Photius seems to have selected what he considered best, intent perhaps only on the utility of his friends, having already had some things collected long before among his excerpts, the authors of which perhaps were no longer present to his memory, just as sometimes happens with other learned men.
8. Photius also resolves other questions from earlier authors—questions which we shall scarcely be able to identify, since the various works reviewed by Photius and recorded in his *Myriobiblion* no longer exist. Among these, I consider that the books of Job on the incarnation and the disputes of Eulogius of Alexandria against the Novatians should be placed; a comparison of certain questions with fragments preserved in the Library indicates how our writer used them in the *Amphilochia*. Justin’s solutions to doubts were at hand for him, as were several writings of Maximus; some *Amphilochia* also show an affinity with the homily on the incarnation which is attributed to Chrysostom, and with the writings of Pseudo-Athanasius. Many fragments of the Fathers, otherwise lost, appear to be preserved in the *Amphilochia* under the hidden name of the authors; these can be regarded as an anthology or florilegium from the Fathers, just like the *Myriobiblion*, though elaborated with a different intention and scope. In the *Myriobiblion*, Photius gives an account of the books he read from every kind of discipline, but in the *Amphilochia* he solves various difficulties, especially theological ones. There, he cares chiefly for the authors and their books; here, for the things themselves, the doctrines, and the theorems. In this, both works agree: that they store up the treasures of patristic erudition and are a sort of gold mine of useful and varied knowledge.
9. However, he also elaborated not a few things himself by his own efforts. He inserted into the *Amphilochia* many items from those things which he had once written for the use of his students, especially regarding dialectical and philosophical questions. We also believe it probable that those questions related to the Epistles in this collection are owed to the genius of Photius himself. Hence, the entire body of the *Amphilochia* must be said to have flowed from a double source: concerning the greater part, from the books of older authors and fragments plucked therefrom; but concerning the rest, from the fruits of the studies of the collector himself, who with marvelous assiduity strove to lift his friends and clergy to greater progress day by day and to an ever higher degree in both sacred and profane science.
III. Of the subjects and matters with which the Amphilochian questions deal.
10. It is already clear from what was said above what arguments are treated in the *Amphilochia*. Nevertheless, three classes of dissertations may be distinguished. The first of these, the richest of all, comprises exegetical and hermeneutical disquisitions; the second, dogmatic; the third, finally, solves some philosophical, mythological, grammatical, and historical questions. But since the number of exegetical questions far exceeds the others, and the name arises with better right, the entire body may deservedly be called a collection of exegetical disquisitions.
11. These explain the text of the Holy Scriptures, many of which elucidate *ἐναντιοφανίας* or apparent contradictions in the Bible, others refer to and judge various expositions of the Fathers, and others solve difficulties that have arisen on the occasion of the Bible. Sometimes the same questions are resolved in a double or triple way, which we think happened chiefly because Photius at one time sought a solution from different authors, and at another had attempted to clarify the same argument—which had already been treated by others—through his own repeated study. The greater part of the questions concerns the five books of Moses, Ecclesiastes, the Psalms, the Gospels, and the Epistles of Paul; more rarely are the opinions of Job and the prophets, and the Acts of the Apostles...
and the Catholic Epistles expounded. Photius brings forth philological observations A often, and provides us with some remnants of the ancient versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and for the most part follows a sober method of interpretation, by which he rejects and chastises the immoderation and perversity of the allegorists, yet does not reject the mystical sense. Indeed, very often the types of the Old Testament are illustrated quite broadly, and the "letter" is preferred to the "spirit," *γράμματι πνεύμα*. Not everything, indeed, is explained solidly, but most things are explained clearly; yet the variety and constant use of the ancients adorn these commentaries, from which many things that illustrate the Epistles of Paul have passed into the commentaries of Oecumenius.
B About 50 questions follow, which pursue dogmatic arguments. In these, the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation claim the first place, on which he discourses very often, even if sometimes more subtly than correctly; nor are polemical diatribes against the Latins lacking, in which some of their arguments concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son are attacked. The treatise *On Gnomic Wills*, however, easily surpasses the others in its subtle method of arguing and reasoning. Furthermore, the dogma concerning the eternity of punishments is defended, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is upheld, Baptism administered in the name of the Trinity alone, and the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mary are not incongruously defended.
Yet there are not lacking Diatribes in which Photius is too indulgent to his own genius and, now from a desire for brevity, now from a superfluity of words and sentiments, becomes obscure. Nor can his style of writing be judged by the same standard, both because many things were derived from so many entirely different authors, distinguished by a singular form of elocution, and because Photius himself, who had perused such a vast amount of books, sometimes differs from himself in regard to diction. Indeed, no one is unaware of how much this most learned man departed from the pure simplicity and elegance of the ancient Attic writers, and how rarely he attained that purer mode of speaking which he so often protests that he values highly, and which he proposes to his disciples as the goal of their studies to be pursued. His speech often casts about grandiloquent expressions and affects too much ornamentation; elsewhere it appears rougher and almost crawling on the ground; at times it is concise, in the manner of the dialecticians; at other times it is crammed beyond all measure with the flowers of the rhetoricians of a later age, not well collected; now it is entirely clear and perspicuous, now most obscure and destitute of all grace. The versatile man reveals himself also in his style.
C It must be noted, finally, that some things are not discussed with sufficient accuracy and caution in relation to the norm of Catholic doctrine, and that certain abstruse matters drawn from the Areopagitic writings are contained in his *Dogmatic Diatribes*, which, while they might not exclude a sound interpretation, seem to make it entirely difficult. Not only those matters which refer to the controversy stirred up between the Latins and the Greeks—or, to speak more correctly—to the dogma regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, but also other things which occur in these questions, though they have been annotated by the editors in their proper places for the most part, must be touched upon by serious and prudent theologians in this regard. The locutions often differ from ecclesiastical usage and are subject to difficulties, the greater part of which, however, can be opportunely explained from other places in Photius. Thus, when speaking of Christ, he says, "Yet we do not make a man God, far be it," which cannot be taken in a sinister sense, since in six hundred places Photius clearly sets forth his doctrine concerning the Incarnation. Often shades of error strike the reader, but rarely are there open errors. But now, for a fuller knowledge of our work, let us turn our mind to the aids and supports which have contributed to the present edition.
D Questions follow. At one time Photius comments upon the categories of Aristotle, at another upon the sayings of the Fathers (indeed, of Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril, and John Climacus). To literary history belong his discussions concerning the Asterii and Eusebius of Caesarea; to mythology, his discourse on Hercules wearing the horn of Amalthea; to philology, a brief treatise on the redundancy of the verb *εἰμί*. He inquiries into the reasons for the Lenten fast and the irregularity ordained by the Church arising from a physical defect; he treats briefly of Platonic ideas, of genus and species, of the number of the Sibyls, of the magnet, of the beginnings of the year, of the Kalends, Nones, and Ides, and other things. Photius unfolds and illustrates in this work of the *Amphilochia* so many and so diverse arguments, in part with a very brief response, in part with a long dissertation.
§ IV. — Of the better codices by which the Amphilochian questions are exhibited.
16. The manuscript codices which provide the Amphilochian questions differ greatly among themselves. Not all questions are found in the same codex; some exhibit more or fewer than others; A some provide only one or another dissertation. Indeed, four codices, wealthier and more excellent, are known up to this time. One of these is the Coislinianus, described by Bernard de Montfaucon, signed with the number 270, and containing 388 questions reviewed by that same most learned man. Much richer still is the Lollini codex, which was brought into the Vatican library under the Supreme Pontiff Urban VIII and is signed there with the number 1923. It belongs to the thirteenth century, and in its index 313 dissertations are numbered, though in reality it contains other things as well which are not recorded in this series. The third is the Colbertinus codex, no. 444, mentioned by Jean-Baptiste Cotelier, now Parisian, no. 152, which accords with the aforementioned Vatican codex regarding the order and number of the dissertations. The fourth is the Regius Taurinensis, no. 51, B described by Pasinius, written in the fifteenth century and in agreement with the Coislinianus regarding the first 138 questions; yet many parts of it are missing here, and no more than 297 questions are numbered.
17. Furthermore, there are more apographs taken from these better codices. Franciscus Arcudius transcribed another from the Vatican, which exists in the Barberini library at Rome; the Marciana library of the Venetians possesses another, which Antonius Catiforus Zacynthius used, who with wonderful assiduity took care to collect all the works of Photius, yet was unable to bring the diligently prepared edition to a conclusion. Indeed, Franciscus Dionysius Camusatus, who died at Amsterdam in the year 1732, transcribed about a sixth part of our work from the Coislinianus codex and compared it with the Colbertinus codex; Wolfius later employed this, which he had received from Jacob Wetstein, when he brought 46 questions into the public domain from it.
18. C Furthermore, there exists in the royal Neapolitan library a mutilated codex containing 18 Amphilochian questions, which Joannes Andresius and Angelus Antonius Scottus used after others. To these are added very many codices which provide only a few questions, such as those that treat the categories of Aristotle. A question concerning the ubiquity of Christ appears in the Tilian codex of Combefis, in two Vatican codices, in Monacensis Gr. 104, in the Vindobonensis and the Escorialensis; a question concerning the gnomical wills D in the Vallicellianus, Monacensis, and Vindobonensis. In other manuscripts, other questions or rather fragments of the same are present, as a certain part of question 165 under its own title in a certain Vatican codex, and many other things already for the most part commemorated by Fabricius.
A of those which have been known up to this point, is the most abundant and, being written in the thirteenth century, is recommended by many titles; above all, in this new edition of the *Amphilochia*, it seemed that it should be held as a norm, as much as that was possible. In what way, however, this has been accomplished will be explained briefly below, after we have succinctly set forth the things that have thus far been offered for public light in the *Amphilochia*.
V.—Concerning the Amphilochian questions published to date.
21. It is not, then, in parts that the Amphilochian questions were published, but first through fragments which both Allatius and Francis Turrianus, a companion of the Society of Jesus, brought forward. The same Turrianus, however, had first published six questions in Latin from a Bavarian codex in Canisius’ *Sylloge*, the Greek text of which had not yet appeared at that time. Peter Stevartius, indeed, of the same society, made public the question concerning gnomical wills from Turrianus’ version. These dissertations, however, were not known by the learned to pertain to the most praiseworthy work of the *Amphilochia*; B J. A. Fabricius was the first, as it seems, to suspect it. Then, in the year 1644, Francis Combefis published a question against the Ubiquitarians, incorrectly inscribed under the name of Saint Amphilochius (which error Allatius detected), and then a question concerning the Asterii, received from that same Allatius. Moreover, there appeared through the work of Richard Montagu, in London in the year 1651, an edition of Photius' epistles, from which many had been inserted into the *Amphilochia*, though they were not yet recognized at that time as parts of our work. Thus, throughout the entire seventeenth century, only a few segments of the whole work appeared in the public light.
C 22. Greater progress was made regarding the publication of this work in the eighteenth century. In the year 1715, Montfaucon, or Bernard de Montfaucon, having provided an index of the Coislin codex, published four Amphilochian questions, three of which, however, had already appeared long before: the first concerning Hercules, from ep. 209; the second concerning Eusebius of Caesarea, among the letters of Photius, no. 144; the third concerning the Asterii, in Combefis’ *Auctarium novum*. In the year 1723, however, J. Basnage provided a new edition of H. Canisius’ *Antiquae lectiones*, in which (with the exception of one) the dissertations published in Latin by Turrianus were exhibited with the Greek text, which D. Caperonnier had supplied. Finally, J. Chr. Wolf published forty-six exegetical questions under the title of *Amphilochian*, which subsequently passed into the Gallandian *Bibliotheca Patrum*. But what M. J. Justus Spier specifically did in this
matter, we have not yet been able to find. In actual fact, at the end of the eighteenth century, 128 treatises from the *Amphilochia* had been published: 74 by Montagu, 8 by J. Basnage (30), 2 by Combefis, one by Montfaucon (31), and 46 by Wolf.
23. Finally, in our own century, A. Scott (32) first provided 17 new questions together with another one which Combefis had rendered in a mutilated form, namely the question against the Ubiquists (33). Cardinal Angelo Mai indeed published 150 new questions (34); but these in reality constitute only 147, since among these three had already been published previously (35). Hence, 164 questions were provided by Scott and Mai, which, with those 128 already published earlier, make 292.
24. Gieseler (36) had already noted this same number of published questions, but from an entirely false calculation; for by omitting seven questions, which in truth are all read among the epistles (37), he counted just as many others twice (38).
25. It is not the place here to extol the merits or accuse the negligence of the individual editors. Not all used the same manuscript codices, nor did they proceed by the same method, nor did they prepare their editions with equal *akribeia*. Regarding the sum of the matter, however, all usefully expended their labor on a writer truly illustrious among the later Greeks, whom some extolled with excessive praises, while others estimated as being of less than just value, and on a work which, among his theological writings, although it may not have entirely proceeded from his own genius, nevertheless deservedly obtains the first place. Indeed, so many distinguished men, who brought their studies to this work, are also a great commendation of the work itself. B
§ VI. — *On the present edition of the Amphilochian questions.*
26. Eminentissimus Mai, in committing the final one hundred and thirty questions to print, seemed to have believed that he had now made public all the *Amphilochia* that had not yet been edited, and that he had completed this whole treasury of dissertations (39). But that the matter is not so, we have already taught elsewhere (40) having been sufficiently informed by an inspection of the Vatican codex and a collation of the Coislinian index described by Montfaucon, and we likewise showed that at least thirty-two questions had still remained unpublished, and that the Vatican codex had not been exhausted by those which Mai had given. C
27. So that we might determine the number of these questions with the greatest certainty possible, we decided that the better codices must be compared. It immediately appeared that the Turin codex contains only one question (41) which is missing from the rest; with this removed, the Coislinian provides everything that exists in it; furthermore, although 308 questions are enumerated in the Coislinian, it nevertheless exhibits in reality only 306 (42); the Vatican, however, shows more than 313, many of which are absent from the Coislinian; finally, the numbers noted by Mai are in many cases disordered, since the same number was assigned to different questions. Wherefore, after the labors of so many learned men concerning this work, the order and series of the whole collection and the number of questions could not yet be determined exactly (43). We had hoped, indeed, for the long-promised edition of all the *Amphilochia*, which in the kingdom of Greece Constantinos Oikonomos
A in the month of March of the year 1857 was said to have prepared and was about to bring to light; but up to this point that hope has not come to fruition. For my own part, after having waited in vain for a long-desired edition, I had already collected materials sufficient to form a more accurate judgment on this work, and I at length found the opportunity to extend and increase the number of the published questions. How this was accomplished must now be briefly explained.
28. When in the month of October of the year 1857 I was inspecting certain Vatican codices at Rome, I examined the codex already cited, noted as number 1925, which his Eminence Mai had used, and I transcribed the entire series of questions together with some portions of this work not yet published. But in the middle of the month of November, I was forced to return to my homeland and left the work incomplete. The following year, I obtained in Venice, in the Marcian Library, a transcription of that same Vatican codex which Antonio Catiforo had procured for himself, who also diligently wrote out the Latin version of all the questions and augmented them with annotations. From that source, I completed what was lacking for me, especially in the longer questions, and I once again reviewed the Greek text regarding the eleven commentaries on Aristotle’s *Categories*, which I had then proposed only to edit; at the same time, I took care to transcribe for the most part the Latin version of the fourteen questions (45) not yet edited, which seemed entirely worthy of the light. Thus, at length, through repeated labor, I had procured for myself twenty-one questions (46) in Greek which had not yet been published; due to lack of time, I could not collect all the unpublished ones, and I read through the rest only with the intention of having an exploration of what each contained, when I should come to treat of the works of Photius; hence I noted down a few things in my papers sufficient for this purpose, reserving the rest for another occasion, in which I might, God willing, revisit Venice, a city most dear to me, and the Marcian Library, made even more agreeable by the distinguished urbanity of its prefect, the most illustrious [D.] Valentinelli. Which hope has not yet been realized. But now, collecting my writings which I had brought back from both Italian journeys, I noticed that the number of the *Amphilochian* questions published up to this point could be increased by me with a new accession; and although I could not present all of the pieces that remained to be edited, I judged that the greater part of them should nevertheless be given. These, though drawn from the manuscript copies in a very short time, I hope will not be unwelcome to the learned, to whom 313 questions will now be available.
29. But this was not the only fruit of my journey, in that 21 questions are now for the first time available for me to edit; furthermore, it was possible to discover a more probable number for the order and series of those same questions. In the Vatican, moreover, there are 17 questions which the Coislinian codex lacks (47), and the Vatican is destitute of six questions which appear in the Coislinian (48) and that one which we said above was peculiar to the Turin codex (49). If we add to the Coislinian codex, which we know provides 306 discourses, the 17 missing from the Vatican and the one from the Turin, we shall have 324 questions. Likewise, if we add the missing members to the Vatican codex, we are led to the same number (50). But in order that the varied order of the codices may be better perceived, we have placed below the text indices by which they are compared with one another.
30. Now, indeed, the state of time and the multitude of our own occupations did not allow us to review the text of the previously published questions and to equip them all with a Latin version; hence we leave almost everything already published intact. Nevertheless, given the opportunity of comparing the Munich codex 553, which contains the letters of Photius (51), with the London edition, we have suggested some corrections and variant readings regarding the questions translated from the letters of Photius into the *Amphilochia*. Furthermore, we have noted elsewhere what occurred to us among other studies as being opportune to note in their proper places. Therefore, since we were occupied with other labors and not at first intent upon a new edition of the *Amphilochia*, we at last decided, at the encouragement of friends, to contribute what we could to this distinguished collection of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers according to our strength: we have willingly made available those things which were at hand, the *Amphilochia*, which now for the first time come forth into the public eye together with those already edited but not yet collected into one. Then, we have marked with their own numbers those eleven questions which remain to be edited, so that a clear prospect of the whole work might be made and the order of the Vatican codex might be preserved as far as it is possible. It remains that, if we have produced anything in this work, due to the shortness of time, that is less than perfect and polished, if we have neglected anything in this province which we have undertaken that should by no means have been passed over, we implore the indulgence of the learned reader, and we trust that he already has a sufficient perspective on the magnitude of such a task, whereby dispersed and scattered parts are collected into one body and increased by those newly discovered.
JOS. CHRISTOPH. WOLF’S PREFACE TO PHOTIUS’ AMPHILOCHIA IN THE FIFTH VOLUME OF HIS CURAE PHILOLOGICAE ET CRITICAE IN N. T. BASEL, 1741.
A Whatever leisure remained to me (while I was engaged in writing my philological and critical commentaries on the New Testament), I devoted to publishing a portion of Photius’ *Amphilochia*, hitherto unedited, which you see at the end of the volume. Regarding this work, take note of the following. It exists in Paris, written in a hand that points to the eleventh century, in the parchment codex 270 of the Coislinian Library, formerly the Seguierian, for the catalog of which we are indebted to the tireless industry of the most learned Bernard de Montfaucon. The inscription, according to that catalog, p. 326, reads as follows: *Τα Ἀμφιλόχια, ἢ λόγων ἱερῶν καὶ ζητημάτων ἱερολογίαι πρὸς Ἀμφιλόχιον, τὸν ὁσιώτατον μητροπολίτην Νυζίκου, ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῶν πειρασμῶν, ζητημάτων διαφόρων, εἰς ἀριθμὸν τριακοσίων συντεινόντων ἐπίλυσιν αἰτησάμενον.* That is: *Amphilochia, or sacred discourses and questions concerning sacred matters, addressed to Amphilochius, the most holy metropolitan of Cyzicus, who, in a time of temptations, had requested the solution to various questions numbering three hundred.* This same inscription is found in the Neapolitan codex, about which we shall speak shortly, and is read in the *Ephemerides Litterariae* of Venice, published in Italian, Vol. XXXII, p. 72.
B From this it effectively appears that they are called *Amphilochia*, or as Allatius names them, *Amphilocheia*, or as others name them, *Amphilochia*, because those Responses were written to Amphilochius, the prelate of Cyzicus, at his request. However, do not believe that this is the case for absolutely all of them. In the letters of Photius published by Richard Montagu, only six mention the name of Amphilochius. Of these, only three exist in the *Amphilochia*, namely letters 137, 163, and 178, with which responses 162, 255, and 178 correspond exactly. The other three, namely 168, 198, and 207, are missing from among those Responses. Conversely, in the *Amphilochia*, Response 141, which you have below on p. 708, is addressed to Amphilochius, whereas you search for it in vain among the Letters. Furthermore, many Responses, existing in the *Amphilochia*, are also read in the letters (as we shall soon show), but are inscribed with other names. Thus, Resp. 166 is letter 135, which nevertheless bears the name of his brother Constantine there. C Therefore, I prefer to conclude that various letters of Photius have been collected here and there and given the title of *Amphilochia*, because Photius had frequent exchange of letters with Amphilochius. I pass over some things contained in these that are not so much Responses as they are certain Excerpts which Photius obtained from others, for example from Chrysostom, etc. See, for example, below pp. 730, 800. It is certain that what is read in the *Amphilochia* should not be attributed to Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium. This was indeed observed by Francis Combetis, who exhibited the *De incircumscripta Filii Deitate* among the *Excerpta* of Amphilochius, p. 226 of his works, and was rightly corrected for it by Allatius in *De consensione Ecclesiae Occidentalis et Orientalis*, p. 576. Yet Combefis himself acknowledged his error in the *Recensitis auctoribus Bibliothecae Patrum Concionatoriae*, p. 152, which booklet was published separately in Paris in 1662, 8vo.
As regards the subject matter of this collection, its greatest part is occupied with illustrating the more difficult oracles of the Old and New Testaments. The remaining part pursues topics now theological, now philosophical, of various kinds, now grammatical, now ecclesiastical and literary history.
The collection itself has never seen the light of day, although it exists copied out in various libraries. In France, the Colbertine and Coislinian libraries in Paris provide copies of it. The former is in codex 444, which Jean-Baptiste Cotelier describes as follows in his *Notes to the third volume of the Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae*, p. 556: "Photius' four books *Against the Manichaean-Paulician heresy*, seen by Euthymius Zigabenus, exist in Colbert codex 444, along with the *Amphilochia* of the same most learned man, as I realized by the most certain signs, although it is truncated at the title, beginning, and end." The latter is in codex 270, formerly 139, from which, as we just mentioned, Bernard de Montfaucon exhibited both the titles and beginnings of the 308 Responses in the *Catalogus Bibliothecae Coislinianae*, p. 325 sqq., having added, by way of specimen, four Responses, p. 346 sqq., which we shall soon mention. In Italy, Rome exhibits a double copy of the work; one in the Vatican Library, the other in the Barberini, and this one written by the hand of Francis Arcudius. Leo Allatius is a witness to both in *Libri III de Ecclesiae Occidentalis et Orientalis perpetua consensione*, book II, ch. 6, p. 576. D "It is," he says, "a work various and full of manifold erudition, most necessary for theologians and expositors of Scripture, and the more to be embraced because it exists nowhere else, so far as I know, than in the Vatican, and finally brought in from the Lollian books under Urban VIII." And with a few words interposed: "A work so worthy and learned, most diligently transcribed with elegant characters by Francis Arcudius, eventually Bishop of Nuscum, a man most learned in Greek and Latin letters, and closely joined to me by the familiarity of our studies, who died two years ago, was placed in his library by the restorer of all good arts and disciplines, Francis Barberinus, for the common convenience and utility of the public."
A Regarding that codex [the Coislinian], therefore, let us not think of it as a complete copy of the *Amphilochia*.
For the Lollian [codex], see the *Epistles* of Lollinus himself, p. 326. Besides these, it is established that the Turin library has a copy of the same work, according to the *Ephemerides litterariae Venetae*, Vol. VI, p. 478. To these is added the Neapolitan codex, concerning which Allatius (*loc. cit.*) states: “Nevertheless, as years passed, a very ancient codex—or rather, a fragment of an ancient codex, eaten away by age and mutilated at the beginning and the end—was found in Naples. From it, twenty dubia and their solutions were transcribed; since there were no more, they were transmitted to me like a huge treasure by most learned men who promised their labor in illustrating them; but when they knew to whom they belonged and that the entire work existed, they neglected them.” This same codex was not long ago described more diligently by the illustrious Sebastian Pauli of Lucca, in an epistle to the illustrious Scipio Maffei, which is read in the same *Venetian Ephemerides*, Vol. XXXII, p. 58 sqq. There, indeed, on p. 65, this codex is said to have an age of 600 years and to have been transferred in the year 1717 from the Archive of the Holy Apostles to the Imperial Library in Vienna, along with a hundred and more other codices. Antonius Caracciolus had once procured it and sent it to Rome to Leo Allatius, who had had it transcribed by Neophytus Rodinus, a Cypriot monk, and had furnished it with various readings or emendations in the margin. A copy of this apograph, along with the epistle of Allatius to Caracciolus, still exists in Naples in that Archive of the Holy Apostles, from which the Abbot Nicolaus Falconius made another copy for himself, who prepared its Latin translation for the press in the year 1719. Furthermore, that codex contains only twenty responses, according to Allatius (*loc. cit.*), or eighteen by the count of Seb. Pauli (*loc. cit.*), where you may read the titles and beginnings of each, with a Latin version added separately, on pp. 66-72. The first response bears the number 25, while the last is 43, which when joined together make nineteen. If you add to this the epistle whose beginning you read in the same place, p. 72, after the inscription of the work, you will have the sum arrived at by Allatius. Therefore, Seb. Pauli (*p. 66*) says that these twenty responses have nothing in common with those three hundred given to Amphilochius. But I, from the Index of the Coislinian codex of the *Amphilochia*, have learned that eighteen are read there from No. 24 to 41. Also in the same order (except that Response 35 is read in a changed order after 39), and thus only one, which is 37 in the Neapolitan and begins: *Ότι μὲν ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ πρόνοια*, etc., is missing in that Coislinian codex. And let these things suffice concerning that Neapolitan codex. I see, moreover, that Casimirus Oudin, in his *Commentarii de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, Vol. II, p. 203, cites the Bavarian library, in whose codex 175 the *Amphilochia* of Photius are contained. But in the *Catalogus codicum Graecorum bibliothecae Bavaricae*, p. 67, n. 175, only these things are read among others: "Of the Patriarch Photius concerning the uncircumscribed divinity of the Son, from the *Amphilochius*"; where, without a doubt, one should read *from the Amphilochia*. For in these is read this Question, n. 37, of the Coislinian B codex. Therefore, let us not think of it as a complete copy of the *Amphilochia*.
D These codices which I have mentioned differ both in number and in the order of the Responses. Thus, Allatius (*De consensione*, etc., p. 576) calls the responses 313 from the Vatican codex. And I learned that exactly that many exist in the Colbertine [codex] from that part of the *Amphilochia* which I possess. For he who compared it—having been transcribed from the Coislinian—with the Colbertine, Francis Dionysius Camusatus, of whom more anon, notes several times that this or that response is had in the Colbertine under number 5, ch. 4, out of those thirteen which exist in that Colbertine above 300. Thus, at Response 116, *διὰ τί πρωτότοκον ὁ Θεὸς τὸν Ἰσραὴλ καλεῖ*, I read that it exists as No. 3, out of the thirteen beyond 300, and at Response 123, I read that it is No. 10, out of the same thirteen above 300. I have observed, moreover, that in the Colbertine, those things that exist in the Coislinian are sometimes wanting. To this pertain those two which you have below, p. 684, and no less Responses 95 and 96, etc. In the Coislinian at Montfaucon’s, 308 Responses are counted. Furthermore, the order of the Responses is different in each of the two Parisian codices. For although each corresponds exactly to the other up to Resp. 77, regarding the rest, however, they differ greatly from each other in the manner of their order.
As far as the *Amphilochia* themselves are concerned, about a sixth part of them exists in the *Epistles* of Photius, for which we are indebted to the learned industry of Richard Montacutius. I shall provide an Index of them for the sake of those who might perhaps decide to edit the *Amphilochia*, following the order of the Coislinian codex, in such a way that the letter 'r.' denotes the Responses of the *Amphilochia*, and 'e.' the Epistles of Photius. r. 128. e. 208. r. 129. e. 209. r. 130, e. 210. r. 131. e. 211. r. 132. e. 213. r. 133. e. 214. r. 134. e. 216. r. 138. e. 246. r. 139. e. 247. r. 140. e. 248. r. 163. e. 137. r. 164. e. 138. r. 165. e. 139. r. 166. e. 144. r. 200. e. 30. r. 201. e. 31. r. 202. e. 33. r. 223. e. 35. r. 224. e. 36. r. 225. e. 37. r. 226. e. 38. r. 227. e. 43. r. 228. e. 50. r. 229. e. 54. r. 230. e. 58. r. 231. e. 61. r. 232. e. 62. r. 233. e. 63. r. 234. e. 64. r. 235. e. 72. r. 236. e. 74. r. 237. e. 75. r. 238. e. 76. r. 240. e. 102. r. 241. e. 125. r. 242. e. 127. r. 243. e. 129. r. 244. e. 132. r. 245. e. 133. r. 246. e. 134. r. 248. e. 147. r. 249. e. 151. r. 250. e. 152. r. 251. e. 155. r. 252. e. 156. r. 253. e. 157. r. 254. e. 161. r. 255. e. 163. r. 256. e. 164. r. 257. e. 167. r. 258. e. 176. r. 259. e. 177. r. 260. e. 178. r. 261. e. 180. r. 262. e. 181. r. 263. e. 182. r. 264. e. 187. r. 265. e. 192. r. 266. e. 196. r. 267. e. 203. r. 269. e. 145. r. 270. e. 162. r. 271. e. 163. r. 272. e. 165. r. 273. e. 166. The total sum is 65.
Furthermore, there is no lack of learned men who have edited some of these Responses. Among these is the highly praised Combefisius, who, as we have already warned above, [edited] Resp. 37, *De incircumscripta Filii Deitate*, from the Tilian codex. (See his *Recensitos auctores Bibliothecae PP. Concionatoriae*, p. 152.) Among the writings of Amphilochius, and Resp. 125, concerning several Asterii,
A *Migne's note*: (to which, besides other works, we owe the universal Bibliotheca of Alfonso Ciacconio, which is circulated in manuscript and which I also possess, as well as his *Critical History of Literary Journals*, published in French at Amsterdam, 1734, 8vo, which he had received before he died prematurely in Amsterdam on October 28.) Camusat certainly had copied the entire work (the first and third parts of which were sought in vain among his papers) with his own hand from the Coislin codex, and had compared it with the Colbertine, and indeed had even made a beginning of a Latin translation, which I have not seen. He himself attests to this in his *Critical History of the Journals*, p. 96, just as he had signified to me by letter five years before this, that he was preparing an edition of all the works of Photius (in the review of whose *Bibliotheca* I am currently engaged), and specifically, among these, an edition of the *Amphilochia*.
From that part of them, therefore, which I possess, I selected those pieces which pertain to the exposition of more difficult passages of the New Testament, omitting, however, those which are already read among the *Letters* of Photius. I confess that not all of them breathe the same doctrine or the same diligence from this source. Nevertheless, most of them are so put together that they can both assist and delight the reader. Therefore, kind reader, enjoy them, and together with me you will give thanks to God, the Best and Greatest, that He has mercifully granted me both the health and the patience for bringing these labors to completion. Farewell, then, in the Lord, and await in their own time the supplements which I promised above.
III.
ANGELUS ANTONIUS SCOTTUS * TO THE BENEVOLENT READER GREETING.
Since it is established by custom and the institute of writers that, while they grant the benefit of public light to their own lucubrations, they explain diligently from the very beginning for what causes especially they have applied their minds to them; I wish you to be warned, friendly reader, that it was not just one thing which, while I was entangled in other and further occupations, was the greatest incitement for me to undertake and carry through this work, whatever its quality may be. First, the authority and command of the illustrious John Andres, prefect of the Royal Library, to whose erudition and benevolence I do not deny that I owe a great deal, urged me: for he, having proposed to himself the goal of bringing to light all the most precious *keimelia* [treasures] of the library, did not wish these *Amphilochia* of Photius—or as others write, *Amphilocheia* or *Amphilochika*—to lie in darkness; and he handed this commission to me, as I am bound to him by many ties, so that the edition and translation, undertaken with an eager mind, might reach its conclusion in good time. Wherefore, may I be permitted to use what Theodore Balsamon said of himself while he was commenting on the *Nomocanon* of Photius: *If something not quite fitting has perhaps been written... in the... interpretations, let it be deemed worthy of indulgence; for the greatness of the work is not our daring attempt, but the offspring of necessary obedience* (1).
Furthermore, I considered that I would be providing some pleasure, not to say utility, to lovers of Greek and theological erudition if I should publish these *leipsana* [remnants] of Photius in print and endow them with the Latin language. For the works of the man, although affected by some errors, yet *in speech most famous*, as Zonaras says (2), and *known for wisdom*, as Cedrenus confesses (3), have always garnered for him the greatest esteem and praise; indeed, they have consulted their own profit—
A Catholicos, if the other writings of the same author were to be brought into the light and view, that newest hammer of the delirious Greeks, Leo Allatius, has most clearly demonstrated (4).
Next, the example of certain distinguished men confirmed me: for when I had seen some Amphilochian Questions brought into common use in Greek and Latin by Francis Combefis (5), Bernard de Montfaucon (6), and Christopher Wolf (7); and I was not ignorant of the fact that many other *fragments* had been placed in the public view by the recently lauded Allatius (8) and by Francis Turrianus (9); and I had noticed that their editors had received favor, so to speak, from the republic of letters: I deemed it right and equitable to strive to enter into that same favor, albeit with unequal powers. In this matter, I have truly followed that plan which many writers had long since adopted; namely, that the celebrity which my little book could not secure for itself by the merit of its editor, it might seem to acquire through the name of Photius.
Finally, there was this further consideration, in which, although many might perceive a certain childish levity; yet you, most humane reader, who do not doubt that the human mind can be moved and influenced by the most trifling reasons sometimes, will surely recognize as much weight as you have perceived to be sufficient for an wavering mind to reach a decision. You know, no doubt, that after the Greek edition of Hoeschel, the other, Scott, undertook under the best of auspices the translation of that illustrious *masterpiece* of Photius, which is inscribed *Myriobiblos*, or *Bibliotheca* (10); nor does it escape you how well the learned played with the names of ΦΩΤΙΟΥ and ΣΚΟΤΟΥ in those times (11). Since, therefore, I also had these things in view, I thought that I too must descend into the same arena; and I would certainly have obtained all the *Diatribes* of this sort transcribed from the Vatican codex with little effort, and published them to the world, had not many grave obstacles stood in the way of my desires.
A B ...that writers, and Photius himself, an author otherwise most eloquent, departed from the ancient elegance of *Atticism*, and with what great obscurity, as a result of the same vice of writing, those *didactic* discourses in particular were clouded. For those *technical* and indeed *scholastic* words which had become prevalent at that time; the subtleties of arguments and cavils, by which the keenness of the intellect prided itself; and the involved prolixity of the *long-limbed* periods, in which the chief refinement of speech was constituted, are certain impediments, so to speak, which are repeatedly presented to the reader in order to grasp the meaning correctly. Hence it has come about that all the interpreters of these Greeks, when they offer their prefaces, pray for the indulgence of the readers, that they may willingly forgive the *slips* (παροράματα) into which they may have fallen on account of the difficulty of the works being translated. Add to this that Photius, in the letter which he sends to Amphilochius along with these *Dissertations*, himself ingenuously confesses that he did not use elaborate locution, but rather whatever words came most readily to hand (12): perhaps to suggest that he had neglected careful diction, and thereby had left more labor to be expended by the readers.
Since these things are so, in several places, to use the words of Fabius, I have taken care to explain *periphrastically* (περιφραστικῶς), or in more words, what could have been said in one or fewer (13). Nor do I regret this decision of mine; for I have followed the example of Tully, who said that *it will not, however, be necessary to render word for word, as unskilled translators are wont to do; since there is a word that declares the same thing, which is more or less in common use.* I am, indeed, also accustomed to explain with many words what the Greeks express with one, if I cannot do otherwise (14). And so, I have sometimes rejected the *literal* (κατὰ λέξιν) translation, as being less appropriate, both because the character of the Greek language seemed to be at odds with the Latin, and because I had proposed to myself to better consult for clarity, and not to torture the reader with the irksome entanglements of words. For this reason also, in the choice and arrangement of words, in order to set forth a plainer meaning for the readers, I have intentionally departed from the uncorrupted integrity of the Latin language: since the learned expect from works of this kind not the flowers of elocution, but the fruits of truths. And indeed, Clement of Alexandria openly professed that in his writing he had neither *practiced* nor *cared for* elegance. *For those who hold fast to words, and are occupied with these things, the facts escape them* (μηδέ μεμελετηκέναι, μήτε ἐπιτηδεύειν...... τοὺς γὰρ τῶν λέξεων ἐχομένους, καὶ περὶ ταῦτα ἀσχολουμένους διαδιδράσκει τὰ πράγματα), nor had he affected, nor had he followed... them.
These *questions*, however, as they were to be translated into the Latin tongue, how much difficulty and labor they entailed, those will surely perceive who will read them not hastily, but with attention; nor should they judge them by how they appear after the path to the meaning has been opened, but by how they were while that path lay hidden, and they should diligently weigh these things. For it is *proven* that even for young students, who have barely touched the threshold of Greek learning, how much they must sweat to establish the correct reading of manuscripts which have not yet seen the light: how much of the middle ages... D