PHOTII PATRIARCHAE CONSTANTINOPOLITANI OPERUM PARS SECUNDA. DOGMATICA.
PREFACE OF J. CHRISTOPHORUS WOLF TO THE FOUR BOOKS AGAINST THE MANICHAEANS
I offer you, learned reader, a new collection of monuments, as yet unedited, to be continued, if it shall please God Almighty, in several installments. This work was born in me both from other sources and from journeys which I recall with pleasure, undertaken sixteen years ago for the sake of literature. You receive, therefore, a twofold specimen: one pertaining more to sacred, the other to secular literature. For I thought the rationale of this undertaking should be so formed that variety might be added to novelty. A The procession is led by Photius, formerly Patriarch of Constantinople, who deserved well among his contemporaries and successors no less for his sacred and ecclesiastical concerns than for his more refined literary commentaries, which have withstood the test of time. His four books *Contra Manichæos*, written against the ancient and recent adherents of that sect, have not yet seen the light which they absolutely deserve. The first of these, I confess, inserted with a Latin translation by the most excellent Bernard de Montfaucon—a man placed above my own limited praises—in the *Bibliotheca Coisliniana*, to whose tireless industry we have been indebted since the year 1715 (p. 319 seqq.), is already known. But since that excellent work is rarely to be met with in our regions, and this part of the Photian commentary appears as if buried among so many other notable minor works that occur in the same place, I thought it not only advisable but necessary that that same first book, along with the other three, should be reprinted here. I have, moreover, this reason for this plan: I have understood, through the benefit of our Hamburg manuscript, which I have followed most particularly in this edition, that various passages poorly received could be restored to their integrity, which fact itself provided me with the opportunity to amend the Latin translation—otherwise excellent—here and there. To say nothing of the notes, of which this excellent narrative seemed to be in need—a narrative which, in brevity, polish of diction, and wealth of subject matter, is justly preferred to all others regarding this topic. The most praiseworthy Montfaucon procured the edition of this first book from two manuscripts, the one Coislinian, the other Colbertine, of which one B sometimes lent aid to the other. Whether the remaining three books were lacking in both, I cannot say. Certainly I suspect—not without a semblance of truth—that the most learned editor did not mention them in his description of the Coislinian codex, as he was wont to do elsewhere. Perhaps the difference in subject matter provided the occasion for the omission in both codices, since that first book concerns itself only with the history of Manichaeism, while the three remaining ones concern the refutation of the doctrine, which had already been undertaken by others, and for that reason perhaps did not seem as necessary. In our Holstenian manuscript, the entire commentary exists without interrupted order. Nor can it be doubted that the individual books proceeded from the same author, since at the end of the first there is an explicit hope expressed for the others, which were intended to present a refutation of the errors, and furthermore, the very manner of writing and commenting points to Photius. But that Photius is the author of the first book, besides the constant testimony of the manuscript codices, is confirmed beyond doubt by Euthymius, who in the second part of his *Panoplia*, title 21, presents a compendium of the Photian narrative in for the most part the same words, and explicitly attributes it to Photius, using those words which I have cited in the notes on page 1. And this, indeed, is the reason why I deemed it proper to bring forth this entire writing into the light, having found especially in this very city such a notable opportunity. For our public library, among the Greek codices—which it owes to the liberality of the most excellent Lucas Holstenius, our fellow citizen—exhibits a notable volume of greater size, which, besides the writings of Serapion and Titus of Bostra against the Manichaeans, embraces those dear Photian works. Those individual monuments, just as most of those which Holstenius C
A bequeathed to our library, exhibit apographs, diligently copied out from codices of good and very ancient quality by a more recent hand, and evidently revised by Holstenius, as can be seen from certain marginal notes. Perhaps the Vatican Library, over which he had charge, provided him with a copy of them. I have reason for this conjecture: the illustrious Laurentius Alexander Zacagnius, formerly prefect of the same library—who finished his course in life amidst the loss of his studies on February 26, 1712—cites in his work an illustrious passage from the first book of Photius, at that time unpublished, in which the most diligent prelate praises the industry of Archelaus, bishop of the Carcharians, in suppressing the attempts of the ancient Manichaeans. I have noted below that this agrees with the Holstenian apograph in such a way that no difference is observed except in the writing of a single letter. Hence, I conjecture that our Holstenius made use of the same codex that he possessed. Indeed, how carefully that Holstenian exemplar was transcribed from the original—which is no less corrected—is clear from the fact that it is always sound in that one instance where the two others, the Coislinian and the Colbertian, from which the illustrious Montfaucon prepared his edition, differ; and moreover, it often gives aid where there is a defect, having scarcely once or twice imposed upon me the necessity of departing from its own reading. You will find, reader, examples of this assertion in the notes, which have caused me to think that our codex, above all others, should be insisted upon. B Yet, in this undertaking, I have acted in such a way as not to neglect the authority of those two Parisian ones which the illustrious Montfaucon followed. To those, I have added the Euthymian compendium, as it exists in the Panoplia, edited in Greek at Turgoviste in 1710, folio, and once transcribed by me, as far as this part is concerned. For this compendium has, in many places, asserted and vindicated the readings of our codex. Furthermore, the History (of the Manichaeans) of Peter Siculus, edited from a manuscript codex of the Vatican Library in Greek with a Latin version by Matthaeus Rader at Ingolstadt in 1604, quarto, was of help to me. For since, as I have occasionally shown in the notes, there is a remarkable affinity between the commentaries of Photius and Peter Siculus—because they followed the same authors in reviewing the affairs of the ancient Manichaeans, and both followed the same method in those of the new ones—it could not happen that he did not often confirm the genuine reading and refute the corrupt one. Just as, conversely, he who might wish to deign to revise this History of Peter Siculus with a new version, which it entirely requires, will promise himself no small help from this Photian writing with good reason.
As I record these things, I cannot but express the doubt which I have professed in my notes, and in which I confess I still waver, namely, which of these two seems to have imitated the other in writing. That he who has compared both writings, and has even read those points I myself have indicated, will not doubt that one followed in the footprints of the other. I shall here bring forward one argument of agreement—and one which, in my judgment, is clear—from number VI (col. 23). There, the more important errors of the recent Manichaeans are recalled to six heads. Peter Siculus establishes the same number on page 17 et seq. I recall that this is done by none of the ancients. And if it had been done, even then this reasoning would have its own weight, because the same order and sometimes the same phrases are observed on both sides. Compare, I pray, what is read in our text concerning the first error of the Paulicians with those things which I shall bring forward in Latin from Siculus: "The first of their axioms is that there are two principles of things, a god of evil and a god of good, one the creator and prince of this world, and the other of the future age. Come, tell me, he says, what separates us from the Romans? For they themselves, execrated and impious and thoroughly ungrateful and perfidious, call themselves Christians, but we—who are truly of Christ, of our true God—those who attempt to exchange their proper name for an ethnic one call Romans. But they assert that their separation from us consists in this, that they themselves say that there is one God, the creator of the world, and another whom they called the celestial Father, excluded from the administration of the world and reigning only in eternity." It would be difficult to define which one led or followed the other here. An investigation of their age will not settle the matter. For they were contemporaries, and flourished in the middle of the ninth century. It is established that Photius was appointed patriarch of Constantinople in the year 858 and died in the year 891. Read on this matter the Bibliotheca Graeca of the most learned and friendly to us, Jo. Albert Fabricius, Vol. IX, pp. 369 and 370. That Peter Siculus lived at the same time appears from the end of his History. I shall relate the argument in the words of Matthaeus Rader, his editor, which are read thus at the beginning of the book: "Peter Siculus lived about the year of our Lord 870, at which time, under the empire of Basil and his sons Constantine and Leo, emperors of the East, he was sent as an envoy to Tibrica, a city of Armenia, to treat concerning the exchange of captives, and he successfully concluded the cause, as he himself narrates on the final pages, having stayed nine months at Tibrica." Thus, each could appeal in his writing to those things which he either saw or heard done by the Manichaeans in his own age. To the illustrious Montfaucon, at p. 349 of the Bibliotheca Coisliniana, the greatest part of that Photian narration seems C generally to be taken from the history of the rise, progress, and decline of the Manichaeans described by Peter Siculus. I would entirely concede to the same opinion, were it not for the obstacle that Photius, citing various others at the threshold of his narration whose works he has used, is silent about our Siculus, to whom, however, for the sake of the candor which is otherwise observed in him, he would seem to have been more likely to appeal—if indeed he had used him—the more so because he knew, from the very commentary, that he had been present at the actions against the Manichaeans. Conversely, it seems scarcely likely that Peter Siculus compiled the portfolios of Photius, especially in those things which pertain to the history of the more recent Manichaeans, or Paulicians. For he says that he was invited and moved to write of it by the royal legation which he performed in the regions filled with these men. The words have it thus in Latin, p. 3: "Therefore, I, moved by the necessity of the matter, undertook this service, when I arrived at those places while performing a royal legation, at the very destruction of the empire of Basil the Great, our emperor, elected by God, etc. Furthermore, I went as an envoy to treat of the exchange of captives, etc. Therefore, because of the legation to be carried out at Tibrica, among the Paulicians for a long time
lingering, I have often engaged in debate with them, and have even curiously investigated all their secrets through the Catholics dwelling there,” etc. Here it is clear that Peter wishes to appear as their narrator, having either seen the deeds himself or heard them from his peers and from the Manichaeans. Perhaps, therefore, it should be concluded that Peter the Sicilian had Photius’s commentary before his eyes in recounting the history and doctrine of the ancient Manichaeans; but then, when he arrived at the affairs of more recent times (for he lists their doctrines in the same manner as Photius), he consulted his own source. And surely I seem to have detected less agreement between the two writers in the latter portion of the narrative than appears at the beginning and in the continuation of the work. Indeed, it is more likely that Peter the Sicilian, a writer otherwise unknown, chose an experienced guide to follow, rather than Photius, a man most practiced in writing. Finally, it should be noted that the Sicilian, just as much as Photius (pp. 17 and 21 of his History), promises a refutation of Manichaeism; indeed, he accomplishes it by the same reasoning that proved sound for Photius. For Raderus, in § 4 of his Premonition to the Sicilian’s booklet, cites the authority of Jacques Sirmond and reports that a refutation of two of those six chapters we just mentioned exists in the Vatican Library, written by hand, and composed almost exclusively of bare testimonies from the divine Scriptures. No one who has even glanced at his book will deny that this was Photius’s primary concern.
Whatever the case may be, more than one scholar has deemed this work worthy of being brought to light. Thus, Abraham Hinckelmann, the “blessed” A, my predecessor—who deserved no less distinction for his Greek books than for his Oriental ones—intended to publish it with his own Latin translation, a part of which he had already finished. See his *Detection of the Böhmean Foundation*, pp. 52 and 123. His transcription, along with the commentaries of Serapion and Titus of Bostra mentioned above, later came into the hands of Sebastian Gottfried Starck, formerly professor of Oriental languages at Greifswald and later director of the equestrian school at Brandenburg, who was to have finished the work begun by Hinckelmann, had fate permitted. Read his preface to the book *Kelila Wadimna*, which he edited in Greek, at the end, and compare the singular program of the distinguished Martin Dieterich, published at Berlin in 1711 and dedicated to the memory of that excellent man. The same intention was held by Laurentius Alexander Zacagnius, praised above, which can be understood from his Preface to Volume I of the *Collectanea Monumentorum veterum Ecclesiae Graecae*, p. 15: “But to return to Archelaus,” he says, “having found this most ancient work against the Manichaeans, I applied my mind to composing a history of their nefarious heresy, and I had intended to append to it not only the entire disputation of Archelaus, but also the four books of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, against the Manichaeans—which have emerged again in our time—and many other writings of ancient authors, as yet unpublished and of great value: but by the counsel of most learned men, it was brought about that these acts should be published in advance in the first volume of our Collection.” B Induced by the example of these men, a few years ago I formed the plan to complete this business, but I thought about it very seriously only after seeing that the distinguished Jacob Basnage, in the Specimen of the new edition of Canisius’s *Antiquae lectiones* which he undertook, had published in Greek the writings of Serapion and Titus of Bostra against the Manichaeans from a transcript of the Holstenian codex, which he received from my very close colleague, the Reverend Jo. Friedrich Winckler, whereas previously they had been read there only in Latin. Therefore, I thought it advisable to ensure that these three men, whom I saw joined in the same manuscript volume, might not be separated in public in the future, especially as I saw that Photius, in his *Refutation*, supplements the work of those two. For they, while they remain silent about the history of the pestilential heresy and oppose the errors themselves with arguments drawn from reason and philosophy, Photius excellently handles the historical narrative and takes up the task of curbing the madness of those men using the more divine Scripture.
For Photius so arranges his arguments in this whole work that in Book I he presents only the history, while in the remaining books he overthrows their greater errors; and so, in Book II, he proves against them that the same God created both souls and bodies and the rest of things subject to the senses; in Book III, he vindicates the divine origin of the Old Testament; in Book IV, finally, he repeats various matters pertaining to the same arguments and satisfies several of the Manichaeans’ exceptions. Regarding the title which you will see prefixed to Book II, it is as follows: it pertains not so much directly and specifically to that book alone as to the other two, and it constitutes a general inscription of the work, originating from another hand, and it teaches that that book is occupied with attacking the Manichaeans and refuting their exceptions. For it promises *Απορίας καὶ λύσεις τῶν Μανιχαίων*; that is, *The Manichaeans' Doubts and Their Solutions*.
Regarding the notes that I have added, judge them thus: I was more diffuse in illustrating Book I, sparser in the second, and I shall be the same in the rest. For those historical matters seemed to me to require illumination from antiquity or strength from the consenting testimonies of others from various places, while conversely, the dogmatic matters seemed to radiate with their own light.