phlogos akontisantes* (having hurled through the flame). But our codices protest.

*Τῆς Εὐσεβίου συγγενείας* (Of the kindred of Eusebius). I would rather write *te syngeneia kosmoumenos* (adorned by the kinship), as Epiphanius Scholasticus seems to have read.

*Ἰωδιανός* (Iodianus). James Sirmond published *Iobinos* in place of the royal codex, whose variant readings Robert Stephanus included at the end of his edition. However, our codices and Epiphanius Scholasticus uphold the vulgar reading.

PAG. 169. *Δεξιᾶς δεξαμένης μυστήρια* (The right hand having received the mysteries). Jovianus, bishop of Perga, had communicated with the Arians for some time; but this was the symbol of communion among bishops, that one would receive the Eucharist from another. An example of this thing occurs in Evagrius in book I, chapter 13. Antiochus therefore recoils from the right hand of Jovianus, which had received the sacraments from Arian priests.

In chapter XVI. *Φιλῶ δὲ τούτῳ ὄνομα* (And I love this name). It is read thus in our codices.

and in Nicephorus, lib. xi, cap. 22. Yet the reading which Robert Estienne presented in his various readings from another royal codex is more pleasing: *Εἰς φρούριον ἔσχατον τοῖς ἐκεῖ γειτονεύον βαρβάροις, Φηγὼ δὲ τούτῳ ὄνομα, etc.* (To a remote fortress bordering on the barbarians there, Phæno by name, etc.). This is how Jacques Sirmond also edited it. Epiphanius Scholasticus certainly read these, as is apparent from his version. For thus he says: "A certain extreme fortress, neighbor to the barbarians, to which the name Pheno is given, an old man worthy of the heavenly city was led." Now Phæno or Pheno is a small village in Palestine, in which there were copper mines, to which the guilty were condemned, as Ortelius noted long ago from Eusebius, Athanasius, and Jerome. ^A

In chapter XVII. PAGE 170. *Καὶ παίγνιον*. The Savile codex has it written *γέλωτα νομίζει καὶ παίγνιον* (he considers it laughter and a game). In the Basel edition, it reads *καὶ παιδιάν* (and a game). ^B

In chapter XVIII. PAGE 171. *Τούτων κοινωνῆσαι ὑμῖν παρήνεσα* (I have urged you to share in these). The first word is to be expunged, as being superfluous. It is certainly not in the Basel edition. *Τὰ Εὐνομίου γράμματα πεπαιδευμένος* (Taught in the writings of Eunomius). It is read this way in all our copies, nor had Epiphanius Scholasticus found it written otherwise in his codex. For he translates thus: "Protogenes, however, having been instructed in the letters of Eunomius." Sirmond, however, from the royal codex whose variant readings Estienne presented to us, corrected the passage in this way: *Τὰ ἐκ νόμου γράμματα πεπαιδευμένος*, and translates it thus: "Instructed in the legitimate letters." I do not know what he means by this. I would certainly prefer to interpret it thus: "Instructed in legal letters." Certainly Nicephorus in lib. xi, cap. 23, when he was describing this passage of Theodoret, substituted these words for the ones I have cited: *Ὁ δὲ Πρωτογένης, τὰ ἱερὰ Γράμματα ἐκπεπαιδευμένος* (But Protogenes, having been instructed in the sacred Scriptures). But the things that follow in Theodoret confirm this correction. For he says that Protogenes, when he was excellently instructed in the holy Scriptures and, moreover, skilled in shorthand, opened a school for literature so that he might teach the art of writing to children, and on this occasion taught them the holy Scriptures. ^C

PAGE 172. *Δεσποτικὴν ἐπιθεῖναι σφραγίδα*. That is, to administer baptism. For the ancients called baptism *σφραγίς* (seal), as I noted in regard to the History of Eusebius. Moreover, Protogenes bestowed this honor upon Eulogius for the reason that Eulogius was older as a presbyter, and the first of the presbyters of the Edessene Church, as Theodoret indicates. For he calls Eulogius *ἀρχιπρεσβύτερον* (archpresbyter). ^D

In chapter XIX. PAGE 173. *Βασίλειος ὁ μέγας*. The last two words are absent from the Basel edition, rightly, as I opine. For the eulogy which follows next is sufficient. *Πρὸς τὴν ζωὴν τοῦτον ὑποστρέψειν*. In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile and in the Basel edition, it reads *ἀναστρέψειν*, more correctly, if I am not mistaken. *Καὶ τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ*. Valens, on the day of the Epiphany, entered into the Cæsarean church, and offered the usual gifts at the altar, and having been admitted within the veil, listened to Basil, as Gregory Nazianzen narrates in his funeral oration on the praises of Basil. But Gregory testifies that all these things happened before the son of Valens had fallen into sickness. To him, indeed, as an eye-witness, I would rather grant faith than to Theodoret. ^A

*Δημοσθένης τῶν βασιλικῶν προμηθούμενος ὄψων*. Gregory Nyssenus makes mention of this Demosthenes in lib. I *Contra Eunomium*, where he describes this meeting of Basil with Valens and his prefect Modestus. His words are these: "As the Assyrian once, through the cook Nebuzaradan, accomplished the destruction of the temple of the Israelites regarding the matter of the offerings, so also to a certain Demosthenes, who was placed over the dishes and held command of the cooks, as being more impudent than the others, having enjoined such a service, he thought he would gain the whole matter." He understands the "steward of the sacred palace." For this dignity was so called. Gregory Nazianzen tacitly designates this same Demosthenes in the funeral oration already cited, calling him Nabuzardan, just as Gregory Nyssenus does. See Basil the Great in letter 308. ^B

*Τὸ σῶμα ἅπαν λελωβημένοι*. Epiphanius Scholasticus expounded these words concerning the lepers, rightly, as I opine. ^C

*Πρώτην τοῦ Ουάλεντος προσβολήν*. Basil was attacked by Valens three times in total. The first incursion was while Basil was still a presbyter of the Cæsarean Church, as Gregory Nazianzen reports in his funeral oration on the Praises of Basil. The second and third incursions of Valens against Basil happened some time later, when Valens had come to Cæsarea, and Basil was administering the episcopacy of the same place. At first, indeed, Valens sent against him Demosthenes and others from his palace, and finally Modestus, the prefect of the praetorian guard. When they had accomplished nothing, Valens, admiring the constancy of Basil, desisted for a short while from attacking him, and entered the church in which Basil was holding gatherings, on the day of the Epiphany. The last incursion was when Valens, urged on by the Arians, ordered Basil to be expelled from his episcopacy and sent into exile. And when the emperor's command concerning that matter was being written, the sickness of the emperor's son interrupted that plan, as Gregory testifies in the Funeral Oration. ^D

*Πάλιν ἧκεν αὐτός*. I once suspected that it should be written *αὐτός* (he himself), as Epiphanius Scholasticus seems to have read. For he translates thus: "When, however, afterward he had returned there," etc. Whether, however, this third incursion of Valens happened in a different year than the second is unknown to me, since neither Gregory nor Theodoret have said so.

In chapter XX. PAGE 175. *Εἰς τὴν πόνων ἐλευθέραν*. In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile and in the Basel edition this passage is written differently, namely in this way: *εἰς τὴν ἄπονον καὶ ἐλευθέραν βιοτήν* (into a painless and free life), which is more pleasing. ^A

*Τῶν ἐν τέλει καὶ ἀξιώμασι*. The Savile codex and the Basel edition here also have *καὶ ἀξιωμάτων* written. I have already observed above that this word is often sinned against by the copyists; *ἀξιωμάτων* truly is placed for *ἀξιωματικῶν*. ^B

In chapter XXI. PAGE 176. *Καλλίστων ἐφοδίων*. The reading of the Savilian codex is more pleasing, in which *φορτίων* is read, which is how Jacques Sirmond also edited it. ^C

PAGE 177. *Πάντοθεν παρ' ὑμῶν*. The Savile codex has written *πανταχόθεν* just as Jacques Sirmond edited it. And a little later, where *κυλινδούμενοι* (rolling) is read, the same codex and the Sirmond edition prefer *καλινδούμενοι*. ^D

In chapter XXII. PAGE 178. *Λόγων ἐνίκων ἀσέλγειαν*. The Savile codex has written *ἀσέβειαν* (impiety). Epiphanius Scholasticus, however, defends the vulgate reading. ^A

*Ὡς ἀπὸ κρουνοῦ*. I do not know what Sirmond wished for himself, translating this passage thus: "Spitting out an insolent din from [their] nostrils as if from a spring, so to speak." Nor is Christophorson better, who translates thus: "Erupting as if from an aqueduct, so to speak." But Epiphanius Scholasticus interpreted it most poorly in this way: "And as I might say, pouring out a stench as if from a certain sewer." The interpretation of Camerarius is more pleasing, who translates thus: "Ejaculating obscene sounds through the nostrils, clear and as if, so to say, from water pipes," for *κρουνοί* properly are pipes or fountains, from which water is poured out into the channel beneath.

^A *Τύπον ἁγίων ἀγγέλων* (Type of holy angels). The last word is missing in all copies, both manuscripts and printed: it was first added by the Genevan printers from a conjecture of Christophorson, which Epiphanius Scholasticus confirms. Sirmundus, however, although he had expunged *κἂν* from the Greek text, retained it in his version.

*Γυμνὰς πᾶσαν τὴν πόλιν* (Stripping every part of the city). I think it should be written: *γυμνὰς ἀνὰ τὴν πόλιν ἐθριάμβευον* (They led them in triumph stripped throughout the city).

*Οὐδὲ τῇ ταφῇ παραδίδοσθαι* (Nor even to be surrendered to burial). The Codex Savilii has it written *οὐδὲ τῇ ὁσίᾳ παραδίδοσθαι* (nor even to the holy [burial] to be surrendered). Which is how Jacobus Sirmundus also had it edited.

PAGE 179. *Στοιβῇ κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον* (With a stibium, as it is written). It seems to me I have happily restored this passage in this way: *στιβίῳ καταγεγραμμένον τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς* (their eyes painted with stibium). It was once the custom of catamites to paint their eyes with stibium, which the Greeks call *στιβίζειν* in one word. For the Greeks say *στίβην* and *στέμμιν*. Hesychius in his Lexicon: *στίβη*, a black metallic color; Jon in Omphale: "And the black *στίμμιν* of the eye-painter." Wherefore, in this place, *στίβῃ* can be written.

*Τὴν ἄῤῥενα φύσιν ἐξαρνησαμένων* (Having denied the male nature). He means catamites. For this is how the Greeks are accustomed to designate catamites. Certainly, Polybius, lib. iv, page 273, describes a certain Babyrtas, a catamite, thus: "A man effeminate, of those who have denied the male in every way." For thus must that passage be read which Casaubon did not understand.

PAGE 180. *Κομητατησίων δὲ λαργιτιόνων* (Of the comitaten-sian largesses). The prince's treasures, which were commonly called sacred largesses, were partly throughout the individual dioceses, over which the comites presided. Others were in the *comitatu* (retinue) together with the prince himself, which were called *comitatenses* largesses. Over these was the *comes largitionum comitatensium* (Count of the Largesses of the Retinue). There were, however, all these counts under the jurisdiction of the *vir illustris comes sacrarum largitionum* (Illustrious Count of the Sacred Largesses), as the *Notitia utriusque imperii* teaches. This Count of the largesses of the retinue had officials under him who were called *largitionales comitatenses*. Mention of whom is made in Law 6, *Codex Theodosianus*, "De diversis officiis": "Concerning the largitional-sian men of the retinue and the officials of the rationalis of private affairs, we have commanded to be guarded," etc. For thus must that passage be written, which is commonly corrupt.

*Πῶς οὐχ ὅπου γε* (How much more then, where). The royal codex, whose variant readings Stephanus edited, has it written here *πῶς γὰρ οὔ;* (For how not?). Which is how Jacobus Sirmundus also had it edited, rightly beyond any doubt.

*Προσφάτῳ τολμᾷ σέβειν Θεῷ* (He ventures to worship a new/fresh God). Sirmundus, from the same royal codex, edited *πρόσφατον Θεόν*. But there was no need for this emendation, since either can be said. In point of fact, Peter here calls Christ a "new" God, according to the sense of the Arians, who said that He was a creature and not God from eternity. See what follows a little later in the *Confession of the presbyters of the Catholic Church*: where these words are read: *Ἡμεῖς οὔτε νέηλυν, οὔτε πρόσφατον σέβομεν Θεόν* (We worship neither a new-come nor a new-made God), etc. For thus must it be read from the Codex Savilii and from the Basle edition.

PAGE 182. *Ἀπάτορες* (Fatherless). It seems to me I have happily translated this passage. For whereas the other translators, namely Epiphanius, Christophorson, and Sirmundus, have translated it as "lacking a father," I have expressed the Greek word by one Latin word, translating it as "spurious" (bastards). And thus, also before us, Joachimus Camerarius translated it in this way: "Our Fathers, therefore, of the whole world, from whom these spurious ones have turned away." Certainly, Plutarch, in his *Roman Questions*, clearly testifies that *οἱ ἀπάτορες* are commonly called by the Romans *spurii* or "sons of the spurious."

*Ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας* (Of the same substance). In the manuscript codex of Henricus Savilii and in the Basle edition, it is read *ἐκ τῆς αὐτοῦ οὐσίας* (out of His own substance), just as Epiphanius Scholasticus seems to have read it. We, however, have wished to change nothing, because in both cases the sense is the same.

*Ἀθλητὰς θεαμαμένη* (Having watched the athletes). In the Basle edition I found *θεασάμενοι* written, not badly. I would prefer, however, to write *θεασόμενοι* or *θεασομένη*, as Epiphanius reads.

^B *Δι' ἀπειλῶν καὶ ἀπάτης* (Through threats and deceit). In the various readings which Stephanus collected from the other royal codex, it is read *δι' ἀπειλῶν καὶ βασάνων* (through threats and tortures), just as Jacobus Sirmundus edited it. A little later, where it is read, *τῇ προφανεῖ δυσσεβείᾳ τῶν ἀρειομανιτῶν* (by the manifest impiety of the Ariomaniacs), Sirmundus, from the same royal codex, edited *τῇ προφανεῖ αἱρέσει* (by the manifest heresy), which I less approve.

PAGE 183. *Σωρὸν τοῖς κύμασι* (A heap for the waves). Sirmundus in his edition deleted the first word as superfluous. It exists, however, in all our codices. I think the passage should be restored by a slight mutation thus: *αἱ τῶν ἁπάντων βοαί, τῆς ἐπαφριζούσης θαλάσσης τῶν προσρησσομένων ὁρῶν τοῖς κύμασι κτύπον ἐκάλυπτον* (...the roaring of all, of the foaming sea of the mountains striking the waves, covered the din). It could also be written *τῶν προσρησσομένων ἀνέμων* (of the striking winds), for thus Peter spoke above regarding the Grand Count of the Largesses, *καὶ προσρήστης ὡς ἄνεμος βίαιος* (and a striker like a violent wind). Moreover, in the Codex Savilii and in the Basle edition, it is written *τῷ κύματι*.

*Σαινόμενοι* (Fawning/buffeted). The Basle edition has *ξεόμενοι* (being scraped). And a little later, where *προκυνητοῖς* is read, it has *προκυνητοῖς* written, as does the Codex Savilii. Either, however, can be said, as the author of the *Etymologicum* testifies.

PAGE 184. *Παρὰ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ ἡμῶν Δαμάσου* (From our beloved Damasus). Athanasius having died, when Peter had succeeded him, he immediately wrote synodical or communicatory letters to Damasus, the bishop of the city of Rome, by which he both signified his ordination to him according to custom, and narrated the persecutions of the Arians and pagans by which he was being harassed. Damasus, responding to these letters, sent back communicatory and at the same time consolatory letters to Peter through a certain deacon of the city of Rome, as Peter testifies in this epistle. From which it appears that a sufficiently long space of time intervened between the ordination of Peter and his flight. Nor does the opinion of Baronius seem probable, who assigned the ordination and flight of Peter to the same year of Christ, namely 572. Although Socrates refers the death of Athanasius and the ordination of Peter to a year earlier.

*Ὃς φονέων βασάνοις ἐπέκεινα κοινωνήσας* (Who, having shared beyond murder-tortures). The interpreters translate these words in such a way that *φονέων* relates to *βασάνοις*. For Camerarius translated it thus: "Who, more than any murderer, [was] tortured." Nor did Christophorson or Sirmundus translate it otherwise. But if you were to construe it thus, how could this expression *κοινωνήσας βασάνοις* be borne? Wherefore, the version of Epiphanius pleases me more, who translated it thus: "And to be equaled by the lashings of murderers." The word *ἐπέκεινα*, therefore, must be transposed in this way: *φονέων βασάνοις κοινωνήσας, ἐπέκεινα λίθοις* (having shared in the tortures of murderers, and beyond that with stones), etc.

*Τοῖς κατὰ φέννησον μετάλλοις* (To the mines at Phaeno). In the other royal codex, whose variant readings Stephanus edited, it is written *καταφέννησον* as one word, just as Jacobus Sirmundus edited it. I would prefer, however, to read *κατὰ φέννον* (at Phaeno). Concerning these mines, Eusebius in his book *On Biblical Place-Names* writes thus: "Phino, where Israel encamped in the desert; there was also the city of Edom. This is Phaeno, where the copper mines are, situated between Petra and the city of Zoar."

*Τινὲς μὲν παρ' αὐτὰ μεμενήκασιν* (Some, indeed, have remained beside them). The interpreters have translated the word *τινὲς* concerning the boys who remained dead, lacking burial. I should prefer, however, to understand it of the officials of the governor, who were set as guards over the corpses of the dead, lest anyone should deliver them to burial.

PAGE 185. *Παρὰ πάντων ἀπορούμενοι* (Being at a loss from all things). Epiphanius Scholasticus omitted these words in his interpretation. Camerarius, however, translated them thus: "But when they altogether failed in their attempts toward everyone." Christophorson, on the other hand, interpreted it thus: "But when they saw themselves abandoned by all in that which they were attempting." Jacobus Sirmundus, however, following Camerarius, translated it thus: "In general, therefore, when they were attempting everything in vain." I, however, think it should be written *ἀποκρουόμενοι* (being repelled), which reading I have followed in my version. And that fits excellently with the preceding. ^D

...tibus. For Peter says that the Arians, wandering about like the devil, sought whom they might seduce and devour. But when they were repelled by everyone, he says they turned their anger upon a few bishops and clerics and poured out their rage.

^A Οικήσαντας. After this word, we have appended an entire period from the various readings which Robertus Stephanus recorded at the end of his edition from another manuscript of the Royal Library, which reads thus: *καὶ λόγῳ καὶ πράξει τὰς ἡδονὰς ὑποτάξαντας*. Certainly, Epiphanius Scholasticus had read it thus in his manuscript, as appears from his version. For he translates: "leading the eremical life almost from infancy to old age, and overcoming lust by word and deed." Jacobus Sirmundus also published it this way.

^B Εἰσδεξάμενοι νόσον. In the manuscript of Henry Savile it is written *εἰσδεξάμενοι λύτταν*, as it also reads in the Royal manuscript whose variant readings Stephanus published. Epiphanius had also read it thus in his manuscript, as can be gathered from his translation, which is: "For they, having been rabidly armed with blasphemy."

In Chapter XXIII

Page 186. *Τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἡγεμονίας*. I marvel that the interpreters did not notice the defect of this passage. For the Saracens were not ravaging the regions neighboring the Roman empire, but were ravaging the provinces of the Roman empire itself that bordered upon them. Therefore, one must read *τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἡγεμονίας* in this place, as it is written in the Royal exemplar whose variant readings Stephanus published.

*Ἐκείνη γὰρ μᾶλλον ἐπέλαζεν*. Henry Savile noted in the margin of his manuscript that it seemed *ἐκείνη* should be in the dative case. This does not displease me.

*Ὁ δὲ φονέων ἤκουε*. I corrected this passage from two manuscript codices, the Royal and the Savilian, in which *φονέων* is read, just as Jacobus Sirmundus also published it. However, what follows, *τὸν παυσάμενον πόλεμον*, is to be understood regarding the war between the Romans and the Saracens.

In Chapter XXV

Page 187. *Καθάπερ τινὲς πρόβολοι*. Epiphanius translates "bastions," Camerarius "towers." But the interpretation of Christophorson and Sirmundus, who translated "crags," is more pleasing. Harpocration in his Lexicon says: *πρόβολοι, αἱ εἰς θάλασσαν ἐγκείμεναι πέτραι, καὶ οἷον ἀκταί τινες* (rocks lying into the sea, and a sort of shore). Where I think it should be written *ἄκραι τινές*. Demosthenes uses this word in the oration *On those in the Chersonese*, and in the *Philippic* 10, at the end: *ἀλλ' ἀνάγκη τούτοις ὥσπερ προβόλους προσπταίοντας ὑστερίζειν ἐκείνων*. The same Demosthenes in the oration *Against Aristogiton*, at the end, uses the same word: *μὴ δὴ πρὸς οὓς αὐτὸς ἔχθρας λιμένας καὶ προβόλων ἐνέπλησας, πρὸς τούτους προσορμίζου*: where you see this word taken in a bad sense, for harm rather than for protection. Aristides in the *Panathenaic*, Libanius in the *Basilic*, and Heliodorus at the end of book VIII, also use this word. But the Greeks also called the moles cast into the sea, which we commonly call dikes, by this name, as Procopius teaches in book IV, *On Edifices*: *πρὸς δὲ θάλασσαν προβόλους τεκτηνάμενοι βραχεῖς, οὔσπερ καλεῖ, νενομίκασι μώλους*.

Page 188. *Κρεμάσαι*. Here Sirmundus inserted some words from the Royal manuscript, in this manner: *ἐπὶ ταῖς ἰτέαις κρεμάσαι*, etc. Which is not displeasing.

*Εἰς τὸ πολεμικὸν γυμνάσιον*. The interpreters did not understand this passage, as they supposed these things were said metaphorically. But Theodoretus uses no metaphor here, but understands the place outside the city where soldiers were accustomed to practice. This place was commonly called the *campus* (field): whence "campiductors" and "campigenes" were named, as Vegetius testifies. Certainly, there was a place with such a name at Antioch outside the Roman gate, in which the Roman soldiers were exercised daily. This place is mentioned in the petition which the Arians presented to Emperor Jovian against Athanasius, when the emperor was going through this gate to the campus. This petition is extant in volume II of the works of Athanasius: *Πρώτη ἐντυχία ἣν ἐποιήσαντο, ἀπερχομένου τοῦ βασιλέως εἰς κάμπου ἐν τῇ Ῥωμανησίᾳ πύλῃ*. And a little after: *Ἀκούσας ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐπτέρνισε τὸν ἵππον, καὶ ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κάμπου*.

*Τὴν ἀνδρείαν προσέφερε*. The phrase *τὴν ἀνδρείαν* is entirely foreign to this place. For Theodoretus compares Diodorus to a certain vast river, which indeed irrigated its own, but submerged its enemies. Therefore, for *ἀνδρείαν*, Sirmundus substituted *ἀρδείαν* in this place, a conjecture that is not very fortunate, as I myself feel. For I do not think *ἀρδεία* is said in Greek, but rather *ἄρδευσιν* (irrigation). I would therefore prefer to rewrite *ὕδρευσιν*. But the learned shall judge this according to their own discretion. Furthermore, in the Basilian edition I found written *τοῖς μὲν οἰκείαν τὴν ἀνδρείαν προσέφερε*, which I do not approve.

*Τὰ βέλη προέφερεν*. In the manuscript of Savile and in the Basilian edition I found written *προέφερεν*, which is more pleasing.

In Chapter XXVI

Page 189. *Εἰς τὸ πολεμικὸν ἀπῄει γυμνάσιον*. He understands the campus in which the Roman soldiers were exercised by the campiductors. For even when the orthodox had been driven out of the city churches, they were holding gatherings under Flavian and Diodorus, as Theodoretus narrated above. See what I have noted on the previous chapter. From which we learn that that gate of the city of Antioch, of which mention is made here, was called the Roman gate.

*Κατὰ τὸν μοναδικόν νόμον*. The reading of the Savilian manuscript is more pleasing, in which *μοναχικόν* is read.

*Ὁ δὲ ἀπειλήσας ἐσίγησεν*. The word *ἀπειλήσας* seems to be one that should be removed. For Valens did not threaten Aphrahat at all. See Theodoretus in the *Philotheus*, p. 816.

In Chapter XXVII

Page 190. *Πᾶν τὸ τῆς πόλεως πλῆθος*. Interpreters have accepted these words as concerning the conversion of the entire people. I would rather understand it of the multitude of the people that had flocked into the church for the sake of seeing Julian. Our opinion is confirmed by John Chrysostom in homily 21, on the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians; where he writes of this monk Julian, that when he was entering some city there was such a concourse of men as had never been seen before, not even at the arrival of emperors: *Τούτου εἰς τὰς πόλεις ἐμβάλλοντος. Σπανιάκις δὲ τοῦτο ἐγίνετο, οὔτε ῥητόρων, οὔτε σοφιστῶν, οὔτε ἄλλου τινὸς εἰσελαύνοντος τοιαύτη τις ἐγένετο συστροφή· τί δὲ λέγω, οὐχὶ πάντων βασιλέων*. For so that passage ought to be distinguished and explained.

In Chapter XXVIII

Page 191. *Τραϊανὸς ὁ στρατηγός*. Epiphanius Scholasticus has very well interpreted Trajan as "master of the soldiers" (magister militum). This is the Trajan concerning whom Ammianus Marcellinus speaks quite often in the affairs of Valens Augustus.

*Καὶ τὸ ὄρος δέ*. He understands Mount Casios, which was nearest to the city of Antioch, which Theodoretus calls the "greatest city" in this place and in the preceding chapter.

In Chapter XXIX

Page 192. *Τοὺς τε πολυσχεδεῖς*. I would rather write *πολυσχιδεῖς*, that is, "multifarious" errors. Suidas and Hesychius interpret *πολυσχιδής* as "polymeres" (manifold), divided into many things.

*Οὐ μόνον τὰ γράμματα*. That is, he learned not only the literal, but also the allegorical sense of holy Scripture. In the Royal manuscript whose variant readings Stephanus published, it is written *τὰ ῥήματα*.

In Chapter XXXI

Page 193. *Πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφὸν*. This Theodoretus is mistaken...

For the Emperor Valentinian, the brother of Valens Augustus, had already departed from the living, at the time when the Goths, having crossed the Danube, ravaged Thrace, and the Emperor Valens, having abandoned Antioch, was compelled to come to Constantinople. Therefore, instead of "Valentinian," Theodoretus ought to have said "Gratian," and "nephew" instead of "brother."

In Chapter XXXIII. Page 194. *Διαμένων τὸν πόλεμον*. I do not know what manuscripts Christophorson followed; he reads *δειμαίνων*. And James Sirmond edited it in that way as well, translating it "fearing the war." Our manuscripts, however, change nothing; and Epiphanius Scholasticus supports the common reading. ^A

*Ἀλλὰ σὺ προῄει*. In another Royal manuscript, *προὸν* is read with two syllables, which is also how James Sirmond edited it. According to the rules, however, it should be said *προῄης*.

*Συνεξευγμένοι*. In the manuscript of Henry Savile, it is written *συνεξευγμένη*, just as Sirmond edited it. But since there is no sense in this reading, I would prefer to write the passage thus: *Μὴ χαλεπαίνειν παρήνεσαν ἐπ᾿ ἐλέγχοις τῇ ἀληθείᾳ συνεξευγμένοις*. Nothing is clearer or more certain than this reading.

HENRY VALESIUS' ANNOTATIONS ON THE FIFTH BOOK OF THEODORET'S ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

In Chapter II. Page 199. *Νόμον γὰρ ἔγραψε*. This law of Gratian’s exists in Book XVI of the Theodosian Code, under the title "On the Catholic Faith." Although in the Code of Theodosius that law is not attributed to Gratian but to Theodosius, and is written as having been given at Thessalonica under the consulship of Gratian Augustus V and Theodosius; yet the law of Gratian, of which Theodoretus makes mention here, was enacted before the principate of Theodosius. For Sapor, the Master of Soldiers, was sent by Gratian into the East in order to put this law into execution, just as Theodoretus writes. This, certainly, would never have been presumed by Gratian had Theodosius possessed the empire of the East ^B at that time. Furthermore, the law of Theodosius, by which he removes basilicas from heretics, is mentioned by Marcellinus in the *Libellus Precum* which he offered to Theodosius, page 82.

*Μετὰ Λιβέριον γάρ*. In the Savile manuscript, it is written *μετὰ Λιβέριον δὲ*, which is also how James Sirmond edited it.

Page 200. *Ἔρις ἀνήφθη*. In the Savilian manuscript, and in the Basle edition, I found it written *ἔρις ἐγένετο*, which I approve of more. For this controversy did not arise *then* for the first time, but had been stirred up long beforehand, at the time when Paulinus had been ordained bishop by Lucifer.

In Chapter III. Page 201. *Μία τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῆς θεότητος φύσις*. He refers to the heresy of Eutyches, which he says was born from Apollinaris, as Liberatus the deacon and others also testify.

*Τὸ τῇ θεότητι τοῦ Μονογενοῦς προσάπτειν τὸ πάθος*. He refers to the Theopaschites, or Deipassians, who stirred up huge tumults in the Church under the Emperor Anastasius, as Marcellinus reports in his *Chronicle*, as well as Zonaras, Theophanes, and others. Now, this tumult arose from this occasion: as soon as the priest had approached the altar, the hieropsaltes would sing from the pulpit a certain hymn which they called the *Trisagion*: "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal." This hymn, as the monk Jovius writes in Book VI, chapter 25, in Photius’ *Bibliotheca*, Proclus, bishop of Constantinople, had learned from the angels by revelation. To this hymn, the Orientals would append this clause: *Ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δι' ἡμᾶς* ("who was crucified for us"), referring it to Jesus Christ. But the Constantinopolitans and the Westerners rejected that addition, ^C lest any passion be attributed to the consubstantial Trinity. Therefore, instead of that appendage, *ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δι' ἡμᾶς*, they would sing, "the Holy Trinity, have mercy on us," as Ephraim, Patriarch of Antioch, testifies in Photius.

*Σὺ δὲ ἄντικρυς τῶν ὑποστάσεων*. In the Church of Antioch, there was a huge controversy among the Catholics of the party of Meletius and the party of Paulinus concerning the term *Hypostasis*: for some asserted three *hypostases* in the Trinity, namely, the Meletians; but others, namely the Eustathians, said there was a single *hypostasis*, understanding by this name "substance." Therefore, since they dissented only regarding the name, but were in agreement on the thing itself, Athanasius, at the Council of Alexandria, had reconciled them with one another, decreeing that only the profession of the Nicene faith should be required, and that any mention of *hypostases* should be suppressed, as can be seen in the synodical letter of Athanasius to the Antiochians. After the decree of this council, however, this controversy remained in the Church of Antioch, as Jerome testifies in Epistle 57 to Damasus, with these words: "After the Nicene faith, after the decree joined also by the West, the 'three hypostases' are not required of me by the Arian prelate and the Campenses—a novelty from a Roman man," etc. Where, by "the Arian prelate," Jerome designates Meletius, because he had been ordained by the Arians. But by "Campenses," he understands either the followers of Meletius or, indeed, the followers of Apollinaris and Vitalis, who held assemblies outside the city in the fields (*in campo*). From these things, it appears that what Theodoretus writes here is true: namely that Paulinus denied the three *hypostases*, yet did not dissent from Damasus. For Paulinus perpetually maintained communion with Damasus, as the letter of the Council of Aquileia, edited by Sirmond, teaches. But he understood "substance" by the name of *hypostasis*, as Jerome testifies in the above-mentioned epistle. ^D

Page 202. *Ὁ δὲ Παυλῖνος οὐκ ἔστερξεν*. I do not agree with Theodoretus, who says that this condition, which Meletius had offered to Paulinus, was rejected by Paulinus. But Socrates and Sozomenus suggest the contrary, writing that they had agreed upon this by compact between Meletius and Paulinus, that upon the death of one of them, no one should be substituted into the place of the deceased. The same is also written in the letter of the Council of Aquileia to the Emperor Theodosius in these words: "We believe we have offered our prayers to your piety, in which, according to the pact of the parties (for that is how it should be written), we requested...">

that, since the city of Antioch has two bishops, Paulinus and Meletius, whom we considered to be of one mind in the faith, either peace and concord should be established between them while preserving ecclesiastical order, or at the very least, if one of them should die while the other survived, no successor should be appointed in the place of the deceased while the other survived." It is therefore false, as Theodoret writes, that Paulinus did not accept this condition. Wherefore Theodoret is rightly criticized by Baronius under the year of Christ 378, because, being too partial to Meletius and Flavian, he rashly and falsely slandered Paulinus. ^B *The commander surrendered the churches to Meletius.* I think this is to be understood as follows: not that Paulinus was despoiled of his church which he held at Antioch, but that the churches which Euzoius, the bishop of the Arians, had obtained at Antioch, were handed over to Meletius according to the rescript of Gratian. Moreover, Baronius rightly criticizes Theodoret here for making absolutely no mention of the Antiochene Council, which took place in this year, namely 378, and for minutely relating the disputation of the bishops of Antioch held before Sapor, while silently passing over what was in fact decreed by the bishops at the Council of Antioch. ^C Furthermore, concerning what was done at this Antiochene synod, Baronius has rightly observed it. For, first, it was decreed with the consent of the parties that, of the two bishops, Paulinus and Meletius, when one should die, no bishop should be substituted. Next, the rule of the Catholic faith was set forth, and the heresy of Apollinaris and others was condemned. Finally, legations of bishops to various provinces were decreed. These are the things which Baronius observed to have been done in that synod. Furthermore, the Tome of the Westerners was read in that synod—namely, the synodical epistle of Pope Damasus, to which 146 Eastern bishops subscribed, as may be read in the Roman collection of Lucas Holstenius, page 177, where, after the letter of Damasus to the Easterners, these things are added: "This letter or exposition of the Roman synod, held under Pope Damasus and transmitted to the East, is concluded, in which the entire Eastern Church, having held a synod at Antioch, confirms by individual subscription that they believe in a concordant faith and that all thus agree to the same faith set forth above. I, Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, consent to all things written above," etc. From which it appears that the legates of Pope Damasus were present at this Antiochene synod, and they also carried the subscriptions of the Eastern bishops back to Damasus. The same is also stated in the fifth canon of the Council of Constantinople, which is as follows: "Concerning the Tome of the Westerners, we have also received those who at Antioch confess the one Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." For the Tome of the Westerners is nothing other than the synodical epistle of the Roman council, to which the Eastern bishops gathered at Antioch had subscribed. Since, therefore, the Antiochene synod had received this Tome or booklet of the Westerners, and had confirmed the faith set forth therein, the Constantinopolitan synod also approved the same afterward. Finally, in that same Antiochene synod, a synodical letter was written to all the bishops of Italy and Gaul, which is found among the letters of Basil, no. 69. Certainly, at the end of that letter, the Easterners expressly affirm that they had consented to the synodical booklet, that is, the Tome of the Westerners. For those words must be translated thus: "Agreeing both to it and to all things canonically and lawfully prescribed in the synodical letter."

On Chapter IV

1582 *...appointed a shepherd for the people of Tarsus.* By the year of Christ 378, Diodorus was already Bishop of the Church of Tarsus. For he subscribed to the epistle of the Roman synod, or the Tome of the Westerners, at the Antiochene synod, as may be read in the Roman collection which we cited above. ^A *John.* This John, archpriest of the Church of Antioch, had been for a very long time under Meletius, the son of that famous abbess Publiana, who became most renowned during the times of Julian, as Theodoret writes in book III of his History, chapter 19.

PAGE 203. *He ordained Acacius in Beroea.* One may rightly ask by what authority Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata, ordained bishops in another's province. He was, indeed, himself the bishop of the Euphratensian province. For Samosata was a city of the Euphratensian province, whose metropolis was Hierapolis. And consequently he could not ordain suffragan bishops, namely for Hierapolis, Germanicea, Cyrrhus, or Doliche. For these cities were of the Euphratensian province, as we learn from the subscriptions of the Council of Chalcedon. In which, however, Hierapolis is positioned as the metropolis of the province of Augusta Euphratensis—for it should be written thus. And Samosata is placed as the second city of that province. Which indeed Ammianus Marcellinus confirms in book xiv, where he describes the provinces of the East. For he says the Euphratensian province is illustrious for the cities of Hierapolis and Samosata. Hierocles, however, in the *Notitia* of the provinces of the Roman Empire, places Samosata as the third city of the Euphratensian province. For he writes thus: “The province of Euphratensis under a governor, 12 cities: Hierapolis, Cyrrhus, Samosata, Doliche, Zeugma, Germanicea, Perrhe, etc.” Since, therefore, this Eusebius of whom the discourse treats here was not a metropolitan bishop, by what right could he perform ordinations of bishops, either in his own province, namely the Euphratensian, or in Coele-Syria and Osrhoene? Baronius resolves this difficulty under the year of Christ 378 by saying that Eusebius did this by the force and authority of a legation which had been entrusted to him by the Antiochene synod. For he says that in that synod legations of bishops to various provinces were decreed for the sake of composing the state of the churches. But first, those legations are very uncertain. For as for what Baronius writes there concerning the legation of Gregory of Nyssa, let us concede it, if you like, as having been decreed by the Antiochene synod, since Gregory himself testifies that he was sent by the council into Arabia. But concerning Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata, since nothing of the sort has been handed down by the ancients, we can neither grant it to Baronius, who affirms it, nor ought we to. For who would believe that the Antiochene synod gave power to Eusebius to ordain bishops, not only in one province, but in several, and indeed in Syria-Coele, which was the diocese of Meletius? Would not that have been insulting to Meletius, who nevertheless presided over that synod, as we learn from the Roman Collection? I believe, therefore, that Eusebius of Samosata, impelled by the Divine Spirit, performed these things extra-ordinarily in order to assist the struggling Church which was then being opposed by the Arians; and that Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, to whom that right and pontifical power belonged, afterward approved the ordinations made by him. For many similar things occur in ecclesiastical history, done against the rigor of the canons in a time of persecution, as I have already observed above on chapter 13 of book IV, by which we learn that Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata, had long before performed the same, and in the times of Valens Augustus had ordained presbyters, deacons, and bishops in foreign provinces. Therefore, just as at that time he did this without relying on any legation, so now also after his return from exile, he had no need of a legation to perform the same. Moreover, it is to be noted that this Eusebius had the greatest authority among the bishops of the East. For even in the Antiochene synod which was held this year, he signed first after Meletius. And in the synodical epistle of the same Meletius, which is found among the letters of Basil, number 69, he is named first after Meletius.

^A *Kai Eulegios ekeinos* (And that Eulegius). This Eulegius, bishop of Edessa, was present at the synod of Antioch and subscribed to the Western Tome along with the other bishops, as is read in the Roman Collection.

*Barses gar ho thes-pesios* (For the divine Barses). Theodoret says much about this Barses in Book IV of his *Ecclesiastical History*. There exists a letter of Basil the Great to him. Mention is made of him in the synodical letter of Meletius, bishop of Antioch, to the bishops of Italy and Gaul, which is read among the letters of Basil, no. 69. But his name is corrupted there. For *Narses* is written instead of *Barses*.

*In Chapter VII.*

PAG. 206. *Toutou de heneka* (For this reason). I do not agree with Theodoret. For Theodosius did not summon the bishops of the East alone to the synod of Constantinople for the reason that the provinces of the East alone were infected with the heretical plague; but because, since he himself was emperor of the East, he could not summon the Western bishops to his own synod, inasmuch as they were not established under his own empire and jurisdiction.

*In Chapter VII.*

*Nazianzon ta teleutaia poimanai* (To shepherd Nazianzus in his final days). Do not believe that the bishop of Nazianzus is designated by these words. For Gregory, before he was promoted to the bishopric of the Church of Constantinople, was not the bishop of Nazianzus, but only coadjutor to his father in the Nazianzene bishopric, without any bond of succession. And so, after the death of his father, he departed from the town of Nazianzus, as he himself testifies in his *Poem on his own Life*. This was indeed an error of Rufinus, who in Book XI of his *Ecclesiastical History*, chap. 9, writes that Gregory was substituted as bishop of Nazianzus in the place of his father, and then was made bishop of Constantinople. But Gregory himself refutes this error, as I have already said. Therefore, in this passage, *poimanai* should be understood not as for a bishop, but as for an assistant to the episcopal office. Unless we prefer to interpret these words *teleutaia* not as referring to the time that preceded Gregory’s bishopric of Constantinople, but to the final period of his life. For when Gregory had resigned his bishopric of Constantinople, he was bishop of Nazianzus during the final days of his life. And this sense pleases me more. For [this] seems to better fit the words of Theodoret.

*Ton kanona graphonton* (Those who write the canon). He understands canon 15 of the Council of Nicaea, which forbids bishops, presbyters, and deacons from being transferred from one Church to another. In violation of this canon, Gregory of Nazianzus had been transferred from the bishopric of Sasima to the bishopric of Constantinople. Wherefore his ordination is invalid, as the canons of Nicaea define. Certainly the Western bishops condemned it, as the letter of the Council of Aquileia shows. Theodoret, however, attempts to defend it, not absurdly.

*Teleiotheis euphimiais* (Perfected with praises). Thus even Jacob Sirmond published it, erroneously as it appears. We restored [the text] from the manuscript codex of Henry Savile and from the Basle edition: ^B *teleiotheis* (perfected). There is nothing more certain than this emendation. Furthermore, out of so many orations given at the funeral of the great Meletius, only the oration of Gregory of Nyssa survives today, at the beginning of which he makes mention of others who had spoken before him in the Church concerning the praises of the same Meletius.

*Timotheos de* (But Timothy). Theodoret is mistaken here. For it was not Timothy who ordained the Cynic Maximus bishop of Constantinople, but Peter, as Gregory of Nazianzus is witness in his iambic *Poem on his own Life*, who sent three bishops from Egypt to perform that ordination, just as the 5th letter of the bishops of Italy to the Emperor Theodosius teaches, which Jacob Sirmond published. Baronius indeed, in the year of Christ 379, chap. 25, says that Peter of Alexandria sent seven bishops of Egypt to carry this out. Whose names were these: Ammon, Apammon, Arpocras, Sippas, Rhodon, Anubis, and Hermanubis. But he is gravely hallucinating. For these seven were not bishops, but sailors or rather captains of the Alexandrian fleet, as Gregory testifies in his iambic poems, *dustēna nautarpidia*, etc. There exists an oration of Gregory of Nazianzus on their arrival. From which we also learn that they were not bishops but laymen: namely, Alexandrian sailors, who had transported grain from Egypt to Constantinople. By which point it is most strongly proven that they were not bishops. For the transport of grain does not befit episcopal dignity. Finally, in that entire oration, Gregory never calls them bishops, but always laymen, when he speaks so often [saying] "my people" or "the people of God." Lastly, those words of Gregory: "But after you have rendered to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, you have also rendered to God the things that are God’s—namely, tax to him, fear to the latter. And after you have fed the people with your own food, you yourselves also, being fed by us, arrive here." These words, I say, do they not clearly designate laymen and sailors who had transported the grain or the public contribution of the city of Constantinople?

PAG. 207. ^C *Synodiken epistolen ton tes duses* (The synodical letter of those of the West). This synodical epistle of the bishops of Italy written to the Emperor Theodosius exists, which Jacob Sirmond published in the *Appendix to the Theodosian Code*, page 104. In this epistle, the bishops of Italy demand that Nectarius, who had been ordained bishop in the synod of CP. after Maximus was deposed, should yield his place; or at least that a general council be held in Rome, in which judgment might be rendered concerning the ordination of Maximus and Nectarius. For thus the bishops of Italy say: "Nor do we see how it can otherwise be settled, unless he who was first ordained be restored to Constantinople. Or at least let our council and that of the Orientals be held in the city of Rome concerning the ordination of the two. For it does not seem unworthy, Augustus, that they should have to submit to the consideration of the Roman Church and the bishop of its borders and the Italian bishops, who have so thought that the judgment of one bishop, Acholius, was to be awaited, that they thought it [the council] should be summoned from the Western parts to Constantinople." Mention is made of the same epistle in the synodical letter of the Council of Constantinople, which Theodoret relates in the following chapter. Furthermore, whether besides this epistle to the Emperor Theodosius, the bishops of Italy wrote another synodical [letter] to the bishops gathered at Constantinople, is to me indeed unknown. However, I do not think it was done by them. For in the synodical letter, the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople only make mention of the epistle of the Emperor written to them on that matter: which the Emperor Theodosius had written to them at the request of the bishops of Italy. For that was what the bishops of Italy had demanded of him, admonished by the Emperor Gratian, as their aforementioned letter teaches.

*In Chapter IX.*

PAG. 209. *Ascholiō*. He had been present at the Constantinopolitan synod the previous year, which was the year of Christ 384, the only one of the Western bishops, as I observed above. Wherefore it is not strange if, when he was a bishop of the Western parts, he came to the Roman synod which was celebrated in the year of Christ 382, but had been indicted at the end of the previous year by Damasus, the Roman pontiff. Anemius, however, who is named here after Ascholius, was bishop of Sirmium, who had been present at the Council of Aquileia. But of what city Britto was bishop, I indeed do not know. ^D I suspect, however, that he was bishop of Capua.

*Megale polei Rhōmē* (Great city of Rome). It is written more correctly in the Basle codex *megalopolei* here and a little later where Constantinople is mentioned. Certainly Rome is called *megalopolis* by the Greeks, as I observed in my Eusebian annotations. Eusebius also names Constantinople thus in his books *On the Life of Constantine*, and John Chrysostom and others.

^A *Tôn pathôn to plêthos.* In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile it is written *tôn pathêmatôn*, as Jacob Sirmond also edited it.

*Kai protimêseis poleôn* ("and the preferences of cities"). Henry Savile placed a small line under the former word in his codex and marked a cross in the margin to indicate that this word was corrupt. Camerarius and Sirmond interpreted it as "many cities," which I do not approve of. For *prostimesis* does not signify a "mulct" or fine. It should rather be said to be *prostima* or *epitimia*. Nor does Christophorsonus translate it any better as "the losses of the cities which they inhabited." I would prefer to translate it as "the changes of cities." For he who suffers persecution is compelled to change his soil and to prefer foreign cities to his own country, which is what *protimêsis* means. This word could also be explained in another way: concerning cities that have been fined a large sum of money by the emperors for the defense of the Catholic faith. For the bishops speak first of the cities that have been shaken by the storm of persecution, and then of the individual citizens. Therefore, those words, *chrêmatôn de zêmias kai protimêseis tôn poleôn*, are to be read in one breath. And this explanation pleases me more at present. We must only write *prostimeseis*.

PAG. 200. *Ek tôn perusi grammatôn* ("From the letters of last year"). I understand this to be the letter of the Council of Italy to the Emperor Theodosius, of which we spoke above. This letter was written after the Council of Aquileia, as the Fathers of the Synod of CP teach, namely by the bishops who had remained at Aquileia after the council was celebrated in the year of Christ 381, in the month of September.

PAG. 210. *Hagiôn Theophorôn*. These two words are missing in Nicephorus, nor are they contained in the version of Epiphanius Scholasticus. They are, however, a customary epithet by which recent Greeks are accustomed to designate the bishops of the Council of Nicaea.

*Tauta gar.* These are written at the beginning in the Basle edition. But for *tauta*, in Savile’s codex and in Nicephorus, we read *tautê*, which reading Jacob Sirmond followed.

*Hên molis pote.* Henry Savile noted in his codex: "The oration is imperfect." But Jacob Sirmond, following I know not which codex, boldly expunged these words, though they are found in all our copies and in the Basle edition, as well as in Nicephorus and Epiphanius. If Savile and Sirmond had followed the traces of the entire oration more attentively, they would certainly have seen that ^B the word *sôzomen* ("we preserve") is to be understood here, which is introduced after a long circuit of words in this way: *Kai ton tês enanthrôpêseôs de tou Kyriou logon adiastrophon sôzomen* ("And we preserve the account of the Lord’s incarnation undistorted").

*Teleias hypostasesin.* In Nicephorus we read *teleiotatais*, as Epiphanius Scholasticus also reads, as appears from his version. For thus he translates it: "in three most perfect substances."

PAG. 211. *Tô te en Antiocheia tomô para tês ekei synodou*. He understands the Antiochene synod which took place in the year of Christ 378, concerning which I have observed more above. In that synod, a formula of faith had been established, to which the anathemas against various heresies were thereafter subjoined according to custom. Thus, at the Synod of Nicaea, after the exposition of the faith, the anathemas are subjoined. In the same Antiochian synod, the *Tomus* of the Westerners, that is, the synodical letter of Pope Damasus, was read and confirmed, as I have demonstrated above. For the 5th canon of the Synod of CP says of this: *Peri tou tomou tôn Dytikôn. Kai tous en Antiocheia apedexametha, tous mian homologountas Patros kai Huiou kai Hagiou Pneumatos theotêta* ("Concerning the Tomus of the Westerners. And we received those at Antioch, who confess one divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"). For he understands the bishops who had gathered at Antioch three years before, and who had confirmed with their subscription the *Tomus* of the Westerners, in which the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one is asserted, as has been shown above from the Roman collection. Baronius wrongly thought that the followers of Paulinus and Meletius were meant by that canon.

^C *Para tês oikoumenikês*. I wonder how the Orientals, writing to the Roman synod, could call their synod *oikoumenikê*, that is, universal or general. I confess, indeed, that the Synod of CP was finally held as general, with the consent of the Western Church following. But at the time they wrote this letter to the Roman synod, the Synod of CP could not be called universal. For we understand a universal synod to be that to which bishops have been summoned from the whole world. But to the Synod of CP, bishops gathered only from the parts of the East, as we have shown above, when Theodosius, who gathered it, held the empire of the East alone. Someone might perhaps say that Ascholius, a bishop of the Western parts, attended that synod. I confess that, indeed. But Ascholius did not act on behalf of all the Westerners, nor did he subscribe to that synod for all the Westerners. Certainly, the Westerners did not for a long time consider this Synod of CP to be ecumenical, as the letter of the Council of Italy to the Emperor Theodosius teaches in these words: "We therefore decided that nothing should be rashly decreed in that synod, which seemed to be prescribed for the bishops of the whole world. But at that very time, what is said to have happened at Constantinople by those who had declined the general council? For when they had known that Maximus had come to these parts for the sake of pleading his cause in the synod, where even if no council had been indicted, etc." You see how they oppose a general council to the Synod of CP, calling that a general council which had been indicted at Rome by Damasus in the year of Christ 380 for examining the case of Maximus the Cynic. When the Eastern bishops had refused this, the bishops of Italy again in the year of Christ 381, after the Council of Aquileia, asked the Emperor Theodosius that a general synod of Orientals and Westerners be gathered at Rome. The Western bishops, therefore, did not hold the Synod of CP to be ecumenical, since they disapproved of its acts—namely, the ordination of Flavian and Nectarius—and since they complained that through those ordinations, communion between themselves and the Eastern bishops had been broken ^D.

*Anadedechthai tous hiereis*. I have corrected this passage from Savile’s codex and from Nicephorus, in which *anadedechthai* is read. And thus also Christophorsonus and Sirmond read. Epiphanius Scholasticus, indeed, defends the vulgar reading. But the things that follow sufficiently show that it must be written as I said. For it follows concerning the bishops of Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem, who had been ordained or confirmed in the Constantinopolitan synod. But no mention is made of Timothy of Alexandria, for the reason that he had been neither ordained nor confirmed in the aforesaid synod.

*In caput X.*

PAG. 212. *Synodikon Damasou*. Baronius says that this letter was written by Damasus in the year of Christ 373, in the Roman synod. But I do not doubt that this synodical letter of Damasus was written long after that Roman synod which was celebrated in the year of Christ 373. For Damasus himself in this synodical letter clearly testifies that Apollinaris and Timotheus, his disciple, had long since been condemned and deposed by him, in the presence of Peter, bishop of the city of Alexandria. But Apollinaris was first condemned by Damasus in the Roman synod in the year of Christ 373, as Baronius himself admits. Peter of Alexandria attended this synod, as Sozomen also testifies. This synodical letter, therefore, must have been written long after that Roman synod, since mention is made in this synodical letter of that synod in which Apollinaris had been condemned.

*Heautois to pleiston parechete*. Whoever translated this synodical letter of Damasus into the Greek language seems to me to have slipped in this place, having chanced upon a faulty codex. For Damasus had, without doubt, written...

^A to us most of all, as the sense and the sequence of the discourse demands. But he himself reads it to you, without any sense.

PAG. 213. "For already once [I have given] a pattern." He understands, I suppose, the letter written to Paulinus, bishop of Antioch, which is subjoined here by Theodoret.

*In Chapter XI.* "To Paulinus, bishop in Macedonia." Camerarius and Christophorsonus have interpreted this as "Paulinus, bishop of Thessalonica in Macedonia." Baronius, following their interpretation, gravely rebukes Theodoret, because he made Paulinus a Thessalonian from being the bishop of Antioch, with the intention of concealing the communion of Paulinus with Damasus. But Theodoret does not say this; he only says that Pope Damasus sent a confession of faith to Paulinus, when Paulinus was in Thessalonica in Macedonia. James Sirmond therefore correctly translates this passage thus: *The confession of the Catholic faith, which Pope Damasus sent into Macedonia to Bishop Paulinus, when he was in Thessalonica.* Baronius himself had seen this, and had acknowledged that Theodoret was rebuked by him unworthily, since that error is to be assigned to the interpreters, and not to Theodoret, as Baronius testifies at the year 378, chapter 44. This letter of Damasus exists in the volumes of the Councils and in the Annals of Baronius, and most recently in the Roman Collection of Luke Holsten, with this title: *To my most beloved brother Paulinus, Damasus.* But although the name of the city of which Paulinus was bishop is not added, yet the name of Vitalis, of whom there is mention in it, sufficiently indicates that Paulinus was the Antiochene one.

"Who was in Thessalonica." That is, when Paulinus was in Thessalonica. For thus Baronius and Sirmond correctly translate, as I noted above: therefore it would be better read, *ὅτε ἐγένετο*, etc. But there is a difficulty as to when Paulinus, bishop of Antioch, came to Thessalonica. Baronius, at the year of Christ 382, testifies that Paulinus came to Rome together with Epiphanius and Jerome to the Roman synod, which was celebrated in that year. Then, therefore, Pope Damasus sent this synodical letter to him when Paulinus, having departed from Rome, together with Ascholius, who had been present at that same synod, had remained in Thessalonica. Wherefore this synodical letter was written in the year of Christ 382, shortly after the Roman synod. Which indeed agrees excellently with Theodoret, who reports this synodical letter after the Constantinopolitan synod, while Gratian was still living. Nor must Baronius be listened to, who refers this letter of Damasus to Paulinus to the Roman synod which was celebrated in the year of Christ 373.

"Since after the council in Nicaea." In the Latin copy of this letter, there are added certain things not to be despised, which the Greek interpreter omitted. Thus, therefore, the authentic copy of this letter holds: *After the Nicene council, and the council which was gathered in the city of Rome by the Catholic bishops, they added: On the Holy Spirit,* etc. If these are genuine—and indeed they are not devoid of all suspicion—the Roman synod is understood, which Sylvester is said to have gathered at Rome for the confirmation of the Nicene synod.

PAG. 214. "But those from the churches to others." Damasus had commanded the same in his first letter to Acholius, Euridicus, Severus, and others, which Luke Holsten edited: *This, moreover, I advise your affection, that you do not permit anyone contrary to the statutes of our ancestors to be transferred from one city to another, and to abandon the flock entrusted to him, and to pass to another people through ambition. For then contentions arise, then more serious schisms happen, when those who have lost their priest cannot be without sorrow of mind; and those who have received the bishop of another city, even if they rejoice, ^B understand that it will be invidious to them to act under a foreign priest.* And therefore Damasus, both in the letter to Acholius and in the synodical letter to Paulinus, earnestly forbids this, because such translations had prevailed especially in the parts of the East.

"If anyone does not say that the Word of God suffered in the flesh." This anathema is absent from the Roman Collection of Luke Holsten; nor is it held in the version of Epiphanius Scholasticus.

PAG. 215. "And crucified in the flesh." These words are not read in the Basle edition. Nor do they seem at all necessary.

"And the God, the Word of God." In the Roman Collection it is read more correctly *and God of the universe*. But the Greek interpreter seems to have read *and God the Word*.

"And in every place of the earth." The last word is missing in the manuscript codex of Savile, nor is it held in the version of Epiphanius Scholasticus, nor in the Roman Collection.

"Of the Son who was made flesh." The last two words are not held in the version of Epiphanius Scholasticus, nor in the Roman Collection of Luke Holsten.

"To the ever-living." In the Latin copy from which these were translated, it is read *the equals [who are] always living*. And therefore it seems it should be written in Greek *ἴσα ἀεὶ ζῶντα*. Certainly Epiphanius Scholasticus reads thus in his codex, as is evident from his version.

"Saving all." In the Latin copy of this letter, more are read in this way: *All things which are to be saved, saving.*

"One God in three hypostases." The last three words are missing in the Latin copy, and in the version of Epiphanius Scholasticus.

"But of our God, it is shown." It should be written *ἡμῖν* from the Roman Collection. And the whole passage is to be restored thus: *Not the name of the gods, but of God it is shown to us,* etc.

*In Chapter XIII.* PAG. 216. "To bring the deceit." I would prefer to write *προενεγκεῖν*.

"Being led." It should be written *θηγόμενος*, having taken away the first syllable, as it is read in the manuscript codex of Henry Savile. Thus also James Sirmond edited it.

*In Chapter XVI.* PAG. 218. "But recently he had been ordained." Arcadius Augustus was proclaimed by his father in the consulship of Merobaudes and Saturninus. Finally, eight years later, Theodosius departed from Italy and returned to Constantinople, in which city Amphilochius thus addressed Theodosius. At which time, indeed, Arcadius cannot be called a new emperor.

"He wrote laws immediately." There exist many laws of Emperor Theodosius, promulgated against heretics, which are read in book XVI of the Theodosian Code. But I find none among them which can fit this time, in which Theodosius had returned from Italy to Constantinople. Wherefore I fear that Theodoret here has confused the order of times. Before me, Baronius observed the same, who, refuting the error of Theodoret by the very same arguments which we have used, compares this act of Amphilochius to the year of Christ 383, in which, notably, Arcadius was called Augustus by his father.

*In Chapter XVIII.* PAG. 220. "Rufinus, master." Rufinus was Master of Offices in the fourth consulship of Valentinian Augustus and the consulship of Neoterius in the year of Christ 390, as the third law of the Theodosian Code *concerning the fabricenses* teaches. In which year, indeed, that Thessalonian slaughter happened, as Baronius correctly observed. But Zosimus also in book IV testifies that Rufinus was Master of Offices during these times.

PAG. 221. "He will transgress the divine law." Baronius, at the year of Christ 390, describing this passage of Theodoret, explains it thus: He said this for this reason for

^A that he knew that there was a law in the Church that penitents should be reconciled by the bishop only around the Paschal season. Unless you would rather say that he was alluding to that ecclesiastical law which provides that a voluntary homicide should not be admitted to communion except at the point of death. But, with the permission of the illustrious cardinal, neither exposition pleases me. For bishops were not so constrained that they could not reconcile penitents before the Paschal season. Therefore, Theodoret calls it the divine law that penitents should not be admitted to peace and communion before having publicly performed their penance. For Theodosius, after the admonition of Ambrose, had indeed abstained from entering the church; but he had made no confession, nor had he displayed any sign of penance. For he had neither stood in the order of the penitents, nor had he publicly begged for pardon, as if that were unworthy of imperial majesty. Therefore, the divine law is that none should approach the sanctuary except the holy and those who have clean hands, or at least those who have been purified through penance. Theodoret confirms this exposition a little later, where he says: "And he said that Theodosius was enraged against God and was trampling upon His laws."

"To the reception-room." Josephus Scaliger in book II of the *Ansoniana Lectiones*, chap. 23, says that by Theodoret the *hospitium episcopale* (the bishop's lodging) where strangers were received is called *ἀσπαστικὸν οἶκον*. But in our annotations to book XV of Ammianus Marcellinus, page 87, we showed that the *ἀσπαστικὸν οἶκον* is nothing other than a welcome-hall, as Epiphanius Scholasticus correctly translates it, or the secretary's office of the church, in which the bishop, sitting with the presbyters, was accustomed to be greeted by the faithful who came to the church.

PAG. 221. "And to cure the incurable." These words are missing in the seventh codex of Henry Savile, nor are they contained in the version of Epiphanius Scholasticus. And so, not without reason, Sirmond expunged them in his edition.

"That the law should be written." The same [author] writes in book X of his *History*, chap. 18, thus saying: "He ordained by law that in the future, of the sentences pronounced by princes concerning capital punishment, the executioners should defer the execution for thirty days." Cassiodorus reports the law itself in his *Historia Tripartita*. And it exists in both Codes, both of Theodosius and of Justinian, but with the name of Gratian and Valentinian prefixed to it, given under the consulship of Antonius and Siagrius, eight years before the massacre of the Thessalonians. This matter put Baronius into a great difficulty, as can be seen at the year of Christ 390. Which indeed he tries to solve by saying that the title and subscription of the law were altered by antiquarians for the sake of Theodosius, so that his crime might be hidden by that means. I, however, judge otherwise: that this law was indeed first passed by Gratian, in the consulship I mentioned; but later, on the occasion of the massacre of the Thessalonians, it was renewed by Theodosius, yet the former title of the law always remained, which bore the name of Gratian.

*In caput XIX.*

PAG. 223. "For that marriage." The things which Theodoret reports here concerning the virtues of the Augusta Flaccilla are indeed true. But they have no relevance to this place: For Flaccilla had departed from this life long before the disaster of the Thessalonians, and after her death Theodosius had taken Galla as his wife.

*In caput XX.*

PAG. 224. "Whereas the law prevents, which Ambrose." Theodoret is greatly mistaken here, as if the Antiochene sedition had happened after the disaster of the Thessalonians. But that Antiochene sedition happened in the year of Christ 383, as Baronius writes, in the consulship of Theodosius and Cynegius, whereas the Thessalonian disaster happened in the year 390.

PAG. 225. "Touching the chlamys of the other." I have translated "chlamys," following Epiphanius Scholasticus ^B who translated it that way. Indeed, I have observed that *chlamys* is very often used by writers or copyists for *chlamys* (a cloak). But here *chlamys* fits Hellebicus and Caesarius very well, of whom the former was Master of the Soldiers, and the latter Master of the Offices: which was the Palatine military service. There exist orations of Libanius to both of these judges, that is, to Hellebicus and Caesarius, who had been sent to Antioch by Theodosius.

*In caput XXI.*

"They were asking for forgiveness." It would be written better ^C *ἐζήτουν* (they were seeking). "For Constantine indeed the Great." There exists an oration of Libanius to the Emperor Theodosius in favor of the temples, in which he teaches how the Christian emperors behaved toward the pagans. And he says that Constantine the Great merely despoiled the temples: but that Constantius, his son, forbade sacrifices: and that his law was observed by the succeeding emperors and by Theodosius himself: but the rest was permitted to the pagans, that is, the burning of incense and public banquets. "But Valens." Libanius indicates in book IV, epist. 225 to Ariston, that during his reign gentile sacrifices were permitted.

"With the shields." Epiphanius Scholasticus and the remaining interpreters translated it "with shields." But I have preferred to translate it "with goatskins." For these were used in the orgies of Bacchus. *Aegis* is properly a goatskin, as *nebris* is a deerskin. A little later, where it reads "the assembly of the teacher," Epiphanius Scholasticus and Christophorson and Sirmond read "the assembly of the ignorant," which I do not approve.

Pag. 227. "The prefect of the East." Cynegius, namely, the Praetorian Prefect of the East, who was sent by Theodosius into the East and Egypt to close the temples of the gods and to forbid sacrifices, as Zosimus testifies in book IV of his *History*. Concerning this, Idatius writes thus in his *Fasti*, in the consulship of Theodosius Aug. II and Cynegius. He recalled all the provinces, which had fallen away through the passage of long time, to their pristine state: and he penetrated as far as Egypt, and overthrew the images of the gentiles. Whence, with the great weeping of the whole people of the city, his body was brought to the apostles on the 14th day before the Kalends of April, and after a year his wife, the noblewoman Acanthia, transported it on foot to the Spains. From which it is clear that either Cynegius himself, or his wife Acanthia, was of Spanish origin.

"Of Zeus." Libanius speaks of the Zeus who was worshipped at Apamea in book IV, epist. 290 to Alexander: "Doing well at Apamea, the friend of Zeus, or remaining in honoring Zeus, because there were punishments for honoring the gods."

"And happened to be answering." I would prefer to write *ἀντιγραφῶν* with the accent changed. For *ἀντιγραφή* signifies a written response. A little later, instead of "he bound for himself a crown," I have emended it to *ἀνεδήσατο* as it is read in the Basel edition and in the manuscript codex of Savile.

*In caput XXIII.*

PAG. 229. "It is fitting that a shepherd be." It should be written *προσήκει*, as James Sirmond edited it. For *ποιμένα* is understood, which preceded it. Furthermore, concerning the ordination of Flavian, the bishop of Antioch, we have nothing more certain than what is reported in the synodical epistle of the Council of Constantinople to the Roman synod, even though Baronius tries to refute that testimony.

PAG. 230. "For not in his own place." This is specifically forbidden by canon 23 of the Council of Antioch. But what follows, "and that all be called together," designates canon 19 of the same Council of Antioch. "Again without three bishops." He understands canon IV of the Council of Nicaea, in which it is clearly provided that the ordination of any bishop should not be celebrated except in the presence of three bishops, in such a way, however, that the remaining provincial bishops consent to the ordination by letters. Furthermore, in the Basel edition this passage is read thus.

^A *δíχα τριῶν ἐπισκόπων ἐπισκόπου χειροτονίαν ἀπαγορεύουσι γίνεσθαι*, which is more pleasing. *Οὐ μόνον ὁ θαυμάσιος Δάμασος* (Not only the admirable Damasus). In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile, a particle is added in this way: *οὐ γὰρ μόνον*, etc., which indeed is not displeasing. *Ψῆφον δέχομαι* (I accept the vote). In another Royal codex, whose variant readings Stephanus published, *ποίαν ψῆφον* is read; this reading Jacob Sirmond has embraced. Truly, the Savile codex and the Basel edition uphold the common reading. *Σύνδικος γεγενῆσθαι* (to have acted as advocate). In the Basel edition I found *σύνδικος προβεβλήσθαι* written, as Jacob Sirmond also published. I approve of that reading more.

PAG. 231. *Ἀκάκιος* (Acacius). Regarding the embassy and arrival of this Acacius, bishop of Beroea, to the city of Rome, Palladius writes in the *Life of John Chrysostom*, and Sozomen in book VIII of his *History*. And Sozomen indeed refers this embassy of Acacius to the beginning of the pontificate of John Chrysostom, that is, in the year of Christ 398. This can in no way be reconciled with the narrative of Theodoret, who refers it to the times of Theodosius the Great. But our Theodoret cannot be excused in any way, as he says that Theodosius was questioned regarding this matter by Anastasius, the Roman pontiff. Yet Theodosius had departed from the living before the pontificate of Anastasius.

*Ἑπτακαιδέκα ἐτῶν* (seventeen years). Baronius, at the year of Christ 398, chapter 80, says that Theodoret errs here, as he says that Flavian of Antioch was reconciled with the Roman pontiff seventeen years after the discord had arisen between them. But this discord had begun in the reign of Julian the Apostate, because of the election of Paulinus carried out by Lucifer, as Baronius wishes. If you count seventeen years from that time, this embassy must be referred to the year of Christ 379, when Theodosius began to reign: which is most absurd. I, however, think that Baronius errs rather, as he traces that discord which Theodoret mentions here back to the times of Julian. But it should rather be traced from the ordination of Flavian, that is, from the year of Christ 381. For before that, through that agreement which had been made between Paulinus and Meletius, the dissension seemed to have been put to rest. Which Flavian’s election later stirred up. Therefore, from the year 381, when Flavian assumed the Antiochian episcopate, to the year of Christ 398, when Acacius undertook that embassy, there are seventeen years.

*In caput XXIV.*

PAG. 233. *Ἀπαλλάξαντα βιοτῆς* (having freed from life). Jacob Sirmond published *ἀπαλλάξοντα*, from the books of Christophorson; which is not displeasing. In the manuscript codex of Henry Savile, it is read *ἀπαλλάξειν*, erroneously, as it appears.

*In caput XXVIII.*

PAG. 235. *Εἰς ἐξ δὲ αὕτη ἡγεμονίας* (And this into six provinces). Very poorly did Christophorson translate it as "divided into six bishoprics." For there were many more bishoprics in Thrace. More correctly, therefore, Camerarius and Sirmond translated it as "provinces." For there were six provinces of the Thracians, as Ammianus Marcellinus and the *Notitia Imperii Romani* teach; they were all under the jurisdiction of the Vicar of the Thracian diocese. With similar error, Christophorson a little later, where Asia is said to be ruled by eleven presidents, translated it as "bishops." Yet Asia had many more bishops. But it had only eleven secular governors or judges. For there were that many provinces of Asia, as Hierocles teaches in his description of the provinces and cities of the Eastern Empire: of which Asia properly so-called, and the Hellespont, and the islands, were under the jurisdiction of the proconsul of Asia. The remaining eight, however—namely, Pamphylia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Lycaonia, Pisidia, Phrygia Pacatiana, Phrygia Salutaris—each indeed had its own consular; all, however, were under the jurisdiction of the Vicar of the Asian diocese.

PAG. 236. *Ἰσαρίθμους δὲ καὶ αὕτη* (And this one [is] equal in number). By a similar error, Christophorson attributes only eleven bishops to the Pontic diocese. But Theodoret is not speaking here of bishops, but of the judges or governors of the provinces. For there were eleven provinces of the Pontic diocese, each of which had its own governor, as can be seen in Hierocles. All, however, were under the jurisdiction of the Vicar of the Pontic diocese.

*In caput XXXIII.*

*Ὑπήντησέ τε προθύμως* (And he met [him] willingly). The adverb *προθύμως* is missing from the manuscript codex of Henry Savile and in the Basel edition, and it seems to me altogether useless and superfluous.

*In caput XXXIV.*

PAG. 239. *Ἱερεῦσι πιστεύσας* (Having trusted to the priests). The Savile codex adds a particle in this way: *ὡς ἱερεῦσι*. And thus also Jacob Sirmond published it.

*Κατέλυθεν ἱερόν* (He destroyed the temple). Hieron was a very famous naval station, situated at the mouth of the Pontus, so called from the temple of the twelve gods which had been built there, as Harpocration teaches regarding the word *ἐφ’ ἱερόν* from Demosthenes. Demosthenes mentions that place in his Oration against Leptines, and in the Oration against Polycles. This place was once frequented by the Athenians, who used to buy grain from the Bosporus, as Demosthenes teaches. For this place was very convenient and, as it were, a certain barrier of the Euxine Sea. Therefore, the Byzantines, since they sought after the mastery of that sea, had purchased that place for a vast sum of money, as Polybius teaches in book IV. Certainly Arrian, in his *Periplus of the Euxine Sea*, says that this place is a *ἀφετηρίον* for those who sail into the Pontus, that is, a barrier or a grating.

*Λαμπάδας προάπτοντες* (lighting torches). In the Savile codex and in the Basel edition I found *προσάπτοντες* written, which is more pleasing.

*Ὑπὸ βασιλέως ἐξελαθῆναι* (to be driven out by the king). The codex of Henry Savile has written *βασιλέων*. If this is the true reading, we must understand Eudoxia Augusta together with Arcadius.

PAG. 240. *Εἰς ἐκεῖνο τὸ συνέδριον* (Into that council). Jacob Sirmond published *εἰς συνέδριον*, against the authority of all the books. For what is brought forward from the books of Christophorson in the Cologne edition, I think is that conjecture of a learned man rather than a reading of the written codices. I would not, however, condemn that reading. For that town, Pityus, was situated on an island, as Ammianus Marcellinus testifies in book XXII, in these words: "The islands of Ardua, Trapezunta, and Pityunta containing not obscure towns."

*In caput XXXV.*

PAG. 241. *Συμμαχοῦσαν ἔχων* (having as an ally). For *συμμαχοῦσαν*, Nicephorus has *συμβαίνουσαν*, which indeed pleases me more.

*Ἡ παραπλησία* (The similar [one]). We have restored the genitive in this place for the dative, the Savile codex and the Basel edition persuading us so. For I have observed that Theodoret generally uses the genitive instead of the dative. Thus, in chapter 30 of this book, he said: *ὁμογλώττους γὰρ ἐκείνων* (for of the same language as them). Not as the common editions have *ἐκείνοις*; and in chapter 28, speaking about the Pontic diocese, he writes thus: *Ἰσαρίθμους δὲ καὶ αὕτη ἔχει τῆς Ἀσίας τοὺς ἡγουμένους* (and this one also has an equal number of leaders as Asia). Instead of what others might say, *τῆς Ἀσίας*.

*Καὶ τοὺς λοιπούς* (And the rest). It is written more correctly in the manuscript codex of Henry Savile as *Καὶ τοὺς πολλούς* (And the many). For thus Theodoret is accustomed to refer to the laity, as can be seen in book I of his *History*, chapter 22. Thus also Jacob Sirmond published it.

*In caput XXXVII.*

PAG. 242. *Περί τινος δεόμενος* (Asking about something). In the codex of Savile

it is written. Epiphanius ^A Scholasticus, however, maintains the vulgate reading. For he translates thus: "A certain man of monastic life approached the emperor, asking about a certain matter." Nicephorus also retained the same reading. For he has *περί του δεησόμενος*.

PAG. 243. *Tῷ δεδωκότι*. I would prefer to write *τῷ δεδεκότι*. Epiphanius Scholasticus certainly seems to have read it this way, as is apparent from his version. For he translates thus: "Asking that he might order him who had bound him, that he should loose his own bonds." Furthermore, this narrative is to be noted primarily for many reasons. For first, it can be concluded from it that penance was not entirely abrogated by Nectarius. For we see that excommunication was used at that time, which was followed by absolution, which cannot exist without penance. Furthermore, this narrative wonderfully confirms that common rule of canon law which says that excommunication is to be feared, even if it is unjust. For you see the emperor unexcommunicated without cause, yet not scorning the excommunication. Finally, this narrative teaches us that it is the business of the same man to loose who bound. Wherefore the emperor, having been bound by a cleric of inferior rank, was not content with the absolution of his own pontiff, but wished to be absolved by him who had bound him. And Theodoret praises this act of the emperor, because in it he obeyed divine laws. And Theodoret indeed does not say that the man by whom Theodosius had been excommunicated was a presbyter. Yet I do not doubt that he was a presbyter. For how could he have usurped the right of excommunicating and absolving, if he had not been constituted in the presbyterate? Hence it is also that the emperor sent to the bishop, asking that he command that man as his own cleric, so that absolution might be granted to him. But whether a simple presbyter has the right to excommunicate, I leave to be investigated by others. From this narrative, however, it seems to be gathered that that right does not belong to him unless it was commanded by the bishop.

*Ροΐλος Σκυθῶν τῶν νομάδων.* In Nicephorus and Epiphanius Scholasticus *Ροΐλας* (Roilas) is written, more correctly, I think. This is, as I think, Roas, who ruled over the Hunnic tribes before Attila, as Priscus writes in his *Gothic History*, and Jordanes. In Priscus it is called *Ροῦας*.

*In caput XXXVIII.* PAG. 244. *Ἰοκέντιος δέ.* We began the chapter from these words. Which conjecture there will be no one, I think, who does not approve. For the things which precede relate to the previous chapter.

*Πραΰλιος ἀνὴρ φερώνυμος.* That is, *πρᾶος* (meek). For Praylius is a diminutive name. Mention of this Praylius, bishop of Jerusalem, is made in the *Life of Porphyry*, bishop of Gaza, and he is said to have been bishop of Caesarea in Palestine at the same time. By whom Porphyry was ordained bishop as by a metropolitan.

*Ἀπαχθείς.* Epiphanius Scholasticus took this word actively. For he translates thus: "Asking them that they might be united to the remaining fold." Christophorsonus followed the same sense. But Jacob Sirmond more correctly accepted it in the passive meaning. Therefore I understand that Theodotus was asked by the faithful to join the Apollinarists, who were very few, to the rest of the body of the Church. It is strange, however, that Camerarius fell into error in the interpretation of this word, who translates thus: "In the highest labor of joining them with the Church."

*In caput XXXIX.* PAG. 245. *Τοὺς τὰ στοιχεῖα θεοποιοῦντας.* The word *στοιχεῖα* in this place does not signify the four elements. For the Magi among the Persians did not worship the four elements, but only fire and the moon and the sun, just as Epiphanius teaches in the *Epilogue* of his books against heresies: "Magusaei called by the Persians, who, while abhorring idols, yet worship idols, that is, the moon and the sun." Certainly the Greeks usually call the sun and the moon *στοιχεῖα*. For John Chrysostom writes thus in *Homily 58* on Matthew concerning lunatics: "For the demon, attacking the *στοιχεῖον*, sets upon those who are caught, and releases them according to the courses of the moon." But also the Latins sometimes use the name "elements" for the sun and the moon and the remaining planets. Jerome in his *Epistle to Hedybia*, question 4: "Every week," he says, "is divided into the Sabbath, and the first, and the second, and the third, and the 4th, and the 5th, and the sixth day of the Sabbath, which the Gentiles call by the names of idols and elements." Nor does Gregory of Nyssa take this name any differently in the *Life of Saint Macrina*, where he says that the boldness of painters is so great, "that the likenesses of the very elements are depicted through imitation." Moreover, they also called the twelve signs of the zodiac so, as I observed in the *Eusebian Annotations*, page 54.

PAG. 246. *Καταχρήσαντες.* We have restored *καταχρίσαντες*, as the codex of Savile has. And thus also Christophorsonus reads: for he translates "anointing." Camerarius and Sirmond "stopping up." I would prefer to interpret it as "daubing," which is done with lime and gypsum.

PAG. 248. *Εἴσω θεῖναι.* More correctly in the manuscript codex of Henry Savile it is written as one word *εἰσωθῆναι*, which is the same as *εἰσελθεῖν*. Sirmond, however, published *εἴσω θεῖναι* against the faith of all codices.

*Ἀβροὺς καὶ ἀνημέρους.* The emendation of this place is due to the codex of Henry Savile, in which it is written explicitly *ἀνειμένους*, undoubtedly most excellently.

*In caput XL.* Θεόδωρος ὁ Μοψουεστίας. Pope Gregory in *Epistle 31, book vi*, says that the ecclesiastical history of Theodoret is not accepted by the Roman Church for the reason chiefly that he too much praised Theodore of Mopsuestia, and pronounced him to have been a great doctor of the Church until the day of his death. I know indeed that in the aforementioned epistle of Gregory, Sozomen is mentioned, not Theodoret. But I do not doubt that Gregory slipped through a fault of memory, and put Sozomen in place of Theodoret. Baronius indeed, both in his *Annotations to the Roman Martyrology* and in his *Ecclesiastical Annals* for the year of Christ 427, attempts to defend Gregory from error. For he says that the last book of the *History* of Sozomen came to us mutilated, and that many chapters are missing in it. In those, therefore, he says it was written that which is said by Gregory concerning Theodore of Mopsuestia. But this is nothing other than guessing. For in the times of Gregory the Great, the ecclesiastical *History* of Sozomen contained nothing more than what we now have. Certainly Cassiodorus who lived long before Gregory, and who wove the ecclesiastical *History* of Sozomen into his *Tripartite*, did not have more complete codices of Sozomen. Whence then could Gregory have obtained more complete ones? For I hold it as certain that Gregory the Great read Sozomen nowhere else than in the *Tripartite History*. Furthermore, in *book x* of the *Tripartite History*, *chapter 34*, it is written thus: "But at that time when Theodotus most holy was ruling the Church of Antioch, Theodore of Mopsuestia, bishop, but doctor of the whole Church, etc." When Gregory had read this formerly, he thought it was taken from Sozomen, for the reason that the name of no writer, neither his nor of many preceding chapters, was prefixed to the title. Hence it happened that through a fault of memory he wrote Sozomen instead of Theodoret.

*Πάσης μὲν Ἐκκλησίας διδάσκαλος.* Concerning Theodore of Mopsuestia, bishop, there have been varied judgments of men. For he was praised by many Fathers of the Church, John Chrysostom, Cyril, and Ibas of Edessa in his letter to Maris the Persian, and by Facundus of Hermiane; to omit our Theodoret. But others, and especially the Acephali, censured many things in his writings, objecting three things especially to him, to which Facundus responds sharply in *book ix*, for the defense of the three chapters. However, his books were condemned.

at the Constantinopolitan synod under Justinian, to which view the whole Church finally acquiesced, as Pope Gregory teaches in Epistle 31, book vi. That our Theodoret favored it is not to be wondered at. For all the Orientals, together with John, Bishop of Antioch, supported Theodorus most zealously, as we learn from the Breviary of Liberatus and from the Acts of the Fifth Synod. ^A PAG. 249. Πέντε μὲν καὶ ἑκατὸν ἐτῶν. Baronius deduces the beginning of these one hundred and five years, which Theodoret says his History embraces, from the year of Christ 323, in which he writes that the slaughter of Licinius occurred. From that time, he says, if you begin to count the period of one hundred and five years, you will arrive at this year 427, in which Theodoret says that Theodotus, the Bishop of Antioch of whom we are speaking, died. But Henry Savile, in the margin of the Robert Stephanus edition, calculates these one hundred and five years differently, namely from the year 320, which was the 44th year of the reign of Constantine, to the year 425, which was the 18th of Theodosius the Younger. The reason why Savile calculated it in this way is that everyone commonly thinks the blasphemy of Arius, from which Theodoret draws the beginning of these years, began in the year of Christ 320, five years before the Council of Nicaea. However, Baronius's opinion seems truer to me; for Savile attributes the death of Theodotus, Bishop of Antioch, to the year of Christ 425. Yet it is established that Theodotus was still alive in the year of Christ 426, for he attended the Constantinopolitan synod which was gathered by order of Theodosius the Younger for the ordination of Sisinnius, Patriarch of Constantinople, as Photius teaches in *Bibliotheca*, chapter 52. ^B Baronius therefore assigned his death to the year of Christ 327. But he erred in that he started these one hundred and five years, which the History of Theodoret embraces, from the slaughter of Licinius; when, however, Theodoret said he would begin his History from the blasphemy of Arius, not from the slaughter of Licinius. Besides, Licinius was defeated not in the year of Christ 323, but in 325, as is written in the Fasti of Idatius. Moreover, although I more approve of Baronius's opinion, who assigns the death of Theodotus to the year of Christ 427, I do not think one should entirely acquiesce in it. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, who Theodoret writes died while Theodotus was ruling the Church of Antioch, was still among the living in the year of Christ 428. Certainly Nestorius, who attained the bishopric of Constantinople in this year, met Theodore of Mopsuestia on the journey, as Theodulus testifies in Evagrius, book 1 of his *History*. Κατέλεξα δὲ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν. This whole pericope is missing from the Basel edition, along with the list of bishops who occupied the chairs in the four patriarchal Churches since the times of Constantine. Jacob Sirmond published this list before us in his edition, but it is most corrupt. We now provide it from the manuscript codex of Henry Savile, in a more emended form. In this catalogue, however, it is to be noted that after the Roman bishops, it lists the prelates of the Church of Antioch next, before the bishops of Alexandria. From which, incidentally, it can be gathered that this catalogue or index of patriarchs is not a forged work, but was truly written by Theodoret, who gives the first place after the Roman pontiff to the bishops of Antioch, as being his own patriarchs. It should also be observed that the prelates of Constantinople are listed in the last place, contrary to the authority of the canon of the Constantinopolitan synod. ^{C D}

ORDER OF SUBJECTS CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME

THEODORET OF CYRRHUS, BISHOP. Preface. 9 Order of the Sirmond and the new edition. 23 COMMENTARY ON ALL THE EPISTLES OF PAUL. 31 Preface by Gentianus Hervetus. 31 Theodoret’s Preface to the Epistles of Paul. 35 Interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans. 43 Interpretation of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. 226 Interpretation of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. 375 Interpretation of the Epistle to the Galatians. 459 Interpretation of the Epistle to the Ephesians. 506 Interpretation of the Epistle to the Philippians. 558 Interpretation of the Epistle to the Colossians. 591 Interpretation of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. 627 Interpretation of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. 638 Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 671 Interpretation of the First Epistle to Timothy. 787 Interpretation of the Second Epistle to Timothy. 831 Interpretation of the Epistle to Titus. 858 Interpretation of the Epistle to Philemon. 871 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. Testimonies concerning the Ecclesiastical History. 879 Preface. Scope of the History. 882 BOOK ONE. 883 CHAPTER ONE. — Whence the heresy of the Arians began. 885 CHAPTER II. — Enumeration of the primary bishops. 896 CHAPTER III. — Letter of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople. 887 CHAPTER IV. — Arius’s letter to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia. 910 CHAPTER V. — Letter of Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre. 914 CHAPTER VI. — What was done in the great Council of Nicaea. 915 CHAPTER VII. — Refutation of the Arians from the books of Eustathius and Athanasius. 919 CHAPTER VIII. — What was done against Meletius the Egyptian, through whom the Meletian schismatics remain to this day; and the synodal letter concerning him. 927 CHAPTER IX. — Letter of Emperor Constantine to the absent bishops concerning those things which were decreed in the synod. 931 CHAPTER X. — Concerning the allowance attributed to the churches, and other virtues of the Emperor. 938 CHAPTER XI. — Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea concerning the Nicene faith that was set forth. 939 CHAPTER XII. — Refutation of the Arians now calumniating, from the books of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea. 946 CHAPTER XIII. — Concerning the death of Arius, from a letter of Athanasius. 950 CHAPTER XIV. — Letter of Emperor Constantine concerning the construction of churches. 913 CHAPTER XV. — Another letter of the same, concerning preparing copies of the Holy Scriptures. 954 CHAPTER XVI. — Another letter of the same to Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem, concerning building the temple of God. 955 CHAPTER XVII. — Concerning Helena, mother of Emperor Constantine, and her zeal in the construction of the divine temple. 958

^A

CONTENTS OF THIS VOLUME

CHAPTER XVIII. — Concerning the illegitimate translation of Eusebius of Nicomedia. 962 CHAPTER XIX. — A letter of Emperor Constantine against Eusebius and Theogonius, to the Nicomedians. 962 CHAPTER XX. — Concerning the fraudulent counsel of Eusebius and his associates against holy Eustathius, bishop of Antioch. 966 CHAPTER XXI. — Concerning the heretical bishops created at Antioch after the departure of holy Eustathius. 967 CHAPTER XXII. — Concerning the faith of the Indians. 970 CHAPTER XXIII. — Concerning the translation of the Iberians to the faith. 971 CHAPTER XXIV. — A letter of Emperor Constantine to Sapor, king of the Persians, concerning his own providence toward the people of God. 971 CHAPTER XXV. — Concerning the plots constructed against holy Athanasius. 979 CHAPTER XXVI. — Another fraud constructed against Athanasius. 982 CHAPTER XXVII. — A letter of Emperor Constantine to the synod of Tyre. 982 CHAPTER XXVIII. — Concerning the council held at Tyre. 985 CHAPTER XXIX. — Concerning the dedication feast held at Jerusalem, and the exile of holy Athanasius. 987 CHAPTER XXX. — Concerning the testament of the great Emperor Constantine. 990 CHAPTER XXXI. — The Emperor’s defense. 990 CHAPTER XXXII. — Concerning the death of the Emperor. 990

BOOK II. 991

CHAPTER I. — Concerning the return of holy Athanasius. 991 CHAPTER II. — How Emperor Constantius was lured away from the right faith. 994 CHAPTER III. — Concerning the second relegation of blessed Athanasius, and the ordination and death of Gregory. 993 CHAPTER IV. — Concerning Paul, bishop of the city of Constantinople. 998 CHAPTER V. — Concerning Macedonius and the heresy introduced by him. 998 CHAPTER VI. — Concerning the synod of Sardica. 998 CHAPTER VII. — Concerning Euphratas and Vincentius, and the cunning plot against them at Antioch. 1018 CHAPTER VIII. — Concerning the deposition of Stephanus. 1022 CHAPTER IX. — Concerning the second return of holy Athanasius. 1022 CHAPTER X. — Concerning his third exile and flight. 1023 CHAPTER XI. — Concerning George, and his wicked deeds at Alexandria. 1026 CHAPTER XII. — Concerning the council of Milan. 1050 CHAPTER XIII. — The discourse of Emperor Constantius and Pope Liberius of Rome. 1034 CHAPTER XIV. — Concerning the exile and return of holy Liberius. 1059 CHAPTER XV. — Concerning the council of Ariminum. 1042 CHAPTER XVI. — Concerning the council held at Nice in Thrace, and the exposition of the faith written there. 1050 CHAPTER XVII. — The synodical letter of Damasus, bishop of Rome, and the western bishops, written to the bishops of Illyricum concerning the council of Ariminum. 1051 CHAPTER XVIII. — A letter of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, concerning the same council. 1055 CHAPTER XIX. — Concerning the craft of Leontius, bishop of Antioch, and the confidence and freedom of Flavian and Diodorus. 1058 CHAPTER XX. — Concerning the novelty of Eudoxius of Germanicia, and the contention of Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebaste against him. 1062 CHAPTER XXI. — Concerning the council of Nice convened again. 1063 CHAPTER XXII. — Concerning the council held at Seleucia in Isauria. 1066 CHAPTER XXIII. — Concerning the things that happened to the orthodox bishops at Constantinople. 1066 CHAPTER XXIV. — A synodical letter written against Aetius. 1070 CHAPTER XXV. — What cause separated the Eunomians from the Arians. 1074 CHAPTER XXVI. — Concerning the siege of the city of Nisibis, and the apostolic life of Bishop Jacob. 1075 CHAPTER XXVII. — Concerning the synod of Antioch, and what was done there against holy Meletius. 1079 CHAPTER XXVIII. — Concerning Eusebius, bishop of Samosata. 1083

BOOK III. 1086

CHAPTER I. — Concerning the reign of Julian, who, having been educated in piety from childhood, fell into impiety: and how, covering his impiety at first, he later revealed it. 1086 CHAPTER II. — Concerning the return of the bishops, and the ordination of Paulinus. 1087 CHAPTER III. — What and how great were the things the Gentiles dared against the Christians, having received power from him. 1092 CHAPTER IV. — What laws he enacted against the Christians. 1093 CHAPTER V. — Concerning the fourth exile and flight of holy Athanasius. 1095 CHAPTER VI. — Concerning Apollo Daphnaeus, and holy Babylas. 1098 CHAPTER VII. — Concerning Theodore the confessor. 1098 CHAPTER VIII. — Concerning sacred vessels claimed for the treasury, and the corn provision being taken away. 1099 CHAPTER IX. — What penalties for his impiety Julian, the Emperor's uncle, and Felix paid. 1102 CHAPTER X. — Concerning the son of the priest. 1102 CHAPTER XI. — Concerning Juventinus and Maximinus, holy martyrs. 1103 CHAPTER XII. — Concerning Valentinian, who later obtained the empire. 1106 CHAPTER XIII. — Concerning other confessors. 1107 CHAPTER XIV. — Concerning Artemius the General, and Publia the deaconess, and her divine boldness. 1110 CHAPTER XV. — Concerning those things which happened to the Jews who attempted the building of the temple, and concerning the plagues divinely inflicted upon them. 1111 CHAPTER XVI. — Concerning the expedition into Persia. 1114 CHAPTER XVII. — Concerning the boldness of a noble citizen of Beroea. 1115 CHAPTER XVIII. — Concerning the prediction of the tutor. 1115 CHAPTER XIX. — Concerning the prophecy of holy Julian the monk. 1118 CHAPTER XX. — Concerning the slaying of Emperor Julian in Persia. 1118 CHAPTER XXI. — Concerning the portents discovered at Carrhae after his death. 1119 CHAPTER XXII. — Concerning the heads found at Antioch in the palace, and public rejoicings because of Julian's death. 1119

BOOK IV. 1122

CHAPTER I. — Concerning the reign and piety of Jovian. 1122 CHAPTER II. — Concerning the return of holy Athanasius. 1123 CHAPTER III. — A synodical letter concerning the faith to Emperor Jovian. 1123 CHAPTER IV. — Concerning the corn supply restored to the churches, and the death of the Emperor. 1130 CHAPTER V. — Concerning the reign of Valentinian, and how he made his brother Valens a partner in the empire. 1130 CHAPTER VI. — Concerning the ordination of Ambrose, bishop of Milan. 1131 CHAPTER VII. — A letter of the Emperors Valentinian and Valens written to the Asian diocese concerning consubstantiality. 1134 CHAPTER VIII. — A synodical letter of the synod held in Illyricum, concerning the faith. 1138 CHAPTER IX. — Concerning the heresy of the Audians. 1142 CHAPTER X. — Concerning the heresy of the Messalians. 1142 CHAPTER XI. — In what way Valens slid into heresy. 1146 CHAPTER XII. — How he drove bishops pre-eminent in virtue into exile. 1147 CHAPTER XIII. — Concerning Eusebius, bishop of Samosata, and others. 1147 CHAPTER XIV. — Concerning holy Barses, bishop of Edessa, and the clerics exiled along with him. 1151 CHAPTER XV. — Concerning the persecution stirred up at Edessa, and concerning Eulogius and Protogenes, priests of Edessa. 1154 CHAPTER XVI. — Concerning holy Basil, bishop of Caesarea, and the things done against him by Valens and the Prefect Modestus. 1159 CHAPTER XVII. — Concerning the death of the great Athanasius, and the succession of Peter. 1163 CHAPTER XVIII. — Concerning the ejection of Peter, and the introduction of Lucius the Arian. 1163 CHAPTER XIX. — From the letter of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a narrative of the things that happened at Alexandria under Lucius the Arian. 1167 CHAPTER XX. — Concerning Mavia, queen of the Saracens, and the ordination of Moses the monk. 1182 CHAPTER XXI. — Concerning the atrocities committed at Constantinople. 1182 CHAPTER XXII. — How Flavian and Diodorus conducted the gatherings of the orthodox at Antioch. 1183 CHAPTER XXIII. — Concerning holy Aphraates the monk. 1186 CHAPTER XXIV. — Concerning holy Julian the monk. 1187 CHAPTER XXV. — Which other monks were famous at this time. 1190 CHAPTER XXVI. — Concerning Didymus of Alexandria and Ephrem the Syrian. 1190 CHAPTER XXVII. — Who were the illustrious bishops in the Asian and Pontic dioceses at this time. 1191 CHAPTER XXVIII. — Concerning the letter written by Valens about the war to the great Valentinian, and concerning the latter's pious response. 1191 CHAPTER XXIX. — Concerning the piety of Terentius the Count. 1191 CHAPTER XXX. — Concerning the free speech of Trajan, the Master of Soldiers. 1194

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER XXXI. — Concerning Isaac the monk of Constantinople and Bretannio, bishop of Scythia. 1194 CHAPTER XXXII. — Concerning the expedition of Valens against the Goths, and how he paid the penalty for it. 1195 CHAPTER XXXIII. — Whence the Goths derived the Arian heresy. 1195

BOOK FIVE. 1198

CHAPTER I. — Concerning the piety of the Emperor Gratian. 1198 CHAPTER II. — Concerning the return of the bishops. 1198 CHAPTER III. — Concerning the contention over Paulinus, the innovation of Apollinaris of Laodicea, and the virtue and piety of Meletius. 1199 CHAPTER IV. — Concerning Eusebius, bishop of Samosata. 1202 CHAPTER V. — Concerning Theodosius, Master of Soldiers. 1206 CHAPTER VI. — Concerning his emperorship, and what he saw in a dream. 1206 CHAPTER VII. — Who were the notable prelates of the Arian faction. 1207 CHAPTER VIII. — Concerning the council convened at Constantinople. 1210 CHAPTER IX. — The synodical letter of the council of Constantinople. 1211 CHAPTER X. — The synodical letter of Damasus, bishop of Rome, written against Apollinaris and Timothy. 1219 CHAPTER XI. — The confession of the Catholic faith which Pope Damasus sent to Macedonia, to Paulinus the bishop, when he was at Thessalonica. 1222 CHAPTER XII. — Concerning the death of Gratian and the tyranny of Maximus. 1226 CHAPTER XIII. — Concerning Justina, the wife of Valentinian, and the plots laid against Ambrose. 1226 CHAPTER XIV. — Concerning the things which the tyrant Maximus signaled to Valentinian the Younger. 1227 CHAPTER XV. — Concerning the things written by the Emperor Theodosius regarding the same matter. 1227 CHAPTER XVI. — Concerning Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium. 1230 CHAPTER XVII. — Concerning the slaughter at Thessalonica, and the freedom and piety of Bishop Ambrose toward the Emperor. 1231 CHAPTER XVIII. — Concerning the Empress Flacilla. 1258 CHAPTER XIX. — Concerning the sedition that occurred at Antioch. 1239 CHAPTER XX. — Concerning the temples of idols destroyed everywhere throughout the world. 1242 CHAPTER XXI. — Concerning Marcellus, bishop of Apamea, and the temple of Jupiter demolished by him. 1243 CHAPTER XXII. — Concerning Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, and the events that took place there during the demolition of the idols. 1246 CHAPTER XXIII. — Concerning Flavian, bishop of Antioch, and the sedition of the Westerners on account of Paulinus. 1247 CHAPTER XXIV. — Concerning the tyranny of Eugenius, and the victory of the Emperor Theodosius on account of the faith. 1252 CHAPTER XXV. — Concerning the death of the Emperor Theodosius. 1254 CHAPTER XXVI. — Concerning the Emperor Honorius and Telemachus the monk. 1255 CHAPTER XXVII. — Concerning the piety of the Emperor Arcadius and the ordination of John Chrysostom. 1255 CHAPTER XXVIII. — Concerning the free speech of this bishop. 1255 CHAPTER XXIX. — Concerning the temples of idols destroyed by the same in Phoenicia. 1258 CHAPTER XXX. — Concerning the Church of the Goths. 1258 CHAPTER XXXI. — Concerning his [John Chrysostom's] providence toward the Scythians, and his zeal against the Marcionites. 1258 CHAPTER XXXII. — Concerning the demand of Gainas, and the response of John Chrysostom. 1259 CHAPTER XXXIII. — Concerning his embassy to Gainas. 1262 CHAPTER XXXIV. — Concerning the things that happened on account of Chrysostom. 1262 CHAPTER XXXV. — Concerning Alexander, bishop of Antioch. 1266 CHAPTER XXXVI. — Concerning the bringing of the relics of John, and the piety of Theodosius and his sisters. 1266 CHAPTER XXXVII. — Concerning Theodotus, bishop of Antioch. 1270 CHAPTER XXXVIII. — Concerning the persecution stirred up in Persia, and those who suffered martyrdom there. 1271 CHAPTER XXXIX. — Concerning Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia. 1278

Index of bishops who presided over great cities. 1278

RELIGIOUS HISTORY. 1279 Preface of Gentian Hervet. 1279 Testimonies concerning the Religious History. 1282 Preface. 1285 I. James. 1291 II. Julian. 1306 III. Marcianus. 1323 IV. Eusebius. 1359 V. Publius. 1351 VI. Simeon the Elder. 1358 VII. Palladius. 1363 VIII. Aphraates. 1367 IX. Peter. 1378 X. Theodosius. 1387 XI. Romanus. 1394 XII. Zeno. 1395 XIII. Macedonius. 1399 XIV. Maisymas. 1411 XV. Acepsimas. 1416 XVI. Maro. 1418 XVII. Abraames. 1419 XVIII. Eusebius. 1426 XIX. Salamanes. 1427 XX. Maris. 1430 XXI. James. 1431 XXII. Thalassius or Limnaeus. 1451 XXIII. John. 1455 XXIV. Zebinus or Polychronius. 1458 XXV. Asclepius. 1463 XXVI. Simeon. 1465 XXVII. Baradatus. 1485 XXVIII. Thalelaeus. 1487 XXIX. Marana and Cyra. 1490 XXX. Domnina. 1491

ORATION ON DIVINE AND HOLY CHARITY 1498 Annotations by Henri Valesius. 1522

THE END OF THE EIGHTY-SECOND VOLUME.

Paris. — From the Presses of J.-P. Migne.