Library or Myriobiblon (Codices 1–249)

^A And yet, at the same time, regarding those which you had not heard read when you were among us—even if you had read some introductory and more general outline (these amount to the three-hundredth and fifteenth part, lacking one, and no more—for that many, I believe, it happened were read in your absence)—though perhaps it is late for your ardent desire and warm request, yet sooner than anyone else could have hoped, we have found a scribe, and have published as many of them as our memory had preserved, performing a favor for your desire and request just as a solemn duty. Thus the summaries of the contents will follow in such order as the memory of each one may bring forward, since it is not difficult—if one should so choose—to describe separately all those that pertain to history, and separately all those that look to this or that other purpose ^{B A} . . . a kind . . . but a superfluous . . . of honor . . . rather . . . thinking worthy . . . and the variety . . . does not know how to generate satiety in one . . . But if at any time, when you yourself approach the volumes and labor over them, some of the summaries seem to have been recorded incompletely or not with the necessary precision, do not be surprised. For to read through each book individually, to grasp its subject-matter in one’s mind, and to commit it to memory and writing is a task for one who wishes to do so; but to attain to a memory of many things at once, and that too after some interval of time has elapsed, with precision, I do not believe to be an easy thing. As for us, moreover, as much as drifts by of the things read, and even those which, perhaps, because they were easily available, escaped your own attention, we did not apply the same care to those as we did to the others, but by design their precision was overlooked. Whether anything else useful, beyond your request, might be added along with these summaries, you yourself will better understand. These things published will surely be useful to you, both for a summary recollection and reminder of those things you ran through by your own reading—so that you might find more quickly anything you are looking for in them—and more than that, for an easier grasp of those that have not yet come under the reading of your intelligence.

I. Theodore the presbyter, that the book of Saint Dionysius is genuine.

^D [A'] Theodore the presbyter, that the book of Saint Dionysius is genuine.

Read was the book of Theodore the presbyter, in which he teaches...

none of the later Fathers mentioned the sayings and usages contained in it? Second, that Eusebius Pamphili, in making an inventory of the books written by our blessed Fathers, made no mention of this one. Third, how is it that this book provides a detailed explanation of traditions that grew in the Church through progress and over a long period of time? For the great Dionysius was a contemporary of the apostles, as is clear from the Acts; but the book contains a record of most of the traditions that grew later in the Church. It is therefore improbable, he says—or rather, a forgery—to suppose that Dionysius recorded for the Church things that grew up long after his death. Fourth, how does the book mention the epistle of the God-bearing Ignatius? For Dionysius flourished in the times of the apostles, whereas Ignatius struggled in the contest of martyrdom under Trajan; and it was shortly before his death that he wrote this epistle, which the book mentions. Having striven to resolve these four problems, Theodore affirms that, as far as he is concerned, the book is the genuine work of the great Dionysius.

B′. Adrian’s Introduction to Scripture.

Γ′. Nonnosus’s History.

^A Anastasius having been emperor at that time, and he had been dispatched and had struck a peace treaty. Furthermore, the father of Nonnosus (whose name was Abramus) also went on an embassy to Alamundarus, the phylarch of the Saracens, and rescued two Roman generals, Timostratus and Johannes, who had been captured by the laws of war, and he served Emperor Justinus by securing the release of these generals. Now, Kaisus, to whom Nonnosus was sent, was the leader of two of the most distinguished tribes among the Saracens, the Chindieni and the Maadeni. To this very Kaisus, the father of Nonnosus had also been sent by Justinian, before this embassy was entrusted to Nonnosus; and he established peace treaties in such a way that he received Kaisus’s son (who was called Mavias) as a hostage and brought him to Byzantium to Justinian. After this period, Nonnosus was sent as an ambassador for a double purpose: if possible, to bring ^B Kaisus to the emperor, and to arrive at the king of the Auxumitae (at that time Elesbaas ruled that nation), and in addition to these, to arrive at the Homeritae. Auxumis is a very great city and is, as it were, the metropolis of all Ethiopia, lying further to the south and east than the Roman Empire. Nonnosus, indeed, having overcome many ambushes of nations and the dangers of wild beasts—besides the hardships of the journey and the many perils into which he often fell—nevertheless accomplished what he intended, and was returned safely to his fatherland.

Kaisus, he reports, after Abramus had been sent to him again as an ambassador, departed for Byzantium, and having distributed his own phylarchate to his brothers Ambrus and Jezidus, he himself accepted the governorship of Palestine from the emperor, bringing with him a great multitude of those who were subject to him.

He says that the ancients called what are now named sandals "arbyles," and that the "phakiolion" was called "phasolin."

He says that most of the Saracens, both those who live in Phoenicon and those who live beyond Phoenicon and the mountains called the Taureni, consider a certain place sacred and consecrated to some god, to which they gather twice every year. ^C Of these gatherings, their own lasts for an entire month, extending roughly through the middle of the spring, when the sun is in the sign of Taurus in the zodiac; but the other gathering extends for two other months, and it is held after the summer solstice. In these gatherings, he says, the utmost tranquility prevails, not only among themselves but also towards all who come there. Indeed, even wild beasts are at peace with men, and not only among themselves, but also with all the human beings who dwell there.

^A It is said that many other strange things occur, which are in no way different from fables.

[8] He says that Adulis is distant from Auxum fifteen days' journey. To Nonnosus and those with him as they were traveling to Auxum, a great sight appeared near a region called Aue (this Aue is situated midway between the city of the Auxumites and that of the Adulites): a herd of elephants not small in number, but nearly five thousand. These elephants were feeding in a large plain; and it was not easy for any of the local inhabitants to approach them, nor to keep them from their pasture. This spectacle meanwhile came before them.

^B It is also necessary to speak about the condition of the climates, as they follow one another from Aue to Auxum. For they are arranged in opposition to one another regarding summer and winter. For when the sun travels through Cancer, Leo, and Virgo, as far as Aue, as with us, summer and dryness prevail in the air; but from Aue to the rest of Ethiopia, a fierce winter sets in—not throughout the entire day, but always commencing from the afternoon, causing the air to become overcast and flooding the land with torrential rains. At that time, therefore, the Nile, flowing in great volume into Egypt, spreads out like a sea and irrigates the land. But when the sun travels through Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces, conversely the air inundates the region from the Adulites as far as Aue with rains, whereas for those dwelling from Aue to Auxum and the rest of Ethiopia, it is summer, and the land then yields its ripe fruits.

^C To Nonnosus sailing from Pharsa, and having arrived at the farthest of the islands, a certain thing occurred, which is a wonder even to hear of. For he encountered some who had a human form and appearance, but were of very small stature and black in complexion, and their bodies were covered with hair all over. Leading the men were women of similar stature, and children even smaller than the men among them. All of them were naked, except that those who were grown, both men and women, covered their private parts with a small hide. They showed nothing wild or savage, but had a human voice, though their dialect was completely unknown to all the people living in the surrounding regions, and much more so to the companions of Nonnosus. ^D They lived on marine shellfish and fish cast upon the island from the sea. They were not at all bold, but, upon seeing our men, they were struck with fear, just as we are when we see a great wild beast.

IV. The twenty-five books of Theodore of Antioch against Eunomius in defense of Saint Basil

V. The book of Sophronius on the same subject

VI. Two works of Gregory of Nyssa on the same subject

VII. The second work of the same Gregory of Nyssa on the same subject

VIII. The four books of Origen’s *On First Principles*

saying that the Son was made by the Father, and the Spirit by the Son, and that the Father pervades all things that exist, but the Son only those endowed with reason, and the Spirit only those who are saved. He relates other most absurd things, full of impiety; for he ^A trifles about the transmigration of souls, and animate stars, and other things similar to these. The first book he mythologizes concerning the Father, and (as he himself puts it) concerning Christ, and concerning the Holy Spirit, and furthermore concerning rational natures. The second [concerns] the world and the things created in it, and further that there is one God of the Law and the Prophets, and that the same is the God of the Old and New Testament, and [concerning] the incarnation of the Saviour, and that the same Spirit was in Moses and the other prophets and the holy apostles; in addition to this, [it concerns] the soul, the resurrection, punishment, and rewards. The third [concerns] free will; how the devil and the opposing powers, according to the teachings of the Scriptures, war against the human race; [and that] the world has an origin and is subject to corruption, as one which received its beginning in time. The fourth book [concerns] the ultimate final end, [asserting] that the Scriptures are divine; and finally, how one ought to read and understand the Scriptures.

IX. Eusebius of Caesarea, Bishop.

Read were the fifteen books of the *Evangelical Preparation* of Eusebius, in which he for the most part refutes the vain doctrine of the Gentiles, and [shows] how they were always at variance among themselves. ^C He makes mention at the beginning of the fifteenth book, and at the end of the same, of another work which he names the *Evangelical Demonstration*, which follows the *Evangelical Preparation*, since the latter is almost a refutation of the error of the Gentiles, while the former is a confirmation of the evangelical proclamation.

Read were the twenty books of Eusebius' *Evangelical Demonstration*.

Read were also the books of Eusebius' *Ecclesiastical Preparation*..., in which there are excerpts.

XII. Read were also the books of Eusebius' *Ecclesiastical Demonstration*....

XIII. Read were two books of Eusebius' *Refutation and Apology*, and two others, which, except for some assertions, are the same as the first two in style and meaning. He introduces, as if coming from the Gentiles, certain objections against our blameless religion, and these he resolves well, even if not in all respects. His style is not

^A anywhere pleasant, nor is he one who delights in brilliance. Yet the man is full of learning, even if he is somewhat lacking in sharpness of mind and stability of character, in accordance with the precision required in matters of dogma; for even in these, one can see him in many places blaspheming against the Son, calling Him a second cause and supreme commander, and other such offspring of the Arian madness. It is clear that he flourished in the times of Constantine the Great. He also became an ardent lover of the virtue of the holy martyr Pamphilus, for which reason some say he took on the surname of Pamphilus.

XIV. Apollinarius of Hierapolis, On Piety and Truth, against the Gentiles.

XV. Gelasius, writer of the first synod.

XVI. The third synod.

XVII. The fourth synod.

XVIII. Fifth Synod.

XIX. Sixth Synod.

XX. Seventh Synod.

XXI. John Philoponus, On the Resurrection.

XXII. Theodosius the monk against Philoponus.

XXIII. Invective of Conon, Eugenius, and Themistius against Philoponus.

XXIV. Acts of the disputation of the heretics before John, Patriarch of Constantinople.

XXV. Orations of St. John Chrysostom on the death and ascension of Christ, and on Pentecost.

XXVI. The Writings of Synesius of Cyrene

^A Read [in this volume] are the orations of the Bishop of Cyrene, whose name is Synesius, *On Providence*, *On Kingship* (36), and several others. His style is indeed sublime and grand, yet it inclines at times toward a more popular diction (37). Read also are his various epistles (38), which flow with grace and sweetness, combined with the strength and density of their insights.

He came from the school of the pagan philosophers. It is said that when he inclined toward the divine doctrine of the Christians, he readily accepted other things, but—whether this is known from elsewhere I do not know, but it is certainly clearly detected from his own epistle to Theophilus—he was unwilling to accept the doctrine of the resurrection. Yet, while thinking this way (40), he was nevertheless initiated into our dogmas, and was even judged worthy of the high priesthood; for [the Church] looked to the other integrity of the man and the purity of his life, and [concluded] that a man who had ordered his life in such a way could not fail ^B to be enlightened by the light of the resurrection. And their hope did not deceive them; for quite easily, once he had been ordained bishop, he was restored to the faith in the dogma of the resurrection. He brought luster to Cyrene at the time when Theophilus presided over Alexandria.

XXVII. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphili, in Ten Books

Read are the ten books of the *Ecclesiastical History* of Eusebius. It begins from the birth of Christ, our true God, and progresses accurately through the times of the tyrants, reaching as far as the reign of Constantine the Great, treating more minutely those things which were ordained and decreed in the churches under him and by him.

XXVIII. The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates

^C Read is the *Ecclesiastical History* of Socrates, which follows next after that of Eusebius; for it begins from the reign of Constantine and extends to the times of Theodosius the Younger. The author, while still a boy, attended upon the Alexandrian grammarians Ammonius and Helladius, and was taught grammar by them, for they were pagans who had fled their homeland on account of sedition and were residing in Constantinople. The book contains the events of one hundred and forty years, and the whole history ^D is composed by him in seven volumes.

^A Its style is not very splendid, nor is it very accurate in matters of doctrine.

XXIX.

Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus.

XXX.

Hermias Sozomen’s Ecclesiastical History in nine books.

XXXI.

Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History in five books.

XXXII.

Epistles of St. Athanasius.

65

XXXIV.

He also wrote to Origen regarding the story of Susanna, stating that it was not read in the Hebrew books, and that it is not consistent ^D with the Hebrew etymology, neither the one derived from the *prinos* (holm-oak) nor the one from the *schinos* (lentisk-tree); to these things Origen, answering him, wrote a refutation.

^A Africanus also writes to Aristides, in which he sufficiently demonstrates the supposed disagreement between Matthew and Luke regarding the genealogy of our Savior to be in agreement.

XXXV.

Philippus Sidetes' Christian History, in twenty-four books.

The work of Philippus Sidetes was read, the title of which is *Christian History*, beginning with: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." He goes through the history of Moses, summarizing some parts and expanding on others, though he squanders many words throughout. His first book contains twenty-four sections; in the same way, his other twenty-three books each contain twenty-four sections, as far as we have seen them. He is very wordy in his expression, yet he is neither elegant nor charming, but rather ^{B C} tiresome, or more truly disagreeable, showing off more than he is useful, and inserting as much as possible that has no bearing on history, so that you would say it is not so much a history as an analysis of the treatment of other people's affairs (so ineptly does he pour it forth). He was a contemporary of Sisinnius and Proclus, who were bishops of Constantinople. In his historical compilation, he frequently attacks Sisinnius, because, while both were filling the same office, and although Philippus appeared to hold the first place in eloquence, Sisinnius, they say, was elected to the archiepiscopal throne.

XXXVI.

A book entitled "Christian's Book," an exposition of the Octateuch.

A book was read, which is inscribed *Christian's Book*, an exposition of the Octateuch. The author dedicated the book to a certain Pamphilus. ^D It was during the days of the Roman emperor Justin...

^A that he flourished. He begins by attempting to contend, as it seemed to him, for certain ecclesiastical dogmas using testimonies from Holy Scripture. His style is humble, and he employs a structure beneath the common standard. He also composes certain incredible things, not sufficient to merit historical credibility, on account of which he ought deservedly to be considered a writer more fabulous than truthful. Among these, he puts forth these dogmas: that the heaven ^B is not of an orbicular figure, nor the earth either; but that the former is like a vaulted chamber, while the latter is oblong, and that the extremities of the heaven are fastened to the extremities of the earth; and that all the stars are moved by angels who serve them in their motion, and other such things. He also makes mention, as though it were a digression, of the books of Genesis and Exodus, and is occupied for the most part with the narration and speculation concerning the Tabernacle. He runs through the prophets, and from there the apostles. He says further that the size of the sun is that of two climates, and that the angels are not in heaven, but only under ^C the firmament and dwelling with us, and that Christ, ascending from the earth, reached only the space between the heaven and the firmament, and that this alone is the kingdom of heaven. He also produces other absurd things. He addresses the first six books of his to a certain Pamphilus; of the remaining six (for there are twelve in all), he addresses the seventh to Anastasius, in which he asserts that the heavens are by no means to be dissolved; the eighth (which is on the canticle of Hezekiah and the recession of the sun), he inscribes to Peter, in which book he also mentions that he explained the Song of Songs. The remaining four are dedicated to no one in particular.

XXXVII. On the Republic, six books.

^C 8a The *De Republica* was read, introducing Menas the Patrician and Thomas the Referendary as speakers in a dialogue. This work contains six books, in which, as it is called here, a new kind of polity is introduced, distinct from those which the ancients set forth; and Plato’s Republic is not unjustly criticized. The polity which those persons promote, they say, ought to be composed of the three species of government, namely, the royal, the aristocratic, and the democratic, so that when each of these contributes what it has that is pure and sincere, ^D this constitution may finally be established as the truly best form of republic.

XXXVIII. Theodore of Antioch, Exposition of Genesis.

Theodore of Antioch’s book was read, which has the inscription: *Exposition of Genesis*; the first volume is completed in seven books. His style is neither brilliant ^D

^A nor very clear; avoiding, as much as in him lies, allegories, and treating only of the historical exposition, he repeats the same things over and over again, in a way that is highly tedious and quite unpleasant and tiresome to the reader. Moreover, he silently vomits out the opinion of Nestorius, although he preceded him. This is that Theodore of Mopsuestia, from whom, as he himself admits, it is well known that John Philoponus seriously and in good faith drew the method of this kind of interpretation in his own work *On the Creation of the Universe*.

XXXIX. Eusebius against Hierocles.

XL. The Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius in twelve books.

and also in his Life, Eusebius of Nicomedia, whom he even calls "the Great," as well as Theophilus the Indian and many others. He especially blames Acacius, the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, for his intolerable severity and unconquerable cunning—arts ^A by which he says he prevailed over all, both those who felt as he did, though they burned with mutual hatred, and those who held the contrary view on religion.

And this much I have already read; but shortly thereafter, in another volume, six other books of his were found, so that his entire work seems to be completed in twelve books; the initial letters of which, when put together, form the name of the writer, Philostorgius. It reaches down ^B to the times of Theodosius the Younger, and ends at that time when, after the death of Honorius, Theodosius handed over the scepters of the Roman Empire to Valentinian the Younger, the son of Placidia and Constantius, his cousin.

Although this Philostorgius raged against the orthodox, he dared not attack Gregory, surnamed the Theologian, whose teaching he praises even against his will; but he attempted to weave slander against Basil the Great, by which, however, he only made him more illustrious. For by the very evidence of the facts, he was compelled to acknowledge the power and beauty of his delivery in his Panegyrics; yet the cowardly man does not fear to call him rash, and unskilled in argumentative discourse, because, as he says, he dared to oppose the writings of Eunomius.

XLI.

John the Presbyter of Aegeae’s Ecclesiastical History

^C Read was the "Ecclesiastical History" of John; which he began from the reign of Theodosius the Younger, and from that very blasphemy and deposition of Nestorius, and carries it down to Zeno and the deposition of Peter the heretic, who had impiously usurped the Antiochene throne. His style is clear and flowery. He relates, examining matters one by one, the third synod which was held in Ephesus; and indeed the one gathered there after it, which I call the "robber" synod—which this writer makes "divine," as he does its leader Dioscorus and those with him. He also narrates the Council of Chalcedon, but not without reproaches and slanders. From which it may be gathered that John the Presbyter of Aegeae is the author of the book, who, as a heretic, composed a separate work against the Council of Chalcedon. His history, however, consists of ten volumes. ^D

Of these, I have only happened to read five, containing the history (as I have said) from the blasphemy of Nestorius down to the deposition of the heretic Peter ^A from his see; as he himself also promises.

XLII. Ecclesiastical History of Basil of Cilicia, in three books.

The Ecclesiastical History of Basil of Cilicia was read ^B. It begins from the death of Simplicius, bishop of Rome, who wrote to Acacius of Constantinople, urging him to separate from communion with Peter—the one nicknamed "Mongus," who was at that time corrupting Alexandria—for this Peter was publicly anathematizing the holy Synod held at Chalcedon within the Church. On account of him, Acacius, though rightly moved against him at first, later, by not shunning him, incurred the reputation of being a heretic among many, and even fell under deposition by the Romans; this matter was agitated again while Zeno was reigining. It begins, then, from those times, and reaches down to the death of Anastasius, who, as he says, reigned for twenty-seven years and three months; after whom, he writes, Justin the Thracian was proclaimed emperor. But this book halts its narrative at that point, extending from Zeno down to the death of Anastasius and the proclamation of Justin. He states also that two other books had been composed by him, a first and a third: the former beginning from the empire of Marcian and leading down to Zeno, from where the second took its start; and the third taking up the end of this second book, beginning from the times of Justin.

The writer is not very accurate regarding his style, and is sometimes inconsistent with himself. He introduces, for the most part, letters sent back and forth by bishops, in order, as he affirms, to impart credibility to his narrative; but these, while they increase the volume immensely, provide very little history within a great heap of words, and, furthermore, the clarity of the narrative is cut short by the bulk of the material inserted. ^C

XLIII. John Philoponus on the Hexaemeron.

We read John Philoponus on the Hexaemeron. In this book, he is pure and clear, and surpasses himself in his mode of expression; and, just as he agrees in almost all points with Basil the Great, so he contradicts in everything Theodore of Mopsuestia, who, having taken up the same subject, entitled his book *Interpretation of Genesis*, ^D and whose opinions Philoponus, in refuting them, takes the opposite side.

XLIV. The Eight Books of Philostratus of Tyre on the Life of Apollonius of Tyana

I read the eight books of Philostratus of Tyre on the life of Apollonius of Tyana. He uses a style that is clear, engaging, and concise, full also of sweetness, and he seeks praise both from the forms of ancient speech and from more modern elegances.

He narrates that Apollonius journeyed to the Indians, whom he also calls Brahmans, from whom he learned most of their divine wisdom; and to the wise men of the Ethiopians, whom he also terms "Naked" ^A because they spend their whole life naked, nor does even the inclemency of the weather cause them to put on any clothing. He says, however, that the wise men of the Indians far excel those in Ethiopia, because he says that dwelling nearer to the sun's rays, they are more acute and pure in their understanding, and also because they are more advanced in age.

As for Apollonius, he says that nothing of what the fabulous account attributes to him was accomplished at all; he lauds him rather as living a philosophical and temperate life, inasmuch as he exhibited the Pythagorean philosophy ^B both in his customs and in his doctrines. He writes that his death was obscure and told in various ways by many, and that Apollonius himself studiously aimed at this; for even while living, he was accustomed to say that it is necessary for the wise man to live hiding from the multitude, or if that is not possible, at least to die hiding; and that his tomb is nowhere known on earth. He adds that he was a wondrous contemner of wealth, so that he left his own possessions to his own brother and others, and he could not be persuaded to receive money from any those in power, although many highly offered it. He says that he both foresaw the plague ^C at Ephesus and stopped it when it had occurred. And that, seeing a lion, he said that the soul of Amasis, king of the Egyptians, was in that beast, paying the penalty for the life he had lived; and that he exposed an Empusa, who was feigning to be infatuated with Menippus under the mask of a courtesan; and that he brought back to life a girl at Rome who seemed to have just expired; and that he unfastened his leg while he was held bound in prison; and that he pleaded his case before the Emperor Domitian ^D on behalf of himself and Nerva, who succeeded Domitian in the empire, and that after the defense at the tribunal he vanished, and arrived to Demetrius and Damis (having made such an agreement with them) in no interval of time, but in a moment, although they were distant a journey of several days. Such things Philostratus invents about him, yet he denies that he should be considered an initiator [of mysterious rites], for the reason that he might have accomplished some of those works which are rumored by some to have been performed by him.

Rather, he depicts him as more hostile to sorcerers and poisoners, and not at all addicted to the art of the magi. ^B Concerning the Indians, this man weaves together nothing but the most absurd and incredible things. For he posits that among them there are jars full of rain and winds, which are permitted to water the region in times of drought, and again, once the rains have been dispersed, to dry it out, while they provide water and wind in turns from the jars. He fashions many other things similar to these, full of madness and prodigies; and thus, in eight books, he consumes all his labor in most empty vanities.

XLV. Andronicianus against the Eunomians

^B Two brief books by Andronicianus against the Eunomians were read. In his prefaces, he indeed promises great things, but he does not fulfill them, especially in the second book. He is a devotee of philosophy in character, mind, and style of speech, but a Christian in his religion.

XLVI. Theodoret of Cyrus, twenty-seven books against heretics; and three books of the Eranistes

Twenty-seven books by Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, against various propositions were read. ^C The first book argues against those who assert that God the Word is of a single nature, and that the beginning was taken from the seed of David, and who also attribute passions to the Divine. The second book engages with the same persons more scripturally, and the third debates the same subject. The fourth contains the doctrine of the holy Fathers concerning the glorious incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The fifth collects the opinions of heretics and compares them with the opinion of those who do not at all acknowledge two natures in Christ, and shows that they have a great affinity between them. The sixth establishes that our Lord Jesus Christ is one Son. The seventh holds the place of an epistle, with which the first volume is completed. ^D The eighth is against those who judge the truth solely by the multitude. The ninth is against those who boast that one ought not to speak or inquire from the Scriptures, but that one's own faith should suffice. The tenth is against those who maliciously object to the passage: "The Word was made flesh." The eleventh is against those who forbid taking the two natures into account in the incarnation. The twelfth is against those who assert that he who says the Word is one thing and the flesh another confesses two sons. The thirteenth is against those who say that to recognize Christ as man is the same as placing one’s hopes in a man. The fourteenth is against those who declare: "He suffered without passion." The fifteenth is against those who say: "He suffered as he willed." The sixteenth is against those who say that one ought to accept the expressions and not consider what is signified by them, as

things which exceed the grasp of all. ^A The seventeenth is against those who say: "The Word suffered through the flesh." The eighteenth is against those who assert what kind of punishment the Jews would have suffered had they not affixed God to the cross. The nineteenth is against those who affirm that He who was crucified is merely a Jew and not God. The twentieth is against those who say that the angels who took food at the house of Abraham did not necessarily possess a nature of flesh. The twenty-first is against those who belittle each of the miracles by denying [the reality of] the flesh. ^B The twenty-second is against those who inflict damage upon our nature by refusing to grant that [the Word] took its beginning from our nature. The twenty-third is against those who boast that they believe simply in what is said, without attending to what is fitting or unfitting. The twenty-fourth is against those who abolish the difference of the natures after the passion and the ascension. The twenty-fifth is a summary repetition of what has been delivered so far in parts. The twenty-sixth is concerning the composition, or consubstantiation, made known later. The twenty-seventh is concerning the pattern according to the common man. It is clear, even from their premise alone, which of the aforementioned discourses strengthen the orthodox persuasion, [c] and which deviate from it.

In the same volume, three other treatises by the same author were read, which are longer than those already mentioned; they bore the title

the *Eranistes*, or the *Polymorphos*

XLVII. Of Josephus the Jew, concerning the sufferings of the Jews

The *Sufferings of the Jews* by Josephus the Jew were read, in which the destruction of Jerusalem is [recounted] at the end of the discourses, as well as [that of] the small town of Masada; before these, the taking of Jotapata, in which Josephus himself was captured; furthermore, the destruction of Gischala and the desolation of other Jewish fortresses. The work is comprised of seven books. Clear is his style, and he is adept at expressing both the weight and momentum of arguments with clarity and pleasantness; he is persuasive in orations and graceful, even when the occasion calls for him to use speech for the opposite, being clever and fruitful in arguments on both sides, and sententious as

no other is. Furthermore, he is most skillful in imparting emotion to an oration, and in stirring up and promptly calming passions.

He recounts that many signs and prodigies preceded the destruction of Jerusalem. That a cow led to sacrifice gave birth to a lamb; that a light shone in the Temple; that a voice was heard from thence, saying: “Let us depart hence.” That the gates of the Temple, which not even twenty men could open, opened of their own accord. That in the evening an army was seen clad in arms. That a man whose name was Jesus, son of Ananias, for six years and three months incessantly cried out ^B as if moved by madness, nothing else than: “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!” And that although he was beaten with stripes for this cause, he uttered no other word than this. The same man, being present at the destruction of the city and repeating the same voice to himself, was struck by a stone from the enemy and died.

These, then, were the signs shown before the city was taken, but it was the sedition of civil war and the enemy that destroyed the city. For the Jews, divided into the factions of the Zealots and the Sicarii, slew one another, and the common body of the citizens was bitterly and cruelly mangled by both sides. Famine also laid hold of the city, so that men were driven to other shameful acts, and a woman even ate her own child. The plague, following upon the famine, showed clearly to all that this was the work of divine wrath and of the Lord’s threats and warnings, that the city would verily perish, utterly overthrown. ^C

XLVIII.

Josephus, or Gaius the Presbyter. On the Universe.

There was read the *On the Universe* of Josephus; which book is elsewhere read under the title *On the Cause of the Universe*, and in other books *On the Nature of the Universe*. And there are two small books, in which he teaches that Plato contradicts himself. He also reproves Alcinous for discourses on the soul and matter and the resurrection [(76)] which are absurd and false, and he opposes his own opinions on these theses; and he teaches that the nation of the Jews is far more ancient than that of the Greeks. He thinks man is composed of fire, earth, and water, and further of spirit, which he also calls soul. Concerning which spirit he uses these words: "Taking the principal part of this, he fashioned it together with the body, and made a way for it through all members and joints. Which spirit, fashioned with the body and pervading the whole, is marked with the same form by which this body is seen: but in nature it has a colder quality in relation to those three by ^D which the body is compacted." These things he said, not sufficiently aptly to the Hebraic doctrine concerning the nature of man, nor sufficiently to the dignity of the other things eloquently written by him. He also discusses the generation of the world compendiously.

Regarding Christ, our true God, however, he speaks most aptly, when he attributes to Him the very appellation of Christ and describes His ineffable generation from the Father without reproach. This fact might perhaps provide someone with a cause to doubt whether this little work is by Josephus, although it does not depart in its style of expression from the rest of the author's writings.

I found it noted ^B that this work is not by Josephus, but by a certain Gaius, a presbyter dwelling in Rome, whom they also make the author of the *Labyrinth*, a dialogue of which is also extant against a certain Proclus, a defender of the Montanist heresy. For when the work was left without a title, some inscribed it to Josephus, others to Justin the Martyr, and others to Irenaeus, just as some have inscribed the *Labyrinth* to Origen. Since it is in truth the work of Gaius, who composed the *Labyrinth*, as he himself testified at the end of the *Labyrinth* that he was the author of the book *On the Nature of the Universe*. But whether this is the same book that is under discussion, or another, is not yet clear to me. They say that this Gaius was a presbyter of the Roman Church under the pontiffs Victor and Zephyrinus, and that he was ordained as a bishop of the nations. He also wrote another work specifically against the heresy of Artemon, and a rigorous disputation against Proclus, a devotee of Montanus, in which he enumerates only thirteen epistles by the blessed Paul, not accepting into the canon the one to the Hebrews.

XLIX. The five books of blessed Cyril of Alexandria against the blasphemies of Nestorius

Blessed Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, *Against the blasphemies of Nestorius* has been read, in five books. He maintains in these also the character and properties of his own style, yet he is clearer than when writing to Hermias or in his books *On Adoration in Spirit*. His discourse is constrained and forced into a peculiar form of expression, like a poem set free and disregarding meter. ^C

L. Nicias the monk, against Philoponus, Severus, and the Pagans

Nicias the monk's *Against the seven chapters of Philoponus*, of which he made mention in the book he entitled *The Arbiter* [Διαιτητής], has been read. His style is simple and concise, sufficient in its replies, and by no means redundant. Also read were his two books ^D *Against the impious Severus*, and furthermore, *Against the Pagans*.

LI. Hesychius, Presbyter of Constantinople, On the Brazen Serpent, in four books

Read were the four books ^A of Hesychius, presbyter of Constantinople, *On the Brazen Serpent*. It appeared that his discourse was prepared for display and composed to stir the emotions. In this work, speeches of Moses to the people are imagined, and artful conversations of the latter in turn to Moses; also, discourses of the Divine to Moses and to the people, and the responses of both of these again to God, are composed in the form of prayers and apologies. With these speeches he consumes a great part of the book, making the volume of immense size. Furthermore, the writer himself, as far as one can judge from this work, is to be numbered among the orthodox.

LII. The Synod of Side, and others against the Messalians

Read was the synod convened at Side ^B against the heresy of the Messalians, that is to say, the Euchites or Adelphians. Presiding over the synod was Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, with twenty-five other bishops sitting with him. In this same book was also read the synodical epistle of this same synod to the great Flavian, bishop of Antioch, rendering an account of the events that had taken place.

Because of this, Flavian himself also convened a synod against those same heretics, with three bishops attending him: Biza of Seleucia, Marutha of the nation of the Suphareni, and Samus, to whom joined presbyters and deacons, numbering up to thirty. This synod ^C refused to admit Adelphius when he professed repentance and abjured the heresy; for neither that abjuration of heresy nor his repentance was proven to be true and from the heart.

The authors of this heresy were the aforementioned Adelphius—who was enrolled in no order, neither of monks nor of priests, but was considered a layman and a private person—and Sabbas, who wore the habit of monks, whom, from the outcome of the matter, they called *Apokopos* (that is, "Resectum" or "Severed"), and another Sabbas, and Eustathius the Edessene, and Dadoes, and Symeones, the tares of the Evil One, and others who adhered to them. ^D Adelphius and those with him were condemned, although, as we have said, they sought a place for repentance; yet they did not obtain it, because they were caught communicating in writing with those whom they had themselves anathematized as Messalians, as if they were of the same mind.

Furthermore, Flavian wrote an epistle to those in Osrhoene, informing them of what had been done regarding them, in which it is reported that the heretics were beaten and excommunicated; and a reply was made by the bishops who received it, with thanks rendered to Flavian for these actions, and their assent.

^A Litolus (84) the bishop of Armenia also wrote, inquiring about the Messalians; and the synodical decree and decision concerning them was written to him. The great Flavian also wrote to a certain Armenian bishop for the second time concerning this same matter; and in this second epistle he even brings a charge, that the Messalians are finding some patronage from him. Atticus of Constantinople also wrote to the bishops existing in Pamphylia, that they should expel the Messalians from everywhere as accursed and detestable things. And the same man likewise wrote to Amphilochius, the presiding bishop of Side.

Sisinnius of Constantinople and Theodotus of Antioch also wrote a joint epistle to Berinianus and Amphilochius and the rest of the bishops in Pamphylia, of which the inscription is: "To our most God-beloved fellow-ministers Berinianus, and Amphilochius, and to all the bishops in Pamphylia, Sisinnius and Theodotus and the entire holy synod which, by God’s grace, has been gathered in the great city of Constantinople for the sake of the ordination of the most God-beloved and most holy ^B bishop Sisinnius, by the command and authority of our most pious and Christ-loving Emperor Theodosius, greeting in the Lord." In this synodical epistle Neōn the bishop also declared that if any person, after the anathema, is found at any time to have fallen into suspicion of this base sect either by word or deed, he shall no longer from then on hold any place, nor, even if he should profess ten thousand times over that he would pay the penalties established for those in penitence, shall he be allowed to fulfill that order; and he subjects to this same danger also the one who consents to and applauds him, whether he be a bishop or any other person. An epistle was also written by John of Antioch to Nestorius concerning the Messalians. The holy and ecumenical synod, the third in Ephesus, also issued a decree, having stripped bare their blasphemous and heretical chapters, which were in their so-called Ascetic book, and submitted them to anathema. Archelaus, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, also wrote twenty-four anathemas of their chapters. ^C Heraclidas, bishop of Nyssa, also composed two epistles against them, in the second of which is also brought forward a testimony for the antiquity of the sacred images.

A long time later, Gerontius, presbyter and superior of the monks in Glitide, also wrote to Alypius, archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, raising complaints against Lampetius, who was the first of the aforementioned heresy who managed to steal by stealth the dignity of the priesthood and to attain that office, being himself profane and an impostor. Alypius, having received the things written... ^D

^A to Hormisdas, the bishop of Comana, sent them to be examined regarding the things spread about Lampetius. The heads of the accusation were these: that he had embraced and kissed a girl with his arms; that Lampetius himself had related that he had sinned in Jerusalem with a certain deaconess; and that when some approached him seeking a cure for a malady, he had said, "Bring me a beautiful girl, and I will show you holiness." Also, that he had foully mocked those who chanted the hours, ridiculing them as if they were still serving under the Law. And many other nefarious things of this ^B kind were alleged against him, which are both practiced and spoken of by the Messalians. "Just as we," he says, "in our attempt to lead some away from this error, which has recently begun to sprout up from there, as far as we were able, have seen a great rot of passions and wickedness devouring the souls of those people." But Lampetius, with Hormisdas the bishop acting as judge and Gerontius the presbyter as accuser, being convicted partly by witnesses and partly by his own confession, was stripped of his priestly dignity by the vote of all; Alypius of Caesarea also assenting, who—having himself been deceived—had ordained that miserable man as presbyter. Truly, that most wicked Lampetius composed a certain book, which he named the *Testament*, into which he sowed certain dogmas of his impiety; this book was refuted by Severus, who invaded the Antiochene see while he was still holding the rank of presbyter. ^C However, a certain Alpheus, bishop of Rhinocorura, defended Lampetius in an Apology, as if he had neither said nor done anything of those things of which he was accused. Yet even if in a certain book published by him this Alpheus does not, so far as can be discerned, slander anyone, he was nevertheless compelled to resign, as being of the same mind as Lampetius. Another Alpheus, a namesake of the teacher, having been ordained presbyter by Timothy of Alexandria, was deposed for the same heresy, as the report of Ptolemy, also bishop of Rhinocorura, to the aforementioned Timothy testifies.

LIII. Synod of Carthage and certain writings against Pelagius and Celestius.

^D A book, or the Acts of the Synod, was read regarding the Synod against Pelagius and Celestius (86) held at Carthage in the great church, while Honorius, who held the position of guarding the Western empire, was ruling. Aurelius the bishop presided over this synod, and Dotianus of Tentenia, of the first see of the province of Byzacena; there were present with them from various provinces men distinguished by their priesthood, to the number of two hundred and twenty-four. This synod condemns with anathema those who assert (87) that Adam was created mortal, and not that he was condemned to death by reason of transgression. Likewise those who [44 R.]

^A assert that there is some middle place between paradise and the lower regions, in which unbaptized infants live happily, the fathers also condemn. Furthermore, they condemn six other chapters similar to these, which are held by the Pelagianists and Celestians.

The emperors Theodosius and Honorius also wrote against the same heretics to Aurelius the bishop. After this, Constantine, the husband of Placidia and father of the younger Valentinian, wrote regarding the banishment of the heretic Celestius; he wrote his decree against him to Volusianus, the prefect of the city. This Volusianus, the uncle of the holy Melania, at that time sided with the heathens, but when death struck him while he was serving as an envoy at Constantinople, he passed over to the orthodox faith and was baptized by the blessed Proclus of Constantinople. At that same time, he happened to meet that holy woman, as she had arrived at the royal city from Jerusalem. Leo, Pontiff of the Romans, also wrote concerning the converted Pelagianists, that if they wished to be received upon their return, they ought to detest their error in writing. Also in the letter of Pope Celestine of Rome to Nestorius, these same heretics are reproved. The same man wrote to the bishops of Gaul regarding the faith of Saint Augustine and against those who were puffed up by the license of the heresy. Jerome the presbyter also wrote to Ctesiphon against those who asserted *apatheia* (that is, impassibility or imperturbation), or against Pelagius. This Pelagius was a monk, who had acquired Celestius as a disciple. ^B

LIV. Exemplar of the Acts by the bishops of the West against the Nestorians and Pelagians.

The book *Against the Pelagian and Celestian Heresy* was read, the inscription of which is: "Exemplar of the Acts by the bishops of the West against the Nestorian dogmas." In it, it is written that the Nestorian and Celestian heresy is the same. It also brings forward as witness Cyril of Alexandria, writing to the emperor Theodosius that the Nestorian heresy and the Celestian are one and the same. "It is clear," it says. "For the Celestians behave insolently regarding the body, that is, the members of Christ, which is the Church, saying that it is not God Himself—that is, the Holy Spirit—who distributes to each one faith and all things necessary for life, piety, and salvation, as He wills; but that the established nature of man (which, through transgression and sin, fell away from blessedness and was separated from God ^C

and was delivered to death) both invokes and repels the Holy Spirit according to the merit of its own free choice. The Nestorians, however, dare to think and assert the same thing even concerning Christ Himself, the head of the body. For they assert that, since Christ has been made a partaker of our nature, and since God wills that all men should be saved in like manner, each one is able, by the freedom of his own will, to correct his own sin and render himself worthy of Him; and therefore, the One born of Mary is not the Word, but [a man] born of her, who, on account of the dignity of his natural will, has the Word accompanying him: he partakes of the relationship of sonship solely by that nobility and by the same title.

^B Now this Pelagian, or Celestian, heresy flourished not only in the East, but also pervaded the West; and in Carthage in Africa, it was detected and convicted by Aurelius and Augustine, and condemned by various public councils. Those who sided with them were ejected as heretics from the Church in the times of the bishops Theophilus of Alexandria and Innocent of the city of Rome, both by the Romans and by the Africans and the other Western bishops. Yet this Pelagius, in that synod which met in Palestine (which fourteen prelates attended), was acquitted, since he had altogether denied and anathematized some of the heads of the accusations as foolish, while others he confessed to have indeed been said by him, but not in the sense in which his accusers interpreted them, but rather in a way that agreed with the doctrine of the Catholic Church. The accusers were Neporus and Lazarus, Gallic bishops, who did not even attend the examination of him, having asked for a reprieve from appearing due to the infirmity of one of them. Thus Augustine writes, and [Photius] relates.

[21 H] After the death of Saint Augustine, however, certain men among the clergy began to assert that impious dogma, and even to speak ill of Augustine, and to assail him with insults, as if he had taught that the freedom of the will should be abolished. But Celestine, the Roman pontiff, writing to the bishops of that region, defended the holy man and restrained the recently revived error against those who were stirring up that heresy. As time went on, and men of this sect were restored to the Church through the abjuration of their heresy, the evil took its beginning from them again, so that the reviving pestilence had to be repressed before it spread further, by letters sent to Leo, who then held the apostolic see at Rome, who fought with fervent zeal against this impiety.

But not long after, as if it were again sprouting from the bitter root, it began to grow in Rome with shameless boldness; but a certain Prosper, a man truly of God, by issuing pamphlets against them to the public, easily scattered and extinguished them, while Leo, whom we mentioned, was still governing the Roman see. This same heresy was likewise condemned by anathema in the holy synod of Ephesus. John, bishop of Alexandria, also condemned it in his *Apology to Gelasius*, bishop of the city, not only the Pelagian heresy, but Pelagius himself, and Celestius, and also Julian, who was discovered to have succeeded them in this very sect. ^B

LV. Joannes Philoponus and Joannes Aigeates against the fourth synod.

The book of Joannes Philoponus, or rather, *Mataioponus* [that is, "lover of vanity," or rather "lover of labor" in vain], *Against the holy and ecumenical fourth synod*, was read. In it, he is similar to himself in style, but he shamelessly attempts to force the synod into the way of thinking of Nestorius, and says that the synod accepted the anathema of Nestorius, as if it thought that it committed no sin against a human being when [his] dogma is sanctioned. A fact which Nestorius himself, even though subjected to anathema, preferred to all things and cherished; by doing this, and by prodigiously fabricating things, he shows what suits his nature and the instability of his mind. And such are the trifles that this writer boldly tosses about, finishing his entire comedy against the synod in four parts, without bringing forward anything worthy of credence, nor indeed anything ^C of sound mind.

There was read in the same volume the book of another John, of the sect of Nestorius, *Against the same holy fourth synod*. Its author is that Aigeates, an impious man indeed, but one who employs splendor of words and sweetness, along with clarity and brilliance.

LVI. The five books of Theodoret of Cyrrhus against the heresies.

The book of Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, *Against the heresies* which had sprouted from Simon Magus down to his own now confirmed age, was read. He dedicates this to Sporacius, who petitioned to hear such things; and he proceeds further to Nestorius and his heresy, pouring out a pure refutation of it; advancing also to the Eutychian heresy itself. And in the fifth book (for so many make up this ^D work), by making a comparison of the divine and orthodox dogmas with the fables of the heretics, he demonstrates how unconfused by comparison with them, but rather pure and irreprehensible, the catholic dogma is. His style is clear and not at all redundant.

LVII. Appian of Alexandria’s Roman History in 24 Books

There was read Appian’s Roman History, in three volumes, but in twenty-four books. The first ^A volume of this contains the works and deeds of the seven kings: Romulus, Numa Pompilius, Ancus Hostilius, and the other Ancus Marcius, the grandson of Numa; Tarquin, Servius Tullius, and Lucius Tarquin. Of these, the first, although he was the founder and builder of the city of Rome, and ruled with the heart of a father rather than a tyrant, was nevertheless slain, or, as others say, disappeared. The second, being in no way inferior in his rule, or perhaps even superior, ended his life at an advanced age. The third was struck by lightning. The fourth departed this life because of disease. The fifth was slaughtered by shepherds, and the sixth likewise ended his life through slaughter. The seventh, because of his tyranny, was driven out from both the city and the kingship, from which time, the kingship having been dissolved, the authority was transferred to the consuls. The first book comprises these matters; hence its title, *Roman Regal History*. ^B The second book contains those things which were done in the rest of Italy, except for that part which lies along the Ionian Gulf; its title is *Roman Italic History*. The following book recounts the wars of the Romans with the Samnites (a great and formidable nation in war, which the Romans could scarcely subdue after fighting for eighty years) and whatever nations waged war alongside them. It is inscribed *Roman Samnite History*. ^C The fourth, indeed, because it recounts the wars of the Romans against the Celts, is inscribed *Roman Celtic History*. The remaining books follow the same rule: the fifth is *Roman Sicilian and Insular History*, because it is about the Sicilians and islanders; the sixth is *Roman Iberian History*; the seventh is *Roman Hannibalic History*, because it recounts the Punic war against Hannibal; the eighth is *Libyan, Punic, and Numidian History*; the ninth is *Roman Macedonian History*; the tenth is *Roman Greek and Ionian History*; the eleventh is *Roman Syrian and Parthian History*; the twelfth is *Roman Mithridatic History*. And thus far are the achievements and wars waged by the Romans against foreign nations narrated; ^D and these are distributed in this order through the books. But the wars which the Romans themselves waged against one another in their tumults are recounted in the subsequent books, the title of which is accordingly: *Civil Wars*, first, second, third, and in order up to the ninth book, which is in total the twenty-first. Moreover, the twenty-second book is inscribed *Ekatontaetia* (that is to say, a century of years). The following book is *Dacian History*. The twenty-fourth is *Arabian History*. And this is the distribution of the entire history. In the books of the civil wars are first contained those things which Marius and Sulla [waged among themselves]

then the affairs regarding Pompey and Julius Caesar, and how they conspired against one another and engaged in great battles, when fortune, favoring Julius more, turned Pompey’s back to flight. Next follow the affairs of Antony and Octavius Caesar, who is also called Augustus, against the murderers of the former Caesar, during which time also many of the prominent Romans were led away to death without any trial. Lastly, the events that befell them in their conflict with one another, I mean Antony and Augustus, who fought against each other in mighty wars and caused the destruction of many armies, even if victory ^B later looked upon Augustus, driving Antony, deserted by his allies, as a fugitive to Egypt, where by his own hand he ended his life. By this last account of the civil wars, Egypt also is described, how it came under the Romans and how Roman affairs returned to a monarchy and Augustus.

The beginning of the whole history is traced from Aeneas, the son of Anchises, son of Capys; who flourished in the Trojan ^C war, and after the capture of Troy fled, and after long wanderings landed upon a certain shore of Italy, called Laurentum, where his camp is shown, and they call that maritime coast Troy. At that time Faunus, the son of Mars, was ruling there over the Aborigines, the peoples of Italy, who also gave his daughter Lavinia in marriage to Aeneas, and allotted four hundred [(5)] stadia of land in circuit, where Aeneas built a city, which he named Lavinium after his wife. In the third year from this, after Faunus had died, Aeneas succeeded to the rule by right of affinity, and named the Aborigines the Latins after his father-in-law, Latin ^D Faunus. In the third year again, because of Lavinia the wife, who had been promised to their king, Aeneas was killed by the Rutulian Tyrrhenians in accordance with the law of war, and Euryleon, nicknamed Ascanius, assumed the rule. He was the son of Aeneas by Creusa, daughter of Priam, whom he had had as a wife in Ilium, although others say the Ascanius born to him from Lavinia was the successor to the rule. After Ascanius had died, in the fourth year after the founding of Alba (for he also built a city, calling it Alba, and migrated the people from Lavinium), Silvius succeeded to the rule. And they say that Aeneas Silvius was the son of Silvius, that Latinus Silvius was the son of Aeneas, his son Capys, Capys's son Capetus, Capetus's son Tiberinus, his son Agrippa, and his son Romulus. And this one, they say, was struck by a thunderbolt; whose son was Aventinus, and Aventinus’s son was Procas. And to all of them the cognomen Silvius was added. For Procas there were two children, the elder named Nemetor [(6)], the younger Amulius.

^A When the elder had received the kingdom by inheritance upon his father’s death, the younger seized it by violence and wickedness, having taken it away. And he killed his brother’s son, Egestus, but made his daughter, Rhea Sylvia, a priestess, that she might remain childless. Nemetor, however, was saved from the danger of the plot against his life by the gentleness of his character and great modesty. But Rhea became pregnant against the law, and Amulius seized her for punishment, yet gave two sons born of her to shepherds, [to be] thrown into the nearby river; the name of the river was Tiber, and the boys were Romus and Romulus, tracing their lineage back to Aeneas on their mother’s side; for the father of those born was unknown. ^B The history, then, as has been said, begins in summary from Aeneas up to these children; but from Romulus, the founder of the city, it proceeds in detail, bringing [the account] down to Augustus, and sporadically and in passing even to Trajan. This Appian was by race an Alexandrian, and at Rome he at first conducted legal cases, but later he was deemed worthy to administer a province in the name of the emperors. His style is concise and plain, but his history is, as far as possible, truthful; and he is, if anyone is, an expounder of military methods through history, and he knows how to excel in speeches at lifting up the dejected spirits of soldiers, and at mitigating those who are too ardent, and at expressing passions, and at imitating anything else in speech. He flourished in the times of Trajan and Hadrian.

LVIII. Arrian’s Parthica, Bithynica, and others

^C Arrian’s *Parthica* in seventeen books was read. This man also recorded the deeds of Alexander the Macedonian better than all others, and also another work, the local history of Bithynia, from which he himself originated, entitling the book *Bithynica*. He also wrote the deeds performed against the Alans, which book he entitled *Alanica*. In this first work, he relates the wars waged by the Parthians and Romans while Trajan was Roman emperor. He says that the Parthian race is Scythian, and that it revolted from the governance of the Macedonians, having once been enslaved when the Persians also revolted, for the following reason. Arsaces and Teridates were brothers, Arsacids, descendants of Arsaces, son of Phriapites. ^D These men slew Pherecles, who had been appointed by King Antiochus (whom they called a god by surname) as satrap of that region, because he attempted to abuse one of the brothers by force in a shameful manner; they could not bear the outrage, and they killed him, with five others as accomplices. Thus, driving out the Macedonian race, they seized the empire for themselves and...

they destroyed the one who had committed the injury, and having communicated the action to five others, moved the Macedonian ^A nation to revolt, and ruled for themselves, and reached a great height of power, so that they even waged battles against the Romans, sometimes even leaving the war with the victory on their side. He says that the Parthians, in the time of Sesostris, king of the Egyptians, and of Jandusus of the Scythians, migrated from their own land of Scythia to the place which they now hold; these, the Roman Emperor Trajan having broken them by force, released under treaty, having himself established a king for them.

This Arrian was a philosopher ^B by profession, one of the pupils of Epictetus, and was recognized during the times of Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Antoninus; they called him the new Xenophon. Because of the excellence of his education, he was entrusted with other political offices, and rose to the rank of consul. He wrote other books as well; of the *Discourses* of his teacher Epictetus, we know eight books, and of the *Conversations* of the same Epictetus, twelve books. He is concise in his style, and a true imitator of Xenophon. They say he also wrote other things, which have not yet come to our knowledge. It is evident that he was in no way lacking in rhetorical wisdom and skill.

LIX. The Synod unlawfully assembled against the holy John.

The acts of the synod ^C unlawfully assembled against the holy John Chrysostom were read, in which the presiding members were Theophilus of Alexandria, Acacius of Beroea, Antiochus of Ptolemais, and Severianus of Gabala, and Cyrinus of Chalcedon, who were most hostilely disposed toward the man. These were all things at once: they were judges, and accusers, and witnesses. These things were transacted in thirteen sessions; but twelve were against the holy man, and the thirteenth contains the matters concerning Heraclides, whom he had ordained bishop of Ephesus, whose deposition they were unable to complete, as certain others prevented it. The accuser of Heraclides was the bishop of the city of the Magnetes, by name Macarius. But the manifest enemy of the blessed John and his first accuser was ^D John, his deacon. He accused Chrysostom because he had wronged him by excommunicating him, because he had beaten his own servant Eulalius; secondly, that a certain monk named John had been beaten, as he says, by the order of Chrysostom, and had been dragged, and with those possessed by demons, iron-fed...

he acted like one possessed. ^A Third, that he sold a great quantity of precious goods. Fourth, the crime that he sold the marbles of Saint Anastasia, which Nectarius had left for the adorning of that church. Fifth, that he insultingly calls the clergy vile, corrupt, ready to serve his own uses, and three-farthing men. Sixth, that he called Saint Epiphanius a dotard and a little demon. Seventh, that he plotted against Severianus, ^B having stirred up the deans (17) against him. Eighth, that he wrote a book full of slanders against the clergy. Ninth, that having held a convention of the whole clergy, he cited three deacons, Acacius, Edaphius, and John, and accused them as if they had stolen his vestment, asking whether they had taken it for some other use. Tenth, that he ordained as bishop Antony, who had been convicted of being a grave-robber. Eleventh, that he himself betrayed John the Count in the military uprising. Twelfth, that neither when proceeding to the church nor when entering did he pray to God. Thirteenth, that he performed ordinations of deacons and presbyters without an altar. Fourteenth, ^C that in one ordination he made four bishops at once. Fifteenth, that he receives women alone with him alone, having sent all others out (18). Sixteenth, that he sold the inheritance left by Thecla through Theodulus. Seventeenth, that no one knows where the revenues of the Church go. Eighteenth, that he ordained Sarapion as presbyter while he was under accusation and still pleading his case. Nineteenth, that he treated with contempt those who were in communion with the whole world (20) and who, by his will, were enclosed and died in prison, so that he did not even take care that their bodies be committed to burial. Twentieth, that he treated most holy Acacius with injury ^D and did not even admit him to conversation. Twenty-first, that he handed over the presbyter Porphyrius to Eutropius to be sent into exile. Twenty-second, that he likewise handed over the priest Berenius, having treated him ill with many insults (21). Twenty-third, that a bath is heated for him alone, and when he has bathed, Sarapion closes the basin so that no one else may bathe. Twenty-fourth, that he ordained many without witnesses. Twenty-fifth, that he eats alone like a glutton, living a life of the Cyclopes. Twenty-sixth, that he himself is the accuser, himself the witness, and himself the judge (as is clear from the matters concerning Martyrius the archdeacon, and from the matters concerning Proaeresius, they say, the bishop of Lycia).

The twenty-seventh, that he struck Memnon with his fist ^B in the holy church of the Apostles, and while blood was flowing from his mouth, he nevertheless offered the mysteries of the Eucharist. The twenty-eighth, that he strips and dresses on the throne, and eats a small cake. The twenty-ninth, that he distributes money to the bishops ordained by him, so that through them he may oppress the clergy with tasks.

These are the items of the accusation against the holy man: he indeed, being called for the fourth time, did not appear, ^C answering those who cited him: "If you remove the manifest enemies from the order of those judging, I am ready," he says, "and will be present, and will offer a defense, if anyone accuses me of anything; but if you refuse to do this, as often as you cite me, you will accomplish nothing." They examined, therefore, as they supposed, the first and second of these heads. From there they began to investigate concerning Heraclides and Palladius of Helenopolis, both bishops; ^D and again the monk John, whose deacon John had been mentioned in the accusations against Chrysostom, presented a document, accusing Heraclides of being an Origenist, and of having been caught in theft at Caesarea in Palestine, stealing the garments of the deacon Aquilinus, and that, he said, John the bishop ordained such a man as bishop of Ephesus. He accused Chrysostom himself besides, as one having suffered many evils on account of the Origenists through Sarapion, and that he had sent this man away [109/110 boundary shift: from him]. After the investigation of these matters was completed, the ninth head of the accusations was then examined, and soon the twenty-seventh.

Postea rursum Isaacius episcopus Heraclidem accusat ut Origenistam, minimeque susceptum a sanctissimo Epiphanio, neque in precationis, neque in ciborum communionem. Protulit et idem Isaacius libellum contra Chrysostomum, haec fere continentem: Primum, de Joanne monacho, saepius jam nominato, quod propter Origenistas vapulasset, et ferro vinctus fuisset. Secundum, quod beatus Epiphanius propter hos Origenistas, Ammonium, Euthymium, Eusebium, Heraclidem, et Palladium, communicare cum illo noluisset. Tertium, quod hospitalitatem, solus quotidie cibum capiens, desereret. Quartum, quod in Ecclesia dicat, mel-

^A me esse plenum furiis. Fifth, that he boasts in church, saying: "I am dying, I am raging." Sixth, that he ought to have interpreted what those furies were, and what it meant to say, "I am dying, I am raging," for the Church knows not these voices. Seventh, that he grants license to those who sin, teaching: "If you sin again, repent again; and as often as you sin, come to me and I will heal you." Eighth, that in his teaching in the church he blasphemes, saying that Christ's prayer was not heard because He did not pray as He ought. Ninth, that he stirred up the people to sedition, even against the synod. Tenth, that he received certain persons from among the Gentiles, who had greatly afflicted the Christians, and kept them in the Church and acted as their patron. Eleventh, that he encroaches upon the provinces of others and ordains bishops there. Twelfth, that he heaps injuries upon bishops and gives orders for them to be ^B expelled from his house. Thirteenth, that he subjected clerics to unusual injuries and insults. Fourteenth, that he seized the property of others by force. Fifteenth, that he makes ordinations without an assembly and against the mind of the clergy. Sixteenth, that he did not release monks who were in communion with the Church, although they brought letters of recommendation, but even threw them into prison; and he did not even visit those who were dying within it. Seventeenth, that he ordained as bishops the slaves of others, who had not yet been manumitted, and were even under accusation. Eighteenth, that he himself, this Isaac, was often ^C evilly punished by him.

Of these accusations, they did not wish to examine the first point, since it had (as they thought) been previously examined; but they did inquire into the second and the seventh. Presently the third point of the accusation made by the deacon John was also examined. In that head, Arsatius the archpresbyter (38*), who succeeded Chrysostom himself, and Atticus the presbyter (39), I know not by what means, were brought forward as witnesses and bore testimony against the blessed Chrysostom; as did also Elpidius the presbyter. The same, and with them also Acacius the presbyter, bore testimony on the fourth point of the charge. After these matters had been thus thrashed out, the aforementioned ^D presbyters, and besides them Eudæmon and Onesimus, appended their sentence.

^A And they pronounced for the deposition of the holy man, as seemed right to them, beginning with Gymnasium the bishop and finishing with Theophilus of Alexandria, forty-five in number in all. Then a letter was written to the clergy of Constantinople, as if from the synod, regarding the deposition of the holy man; and this was also brought to the attention of the emperors. Furthermore, three petitions were presented, from Gerontius, Faustinus, and Eugnomonius, who claimed they had been unjustly removed from their episcopates by John. There was also a royal rescript sent to the synod; among these things, the twelfth act is included. The thirteenth, as has been said, concerns Heraclides the bishop of Ephesus.

LX. The Nine Books of the Histories of Herodotus of Halicarnassus.

^B The nine books of the Histories of Herodotus are read, equal in number and name to the nine Muses. This work may be considered the standard of the Ionic dialect, just as Thucydides is of the Attic. He employs myths and many digressions, through which a certain sweetness in the sense and the sentiments flows; though sometimes, for the nature of history and its own proper and fitting character, these things obscure it, since truth refuses to let its precision be darkened by myths, nor does it allow the writer to wander more than is proper in his digressions. ^C He begins the history from the reign of Cyrus, the first to rule the Persians, and describes whence he sprang, how he was raised and grew, and how he reigned; and he continues down to the reign of Xerxes and his expedition against the Athenians and his flight from thence. The fourth king from Cyrus is Xerxes; for the second was Cambyses and the third Darius. For Smerdis the Magus, who falls between them, is not numbered among these, inasmuch as he was a tyrant who occupied a rule not due to him by guile and fraud. Darius' successor was his son Xerxes, with whom the history ends, not proceeding even to the end of his reign, because Herodotus himself flourished in these times, ^D as Diodorus Siculus, among others, testifies. It is said that when he was reading his history, Thucydides, being then a youth, heard it and wept; and that Herodotus remarked: "How ardent is your son, Olorus, in his nature for learning!"

LXI. The Three Orations and Nine Epistles of Aeschines.

The three orations of Aeschines are read, the one Against Ctesiphon,

^A Timarchum, which is the first of his orations, and the one On the False Embassy, and the third and last, Against Ctesiphon. For they say that only three are genuine, and nine epistles; wherefore some have named his orations "Graces," both because of the grace of the discourse and the number of the Graces, and "Muses" the epistles, because of the number of the nine Muses. Another oration of his is also in circulation, titled The Deliacan Law; however, Caecilius does not accept it, but refers this oration, as a production, to another Aeschines, an Athenian contemporary of his.

This Aeschines was one of the ten orators. Being accused by Demosthenes of a false embassy, he was not convicted, because Eubulus the demagogue, whom he served, fought alongside him against Demosthenes, having managed to make the judges rise even while Demosthenes was still speaking. Later, however, when he had accused the decree as being contrary to the law, which Demosthenes had written in accordance with the opinion of Ctesiphon, and had set a fine ^B for himself—in the event he did not show it to be contrary to the law—not having shown it as he had promised, he withdrew from his country. And although he had intended to flee to Alexander, the son of Philip, who was campaigning in Asia, he was halted; having heard of his death and having learned that his successors were full of turmoil, he sailed to Rhodes and remained there for a time, during which he taught the youth. And when his hearers were wondering, and were at a loss as to how, being such a great orator, he had been defeated by Demosthenes, he said: "If you had heard that beast himself" (calling Demosthenes a beast), "you would not be at a loss." It is said that he was the first to compose the fictions and what are called declamations while enjoying his leisure there. ^C When he had grown old, he moved from Rhodes to Samos, and there he ended his life. He was born of a father, Atrometus, and a mother, Glaucothea the priestess, of obscure lineage; he had two brothers, Aphobetus and Philocharin. In the beginning, being loud-voiced, he played the part of a third-rate actor, then he served as a clerk to the council, and little by little he advanced to demagoguery. He belonged to the faction of those in Athens who favored Philip; wherefore he also acted politically against Demosthenes. They say he studied under Plato and Andalcides, and that there is a sample of each in the orations of Aeschines: the magnitude of the names and the dignity of the inventions. And Dionysius the sophist, once happening upon the Against Timarchum...

^A having read this beginning of his proem, "I have never in my life either written a speech or caused any trouble in the rendering of accounts," is reported to have said: "Would that you had often caused trouble for many; would that you had caused trouble for many, so that you might have happened to leave us more speeches!" So much was he delighted by the character of the orator.

His speech is, as it were, spontaneous and extemporaneous, inciting admiration not so much for its art as for his own natural genius; for one may find in his orations everything that pertains to skill, and what are even more so, the samples of natural talent. For in respect to diction, he is simple and clear, and in the composition of his speeches, he is neither overly languid, like Isocrates, nor constrained and tight, like Lysias; yet in spirit and vigor he is in no way inferior to Demosthenes. He employs figures of thought and language not to appear to be speaking with art, but according to the most urgent necessity of the subjects at hand. ^B Wherefore his speech seems somehow guileless, and especially appropriate for popular oratory and private conversation; for it is not dense with arguments or enthymemes, nor overly forced. However, others—and Phrynichus more than the rest—rank Aeschines the son of Lysanias, whom they also call "the Socratic," among the best of orators, establishing his speeches as a rule after the princes of the Attic tongue.

LXII. The History of Praxagoras of Athens concerning Constantine the Great, in two books

[30 H.] Read were the two books of the history of Praxagoras of Athens concerning Constantine the Great. In these accounts, he relates that Constantine’s father, Constantius, reigned over Britain and Spain, while Maximin held the kingdom of Rome, the rest of Italy, and Sicily; and the other Maximin occupied Greece, Macedonia, lesser Asia, and Thrace; but Diocletian, who was the eldest of the rest, held Bithynia, as well as Arabia, Libya, and all of Egypt, as much as the Nile waters in its course. ^C Accordingly, his father sent Constantine to Diocletian at Nicomedia to be educated. Praxagoras says that Maximin, the one who reigned over lesser Asia, was then present and, setting his mind on plotting against the young man, he drew him into a battle

^A with a savage lion. But he, ^B prevailing over the beast, killed it, and perceiving the plot, he fled to his father. When the latter’s life ended, the boy succeeded to the throne.

Having ascended it, he subdued the Gauls and the Germans, neighboring and barbarian nations. Then, learning that Maxentius (who, after Maximin, had become the master of Rome) was ruling over his subjects impotently and tyrannically, he undertook an expedition against him ^C to exact punishment for the wrong done to those under his rule. And having won in battle, he turned him to flight. But the fugitive, finding the very pit he had prepared for others—the engine of destruction he had devised through treachery against his enemies—fell into it and met the end of his life. ^D Some of the Romans severed his head from his body, placed it on a spear, and carried it about the city. And to the victor Constantine, even these people of this kingdom surrendered willingly and gladly.

Hearing again that Licinius, too, was cruelly and inhumanely abusing his subjects—this man had reigned over that portion of the empire which Maximin (the one who had laid the trap for Constantine through the lion) had held, and had met his death—and not bearing the intolerable violence and injustice brought upon the citizens, he led forces against him as well, in order to exchange ^A the tyranny for a legitimate rule. Licinius, however, having learned of the emperor’s expedition, was struck with fear; he veiled his savagery under the pretext of humanity, and offered oaths that he would prove himself good to those under his command and that he would keep the treaties he had made inviolate. For this reason, the emperor desisted from war at that time. But later, since wickedness is not able to remain quiet, finding him guilty of having violated his oaths and having slipped into every sort of villainy, he attacked him with powerful ^B battles, and having enclosed him in Nicomedia, he besieged him. From there, having fled to the emperor in the guise of a suppliant, he left behind the empire, and it happened that Constantine the Great, since the great administration was seeking him who was worthy, claimed the aforementioned empires for himself. For he entered into his ancestral kingdom by right of inheritance; he also claimed the Roman [empire] by overthrowing Maximin, and the realm of Greece, Macedonia, and lower Asia—having, as we said, stripped Licinius of it. ^C Moreover, he also added to himself the empire of the other part, over which Diocletian had presided. For Licinius was also holding this, which Maximin—who had been Diocletian’s successor—had taken from him by right of war. Being thus the victor and consolidating the empire into one from among them all, he soon made Byzantium a city namesake to himself. Praxagoras, finally, though he clung to the sect of the nations, reports that Emperor Constantine easily eclipsed ^D all who had reigned before him in every kind of virtue and goodness and every sort of prosperity; with these things his two books of Histories conclude.

Praxagoras was just twenty-two years of age, as he himself attests, when he wrote these things. He had also written two other books, *On the Kings of Athens*, while in his nineteenth year. He likewise composed six books of *Histories* on the deeds of Alexander the Great, King of the Macedonians, in the thirty-first year of his age. His style is clear and pleasant, though perhaps slightly more languid than it ought to be. He also employs the Ionic dialect. ^B

CODEX LXIII

The Eight Books of Histories of Procopius the Rhetor

There were read the eight books of the *Histories* of Procopius the rhetor. He narrates the events that occurred under the Emperor Justinian between the Romans and the Persians, Vandals, and Goths, ^C primarily under the generalship of Belisarius, the commander in war; the rhetor, having lived with him for a long time in close familiarity, recorded these events just as he had seen them with his own eyes.

In the first book, therefore, he relates how the Roman Emperor Arcadius, when he passed from this life, left in his will the Persian king Isdigerdes as guardian to his son Theodosius. Having received these tablets, he brought up the boy liberally and kept the kingdom safe and sound for him. Afterwards, Vararanes, succeeding Isdigerdes upon his death, waged war against the Romans; but after Anatolius, commander of the East, was sent by Theodosius on an embassy to the Persians, Vararanes, king of the Persians, having heard the embassy, returned home after concluding a treaty. Following these events, the Persian king Perozes, having succeeded the second Isdigerdes, the son of Vararanes, ^D waged war against the Huns, a nation called Ephthalites, who are also termed "White" — for they are white in color, and not misshapen in their appearance, nor are they similar to the other Huns; for they are neither nomadic nor savage, but live under an ordered government and are subject to their own kings. They dwell to the north of the Persians; 22a and for this reason, Perozes marched against the Ephthalites on account of boundary disputes. But, initially, having fallen into difficult terrain through the guile of the Ephthalites, he returned in disgrace and with great difficulty, having made a treaty; for he did obeisance to the king of the Ephthalites as to his master, and departed confirming by oath that he would never again march against them. Yet, having later broken the treaty and marched against them, he perished disgracefully together with his entire army, having fallen into certain pits and trenches prepared by the enemy, as he was entering the twenty-fourth year of his reign; during which time, the celebrated pearl, which hung from his right ear, also happened to disappear.

[68 R.] That they are called *margaritai*, *margari*, and *margaridai*. For the word *margaros* is found in Proco-

Procopius the rhetor and other notable authors, while *margaridai* is found in Praxagoras, writing in the Ionic dialect in the second book of his History concerning the Great Constantine, and in other authors. The form *margaritai* is common and much in use. »

Then, after Perozes, Cabades, his youngest son, took up the kingdom. Having become guilty of violating the laws, he was sent by the Persians themselves to the fortress known as Lethe. Eventually, through the guile of his wife, he escaped and fled to the Euthalites. Having gathered a great army of Euthalites, which he led into Persia, he recovered the kingdom without a battle. He took Blases, the brother of Perozes—who was reigning in his stead—abandoned by his own men and captured, and blinded him by pouring boiling oil into his opened eyes (for this is customary among the Persians). The author also writes of the events concerning Pacurius, the king of the Persians, and Arsaces of the Armenians, and of the advice given by the magi to Pacurius against Arsaces, unless these are merely fables.

The same Cabades, being burdened with a huge sum of money owed to the Euthalites, requested a loan from the Emperor Anastasius. When he did not obtain it, for no other reason than this, he launched a sudden incursion and ravaged a large part of Armenia and besieged Amida. As he was retreating from it, having lost hope of capturing it, a shameful spectacle of harlots provided the cause for renewing the siege. Fired with anger and fury, Cabades persisted in the siege, took the city by force, and ordered the citizens to be made slaves. However, he later sent most of the captives home for free, whom Anastasius received with every type of kindness. ^B

When Anastasius learned that Amida was being besieged, he sent a very large number of troops against the Persians, appointing as commanders Areobindus, the dux of the East, who was the son-in-law of Olybrius, who had reigned in the West a little while before; Celer the magister; Patricius the Phrygian; and Hypatius, his own cousin. To these four commanders was added Justin, who succeeded to the empire of Anastasius, along with many other men excellent in war. They say that such a great army was never sent by the Romans against the Persians. But while they delayed in hesitation, the city was captured, and they did not join in battle against Cabades all together, but being defeated basely and separately, they withdrew, having lost many of their own men. Eventually, however, their forces having been led to Amida, they surrounded the city, and the Romans, delaying there for a long time, forced the besieged Persians, who were suffering from a shortage of supplies, into a seven-year truce, under the mediation of Celer the Roman and Aspevedes the Persian. ^{C D}

The Taurus, a mountain of the Cilicians, extends first through the Cappadocians and the Armenians and the land of those called Persarmenians; then it stretches through the Albanians and the Iberians, and whatever other autonomous nations, subject to the Persians, dwell in those places. After crossing the mountains of the Iberians...

a very narrow path ^A appears, extending for nearly sixty 67 stadia, which ends in an abrupt and completely impassable place. For no passage is visible, except that nature has contrived there a gate, as if made by hand, which has been called the Caspian 68 from olden times. Beyond this gate are plains suitable for cavalry, full of natural waters, and a region extensive and flat that is good for pasturing horses, where almost all the tribes of the Huns dwell, reaching as far as the Maeotic marsh. Whenever these Huns, through the gate of which I just spoke, set out for the regions of the Persians and Romans, they proceed with fresh horses at the swiftest pace; for they struggle with the difficulty of the terrain for only those fifty stadia I mentioned, which, as has been said, reach to the borders of Iberia. But when they go by other exits, they arrive at the regions of the Persians and Romans with much labor and difficulty. ^B When Alexander, son of Philip, perceived this, he built a gate in the said place and established a garrison. This post was held in the days of Anastasius by Ambazuces, a Hun by birth, though a friend to the Romans and to Anastasius, who even entrusted the gates to that prince. Anastasius accepted his goodwill, but did not accept the burden of the care of the place. But after Ambazuces died, Cabades expelled his children by force and took possession of the gates. Anastasius, when the truce with Cabades had been made, built a fortified city in the locality of Daras, against the will of the Persians, and another city in Armenia, very close to the borders of Persarmenia, which was previously called Theodosiopolis, because Theodosius the Emperor had bestowed the dignity of a city upon it instead of a village.

^C After Anastasius had died, although there were many who were worthy of the empire by reason of their lineage, all of them having been passed over, Justinus succeeded to the rule. To him Cabades, wishing to leave his kingdom securely to Chosroes, his youngest son, wrote letters requesting that Chosroes be adopted by him. Justinus at first gladly accepted the request, as did also his nephew Justinian, who was already expected to succeed to the kingdom. But by the counsels of Proclus the quaestor, they changed their minds, and Chosroes was not adopted by Justinus. For he maintained that the laws decreed that sons should be the successors of their fathers’ goods and their rightful heirs. ^D On the matter of Chosroes and the peace, there were sent on the side of the Persians, Seoses, who had previously saved Cabades, and Beodes 69; and on the side of the Romans, Rufinus and Hypatius. And Beodes, by slandering Seoses among the Persians, caused him to be deprived of his life; and Rufinus, by accusing Hypatius before the Emperor, caused him to be removed from his office.

^A That between the Bosphorus and Cherson, there lies a space of twenty days' journey, which the Hunnic tribes inhabit; these, formerly autonomous, have come under the power of Justin, so that Cherson is now the boundary of the Roman Empire. The Iberians also, together with Gurgogenes their leader, joined Justin, having been treated ill by the Persians. For this reason, war broke out between the Romans and the Persians.

While Justin was still alive, he associated Justinian with him in the empire; and upon the death of his uncle, Justinian alone possessed the power. Belisarius and Sittas were members of the praetorian guard at the time when Justinian was leading the troops, but under Justin, Belisarius was appointed commander of the forces at Daras, and Procopius, this writer, was assigned to him as an advisor. When Justinian reigned alone, Belisarius was created commander of the East and ordered to march against the Persians. Cabades appointed a man of Persian descent, Perozes by name, holding the rank of meranes, as commander of his own army; and both armies encamped around Daras. Perozes signaled to Belisarius that he should have a bath prepared for him in the city, for he wished to bathe on the following day. ^B For this reason, the Romans prepared themselves vigorously for battle. When the army of each side was drawn up in array, a certain Andreas, a Byzantine, a gymnastics trainer and one who had charge of the Byzantine palaestra—who also happened to be a domestic of Buzes, a tribune serving with Belisarius, as he was in the habit of caring for the body of Buzes in the bath—when a challenge to single combat had been given, unknown to all, fought twice, emerged victorious, and they ceased the battle thus begun. Later, when battle was joined between them again, the Romans proved to be far superior, with great slaughter of the Persians. The result of this was that, thereafter, the Persians declined to fight the Romans in a pitched battle, though incursions were made by both sides.

^C Cabades sent another army into Armenia, which was subject to the Romans; this army consisted of Persarmenians, Saunites [or Saurites], and Sabers. Mermeroes was in command of these forces. However, Dorotheus, the commander of Armenia, and Sittas, who was over the whole of this Roman army, joining battle with the enemy, being few, conquered many, and from that rout the Persians fled homeward. On this occasion, the Romans occupied other Persian regions, and also took the place called Pharangium, from whence the Persians were accustomed to dig gold and bring it to their king. As for the Zani, called in antiquity the Sani, being autonomous and plundering the neighboring regions in the manner of thieves, they were outmaneuvered by Sittas, and yielding to our jurisdiction and dominion, they became Christians and

were enrolled in the ranks of the Roman army.

^A Cabades was in a state of perplexity, having lost both of his armies; but Alamundarus, the king of the Saracens subject to the Persians—a man fierce and energetic in warfare, who for fifty years had brought the affairs of the Romans to their knees—suggested to Cabades that he should invade Antioch, which was at that time unguarded, and the regions round about it. Belisarius, having discovered this, encountered them with all speed, having brought with him a force of Isaurians and Arethas, the king of the Saracens subject to the Romans, who himself led his own people. Alamundarus and Azarethes, struck with fear, retreated homeward; and Belisarius followed after them, not so much desiring to engage the enemy in close combat, as feigning that he was pursuing them; until, having been reproached by the multitude with insults, at first secretly and afterward openly, he unwillingly joined battle. At first, as many fell on both sides, the engagement was indecisive, but afterward, the troops under Arethas and the Isaurians having been routed, the Persians, fighting with great valor, were victorious: so that had not Belisarius dismounted from his horse and joined himself to those who had been left behind to defend them, all would have been destroyed. Azarethes, the Persian general, however, having returned to Cabades, did not enjoy the fruits of his victory; for he too had lost many of his men in the battle, even if many more of the opposing side had been slain; and for this reason, he was ranked among the disgraced.

^C The Emperor summoned Belisarius to Byzantium, with the intention that he should launch an expedition against the Vandals, and he appointed Sittas as guardian of the East; during which time the Persians also clashed with the Romans, and upon the death of Cabades, his son Chosroes took up the reins of government. Messengers, therefore, were sent to him: Rufinus, Alexander, Thomas, and Hermogenes, together with Hermogenes, who came to Chosroes on an embassy; to whom he declared that he wished to make a perpetual peace for one hundred and ten centenaria. But at that time they departed without achieving anything; yet later they concluded that "perpetual" peace, when Justinian had already been reigning for six years. By that treaty, the Romans surrendered the money, and the fortress of Pharangium and Bolon to the Persians, while the Persians in turn restored to the Romans the borderlands of Lazica and Dagares, a man valiant in war, having received another not ignoble man in his stead. Immediately, however, a conspiracy was hatched against each of the emperors by their subjects. For the Persian people, hating Chosroes as a man of turbulent and intemperate character, decided to set up Cabades, the son of his brother Zames, as their king; but Chosroes, having learned of this, seized his brother Zames and the other brothers together

^A with those who had taken part in the counsel, and ended the revolt. Cabades, the son of Zames, being a mere youth, escaped death through the providence of the Chanaranges, Adergus Dubantas, for which reason he was later also put to death by Chosroes. The Roman populace, plotting against Justinian, created Hypatius—the nephew of the former emperor Anastasius—emperor, even though he was unwilling, the sedition having arisen from a tumult caused by the contention of the chariot races. Emperor Justinian, therefore, using Belisarius and Mundus as his generals, slew Hypatius and destroyed many of the conspirators, to the point that thirty thousand of the people perished. Boraides and Justus, his own nephews, assisted the emperor in this.

In this same book he narrates the account of Tribonian, who derived his lineage from Pamphylia, and who held the office of quaestor, touching upon his avarice and his smooth eloquence. He speaks likewise of John the Cappadocian, ^B the praetorian prefect, and his many vices; how Antonina, the wife of Belisarius, through his daughter Euphemia, cunningly deceived John and revealed that he was plotting against the emperor; and how eventually, after Eusebius, the bishop of Cyzicus, had been killed by a plot, John, being suspected of being a partner in the wicked crime, had his body tortured by interrogations and was at length unceremoniously handed over to bitter and final exile.

That in the second book he recounts how Chosroes, stirred by envy because the Romans held dominion over Africa, was preparing to break the peace treaties, and how Vitiges, king of the Goths, through certain Ligurian envoys and then through Basacus, inflamed him all the more. At the same time, when the Armenians had revolted from the Romans and had killed their general Sitta in battle, and had surrendered themselves to the Persians, Chosroes decided to wage war, breaking those so-called "endless" ^C treaties. [R.] Emperor Justinian, having learned of this, sent an exhortation to him through the legate Anastasius not to violate the peace. At this same time, Vitiges was captured by Belisarius and sent to Byzantium. Chosroes, however, invading the Roman borders, took the city of Sura and led the Surians into slavery. But in the end, he released all eleven thousand captives in exchange for two hundred gold pieces, as Candidus, the bishop of Sergiopolis, had promised to pay the debt; but when he did not stand by his promises, he was compelled to make the just payment. Chosroes then began to besiege Hierapolis, but when the bishop of Beroea promised him two thousand pounds of silver, he departed from the siege, having agreed ^D and

promised to withdraw from the entire Roman territory of the East ^A if he were to receive a thousand pounds of gold. Meanwhile Buzes, the Duke of the East, distrusting his own forces and refusing to fight with Chosroes, wandered about the vicinity. Therefore, having moved his army to Beroea, Chosroes demanded an excessive amount of money, and having received two thousand pounds of silver, he demanded another equal amount; because the citizens could not pay this sum, he besieged the city vigorously. But when the bishop of their city, who was named Magnus, approached and besought Chosroes, he allowed the Beroeans to depart unharmed and free, to go whithersoever each might wish. Many of the soldiers also crossed over to Chosroes of their own accord, because the emperor had defrauded them of their pay. Chosroes likewise demanded money from the people of Antioch, and not obtaining it, he besieged Antioch closely. And as the king pressed the siege, Theoctistus and Mulatzes, together with those soldiers whom they had led with them from Lebanon, secretly exited the city and fled. Thus, Chosroes compelled Antioch to surrender without effort ^B and reduced its citizens to servitude. Then, ambassadors were sent to him, John, the son of Rufinus, and Julian, the scribe of the secret cabinet; and after many discussions had been held back and forth between them and Chosroes regarding equitable conditions, it was finally agreed: that for the present, the Romans would immediately pay Chosroes fifty centenaria, and in addition would pay five hundred gold pieces annually, in the name of a further tribute, into all eternity, with him promising that he would bring no further injury upon them; and that ambassadors would again be sent by the emperor to ratify the agreements of peace. But even with these things settled ^C, Chosroes set out toward Apamea, where Bishop Thomas was presiding, and exacted a great sum of money; and finally, taking away all the sacred vessels and things dedicated to the temples, he departed; among which things, a miracle occurred concerning the precious and life-giving wood of the Cross. It is also related that he watched equestrian games there. Thence Chosroes proceeded again to the city of Chalcis, and having taken two centenaria from the inhabitants for it, he left it unbesieged. And having traveled to Edessa, he took two centenaria, and being deterred by certain divine signs, he did not besiege this city either. This is that Edessa in which Abgarus and the events concerning Abgarus were long ago brought to pass by Christ. This same Abgarus, having traveled to Augustus, the then Emperor of the Romans, became his close friend ^D and accomplished his return to his own land by his cleverness. But Chosroes departed from Edessa. At that time also, Justinian wrote to the ambassadors, acknowledging that he was ready to fulfill the agreed-upon terms.

^A Chosroes nevertheless demanded money from the people of Constantia and, having arrived at Dara, besieged the city; however, as Martin the general was fighting from within, he lost heart regarding the success of the siege and, having received a thousand pounds of silver, he withdrew into the land of the Persians. He ordered all the Antiochenes to dwell together in a city newly founded by him in Assyria (which was one day's journey distant from Ctesiphon and was called the Antioch of Chosroes), and he treated them with such a sign of benevolence and favor that he decreed they should obey no leader other than himself, delighting their spirits there with hippodromes and other pleasures.

Belisarius, having been called back from Italy as general, ^B was sent against Chosroes and the Persians at the beginning of spring; and, arriving in Mesopotamia, he armed and encouraged his army, which was almost devoid of weapons and trembling at the very name of the Persians, with great care. Chosroes, however, at the invitation of the Lazi (who, along with their leader Gubazes, had already gone over to the Persians because John was carrying on his duties as a merchant and exactively collecting taxes), moved against the city of Petra, which is a maritime city in Colchis situated on the Euxine Sea. While he was besieging this, as long as John was alive, he achieved nothing; but when John was pierced through the throat by a javelin and died, he took the city. He allowed the inhabitants to remain unharmed, however; for he accepted them into surrender by agreement, and he merely seized the great wealth of John, which he had gathered for himself through monopolies. ^C Belisarius, meanwhile, having attempted things in vain, besieged the city of Sisauranum and, attacking with force, took it upon agreed terms, and he sent Bleschames the general and the most prominent of the Persians captured there to Constantinople. He also sent Arethas with an army against the Assyrians, and he plundered that region; from this, a great quantity of money was acquired by the associates of Arethas, and they refused to return to Belisarius. Belisarius himself, his army being troubled by disease, the affairs performed by Arethas not yet being known, and Rhecithangus and Theoctistus additionally preparing to depart to guard the region of Phoenice, which Alamandarus was ravaging, thus returned home from the region of the Persians, and was summoned to Constantinople to the Emperor Justinian. ^D

64. Theophanes of Byzantium, Ten books of Histories.

BIBLIOTHECA. — COD. LXIV.

^A sroes, king of the Persians, had stipulated with each other. But Chosroes himself, and Justin, who had become the successor of Justinian, annulled them as the second year of his reign was ending. Starting his narrative from this point, he proceeds until the tenth year of the war. He mentions in this very first book of the volume that he had also written what was done under Justinian; indeed, it appears quite manifest that he added more than ten books besides these. In this book, he narrates how the agreements were dissolved, when Justin, through Comentiolus, demanded Suania from Chosroes, and the latter promised by word, but did not perform it in deed. He also reports that the earth shook throughout all Mesopotamia—the beginning, of course, of the calamities that followed.

^B In the East, by the Tanais, dwell the Turks, who were called Massagetae of old, and whom the Persians in their own language call Kermichiones. During this time, they sent envoys with gifts to the Emperor Justin, beseeching him not to receive the Avars who were supplicating him. He accepted the gifts, and having shown them every kindness and humanity, sent them home. When the Avars arrived soon after, begging to inhabit Pannonia and to enjoy the peace of the Romans, he denied them, because of the faith given to the Turks and the stipulated conditions.

^C A certain Persian man, during the reign of Justinian, demonstrated in Constantinople the origin of silkworms, a thing until then unknown to the Romans. This Persian, having come from the region of the Seres, carried the seed of the worms safely to Constantinople, enclosed in a cane, and when spring arrived, he placed the seeds upon the food of mulberry leaves. Having been nourished by the leaves, they developed wings and began to work in a marvelous way. Thus, when the Emperor Justin later demonstrated the origin of silkworms and the art of weaving to the Turks, they were vehemently astonished; for the Turks at that time held the emporia and ports of the Seres, which the Persians had previously held. For Ephthalanus, the king of the Ephthalites (from whom the whole race drew its name), having once defeated Perozes and the Persians, had deprived the Persians of those places, and the Ephthalites became their masters; the Turks, overcoming them in battle a little while later, stripped them of these as well.

^D Justin sent Zemarchus as an ambassador to the Turks; who, having publicly entertained the Turks and having been received with every kind of good turn, returned to Constantinople. For this reason, Chosroes also led an expedition against the Ethiopians, who were friends to the Roman people (formerly called Macrobii, now Homeritae), and captured their king, Sanaturces, alive through the agency of Meranes, the Persian general, and after plundering their city, he subjugated the nation. He also narrates how the Armenians, being ill-treated by Surinam (especially in matters of piety and religion), [having formed] a conspiracy through Vardan (whose brother ...

Manuel he had killed), and through another person named Vardan, revolted from the Persians and went over to the Romans, abandoning the town of Dubius, in which they lived, and adopting the customs of the Romans; and this was the principal cause for the Persians breaking their treaty and truce with the Romans. Immediately after this, the Iberians also revolted and went over to the Romans, led by Gorgenes; the metropolis of the Iberians at that time was Tiphilis. ^B

Marcianus, cousin of the Emperor Justin, having already been appointed commander of the East, was sent on an expedition against Chosroes in the eighth year of Justin’s reign. John, the commander of Armenia, and Meranes of the Persians (also called Baramaanes), were gathering their forces. The Colchi, Abasgi, and Saroes, king of the Alans, joined the Armenians as allies; while for Meranes there were the Sabiri, the Daganes, and the Dilmain tribe. Marcianus, having engaged Meranes near the city of Nisibis, put him to flight; in that battle, he killed twelve hundred, and seventy were taken alive, while only seven Romans were lost. He soon besieged the walls of Nisibis. Chosroes, having learned of these matters in time, gathered forty thousand cavalry and over one hundred thousand infantry, and hurried to bring aid and to fight the Romans. Meanwhile, Marcianus was accused before the emperor of aspiring to the throne, and Justin, believing the calumny, removed him from the command of the army and substituted Theodore, the son of Justinian, surnamed Tziron. Since affairs were thrown into confusion by these events, the Romans abandoned the siege, and Chosroes assaulted the city of Dara and took it by force. ^C

LXV. The History of Theophylact Simocatta in eight books.

Were read the eight books of the Histories of Theophylact, former prefect and secretary. This Theophylact is by birth an Egyptian. His diction has something of Venus in it, except that by using figurative words and allegorical meanings excessively and frequently to the point of satiety, he falls into a certain coldness and juvenile ineptitude. Nevertheless, that insertion of opinions, ^D though less opportune, argues for a diligence that is both curious and superfluous. Otherwise he is good, and incurs no censure. He begins from the reign of Maurice, and continues until Phocas was created emperor.

In the first book he narrates how Maurice was proclaimed emperor by the then-reigning Tiberius,

^A while John at that time occupied the see of the Constantinopolitan Church. Tiberius gave certain precepts to Maurice, making use of the service of John the quaestor, who was ordered to speak in the place of the emperor to Maurice himself and to the people. He also betrothed his daughter to Maurice, and the day after Maurice was created emperor, Tiberius departed this life. ^B Being near death, he saw a vision and uttered this voice: "To thee, O Tiberius, the Trinity, God, declares that the times of impious tyranny shall by no means come to pass during thy reign." It was indeed a forewarning of the tragedy of that lawless tyranny which would be seized by the blood-guilty Phocas. Furthermore, he records how Maurice, shortly before this, had made a truce with the Avars who were besieging Sirmium, on the condition that he would pay to the barbarians each year, through trade, eighty thousand pounds of gold and raiment. These terms were kept for two years, but were then broken by the insatiable greed of the barbarians; for the barbarian demanded an additional twenty thousand, so that it might amount to a hundred thousand. From this the truce was broken, ^C and the city of Singidunum was captured by the barbarians, as were Augusta and Viminacium, while the city of Anchialos was also besieged. Elpidius and Comentiolus were sent as ambassadors of the Romans to the Chagan of the Avars, and they were treated with contumely, insomuch as Comentiolus had spoken quite freely to the barbarian. The following year, Elpidius was sent again on an embassy to the Chagan to promise that he would pay the additional twenty thousand, and having received a certain Targetius from the Avars, he came to Byzantium. But since the barbarians were plundering many of the Romans' lands, Targetius was banished to the island of Chalcis, with six months decreed for his exile. Comentiolus, being chosen as general against the Sclaveni, performed heroically. ^D He also recounts how the Chagan again disturbed the truce, and tells of the magician Boscolobras, and the sacking of very many Roman cities by the barbarians.

Next, he narrates the war between the Persians and the Romans at the river Nymphius, and the marriage of Maurice and Constantina, the daughter of Tiberius. He further discusses the fire that occurred in the forum at the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Maurice, and the execution of Paulinus regarding the miracle at the shell of the martyr Glyceria. He also tells how John the Patriarch—as the emperor seemed to have a more lenient opinion—himself insisted that the sorcerer be delivered to the fire, interweaving into his discourse the apostolic utterance; and that Paulinus and the boy, being a partner in his impiety, were put to death by the sword. Additionally, he speaks of the garrison of the Aphumori and the Achaeans.

The book also contains an account of the battle between the Romans and the Persians, and how John was commanded by the barbarians. Further, it covers the great earthquake at the beginning of the accession of Maurice, and his consulship. It relates how Philippicus, the son-in-law of the Emperor by his marriage to Gordia, was appointed general of the eastern forces, his brave deeds, the withdrawal of the Romans from Media, and how the Romans suffered greatly from a lack of water. It also tells how the Roman general surrendered the region of Arzanene to be plundered by his men, the valor of the Roman forces, ^A how the Persian general devastated all the territory around Martyropolis, and the first and second embassies from the Persians to the Romans. These matters are in the first book.

In the second book, he discusses Mount Izala, and the arrogance of Cardarigas, ^B the commander of the Persian army. He also relates the battle of Philippicus and the Romans against Cardarigas and the Persians at Arzamon, how Philippicus carried the image not made by human hands and went about purifying the army, and how a most illustrious victory was won by the Romans. It describes how the image was sent with veneration to Simeon, the bishop of Amida. The barbarians’ territory was plundered by the Romans, and Cardarigas fled to the city of Daras, ^C where the citizens of Daras drove him out of the city, as he was already broken by the strength of the enemy. He speaks of the Roman soldiers of the Fourth Parthian legion who were wounded—this is the name given to those residing in the city of Berrhoea in Syria. He discusses the Roman expedition into the Arzanene region, and how Maruthas and Jovius, commanders of that territory, defected to Philippicus and the Romans. He also tells of the irregular forces gathered by Cardarigas ^D to ambush the Romans. It relates how Heraclius—the father of Heraclius who afterwards became emperor—was sent by Philippicus as a spy against the enemy and was miraculously saved. It deals with the Persian named Zaberta, and how the Romans ceased the siege of the Chlomaron. Furthermore, it speaks of the sudden and irrational flight of Philippicus, and the resulting disorder in the Roman army. It covers the illness that afflicted Philippicus, and how Heraclius, the father of the Emperor Heraclius, was called upon to take charge of the army, and how that sub-commander led the Roman army against the southern Medes, and how at the beginning of spring the Romans invaded the lands of the Persians. This book also includes how Comentiolus undertook an expedition against the Avars, having acquired the sub-commanders Maximus and Castus, and how, after deeds well performed by them against the Avars, Castus eventually fell alive into the hands of the enemy, and how Ansimuth...

the commander of the Roman infantry force, was taken prisoner by the Avars, and how their forces overran Thrace. Also, the deliberation of Comentiolus as to whether it was necessary to attack those among the Avars, and the public speech ^A regarding the need to attack, and the counter-speech. How a voice that fell upon the army of the Avars rendered the attack of Comentiolus against the Chagan ineffective. And concerning Busa the soldier, how, while hunting, he was captured by the Avars, and how, being despised and neglected by his own kin, he was the first to teach the Barbarians to construct siege engines for attacking cities. How the Chagan besieged Beroea and how he failed in the attempt. How the same man ^B besieged the city of Diocletian and yet failed to capture it. And how Emperor Maurice was reviled by the unruly mob of Byzantines because of the disasters that had befallen Europe due to the Barbarians; and how he sent commander John, whom they called Mystacon, having appointed Drocton as sub-commander under him, who, when Adrianople was besieged by the Avars, joined battle with the enemy and on the spot saved the city. The book also recounts how Heraclius attempted to take a Persian fortress by force, and about the fortress ^C called Bejudas, and how by the incredible valor of the soldier Saperis the Romans occupied the garrison. Finally, how Philippicus remained in the royal city of Constantinople.

The third book describes how Priscus is appointed commander of the Eastern forces in place of Philippicus; and how Philippicus, out of jealousy toward Priscus, wrote to Heraclius to reduce the provisions and rations for the army. Priscus also, having arrived at the camp, did not descend from his horse to greet the soldiers according to the old custom, and thus he greeted the military; ^D wherefore the military, both because their rations were being cut and because they were being treated without honor, revolted. And Priscus, having given them the un-made-by-hands [image] to hold, tried to appease the common soldiers through it, but they even threw stones at it. Therefore, Priscus flees to Constantina, and Germanus is chosen as their reluctant commander by the army; and as this tyranny prevailed, many disasters were heaped upon the Romans by the Persians. For this reason, the emperor removes Priscus and sends Philippicus back again as commander. But the army revolted against him as well. Constantina is besieged by the Persians, but is rescued from danger by the coming of Germanus to its aid. A battle between the Romans and the Persians took place at Martyropolis. Victory

^A on that day remained with the Romans, their Persian commander Maruza being slain along with three thousand of his men, and a thousand being taken prisoner. Through the efforts of Aristobulus, the army was reconciled with the Emperor, and at the fortress of the Giligerdi, the prowess of the captive soldiers shone forth; and Gregory ^B (98), Bishop of Antioch, undertaking an embassy, restored Philippicus to the army. Martyropolis was captured by the Persians through the treachery of Sitta (99). Philippicus was removed from his command, and Comentiolus was appointed in his place by the Emperor Maurice, and the Persian war was entrusted to him. At that time, the Getae, or Sclaveni, were ravaging the regions around Thrace; Rome was taking up arms against the Lombards, and in Africa also, they were triumphant over the Maurusians (1). Under the leadership of Comentiolus, a battle was fought near Sisarbanum (2), near Nisibis, between the Persians and the Romans. The Romans (3) proved superior through their military virtue, with Heraclius then brandishing his spear bravely; Phraates, the leader of the Persian forces themselves, fell in that battle, and the camp was plundered and rich spoils were gathered. Baram (4), having defeated the Turks and bestowed great wealth from them upon King Hormisdas, threatened Suania with drawn sword. The Romans, however, under the command of a man named Romanus, joined battle with the army of Baram and, having engaged in close combat, proved stronger and won an illustrious victory. Hormisdas, because of the defeat received, sent a woman’s garment to Baram by way of mockery and insult. The latter, wishing to avenge this insult and injury in return, wrote letters (5) and inscribed them: "To Chrosroes, daughter (not son) of Hormisdas." ^C In this war, the Armenians also, persuaded by Sabbatius, killed their own commander, John (6), and prepared to defect to the Persians. Comentiolus, meanwhile, being sent by the Emperor, settled the military mutiny and led Sabbatius to Constantinople, where he was condemned to be food for the beasts, though he was snatched from death by the Emperor’s clemency. Hormisdas sent Saramen against Baram; but Baram, having conquered Saramen in battle, caused him to be devoured by elephants and openly took up arms against Hormisdas. This Baram had been raised to such a height of honor before his defection that no one at all exceeded him in dignity, save the King himself. For he enjoyed the office of Curopalates (7), as it is called by the Romans. This book also records in passing what was done in times long ancient; and it narrates briefly the events that occurred under the Augusti Justin and Tiberius. The cruelty of Hormisdas, King of the Persians, ^D is also set forth, and the series of Persian kings is traced from the beginning. And these things are in the third book.

^A The fourth book contains the following: how civil war grew among the Persians, and what victories and favorable events occurred during the tyranny of Baram; the killing of Pherechanes and the defection of Zadespræs; how Hormisdas was deposed from the royal power by Bindoe; how, while in chains, he asked to make a speech, and how he delivered it; how Bindoe also delivered a speech, and how Hormisdas’s son was butchered before his eyes and the queen was cut into pieces, and how Hormisdas himself was blinded. It also tells how, later, he was beaten to death with clubs by his son Chosroes, whom the Persians had set up as their king. It covers the extent of the tyranny of Baram, the flight of Chosroes—the King of the Persians—how he arrived at Circesium, surrendered himself to the Emperor Maurice, and sent an embassy to him. It further describes how Baram, having cunningly maneuvered to be named king by them but failing to obtain his desire, proclaimed himself king. It tells how the Emperor brought Chosroes to Hierapolis, having established a royal household for him. It also relates the events that occurred between Baram and Chosroes before the alliance with the Romans was made, and how, after an embassy was sent to the Emperor Maurice, Baram met with a refusal, while Chosroes succeeded. It tells how the Emperor sent the priest of Melitene, together with Gregory, the High Priest of Antioch, to Chosroes. It covers the murder of Baram, which Zamerdes and Zoanambes plotted, and the killing of those who were accomplices in this deed. It describes Bindoe the Persian, and how he fled from Persia, having been a party to the plot against Baram. It tells how Martyropolis was surrendered to the Romans by Chosroes, and about the burning of Sitta, and the festive oration delivered in public by Domitian, the Bishop of Melitene (for that was his name), on the occasion of the recovery of the city. These are the contents of the fourth book.

^C The fifth book sets forth how Chosroes, the King of the Persians, being distressed in soul by his troubles, implored the saint and martyr Sergius—whom even the other barbarian nations were accustomed to honor—to find a solution to his misfortunes; and how he honored him with a golden cross set with precious stones. It follows with the treacherous murder of Zadespræs through the agency of Rhosas, at the suggestion of Bleschanos, and other things which turned out according to Chosroes’s wishes. It tells of the gold loaned to Chosroes, the King of the Persians, by the Emperor Maurice, and how Chosroes gave a written bond for the money received. It describes the embassy of Chosroes to have Comentiolus removed from the command of the army, the appointment of Narses in place of Comentiolus, and the alliance of the Romans against the tyrant Baram. It also deals with the royal gifts sent to Chosroes by the Emperor, and how Chosroes [sent] the keys of the city of Daras through his envoy...

^A to the Emperor. A speech of Domitian, Bishop of Melitene, persuading the Roman army to make an alliance and league with Chosroes against Baram; and concerning the successful events that occurred before the engagement between the Romans and the Persians for Chosroes, and how the royal treasuries and the Persian throne were restored to Chosroes by Bindoes. The union of the Roman forces ^B from Armenia and from the East, the battle against Baram, and the most conspicuous victory of the Romans. In this battle, under the command of Narsis, Turks were also captured who bore on their foreheads the sign of the cross, which they had impressed upon themselves, as they explained, to avert a pestilential disease that had long ago afflicted them. The events that took place in Persia concerning Golinduch, and how she led an austere monastic life. The return of Chosroes to his own kingdom, and the gifts he sent to the martyr Sergius. An embassy of the same to the same holy man, in order to have children by a woman from Hierem, who was a Christian. ^C Also, the success of his request, and the sending of precious gifts by him to the martyr's temple. How Chosroes punished with death those who had shared in the tyranny, and Bindoes himself, as one who had raised his hand against the king. Regarding the things foretold by Chosroes, and how the Roman state would be stirred by rebellions while enslaved to tyrants. An embassy of Probus, Bishop of Chalcedon, and concerning the image of the Theotokos, and all that occurred during that embassy. The departure of the Emperor to Anchialus, a city of Europe, and the omen offered to him there; and how he returned home to the palace when the Persian embassy, ^D led by Zalanban, had already arrived. And in these [events] consists the fifth book.

The sixth book contains these matters: how a sea storm beset the Emperor as he was leaving the city. How, while the Emperor was staying at Heraclea, a monstrous birth occurred—an infant lacking hands and eyes, and also eyebrows and eyelids, and having a fish's tail hanging from its thigh; and how this monster was destroyed. Regarding the three Sclavini carrying lyres, who were said to have been sent from the regions of the Ocean to the Chagan, and who were also seen by the Emperor Maurice. An embassy of the Franks to the Emperor, in which they promised to serve as mercenaries for him, but met with a refusal. Bossus and Bettus, sent by Theoderich, carried out this embassy. Regarding a herd of deer; and how a huge one, struck by a javelin, fled into a thicket, and how one man with a spear, and another a Gepid, followed it until...

^A it was apprehended after a long time as guilty of the slaughter and committed to the flames. The expedition of the Avars against the Romans, and the siege of the city of Singidunum; the appointment ^B of Priscus as general, and how he was put in charge of this war in Europe. And how the Chagan, having arrived at Drizipera, burned the temple of the holy martyr Alexander; and how the Romans, shut up by the Chagan in the city of Tzurulo, were besieged, and how Maurice, by craft, deceived the barbarian and drew him off from the siege. An embassy of the Avars to the Romans, and whatever misfortunes Ardagastus suffered at the hands of the Roman army, and besides these, the events under Talimer. The bravery of the Roman tribune Alexander, the valiant deeds of the Romans, the destruction of the Sclaveni, and the incursion of the Sclaveni against the Romans. Regarding the monsters born before the gates of the capital city, as one was a four-legged infant, and the other had two heads. How Priscus was removed from command because he had given the Chagan a portion of the booty taken from the Sclaveni, and Peter was appointed in his stead as general of the war in Europe; and regarding Theodorus the envoy, sent to the Chagan by Priscus, and his learning and skill in affairs. With these ends the sixth book.

The seventh book deals with the confusion that had arisen in the Roman forces, and the valiant deeds of the Romans against the Sclaveni, or Getae—for they were called by this name in ancient times. And regarding the events that happened at Asimus, a city of Thrace, to Peter and the citizens; and how Piragastus, the commander of the Sclaveni forces, was slain. ^C And of the valor of the Roman soldiers, even though they were pressed by a great scarcity of water. After Peter was defeated in battle by the Sclaveni, Priscus was again chosen as commander of the war. The death of John, surnamed the Faster (24), patriarch of Constantinople; and regarding the money borrowed from him by the Emperor Maurice, and the written agreement given for the money received; and at how high a price that truly pious Augustus held the tattered garments left by the prelate after his death (25). Regarding the expedition of the Maurosii against the city of Carthage, and how the war was extinguished by the fortitude of Gennadius. Regarding the comet which was seen for many days. Regarding the internal and civil war which arose among the Turks, and an account of their commonwealth—how the Chagan (26) of the Turks, having slain the prince of the Ephthalites, conquered that whole nation; and how, moreover, the Agarenes...

^A and the Colchians were destroyed, to the number of three hundred thousand. And also, how he slew Turum, who had rebelled against him, and sent a letter of victory to the Emperor Maurice; and how he also brought the Avars under the yoke. He also discourses concerning the nations inhabiting Taugas, and concerning the Nucri, among whom the defeated Avars were dispersed (27). Likewise concerning the nations of the Var and the Chuni, of which a great part, ever since the times of Justinian, have had settlements in Europe and have called themselves Avars. He mentions that the region of the Turks is not at all subject to earthquakes or pestilence. He speaks of the mountain which is called the Golden, and of the city of Taugas itself. He speaks of the silkworms (28) which produce silk fabrics from themselves, and that an immense quantity of silk is produced at the city called Clubda; and of what is customarily done in the spinning of those worms. Concerning the Indians, who are of white body. The debate of the Chagan with Priscus concerning leading the people of Singidunum into slavery, and the contrary opinion of Priscus, and how Priscus saved that city. Everything the Barbarians did throughout Dalmatia and which cities they destroyed. How Gundoes, sent by Priscus into Dalmatia against the Barbarians, behaved valiantly.

In the nineteenth year of the reign of Maurice, a certain monk predicted his death ^B and that of his children (30). For, with drawn sword, running from the forum to the vestibule of the palace, he announced that Maurice would be slain with the sword along with his children. Nay, also a certain Herodian by name foretold to the Emperor the things that were to happen (31): namely, that famine which afterwards arose in the camps. Also, how the Chagan, with incredible humanity, granted a five-day truce to the starving army, so that food and supplies might be brought to the Romans without fear of the Barbarians; and how, in return, having been honored by Priscus with gifts, he departed to the nearby regions of Mysia. In Mysia, the Chagan engaged in battle with Comentiolus; and by the treachery ^C of Comentiolus, the Roman army suffered a slaughter and was cut down by the Barbarians, Comentiolus meanwhile having slipped away in flight. Him, having been driven back, the citizens of the city of Drizipera (32) repelled as a deserter; wherefore he betook himself from there to the Long Walls, as they are called. The Barbarians, moreover, pursuing behind, captured Drizipera, and, having set fire to the temple of the martyr Alexander, they dragged the body from its casket and treated it with indignity (33). But soon divine vengeance overtook the violators of the martyr; for seven sons of the Chagan, seized by a disease of the groin, perished in one day. Comentiolus, amidst these disturbances, remains at Constantinople, while ^D the Barbarians meanwhile draw nearer to the Long Walls. Whence such great...

^A And the people of Byzantium were so terrified that they even contemplated abandoning Europe and crossing over into Asia. Nevertheless, the king immediately sent an embassy to the Chagan through Harmaton, and with splendid gifts and an addition of twenty thousand pounds of gold, he barely persuaded him to accept peace, the Chagan saying: "Let God judge between the Chagan and Maurice, and likewise between the Romans and the Barbarians." ^B Regarding the monsters appearing in human form in the waters of the Nile, and regarding the rising of the Nile, there are differing opinions. This writer agrees with the opinion of Agatharchides of Cnidus; he says that every year in the regions of Ethiopia, great and continuous rains from heaven occur from the summer solstice until the autumn equinox. It is therefore with good reason that the Nile flows more narrowly in the winter, carrying only its own waves produced from its own springs by their own nature, but in the summer, because of the rains flowing into it from there, it receives its increase. These matters are contained in the seventh book.

The eighth book covers how Chosroes attempted to break the truce due to the incursions of those Saracens who were subjects of the Romans, but through the embassy of George he was persuaded to keep the treaty intact; and George incurred the anger of the Caesar because Chosroes had said that he had ratified the peace, especially for the sake of George, and not for the sake of Emperor Maurice; and it recounts how Comentiolus was accused of treason, and how the Roman armies were reconciled to him, and how he was again appointed general by the emperor. A battle of the Romans and the Abaroi is commemorated, ^C with Priscus and Comentiolus as generals; yet Comentiolus, offering some excuse or other, abstained from the battle, while Priscus led the forces. The courage of the Roman soldiers is described, and the slaughter of the Abaroi, amounting to four thousand. A second battle, and the slaughter of the same, up to nine thousand. A third battle, and the destruction of the same, up to fifteen thousand. A fourth battle, and again a brilliant victory for the Romans, and the slaughter of thirty thousand Abaroi and Gepidae. A fifth battle, and victory was again with the Romans; there were slaughtered and captured Abaroi—those who came into captivity alive numbering three thousand—and four thousand other Barbarians, and others numbering two thousand two hundred, and eight thousand Sclaveni; ^D from whom the Chagan, having deceived the emperor, took back the captured Abaroi. It treats of the melancholy of Comentiolus, and how, through his lack of judgment, a multitude of Romans, while marching toward Philippopolis, perished from the cold. As for how Peter was again made general of Europe by the

^A emperor. Concerning the marriage of Theodosius [32b] the son of Maurice to the daughter of Germanus; and concerning the famine that occurred in the queen of cities; and the disorder of the populace that happened while the emperor was praying; and concerning his forbearance, and the sending away of the soldiers, and their return on the same day. How Maurice sent Peter to keep the Thracian forces by every means and effort on the opposite bank of the Ister, and how a divine voice came to Peter. And how sedition broke into the Roman forces, and a tyranny was set up against the emperor, Phocas the tyrant having been proclaimed by the multitude. How Peter fled meanwhile, and how the sedition was reported to the emperor. And how at first the multitude of the populace was stirred up by the demarchs Sergius and Cosmas, and there were found 1,500 of the Greens, and 900 of the Blues, and how the emperor provided largess to the demes. The embassy of the emperor to the seditious forces, and ^B the rejection of the embassy; and how he guarded the queen of cities. The embassy of the armies to Theodosius the son of Maurice, demanding that either he or his father-in-law Germanus be proclaimed emperor over them. Information regarding these events reached Maurice, and suspicion fell upon Germanus as the author of the tyranny; and [there were] threats, and the report of the emperor’s threats by his son-in-law Theodosius, and the flight of Germanus to the temple of the Theotokos. The mission of Cyrus and the eunuch Stephen (who had been appointed guardian of the emperor’s children) to Germanus, to have him leave the temple, and their failure; and the beating of Theodosius the son with rods by his father, because he had reported those threats to his father-in-law. And the move of Germanus from the temple of the Theotokos to the Hagia Sophia, and ^C again the summons to leave, and his disobedience, a certain Andrew constantly attending the litanies having prevented his departure. Turmoil and the burning of the house in the city of the patrician Constantine, whom the multitudes called Lardyn; and the perplexity and flight of Maurice. How, when a storm arose, it blocked his flight. And the mission of the son Theodosius to Chosroes, and his return again from Nicaea by the display of the ring which had been given to the son by his father as a sign and token. The rush of the city-dwellers to the tyrant, among whom was the Hebdomite. Germanus, aspiring to the empire, failed in his desire, the Greens denying that they would create him emperor because, as they claimed, he belonged to the faction of the Blues. Therefore, Phocas was then [made emperor] in the temple of St. John, which is in the Septimum. ^D

^A At that time Cyriacus had been entrusted with the episcopal canons of the empress. Then followed the entry of Phocas into the palace, and the proclamation of Leontia, the wife of Phocas. And [there is mention] regarding the disturbance of the demarchs concerning the order of precedence, and the jostling of Cosmas, the demarch of the Blues, by Alexander, and the insult [offered] to Alexander. And the remembrance of Maurice, how he did not die, and because of this, [Phocas'] impulse toward the slaughter of the emperor was increased. And the slaughter of the emperor's children before the eyes of their father at the place of Eutropius, and the philosophy and thanksgiving of the emperor, and his own execution by Lilius. And concerning the will of the Emperor Maurice, which was found during the reign of Emperor Heraclius. And how the bodies of the emperors were committed to the sea's surge. And the funeral oration for Maurice; and how the Roman forces, by the judgment of divine providence, exacted retribution for the injustices committed against Maurice, so that in a short time no one who had participated in the tyranny remained from such a great multitude, [100] but some perished by plague, others by heavenly fire, and the rest to a man by the edge of the sword, so that when Emperor Heraclius determined to wage war against the Persian Razates, he made a mustering of the army and found only two survivors of the pro-tyrant multitude, and only then did the Roman [army] begin to prevail against the Persians; for as long as those men survived, victory dwelt with the Persians.

^B The slaughter by the tyrant, through Alexander, of Theodosius, the emperor’s son, and of Peter, Comentiolus, and Constantine of Lardus; and the confusion concerning Theodosius, as if he had not been killed. And how, in Alexandria, the statues stirred from their own pedestals and foretold the events to a certain scribe who was passing through the Tychaeum as he was returning home after supper. And how Maurice is said to have granted a remission of a third part of the taxes to his subjects, and to have given thirty talents to the Byzantines for the renewal of the aqueduct. And how he generously honored those who were devoted to the sciences. And concerning the strange things that happened regarding the blood of the martyr Euphemia, and how Maurice, having put the matter to the test of danger, confirmed the miracle all the more through his own skepticism. And how the tyrant shut up Constantia, the wife of Emperor Maurice, together with her daughters, in a private house. An embassy of the tyrant sent to Chosroes, king of the Persians, ^C but it was in vain. For the truce was broken, with Chosroes using the pretext that he was justly avenging Maurice. Thus Lilius, who was the envoy, returned home with his business unfinished. The execution of Alexander, an associate in the recent changes brought about by Phocas, who was suspect on that account.

In these things is the end of the entire history.

LXVI. Historical Epitome of St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople

^A Read: The *Historical Epitome* of Nicephorus, archbishop of Constantinople, of holy memory. It begins from the death of the Emperor Maurice and extends to the marriage union of Leo and Irene. The style has nothing superfluous or obscure; in the choice of words and the composition of his speech he has used neither an excessively loose nor, on the other hand, an overly constrained or studied manner, but one such as a true rhetorician and a perfect orator might truly employ. For he avoids neologisms and does not pass over what has been approved by antiquity and use. Moreover, a certain pleasure is combined with grace in his discourse. In sum, he eclipses many who came before him in the writing of history, unless it be that, owing to excessive brevity, he may be thought not to have fully exhausted every aspect of his subject's beauty.

LXVII. Sergii Confessoris Historia

^C Read: *The History of Sergius the Confessor*. It begins from the deeds of the Emperor Michael and looks back to the impious and nefarious crimes of Copronymus; from these he proceeds to narrate in order, up to the eighth year of Michael, everything he did, both in the state and in the Church. Moreover, he accurately reviews his military campaigns and what his sentiments were regarding divine matters. His diction is especially clear and not affectedly adorned, both in the meaning of the words and their composition, as well as in the rest of the arrangement of his speech, so that it seems to have been poured forth extemporaneously. For his language, flowering with a native grace, did not accept any change of form arising from ^D too anxious a precision. Such diction, which was also his studied intent, befits ecclesiastical history.

LXVIII. Cephalaionis Musa, sive Historica Epitomes libri IX

Read: The *Historical Epitome* of Cephalion: [index: entries preserved]

^A His work begins from the reign of Ninus and Semiramis, and comes down to the times of King Alexander. His history is comprised in nine books, named after the nine Muses: Clio, Thalia, Polymnia, Melpomene, Terpsichore, Euterpe, Calliope, Erato, and Urania, in which he also narrates the deeds of Alexander of Macedon.

He uses the Ionic dialect, and uses such brevity beyond what is appropriate that he offers nothing worthy of admiration or emulation other than the mere learning of the history. He suppresses his own family and country, just as he himself says, like Homer, but it appears that he compiled his history while living in exile in Sicily. Therefore, that which was necessary, namely to declare his country and family, he omitted; yet that which is an indication of a lowly spirit—his exile—he has handed down to memory. It is also quite a sufficient argument of a soul not yet having cast off empty and childish ambition that he boasts of from how many and how great authors his history was collected. He states, in fact, that his first book was composed from five hundred and seventy scrolls, mentioning thirty-one authors; the second from two hundred and eight scrolls, twenty-five authors; the third from six hundred scrolls, twenty-six authors; the fourth from eight hundred and fifty scrolls, thirty-two authors; the fifth from two hundred scrolls, twenty-six authors. And thus of the rest. He affirms that the ninth is collected from [several] scrolls, with thirty authors. And these are the contents of Cephalion’s history.

^C

69. Hesychius the Illustrious of Miletus, Six books of Universal and Roman History, and deeds performed by the Emperor Justin the Elder.

Read: A historical book, as it were, a compendium of universal history. The author is Hesychius the Illustrious, a Milesian by country, the son of Hesychius and Sophia—whence the title of the book, *Roman and Universal History*, is derived. It begins from the reign of Belus, the king of the Assyrians, and ends at the death of Anastasius, who became Roman emperor. It is concise and eloquent; for he uses a flowering and significant diction, and the structure of his discourse is likewise elaborated with equal reason, while he delights most in the propriety of words. If, however, he ever turns to a significant diction, even with the greatest emphasis, he so charms the listener with his variation that he places the matter before his eyes no less, or perhaps even more clearly, [if he had not departed into...]

figures. Furthermore, he declares himself to be first and foremost a student of the truth.

His work is divided into six parts. The first book relates the events that preceded the Trojan War. The second covers events from the fall of Ilion to the founding of Rome. The third commemorates what happened from the founding of the city under the kings until the time when, consuls having been created at Rome, the kingdom came to an end; this was about the sixty-eighth Olympiad. The fourth, from the time when consuls presided over Rome—that is to say, from the sixty-eighth Olympiad—up to the one hundred and eighty-second Olympiad, at which point such government ceased, Julius Caesar holding sole power. The fifth book narrates events that occurred from the reign of Julius Caesar until the time when the glory and power of the Byzantine city were raised to their peak, beginning with the two hundred and seventy-sixth Olympiad. The sixth book tells of events from the time when Constantinople was blessed—to its great advantage—with Constantine as emperor, up to the death of Anastasius; ^B this Caesar, the writer declares, excelled many in clemency and kindness, I know not how. His death occurred in the eleventh indiction, while Magnus was sole consul. The span of time which that history covers is 1,190 years.

We also read another work by the same Hesychius, containing the deeds of Emperor Justin: how, after Anastasius died, Justin was substituted in his place, and how Justinian in turn received the empire from him, and other deeds performed under him for some years. The writer was called away from committing the rest to memory by the death of his son John, which so struck the man’s mind that it broke his resolve to commentate and write. ^C

LXX.

35a The forty books of the Historiarum of Diodorus Siculus.

We read the forty books of the Historiarum of Diodorus Siculus, which contain a certain universal history of the world. It is much more copious than Cephalion, at least when it relates the same events, as it is also than Hesychius the Illustrious. He uses a style that is clear, not affected, but most fitting for history. Nor indeed, if I may say so, does he display an excessive Atticism or an extreme antiquarianism, nor, conversely, does he lower himself to a humble style of speaking; rather, he delights in a moderate form of discourse, avoiding ornate speech ^D and other such things, except where he mythologizes after the manner of poets about the gods and heroes of the nations. He leads the beginning of his history from the fabulous times of the Greeks and Barbarians, and proceeds to the start of the war which the Romans waged against the Gauls, a time when C. Julius Caesar (to whom, on account of his deeds, the Romans added the surname Divus) was engaged in very many, and especially bellicose...

Gaius Julius Caesar, who on account of his deeds was called a God by the Romans, waged war against the greatest and most warlike of the Celtic nations. And for thirty years, as he himself says, he labored over this history, visiting many places for the sake of acquiring extensive learning, and encountering such hardships as is to be expected. ^A Since he was a Sicilian, he traced his origins to the city of Agyrium; and because of his association with the Romans, having obtained great experience in the Roman language, he recorded all their imperial deeds and sufferings with precision.

He comprised the entire history in forty books: in the first six, he sets forth the deeds and myths from before the time of the Trojan War; in the next twenty-one, he records the common deeds from the Trojan War ^B until the death of Alexander, king of the Macedonians. In the remaining thirteen books, the rest of the events are recorded, up until the war between the Romans and the Celts flared up, during which Gaius Julius Caesar, who was in command, conquered most of the warlike nations among the Celts and extended the empire of Rome as far as the British Isles; here the history ends.

LXXI. Cassius Cocceianus, or Coccius Dio, Roman Histories in Eighty Books

We read the book of Cassius Cocceianus, or Coccius Dio, in eighty books. ^C It begins with the descent of Aeneas from Troy to Italy and the founding of Alba and Rome, and then continues in order, ending with the slaughter of the Antoninus who was called Elagabalus; they nicknamed this man Tiberinus, Sardanapalus, Pseudo-antoninus, and Assyrian, because of his shameful acts. He goes on not only to the beginning of the reign of Alexander—who, after the slaughter of Antoninus (for he held power with him, having been taken up by him), ^D alone escaped the danger that had been devised against him and received the empire—but he also says that this Alexander served as consul with him for the second time, and that the Emperor himself, desiring to honor his colleague excessively, paid the expenses that Dio ought to have incurred for the administration of the magistracy. This historian had been appointed by the Emperor Macrinus to supervise Pergamum and Smyrna, then he governed Africa, then he ruled Pannonia; and having served as consul for the second time, as was said, he returned home with his feet afflicted by illness, to live out the rest of his life there in Bithynia, just as that divine spirit had foretold to him, saying:

From the slaughter of men and from blood and from tumult.

^A His native place was Nicaea in Bithynia, which is surrounded in parts by the lake called Ascania. His style is grand and elevated, because he recounts concepts of great deeds. His language is full of archaic constructions and words appropriate to the greatness of his subject; his sentences are extended with parenthetical clauses, and he makes timely use of hyperbata. His rhythm and pauses, although carefully cultivated for the sake of clarity, are not immediately obvious to those who read him superficially. Furthermore, in his narratives and orations, he is a great emulator of Thucydides, except that he tends more toward clarity; otherwise, Thucydides is almost his standard and rule. ^B

LXXII. The Persian History of Ctesias of Cnidus.

The Persian History of Ctesias of Cnidus was read, distributed into twenty-three books. However, in the first six books he encompasses the affairs of the Assyrians and whatever preceded the Persian empire; only from the seventh book onwards does he proceed to narrate Persian affairs. Thus, in the seventh book, and likewise in the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth, up to the thirteenth, he describes matters pertaining to Cyrus, Cambyses, that Magian, as well as Darius and Xerxes; in almost all of these he opposes Herodotus, ^C asserting that he is—as one who wrote later—a liar in many things and a fabricator of myths. He claims for himself that he saw the greater part of the things he writes about with his own eyes, and that the rest, which he was not permitted to see, he learned from the Persians themselves, and in this way he approached the writing of his history. But he departs not only from the history of Herodotus, but he also disagrees in some places with Xenophon, the son of Gryllus. He flourished in the times of that Cyrus who was born to Darius and Parysatis, and who was the brother of Artaxerxes, to whom the Persian kingdom descended.

Straightway, therefore, he reports regarding Astyages, ^D whom he also calls Astyigas, that Cyrus was not joined to him by any kinship. Furthermore, he states that Astyigas fled from the sight of Cyrus to Ecbatana, and there lay hidden in the criscranis of the royal buildings, having been concealed by his daughter Amytis and her husband Spitamas. And that Cyrus, upon arriving, ordered that inquiries regarding Astyigas be conducted under torture, not only of Spitamas and Amytis, but also of their children, Spitakes and Megabernes. Astyigas himself, therefore, not wishing his young grandchildren to be tortured for his sake, gave himself up.

He was ^A taken and bound in heavy fetters by Oebaras, but not long after was released by Cyrus himself and honored and cared for as a father: indeed, Astyigas’ own daughter Amytis, who had first been honored by Cyrus as a mother, was eventually married to him after her husband Spitamas had been put to death, because he had lied in saying he did not know [where Astyigas was] when he was being sought. Ctesias relates these things concerning Cyrus, and not as Herodotus does. And that he waged war against the Bactrians, and the battle was evenly contested; but when the Bactrians learned that Astyigas had become a father to Cyrus, and Amytis both mother and wife, they willingly and gladly surrendered themselves to Amytis and Cyrus. And that Cyrus waged war against the Sacae, and captured Amorges, the king of the Sacae and husband of Sparethra, who even after the capture of her husband gathered an army and waged war against Cyrus, bringing with her an army of three hundred thousand men and two hundred thousand women. ^B She defeated Cyrus and took prisoner, along with many others, Parmyses, the brother of Amytis, and his three children; Amorges was later released on their account, because they too had been released.

And that Cyrus campaigned against Croesus and the city of Sardis, having Amorges as an ally. And how, by the counsel of Oebaras the Persian, wooden effigies appeared upon the walls, which struck fear into the inhabitants, and because of these the city itself was captured. And how, before the capture, the son of Croesus was given as a hostage, a divine apparition having deceived Croesus; and how, while Croesus was contriving guile, the son was slain before his eyes, and how his mother, seeing the calamity, cast herself from the wall [109 R.] and died. And how, after the city was taken, Croesus fled to the temple of Apollo which was in the city, and how, having been bound three times in the temple by Cyrus, he was ^C released the third time invisibly, even though seals had been placed upon the temple and Oebaras had been entrusted with their custody; and how the others who had been bound with Croesus had their heads cut off because it was thought that through their betrayal Croesus had been released from his bonds; and that after he was brought into the palace and bound more securely, and thunder and lightning struck, he was released again, and only then was he at last released by Cyrus. From that time on he was treated with kindness, and Cyrus gave Croesus a great city, Barene, near Ecbatana, in which there were five thousand cavalry, and ten thousand peltasts, javelin-throwers, and archers.

He relates, moreover, that the eunuch Petisacas, a man of great influence with Cyrus, was sent into Persia to bring Astyigas from the Barcanians, because both he and his daughter Amytis longed to see her father. ^A But Oebares advised Petisacas to leave Astyigas in some desert place to perish of hunger and thirst; and this was done. But when the wickedness was revealed through dreams, Petisacas, at the repeated demand of Amytis, was delivered to her for punishment. She first gouged out the eunuch’s eyes, then tore off his skin, and finally crucified him. Oebares, fearing lest he should suffer the same fate (although Cyrus assured him that he would never permit anything of the sort), nevertheless starved himself to death in ten days. Astyigas, however, was buried with the highest splendor and magnificence; for his corpse had remained untouched by wild beasts while it lay in those desert places, because lions, as he says, guarded the body until Petisacas returned to take it away.

Cyrus leads an army against the Derbices, whose king at that time was Amoraeus; but they, having brought forth elephants from an ambush, put Cyrus’s cavalry to flight. ^B Cyrus himself fell from his horse, and a certain Indian (for the Indians were fighting on the side of the Derbices, from whom they had also received the elephants they were using), this Indian, I say, struck the fallen Cyrus with a javelin under the hip into the thigh, from which wound he later died. His attendants, however, while he was still alive, picked him up and withdrew to the camp. Many of the Persians fell in this battle, and no fewer of the Derbices; for ten thousand of them also perished. Amorges, having received the report about Cyrus, arrived in haste with twenty thousand Saka cavalry. A battle having been joined between the Persians and the Derbices, the Persian and Saka army won a decisive victory, ^C and the king of the Derbices, Amoraeus, was killed, both he and his two sons. Thirty thousand of the Derbices fell, and nine thousand of the Persians, and the country submitted to Cyrus.

Cyrus, when he was about to die, appointed his eldest son, Cambyses, as king; the younger, named Tanyoxarces (82), he established as lord of the Bactrians and that region, and also of the Choramnians, Parthians, and Carmanians, decreeing that they should be exempt from tribute. ^D As for the children of Spitamas, he appointed Spitaden (84) satrap of the Derbices, and Megabernes of the Barcanians, and commanded them to obey their mother in all things. He also wished to establish friendship between them and Amorges by giving their right hands and entering into mutual covenants, wishing them all prosperity, provided they remained in their mutual loyalties; but he cursed those who…

^A would be the first to inflict a wrong. Having said this, he ceased to live, on the third day from the received wound, having reigned for thirty years. This is the end of the eleventh book of Ctesias the Cnidian.

Book XII

The twelfth book begins from the reign of Cambyses. Having attained the kingdom, he immediately sent his father’s body by Bagapates the eunuch into Persia to be buried, and performed the rest according to his father’s decree. ^B Among those who possessed the greatest authority with Cambyses was Artasyras the Hyrcanian, and of the eunuchs, Izabates and Aspadates, and Bagapates, who had also been greatest with his father after the death of Petesaces. This man leads an army against Egypt and against the king of the Egyptians, Amyrtæus, and defeats Amyrtæus, since Combapheus, who had great influence with the Egyptian king, had ^C betrayed the bridges and other Egyptian affairs, on the condition that he himself should become the governor of Egypt. And it came to pass; for Cambyses had arranged these things with him through Izabates, the uncle of Combapheus, and later by his own word. Having taken Amyrtæus alive, he did him no other harm than that he was sent away to Susa with six thousand Egyptians, whom he himself had chosen. And the whole of Egypt was subdued, with fifty thousand Egyptians killed in the battle, while seven thousand Persians fell.

A certain Magus named Sphendadates, ^D having offended and having been scourged by Tanyoxarces, arrives to Cambyses, slandering his brother Tanyoxarces as plotting against him; and he gave a sign of his rebellion, that if he were summoned to come, he would not come. Cambyses then orders his brother to come; but he, since another necessity required him to remain, delayed. The Magus then spoke more boldly in his slanders. Amytis, their mother, suspecting the things of the Magus as she did, exhorted her son Cambyses not to be persuaded; but he pretended not to be persuaded, while he was persuaded most of all. When Cambyses sent for him a third time, the brother arrives. And the brother greets him, but he intended to kill him no less; he was eager to bring his plan to execution secretly from Amytis. And the deed reaches its end; for the Magus, sharing counsel with the king, advises something like this: The Magus himself was very similar to Tanyoxarces. He advises him, therefore, to order his head to be cut off in public, as if it were of a false accuser of the king's brother, but in secret to have Tanyoxarces himself killed, and for the Magus to be dressed in his clothes, so that by his attire he might be thought to be Tanyoxarces. And these things come to pass; for by the blood of a bull, which he drank, Tanyoxarces is destroyed, and the Magus is dressed in his clothes and is thought to be [Tanyoxarces].

And he remains hidden from all for a long time, except for Artasyras, Bagapates, and Izabates; for to these alone did Cambyses entrust the deed. The king then summoned Labyzus, who was easily the first among the eunuchs of Tanyoxarces, and the others, and showing them the Magus as he sat arrayed in those garments, he said, "Do you take this man to be Tanyoxarces?" Labyzus, marveling, said, "Whom else should we take him for?" So much did the Magus remain hidden by the likeness. He is therefore sent to the Bactrians, and he conducts all affairs as though he were Tanyoxarces himself. Five years having passed, the drama is revealed to Amytis by Tybetheus the eunuch, whom the Magus had happened to strike, and she demands of Cambyses that he give up Sphendadates to her; but the king will not give him up. She curses him, and having drunk poison, she dies. It then happens, as Cambyses is performing a sacrifice, that when the victims were being slaughtered, the blood does not flow, and he becomes despondent. ^B And Roxane bears him a headless child, and he becomes more despondent, and the Magi declare to him the meaning of the portents, that he would leave no successor to the kingdom. And his mother stands over him in the night, threatening him because of the murder, and he is struck with fear even more. Having arrived at Babylon, and while whiling away the time by whittling a small piece of wood with a knife, he strikes his thigh in the muscle, and on the tenth day he dies, having reigned eighteen years.

Bagapates and Artasyras, before Cambyses died, plotted to hand the kingdom over to the Magus, ^C and he reigned after his death. Izabates took the body of Cambyses and brought it to Persia. After the Magus had reigned under the name of Tanyoxarces, Izabates returned from Persia, and having revealed everything to the army and denounced the Magus, he fled to the temple; and being seized from there, he was beheaded. From this, seven illustrious Persians conspired against the Magus: Onophas, Idernes, Norodabares, Mardonius, Barisses, Ataphernes, and Darius the son of Hystaspes. When these had first pledged their faith to one another, they also take in Artasyras, and subsequently Bagapates, who held all the keys to the royal palaces. The seven, therefore, through the agency of Bagapates, entered the royal quarters and find the Magus sleeping with a Babylonian concubine. ^D As soon as he saw them, he leapt up, and finding no weapon of war (for Bagapates had secretly removed everything), he broke a golden chair, and seizing its leg, he began to fight, until finally, being pierced by the seven, he died, having reigned seven months.

^A Darius, one of the seven, then reigns, his horse (as had been agreed among them) having neighed first by some artifice and skill after the sun had risen. A festival is celebrated by the Persians called the "Magophonia," upon which day Smerdis the Magus was slain. Darius gave orders for a tomb to be constructed for himself in a split mountain, and it was being built. Desiring to see it, he was prevented by the Chaldeans and his parents. His parents, however, wished to ascend, but being driven headlong, they fell and died, for when they saw serpents, those who were hauling them up in fear let go of the ropes, and they fell and died. Darius was greatly grieved, and the heads of the forty men who were pulling those up were cut off.

^B Darius further ordered Ariamnes, the satrap of Cappadocia, to cross over against the Scythians and take men and women captive. He, crossing with thirty fifty-oared ships, carried out his orders. He also captured Masagetes, the brother of the Scythian king, who he found in chains, having been imprisoned by his own brother because of some offense. Scytharces, the king of the Scythians, being enraged, wrote letters to Darius full of insults, and similar letters were written back to him. Darius then, having gathered an army of eight hundred thousand, and having bridged the Bosporus and the Ister, crossed over against the Scythians, marching for fifteen days. And they kept sending arrows to one another. ^C The Scythians’ [bows/arrows] were more powerful; and so Darius, fleeing, crossed the bridges and hastened to destroy them before the whole army had crossed. And the eighty thousand who had been left behind in Europe were killed by Scytharces. Darius, having crossed back over the bridge, burned the houses and temples of the Chalcedonians, because they had planned to destroy the bridges near them, and because they had destroyed the altar which Darius had set up for himself in honor of Zeus Diabaterios when he was crossing over. Datis, returning from the Pontus and leading the Median fleet, was ravaging the islands and Greece. At Marathon, Miltiades meets him, and he defeats the barbarians; and Datis himself also falls, and not even his body was granted to the Persians when they requested it. Darius, having returned to the Persians and having offered sacrifices and falling ill for several days, dies, having lived seventy-two years, and reigned thirty-one years. Artasuras also died. And Bagapates, having sat by the tomb of Darius for seven years, died.

^A Xerxes, the son, succeeds to the kingdom, and Artapanus, the son of Artasyras, obtains great authority with him, even as his father had long before obtained with the king’s father; and likewise Mardonius the Elder. Among the eunuchs, Natacas excelled in power. Xerxes then takes for his wife Amestris, daughter of Onophas; from whom a son, Darius, is born to him, and after two years another, by the name of Hystaspes; and likewise a third, Artaxerxes: there were also two daughters, of whom one was called Amytis, after the name of her grandmother, and the other Rhodogune. ^B Xerxes undertook an expedition against the Greeks, both because the Chalcedonians had attempted to destroy the bridge, as has already been said, and because they had overturned the altar which Darius had erected; and also because the Athenians had slain Datis, and had refused to deliver up his corpse. But before setting out for Babylon, he wished to inspect the tomb of Belitanas; and he inspected it, with Mardonius assisting, but he could not fill the urn with oil (as it had been written). Thence, as Xerxes journeyed to Ecbatana, a messenger delivered to him tidings of the revolt of the Babylonians and the slaughter of Zopyrus, their commander, at their hands. Ctesias speaks of these matters in this manner, and not as Herodotus does. As for what that author relates concerning Zopyrus (except for the one point that his mule gave birth), in all other respects our author here narrates that the deed was accomplished through Megabyzus, who had become the son-in-law of Xerxes, having taken his daughter Amytis to wife. Thus was Babylon captured through Megabyzus, to whom Xerxes, among many other things, gave a golden mill weighing six talents, which gift is held among the Persians as the most excellent of all royal gifts. Xerxes therefore, having collected a Persian army (which consisted, besides chariots, of eight hundred thousand men and a thousand triremes), when he had yoked Abydos with a bridge, led his forces into Greece. There, Demaratus the Lacedaemonian ^C first approached him and crossed with him, and prevented the king from invading Lacedaemon. Then, through Artapanus, who led ten thousand men, Xerxes came into conflict at Thermopylae with Leonidas, the commander of the Lacedaemonians; in which battle a miserable slaughter of the Persian forces occurred, with scarcely two or three of the Lacedaemonians being lost. Afterward, he commanded twenty thousand to be led into battle, and they too were overcome. But when, having been driven into battle by lashes, they were nonetheless defeated even then, he ordered fifty thousand to be led out on the next day. And when not even these achieved anything, he ceased from fighting. Thorax the Thessalian and the, ^D the powerful men of Trachis, Calliades, and Timaphernes were present, having an army. And Xerxes, having called these men, as well as Demaratus and Hegias the Ephesian, learned that the Lacedaemonians would not be defeated, if

they were surrounded. Since two ^A Trachinians were leading the Persian army through impassable paths, forty thousand troops emerged behind the Lacedaemonians; and, being surrounded, they all died fighting bravely. Xerxes again sent an army against the Plataeans, numbering 120,000, and placed Mardonius in command of them. But the Thebans were the ones inciting Xerxes against the Plataeans. Pausanias the Lacedaemonian advanced against them, having three hundred Spartans, a thousand of the neighboring peoples, and six thousand from the other cities; and the Persian army was crushed and defeated, and Mardonius, having been wounded, fled. This Mardonius was sent by Xerxes to plunder the temple of Apollo, and there, he says, he died when a heavy hail fell, at which Xerxes was extremely grieved. Xerxes then advanced upon Athens itself, and the Athenians, having manned one hundred and ten triremes, fled to Salamis. Xerxes captured the empty city and burned it, except for the acropolis; for some who had been left behind were still fighting there. Finally, when those men also fled by night, they burned that as well. And Xerxes, having come from there to the narrowest point of Attica (which is called the Heracleum), began to build a mole toward Salamis, intending to cross over to it on foot. But by the counsel of Themistocles the Athenian and Aristides, archers from Crete were called for and arrived, and then a naval battle occurred between the Persians and the Greeks, the Persians having more than a thousand ships, under the command of Onophas, and the Greeks having seven hundred. The Greeks prevailed, five hundred Persian ships were destroyed, and Xerxes fled, again by the counsel and art of Aristides and Themistocles; in all the remaining battles twelve myriads of Persians died. Xerxes, having crossed into Asia and leading his army away to Sardis, sent Megabyzus to plunder the temple at Delphi; but since he refused the deed, Matacas the eunuch was sent, bringing insults upon Apollo and intending to plunder everything; and having done so, he returned to Xerxes. ^C Xerxes arrived from Babylon among the Persians, and Megabyzus brought accusations against his own wife, Amytis (who, as has been mentioned, happened to be the daughter of Xerxes), as if she had committed adultery. And Amytis was rebuked with words by her father, and promised to remain chaste.

Artapanus, who held great power with Xerxes, along with Aspamitres the eunuch (who also held great power with him), plotted to kill Xerxes, and they killed him, and persuaded his son Artaxerxes that his other son, Dareiaios, had killed him. Artaxerxes, meanwhile, was persuaded by ^D

Artapanus and brought Dareiaios into his house, where, despite the latter loudly and repeatedly denying that he was the parricide, he was nevertheless put to death by beheading. ^A Then, through the agency of Artapanus, Artaxerxes gained the throne. Yet Artapanus laid his own snares against his very life; he shared his counsel with Megabyzus—who was already in great grief on account of his wife, Amytis, because he suspected her of adultery—and they secured one another with oaths. But Megabyzus revealed everything, and Artapanus was put to death in the same manner by which he intended to kill Artaxerxes. All the deeds that had been committed against Xerxes and Dareiaios were brought to light, and Aspamitres, who had been an accomplice in the murders of Xerxes and Dareiaios, was destroyed by a bitter and most cruel death; for he was put in a "trough" and thus executed. After the death of Artapanus, a battle ensued between the rest of the conspirators and the other Persians; in this battle, the three sons of Artapanus fell, and Megabyzus was also severely wounded. Artaxerxes, along with Amytis, Rhodogune, and their mother Amestris, mourned ^B greatly for him. In the end, however, though it was very difficult, he was saved through the exceptional diligence of Apollonides, a physician of Cos.

Bactra revolted from Artaxerxes, as did its satrap, another Artabanus, and an evenly matched battle took place. But when a second battle was joined, for the wind blew into the faces of the Bactrians, Artaxerxes proved superior, and all of Bactria submitted to him.

Egypt also revolted, with Inarus the Libyan and another Egyptian as the instigators of the defection, and they made all the necessary preparations for war. Indeed, the Athenians, at his request, sent forty ships. Whereupon, Artaxerxes himself contemplated marching on this expedition. But when his friends dissuaded him from doing so, he sent his brother Achaemenides with four hundred thousand infantry and eighty ships into ^C Egypt. Inarus engaged Achaemenides in battle; the Egyptians were victorious, Achaemenides was struck down by Inarus and died, and his corpse was sent back to Artaxerxes. Inarus also gained a victory at sea, where Charitimides distinguished himself, who was the admiral of the forty ships that had come from Athens. For of the fifty Persian ships, twenty were captured with their crews, while the remaining thirty were destroyed. After this, Megabyzus was sent against Inarus, leading another army of two hundred thousand in addition to those that had survived, together with three hundred ships, and their commander, Oriscus, so that the total of the other force, apart from the ships, was five hundred thousand—since when Achaemenides fell, there were one hundred thousand with him. ^D

^A A battle was therefore fought with vigor, and many fell on both sides, but more Egyptians. Megabyzus struck Inarus in the thigh, and he turned to flight; the Persians grew stronger in their forces and were victorious. Inarus fled to Byblos (this is a strong city in Egypt), and the Greeks who had not fallen in the battle or with Charitimides were with him. From this, all of Egypt, except for Byblos, joined the side of Megabyzus. Since Byblos seemed impregnable, Megabyzus made a treaty with Inarus and the Greeks, who numbered over six thousand, promising that they would suffer no harm from the king and that the Greeks could return to their own lands whenever they wished. He appointed Sartaman as satrap of Egypt, and, taking Inarus and the Greeks, travelled to Xerxes’ successor, finding him exceedingly angry at Inarus for having killed his brother Achaemenides. Megabyzus recounted what had happened, and how, by giving his word to Inarus and the Greeks, he had taken Byblos; he earnestly entreated the king for their safety, ^B and he obtained it, and ultimately delivered word to the army that Inarus and the Greeks would suffer no harm.

But Amytis, because of the death of her son Achaemenides, was in great distress, feeling it an unworthy thing if Inarus and the Greeks did not pay the penalty to her; she requested them from the king, but he would not yield. Then she went to Megabyzus, but she was similarly turned away. Finally, while she did not cease to be troublesome concerning her son, she achieved what she desired, and in the fifth year she received Inarus and the Greeks from the king. He crucified the former upon three crosses, and of the Greeks, he had the heads cut off of as many as he could take, which were fifty. Megabyzus was grieved with a great grief and mourned, and he asked to depart to his own region, Syria; ^C there, he secretly sent away the rest of the Greeks. He departed, and he revolted from the king, and assembled a great force, up to one hundred and fifty thousand, excluding the cavalry and infantry. Osiris was sent against him with two hundred thousand, and a battle was joined. Megabyzus and Osiris struck one another, the one with a javelin, striking Megabyzus in the thigh and wounding him two fingers deep; and he, likewise, struck the thigh of Osiris with a javelin, then struck his shoulder, and the man fell from his horse; Megabyzus, having seized him, ordered him to be taken up and saved. Many of the Persians fell there, and the sons of Megabyzus, ^D Zopyrus and Artiphyos, fought bravely, and a mighty victory was won by Megabyzus.

^A Megabyzus zealously looks after Osiris and sends him off, having requested this from Artaxerxes. Another army is sent against him, and Menostates, the son of Artarius; for Artarius was satrap of Babylon and brother to Artaxerxes. They engage one another, the Persian army flees, and Menostates is struck in the shoulder by Megabyzus; then he is shot in the head, though not with a fatal wound; nevertheless, he and those with him flee, and a brilliant victory falls to Megabyzus. Artarius then sends to Megabyzus and urges him to make a treaty with the king; he declares that he himself wishes to make a treaty, but not to come before the king, but rather to remain in his own territory. These things are reported to the king, and Artoxares the Paphlagonian eunuch, as well as Amestris, advise him to make a treaty with speed. Therefore Artarius himself and his wife Amytis are sent, along with Artoxares, who was then twenty years old, and Petisas the son of Osiris, who was also the father of Spitamas. ^B Having by many words and oaths reassured Megabyzus, they with difficulty persuade him to come before the king, and the king finally grants him pardon for his transgressions upon his arrival. The king goes out to hunt, and a lion comes at him; as the beast was leaping into the air, Megabyzus strikes it with a javelin and kills it. Artaxerxes is angry that Megabyzus struck it before he himself could reach it, and he orders that Megabyzus’s head be cut off. But through the intercession of Amestris, Amytis, and others, he is spared death, but is exiled to a city on the Red Sea named Cyrta. Artoxares the eunuch is also exiled to Armenia, because he had often spoken quite freely to the king on behalf of Megabyzus. But Megabyzus, after spending five years in exile, flees by pretending to be a *pisagas*—for *pisagas* is the term used by the Persians for a leper, to whom no one is permitted to approach—and having fled, he arrives at the home of Amytis and is recognized only with difficulty. ^C Through the efforts of Amestris and Amytis, the king is reconciled and makes him once again a participant at his table. Having lived seventy-six years, he died, and the king was greatly grieved. ^D After the death of Megabyzus, Amytis frequently consorted with men, and before her, her mother Amestris had done the same. Appollonides, the physician from Cos, when Amytis was ill, albeit mildly and not severely, being himself captured by love for her, said that she would return to her former health if she consorted with men, for it was a disease of the womb. When the art succeeded for him according to his wish and he had slept with her, once he perceived that the woman was wasting away, he abstained from the intercourse. Therefore, as death approached, she instructed her mother to take vengeance on Appollonides. She explained the whole matter to King Artaxerxes himself, and how he had consorted and...

^A had acted insolently; and the daughter instructed her mother to take vengeance on Apollonides. He granted his mother the power to do whatever she thought fit. Having secured him, she tormented Apollonides for two whole months, and then had him buried alive, at which same time Amytis died.

Zopyrus, the son of Megabyzus and Amytis, being bereaved of both parents, revolted from the king and went to Athens, because his mother had previously bestowed benefits upon the Athenians. He sailed to Caunus, accompanied by them, and ordered them to surrender the city. The Caunians replied that they were ready to surrender the city to him personally, but by no means to the Athenians who followed him. As Zopyrus was approaching the walls, Alcides the Caunian threw a stone at his head, and thus Zopyrus died. Amestris, his grandmother, crucified the Caunian. Amestris herself also died, having reached a great old age. Artaxerxes also dies, having reigned forty-two years. ^B Here ends the seventeenth book of the Histories, and the eighteenth begins.

Upon the death of Artaxerxes, his son Xerxes succeeds to the throne, who alone was legitimate, born of Damaspia, who died on the very day that Xerxes died. Bagorazus carried the bodies of the father and mother to Persia. Artaxerxes had seventeen illegitimate sons, among whom was Secyndianus, born of Alogune of Babylon; and Ochus, and Arsites—the latter born of a certain woman named Martidene, also of Babylon; this Ochus later reigned as well. Further children of his, besides those already mentioned, were Bagapaeus and Parysatis, born of Andia, who was also of Babylon. This Parysatis later became the mother of Artaxerxes and Cyrus. The father, while he was still alive, had appointed Ochus satrap of the Hyrcanians, and gave him as a wife one named Parysatis, who was the daughter of Xerxes and sister to Ochus himself. ^C Secyndianus, however, having co-opted the eunuch Pharnacyas (who was inferior in authority to Bagorazus and Menostanes and certain others), entered the palace while Xerxes was sleeping, drunk from a certain festival, and killed him, forty-five days after the death of his father. It happened, therefore, that the bodies of both were carried to Persia at the same time; for the mules drawing the carriage, as if waiting for the son's corpse as well, had refused to proceed, but once these things had occurred, they set out on their journey with great alacrity.

Secyndianus reigns, and makes Menostanes his Azabarites. ^D When Bagorazus returned to Secyndianus, since an old enmity smoldered between them, on the pretext that without his own counsel the father's body

^A had been left behind, he ordered him to be stoned to death. The army was extremely distressed by this ^B deed; and neither by any largesse could he effect that they would not vehemently hate him, both for the slaughter of his brother Xerxes and for that of Bagorazus. Afterwards, Secyndianus sent out to summon Ochus. Although Ochus promised many times that he would come, he did not come, until at length, fortified with many forces, he was thought to be about to seize the kingdom. And indeed, Arbarius, the commander of Secyndianus’s cavalry, defected from him to Ochus, and after him, Arxanes, the satrap of Egypt; and Artoxares the eunuch also came from as far as Armenia to Ochus, and they placed the tiara upon him, though not willingly. Ochus reigns, and his name is changed to Darius. By treachery and oaths, at the instigation of Parysatis, he approaches Secyndianus; and although Menostanes strongly urged Secyndianus not to trust the oaths nor to strike a bargain with deceptive men, he nevertheless believes them. He is therefore captured and thrown into ash, where he dies, after having reigned six months and fifteen days.

Thenceforth Ochus, who is also Darius, reigned alone, and among him three eunuchs were influential in authority: Artoxares first, Artibazanes second, and in the third place, Athous. But he especially consulted his wife, from whom, even before his accession to the throne, he had already received two children, his daughter Amistris and his son Arsaces, who was later renamed Artaxerxes. While he was reigning, the wife also bore him another son, to whom the name Cyrus was given from the sun; then she bore Artostes, and successively children up to thirteen. (The author reports here that he heard these things from Parysatis herself.) But the others of the children died quickly, with those whom we have just named surviving, along with a fourth son, who was named Oxendras.

Arsites, his own brother, born of the same father and mother, and Artyphius, the son of Megabyzus, revolted from the king. Artasyras is sent against them; he fights Artyphius, and in two battles Artasyras is defeated. Then, engaging him again, he defeats Artyphius, and by gifts he attracts to himself the Greeks whom he had with him, so that at last he was left with only three Milesians. Wherefore, ^D having received oaths and pledges of safety from Artasyras, since Arsites was not present, he surrendered to the king. But Parysatis, while the king was intent on the killing of Artyphius, gave him the counsel not to execute him yet; for by this deception, she said, Arsites himself would also surrender, and when he too had been deceived and captured, then at last it would be the time to put both to death. And indeed, it was so done; his counsel having been carried through, Artyphius is thrown into the ash.

^A A desired outcome followed, and both were cast into the ash, though the king did not wish Arsiten to perish, yet Parysatis accomplished it—partly through entreaties, partly through force. Pharnacyas also, who had killed Xerxes along with Secyndianus, was overwhelmed with stones; and Menostanes himself contrived his own death when he was already being seized for execution.

Pisuthnes revolts, and Tissaphernes, Spithradatas, and Parmises are sent against him. Pisuthnes marches out against them, taking with him Lycon the Athenian along with the Greeks whom he commanded. But the king's generals, having given money to Lycon and the Greeks, induce them to desert Pisuthnes; then, having given and received pledges, they lead him to the king. He cast him into the ash, having given the satrapy of Pisuthnes to Tissaphernes. Lycon meanwhile received cities and lands as a reward for this treachery.

Artoxares the eunuch, who had great power with the king, plots against the king, desiring to reign himself. For he ordered his wife to prepare for him a beard and mustache, so that he might appear as a man. Through her, however, he is betrayed and seized. And he is handed over to Parysatis and put to death.

The king's son Arsaces, who was later renamed Artaxerxes, marries Stateira, the daughter of Idernes, and his son in turn marries the king's daughter. This was Amestris; her betrothed was named Terituchmes, who indeed, upon the death of his father, was established as satrap in his place. ^B He had a sister by the same father, Roxane by name, beautiful in form and most skilled in archery and javelin-throwing. Having fallen in love with her and becoming intimate, Terituchmes grew to hate Amestris, so that he finally determined to cast her into a sack and have her pierced through by three hundred men, with whom he had planned his defection. But a certain Udiastes, who had influence with Terituchmes and had already received letters from the king full of promises if his daughter were saved for him unharmed, attacks and kills Terituchmes, who had resisted the invaders bravely in the uprising and had killed many—for they say he killed thirty-seven. But the son of Udiastes, Mithridates, who was the shield-bearer of Terituchmes and had not been mixed up in these troubles, when...

he learned of it, cursed his father many times; and Ochus, the son of Darius ^A, having said much to Parysatis and having seized the city of Zaris, kept it for the son of Terituchmes. But Parysatis ordered the mother of Terituchmes and his brothers, Metrostes and Helicus, and his two sisters—apart from Stateira—to be buried alive, and Roxana to be cut in pieces while alive; and it was done. The king told his wife, Parysatis, to do the same to Stateira, the wife of his son Arsaces; but Arsaces, having mollified his mother and father with many tears and lamentations, once Parysatis was moved, also remitted her punishment, adding only to his wife that she would one day greatly repent of it. He dies on the 18th. ^B

In the nineteenth book, he relates that Ochus, the son of Darius, died of sickness in Babylon after having reigned for thirty-five years, and Arsaces, who was renamed Artaxerxes, takes the throne. And the tongue of Udiastes is cut out and pulled out through the back of his neck, and he dies; and his son, Mithridates, is appointed satrap in his father’s place. These things were done at the instigation of Stateira, and Parysatis was annoyed. Cyrus is accused by Tissaphernes to his brother Artaxerxes, but he flees to his mother, Parysatis, and is absolved of the charge. Cyrus, having been insulted by his brother, drives ^C off to his own satrapy and contemplates rebellion. Satibarzanes accuses Orondes of having an affair with Parysatis, even though she lived most chastely; and Orondes is put to death, and the mother is angry at the king, because Parysatis kills the son of Terituchmes with poison. And he makes mention also of the man who buried his father by fire, contrary to the law; whence also the refutation of Hellanicus and Herodotus, to the effect that they are lying. The revolt of Cyrus from his brother, and the gathering of a Greek and barbarian army, and the general of the Greeks, Clearchus. How Syennesis, the king of the Cilicians, ^D aided both, I mean Cyrus and Artaxerxes, in the war. And how Cyrus on his side and Artaxerxes again on his own side exhorted their armies. Clearchus the Lacedaemonian, who was the leader of the Greeks, and Menon the Thessalian, both of whom were with Cyrus, were always at odds with one another, because Cyrus used the advice of Clearchus in all things, while no account was taken of Menon. And while many deserted from Artaxerxes to Cyrus, no one went from the latter to the former; for which reason Artabarius also, having planned to join Cyrus and being accused on that account, was thrown into the ashes.

^A Cyrus makes an attack upon the king’s army and is victorious, but he falls while refusing to listen to Clearchus; and indignities were committed upon the body of Cyrus by his brother Artaxerxes. For he himself cut off the head and the hand with which Cyrus had struck Artaxerxes, and he paraded them in triumph. The retreat of Clearchus the Lacedaemonian together with the Greeks who were with him by night, and the seizure of one of the cities of Parysatis; then a truce of the king with the Greeks. How Parysatis arrived in Babylon mourning for Cyrus, and with difficulty recovered his head and hand, and buried them, and sent them to Susa. ^B The account of Bagapates, who, by the king’s order, had severed the head of Cyrus from his body: how also the king’s mother, having played at dice with the king on special terms and won, obtained Bagapates, and how the same man, after his skin had been flayed, was then impaled by Parysatis, at which time also her great grief for Cyrus ceased because of the many entreaties of Artaxerxes. How Artaxerxes gave gifts to the one who brought him the tiara of Cyrus, and how Artaxerxes honored the Carian who thought he had struck Cyrus, and how Parysatis treated the honored Carian with indignities and put him to death. How Artaxerxes handed over to Parysatis, at her request, Mithridates, who had boasted at a banquet that he had killed Cyrus, and she took him ^C and put him to a bitter death. These things are in books XIX and XX of the history.

In the XXIst, and also the XXIInd and XXIIIrd, which is the end of the entire history, the following matters are contained: How Tissaphernes laid a trap for the Greeks, and having taken Menon the Thessalian as his associate, through him he brought Clearchus and the other generals into his power by deceit and oaths, although Clearchus had foreseen the trap and was attempting to ward it off. But then the multitude, having been deceived by Menon, compelled even the reluctant Clearchus to go to Tissaphernes; and Proxenus the Boeotian, who had already been circumvented by the deceit beforehand, also encouraged him to do this. He sent Clearchus and the others in chains to Babylon to Artaxerxes, ^D where everyone flocked to see Clearchus. Ctesias himself, being the physician of Parysatis, performed many services of kindness for him through her. And indeed Parysatis would have released the man from his chains and set him free, had not Stateira persuaded her husband Artaxerxes to have him put to death. Clearchus was therefore put to death, and a portent occurred over his body; for a pile of earth of great height spontaneously formed over it, a most violent wind having blown. Furthermore, all the Greeks who had been sent up with him were put to death, Menon alone excepted.

The reviling of Stateira by Parysatis, and the destruction by poison prepared in this manner; for Stateira was guarding herself very carefully against that evil, which nevertheless

^A One side of a small knife is smeared with poison, while the rest remains untouched. With this knife a small bird—the Persians call the bird *rhindacen*—is cut in two, of a size equal to an egg. It is cut in half, and Parysatis takes for herself the half that is clean of the poison and eats it, while she offers to Stateira the part that has been in contact with the poison. When Stateira sees her eating the half she offered, and being able to suspect no evil, she too begins to eat the deadly poison along with her. Because of this, the king is enraged with his mother, and her catering eunuchs are arrested, tortured, and put to death. Furthermore, Ginge is arrested, who was intimate with Parysatis; and though she is acquitted by the judgment of the judges, she is nevertheless condemned by the king. Wherefore she too is put to death after being tortured, on account of which Parysatis is angry with her son, and he in turn with his mother. Eight years later, Clearchus’s tomb appeared covered in palms, which Parysatis had secretly had buried there by eunuchs at the time he died.

The causes for which King Artaxerxes fell out with Evagoras, king of Salamis. ^B Evagoras’s messengers to Ctesias to receive letters from Abuletus; and Ctesias’s letter to him regarding reconciling him with Anaxagoras, the king of the Cyprians. The arrival of Evagoras’s messengers in Cyprus and the delivery of the letters Ctesias had given to Evagoras. Conon’s speech to Evagoras about approaching the king, and Evagoras’s letter concerning the honors with which he had been treated by him. Conon’s letter to Ctesias, and the tribute given to the king by Evagoras. Ctesias receives the letters, and having spoken with the king about Conon, sends a letter to him. Satibarzanes is given the gifts sent by Evagoras, and the messengers arrive in Cyprus. Conon’s letter to the king and Ctesias; the messengers of the Lacedaemonians sent to the king are detained by him. The king’s letter to Conon and the Lacedaemonians, which Ctesias himself delivered. Conon becomes admiral under Pharnabazus. Ctesias’s arrival in his native Cnidus, and thence to Lacedaemon. ^C His dispute against the Lacedaemonian envoys at Rhodes, and his release. From Ephesus to Bactra and India, an enumeration of the stages, days, and parasangs. A catalogue of the kings from Ninus and Semiramis down to Artaxerxes, with which the work is concluded.

This author Ctesias is clear and very simple in his language, which makes his writing not unpleasant. He uses the Ionic dialect, though not throughout, like Herodotus, but only in certain words. Nor does he indulge in untimely digressions, as [Herodotus] does [in those places]. ^D

certain ^A things, as he importunately turns the discourse, although he does not even abstain from the fables which he dares to reproach others with shamefully, especially in that book which he inscribed *Indica*. The pleasantness of the history, however, is placed in great part in the arrangement of the narratives, which has much both of vehemence and of the unexpected; although it is also adorned with great variety in matters that are almost fabulous. His speech is more dissolute than is proper, so that it falls into idiom and trivial language. But the style of Herodotus, by this very and similar virtue and artifice of speech, is the norm and rule of the Ionic dialect.

Various eclogues follow in place of Scholia.

SERIES OF THE PERSIAN KINGS FROM CTESIAS

| King | Wife | Children | Ruled | Died | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | I. Cyrus. | Amytis. | Cambyses and Tanyoxarces. | 30 yrs. | From a wound received in battle. | | II. Cambyses. | Roxane. | | 18 yrs. | Struck by chance by his own dagger. | | III. Sphendadates the Magus, otherwise Smerdes. | | | 7 months. | Killed by seven conspirators. | | IV. Darius, son of Hystaspes. | | Darius, Hystaspes, Artaxerxes, Achaemedides, Artarius, Amytis and Rhodogune. | 31 yrs. | After a 30-day illness. | | V. Xerxes. | Amistris. | Xerxes, the only legitimate one; 17 illegitimate, among whom Secyndianus and Ochus later succeeded to the kingdom. | 22 yrs. | Perished at the hands of Artapanus and Spamithres (Artapanus is inserted here by others as the slayer of Xerxes, and is said to have held the kingdom for 7 months, and to have decided to remove Artaxerxes by the same death he had dealt the former). | | VI. Artaxerxes, called Longimanus. | Damaspia | | 42 yrs. | A natural death. | | VII. Xerxes the younger. | | | 45 days. | By the hand of Secyndianus and Pharnacia. | | VIII. Secyndianus, otherwise Sogdianus. | | | 6 months, 25 days. | Cast into the ashes. | | IX. Ochus, who is also Darius, otherwise Darius Nothus. | Parysatis | Arsaces, Cyrus, Artostes, Oxendras, and 13 others who departed this life quickly. | 35 yrs. | From illness, at Babylon. | | X. Arsaces, the same by a change of name Artaxerxes, otherwise called Mnemon. | Stateira | | | Against him his brother Cyrus rose up and fell in battle. The remainder of his life will be given by Plutarch in his *Artaxerxes*. |

Moreover, our P. Benedictus Pererius will show you a brief Catalogue of the fourteen Persian kings in the beginning of his *Commentary on Daniel*, book XIII.

EXCERPTS FROM CTESIAS' PERSICA BY VARIOUS AUTHORS

*Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis I.* Assyrian affairs are many years older than Greek affairs, as appears from the statements of Ctesias.

*Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians.* Because of Derceto (the mother of Semiramis) and the doves, the Syrians also worship Semiramis. For, as the fable according to Ctesias has it, since it could not be otherwise, she was turned into a dove.

*Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae XII.* Ctesias writes in the third book of his *Persica* that all who had reigned in Asia were given to luxury and pleasures, but above all Ninyas, the son of Ninus and Semiramis. Yet he, too, indulged in pleasures at home, so that he was seen by no one except eunuchs and his own wives. Such also was Sardanapalus, whom some report to have been the son of Anacindaraxes, others the son of Anabaxaris. But when Arbaces, a Mede by race, one of the leaders who were under him, had dealt with Parameizes, etc.

*Shortly after, on the same Sardanapalus:* Ctesias narrates that he came to war, and when, having collected a numerous army, he had been cast out of the kingdom by Arbaces, he met his death by burning himself, having built a pyre four *jugera* in height. On this he had placed golden couches, fifty, and as many tables, all of gold. He had also constructed a dining-chamber, one hundred feet [long], within the pyre itself, made of wood: and here, too, he had spread couches on which he reclined with his wife...

^A in other matters. For when he saw the ruin of his affairs, he had previously sent his three sons and two daughters to the city of Ninus, to the one who reigned there, and had given them three thousand talents of gold. He had roofed that building with large, thick beams, and furthermore had piled up much wood around it, and indeed thick wood, so that no exit was available: he had also placed within it a thousand myriads of gold talents, and ten thousand talents of silver; and also robes and purple garments, and every kind of thing pertaining to the adornment of the body. When he had done this, he ordered the pyre to be set on fire, which burned for fifteen days. But those who saw the smoke wondered, and thought he was sacrificing: only the eunuchs knew the matter. Sardanapalus, therefore, who had been prodigiously given to pleasures, ended his life as nobly as he could.

*Not long after.*

Ctesias reports that the prefect of the king of the Annari, who also held the command of the Babylonian region, used feminine dress and adornment, and that there were accustomed to approach him as he dined—when he was a servant of the king—one hundred and fifty singing and chanting women. These women sang and chanted while he dined.

*In Demetrius Phalereus, in the book which is called On Interpretation.*

A certain Mede, Stryangaeus, when he had thrown a Sacian woman from her horse—for among the Sacae, women fight in the same manner as Amazons—having seen that she was both beautiful and in the flower of her youth, dismissed her safely. But after a truce was struck, because he could not possess her, for whom he was otherwise pining, he decided to end his life by starvation; yet he wrote to her first this letter, in which he expostulates: "I saved you, and through me you were saved. But I perished through you."

*Stephanus Byzantius, under the word Dyrbaei, from Ctesias, Persica X.*

A region adjacent to him belongs to the Dyrbaei, a people truly blessed, wealthy, and just; for they neither inflict injury on anyone, nor death. But if by chance they find gold or anything else on the road...

*Athenaeus, Deipnosophists X.*

Amyntas also, in the book which is entitled *Stathmi*, has recorded that the race of the Tapyri is so addicted to wine that they do not use any other thing than wine even for anointing. Ctesias also mentions the same thing in the book which he wrote concerning Asiatic tributes: he also hands down that they are the most just [of men].

*Apollonius, Historiarum mirabilia XX.*

Ctesias, in the tenth book of the Persian History, reveals that there are camels in that region whose hair equals Milesian wool in softness. And the priests and other nobles wear garments made from them. ^B

*From Stephanus Byzantinus.*

The Choramnaei, a Persian nation of wild men. (Ctesias, *Persica* X). Such, indeed, is the speed of this race of wild men that they catch the deer themselves by chasing them; and he narrates many other things about them.

*In Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, book II.*

The King of the Persians, as Herodotus writes in book I, carries water with him for his own drink from the Choaspes river, which flows over Susa: and he drinks from this alone. But many four-wheeled wagons, which mules draw, carrying silver vessels full of this boiled water, follow him. But Ctesias the Cnidian also narrates how this royal water of the Choaspes river is boiled, and how, placed in vessels, it is carried to the king; and he adds that it is both the lightest and the most pleasant.

*In the same [author], Deipnosophists IV.*

The King of the Persians, however (as Ctesias and Dinon write in their *Persica*), used to dine with fifteen thousand men, and forty talents were expended on the dinner.

*In the same [author], book II.*

Ctesias, moreover, says that Carmania produces acanthus oil, and that the king uses it. He who also, in the book which he wrote *Concerning Asiatic Tributes*, describing the royal banquet's preparation, mentions neither pepper nor vinegar, which is the best thing among condiments.

*And in book XI.*

But we must reject pottery cups. For among the Persians, as Ctesias testifies, whoever the king wishes to be dishonored, he uses pottery cups for him.

*In the same [author], Deipnosophists XIII.*

Moreover, a woman was the cause of Cambyses undertaking the expedition into Egypt (as Ctesias writes). For when he had realized that the Egyptian women surpassed others in the act of love, he sent to Amasis, the king of Egypt, asking for one of his daughters in marriage. But he did not send one of his own: suspecting that the honor due to a wife would not be held for her, but [that she would be treated] as a concubine: in truth, [he sent] Nitetis, the daughter of Apries. But Apries had fallen from the kingdom on account of a defeat accepted in a battle against the Cyrenaeans, and had been killed by Amasis. Cambyses, delighted by Nitetis’s company, and having been strongly enticed by love for her, learns everything from her; and when she had prayed that he would avenge the slaughter of her father Apries, he is persuaded to wage war on the Egyptians.

*In the same author, book X.*

Ctesias, however, reports that it is not permitted for the king among the Indians to get drunk. But indeed, among the Persians, it is granted to the king to be drunk on the one day on which they sacrifice to Mithras.

*Book XIV.*

Berosus, however, in the first book of the Babylonica, says that on the sixteenth day of the month Loi, a festival of five days' duration is celebrated in Babylon, called the Sacaea: during which time masters are accustomed to obey their servants: and one of these [servants] presides over the house, dressed in a garment which resembled royal attire: whom he also mentions is called Zoganes, a custom of this festival which Ctesias also [records] in the second book of his *Persica*.

From Xenophon, Book I, On the Expedition of Cyrus

^A When Cyrus was together with these men, he caught sight of the king and the throng that surrounded him. And at once he could not contain himself; but, having said these things: "I see the man," he rushed against him, and struck his breast through the corselet with his spear, as the physician Ctesias relates, who also says that he himself treated that wound. But while he was striking the king, I know not who flung a javelin with great force at him, and wounded him under the eye. Here, as the king and Cyrus were fighting, and those who were around them, Ctesias records how many of those who were surrounding the king fell (for he was among them): Cyrus, however, also fell himself, and eight of the bravest of those who girded his side lay upon him.

From Plutarch, in his Life of Artaxerxes

Ctesias’s narrative, to summarize many things briefly, is of this sort. Cyrus, having slain Artaxerxes, spurred his horse at the king, and the king at him, both in silence. Cyrus’s friend Ariaeus attempted to strike the king, but did not wound him: the king cast a lance which missed Cyrus, but struck and killed Tissaphernes, a man faithful to Cyrus and brave. Cyrus, having thrust his javelin through the king’s corselet, inflicted a wound two fingers deep in his chest. Whence the king, struck by the force of it, fell from his horse to the ground. Flight and tumult having been stirred up in the royal guard, the king rose, and with a few (among whom was Ctesias) gained a nearby hill, where he kept himself quiet. ^B The fierce horse, leaping among the enemies, carried Cyrus far away: he was no longer recognized by the enemies in the darkness, and was sought by his friends. Being lifted up by victory, and full of heat and confidence, he was riding through the midst of the enemies, shouting: "Give way, wretches!" While he kept shouting this repeatedly in the Persian tongue, a part of those who revered him withdrew from his path. There, when his tiara had slipped from his head, a running Persian youth (whose name was Mithridates) struck Cyrus near the eye with a javelin, not knowing who he was. As the wound gushed forth a torrent of blood, Cyrus, seized by dizziness and sleep, collapsed. His horse went wandering away. The rider of the horse who struck Cyrus took up his fallen helmet, which was overflowing with blood. Cyrus, with difficulty collecting himself from the wound, was placed by a few of his attendant eunuchs upon another horse, to carry him away. And him, unable to ride, he was led with them holding him, as he moved with difficulty, struggling with his feet: in body, indeed, heavy and stumbling on account of the wound received in the head; but thinking himself the victor because he heard those who were fleeing calling out "King Cyrus" at the top of their voices, and praying that he would spare them. Meanwhile, certain Caunian men, poor and lowly, who for the sake of humble services were following the king’s camp, were by chance mixed in as friends with those who were around Cyrus. ^C When these men at last noticed their purple cloaks (for all the royal ones wore white), they understood that they were enemies. Thus, one of them, ignorant of who he was, dared to strike Cyrus in the back with a javelin. Having been wounded in the groin vein, Cyrus, at the same time as he was wounded, struck against a stone, from which he gave up his soul.

From Demetrius Phalereus, in his book *On Style*

One must not, however, immediately confess the things that have happened; but little by little, by holding the listener in suspense, and compelling him to be anxious with us. Which Ctesias does in the report brought about the death of Cyrus. For the messenger does not, as soon as he comes to Parysatis, say to her that Cyrus is dead: for this is what is called a "Scythian" way of speaking. But first indeed he announced that he had gained the victory: which words brought her joy mixed with anxiety. But afterwards the king asks: "And how does he conduct himself now?" Then he says: "He has given himself to flight." Taking up this speech, he says: "Tissaphernes is the author of these evils for him." And he asks again: "But where is Cyrus now?" The messenger replies: "Where it behoves brave men to pass their time."

From Plutarch, in the Life of Artaxerxes

Artaxerxes (as Ctesias is the author) had led four hundred thousand into battle: Dinon and Xenophon relate that there were many more who fought. Regarding the number of the slain, Ctesias claims that nine thousand heads were reported to Artaxerxes; to himself, however, they seemed no less than twenty thousand who had fallen. But these things remained in controversy. And where now is Ctesias’s noble lie, who reports that he was sent to the Greeks with Phayllus of Zacynthus and certain others? For it did not escape Xenophon that Ctesias was serving in the king’s retinue. ^D If indeed he mentions him, and it is certain that he intended these books [of his]. Wherefore he would not have passed over in silence the messenger and interpreter of such a great embassy, while he made mention of Phayllus of Zacynthus. But Ctesias is, of course, wonderfully ambitious. And no less a partisan of the Lacedaemonians and Clearchus, he everywhere in his history attributes to himself various roles: in which, when he is [included], he recounts many and excellent things about Clearchus and about Lacedaemon.

After Tissaphernes had circumvented Clearchus and the other leaders with an intervening oath, and had sent them bound in chains to the king: Ctesias reports that he was asked by Clearchus to provide him with a comb. Having accepted which, he combed his head, and was delighted with the use of the comb. He also gave him his own ring, as a token of mutual friendship for his relatives and acquaintances in Lacedaemon. There were dancing caryatids carved into the seal. The food which was sent to Clearchus was intercepted and consumed by his fellow-captive soldiers, and only a little was left for Clearchus. Ctesias narrates that he also applied a remedy to this matter, and brought it about that more was sent to Clearchus, and that other things were provided to the soldiers separately; and that he had supplied and provided these from the kindness and intent of Parysatis. When a leg of pork was sent daily among the food to Clearchus, he prayed to him himself and urged him to send him a small dagger hidden in the meat, so that he would not permit his fate to be subjected to royal cruelty; but he refused out of fear. The king promised his mother, who was pleading for the safety of Clearchus, by an oath: but she was urged on thence by Stateira, and all were slaughtered except Menon. Hence Parysatis laid snares for Stateira, and prepared poison for her. But he brings forward things [that are] little probable, and added to an absurd cause, [namely] that she committed so heinous a crime, and precipitated herself into danger for the sake of Clearchus, while she was enduring the king’s legitimate wife, and her sharer in the children who had been raised to the kingdom, to be killed. But he clearly exaggerates these things to commend the memory of Clearchus. For he adds this also, that the other slaughtered leaders were torn by dogs and birds, but for Clearchus’s corpse a storm of wind had raised a mound of earth, and had thrown it upon the body, and had covered it: in which place a palm grove having sprouted, a fine wood had shortly grown, and had shadowed that place: and thus the king was led to great repentance, because he had destroyed Clearchus, a man dear to the gods. Parysatis therefore (since she had conceived hatred and emulation against Stateira from that time from the beginning, because she perceived that her own power proceeded from nothing except the king revering and honoring her, while she was firm and stable in his love and loyalty) laid snares for her, casting the die, as she thought, from the highest [stakes]. She had a faithful handmaid, who had great influence with her, called Gigis: whom Dinon reports to have been the administrator of the poison, [but] Ctesias [says she was] merely an accomplice and indeed unwilling. The one who gave the poisons, the latter calls Belitaras, the former Melantas. And [they were] instituting, from former suspicions and animosity, to come together again, and to dine together, though with fear and caution.

^A There is born among the Persians a small bird, which lacks all excrement and has all its intestines filled with fat; whence they believe this animal lives on air and dew: it is called the ryntaces. Ctesias believes that Parysatis cut this with a knife, which she had smeared on one side with poison, and so infected one half with the venom, while she ate the other half, which was clean and pure, herself, but gave the poisoned half to Stateira. Dinon, however, holds that not Parysatis, but Melantas, cut the medicated meat with a knife and set it before Stateira. Therefore, when the woman was passing from life with great torments and pains, and she herself realized the poisoning and brought against the queen-mother a suspicion concerning her cruelty and implacable spirit, the king, instantly intent upon an inquiry, seized his mother's servants and stewards and tore them with tortures; but Parysatis kept Gigis for a long time in her chamber and refused the man she had demanded to the king. But when she had later entreated that she be sent home by night, the king, being informed, set an ambush, captured Gigis, and condemned her to a capital punishment.

*Aelian, On the Nature of Animals, book vii, chapter 1.*

Ctesias writes that the Susian oxen possess the knowledge of counting. For at Susa they carry daily to the king a hundred jars single by single into the drier and less irrigated gardens. This work, in fact, whether because it is fixed and established for them, or because they have long and much exercised themselves in it, they perform most promptly, for you would see them not softening in their work at all. But if you were to stand by to urge them to carry beyond the hundred number we have mentioned, even by one jar, no longer, he says, would you be able to induce them to it by entreaties or force them by lashes.

*At the same, book xvi, chapter 46.*

Furthermore, Ctesias of Cnidus reports that in the river which is named the Argades, which is by the Persian Sittace, snakes are born in abundance, white in the head, with the remainder of the body black, having a length of four cubits, and that they kill those whom they strike. During the day it is not customary for them to be seen at all, as they swim under the water; but by night, for those who are drawing water or washing linens, they bring destruction. For many are brought here, either due to the necessity of a shortage of water, or because, occupied with business, they could not wash their clothes during the day.

*In Diodorus Siculus, book ii of the Bibliotheca, you will find Ctesias cited multiple times: as also in John Tzetzes in the Chiliads and in the Lexicon of Harpocration.*

Of Ctesias of Cnidus, The Book of India

^A I have read also the *Indica* of Ctesias, described in a single book, in which he uses the Ionic dialect more. He says concerning the Indus river that its narrowest width is forty stadia, and the broadest two hundred. He speaks concerning the Indians themselves that they are almost more numerous than all other men. Concerning the worm in the river, which is the only one of the other beasts that is born in it. Concerning the fact that no men dwell beyond them. That it does not rain, but that India is watered by the river. ^B Concerning the *pantarba*, the sealing gem, and how it, by being cast into the river along with other seal-stones and precious stones (which belonged to a certain Bactrian merchant), drew them to itself, sticking them together. Concerning the elephants that dissolve and overturn walls. Concerning the small monkeys, which have tails four cubits long. Concerning the largest chickens. ^C And concerning the bird, the *bittacus*, that it is endowed with human speech and voice; [67 H.] and in size it is as a hawk, but it has a purple face, and carries a black beard; but it is blue on the neck, like cinnabar. That this bird speaks in the Indian tongue in the manner of a man; and if it has learned this speech, even in Greek, and in Greek.

^A It speaks of a fountain that is filled every year with liquid gold, from which one hundred earthenware pitchers are drawn each year; they must be of earthenware, because the gold solidifies as it is drawn up, and it is necessary to break the vessel in order to extract it. The fountain itself is square, its perimeter is sixteen cubits, and its depth one fathom; each pitcher draws out a talent of gold. And regarding the iron which is found in the depths of the fountain, Ctesias says he once obtained two swords from it, one from the king, and the other from Parysatis, the king's mother. He says concerning this iron that when it is driven into the ground, it acts as a protection against clouds, hail, and whirlwinds; and he says that he saw the king do this twice.

Regarding the Indian dogs, that they are of such great size that they engage in combat even with lions. Regarding the great mountains, from which both the sardius stone and the onyx and other seal-stones are mined. That there is great heat, and that the sun appears ten times larger there than in other regions, and that many men die there from the suffocating heat. And he says that the sea there is no less than the Greek sea; but it is hot on the surface to a depth of four fingers, so that no fish can live by approaching the heat, but they dwell at the bottom.

That the Indian river flows through plains and through mountains, in which also the so-called Indian reed grows, of a thickness that two men with outstretched arms could reach around, and of a height equal to the mast of a large merchant ship; there are also both larger and smaller ones, as is natural in a great mountain. And there are both male and female reeds. The male, then, has no marrow and is very strong, while the female has it.

And regarding the martichora, the beast that is among them, he says that it resembles a man in appearance; it is the size of a lion, and in color it is red like cinnabar; ^B it has three rows of teeth; its ears are like those of a man, and its eyes are grey, similar to those of a man; it has a tail like an earth-dwelling scorpion, on which it has a sting, being more than a cubit long. It also has stings on the side of the tail here and there, and at the very tip it has a sting like a scorpion. And with this, if someone approaches, it stings with the stinger, and the one stung definitely dies; but if anyone fights against it from a distance, it strikes those who are in front and behind it, both by shooting the tail like a bow with the stingers, and backward in a straight line...

shooting to the distance of an acre and killing with certainty everyone it hits, with the sole exception of the elephant; these stingers are a ^A foot in length and as thick as a very fine cord. He adds that martichora signifies in Greek "man-eater," because it kills and devours men for the most part, though it also feeds on other animals. It fights with both its claws and its stingers, and, he says, when the stingers are shot off, they grow back again. There are many in India. People who ride on elephants kill them by throwing missiles at them from above.

Concerning the Indians, that they are most just, and concerning their customs and laws.

In order to confirm what he had said above about the sun—that it brings a cooler breeze in India for thirty-five days—he adds that the fire flowing from Etna does not harm the middle tract of the region, as it is the land of just men, although it harms other surrounding areas. And that at Zacynthus there are fish-bearing springs from which pitch is also drawn; and that in Naxos there is a spring from which wine sometimes flows, and it is very sweet; and that there is an immortal fire near Phaselis in Lycia, and that it is always burning on a rock, both night and day, and is not extinguished by water, but rather flares up, while it is extinguished by manure. ^D That in the middle of India there are black men, who are called Pygmies; they use the same language as the other Indians, but they are very small, the largest of them being two cubits, and most of them one and a half cubits.

^A They have very long hair, reaching to their knees and even lower, and a beard longer than that of any other people. As soon as this beard grows long, they no longer wear any clothing; instead, they let the hair from their head hang down far below their knees, and the hair from their beard flow down in front to their feet. Then, wrapping the hair around their entire body, they gird themselves, using it as a garment. ^B They have a large and thick member, such that it reaches down to their ankles. They themselves are snub-nosed and deformed. Their sheep, too, are the size of our lambs, and their donkeys and cattle are about the size of rams; their horses, mules, and all their other livestock are no larger than rams. Three thousand of these Pygmies follow the Indian king, for they are very skilled archers. They are the most righteous of men, and they follow the same laws as the other Indians. They hunt hares and foxes, not with dogs, but with crows, kites, ravens, and eagles. There is a lake among them (eight hundred stadia in circumference), upon which, whenever no wind is blowing, oil rises to the surface; by sailing across this lake in small boats, they scoop the oil from its middle using troughs and use it. They also use oil from sesame and from nuts; however, the oil drawn from the lake is superior. The lake also has fish. They also use nut oil, but the lake oil is better. ^C There is much silver there and silver mines, not very deep, but they say those in Bactria are deeper. There is also gold in the Indian territory, not found and washed in rivers, as in the river Pactolus, but in many large mountains inhabited by griffins, four-footed birds, the size of a wolf, with legs and claws like a lion; their feathers are black on the rest of their body, but red on the breast. Because of them, the gold in the mountains, though plentiful, is difficult to obtain. ^D The sheep and goats of the Indians are larger than our donkeys, and they generally give birth to four or six at a time. They have large tails, which is why they cut them off from the birthing females so that they can be mounted. There is neither tame nor wild swine in India. The palm trees in India and their fruit are three times larger than those in Babylon. Furthermore, he says that there is a river there which flows with honey from a rock.

^A He also relates many things concerning their justice, their benevolence toward their king, and their contempt for death. He says that there is a spring there whose water, as soon as it is drawn, coagulates like cheese. If one should grind up three obols of this coagulated substance and give it to be drunk in ordinary water, it reveals everything the person has done; for he becomes delirious and raves for that day. The king employs this on the accused whenever he wishes to know for certain whether they are complicit in the crimes charged. If they confess the crime, he orders them to meet death by starvation; but if nothing is proven, they are released. He says that no Indian suffers from headaches, ophthalmia, toothaches, mouth sores, or indeed any rotting ulcer ^B of any kind, and that the life span of those who live the longest is one hundred and twenty, or one hundred and thirty, or one hundred and fifty, or two hundred years.

[Concerning the Seric iron, and likewise about the more distant Indians, he says that they have monstrously large bodies, so that men thirteen cubits tall are found there, whose life span also exceeds two hundred years. It is said that in a certain part of the river Gaitas, wild men are seen, with skin almost like a hippopotamus, which not even arrows could pierce. In that same India—so they say—in the interior regions where the sea flows in, the inhabitants have long tails, such as are usually depicted on satyrs.]

He records that there is a certain serpent among the Indians, a span in length, of the most beautiful purple appearance, with a very white head, and having no teeth at all. Hunters capture it in those most sultry mountains from which the sardo [gem] is extracted. It does not bite, but any place it spatters with its vomit is necessarily corrupted by rot. He says that when it is hung by its tail, it emits a double poison: one in the form of amber first, and another that is black; the former flows from it while alive, the latter when it is dead. The former, if as much as a grain of sesame is given, kills immediately, the brain of the one who has taken it flowing out through the nostrils; but if the other is given, it causes a slow ^C consumption, which only kills a man in the space of a year.

He describes a bird called *dikeron* (which in Greek means "just"), no larger than a partridge's egg; it buries its own excrement so that it cannot be found. If, however, it is found and anyone drinks as much of it as a grain of sesame in the morning, he is seized by sleep and sleeps, void of consciousness, until he dies at the setting of the sun.

There is also a tree there called *parebon*, the size of an olive tree, which is found only in royal gardens. It bears neither flower nor fruit, but has only fifteen roots, which are thick and under the earth. The thickness of even the thinnest of these is equal to that of an arm. If you take a portion of this root, even a span long, wherever it is applied, it draws everything to itself—gold, silver, ^D copper, iron, stones, and everything else except amber. If the root is a cubit...

^A long, it draws lambs, birds, and even oxen and other animals; by this means, even the greater part of the birds are hunted. And if you wish to coagulate a congius of water, throw an obol of this root into the water and it will coagulate it; the same will happen with wine, so that you can hold it in your hand like wax, though on the next day it dissolves. It is also given as a remedy for those suffering from celiac disease. ^B

There is also a river flowing through India, not great, but about two stadia in width. The name of the river in the Indian tongue is "Hyparchos," which in Greek signifies "bringing all good things." For thirty days of the year it carries amber in its waters. For it is said that in the mountains there are trees rising above the water—for the mountains are washed by the water—and there is a time when they produce tears, like an almond tree, a pine, or some other tree, especially for thirty days of the year; then these tears fall into the river and harden. The name of this tree in the Indian tongue is "sipachora," which in Greek means "sweet, pleasant." And from this the Indians collect the amber. The trees also bear fruit in clusters, like a vine, and have berries the size of Pontic nuts.

In these same mountains, he says, there live men having the head of a dog; they are clothed in the skins of wild beasts, and they speak no language, but bark like dogs, and in this way they understand one another. And they have teeth larger than those of a dog, and claws ^C similar to those of a dog, but longer and rounder. They dwell in the mountains as far as the Indus River. They are black and very righteous, just like the other Indians, with whom they also mingle. And they understand what is said by them, but they themselves cannot speak, but indicate things by barking and with their hands and fingers, just as the deaf do. They are called by the Indians "calystrii," which in Greek means "cynocephali" (dog-heads). The nation consists of up to one hundred and twenty thousand. And by the springs of this river there grows a purple flower, from which is dyed a purple that is in no way inferior to the Greek, but rather much more vibrant.

He says that there are animals born there the size of a beetle, red like cinnabar, having very long legs. They are soft like

^A a worm. These occur on the trees that produce amber, and they eat their fruit and destroy it, just as the ^B *phthiures* [vine-lice] are accustomed to ruin and ravage the vines among the Greeks. The Indians, therefore, by crushing these animals, dye their purple blankets and tunics, and whatever else they might desire, with a dye far superior to those of the Persians.

He narrates, furthermore, that these Cynocephali inhabiting the mountains perform no craft, but live by hunting, and roast the wild beasts they kill in the sun. Nevertheless, they rear a great number of livestock—goats and sheep—whose milk and sour milk serve them for drink. They also feed on the fruit of the *sipachora*—from which tree, as has been said, amber distills—for it is sweet. They pack this fruit, when dried, into baskets in the same way as the Greeks do raisins. ^C He says that these same Cynocephali construct an impromptu raft, on which they transport their load of this fruit, as well as of purple (having first purged its flower), and also of amber, to the amount of two hundred and sixty talents annually; and in addition, as many talents of that pigment with which dyers produce the crimson color. Besides this, they convey a thousand talents of amber every year to the king of the Indians. Indeed, they bring many other things to the Indians for sale, for which they receive in exchange bread, flour, and linen garments. They also sell swords, which they themselves use for the hunting of wild beasts, as well as bows and javelins; for they are very skilled at throwing and shooting, and furthermore, because they inhabit high and ^D inaccessible mountains, they are unconquerable in war. Every fifth year the king gives them gifts: three hundred thousand bows, as many javelins, twelve thousand shields, and fifty thousand swords. These Cynocephali have no houses, but dwell in caves. They hunt wild beasts by shooting them with javelins or arrows, and since they excel in speed of running, they pursue and overtake them. Their wives bathe only once a month, when their menstruation comes, and at no other time; the men do not bathe at all, but wash only their hands. However, they are anointed three times a month with oil made from milk, and then wiped off with skins. They wear clothing not of wool, but of smooth and very thin skins, both the men and their wives, except perhaps for the wealthiest among them—and those are few—who wear linen garments. Neither do they know the use of beds, but construct makeshift pallets for themselves. That man is considered the wealthiest among them who possesses the most livestock, and their other riches are nearly identical to these. Furthermore, all of them, both men and women, have a tail above their buttocks, similar to a dog's, except that it is larger and more hairy. They also have four-footed

counterparts. They are said to live beyond the headwaters of that river ^A. These men are black like the rest of the Indians, but they work not at all; they eat no grain, nor do they drink water, yet they raise many sheep, oxen, and goats. They drink their milk and nothing else. When a child is born to any of them, its buttocks are not perforated, nor does it defecate, for although it has buttocks, the orifice is grown together. Thus, they do not pass excrement through the anus; instead, they pass a kind of cheesy substance, not curdled, but merely foul, through the urinary tract. They say that if they drink milk at noon, they consume a certain sweet root that grows among them, which prevents the milk from curdling in their belly; by eating this towards evening, they induce vomiting and easily cast out everything.

He writes that India possesses wild asses equal to horses in size and sometimes even larger; their bodies are white, their heads purple, and they have blue eyes. A horn grows on their forehead, a cubit in length. The bottom part of the horn, extending about two handspans toward the forehead, is very white; the top ^B is sharp. This part is crimson (very red), while the middle is black. Those who drink from these [for they are made into drinking vessels], they say, are not subject to spasms, nor to the sacred disease, nor are they harmed by poisons, provided that before or after taking the poison, they drink wine, water, or anything else from these vessels. Now, while other asses, both tame and wild, and all other single-hoofed animals possess neither huckle-bones nor bile in the liver, these possess both a huckle-bone and bile in the liver. The huckle-bone is the most beautiful I have ever seen, similar in appearance and size to that of an ox, but it is as heavy as lead and deep red in color, like cinnabar. This animal is most swift and ^C robust; no horse or any other animal can catch it when it is pursued. It begins to run at a leisurely pace, but the longer it runs, the more it is spurred on in a god-like manner and runs faster and faster. In other ways, this animal is unhuntable, but when the young are small and they lead them out to forage, and they are surrounded by a large cavalry, they do not wish to flee and abandon their foals; rather, they fight with their horn ^D and with kicks and bites, and they destroy many horses and men, though they are eventually caught themselves by being shot with arrows and javelins, for you could not take one alive. Their meat, because of the fat...

bitterness, cannot be eaten. Nor indeed do they hunt this animal for any other reason than solely for its horn and ankle-bones. ^A

There is a worm that grows in the Indian river, he says, similar in appearance to the one that is wont to be born in the fig tree, but seven cubits long (though one is larger and another smaller), and so thick that a boy of ten years could scarcely encompass it with both his arms. It has only two teeth, one above and one below; with these, it devours whatever it catches. By day it dwells in the mud of the river, and only by night does it come out. If it then happens to encounter an ox or a camel, it seizes it with a bite, drags it into the river, and devours everything except the belly. It is caught with a large hook, to which they have tied a kid or a lamb secured with iron chains. When caught, they hang it up for thirty days, placing vessels underneath, and meanwhile there drips from it as much liquid as ten Attic cotylae can hold. After the thirtieth day, they discard the worm itself, and having safely and securely stored the oil, they bring it to the king of the Indians alone; for it is not permitted for anyone else to have any of this oil. Whatever thing this oil is poured upon, it sets it on fire, and thus consumes both wood and animals; nor can it be extinguished in any other way than by the throwing on of much thick mud. ^B

There are trees among the Indians equal in height to a cedar or cypress, with leaves like a palm, though slightly broader, and they have no sinus or axils. They have a blossom like a male laurel, but they bear no fruit. They are called in the Indian language *Carpion*, and in Greek *myrofora* (scent-bearing). It is a rare tree. Drops of oil exude from it, which they gather with wool from the trunk and squeeze into stone alabaster jars. It is slightly reddish and rather thick, of a thoroughly sweet odor, which they say diffuses even up to the fifth stadium. It is permitted only to the king and his relatives to possess this. When the king of the Indians once sent some of it to the king of the Persians, Ctesias relates that he saw it, and perceived such a scent as could neither be expressed in words nor compared with any other. ^C

He also reports that they have the sweetest of all cheese and wine, and that he learned this by tasting it himself.

There is a fountain, he says, in India, of square shape, about five cubits in circumference. Its water is contained within the rock in such a way that there is a space of three cubits from the lip to the water itself, while the water itself likewise holds a depth of three cubits. The most distinguished of the Indians bathe in it, and men ^D

^A and children and women; they swim by throwing themselves in feet-first. But when they leap in, the water casts them back up. It does not only cast up humans, but also any other creature that may be in it, it casts out onto dry land, whether living or dead, and simply everything thrown into it, except for iron and silver and gold and copper; these it receives downwards. The water is very cold and pleasant to drink; it makes a great noise, like a boiling cauldron. This water cleanses those suffering from vitiligo and scabies. It is called in the Indian tongue *Ballade*, and in Greek, "useful."

^B There are in the Indian mountains, where their reeds grow, a race of men whose number is up to thirty thousand. The women of these people give birth only once in their lifetime, and the offspring have teeth, both upper and lower, which are very handsome; and their hair, both that on the head and that on the eyebrows, is white from birth, both in females and males. So, up to thirty years of age, each of these people has white hair over their entire body, but from that point they begin to turn black; and by the time they are sixty years old, it is possible to see them all having entirely black hair. ^C These people have eight fingers on each hand, and likewise eight on their feet, both men and women alike. They are very warlike, and five thousand archers and spearmen of these people follow the king of the Indians. He says that their ears are of such a size that their arms are covered by them down to the elbows, and behind their back they overlap and cover the shoulders; and one ear touches the other.

While writing and fabricating these tales, Ctesias says that he is writing the most truthful things, adding that he writes some things as having seen them himself, and others having learned them from those who had seen them, and that he left out many other things even more wonderful than these so as not to seem to write unbelievable things to those who have not seen them. ^D Among these are these things.

Moreover, there is in Ethiopia an animal of truly stupendous power called the *crocottas*, commonly known as the *cynolycus*. They claim it imitates the human voice, calls men by name at night, and devours those who approach; it is said to possess the magnanimity of a lion, the speed of a horse, and the strength of a bull, and it can only be overcome by iron. In Euboea, in the Chalcidica, it is said that the sheep of that region lack gall, and that their flesh is so bitter that not even dogs can eat it. They also say that beyond the Maurusian straits, the region is rained upon in summer and scorched in winter. Furthermore, in the region of the Cyonii, there is a fountain that flows with oil instead of water, which the inhabitants use for all kinds of food. In this region, too, is a place named Metatridæ, not far from the sea, where there is a fountain that swells violently in the middle of the night and casts a great abundance of fish onto the land, such that the inhabitants are not able to gather them all, and they let a very large part rot on the dry ground.

While Ctesias writes and fabricates these things, he nonetheless wishes to appear to have written the most true accounts, and adds that he has either seen with his own eyes what he writes, or has surely received it from eyewitnesses; indeed, that he has omitted things far more admirable than these, lest he should appear to anyone who has never seen these things to have written matters unworthy of belief. Here, therefore, those accounts end.

LXXIII. The Ethiopica of Heliodorus.

We have read the *Ethiopica* of Heliodorus. The work is dramatic, and he uses a style appropriate to the subject matter; for it abounds in simplicity and sweetness. Furthermore, the narrative is tempered with affections of things ^A partly present, partly hoped for, and partly unexpected, with salvation very often brought about beyond expectation in the midst of calamities. The words employed are also significant and pure, and if at times they are diverted into figurative language, as is fitting, they are nevertheless clear and evidently exhibit the subject proposed. The periodic structures, too, are suitable to the subject matter, being somewhat shorter and more concise. Finally, the composition, like all else, is accommodated to the narrative itself, in which the love of a man and a woman is related, but a love that prefers the desire for chastity and its exact preservation.

The argument of this drama is provided to the author by Theagenes and Chariclea, who love one another chastely and modestly; when they were tossed ^B and wandered to and fro, and were even captured repeatedly, they nevertheless constantly kept their conjugal faith. Therefore, the names of these persons are introduced, and a summary is given of whatever they suffered or did. There is the festal day of the Athenians, during which Chariclea serves as priestess and Theagenes competes in the race. From this, love is born from the eyes, and from it arises a sickness in Chariclea, who is abducted—not against her will—from the house of Charicles, who was held to be her father. The abductor, through the agency of Calasiris, was Theagenes. ^C There follows the sailing away and arrival at Zacynthus; the captain of the ship is captivated by love for Chariclea, and a false promise of marriage is made by Calasiris. Chariclea is received into hospitality on the shore, and information is given by a fisherman, who had received them, that a certain Trachinus, a leader of brigands, is meditating the abduction of the virgin. Hence the flight of Calasiris and Chariclea. Trachinus pursues them, captures the ship, and is himself captured by love; and Chariclea feigns an intention to give herself to him. There is an expostulation from Theagenes as a brother, and from Calasiris as a father, who are thus granted their wishes. ^D A storm at sea then arises, and they escape shipwreck and put in at a certain coast of Egypt. Mention is made of a marriage between Chariclea and Trachinus, and there are the promises and deception of Calasiris, who plays the part of the father, and a wedding feast is instituted. There is the love of Pelorus, spurred on by Calasiris, and the contention of Trachinus and Pelorus over Chariclea. From this, slaughter finally arises, and a mutual internecine conflict of the brigands, which Chariclea herself also furthered significantly by sending arrows against them. Then the mourning of Chariclea over Theagenes, who was laid low by his wounds. An incursion of other brigands follows.

Codex LXXIII

^A Another onset by others, who, being struck in mind at the sight of Chariclea, then seize her along with Theagenes and lead them to Thyamis. He was the commander of the Bucoli robbers—for this was the name given to them—who inhabited the island. Thyamis again falls in love with Chariclea, and Theagenes is named as his brother. An attack is made against the Bucoli, and a battle ensues, and a slaughter of the Bucoli, and the flight of Thyamis, and the flight of Hermuthis. Cnemon and Theagenes; and in the cave, Chariclea, and Thisbe lying dead, having been slain at the entrances to the cave; and Theagenes experiences intolerable grief as if for Chariclea, until Chariclea [95 H.] called out from within. And there is perplexity concerning the slaughter of Thisbe, and Hermuthis is wailing over her. And the departure of Cnemon and Hermuthis, and from another side, Chariclea and Theagenes; and Cnemon leaves Hermuthis behind. And the meeting of Calasiris and Cnemon, and the narration of what had befallen to each other—Cnemon regarding Thisbe and the stepmother Demaenete, and his exile by the casting of potsherds, and the rest of his misfortunes; and Calasiris regarding Charicles and Chariclea and Theagenes. And lamentation over these things. Then Cnemon brings the good news that Chariclea and Theagenes were safe, and that Thyamis had both him and them. Nausicles, with whom Calasiris also lived, brings Chariclea, under the name of Thisbe; and there is turmoil for Cnemon because of Thisbe (for he knew her to be dead), but joy over Chariclea. The first search for Theagenes, and the marriage of Cnemon and Nausiclea. And the journey of Calasiris with Chariclea for the search of Theagenes. And an old woman is caught lamenting over a child who had fallen in the war, and through magic arts she was questioning the corpse of the child; and Chariclea and Calasiris are watching what is done. A frantic interrogation of the corpse again, if her other son might be saved; and a curse against the mother, because she is using force and doing things ^B forbidden, and that the other son also will be slaughtered, but she herself before him, for the forbidden things she did to the corpse. And the slaughter of the old woman, falling upon a fragment of a spear as she heard. Thyamis and Theagenes and the rest of the band of robbers go to the Egyptian city of Memphis, to reclaim the priesthood which the younger brother, Petosiris, had taken away from him; and there is an uproar about the city. And Arsace, presiding, attempts to stop the war, and directs the brothers to engage in a duel with each other, decreeing that the victor is worthy of the priesthood. The battle of the brothers; and Petosiris is unwilling, for he was unskilled in war, ^C Thyamis, on the other hand, being practiced in fighting.

^A Wherefore he compels his brother to turn his back and flee, casting away his arms. Thyamis pursues him, and they circle the city many times in their flight. Theagenes follows Thyamis, and Arsace, the wife of Oroondates, seeing him, falls in love with him. Calasiris and Chariclea arrive. And he, seeing his children—for Thyamis and Petosiris were the sons of Calasiris—rushing to slay one another, runs up, and with great difficulty, raising his voice, restrained the slaughter, for the children hardly recognized their parent. But Chariclea falls upon Theagenes. And the war having been settled, Thyamis receives the priesthood from his father, who soon departs this life.

^B Another plot again by Arsace against the young man Theagenes and Chariclea, and the readiness of Cybele, her handmaid, for every service, and the summoning of them to the house of Arsace, and her irresistible love for Theagenes, and all the machinations and methods of wickedness and seduction, and the plot of Cybele with a poison against Chariclea. The salvation of Chariclea; and the death of Cybele, by the very means she had contrived for destruction. The torture and affliction of Chariclea and Theagenes because Theagenes refused the love of Arsace; and the condemnation of Chariclea to the fire, and the extinguishing of the fire by the stone Pantarbes, and the temporary release of Chariclea, and Arsace, mad with rage, preparing death for Chariclea on the following day. The mission of Oroondates, the husband of Arsace, and his taking of the youths by night—for this had been commanded, since the son of Cybele, disappointed in his hope of obtaining marriage with Chariclea, having gone to his master, had reported everything that had been done by Arsace.

^C The incursion of the Ethiopians, and the seizure of Theagenes and Chariclea, and their abduction to Hydaspes, the king of the Ethiopians. Then the dedication of these as victims to be sacrificed, the one to the Moon, and the other to the Sun. Then contests and sacrifices, and the presence of Sisimithres, the chief of the gymnosophists, with his gymnosophists, and of Persina, the wife of the king. And the request of Chariclea to be allowed to plead her case before Hydaspes, and the pleading, and the judgment of Sisimithres, and the testimony that Chariclea was the daughter of Hydaspes and Persina. Hydaspes is with difficulty persuaded. But even so he intended to bring them to sacrifice, honoring the ancestral law. But the people opposed it, and Chariclea is released, and there is joy among all at her release. Another contest again for Chariclea; ^D Theagenes is still bound, destined for the sacrifice, and many and varied speeches are spoken to the father concerning him, but the father remains unmoved regarding the acquittal of Theagenes, and Chariclea is in distress, and she recounts to her mother everything that had happened to her and to Theagenes. And the display of valor of Theagenes regarding the bull, and the delight of the populace. Still another display of valor in the battle against the Ethiopian...

Theagenes is led to the sacrifice even after the crowns. Charicles, having come from Athens to the stadium itself, stood by and demanded of the king the daughter he believed to be his own. The king agreed to give her, if he himself could find her; but he could not find her. Then Theagenes is seized and dragged by Charicles, who cried out, "This is the man who stole my daughter from Athens!" A trial follows, and finally an acquittal, with Sisimithres also judging in favor of Theagenes, and decreeing that henceforth there should no longer be sacrifice of human beings to the destruction of mortals. Joy and great gladness fill everyone, and Theagenes and Chariclea, after ten thousand dangers, recover one another, and receiving the priesthoods—she from her mother, and he from his father-in-law—they offer sacrifice and prepare for their wedding.

These things were written by Heliodorus, of the house of Theodosius, a Phoenician from Emesa; with these events, he brought his history to a close. ^B They say that he later attained the dignity of a bishop.

LXXIV. The Civil Orations of Themistius

[52a] Read were the thirty-six civil orations of Themistius, among which are those addressed to the Emperor Constantius, and to Valens, and to the younger Valentinian, but also to Theodosius; these contain praises and encomiums of the emperors. His style is clear, concise, and flowery, using civil language that leans toward a certain dignity. ^C He flourished especially in the times of Valens, as is evident also from his own speeches. During the reign of Constantius he was still young; it was he who enrolled him into the Roman Senate, as the letter sent by the emperor to the Senate at Rome concerning him demonstrates. The father of Themistius was Eugenius, who himself also applied himself to philosophy.

Commentaries by this Themistius are current on almost all the works of Aristotle; but we have seen not only these, but also his paraphrases, helpfully abridged, of the *Analytics*, the *On the Soul*, the *Physics*, and other such works. There are also his exegetical labors on the works of Plato, and simply put, he is a lover and diligent student of philosophy.

Codex LXXV

^A *John Philoponus’s treatise against John, Patriarch of Constantinople, known as Scholasticus.*

I read a small treatise by John Philoponus against those things which the blessed John Scholasticus, Archbishop of Constantinople, once of the Scholastici, had divinely taught as certain dogma in his Catechetical Oration, which he delivered in the first indiction during the reign of Justin [the Younger].

In style, it is like himself, perspicuous, to be sure, and containing nothing intense or weighty; but in the form of its argumentation, it is not only impious but also putrid and weak, such that it cannot color its sophistries against the pious even with a shadowy appearance of truth. For having invented natures, essences, and gods, it vomits forth from an unbridled mouth, again and again, all manner of blasphemies against the Christian faith, tediously and excessively minutely pursuing the question, “How many things does ‘one’ signify?” And thus, through his artificial—as he thinks—frivolity, or rather childish ineptitudes, he insolently boasted that he held our theological mystagogy for nothing. ^B But he is not weak and senseless in this genre of argumentation alone, but in all his other writings of which he is himself the author—for I exclude those which he plundered from the inventions of others and claimed for his own. He is, in fact, very far below those authors who know how to distinguish the false from the true and to reach the very sharpness of the senses. Those works, therefore, which he arrogates to himself as spurious, indeed preserve the character of the authors, yet there are in them some things corrupted by his own malignant and wicked manner of speech and display, so that they have lost what was genuine and masculine in the original authors; they are like composites which, though excellent by nature, manifest something illegitimate and corrupt due to the regimen of their food and diet. Nevertheless, in this very book he gathers the sayings of the holy Fathers, such as Gregory, surnamed the Theologian, and Basil the Great, and Athanasius, that man exercised by various evils, and Cyril; yet these do nothing ^C to advance his own impious and proposed purpose.

Codex LXXVI

^D *Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, twenty books.*

We read Flavius Josephus’s *Antiquities of the Jews*...

in twenty books. It begins from the creation of the world by Moses, agreeing in most part with the writing of Moses, though there are places where he writes somewhat differently. He continues down to the beginning of the war of the Jews against the Romans; at that time Agrippa, the son of Agrippa the Great, was king over the Jews, who deposed Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, from the high priesthood, and bestowed it upon Matthias, the son of Theophilus. Now, Antiochus, with his general Lysias, was the first of all to advance into this bold undertaking, after the dignity of the high priesthood became known to the Jews; for they removed and slew Onias, who was surnamed Menelaus, from the high priesthood, and then, having driven away his son from the succession, they appointed Jacimus, who was of the lineage of Aaron, but not of this house. Before this time, it was the custom to hold the high priesthood for life, beginning from Aaron, and for a son to succeed to the honor from his father. ^B But after Jacimus had died, having been high priest for three years, the city remained for seven years without a high priest. But Matthias, the descendant of Asamonaeus, and his sons, having been entrusted with the leadership of the nation and having fought against the Macedonians, appointed Jonathan as high priest. From this lineage also came Judas, who was surnamed Aristobulus, who was the first to put a diadem upon his head, having acted as both high priest and king at once. And having survived for one year, he left behind his brother (whose name was Alexander) as successor to both the kingdom and the priestly office, ^C who survived in the government for twenty-seven years. Thus the kingdom, along with the high priesthood, continued to be preserved for the descendants of Asamonaeus down to Hyrcanus, whom Pompey, the Roman general, after capturing Jerusalem, stripped of the kingdom, but permitted to hold the high priesthood of the nation. But after he had presided for thirty-three years in total, he was taken prisoner by Pharnabazus and Pacorus, the commanders of the Parthians, and Antigonus, the son of the brother of Aristobulus, was appointed king by them. Sosius, the Roman general, and Herod the first—the son of Antipater the Ascalonite, who was a temple servant, and of Cypris the Arabian—laid siege to him, he having reigned for three years and three months, and Antony, having brought him to Antioch, put him to death. ^D Thus the race of the Asamonaeans came to an end, and Herod received the kingdom of the Jews from the Romans; he, by bestowing the high priesthood upon whomsoever he pleased, became the source and example for his successors to do the same. The writer, therefore, as has been said, in these twenty books, starting from the creation of the world, reaches down to the beginning of the final war of the Jews against the Romans, at which time Agrippa, having been established by the Romans, reigned over the Jews, Agrippa the son of Agrippa, and Gessius Florus was the governor of Syria and Judea, the one who succeeded Albinus; unable to bear whose tyrannical rule and cruelty, the nation of the Jews, in tur-

^Amoil, thought it better to perish all at once and with liberty, than little by little and in slavery. It was the second year of the administration of Florus, and the twelfth year of the reign of Nero, when the war began to take movement; in which also the history reaches its end. What his style is like has been mentioned above.

Codex LXXVII

Josephus was of Jewish lineage, a priest and descended from priests on his father's side from of old, and from a royal tribe on his mother's side; for the mother who bore him was a descendant of the children of Asamonaios, who for a very long time were priests and kings among their fellow tribesmen. Josephus was born of her and Matthias in the first year of the reign of Gaius, the Roman emperor. From his youth he dedicated himself to the study of philosophy. Then, reaching his sixteenth year, he turned his mind also to the sects of the Jews (for there are three of them) and earnestly pursued them all, ^B so that by gaining experience of them all, he might choose the best. These sects are the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes (77). Having run through them, he withdrew into the wilderness, and there he lived for three years with a certain man who practiced an eremitic life. This man’s clothing was made of leaves, his food was herbs that grew of themselves, and he washed often in cold water by day and by night for the sake of purity and continence. Thence, about his nineteenth year, he returned to the city, embracing the heresy of the Pharisees, which he says is similar to the one called Stoic among the Greeks. Afterwards, about his thirtieth year, he was sent by the Jerusalemites to manage Galilee. For the affairs of the Jews had already begun to be ^C troubled, being agitated by many disorders. Then, having been appointed leader of those in Galilee, he managed the commonwealth well, and having withstood myriads of varied conspiracies by those who were active against him, he escaped them all, and often made moderate use of those he had brought into his power. Moreover, the war which he undertook against the Romans, though unwillingly, he endured bravely at Jotapata; yet he was captured alive by Vespasian, who was then commander of the Roman troops. Then he encountered a man who was very favorably disposed toward him, both at that time and even more so when he later ruled over the Romans, and not him alone, but also his sons Titus and Domitian, who ruled in succession after their father, ^D so that he even attained Roman citizenship and was established in abundance of all things. The history was completed when he was in his fifty-sixth year.

LXXVII. Eunapius, Chronicles after Dexippus, Fourteen Books

^A Read are the fourteen books of the new edition of Eunapius’s Chronicles after Dexippus. He leads the beginning of the narrative from the reign of Claudius Caesar, where Dexippus’s history concludes, and it terminates in the era of Honorius and Arcadius, the children of Theodosius—setting that time as the end of his history, when Arsacius, after John Chrysostom, the golden mouth of the Church, had been driven out, had ascended the episcopal throne and was officiating, and the wife of the Emperor Arcadius, while pregnant, died having suffered a miscarriage. ^B This Eunapius is a Sardian by birth (for he held Sardis in Lydia as his fatherland), and being impious in religion (for he honored the [gods] of the Hellenes), he insults and disparages in every way those who adorned the empire with piety, and most of all the great Constantine; but he extols the impious, and above all others, Julian the Apostate, and his history was almost entirely elaborated to be a panegyric for him.

His diction is elegant, if one were to remove from his discourses his rooster-like, and more deer-like, and swine-like, ^C and indeed his hawk-like, and crow-like, and ape-like terms, and his "river-like tear," and the like; for by these he corrupts and adulterates the nobility of his other vocabulary. He uses tropes excessively, which the law of history does not allow; yet the force and wit of his expression for the most part remove the annoyance. He handles composition, clarity, and periods in a manner appropriate and fitting for history, except that sometimes he fills and weaves his oration more like a barrister than a historian. He introduces many novelties in construction, yet not in an unpleasant way, nor such as to give cause for criticizing his periods.

He wrote two treatises containing this same history, a first and a second. In the first, he sows much blasphemy against our pure Christian faith and extols the Hellenic superstition, carping at many of the pious emperors; in the second, which he also inscribes as a "New edition," he [has moderated?] that vast heap of insults and licentiousness, which against the pious

^A Christian piety he had formerly scattered, and connecting the remaining body of the history as best he could, he inscribes it, as I have said, a "New edition," which nevertheless represents no small part of that fury and rabies with which he had filled the first volume. Indeed, we have encountered the old books of both editions, separately divided and bound from one another, and having read them, we have grasped the difference between the two. However, it happens in the new edition that many passages are obscurely truncated on account of the summaries of the statements that have been made, although the author had a great concern for clarity; yet, nonetheless (I know not why it was done this way), he has not rightly connected the discourse in the new edition where these summaries occur, for he corrupts the meaning of those things which are read there. And let this be the end.

LXXVIII. Malchus the Sophist, Byzantine History, in seven books

^B There were read the seven books of the Byzantine History of Malchus the Sophist. He begins from the time when disease ^C afflicted the Emperor Leo in the seventeenth year of his reign. He narrates, therefore, the inauguration of Zeno, and how he lived an exile from his empire and a private citizen, and how likewise Basiliscus, who had been substituted for him, subsequently laid aside the purple. Then he narrates the return of Zeno to the empire, and the slaughter of the aforementioned Basiliscus, whose wife and children were also slaughtered together with him by an iniquitous law; and [he relates] that Armatus, who had brought Zeno back, received a similar reward when he was put to death by Onoulph. He relates also the sedition of Theuderich son of Triarius; the friendship of Theuderich son of Malamir; the war and conflict with that other Theuderich against Zeno; and the rebellion of Marcian; and before this, the treachery of his mother-in-law Verina against Zeno, and the perpetual exile of Marcian. Further, he tells of the previous plots prepared by Verina against Illus, and how Theuderich son of Malamir occupied Epidamum by deceit. When he has related these things, he touches also upon the affairs of the Romans; and the end of the seventh book is the death of Nepos, who, having stripped Glycerius of the imperial power, usurped the Roman empire himself, and having tonsured him in the manner of the clergy, instead of an emperor appointed him a bishop; by whom at last, having been plotted against, he perished. These seven books of history indicate that many books preceding them had also been written by him, and the beginning of the first of the seven demonstrates the same. Moreover, [he shows] that he would have continued his history further, if long life...

had been granted to him, as ^B the end of the seventh book signifies.

The author is Philadelphensis, and if there is anyone else most excellent in history writing, he is one, being pure, not at all redundant, not confused, using words that are most flowery and significant, which tend toward some magnitude and pomp, not even excluding innovative terms whenever they possess impact, sonority, or some grandeur. Therefore, as much as he is, he is the norm of historical diction; yet acting as a sophist, he reached the highest peak of rhetoric, to be numbered among Christians by the practice of religion.

LXXIX. Candidus: Books of Histories 3.

Three books of Candidus the historian were read. He begins his history from the election of Leo, who was from Dacia in Illyria, and who, having commanded a military regiment and served as a magistrate of those in Selymbria, attained the empire through the zeal of Aspar; this Aspar was an Alan by race, having followed the military life from an early age, and who by three marriages had as many sons—Ardaburius, Patricius, and Ermenarich—as well as two daughters. The writer makes the beginning of his history, as has been said, the beginning of the reign of Leo, and he ends it at the proclamation of Anastasius. As he himself professes, his country was [Isauria] the Rough, and his profession had been that of a clerk to those who had the most power among the Isaurians. He was a Christian in religion, and indeed an orthodox one: for he crowns the fourth synod with praises, and justly lashes those who propose innovations against it. ^C But he does not have a style suitable for historical discourse. For he uses the phrases of poets immaturely and in a childish manner, and his arrangement [of words] falls into a certain harshness and discordance, in the manner of dithyrambs, while at other times it slips into that which is loose and unmeasured. He introduces novelties into his syntax, not for the sake of greater ornament and charm, as others are accustomed to do, but in such a way that it is tiresome to the ear and utterly devoid of sweetness. Sometimes, however, becoming much better in his words than himself, he is found blending together a history even from the most dissimilar materials. This man dares to say that Isauria derives its name from Esau.

In the first book he goes through the power of Aspar and his children, the election of Leo through Aspar, the conflagration that occurred in the city, and all the things that were transacted by Aspar concerning this for the common good. And concerning Titianus and ^D Vivianus, and how Aspar [conferred] about them with the emperor.

for this reason allied himself with the Isaurian race through Tarasicodissa, son of Rusumbladeotes, whom he also renamed Zeno and made his son-in-law, since he had lost his former wife by the law of death. And how Ardaburius, plotting the opposite against the emperor, also intended to win over the Isaurians for himself; and that Martinus, an intimate of Ardaburius, revealed to Tarasicodissa all the things that Ardaburius was contriving against the emperor. And how, from this, since their mutual suspicion grew harsher day by day, Emperor Leo destroyed Aspar and his children, Ardaburius and Patricius the Caesar. But the Caesar, having received the blow, was unexpectedly saved and survived. And the other of the children, Armenerichus, ^B also escaped death at that time because he happened not to be present with his father. Leo the emperor takes Tarasicodissa as a son-in-law for his daughter Ariadne, and renames him Zeno, having appointed him general of the East. And the successes and failures in Africa of Basiliscus. And how Leo, having much willed and schemed to proclaim his son-in-law Zeno emperor, was unable to do so because the subjects did not accept it. And how before his death he [appointed] the grandson born to him from Zeno and Ariadne; and how after the death of Leo, the child Leo crowned his father Zeno emperor with the consent of the senate. A detailed account of the genealogy of the Isaurians; and the great zeal and narration [used] to point out that they were descendants and offspring of Esau. And how Zeno, having been deceived by Verina, flees with his wife and mother-in-law ^C from the city and the empire; and how Verina, in the hope of joining to herself Patricius the magister and that he should rule—having banished her son-in-law through deceit—was herself cheated of her hope, when those in office proclaimed her brother Basiliscus emperor. Also concerning the incredible slaughter of the Isaurians in Constantinople. And how after the emperor of Rome Nepos, Orestes the father caused Augustulus to rule over the Roman empire. These things the first book relates.

Book Two

^A but eventually he broke off the war through certain agreements made with Illus. ^B Being held in high esteem under Zeno, so much so that he saw his son Basiliscus named Caesar, he was subsequently torn to pieces; and the boy himself, once Caesar, was reduced to serving among the readers at the Blachernae. How, prior to this, Basiliscus had proclaimed his own son Marcus Caesar, and later even emperor. And how Illus happened upon a friendship with Zeno, and was the means by which he regained the empire. And how, having been conspired against, the emperor fled with his wife Zenonis and his children into the Church; and how, having been expelled from there by the deceit of Armatus, he was exiled to Cappadocia, and was later slaughtered with his entire family. How, when Peter the impious was troubling the churches of the East, the emperor Zeno sent Calandion to be ordained as bishop of the see of Antioch, and, needing money, he succeeded in obtaining it through informers, and many who had risen up in rebellion against him were captured and paid the penalty. How Illus contributed much to the Roman state, both by his acts of bravery in war and by his civic generosities and just dealings. How, after the removal of the emperor Nepos of Rome and the expulsion of his successor Augustulus, Odoacer gained control of Italy and of Rome itself. And because the Western Gauls revolted against him, and embassies were sent by them and by Odoacer to Zeno, Zeno inclined more toward Odoacer. ^C How a certain Alan, desiring to kill Illus, struck him and said that Epinicius, who was a member of Verina’s household, had instigated the attempt on his life; and how Epinicius was handed over to Illus; and how, upon a pledge of amnesty and benefits, Epinicius revealed everything that Verina had plotted against Illus; and how, for this reason, Zeno handed Verina over to him, ^D and he secured himself by exiling her to a fortress in Cilicia. How, by becoming endeared to the impious Pamprepius through the agency of Marsus, Illus gradually threw all of his own affairs into confusion. How a civil and internal war broke out against Zeno, initiated by Marcianus and Procopius, the sons of Anthemius, who had reigned over Rome; and how, when Illus had defeated them under the auspices of Zeno, the elder, Marcianus, was ordained a presbyter, while Procopius fled to Theodoric in Thrace. And how Marcianus, having been exiled to Cappadocia and having escaped, threw the region of Galatia near Ancyra into turmoil, until he was captured and relegated to Isauria. And how the hatred of the emperor toward Illus was formed and grew. And these things are made known in the second book.

The third book contains other matters, and also how Illus openly rose up against Zeno and proclaimed Leontius emperor, along with Verina; how, having fared ill, they were besieged and captured and beheaded; and other matters up until the death of Zeno.

LXXX. Olympiodori, History in Twenty-two Books

^A Twenty-two books of the history of Olympiodorus were read. It begins from the seventh consulship of Honorius, emperor of Rome, and the second of Theodosius, and leads the history down to the time when Valentinian, son of Placidia and Constantius, was proclaimed Roman emperor. This writer is a Theban, coming from the Thebes of Egypt; a poet by profession, as he himself confesses; and a Gentile in religion. His diction is clear, yet lax and dissolute, and descended into such an overwhelming superfluity of words that his discourse is unworthy to be counted as history—a fact of which he himself is perhaps aware, for he contends that this work was not crafted by him as a history, but merely as material or a historical commentary supplied for one. So inform and lacking in form did the character of his own diction appear to him. And indeed, no idea shines forth in it, unless one were to contend that he elsewhere approaches simplicity; yet he does not even attain this, while, using a too humble and base category of diction, he falls entirely into idiomatic and plebeian speech. And although he himself calls his work a "Forest," he nonetheless divides it into books and attempts to adorn it with prefaces. He dedicates this history to the emperor Theodosius [the Younger], who was the son of Arcadius and the cousin of Honorius and Placidia.

^B He describes, therefore, the great power to which Stilicho had attained, having been appointed guardian of the children of Arcadius and Honorius by their father, Theodosius the Great himself, and how he married Serena, whom Theodosius had likewise betrothed to him. Furthermore, he tells how, having given his own daughter Thermantia in marriage to the emperor Honorius, he took him as a son-in-law, and from that point was raised to the absolute summit of power. He relates how he fought many wars successfully for the Romans against various nations, until, by the bloodthirsty and inhuman efforts of Olympius (who had been introduced to the emperor by Stilicho), he met his death by the sword.

^C He adds that Alaric, the leader of the Goths, whom Stilicho had formerly summoned to hold Illyricum in arms for Honorius (for this province had fallen to his portion in the division of the kingdom by his father, Theodosius), besieged and sacked Rome, both because of the murder of Stilicho and because what had been promised to him was not given; and from that city he carried off incredible quantities of silver as booty. Moreover, he also took captive Placidia, the sister of Honorius, who was residing in Rome. And before the city was taken, he [Alaric] had proclaimed a certain illustrious man among those in Rome, named Attalus,

^A to be emperor, assuming the supreme command.

Codex LXXX

^A And when he was killed by them, Gratian was substituted in his place. But since he too, having become burdensome to them, was slaughtered after four months, Constantine was then elevated to the honor of emperor. ^B This man, having appointed Justinus and Neovigastes as generals, and having left Britain, crossed over with his own men to Bononia, a maritime city of that name, which was the first city to be situated on the borders of Gaul. Having tarried there, and having won over to his side the entire Gaulish and Aquitanian army, he gained control of all the parts of Gaul as far as the Alps, which separate Italy from Gaul. He had two sons, Constans and Julianus; he appointed the former Caesar, and at that same time he named Julianus as Nobilissimus.

^C That Attalus, reigning against Honorius, encamped at Ravenna, and there were sent to him, as from Emperor Honorius to an emperor, Jovianus the prefect and patrician, Valens the general of both forces, Potamius the quaestor, and Julianus the primicerius of the notaries; these men signified to Attalus that they had been sent by Honorius regarding a partnership in the empire. But he refused; however, he did grant that Honorius might inhabit an island, or some other place of his choosing, where he would be free from evils. Jovianus, glad at this, answered by promising to mutilate Emperor Honorius limb by limb. ^D At this, Attalus rebuked Jovianus, saying that it was no one’s custom to mutilate an emperor who voluntarily abdicated his rule. But Jovianus, having served as envoy many times and having achieved nothing, remained with Attalus and was called his patrician. Meanwhile, at Ravenna, power slipped to the praepositus Eusebius, ^D who, not long afterwards, was killed by rods in the sight of the emperor by the violence of Allovichus and by public decree. Moreover, when Attalus did not acquiesce to Alaric, and especially through the work of Jovius, who had betrayed Honorius's legates, he was cast down from the empire and remained living a private life with Alaric. Then, not long after, he reigned again, and was again forced to abdicate. After these things, finally having set off toward Ravenna, he was proscribed and his fingers on his right hand were cut off. Allovichus also, shortly after, because he had removed the praepositus Eusebius, paid the penalty by the sentence of the emperor, and was killed in his presence. The tyrant Constantine, having learned of the death of Allovichus,

^A fearing, returns as he was hastening toward Ravenna to make a treaty with Honorius.

That Rhegium is the metropolis of the Bruttii, from which, says the historian, Alaric, while preparing to cross into Sicily, was restrained; for a statue, he says, having been inaugurated ^B and standing there, forbade the passage. It had been inaugurated, according to the legend, by the ancients, both to avert the fires of Mount Etna and to prevent the Barbarians from crossing the sea; for on one foot it bore perpetual fire, and on the other, everlasting water. Once this was shattered, Sicily eventually suffered damage from the Etnean fire and from the Barbarians. But Asclepius, who had been appointed curator of the estates of Constantius and Placidia in Sicily, pulled down the statue.

That when the tyrant Constantine and his son Constans—who had previously been proclaimed Caesar and later emperor—had been defeated and had fled, the general Gerontius, having gladly accepted peace with the Barbarians, proclaimed his own son, Maximus, who was serving in the rank of the domestici, as emperor; then, pursuing Constans, he caused his death, and followed on his heels, pursuing his father Constantine as well. While these things were happening, Constantius and Ulphilas were sent by Honorius against Constantine; and having reached Arles, where Constantine was passing his time with his son Julian, they besieged it. Constantine, fleeing to a church, was ordained a priest, upon oaths having been given to him for his safety; and thus the gates of the city were opened to the besieging soldiers. Constantine was sent with his son Julian to Honorius. ^C But he, bearing a grudge against them because of his relatives whom Constantine had chanced to kill, ordered them to be put to death contrary to the sworn oath, thirty miles from Ravenna. Gerontius, however, upon the arrival of Ulphilas and Constantine, took to flight; and being overtaken, because he had ruled his own army tyrannically, he was plotted against by those very men; for they set fire to his house. But he fought bravely against the insurgents, having one companion, an Alan by birth, who was numbered among his slaves. Finally, he killed that Alan and his wife, as they themselves had requested, and in the end he also took his own life. Maximus, his son, having learned of these things, fled to the allied Barbarians.

That Jovinus, at Mundiacum in the other Germania, through the zeal of Goar the Alan and Guntiarius, who was the prefect of the Burgundians, was created ^D tyrant. To whom, that he might...

come, Attalus urged Adaulphus; and he arrives along with the multitude. But Jovinus is vexed at the presence of Adaulphus, and complains by means of riddles to Attalus, who had advised the arrival. Now Sarus was also intending to come to Jovinus; but Adaulphus, having learned this, forestalls him, bringing with him ten thousand soldiers, while he [Sarus] had about eighteen or twenty men with him. Him, having displayed heroic deeds and things worthy of wonder, they could only with difficulty—by using shields—capture alive, and later they kill him. Now Sarus had revolted from Honorius, because, upon the killing of Bellerides, his domestic, no account of the slaughter was made by the emperor, nor did he seek to avenge it by inquiring into the slayer.

He further relates concerning Donatus and the Huns, and concerning the kings ^B of those people, and their skill in archery, and how the historian was sent as an ambassador to them and to Donatus; and he recounts in tragic style his own wandering across the sea and the danger. And how Donatus, circumvented by an oath, was lawlessly slaughtered, and how Charaton, the first of the kings, was inflamed with anger at the murder, and how he was again appeased by imperial gifts and grew quiet; in which things the first decade of the work is contained.

The second, however, he begins thus: that Jovinus, ^C against the will of Adaulphus, creating his own brother Sebastianus emperor, fell into enmity with Adaulphus. And Adaulphus sends envoys to Honorius, promising that he would send the heads of the tyrants and initiate peace. When these returned home, and the oath had been given, the head of Sebastianus is straightway sent to the emperor. Jovinus also, being besieged by Adaulphus, surrendered himself, and was sent to the emperor: whom Dardanus the prefect, striking with his own hand, killed; and the heads of both were fixed upon pales outside Carthage, where those of Constantine and Julian had been cut off before, as also those of Maximinus and Eugenius, who, having laid claim to tyranny under Theodosius the Great, met with the same end. Adaulphus was asked for Placidia; he was urged with zeal, especially by Constantius, who ^D later also joined her in marriage; but since the promises made to Adaulphus were not fulfilled, and especially that concerning the provision of grain, he neither rendered her back, and seemed likely to exchange peace for war.

Adaulphus therefore, when Placidia was demanded back, in turn asked for the grain that had been promised. Although those who had promised it had no supply to convey, they nevertheless consented, if they should receive Placidia, that he would accept it. To which the Barbarian himself also employed almost similar simulation, and having set out for Massilia, a city so called, he hoped to take it by guile. There, struck by Bonifacius...

the of the most noble ^A, and, having scarcely escaped death, he withdrew into his own tents, leaving the city in joy and having made Boniface the subject of praises and acclamations. That Adaulphus, when Constantius demanded Placidia in marriage, put forward heavier demands, so that if he did not succeed in them, he might appear to have kept her with good reason.

That Constantius, formerly designated, was at length created consul at Ravenna, and with him Constans held the Constantinopolitan consulship. A fair quantity of gold, sufficient to cover the expenses of the consulship (35), was found among the possessions of Heraclianus (36), who had been killed for intended tyranny; though not as much was found as had been hoped. For not even two thousand pounds [of gold] were found, and his immovable property amounted to another two thousand pounds in total. All of these assets Constantius obtained from Honorius by a single request.

Now Constantius, when he went abroad, was of a sad and morose countenance, with huge eyes, an elevated neck, and a flat head, and he would lean forward completely onto the neck of the horse he was riding, and thus, ^B casting his eyes askance this way and that in such a manner that, as the old saying goes, he appeared to all to possess "a form worthy of an empire" (38). Yet at dinners and banquets he was so pleasant and courteous that he would often vie with the mimes playing before the table.

That the marriage of Adaulphus with Placidia was concluded through the zeal and counsel of Candidianus, the month of January having arrived, in the city of Narbonne, in the house of a certain Ingenius, one of the leaders in that city. There, Placidia having been seated in a vestibule prepared in the Roman manner and royal style, Adaulphus sat down with her, dressed ^C in a cloak and other Roman attire. Among other wedding gifts, Adaulphus was presented with fifty beautiful youths, dressed in silk, each bearing in their hands two huge platters, of which the one was full of gold, and the other of precious stones, or rather of invaluable gems, which the Goths had plundered from the city of Rome during its sack. Then epithalamia were sung, Attalus singing first, then Rusticius (41) and Phoebadius; and the marriage was concluded with the Barbarians and the Romans who were with them all rejoicing and playing together.

That after the capture of Rome by the Goths, Albinus, the Prefect of Rome, as the city was already returning to its former state, wrote that the provisions supplied to the ^D people were not sufficient.

adding that in a single day the number of citizens had reached fourteen thousand.

[109 H.] When a son was born to Ataulf by Placidia, to whom he gave the name Theodosius, he seemed to love the Roman commonwealth more than before. But due to the opposition of Constantius and his followers, the attempts of both him and his wife Placidia to establish peace were in vain. Later, when the infant died, both parents mourned him vehemently, and having placed him in a silver casket, they buried him in a certain church near Barcino. Subsequently, Ataulf himself was killed while inspecting his horses in the stable, as was his custom, by a certain Goth of his household named Dobbius, who had seized this opportunity to avenge an old hatred; for his former master, a king of the Gothic faction, had been removed from the scene by Ataulf. Ataulf, having taken him in, had brought Dobbius into his own household; he, however, in vengeance for his former master, laid violent hands on the latter and killed him. As he was dying, Ataulf charged his brother to return Placidia to Honorius and, if they should be able in any way, to secure for themselves the concord and alliance of the Roman people. But the successor, Sarus's brother Sigeric—who attained power through zeal and force rather than by succession or law—killed the children whom Ataulf had sired by his former wife, tearing them by force from the bosom of Bishop Sigesarus. And to the shame of Ataulf, he compelled Queen Placidia herself to walk on foot before his horse alongside the other captives, for the entire distance from the city to the twelfth milestone. After he had ruled for seven days, he was killed, and Valias was established as leader of the Goths.

That the historian says he heard from Valerius, a man of distinction, about silver statues consecrated for the warding off of barbarians. For he says that in the days of the Emperor Constantius, when Valerius was prefect in Thrace, notice was given that a treasure had been found. Valerius, coming to the spot, learned from the local inhabitants that the place was sacred and that according to an ancient rite statues had been dedicated there. He reported this to the emperor and received a rescript ordering him to remove the goods indicated. Therefore, when the ground was excavated, three solid statues made of silver were found, positioned in a barbarian fashion, with both arms crooked, dressed moreover in a garment variegated in the barbarian style, and wearing their hair on their heads, and facing towards the north, which is the region of the barbarians. As soon as those statues were removed—

first the nation of the Goths, after a few days, overran the whole of Thrace, and shortly after the Huns and Sarmatians were likewise destined to overrun both Illyricum and Thrace itself; for between Thrace and Illyricum lay these sites of consecration, and the number of the three statues seemed to have been inaugurated against all barbarian nations. ^B

110.

That the Vandals call the Goths "Truli," because they, being pressed by famine, would buy a *trula* of grain from the Vandals for one gold piece; and the *trula* does not even contain a third part of a *sextarius*.

That when the Vandals had overrun the Spains, and the Romans had fled into the walled cities, such a famine took hold of them that they were forced into cannibalism. And a woman who had four children devoured all of them, using the pretext in each case that she wished to feed and save the rest, until, having devoured them all, she was stoned to death by the people.

That Euplutius the *magistrianus* is sent to Wallia (48), who was the tribal chief of the Goths, to initiate treaties of peace. ^D

He accepts the offer readily. And once six hundred thousand *modii* of grain were dispatched to him, Placidia is delivered to Euplutius and sent back to her brother Honorius. ^A

When an inquiry began at Athens regarding how books could be bound, and people were asking about the measurement of the glue, Philtatius, a colleague of this writer and one well-versed in literary matters, demonstrated how it should be done; and in recognition of this, the citizens honored him with a statue.

Regarding the Oasis, the author recounts many incredible things. First, concerning its climate: not only does no one there suffer from the "sacred disease," but even those who arrive from elsewhere are cured of the ailment due to the temperate air. Next, concerning the immense amount of sand there and the wells, which, dug to a depth of two hundred, three hundred, or sometimes even five hundred cubits, pour forth streams of water through their mouths; from these, the farmers who have joined in the common labor take turns drawing water and irrigating their own fields. ^B And that the trees there bear fruit at all times, and that the grain there is superior to all other grain and whiter than snow. Sometimes barley is sown there twice a year, but millet always three times. The inhabitants irrigate their small garden plots in summer every third day, and in winter every sixth, which is how their great fertility is produced. And that the sky there is never overcast with clouds.

He also writes about the horological instruments made there. He states that the Oasis was once an island and was cut off from the mainland, and that Herodotus calls it the "Island of the Blessed" ^C; but that the author who wrote the history of Orpheus and Musaeus calls it the Phaeacis (51). He deduces that it was formerly an island from the fact that seashells and oysters adhering to rocks are found on the mountain that leads into the Oasis from the Thebaid; and secondly, because abundant sand is constantly flowing in and filling the three Oases. For he himself states that there are three Oases: two large ones, the one outer and the other inner, lying opposite one another with a distance of one hundred miles between them, ^D and a third that is small, separated from the other two by a long interval. Furthermore, he adds this argument—that it was an island—that it frequently happens that fish brought there by birds are seen, or at least the remains of eaten fish, so that one may conjecture from this that the sea is not very far away. He also says that Homer traces his lineage from the Thebaid adjacent to this region.

^A Honorius Augustus for the eleventh time and Constantius for the second time were created consuls and arranged the marriage of Placidia. But since she vehemently refused these nuptials, Constantius was caused to be indignant at her servants. Finally, on the very day he entered upon his consulship, the emperor Honorius, her brother, took her by the hand against her will and delivered her into the hands of Constantius, and the marriage was celebrated with great splendor. From this a daughter was born, whom they named Honoria. A son also was born, to whom the name Valentinian was given; while Honorius was still living, he was titled Nobilissimus at the urging of Placidia, who constrained her brother to do so. Furthermore, when Honorius was dead and the tyranny of John had been broken, he was also created Augustus of the Romans. Constantius became colleague to Honorius in the imperial power, appointed by the emperor himself, but almost against his own will. Placidia was also named Augusta by her brother and her husband.

Then a messenger is sent to Theodosius, who, being the son of Honorius’s brother, was reigning as Augustus over the eastern regions, regarding the election of Constantius as emperor; but he was by no means received. ^B From this Constantius contracted an illness, repenting of the empire he had assumed, because it was no longer in his power, as it had been before, to go and come wherever and whenever he wished, nor was the emperor permitted to occupy himself with the games as was his custom. Finally, in the seventh month of his reign, just as a dream had indicated to him saying, "The sixth has passed; the seventh begins," he died of pleurisy; along with him was extinguished in the West the anger and the expedition that he had been turning over in his mind because he had not been accepted into the partnership of the empire. ^C Valia, the prefect [of the Goths], having been removed by death, Theudericus succeeded to the rule.

That the author, having suffered many things at sea, barely escaped. In this account, he also tells of a certain star which, having fallen with great weight upon the mast of a ship, made it seem as if they were going to sink; this phenomenon was called "Urania" by the sailors. He speaks of a parrot with which he lived for twenty years, in such a way that it missed almost no human activity that it did not imitate. ^D For it danced, and sang, and addressed each person by name, and expressed other things of this kind.

The historian also reports that when he was staying near Thebes and Syene for the sake of history, and was engaged in the study of exploring the regions, the prefects and prophets of those barbarians who dwell near Talmis, whom they call Blemmyes, excited by his reputation, desired an audience with him.

They took me, he says, as far as Talmis itself, so that I might also examine those regions, which are a five days' journey distant from Philae, as far as the city which is called Prima, which in ancient times was the first city of the Thebaid ^A bordering on the barbarian soil, and for that reason was named by the Romans with the Latin term Prima, or "First," and is still called by that name today, although for a long time the barbarians have laid claim to it, along with four other towns: Phoenicon, Chiris, Thapis, and Talmis. He writes that in this region he learned of emerald mines, from which an emerald supply was formerly provided in such great abundance to the kings of the Egyptians. And the prophets of the barbarians invited me to inspect these; but it was not possible for this to happen without the king’s permission.

He relates marvelous things about a certain Libanius, an Asian by race, who came to Ravenna during the reign of Honorius and Constantius, and who was a supreme sorcerer and magician. He says that he claimed to be able to accomplish wonders against the barbarians without armed men. But when he subsequently gave a test of his promise, and the report spreading further had brought the rumor even to the ears of the Empress Placidia, the sorcerer was killed; for Placidia, he says, threatened ^B her husband Constantius with divorce if Libanius, a trickster and unbeliever, were allowed to remain among the living.

Constantius was an Illyrian by birth, from the city of Naissus in Dacia, ^C and having performed many military duties from the time of Theodosius the Great, he was finally raised to the highest pinnacle of power, as we have said. He was worthy of praise in other respects, especially in that he burned with no greed for gold before he was joined in marriage to Placidia. But having taken her as his wife, he became greedy for money. Therefore, when he was dead, men who had been unjustly stripped of their property by him flocked to Ravenna from everywhere to lodge complaints. But the levity of Honorius, he says, and his overly intimate relationship with Placidia, caused these petitions to be in vain, and rendered all force and power of justice ineffective.

Honorius’s ingrained affection for his sister was so great, from the time that her husband Constantius departed this life, that by loving her too desperately and by kissing her face incessantly, ^D he did not escape the suspicion of a base relationship among many people. But this love in a short time turned into such hatred, through the efforts of Spadusa and Elpidia (for she was Placidia’s nurse), to whom the empress showed great favor, and with the aid of Leontius, her curator, that seditions frequently arose in Ravenna (for a crowd of barbarians still clung to her, both from her marriage to Athaulf and from her union with the Emperor Constantius), and wounds were even inflicted on both sides. Until at last, on account of these very enmities, and the prior

^A hatred on the same scale, Placidia, her brother having become the stronger party, is banished to Constantinople with her children. Bonifacius alone, keeping faith with her from Africa, which he governed, sent money as he was able and was ready with other services for her; and later he contributed everything toward the recovery of the imperial power.

Honorius, having succumbed to dropsy, died before the sixth of the Kalends of September, and letters were sent to the East announcing the death of the Emperor. While these were being sent back and forth, a certain John seized the tyranny and declared himself ruler. Concerning his proclamation the following prophecy, uttered as if from an oracle of future events, was cast: "He falls, he does not stand"; which the common people, turning the saying around, cried out: "He stands, he does not fall." ^B

Bonifacius was a heroic man, and he fought bravely many times against many barbarians, sometimes advancing with few men, other times with more, and occasionally even by engaging in single combat; and, to speak simply, he rid Africa of many barbarians and diverse nations in every way. He was also a lover of justice and contemptuous of money. A deed of this nature was also performed by him: A certain rustic, having a wife in her prime, was being cuckolded by one of the allied barbarians. He therefore begs Bonifacius, lamenting the injury. Bonifacius, having learned the distance of the place and the name of the field where the adultery was being committed, sent the suppliant away for the time being, telling him to come to him again the next day. But in the evening, having escaped everyone's notice, he rode to the field, which was seventy stadia away, and ^C finding the barbarian sleeping with the adulteress, he cut off his head and returned by night with it. When the man approached the next day according to the command, he handed the barbarian’s head to him, asking if he recognized it. The man, struck with amazement and stunned by the spectacle, soon recognized it, and after giving many thanks for the justice he had received, he went away with joy.

That each of the great houses of Rome, as he says, contained within itself everything that a suitable city could possess—a hippodrome, forums, temples, fountains, and diverse baths. Hence also the author exclaimed: "One house is a city; the one city contains a thousand towns." There were also public baths of immense size. Those which are called the Antoninian baths had, for the ^D more convenient use of those bathing there, sixteen hundred seats constructed of polished marble; and the...

^A Diocletian baths had nearly double that number. The wall of the city of Rome, measured by Ammon the geometer at the time when the Goths made their first incursion against it, was found to have a perimeter of twenty-one miles.

That many Roman families received annual revenues from their estates of about forty centenaria of gold, besides the grain and wine and all other kinds of goods, which would have amounted to a third of the gold revenue if they were sold. The second rank of families after these had an income of ten or fifteen centenaria. And that Probus, the son of Alypius, having held his praetorship during the time of the tyranny of John, spent twelve centenaria of gold. Symmachus the orator, a senator of moderate means, before the city was taken, while his son Symmachus was holding the praetorship, spent twenty centenaria. Furthermore, Maximus, one of the wealthy and fortunate, spent forty centenaria on his son's praetorship. The praetors celebrated the solemn games for seven days.

That the author says that the wandering of Ulysses did not take place around Sicily, but along the extremities of Italy; ^B and that his descent into Hades occurred by the Ocean, in which sea he was driven about by those various wanderings. He struggles to prove this by many arguments. We, however, have read others besides, who agree with him in these matters.

That Placidia is sent from Constantinople by Theodosius with her children against the tyrant, and she herself receives the title of Augusta, while Valentinianus receives the title of Nobilissimus. A ^C military force is also sent to them, and a commander-in-chief of both divisions of the army, namely Ardaburius with his son Aspar, and a third, Candidianus. When they had come to Thessalonica, Helion, the master of offices, sent by Theodosius, clothes Valentinianus in that same city of Thessalonica in the vestments of a Caesar, he being in his fifth year of life. When they had arrived in Italy, Ardaburius is captured by the soldiers of the tyrant, and being sent to him, forms a friendship with him. Meanwhile, his son [Aspar] together with Placidia were in great despair and grief. But Candidianus, having taken many cities and having gained renown by his successes, dissipated their grief and restored their spirits. Then, the tyrant John being slain, ^D Placidia together with Caesar her son enters Ravenna. Helion, the master of offices and patrician, having occupied Rome, with everyone assembling there, clothes Valentinianus, who was by then seven years old, in the imperial vestments; where the history ends.

81. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Three books on the Magic of the Persians.

^A Read three booklets by Theodore, *On the Magic of the Persians and how it differs from true piety*. He addresses these to Mastubius, who came from Armenia and was a chorepiscopus. In the first book, he sets forth the impious dogma of the Persians, which Zarades introduced, or rather, concerning Zarvam, ^B whom he declares to be the chief of all, and whom he also calls Fortune; and how, by offering a libation that he might beget Hormisdas, he begot both him and Satan; and concerning their incest. And, in simple terms, having set forth the impious and most shameful dogma word for word, he refutes it in the first book. In the remaining two books, he discourses on the pious faith, beginning from the creation of the world, and likewise running through the doctrine of grace itself in a cursory manner.

This Theodore appears to be the one from Mopsuestia; for he confirms and proclaims the heresy of Nestorius, especially in the third book, and furthermore he hallucinates regarding the restoration of sinners.

82. Dexippus, Four books on events after Alexander; Historical epitome up to the reign of Claudius and Scythica.

Read the *Events after Alexander* by Dexippus, in four books. Read also another *Short History* of his, running up to the reign of Claudius, touching upon the summary acts of the empire. ^C Read also his *Scythica*, in which the battles of the Romans and Scythians against one another, and their noteworthy deeds, are recorded. His style is unadorned, though it delights in weight and dignity, and one might say he is another Thucydides possessed of a certain clarity, especially in those Scythian histories.

He begins the narration of *Events after Alexander* from the very death of the king, and recounts how the kingdom of the Macedonians devolved upon Alexander’s brother, Aridaeus, who had been born to Philip by Philinna of Larissa; I mean upon him, and upon the child of Alexander who was about to be born of Roxana (for she had been left pregnant) ^D and upon Perdiccas and his associates, who...

^A by the judgment of the Macedonians, oversaw the authority for them. He relates also how the empire of Alexander was partitioned.

As for Asia, it was as follows: To Ptolemy, son of Lagus, was given the command of all of Egypt and Libya and of the land beyond, as much as adjoins Egypt. Cleomenes, who had been appointed by King Alexander to this satrapy, was ordered to provide assistant service to Ptolemy. Laomedon of Mitylene was declared to be in charge of the Syrians, Philotas of Cilicia, Pithon of Media, Eumenes of Cappadocia ^B and Paphlagonia and the tribes situated along the Euxine Sea as far as Trapezus; Antigonus of the Pamphylians and Cilicians as far as Phrygia; Asander of the Carians, Menander of the Lydians, and Leonnatus of the Phrygia that is by the Hellespont. And so Asia was distributed.

In Europe, Thrace and the Chersonese fell to Lysimachus. Antipater was set as supreme commander over all the Macedonians and Greeks, and the Illyrians and Triballians and Agrianians, and as many as were on the European continent ^C over whom he had been appointed by Alexander while he was still alive, with full and supreme power. The office of guardian, and whatever concerned the protection of the royalty, was entrusted to Craterus, which is indeed the highest pinnacle of honor among the Macedonians; Perdiccas held the chiliarchy of Hephaestion.

There were rulers of all the Indians, Porus and Taxiles; but to Porus were assigned the lands lying between the river Indus and the Hydaspes, and to Taxiles the rest. Pithon, another of these, ruled over those bordering them, except for the Parapamisadae. Those bordering the Indians, as many as inhabit the region under the ^D Caucasian mountains, were assigned to Oxyartes the Bactrian, who was the father of Roxana; to whom a son was born after the death of his father, Alexander, upon whom the multitude of Macedonians bestowed the name of his father, Alexander. Sibyrtius commanded the Arachosians and Gedrosians, and Stasanor the Solian ruled the Areians and Drangians. Philip was in command of the Sogdians, Radaphernes of the Hyrcanians, and Neoptolemus of Carmania. The Persians were placed under Peucestas. The kingdom of the Sogdians had been held by Oropius, not possessing the authority as an ancestral right, but by the gift of Alexander himself; but when a certain misfortune befell him, causing him to flee the charge of rebellion and be stripped of his authority, he then held their rule in common with another. The rule of the Babylonians and of the region situated between the rivers Tigris and [E] Euphrates was so distributed that Seleucus ruled the former, and Archelaus ruled over Mesopotamia. This was the number of the nations and of the rulers over the nations, when Perdiccas, after the death of Alexander, portioned out the commands. And the rest.

^A And in most of the other narratives, he agrees in the greatest part with Arrian, just as in these.

LXXXIII. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, *History*, in XX Books.

We have read the twenty books of the *History* by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, son of Alexander. It begins from the arrival of Aeneas in Italy after the capture of Troy, and continues to relate in great detail the founding of Rome, the birth of Remus and Romulus, and everything in order thereafter, until the war of the Romans against Pyrrhus the Epirote commenced. He also describes the war itself and concludes at the third year of the 128th Olympiad; from which time he says the Megalopolitan Polybius began his history. ^B This writer flourished in the times of Augustus; for, after the civil war which was waged between Augustus and Antonius had ended, he sailed to Italy. There, having lived for two and twenty years, as he says, and having learned the Latin language accurately (though he was a Greek), and having investigated all the antiquity of Roman affairs, and having finally prepared all things necessary for writing history, he began his undertaking. His style and diction are innovative, forcing the discourse into a mode remote from the common. But the detailed explanation of individual events and his insight brings a certain simplicity to it, and prevents it from being carried away into ^C an unpleasing and harsh style. He employs digressions not rarely, by which he relieves the hearer of the saturation that comes from history, while resting and refreshing him. To say it briefly, the elegance of his speech, tempered by the narrative of individual events and by digression, softens the diction which would otherwise trend toward the rougher.

LXXXIV. The same author’s *Synopsis* of the aforementioned books.

We have read the *Synopsis* of the same twenty books of history, itself comprised in five books. In this, while he seems to outdo himself in elegance, ^D yet you might think it stripped of all pleasantness. However, this fact contributes more to its utility, as he intersperses nothing into the discourse except what is necessary. One might say that, dispensing justice as if from a throne, and using an austere and concise style—and further, in his composition and diction—he sends forth a kind of echo, and he presents himself in a somewhat sharper manner to his listeners. Nevertheless, the discourse in the synopsis is not inappropriate, though it is by no means suitable for the perfect and complete history. It is clear that this author—as well as Dio Cocceianus and...

Appian of Alexandria, the historians of Roman affairs—was of an earlier age.

LXXXV.

Heraclianus, Bishop of Chalcedon,

Twenty Books Against the Manichaeans.

Read were the twenty books of Heraclianus, Bishop of Chalcedon, ^A *Against the Manichaeans*. His style is concise, sparing, and sublime, yet without lacking in clarity, for its grandeur is tempered by it. He mingles Atticism with familiar parlance, and as if he were a teacher of boys, he strives in the contest for what one might call "hyper-Atticism." He refutes what the Manichaeans call their *Gospel*, their *Book of Giants*, and their *Treasures*. He also lists those who, before him, had taken up the pen against the Manichaean impiety: namely, Hegemonius, who transcribed the disputation of Archelaus against him; Titus, who, though he thought he was writing against the Manichaeans, wrote rather against the works of Addas; and, in addition, George of Laodicea, who employs almost the same arguments for the truth as Titus did against this impiety. Furthermore, he mentions Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis, and finally the aforementioned Diodorus, who contended against the Manichaeans in twenty-five books. In the first seven of these ^B books, Diodorus believes he is refuting the living *Gospel* of the Manichaeans, but he does not catch it; rather, he refutes what was written by Addas, which is called the *Modion* [the Bushel]. In the remaining books, he clarifies and explains with purity those places in Holy Scripture which the Manichaeans were accustomed to adapt to their own preconceived notions. Thus it is with Diodorus. Having made mention of these Fathers—as the most pious Heraclianus calls them—he briefly confirms whatever was not stated by them with sufficient firmness; he piously supplies what was omitted; and he cites with total integrity whatever was set forth with sufficient accuracy, while bestowing an honorable mention upon their names, and adding likewise what occurred to his own mind.

This man breathes with the vigor of philosophy, and is excellently instructed in the resources of ^C other branches of learning. Therefore, he most powerfully refutes the things that the Manichaeans fabulously prattle about, and from the very consideration of the things that exist, he refutes their fabulous nonsense regarding the Existent.

This twenty-book work against the Manichaeans was written by him for a certain Achillius who had requested it, whom he also calls his faithful and most beloved son. For Achillius, seeing ^A the impiety of the Manichaeans spreading wide, had requested that a monument be inscribed against it, and it is recorded as an indelible triumph. This most pious Heraclianus flourished during those times.

LXXXVI. The Epistles of Saint John Chrysostom, which he wrote while in exile.

There were read the epistles of the holy Father John Chrysostom, which he wrote to various people after his unjust and inhumane exile. Among these, the seventeen written to the most devout deaconess Olympias, and those to Innocent, the Bishop of Rome—in which he also narrates, as far as a letter allows, all that happened to him—are the most useful ^B of all. He employs in these epistles his customary character of speech; for it is brilliant and clear, and flourishes with a pleasant persuasiveness, except that the letters composed to Olympias seem to have been written with somewhat more care; for they could not be entirely adapted to the epistolary style, because the magnitude of the events forced the laws of speech and drew them to itself.

LXXXVII. Achilles Tatius, *On the Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon*, eight books.

We read the eight books of *The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon* by Achilles Tatius the Alexandrian. It is a dramatic work, introducing certain unseemly loves. In its diction and arrangement, ^C indeed, it seems to excel; for it uses clear and appropriately turned expressions whenever it makes use of them; and most of the sentences are well-defined, clear, and bring a certain sweetness, smoothing the ear with their resonance. But the excessively foul and impure nature of the notions belittles the judgment of the writer in every serious matter, and makes the reading abominable and to be avoided by those who wish to read it. In the structuring and fashioning of the stories, however, except for the names of the persons and that detestable obscenity, it seems to have a great similarity in layout and dramatic fiction to the work of Heliodorus.

LXXXVIII. Gelasius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, *Ecclesiastical History*, three books.

We read a book, in the form of a history, ^D of the matters in the Nicene synod.

^A The book is in three volumes. The author says that Hosius of Córdoba and Biton and Vincentius, Roman priests, were present as delegates of the Roman Pontiff Silvester. He says that Eustathius of Antioch was there in person, and Alexander, who at that time held the rank of presbyter, was present as the delegate for Metrophanes of Constantinople; for the latter was prevented by extreme old age, since his length of life extended beyond one hundred years. He says that Alexander of Alexandria was also present, along with Athanasius, who later became his successor in the see. Furthermore, he says that Macarius of Jerusalem was there, and a great multitude of other bishops and priests. He states that the synod was assembled in the sixteenth year of the reign of Constantine, and that its proceedings were extended until the twenty-first year and a half, the Fathers having been in session, clearly, for six years.

He reports that Arius was expelled there and struck by the thunderbolt of anathema, ^B but that later he attempted again to gain admission, with Eusebius, who governed Nicomedia, and Eutocius the Arian—an ordained presbyter whom Constantia, the sister of the Emperor, commendably entrusted to her brother while she was dying—attempting this many times. But although these men strove to bring Arius back into the Church, divine retribution did not allow this enemy of her sanctuary and holy inner shrine to insult it while the sentence pronounced against him held; it ordained that he should end his life in the latrines on that very day on which he and his sectaries and followers had determined, by his return, to profane the Church of God and the holy things. This departure of the impious man from life happened in a public place, because those latrines were situated very near the forum. He writes that Constantine the Great rejoiced that God, as an uncorruptible judge, had settled every controversy by the judgment He rendered, and that he soon sent letters to various people, in which he proclaimed to all the just vengeance upon Arius, as if inscribed upon a tombstone. And this writer’s narrative is in agreement with Athanasius the Great, with Theodoret, and with many others. ^C For it seemed to some that it was not in the times of Constantine the Great, but when his son Constantius was reigning, that Arius departed from human life in so foul a manner. And these [things are what he says].

^A And these things this book contained; for the name of the author was not written upon it. In another copy, however, which contained the same things, I found the book inscribed: "By Gelasius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine." The diction, moreover, is observed to verge more than is fitting toward a humble and lowly style. But who this Gelasius is, I have not been able to ascertain clearly. For up to now we have encountered the books of three ^B Gelasiuses, as far as one can conjecture, who were bishops of Caesarea in Palestine, or at any rate, of two. The books we have encountered are these: one is composed *Against the Anomoeans*; the other two record ecclesiastical acts, of which we have just made summary mention. This latter one has, in the copy where we found it inscribed—the inscription, as has been said—*Three Books of Ecclesiastical History by Gelasius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine*.

The beginning of the work itself is of this sort: ^C *Regarding the holy, great, and universal synod of bishops gathered from all, so to speak, the provinces of the Roman world, and from Persia, and so forth.* And it ends at the death of Constantine the Great, when, having received the divine laver of the remission of sins, he washed away the stains of this life which, as is wont to happen to a man, he had inevitably contracted through the common lot of mortals. He states, however, that he was baptized by an orthodox priest who performed the initiation and the rite, and not, as some have supposed, by ^D one of the heretics. He says that the delay of his baptism was prolonged because he greatly desired to be baptized in the very waters of the Jordan. This writer also asserts that he flourished under Basiliscus, who, having expelled Zeno, seized the tyranny, and that he read the acts of the synod written on ancient membranes while he was still living in his paternal home. From this memory, and by gathering useful materials from other writings, he composed his history. Moreover, he remembers and praises certain sayings of a certain Gelasius, whom he names Gelasius himself, and also [mentions] Rufinus. He says, furthermore, that his home country was Cyzicus, and that his father was one of the presbyters there. Such is the author of this book, and these things this book itself records.

LXXXIX. Prologue of Gelasius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, to the supplement to the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphili.

The remaining [part of the] book has an inscription such as this: Now the other [ecclesiastical matters, of which I spoke above...

and the rest,] ^A the Preface of the Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, to the things which are added to the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphili, begins in this way: "The others who have set their minds to writing, and who have determined to commit to memory the history of events that have occurred, and so forth."

^B He says that Cyril, the bishop of Jerusalem, was his uncle on his mother’s side, and that he was urged by him to undertake this writing. But we have discovered, having read in other sources, that Cyril himself and this Gelasius translated the history of the Roman, Rufinus, into the Greek language, but not that they composed a history of their own. It is clear that this man was older than the aforementioned, if he indeed flourished in the time of Cyril of Jerusalem. But this Gelasius is, both in his style and in his eloquence, different from that one. Each of them, however, is far inferior to the man who wrote against the Anomoeans. That bishop, too, is described as belonging to the same Palestine, but in his diction, his varied learning, and his logical arguments—which, however, I know not how to say, he used somewhat ineptly—he leaves the other two, who were seen to hold a lower order in their mode of speaking, far behind. Whether one of them is himself the author who wrote these things, and collected them at a suitable time, and added the remaining parts, I have not yet been able to learn.

XC.

The Orations and Epistles of the Sophist Libanius

Two volumes of Libanius were read. In his fictitious orations, which he wrote merely for the sake of exercise, he is superior to himself as he is in his other works. For while he wishes to be overly diligent and curious, he has corrupted the natural and flowing grace and beauty of his language—if I may say so—in those other works, and has fallen into obscurity, rendering many things more obscure by interpolations, and some even by the removal of necessary parts. Otherwise, in this genre, he is a rule and standard of Attic speech. He also has a distinguished reputation in the writing of epistles; and many and varied writings are circulated as his.

XCI.

Arrian’s Seven Books on the Deeds of Alexander the Great

We read the seven books of Arrian on the deeds of Alexander the Great, in which he recounts the [negotiations] with the Athenians...

entered into a pact with the others, the Greeks, with the exception of the Lacedaemonians; his crossing into Asia; and how ^A in three battles he crushed the Persians: at the Granicus, destroying the satraps of Darius who were leading an army of twenty thousand cavalry and nearly as many infantry; at Issus, routing Darius himself along with his forces, and capturing his children and his very wife; and finally, at Arbela or Gaugamela, conquering him decisively. How, as he was fleeing, Darius was slain by his own people, and Bessus was proclaimed king in his place by those around him; and how, later, Alexander captured Bessus and, on account of his audacious injury to Darius, mocked him and put him to death. Moreover, how Alexander was wounded seven times in battle, and how he seized the royal treasures in Pasargadae; and that, having been persuaded that Philotas was plotting a conspiracy against him, he executed him and his father Parmenion. He also became master of the Sogdian realms and defeated the Scythians in Asia in battle. How the tragedy of Cleitus occurred when Alexander was overcome by drink, and what grief he displayed once he had returned to sobriety. Furthermore, the conspiracy of the pages against Alexander and the punishment meted out for it. How the rock in the Sogdian region was captured, and the wife of Oxyartes, who ruled over that territory; as well as his daughter Roxana, whom Alexander later took to wife according to the law of marriage. And how Alexander, having marched from Bactra to the Indies, defeated them in battle and captured many of their cities by siege; among these, having taken the one called Aornos, he invaded the territory of the Asacani. Additionally, the Indus river was bridged for him with boats, and upon crossing it, he defeated Porus, the king of the Indians, in a single battle and took him alive, yet afterward he treated him with kindness and granted him rule over more territory than he had held before. He says that the Indian rivers, just like the Nile, swell in summer and diminish in winter. He also describes how another Porus, who also ruled over Indians and whom he says was a villain, was pursued by Alexander across the Hydaspes river, where he defeated ^B the Indians who dwelt there, and after besieging their large and populous cities, advanced to the Hyphasis river. ^C When, however, Alexander intended to cross this as well, the rank and file were overcome by sedition, no longer able to endure the toils and the endless campaigning; and this became the cause of Alexander’s withdrawal from the Indies. With this incident the fifth book of the author is concluded.

As the sixth book sets forth, upon Alexander’s return, many battles and victories ^D occurred for him against the enemy, and...

^A in those battles, fighting bravely, he received five wounds to his upper body, and then two more; even though it appeared he would die from the seventh, he was nevertheless healed without difficulty. Returning from India, he made his journey back by land, having entrusted a portion of the army to Nearchus, with orders to return by sea. These two forces, the maritime and the land-based, met one another at Carmania. ^B From Carmania, Alexander proceeded to Persis, having commanded Nearchus to sail towards the region of the Susians and the mouth of the Tigris river. Arrian covers this voyage of Nearchus in the Ionic dialect, and designates it by its own title, the *Indica*.

After this, Alexander restored the neglected tomb of Cyrus, and permitted Calanus the gymnosophist—who had requested to enter the fire because he was troubled by disease—to die according to his native custom. He also celebrated his own wedding, as well as those of his companions, with great splendor. ^C He himself took the eldest of Darius’s daughters, by name Arsinoe, and the youngest of the daughters of Ochus, who was called Parysatis (for Roxana had already been taken to wife previously). He gave Drupetis, also a daughter of Darius, to Hephaestion in marriage; to Craterus he gave Amastrina; to Ptolemy and Eumenes he gave the daughters of Artabazus, Artacama and Artonis; to Nearchus he gave the daughter of Barsine and Mentor; and to Seleucus he gave the daughter of Spitamenes. He joined the other companions to the most noble daughters of the Persians and Medes, to the number of nearly eighty, in stable wedlock, the marriages being celebrated according to the rite and custom of the Persians. He also sent the veteran Macedonians, now discharged, to Macedonia, and ordered Antipater to bring him newly levied troops in their place. While these things were being done, Harpalus stole the royal treasury and fled in escape. ^D Hephaestion also departed this life, at whose death Alexander was overcome with great grief, and he went to incredible expense for the funeral pyre and the rites due to his body. At this same time, envoys from Africa and Carthage were sent to him; indeed, also from Italy, as the author here reports. Observing them, he declared and predicted the growth of the Italians toward those regions. A desire to go to Babylon then seized him, and the seers predicted his death; and when, thoughtlessly, a certain man had sat upon his throne, from that incident the augurs predicted his death with even greater certainty. Nevertheless, he prepared his fleet as if sailing against the Arabs, who are the majority, or the…

^A only ones who worship gods, Heaven and Bacchus. While he was preparing for these things, he was overcome by the force of disease and ended his life. His death has been recorded in various ways by different authors, and many disagreements have been put forth about it. He lived for thirty-two years and eight months, and he reigned for these eight months and twelve years. The author praises him in a marvelous way for almost all his virtues, and in this the seventh book concludes, which is followed by one book, the *Indica*.

[214 R]

XCII. The same author’s *Events after Alexander*, in ten books

^B The same author also wrote the *Events after Alexander* in ten books, in which he covers the sedition of the army and the proclamation of Arrhidaeus, who had been born to Philip, the father of Alexander, by the Thessalian woman Philinna, upon the condition that Alexander, whom Roxana was destined to bear to Alexander, would also reign with him—which indeed happened when the child was brought into the light. Those who proclaimed Arrhidaeus king renamed him Philip. But the infantry and the cavalry were in disagreement with one another; among the greatest of the horsemen and leaders were Perdiccas son of Orontes, Leonnatus son of Anthaeus, and Ptolemy son of Lagus; ^C after these were Lysimachus son of Agathocles, Aristonus son of Pisaeus, Pithon son of Cratevas, Seleucus son of Antiochus, and Eumenes of Cardia; these were the leaders of the cavalry, but Meleager was the leader of the infantry. Then various embassies were sent between them, and finally, those of the infantry who had already named the king and the leaders of the cavalry came to an agreement that Antipater should be general in Europe, Craterus the guardian of Arrhidaeus’ kingdom, and Perdiccas the chiliarch of the chiliarchy which Hephaestion had commanded (this was the stewardship of the entire kingdom), while Meleager would act as Perdiccas’ deputy. But afterward, ^D Perdiccas, pretending to purify the army, arrested the most prominent men of the sedition that had occurred, and, having arrested them, he put them to death as if by the order of Arrhidaeus, with him present, having struck fear into the rest of the multitude. Not long afterward he also made away with Meleager. From these actions, Perdiccas was suspect to all, and he himself was suspicious. Nevertheless, he decided to proclaim as satraps those whom he suspected, as if by Arrhidaeus’ command. And thus Ptolemy son of Lagus was ordered to rule over Egypt and Libya, and as much of the land of the Arabs as borders upon Egypt, while Cleomenes, who…

^A had been established there as satrap by Alexander, became his deputy prefect. ^B To Laomedon was assigned Syria, which lies adjacent to this satrapy. Philotas was made prefect of Cilicia, as was Pithon of Media (37). Eumenes the Cardian received Cappadocia and Paphlagonia, and all the lands bordering upon the Euxine Sea as far as the city of Trapezus, a colony of the Sinopeans. To Antigonus were given Pamphylia, Lycia, and Greater Phrygia. Caria fell to Cassander; Lydia to Menander; and the Phrygia that lies by the Hellespont (38), which in Alexander’s own time a man named Calas held, and which had subsequently been entrusted to Demarchus (39), was given to Leonnatus. Thus was Asia distributed at that time.

Truly, in Europe, Lysimachus was appointed prefect of Thrace and the Chersonese, and the tribes bordering on Thrace, up to the sea that touches the city of Salmydessus on the Euxine. But all regions beyond Thrace toward the Illyrians, Triballi, and Agrianians, and even Macedonia itself and Epirus, reaching as far as the Ceraunian mountains, together with all of Greece, fell to Craterus and Antipater. Thus was the division made; for very many places remained undivided, subject to the indigenous prefects, just as they had been settled by Alexander.

In the meantime, Roxana, being pregnant, gave birth to a son, whom the military multitude soon proclaimed king; and everything was filled with seditions after the departure of Alexander. ^C For Antipater waged war against the Athenians and the rest of the Greeks, whom Leosthenes the commander defended; and although he was at first defeated and driven into straits, he eventually prevailed, though he lost Leonnatus, who had brought reinforcements to Antipater. Lysimachus also fought over-boldly for his authority against Seuthes the Thracian; for although he fought with few men and conducted himself valiantly, he was nevertheless destroyed. Perdiccas likewise joined battle with Ariarathe, prefect of Cappadocia, because he would not yield the rule to Eumenes, who had been ordered to govern there. Thus, being superior in one battle and then another, he captured and hanged him, and restored Eumenes to his kingdom. Craterus, bringing auxiliary forces to Antipater against the Greeks, became the author of that victory by which the Greeks were defeated; wherefore, they were obedient to the command of both, and did whatever was ordered thereafter without hesitation. And these matters are comprised in five books.

The sixth book reports how those around Demosthenes and Hyperides fled from Athens, ^D as did Aristonicus the Marathonian and Himeræus, the brother of Demetrius of Phalerum, who first came to Aegina; and while they were dwelling there, at the pleading of Demades, a sentence of death was passed upon them by the Athenians.

^A And he relates how Archias the Thurian, who had ministered to their death, ended his life having been reduced to extreme poverty and disgrace. And how Demades, not much later, having been brought to Macedonia, was slain by Cassander, after his own son had been slaughtered before his eyes in his lap. Cassander alleged as the cause of this killing that Demades had once insulted his father when he wrote to Perdiccas to "save the Greeks who were hanging by a rotten and old thread," thus mocking Antipater with these words. Dinarchus the Corinthian was the accuser. But Demades paid the penalty deserved for his own corruption, treachery, and faithlessness in all things.

He recounts also how Thibro the Lacedaemonian killed Harpalus—who, while Alexander was still living, had stolen his wealth and fled to Athens—and having taken whatever money remained to him, he was sent first to the city of Cydonia in Crete, and from there he crossed over to Cyrene with an army amounting to six thousand men; he was led by the exiles of the Cyrenaeans and Barceans. Among them, in many battles and many traps, sometimes winning and sometimes being defeated, in the end, while fleeing, he was captured by certain Libyans driving a two-horse chariot, and was brought to Epicydes the Olynthian at Teuchira, for whom Ophellas, a Macedonian man who had been sent by Ptolemy son of Lagus to aid the Cyrenaeans, had entrusted that city. ^B The Teuchiritae, with Ophellas giving them authority, punished Thibro with lashes and sent him to be hung upon a cross in the harbor of the Cyrenaeans. But since the Cyrenaeans nonetheless persisted in their rebellion, Ptolemy himself finally arrived, and once all matters had been settled, he sailed back home.

Perdiccas, furthermore, was insidiously summoning Antigonus to court; but the latter, knowing he was being plotted against, refused to obey, and from this arose mutual hostility. At this time, Iollas and Archias came from Macedonia to Perdiccas, bringing to him in marriage Nicæa, the daughter of Antipater. ^C But also Olympias, the mother of Alexander the Great, was sending to him, betrothing her daughter Cleopatra. Eumenes of Cardia was advising him to take Cleopatra, but the counsel of his brother Alcetas inclined rather toward the marriage with Nicæa, and his opinion prevailed. Not long after, the fate of Cynane occurred, which Perdiccas and his brother Alcetas ^D brought about. This Cynane

^A had Philip as her father, and from her mother, Eurydice, she was born; she was the wife of Amyntas, whom Alexander made haste to kill when he was setting out for Asia. This Amyntas was the son of Perdiccas, and Perdiccas was the brother of Philip, so that Amyntas, who had been slain, was cousin to Alexander. Cynane brought her daughter Adea, who was later renamed Eurydice, to Arrhidaeus as a wife; and he did later marry her, with Perdiccas arranging it in order to settle the sedition of the Macedonians, which had been ignited by the death of Cynane and was proceeding toward a great evil. ^B Antigonus, meanwhile, fled into Macedonia to Antipater and Craterus, and he disclosed the plot that Perdiccas was devising against him, and affirmed that he was zealously meditating the same thing against everyone. Similarly, he described the fate of Cynane in tragic terms. Having set these things forth, he inflamed them to wage war against Perdiccas.

Arrhidaeus, also, who was guarding the body of Alexander, having taken it against the will of Perdiccas, proceeded to Ptolemy, son of Lagus, traveling from Babylon through Damascus to Egypt; and though he was often hindered by Polemon, a familiar of Perdiccas, he nevertheless prevailed, having managed the affair according to his own wish. In the meantime, Eumenes, by the gift of Perdiccas, brought presents to Cleopatra at Sardis, and informed her that it had been decided by Perdiccas to send away Nicæa and take her in her place. When this became known—for Menander, the satrap of Lydia, had informed Antigonus of it, and through him it had been made public to those with Antipater and Craterus—they were stirred up all the more vehemently to pursue war against Perdiccas. ^C Antipater and Craterus crossed the Hellespont from the Chersonese, having deceived the guards of the strait by means of embassies. Embassies were also sent to Eumenes and Neoptolemus, who were subject to Perdiccas; and while Neoptolemus consented, Eumenes would not countenance it.

Thenceforth Neoptolemus began to be suspected by Eumenes, and a war was engaged between them; and Eumenes, being superior in strength, prevailed. Neoptolemus fled with a few men to Antipater and Craterus, and he brought them to agree to come to his aid in a war against Eumenes, and asked that Craterus be given to him as an ally. ^D Without delay, both fought a battle with Eumenes. Eumenes made every effort to ensure that his own men would not realize that Craterus was warring against them, lest, moved by his reputation, they should either desert their own camp and cross over to him, or at least, if they remained with him, be less bold; and having succeeded by these stratagems, he prevailed also in the battle; and Neoptolemus fell by the very hand of Eumenes the secretary, a man who was martial and had distinguished himself in wars; Crater-

- ^A us, however, engaging every opponent fearlessly, and advancing in such a way that he might be recognized, was nonetheless killed by certain Paphlagonians without them knowing who he was, even though he had mostly removed his helmet. Nevertheless, the infantry reached Antipatrus safely from the battle, which eased much of the despondency.

Perdiccas set out from Damascus to Egypt to fight against Ptolemaeus, son of Lagus, together with the kings and their forces. Having accused Ptolemaeus, and the latter having cleared himself of the charges before the multitude, appearing to have been accused unjustly, Perdiccas nonetheless waged war, though the common soldiers were unwilling. Being defeated for the second time in this war, and having become very harsh towards those who wished to go over to Ptolemaeus, and in other respects ^B behaving in the camp more haughtily than befitted a commander, he was killed by his own cavalrymen while he himself was fighting.

Ptolemaeus, however, after the removal of Perdiccas, crossed the Nile to the kings, and, having treated them with kindness and other attentions, received not only them but also as many of the Macedonians as held rank with affection. He openly showed that he grieved for the lot of even Perdiccas’s own friends, and as many of the Macedonians as seemed to be in any danger, he strove by every means and method to free them from fear. By which it came to pass that he was praised by the mouths of all, both at that time and thereafter.

A council having been convened, Pithon and Arridæus were declared in the meantime to be in command of the entire force in place of Perdiccas, and about fifty ^C of the followers of Eumenes and Alcetas were condemned, mostly because of the killing of Craterus, since the Macedonians were at odds with one another in internal battles. Antigonus was also summoned from Cyprus, and Antipater was ordered to hasten to the kings.

But as they had not yet arrived, Eurydice desired that Pithon and Arridæus should do nothing without her. At first they did not resist, but later they objected that she had no part in public affairs; for them, until Antigonus and Antipater should arrive, the care of all matters would remain. When these had arrived, the supreme command was entrusted to Antipater. The army ^D demanded the rewards promised to them by Alexander for the campaign, and Antipater replied that for the moment he had nothing to state precisely, but when he had examined the royal treasuries and whatever was laid up elsewhere, then he would act in as capable a manner as he could so as not to be thought blameworthy by them; as to which, however, the army did not listen with pleasure.

But since Eurydice was fanning the flames of sedition with accusations against Antipater, the resentment from the multitude resulted in an uprising. And Eurydice harangued against him, the scribe...

Asclepiodorus reporting her speech, and besides her, Attalus also. Indeed Antipater was with difficulty snatched from slaughter, Antigonus and Seleucus interceding with the undisciplined mob, whose advocacy Antipater had requested: they themselves also were, on this account, in no small danger of their lives. Having thus escaped death, Antipater withdrew to his own army, and the cavalry commanders, being summoned by Antipater, came to him, and with the sedition finally and with difficulty put to an end, they decreed that Antipater should rule again, as before. ^A

The Partition of Asia

And a division of Asia was made by him as well, confirming part of the previous partition, and changing part where the necessity of the times required it. For he declared that Egypt and Libya, and the vast land beyond these in Africa, and whatever else had been won in war and lay towards the setting sun, should belong to Ptolemy. To Laomedon the Mitylenaean he assigned Syria. Philoxenus (52) retained Cilicia, which he had received as his province previously. Among the upper satrapies, he assigned the land between the rivers and Arbelitis to Amphimachus, the king's brother; to Seleucus, however, he added Babylonia. To Antigenes, who had been the first to attack Perdiccas, and was the leader of the Macedonian Argyraspids (53), he gave the command of the whole of Susiana. Peucestes was confirmed in Persis. Tlepolemus was set over Carmania, and Pithon over Media as far as the Caspian Gates (18). To Philip he gave the land of the Parthians; he appointed Stasander as governor of the region of the Arians and Drangenae, Stasander the Solian over Bactriana and Sogdiana, and Sibyrtius over the Arachotae. The Parapamisadae (19) were given to Oxyartes, the father of Roxana; as for Indian territory, he assigned the border ^B region near the Parapamisadae to Pithon, son of Agenor; the adjacent satrapies—the one along the river Indus (21) and Patala, which is the largest of the cities in that part of India (22)—he entrusted (23) to King Porus, and that along the river Hydaspes to Taxiles, also an Indian, since it was not easy to remove them, as they had been established in their authority by Alexander himself and possessed sufficient power. As for the regions extending from Mount Taurus towards the North, he entrusted the Cappadocians to Nicanor; Antigonus (24), as before, retained Greater Phrygia and Lycaonia, Pamphylia, and Lycia; Asander received Caria; Lydia was given to Cleitus, and Phrygia on the Hellespont (25) to Arrhidaeus. For the collecting of the money at Susa, he appointed Antigenes, and handed over to him three thousand of those Macedonians who had most rebelled. ^{C D}

^A He named as his bodyguards Autolycus, son of Agathocles, and Amyntas, son of Alexander, brother of Peucestas; also Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy, and Alexander, son of Polyperchon; and he appointed his own son, Cassander, commander of the cavalry, while he set Antigonus as leader over the forces previously commanded by Perdiccas, and, entrusting to him the guard and care of the kings, he committed to him, as he was willing, the duty of waging and finishing the war against Eumenes. Antipater himself, being highly praised by all for everything he had achieved, departed for home. With this the ninth book concludes.

The tenth book relates how Eumenes, having learned of what had befallen Perdiccas and that he had been voted an enemy by the Macedonians, prepared for war. And how Alcetas, the brother of Perdiccas, fled because of this; and Attalus, who in the rebellion against Antipater was second to none, also fled and joined the other exiles. There was gathered for Attalus an army of ten thousand infantry and eight hundred cavalry. ^B And how Attalus and those with him, attempting to attack Cnidus, Caunus, and the Rhodians, were stoutly repulsed by the Rhodians, Demaratus being their admiral. It also relates how Eumenes was close to coming to blows with Antipater as the latter was coming toward Sardis, but Cleopatra, the sister of Alexander, in order that she might not be slandered among the multitude of the Macedonians as being herself the cause of the war among them, advised and persuaded Eumenes to withdraw from Sardis. Nevertheless, when Antipater arrived, he reproached her for her friendship with Eumenes and Perdiccas. She defended herself against these charges with more strength than is expected of a woman, and retorted many other things, and finally they took their leave of each other in peace. ^C That Eumenes, falling unexpectedly upon those not subject to him, collected much booty and money, and greatly enriched his own army. He also sent envoys to Alcetas and those with him, requesting that they bring their forces together to one place and so fight against the common enemies; but they, having consulted with one another, in the end were not persuaded. That Antipater did not yet dare to war with Eumenes, but sent Asander to wage war against Attalus and Alcetas; and after a battle whose outcome was evenly matched, Asander was defeated. That Cassander was at variance with Antigonus, and Cassander was stopped, his father Antipater preventing the disorderly conduct against Antigonus. Nevertheless, Cassander, having met his father in Phrygia, was persuaded not to withdraw far from the kings and to hold Antigonus in suspicion. But he, by his moderation, by his other attentions, and by his virtue, as far as he was able, dispelled the suspicion. And Antipater, being softened in his [disposition]... ^D

surrendered to him [Antigonus] eight thousand five hundred Macedonian infantry from those forces which he had brought across with him into Asia, and an equal number of foreign cavalry; half of the elephants, that is seventy, so that he might more easily wage the war against Eumenes. Thus, Antigonus began to conduct this war, while Antipater, taking the kings and the rest of the forces, departed as if to cross into Macedonia. He adds that there again the mutinous soldiers demanded money, and Antipater promised to see to it and provide for them when they reached Abydus, or perhaps a full donation, or if not, at any rate the greater part. Enticed by this hope, they were led without sedition as far as Abydus; from whence he himself by night (having deceived the soldiers by his craft) crossed the Hellespont along with the kings toward Lysimachus; and on the following day they also crossed, resting for the present from their demand for money. And this is the end of the tenth book. ^B

This author is certainly not to be ranked behind any of those who have best composed history. For he excels in the brevity of his narratives, and nowhere harms the continuous tenor of history with inopportune digressions or frequent parentheses. Furthermore, observing propriety, he is so adept in his new composition of speech rather than in mere vocabulary that his narrative could not possibly be rendered clearer or more lucent in any other way. While he employs significant, sonorous, and polished expressions, he tempers his oration as much with equability as with grandeur. The innovation of words is not sought by him from afar, but gathered from close at hand, and such as adds the greatest light to his speech, so that the vocabulary serves as a kind of demeanor and gesture rather than a replacement of common words. Whereby it happens that clarity arises, not only in this respect ^C but also in the apparatus, the arrangement, and especially the composition of the narrative: which is the entire artifice of clarity. Now, the use and treatment of simple and clear periods is generally found even among the unlearned: yet it lowers the speech too much into a lazy and humble genre of expression, especially if that use is pure and unmixed. This author of ours (although it might seem to contribute to clarity) never permitted this. He uses the tropes of ellipsis, not by cutting through the compass of the words themselves, but by suppressing single terms in such a way that it leaves no trace of a defect in understanding: and this to such an extent that if anyone should attempt to add what is missing, they would rightly be judged as having added something superfluous rather than having supplied a defect. He also [arranges] a wealth of figures to ^D optimize his oration.

For he does not suddenly and all at once change the obvious and natural usage, but bit by bit and from the very beginning he mingles these elements. Thus, he brings neither weariness through satiety nor confusion through sudden change. In short, to say it once, if anyone after reading this [author] should turn to other historians, he would discover that even many of the ancients are inferior to him.

It has been my pleasure to set forth here, in schematic form, the distribution—or I might almost say the dismemberment—of the Macedonian kingdom after Alexander was already dead, both so that it might be presented in a single view and so that the disagreement between the Greeks Arrian and Dexippus, and the Latins Justin, Curtius, and Orosius, might better appear.

DIVISION OF THE PROVINCES OF THE EMPIRE OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT MADE BY PERDICCAS

As found in Arrian here, at the beginning of codex XCII.

Since before, by agreement between the infantry and the cavalry, Antipater, Craterus, and Perdiccas had been appointed as follows: Antipater: Commander of the army in Europe. Craterus: Guardian of the kingdom of Arrhidaeus. Perdiccas: Military tribune in place of Hephaestion:

Ptolemy son of Lagus: Ordered to command Egypt, Libya, and Arabia, as far as these touch the borders of Egypt. Cleomenes: In the place of Ptolemy, with vicarious power. Laomedon: Syria. Philotas: Cilicia. Pithon: Media. Eumenes of Cardia: Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and the regions bordering the Euxine Sea, as far as Trapezus. Antigonus: Pamphylia, Lycia, and Greater Phrygia. Casander: Caria. Menander: Lydia. Leonnatus: Phrygia, which is upon the Hellespont. Thus Asia was divided.

IN EUROPE, HOWEVER: Lysimachus: Ordered to command Thrace, the Chersonese, and all the tribes bordering Thrace as far as Salmydessus on the Euxine Sea. Craterus: All the regions beyond Thrace as far as the Illyrians, Triballians, and Agrianians, and Macedonia itself, and Epirus as far as the Ceraunian mountains, and all of Greece.

A SECOND DIVISION OF PROVINCES BY ANTIPATER

Ptolemy: Received Egypt, Libya, and the vast region which lies beyond these. Laomedon of Mytilene: Syria. Philoxenus: Cilicia. Amphimachus: Mesopotamia and Arbelitis. Seleucus: Babylonia. Antigenes: The satrapy of Susiana. Peucestes: Persis. Tlepolemus: Carmania. Pithon: Media, as far as the Caspian Gates. Philippus: The region of the Parthyæi. Pithon son of Agenor: The province of the Aræi and Drangenians. Stasander: Bactriana and Sogdiana. Stasanor of Soli: The Arachotians. Sibyrtius: The Parapamisadians. Oxyartes, father of Roxanes: The neighbors of the Parapamisadians. Porus: The regions by the river Indus and the city of Patale. Taxiles: The province by the river Hydaspes. Nicanor: The Cappadocians. Antigonus: Greater Phrygia, the Lycaonians, Pamphylians, and Lycians, as before. Asander: Caria. Clitus: Lydia. Arrhidaeus: Phrygia on the Hellespont.

Antigenes, Autolycus son of Agathocles, Amyntas son of Alexander, and the same one's brother Peucestas, Ptolemy son of Ptolemy, Alexander son of Polysperchon received the guardianship of the king’s body. Casander son of Antipater, Antigonus received the command of the cavalry; command over the forces, formerly Perdiccas', and the king’s guard.

DIVISION OF THE MACEDONIAN EMPIRE

IN ASIA. To Ptolemy, son of Lagus, fell: All of Egypt, and Libya, and whatever lies beyond Egypt. To Cleomenes: The office of acting deputy prefect. To Laomedon of Mytilene: Syria. To Philotas: Cilicia. To Pithon: Media. To Eumenes: Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and everything extending toward the Euxine Sea as far as Trapezus. To Antigonus: The Pamphylians and Cilicians as far as Phrygia. To Asander: The Carians. To Menander: The Lydians. To Leonnatus: Phrygia on the Hellespont.

IN EUROPE. To Lysimachus: Thrace and Chersonesus. To Antipater, Craterus, and Perdiccas fell: All the Macedonians, Greeks, Illyrians, Triballi, Agrianes, and everything in Epirus. To Craterus: The dignity of guardian and royal curator. To Perdiccas: The chiliarchy of Hephaestion.

AMONG THE INDIANS. To Pero, Taxiles, the other Pithon, Oxyartes the Bactrian, the father of Roxana, Sibyrtius, Stasanor the Solian, Philippus, Rhadaphernes, Neoptolemus, Peucestas, Oroptes, Seleucus, and Archelaus fell: The peoples between the Indus and the Hydaspes. The remaining Indians. Those bordering on the Indians, except for the Parapamisadae. The peoples subject to the Caucasian mountains, closest to the Indians. The Arachosians and Gedrosians. The Ariaei and Drangians. The Sogdians. Hyrcania. Carmania. The Persians. A part of the Sogdians. The Babylonians. Mesopotamia.

PARTITION OF THE MACEDONIAN PROVINCES

They receive from Perdiccas: Ptolemy: Egypt, and a part of Africa and Arabia. Laomedon of Mytilene: Syria. Philotas with his son: Cilicia and the Illyrians. Acropatus: Lesser Media. Alcetas, brother of Perdiccas: Greater Media. Synus: The Susian people. Antigonus, son of Philippus: Greater Phrygia. Learchus: Lycia and Pamphylia. Cassander: Caria. Menander: Lydia. Leonnatus: Lesser Phrygia. Lysimachus: Thrace and the regions of the Pontic sea. Eumenes: Cappadocia with Paphlagonia. Seleucus, son of Antiochus: The high tribunate of the camps. Cassander, son of Antipater: The prefecture of the king's bodyguards and attendants. Taxiles: The territory between the Indus and the Hydaspes river. Pithon, son of Agenor: The colonies established in India.

XCIII. Arrian's Bithynica

^A I have read the *Bithynica* by the same author in eight books, in which he writes down in detail the mythical accounts concerning Bithynia and all other matters pertaining to it, offering the history of his fatherland to his fatherland. For he shows in this work that his lineage was from Nicomedia, and that he was born, raised, and educated in that city, and that he held the priesthood of Demeter and her daughter, to whom he writes that the city is consecrated. In this work he also makes mention of other treatises, of which one treats of all that the Corinthian Timoleon accomplished in Sicily, ^B and the other relates the deeds of Dion of Syracuse worthy of mention, when the latter liberated Syracuse and all of Sicily from the tyranny of Dionysius the younger, who was the son of the former, and from the barbarians whom Dionysius had brought in to ensure his tyranny. It appears that he wrote this account of his fatherland in the fourth place; for he states that this work was completed after his histories concerning Alexander, Timoleon, and Dion [after the histories concerning those men]; yet he had intended from the beginning, from the time he was able to write, to set out and compose this subject matter, but the need for extensive preparation protracted the time. For this is the cause he himself gives for the delay and the late publication.

He begins, therefore, as has been said, from the mythical accounts of history, and proceeds as far as the end

^A of the last of the Nicomedes, who, at his death, bequeathed the kingdom to the Romans by his will, though they had not yet been ruled by kings since the expulsion of Tarquinius.

XCIV. Iamblichus, The Affairs of Rhodanes and Sinonidis, in 16 books.

The fictional narrative of Iamblichus, representing love affairs, was read. Although it reveals the secrets of stolen pleasures slightly more honorably than Achilles Tatius, it is nonetheless far more shameless than that Phoenician, Heliodorus. For these three, having proposed to themselves almost the same goal, have treated the subject of erotic dramas; yet Heliodorus does so more gravely and decently, Iamblichus less decently than him, while that Achilles, who narrated the loves of Leucippe and Clitophon in eight books, does so obscenely and shamelessly. His style, moreover, is flowing and soft, and if there is anything plausible in it, it is distorted not toward firmness and rigor, but toward a certain titillation, so to speak, and wantonness. Furthermore, Iamblichus, as far as the excellence of his words and composition and the order of his narratives are concerned, would truly have been worthy of displaying his rhetorical art and skill not in these ludic fictions, but in the most serious matters.

The characters of the drama are therefore introduced: Sinonidis and Rhodanes, both beautiful in appearance, who, as they were joined by the law of marriage, so also were they lovers of one another. Garmus, the king of Babylon, having lost his wife, was seized by love for Sinonidis and hastened to take her as his wife. But when Sinonidis refused, she was bound with a golden chain, and for this reason Rhodanes—the task having been committed to Dama and Sacas, the royal eunuchs—was to be hoisted upon a cross. However, through the zeal of Sinonidis, he was delivered from it, and both of them escaped, he from the cross, she from the marriage. For this reason the ears and noses of Dama and Sacas were cut off, and they were sent to track down the fugitives, and having divided themselves into two parties, they prepare themselves; and ^B nothing happened more nearly than their being ^C [omitted: see note] by ^D

^A caught by Dama, during his pursuit, near a certain meadow; for it was a fisherman who gave information to the shepherds, who, being tortured, with difficulty pointed out the meadow. In it, Rhodanes found gold, which was indicated by the inscription on the column upon which a lion sat. ^B And a certain phantom of a goat began to love Sinonis; for which reason, those with Rhodanes departed from the meadow. But Damas, having found the crown of Sinonis there, sent it to Garmus as a consolation. Fleeing, those with Rhodanes encounter an old woman dwelling in a hut, and they hide themselves in a cave which was dug through for thirty stades; its mouth was obstructed by a thicket. And those with Dama stand over them, and the old woman is examined, and having seen a drawn sword, she fainted. The horses of Rhodanes and Sinonis, on which they were riding, are captured. And the army surrounds the place in which Sinonis and Rhodanes were hiding, and the bronze shield of one of the patrols is broken above the excavation, and by the void of the echo, the hidden ones are made known, and the excavation is dug out, and Damas shouts everything. And a sensing comes to those inside, and they flee under the recesses of the cave, and they escape through its other opening. ^C And a swarm of wild bees from there turns upon those digging, and the honey also flows down upon the fugitives; but the bees and the honey were infected with the poison of the food of serpents; from this, those whom they stung at the excavation, they partly weakened and partly even killed. Compelled by famine, Rhodanes and his companion, having licked some of this as well, after it flowed into their bellies, were cast down by the road as if dead. But those forces, being unable to withstand the war waged by the bees, turn their backs, yet they continue to pursue Rhodanes; but as they see those whom they were pursuing lying prostrate, they pass them by running, thinking them to be truly dead. In this cave, Sinonis’s hair is shorn, through which water was to be drawn for them, and having found this, Damas sends it to Garmus, as a sign that it was imminent ^D that they would be captured. The army, approaching Rhodanes and Sinonis, who were lying by the road as if dead, according to the ancestral custom, some cast down tunics to cover them, while others cast down some other thing of what they had, and parts of meats and bread; and thus the army passed by. But they, being overcome by lethargy from the eating of the honey, rise with difficulty, as ravens were fighting over the meat, stirring Rhodanes, and he in turn stirring Sinonis. Having risen, therefore, they walk in the opposite

direction from the army, so that they might better remain unnoticed as fugitives. And having found two donkeys, they mount them, and load on them the burdens which they had brought with them, from the things which the army had cast aside as if for the dead. ^A Then they descend into an inn, and fleeing from there, they lodge in another inn near the crowded marketplace. Meanwhile, the slaughter of the brothers occurs there, of which they are accused, but later exonerated. For the elder of the brothers, who had destroyed the younger with poison, had indeed accused them, but by laying hands on himself, he had again freed them from every charge. Rhodanes, unknowingly, carries off the poison from there with him; and after this, they enter the house of a robber, who used to waylay travelers and serve them up to himself as food. However, ^B soldiers sent by Damas, after they had captured the robber, cast fire into his house; having been caught by this fire, they escaped death only with great difficulty, by preparing for themselves a passage through the donkeys that had been slaughtered and thrown into the fire. They are seen at night, therefore, by the soldiers who had set the fire, and when asked who they were, they answer that they are the spirits of those whom the robber had slaughtered; and with the pallor and thinness of their faces and the weakness of their voices, they persuaded the soldiers and struck them with terror. Taking to flight again from there, ^C they chance upon a girl being carried out for burial, and they mingle with the crowd flowing together for the spectacle. Here an old Chaldean standing nearby forbids the girl from being buried; affirming that she still breathes and lives, as the event itself declared. Prophesying also to Rhodanes, he predicted that he would one day reign. Therefore, the tomb of the girl is left empty, left with many garments that were to have been burned at the tomb, as well as food and drink; and those around Rhodanes banquet on these, and taking also some of the clothing, they sleep in the girl's tomb. But those who had cast the fire into the robber's house, having realized at sunrise that they had been deceived, ^D pursued the tracks of Rhodanes and Sinonis, believing them to be accomplices of the robber. Having therefore been led by the tracks to the tomb, and seeing them lying there, yet not moving (because they were buried in sleep and wine), they believed they were seeing corpses; and they did not touch them, uncertain whether the tracks led there. Rhodanes departed from there, and crossed the river, whose water is sweet and clear and, as it happens, provided drink for the king of Babylon; and while Sinonis is selling garments there, she is seized as though she had plundered a tomb, and is brought to Soraechus, son of Soraechus the publican, nicknamed the Just. And he resolves to send her to king Garmus on account of her beauty, and for this reason they mix the poison of the brothers for Rhodanes and Sinonis; for death was more desirable to them than to see Garmus. Meanwhile, a servant reveals to Soraechus what Rhodanes and Sinonis were intending. Secretly, therefore, Soraechus...

he rejects that death-dealing potion, and fills the cup with a sleeping draft; and having taken them while they were drinking and falling asleep, he drove them in a carriage to the king. ^A As they approached closer, behold, Rhodanes, awakened from his sleep, calls out and rouses Sinonide, and she soon wounds her breast with a sword. Soraechus, having inquired about everything concerning them and having given his word, understood all things and freed them from their bonds; he then showed them the shrine of Venus on the island, where the wound of Sinonide would be healed.

Moving somewhat away from his proposed subject, he narrates matters concerning that shrine and the island, which the Euphrates and the Tigris, by flowing around it, make into an island. ^B He states that the priestess of Venus there had three children, Euphrates, Tigris, and Mesopotamia—the latter having been born deformed in appearance, but having been granted such beauty by Venus that she even became a cause of strife among her three lovers, and a judgment was held upon them; Borocho, or Borychus, was the judge, who was considered the most prominent judge of his age. He adds that these three contended and submitted to judgment because she had offered the cup from which she was accustomed to drink to the one, had placed the floral wreath taken from her own head upon the second, and had given a kiss to the third. ^C And although the third, who was kissed, was the victor in the judgment, the strife nonetheless continued among them until they destroyed one another in their quarreling. He speaks, therefore, by way of a digression, about the shrine of Venus, and how it is necessary for women who come there to publicly announce the dreams they saw while sleeping in the temple. In this section, he also recounts in detail the matters concerning Pharnuchus, Pharsiris, and Tanais (from whom the river Tanais also takes its name), and that the mysteries of Venus surrounding Tanais are those of this Tanais and Pharsiris. ^D On the aforementioned island, the Tigris, having eaten of the roses, dies; for a beetle (cantharis) had been sitting underneath the rose petals while they were still folded together. And the mother of the boy is persuaded that her son has become a hero, having been transformed. Iamblichus then goes through the types of magic: the magician of locusts, the magician of lions, and the magician of mice—from which the mysteries are also said to be derived from the mice (for the magic of mice is the first of all). He also mentions a magician of hail and a magician of serpents, and of divination from the dead, and the ventriloquist, whom, he says, the Greeks call Eurycles, but the Babylonians call Sacchuran. This writer also claims that he himself was a Babylonian, that he learned magic, and that he added to it the education of the Greeks; and that he flourished in the time of Soaemus, the son of Achaemenides, grandson of Arsaces, who was a king descended from kings, but who had also become a member of the senate in Rome, and a consul, and then again king of greater Armenia. In his time, therefore, he says that he flourished. Regarding the Romans, he discusses the reign of Antoninus.

^A when, he says, he sent Verus the emperor, his brother and son-in-law, to wage war against Vologaesus the Parthian, as he himself had predicted both that this war would come to pass and when it would end. And that Vologaesus fled beyond the rivers Euphrates and Tigris, and the land of the Parthians became subject to the Romans.

Now Tigris and Euphrates were children resembling each other, and Rhodanes resembled both. After that other son, as we have said, had been put to death by means of the rose, Rhodanes crossed over to the island together with Sinonide; and his mother, seeing Rhodanes, cried out that her dead son had come to life again, and she ordered her daughter to follow behind him. Rhodanes pretended to accept this, mocking the simplicity of the islanders. Meanwhile, Damas came to learn of what had happened to Rhodanes and all that Soraechus had done ^B regarding them. The informant and accuser was the very doctor whom Soraechus had secretly sent to tend to the wound of Sinonide. For this reason Soraechus was captured and led to Garmus. The informant himself was also sent, carrying a letter from Damas to the priest of Venus, in which he was ordered to seize those with Sinonide. The doctor, therefore, crossing the river of the sacred island, attached himself, according to custom, to a camel and placed the letter in the right ear [of the beast]. Finally, the informer was drowned in the river, but the camel swam across to the island, and those with Rhodanes learned everything, having taken the letter of Damas from the ears of the camel. For this reason they fled from there, and they met Soraechus being led to Garmus, and they all lodged together in an inn. There, at night, Rhodanes, moved by the desire for gold, ^C easily persuaded them, and the guards of Soraechus were put to death, and Soraechus fled with them having found this as a mutual reward for his prior kindness. Furthermore, Damas seized the priest of Venus, and instituted an inquiry concerning Sinonide; and when the old man was finally condemned by sentence to become an executioner instead of a priest, Euphrates learned the habits and customs of an executioner. The father, who was also the priest, took Euphrates to be Rhodanes, and addressed him as such; and his sister, Mesopotamia, fled. Then Euphrates himself was led to Sacas and was questioned concerning Sinonide, for he was held and examined as if he were Rhodanes. Therefore, Sacas sent word to Garmus that Rhodanes had been captured and that Sinonide would soon be captured; for Euphrates, being judged as if he were Rhodanes, said that ^D Sinonide had fled while he himself was being captured, being forced, of course, to call his sister Mesopotamia, Sinonide.

Rhodanes, meanwhile, and Sinonis, having turned to flight together with Soraechus, entered the hut of a farmer, who had a daughter, a girl beautiful in appearance, just recently widowed by her husband and by the

^A desire for him had shorn her hair. She is sent to sell the golden necklace, which Rhodanes and Sinonis had brought with them from their chains; and the farmer's daughter goes off to the goldsmith. And he, having seen the beauty of the girl's face, and the part of the necklace of which he himself happened to be the maker, and her shorn hair, suspects that she is Sinonis, and after sending to Damas and taking guards, he kept watch on the girl as she was departing, on the sly. But she, having suspected what was being done, flees to a deserted lodging; in which place also the things concerning the girl called Trophima, and her lover the slave and murderer, and the golden finery occurred: furthermore, those wicked deeds of the slave, when he laid hands upon himself, so that the farmer's daughter, splattered with the blood of him who had destroyed himself and struck with fear, had fled, with the guards also terrified and turned to flight. And so, the girl having returned to her father, recounts what had happened. Wherefore Rhodanes takes to flight from there. But before this, letters had been sent to Garmus by the goldsmith regarding the fact that Sinonis had been found: and he had established credibility, both when the necklace was bought and sent to him, and with the other things he had conjectured while suspecting the farmer's daughter. Rhodanes here, while departing to provide for himself by flight, offers a kiss to the farmer's daughter. Because of this, the anger of Sinonis flared up, while at first she came into suspicion regarding the kiss, ^B which suspicion was then even more confirmed when she wiped from the lips of Rhodanes the blood that had adhered to him from kissing the girl. On account of this, Sinonis seeks to kill the farmer's daughter, and made haste to return to her, like some madwoman; and Soraechus accompanies her, since he was not able to restrain her maddened impulse. And they descend to a certain rich man, but of depraved character, Setapus by name, who is in love with Sinonis and attempts her; but she pretends to love him in return, and in the night, when Setapus was drunk and at the beginning of his love, she destroys him with a sword. And having ordered the courtyard to be opened, and leaving behind Soraechus, who was ignorant of what had been done, she drove on towards the farmer's daughter. But Soraechus, having learned of her departure, pursued her, and catches up, having with him some of Setapus's slaves whom he had hired, in order that he might prevent the slaughter of the farmer's daughter; and having caught up, he takes her up into the carriage (for this too had been prepared for him) ^C and drives back. But as they were returning, the other servants of Setapus, since they had seen their master had been killed, ran up in a rage, and having seized Sinonis and bound her, they led her away to Garmus as a homicide, about to pay the penalty. And Soraechus was a messenger of the evils to Rhodanes, having sprinkled dust upon his head and having rent his tunic. And Rhodanes rushes to destroy himself; but ^D Soraechus prevented him. But Garmus, having received the letter of Saca regarding the fact that Rhodanes had been captured, and from the goldsmith regarding Sinonis being detained,

rejoiced, sacrificed, and prepared the wedding; he issued a proclamation everywhere that all prisoners should be released and sent away. Thus Sinonis, who was being led into chains by the servants of Setapus, was released and freed by the common proclamation. Garmus orders Dama to be put to death, and he was delivered to the very executioner whom he himself had transformed from a priest into an executioner. For he was indignant that Rhodanes and Sinonis, as he supposed, were being held by others. His brother, Monasus, succeeds Dama.

A narrative follows concerning Berenice (66), the daughter of the king of the Egyptians, and of her wild and unspeakable love, and how she came to have conversation and familiarity with this Mesopotamia.

^A jealousy and rushed at the girl. But Rhodanes, having recovered enough strength from his wound to overcome his pain, met her and restrained Sinonis, snatching the sword from her. Then she, leaping out of the lodging in a fury and running in a manic rush, simply threw this back at Rhodanes: "I invite you today to the wedding of Garmus." Soraechus arrived, and having learned everything, he comforted Rhodanes, and after they had tended to the wound, they sent the girl away with money to her father.

Euphrates is led to Garmus as if he were Rhodanes, and Mesopotamia ^B as if she were Sinonis; Soraechus and the real Rhodanes are also led forward. But Garmus, recognizing that Mesopotamia was not the real Sinonis, gave her to Zobaras to be beheaded by the Euphrates river, so that, he said, no other person might usurp the name of Sinonis by her example. Zobaras, however, possessed by love for Mesopotamia, saved her and brought her to Berenice of Egypt, who was now queen as her father had died, and from whom he had himself been abducted long ago, and he arranges a marriage for Mesopotamia with Berenice. For this reason, also, Garmus and Berenice threaten each other with war. Euphrates likewise is turned over to his father as to an executioner, and being recognized, he is saved: he performs his father’s duties, so that the father does not soil himself with human blood. ^C Later, however, he left the prison as the executioner’s son and escaped free. 78a In the same place there is also an account of the executioner’s concubine, and her laws and customs; and how the farmer’s daughter, after Sinonis had been married to the king of Syria and had obtained the power to exact vengeance, was snatched away by force and condemned to lie with the executioner. Therefore, entering the executioner’s enclosure, she stood with Euphrates; he, pretending to be her, left the enclosure in her place, and she in turn performed the office of the lictor in place of Euphrates. And indeed these things were done in this manner. Soraechus, however, is condemned to be crucified, and ^D the place is determined where Rhodanes and Sinonis had first lodged, in that meadow and by the spring, in which places Rhodanes had also earlier discovered the hidden treasure, which he now pointed out to Soraechus as he was being led to the gallows. A force of Alans then, by chance having been cheated of their pay by Garmus and being hostilely disposed toward him, was sitting in the same place where Soraechus was to be crucified. They drove off those who were leading Soraechus and freed him. He, having found the gold that had been pointed out, and by a certain art and cunning having drawn it up from the pit, persuaded the Alans that he knew these and other things, having been taught by the gods. By gradually winning them over, he so accustomed them to him that they acknowledged him as their king,

and he wars against Garmus’s army and wins; but these events happened later.

When Soraechus was being led to the gallows, at the same time Rhodanes was also led by Garmus, who was wearing a crown and dancing, once again to that same cross and was fastened to it. But while Garmus was indulging himself in luxury there, and leading a dance around the cross together with the female flute players, rejoicing and making merry, a letter sent by Sacas was delivered to Garmus, stating that Sinonida had been given in marriage to the King of the Syrians, who was still an adolescent. At this news, Rhodanes, ^B hanging there, was exhilarated; but Garmus rushed to kill himself. He restrained himself, however, and soon released Rhodanes against his will from the cross (on which he would have preferred to die), adorned him with military insignia, and appointed him commander of the war that he was waging against the King of the Syrians, as though making a lover the commander against a rival. Thus was he received by Garmus, kindly but deceitfully. For he secretly commanded his other, lower-ranking commanders by letter that, if they happened to gain victory and capture Sinonida alive, they should kill Rhodanes. But Rhodanes won and recovered his Sinonida, and became ruler of the Babylonians. The omen of the swallow had foretold this beforehand; for when Garmus was present and was sending off Rhodanes, an eagle and a kite were pursuing it; it escaped the eagle, but was snatched by the kite. And here is the end of the sixteen (69) books.

XCV.

John the Scholastic’s Against the Eutychians, in Twelve Books

^C There was read John the Scholastic’s (70) *Against the Deserters of the Church*, or *Against Eutyches and Dioscorus and their sectaries*, who refused to preach Christ in two natures. A certain patriarch named Julian (71) had requested that this work be written; and it is completed in twelve volumes. The writer’s language is clear and pure, and he uses words suited to the historical style. Furthermore, he does not struggle weakly against the heresy, nor does he misuse the testimonies of Holy Scripture, and he does not omit logical arguments wherever they pertain to the subject itself. But the author of this sectaries’ writing, against whom this Scythopolita directs his work, concealed his own name, craftily prefixing this title to his work: *Against Nestorius*, so that by the very title of the book he might furtively entice the simpler folk into reading it. Perhaps the author is Basil the Cilician, who later also composed a dramatic dialogue against John, worthy of his own religion. ^D

XCV. Georgius, Bishop of Alexandria, On the Life of the Blessed Chrysostom.

^A [252 R.] A book was read bearing the title, *Matters Concerning Chrysostom*, by George, Bishop of Alexandria; as for who this person is, I cannot definitively say. His diction is certainly simple, sinking into a very humble style; nor does it employ, even to the standard of a schoolmaster, an accurate construction of nouns and verbs. He reports, however, that he has collected his history from Palladius the bishop (Palladius was a bishop, and he recorded the matters concerning Chrysostom well and studiously in the form of a dialogue), as well as from Socrates and various others.

He says, then, that the great John was born at Antioch to Secundus and Anthusa, who were notable among those in Antioch. Since they were pagans in their religion, Meletius from Armenia, who was then presiding over the Church of the Antiochenes, instructed them in ^B saving doctrine (for they had previously followed the worship of the nations) and deemed them worthy to partake of the life-giving laver of baptism, having first initiated and baptized their son. The great John, therefore, is reported to have attended a teacher. From childhood, he practiced extreme humility; for this reason, he did not allow himself to be pampered like boys who are customarily surrounded by wealth and glory, nor indeed would he permit such boys to accompany him, nor would he even endure being carried on horseback.

Then in Antioch, he was educated in grammar and rhetoric by Libanius, and in philosophy by Andragathius. Upon the death of his father, he became a consolation to his mother in her mourning, abstaining from all games and pleasures, and applying his mind solely to his studies. ^C He departs, therefore, for Athens to acquire remaining knowledge, and in a short time, having surpassed everyone, he was envied by Anthemius, who at that time served as a priest of Athena and was considered the first among the philosophers there. The prefect of the city (Demosthenes by name) summons the wise John with great ceremony; but he arrives very modestly. When words broke out between himself and Anthemius, John prevailed in wisdom, understanding, and piety. And it was then that the first miracle was performed by him there, in that Anthemius was seized by a demon and was delivered through the tongue and prayer of John—who, along with his entire household, was baptized by the bishop of the city. ^D

^A The prefect, however, inasmuch as he had been baptized long before, was instructed in the catechism, and a very great multitude of pagans joined him. The bishop of the city already intended to ordain John ^B and to leave him behind as bishop in his own stead. Learning of this, he sailed away secretly and quickly to his own homeland. While the citizens of Antioch wished to entrust to him the authority of a magistrate, he preferred the solitary life, being no more than eighteen years of age. A crowd of his fellow students, who had studied under the same teacher, also persuaded Theodore—who later became bishop of Mopsuestia—and Maximus ^C (who later also presided as bishop of Seleucia)—having cast aside their lucrative public careers, to embrace a private and simple life. John consorted very much with Basil the Great (not with the other one, as some claim), whom Meletius ordained as deacon, and whom John preferred in friendship above the rest. This man, having bidden farewell to the world before John, invited his friend to the same way of life, though the concern of his mother had until then hindered him. Zeno, the bishop of Jerusalem, having arrived by chance, ^D appointed John a reader of the Church of Antioch; shortly thereafter, John’s mother died. Having distributed his paternal wealth to the needy, and having left the city, he gave himself over to the monasteries outside of it, and he became a mirror and rule for all who lead a religious life.

Concerning Hesychius the monk

Hesychius, a monk of Syrian descent, being gifted with prescience, saw two men clothed in white garments; one of them held a book, and the other held keys, and each of them handed these to John, the one saying that he was the apostle Peter, the other saying that he was John the Theologian. Hesychius related these things to the monks, taking care, however, that they should not be reported to John, lest, because of his extreme humility, he should—as he said—depart from our monastery. They say that he labored intensely in religious exercises at that time and also wrote ascetic treatises.

Moreover, he also performed miracles in this monastery. For a certain citizen had been so afflicted by pain in one side of his head that his right eye was hanging loose; he, therefore, approached John and immediately received healing. Furthermore, a certain Archelaus, powerful in wealth and authority, having contracted leprosy on his face, was commanded to wash in the pool from which the brothers drank cold water, and was freed from his disease. He, having distributed his worldly goods, renounced the things of this world in the same monastery where he had been restored; and many others did so as well. A certain man named Eucleus, having lost one eye due to the wickedness of a demon, came to join himself to the monks, and by the h-

-^Aoly man’s prayer, he recovered his eye. A woman also, afflicted with a flow of blood for seven years, recovered her health. It is said that a lion, too, was snatching away many travelers; but when, upon being entreated, John had impressed upon them the sign of the cross, the beast was exhausted by its power.

Moving on to four years later, on account of the crowd of those approaching him, he departed from the monastery, and for two more years he lived in a certain cave, for the most part without sleep, and never once lying on the ground during that entire time. Having, however, suffered local necrosis from the cold in those parts of his body reaching from his belly to his loins, he was forced by this affliction to return into the city, where he was ordained deacon by Meletius, and he served at the altar for five years. At that time, he also wrote his three books to Stagirus, as well as *On the Priesthood* and *On the Incomprehensible*.

Upon the death of Meletius in Constantinople, the blessed John returned again to the monastery. Flavian, having succeeded Meletius in the Antiochene see, was warned by a divine apparition and, bringing him from the monastery into the city, created him a presbyter; which vision indeed commanded both that John be ordained and that Flavian perform the ordination. That dove, too, which flew down and settled above the head of the one being ordained, sufficiently showed how he was to be filled with the grace of God. Thus, he performed holy services at Antioch for twelve years. Because of his ardent zeal for moral integrity, he was, from his very youth, severe and harsh, ^B and more inclined toward indignation than toward leniency. At Antioch he again composed various commentaries, and at the urging of the bishop, he preached impromptu from the elevated place to the people.

The son of a woman named Eucleus, having been struck by a fever to the point of medical despair, was cured by John using water which he had signed with the cross and given to be sprinkled. Likewise, a certain woman of the sect of the Marcionites (whose husband held a certain magistracy in that city), lying desperately ill with dysentery, was restored to health through him; and she, along with her husband and her entire household, as well as many other Marcionites, abjured their heresy and returned to the orthodox.

When Nectarius of Constantinople had finished his life, Chrysostom was summoned from Antioch, though the Antiochians resisted greatly, for they did not wish to lose their own good. The imperial mandate, however, prevailed, and Theophilus, the prelate of Alexandria, ordained him against his will; for charges were brandished at him, and libels of accusation were threatened, should he not agree to the ordination. He was ordained, therefore, by common decree, and a man possessed by demons was delivered by his aid.

^A Thus, the great Chrysostom immediately abolished the custom whereby those who professed celibacy kept companions of the opposite sex living with them. He also inveighed at length against those who were unjust, gluttonous, and given over to sensuality. Furthermore, he was so devoted to the poor that he was called by many "John the Almoner." In a word, he both taught every virtue and deterred men from every vice. He also sent monks into Phoenicia to bring back those still held by idolatry from their error; equipped with imperial authority, they overturned the temples of the idols, the costs of their destruction being supplied by devout women. Moreover, he brought the Celtic troop of soldiers, which was infected with Arianism, back to the bosom of the orthodox, having ordained priests who knew the language of that people. Furthermore, he sent men to the Ister who willingly drew the nomadic Scythians to the truth of the Christian faith. He also utterly extirpated the heresy of Marcion, which was then springing up in the East. He augmented the nocturnal hymn-singing. He was accustomed to eat alone, both because he totally abstained from wine on account of the heat in his head (unless perhaps in summer, when he would drink rose-water) and because, having a sickly stomach, he would rarely eat the things placed before him, but would ask for others instead; and thirdly, because he would frequently, when occupied with business, pass the day without food. To the clergy, however, he seemed too rigid and harsh. And Serapion, his deacon, caused him great unpopularity. John also expelled many others from the Church for various reasons. Serapion also clashed with Severian, the bishop of Gabala, and this gave birth to a great hatred on his part toward John, which he retained even to his dying breath. Yet John was loved with singular devotion by the people because of his frequent sermons in the temple; for his part, he loved the Epistles of St. Paul deeply and interpreted them. It is said that the Apostle Paul appeared to Proclus for three continuous nights, inspiring the great John toward the interpretation of his epistles.

^C John also offended the Augusta on account of Theudericus the patrician. For after he had with difficulty freed the man from the unjust exaction which the Augusta was demanding, and he—having donated the greatest part of his wealth to the poor of the Church as a free gift to God—had thereby inflamed Eudoxia with anger and envy, Eutropius took care to have a law passed, that those taking refuge in the church should not obtain the privilege of asylum, and

no sooner had he done so than he himself enjoyed the benefit of that very legislation. While he lay ^A prostrate under the altar, the great John delivered a discourse of rebuke, and stirred up hatred against himself in many; for he seemed to strike out with excessive heartlessness at a man in misfortune. He deprived the Arians of their churches, and having implored the help of the emperor, he drove them out of the city. Moreover, he surpassed them in their own practice by which they were wont to deceive the simpler folk through the singing of antiphons, having enlisted the empress’s aid, so that silver crosses were even erected for the embellishment of the antiphon-singing. They say that the origin of antiphons traces back to Ignatius, that godly man, who was imitating the angels singing the praises of God in this manner. Gainas, the Arian, being very powerful, asked the emperor for a church, but John, being present at the time, rebuked him with great boldness and thwarted the request. ^B Some time later, when he raised a hand against the emperor, John, without delay—all others being of the same mind—went to him as an envoy, and then quelled the uprising.

Eusebius, bishop of Valentianopolis after Celbianus, presented libels against Antoninus, the prelate of the Ephesians. The documents contained seven counts of accusation: three of sacrilege; furthermore, that he kept with him a boy who had become a murderer, whom he had not even rebuked for this reason; that whatever had been left for the benefit of the Church by Basilina, the mother of Julian, he had sold and claimed for himself; that, moreover, he was again living familiarly with his wife, whom he had previously abandoned for the sake of piety, and had even had offspring by her; and seventhly, that he ordained for money. ^C The seventh count was examined as the weightiest, and since the trial was being prolonged for a long time (for the accuser himself was also said to be acting wickedly on purpose), Antoninus meanwhile met his end. Wherefore the great John himself set out for Ephesus, and deposed those who had been ordained for money and who confessed to the crime, six in number. He also deposed six others in that same Asia for the same ailment. In place of Antoninus, he appointed Heraclides, his own deacon, from which a sedition arose, and as replacements for the others, he created bishops far superior in piety and other virtues. Yet all of these, after Chrysostom was driven into exile, were deprived of their episcopacy, and those who had been ejected by judicial sentence were reinstated in their sees.

Severianus, ^D a certain bishop of Gabala, having learned that Antiochus had come to Constantinople, [260 R.]

^A and had gathered a following through his gift of speech, arrived there himself. John the Great, departing for Ephesus, entrusted his duties of teaching in the Church to him during his absence, and from this he became known to the Emperor and to everyone.

^B Callitropa, a widow of a certain shipmaster, was being subjected to unjust fines. Paulacius, the Augustalis of Alexandria, was the one who was harassing the poor woman to extract these fines, the sum of which amounted to five hundred coins. She fled to the Empress, and Paulacius was required to pay a hundred pounds of gold: yet only thirty-six coins fell to this miserable and afflicted little woman. Therefore, she fled to the common harbor of those tossed by the storm, the great John. Paulacius was summoned by him and required to pay the five hundred coins of the widow. Eudoxia conceived a grudge against him because of this, striving to have Paulacius released without being held to account; but justice was not set aside for her, and the just bishop, demanding only what was fair, restored to the wronged woman what that man had unjustly retained. In this matter, a miracle also occurred: while Eudoxia was striving to pull Paulacius away even against the will of John, behold, an angel carrying a spear appeared, who, striking terror into the satellites sent by the Empress, prevented them from carrying out her commands. From these and similar [præclaris beati Joannis facinoribus], Acacius of Berrhoea, Theophilus, Antiochus, and Severianus, with Eudoxia greatly assisting and leading the way, began to devise wicked plots against John, followed immediately by many others to whom he had been troublesome with his rebukes.

^C Theophilus accused Peter, the archpriest of Alexandria, on the grounds that he had given the Eucharist to a Manichaean woman. In his defense, he declared that she was a convert, and that he had made her a participant in the mysteries only by his [Theophilus's] command; and he brought forward as a witness to the matter Isidore, the presbyter and superintendent of the guest-house of Alexandria. This is the man whom Theophilus had previously sent to Damasus because of his virtue, and who had brought to Flavian communion and friendship from Rome, at a time when both Churches had been at variance with each other for twenty years. This Isidore, I say, gave testimony in support of Peter, and Theophilus was enraged. He immediately drove Peter from the Church, and against the admirable Isidore, he brought forward documents he had forged, full of accusations of impurity, and bribed a boy as a false accuser. When this crime was exposed, Theophilus burned with even greater anger, although he was already inflamed for another reason: for Isidore had received a thousand coins that Theodota had donated to be distributed to the poor, and he had distributed them, attributing nothing of them to Theophilus. He therefore flees because of the

^A impending wrath to the mountain of Nitria, where he had previously rested in a cell. Presiding over the monasteries of Egypt were Dioscorus, Ammonius, Euthymius, and Eusebius, own brothers, whom they called "the Long" on account of their bodily height. At that time, a dispute had broken out against the Anthropomorphite heretics. As the monks throughout Egypt were seditious—the majority of them being unlearned and rustic—Theophilus, when they set upon him, fearing being—as was evident—outwitted by this sort of sophistry, said to them: "I have seen your faces as the face of God." And when they further demanded that Origen also be anathematized, because he said the Divine is without form, he promised that he would do this too, and so he escaped death. Having seized upon this occasion against the "Long" ^B brothers (for they no longer wished, as before, to live with him; these men maintained, as sound doctrine dictates, that the Divine is without form), he slandered them to the monks in Egypt, and stirred up that bovine multitude against them, and also against the aforementioned Isidore, for whom he was more fiercely at war with them as well. Finally, after many outrages and treacheries, and after the fire that was kindled against their cells, they flee from there to Constantinople. The most compassionate John receives them and treats them kindly in other ways, but does not grant them communion on account of Theophilus. He also writes a letter to him, urging him toward peace; but the other is deceived. The "Long" ones submit libels against Theophilus. He persuades some to submit others against them; but later, when these men could prove nothing, they were imprisoned, and after being scourged ^C severely, some died in prison, while others were condemned to the exile of Proconnesus. John notifies Theophilus regarding the libels submitted against him; and Theophilus writes back in anger: "I think you are not ignorant of the decree of the Nicene canons, how they forbid a bishop to judge a case outside his own jurisdiction. If you are ignorant, learn it, and refrain from the libels against me." But then, while writing these things, Theophilus himself later judged the case against him outside his own jurisdiction. But the monks did not desist from the libels against Theophilus, and it was decreed by the Emperor that Theophilus must come to judgment. But envy prevailing, he appointed the judge to pass sentence upon John, even when he had arrived. ^D That after the senator Theognostus had been proscribed and had died in exile, his wife was stripped by the Empress of the field that had been left to her. She therefore fled for refuge to John, the protector of widows: who for

^A having spoken with much boldness on behalf of the widow, achieved nothing, but indeed stirred up the Empress to hatred against him. And she gave orders that on the feast day of the Exaltation (this is the fourteenth day of the month of September), when the unjust Empress intended to go to the church, the doors should be closed against her. The order was carried out, and the Empress was sent away shamed and filled with anger; and already the deposition and exile of the holy man were being instigated by her, and whatever other evil her fury suggested. And when, approaching the church, she found the doors shut against her, one of those with her drew a sword against those who had closed them, and felt his hand suddenly wither; yet later, having fallen at the knees of the wonderful John, he recovered his health.

^B That Epiphanius the Great, whom Theophilus craftily deceived into inciting him against John, upon coming to Constantinople committed disorders; for he ordained a deacon in the Seventh (for this is what the place of the church of Saint John is called) contrary to the canon, and performed the divine service without the permission of Chrysostom, and demanded that he condemn the writings of Origen. But our writer relates (as also his Life says) that he did not consent, as it seemed to others to say, to the deposition of Chrysostom, even though the Empress was compelling him. Yet he mentions the prophecies they exchanged with one another, in which it was shown that neither would ever see his own throne again.

Before his condemnation, furthermore, as he was aware that Eudoxia was indignant with him, he delivered a long sermon against wicked women, and the crowd, misinterpreting it, took what was said as being directed against the Empress. And when Theophilus arrived, he prepared his machinations against the great champion John. And though he had never attended the synod, Theophilus nevertheless passed a decree against him with his party, while he himself cried out in vain and publicly testified that he was prepared to come to the synod and respond to the accusations, provided they removed the manifest enemies of the council from it. Forty bishops were present with him ^C who were ready to fight on his behalf against Theophilus; but he, seeing them lamenting, calmed them with tears and urged them not to rend the Church.

Being thus driven from his see, he was banished to the Hieron of the Bosporus. But when afterwards the earth was shaken by divine power, he was brought back to Constantinople and restored to his throne against his will; for he said he did not wish to ^D take up the pastoral office before the unjust judgment against him had been submitted to an investigation. And Eudoxia, having become inflamed not long afterwards, because he had reproved her with

^A too much boldness regarding the statue which had been erected to her near the church (for a great disturbance was being created from there in the church), once again set plots in motion against the great John. Theophilus, having chanced upon this occasion as a stroke of luck, did not himself appear, fearing the hatred of the city; for he was excessively hated, because after the deposition of John he had communicated with the Tall Brothers, by means of whom he had previously laid plots against him, and he did not refrain from the Origenist writings, for which he used to slander him. He did not appear, therefore, because of that hatred, but sent another in his stead, declaring that John ought not even to be called to trial, as one who, after his deposition, had dared to perform the priestly office, the Antiochene synod having left no ^B place for any defense for one who, after his deposition, had vindicated the priesthood for himself. But the partisans of John said that the canon and the synod were indeed those of the Arians, contrived for the subversion of Athanasius, which those at Sardica had declared to be void, having received Athanasius not only for his defense, but also for the priesthood alongside Marcellus.

Chrysostom was thus prevented at that time from performing the priestly office and from coming to the church at all. The feast of Christ's Nativity ^C was at hand, and he remained until the holy Pentecost, and even for five days beyond that, resting and performing no ecclesiastical office at all. Then he was completely cast out of both the church and the city, and was exiled to Cucusus, at which time also a fire, having been kindled from the ambo of the church, consumed many of the things round about. And many of those who were against the saint were themselves made an example of, having had their lives cut short either by bizarre diseases or by divinely sent calamities. Being exiled to Cucusus, as this writer says, he both taught there and ordained many bishops, and more priests and deacons. He also worked many miracles in that exile, both while living and after his death. He died not long afterwards, the bishop of Comana and martyr Basiliscus having foretold his end to him, and he was buried in the same sarcophagus of the martyr.

Theophilus and his party condemned Heraclides, ^D the bishop of Ephesus, in his absence. And they also cast out Serapion, having subjected him to various punishments, from the bishopric of Heraclea, in which the great John had ordained him after his return from his first exile. Heraclides de-

^A then they deposed. Instead of Heraclides, they ordained a eunuch of the tribune Victor, a most foul man. They also removed others—nearly twenty bishops—from their sees; they also banished many presbyters and deacons, and more laymen, as many as were accused of being attached to John; and they also banished pious matrons, among whom the most famous were Olympias, Pentadia, Procla, and Sylvana.

Meanwhile, Innocent, the bishop of Rome, labored greatly on behalf of the blessed John, although his labor was spent in vain. For he sent apocrisiaries for this purpose, but they too were shamefully sent back; and he wrote letters, yet he accomplished nothing of what he zealously attempted; and it was with difficulty that Arsacius ^B at length inscribed the name of John in the diptychs. Until, long afterward, Proclus brought his body into the city. And these things were so.

This writer himself also appears, in some places, to have narrated things contrary to the truth of history. But what hinders the reader from selecting what is useful and passing over the rest?

XCVII.

Collection of the Olympic Games and Chronicles by Phlegon of Tralles

There was read the *Collection of Olympic Games and Chronicles* by Phlegon of Tralles, who was a freedman of the Emperor Hadrian. He dedicates the treatise to a certain Alcibiades, who was one of the bodyguards of the Emperor Hadrian. He begins the collection from the first Olympiad; because, as almost all others also affirm, the earlier events had not yet met with any accurate and true recorder, but those who happened upon them wrote about them differently—one in one way and another in another—and not in agreement with each other, even those who sought fame from this writing. Therefore, as we have said, he leads the beginning of the work from the first Olympiad; and he proceeds, as he himself says, down to the times of Hadrian.

^C I have read it as far as the 177th Olympiad, in which the victor was Hecatomnus the Milesian in the stadium race and the *diaulos* (double course), and in the race in armor the victor three times was Hypsicles the Sicyonian; in the *dolichos* (long-distance race), Caius the Roman and Aritonymias the Coan; in the pentathlon, Isidorus the Alexandrian; in wrestling, Aptotus; in the *periodos* (all-victor), Alyanas, son of Hippocrates, of Adramyttium; in boxing, Sphodrias the Sicyonian; in the pancratium, Sosigenes the Asian. In the boys' stadium race, Apollophanes the Cyparissian was victorious; in wrestling, Soterichus the Elean; in boxing, Calas the Elean, ^D as he...

Hecatomnus of Miletus [was crowned] in the boxing match for boys, and Calas of Elis in the pancratium for boys. He [Hecatomnus] ^A was crowned three times on the same day: in the stadium race, the double-stadium race, and the race in armor. Aristolochus of Elis was victor in the four-horse chariot race, while Agemon of Elis won with a single horse. The two-horse chariot race was won by Hellanicus of Elis, and he also won the four-horse chariot race for colts. Cletias of Elis won the two-horse chariot race for colts, and Callippus of the Pelius(?) won the horse race for colts.

Lucullus was at that time besieging Amisus; but leaving Murena at the siege with two legions, he himself set out with three others against the Cabeira, where he went into winter quarters. He also ordered Hadrian to fight against Mithridates; and having fought, he was victorious. An earthquake also occurred in Rome, causing much damage, and very many other events took place in this Olympiad. In the third year of it, ninety-one myriads of Roman citizens were assessed. Upon the death of Sinatruces, king of the Parthians, Phraates, surnamed "the God," succeeded him. And Patron succeeded the Epicurean Phaedrus. The poet Vergil Maro was born this year, on the Ides of October. ^B In the fourth year, Tigranes and Mithridates, having gathered forty thousand infantry and thirty thousand cavalry, and having drawn them up in the Roman fashion, fought against Lucullus—and Lucullus was victorious. Five thousand of those with Tigranes fell, and more than these were taken captive, besides the rest of the rabble. Catulus dedicated the Capitol in Rome. And Metellus, having set out for the Cretan war with three legions, came to the island, and having defeated Laosthenes in battle, was hailed as imperator, and forced the Cretans into their cities behind their walls. The pirate Athenodorus carried off the inhabitants of Delos as captives and abused the statues of those who are called gods; but a certain Gaius Triarius, repairing the ruins of the city, fortified Delos with a wall.

Up to this Olympiad I have read five books. ^C The author's style neither crawls entirely upon the ground, nor does it maintain the Attic character to an exact degree. Furthermore, his excessively tedious accuracy and diligence in enumerating the Olympiads, the names of the individual contests, their deeds, and the reporting of the oracles themselves, not only brings weariness to the reader—while all other matters in the book are obscured by it and permitted not to appear—but also renders the discourse almost unpleasant, and is judged to have no grace at all. He makes use of oracles of every kind to an excessive degree. ^D

SCHOLION

Suidas covers the catalog of this Phlegon (although he inflects the name) and attributes sixteen books of Olympiads to him. It is from the first book of these that the fragment we provide, which was published in Germany in Greek and Latin, appears to be excerpted. Eusebius, however, cites significant testimony from the fourteenth book in his *Chronicle*, which it is pleasing to append here as well.

"The cause for which the Olympic Games came to be established must be explained by me. It is as follows. After Pisu, Pelops, and Hercules, who had first instituted the solemn assembly and the Olympic contest, the Peloponnesians had intermitted that festival for some time—during that period, that is, which is numbered from Iphitus to Coroebus the Elean, encompassing twenty-eight Olympiads—and had neglected the contest, a sedition arose in the Peloponnese. There, Lycurgus the Spartan (son of Prytanis, grandson of Europus, great-grandson of Sous—who had as his father Prodeus, as his grandfather Aristodemus, and as his great-grandfather Aristomachus; he himself was the son of Cledoeus, whose father was Hyllus, born of Hercules and Deianira) and Iphitus (the son of Haemon, or, as others assert, of Praxonides, begotten by Hercules, by home an Elean) and Cleosthenes (the son of Cleonicus, a Pisæan), in order to restore the people to concord and peace, decided to restore the Olympic festival to its ancient form and to stage the gymnastic contest. They therefore sent to Delphi to inquire of the god whether he approved of their counsel. He replied that there would be a favorable outcome if they were to carry it out, and he commanded that a truce be proclaimed to the cities that wished to participate in the contest. When this oracle was announced in Greece, a discus was inscribed by the judges of the Greeks—whom they themselves call Hellanodicae—indicating the manner of conducting the Olympics. However, a plague attacked the Peloponnesians, who did not find this contest very agreeable and were annoyed by it, and it afflicted them with destruction of crops. Thus, those who had previously defected from the society of those games demanded from Lycurgus anew the removal of the plague and a remedy. The Pythia replied as follows:

O you who dwell in the famous citadel of the whole earth Among mortals, and in birth and praise are the highest, Learn the fates of God, which I am commanded to proclaim. Jupiter, who as the greatest rules the boundless world, Is angered because you have neglected holy things, Whose Olympic rites you have spoiled of their ancestral due: Which first the prince of Jove established to celebrate the honor of Pisus, And after him Pelops, under whom as king Greece Flourished, and citizens possessed walls in harmony, Instituted contests in the eyes of Oenomaus, now in darkness. A third, born of Amphitryon, dedicated these to Pelops, Keeping the pious laws of the Tantalid grandson. Angry that you dared to abolish these sacred rites and these games, Jupiter sent a dire plague and famine; But with the rites restored, these evils shall cease."

"The Peloponnesians, when this oracle was reported to them, disbelieving it, again sent others by common agreement to question the god more accurately concerning the oracle. The Pythia returned this answer:

O citizens of the Peloponnese, go around the altars, Turn your minds to the sacred dictates of the prophets, Who follow the laws and customs of their fathers, Willingly obeying the admonitions of the Elean prophets."

"Having received this oracle, the Peloponnesians conceded to the Eleans that they might institute the Olympic contest and proclaim the truce to the cities. Furthermore, later in time, when the Eleans wished to assist the Lacedaemonians who were attacking the city of Helos, they sent to consult Delphi, and the Pythia replied to this effect:

Devoid of war, defend your own country, And teach the Greeks the common rights of peace, Until the joys of the fifth year return as authors."

"With this oracle given, the Eleans abstained from war and took care of the Olympics. Five Olympiads were thus completed, in which no one was crowned. It was decided to consult the oracle a sixth time, whether crowns were to be imposed upon the victors, and for that reason King Iphitus was sent to the shrine of the god; the god said this:

Iphitus, beware of gifting the victor with apples. Rather, be crowned with the fruit of the wild olive, Which the spider has enclosed around with tender threads."

"When therefore he had come to Olympia, and there were many wild olive trees in the place, seizing one of them that was surrounded by spiders, he built an edifice; and from that tree a crown was given to the victors. The first to be crowned was Daicles of Messenia, victor in the stadium of the seventh Olympiad."

Eusebius further relates these things: "Bithynia was shaken by an earthquake, and in the city of Nicaea many buildings fell. All of which things correspond to those that occurred during the Passion of the Savior." Phlegon—who is an outstanding chronicler of the Olympiads—also wrote about these things, saying in the fourteenth book: "But in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad, a great and excellent eclipse of the sun occurred, greater than any that had happened before it: the day at the sixth hour turned into such darkness that stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia overturned many buildings of the city of Nicaea." This from the aforementioned man.

There exists a book by the same Phlegon, acephalous, *On Marvels and Long-lived Persons*, which, along with the *Metamorphoses* of Antoninus Liberalis and other small books, has been published in Germany.

XCVIII. THE SIX BOOKS OF HISTORIES BY ZOSIMUS THE COUNT

The historical work is read in six books by Zosimus the Count, and formerly an advocate of the fiscus. He is impious regarding the religion of the pagans.

and in many places he barks against the pious. Otherwise, he is brief, clear and pure in his diction, and not lacking in pleasantness. He begins his history, as one might say, from Augustus, and runs through all the emperors up to Diocletian, recounting as it were a bare list and succession of them; but from Diocletian onwards he discusses at greater length those who held power, in five books. For the first book counts the emperors from Augustus to Diocletian. And he fills the sixth book with those times in which Alaric besieged Rome for the second time, and as the inhabitants were reduced to poverty, he broke the siege and gave them Attalus as emperor, whom however he later deposed from the empire because he did not seem to manage well the rule entrusted to him; and he sent a mission to the Emperor Honorius, who was then staying at Ravenna, with the intention of making a treaty with him. But Asarus, who was also a Goth, having feuds against Alaric, having with him three hundred men whom he commanded, joined the side of Honorius and promised an alliance in war, becoming an obstacle to Alaric’s affairs. And thus his sixth book of History ends.

One might say that he did not write a history himself, but transcribed that of Eunapius, differing from it only in brevity and in the fact that he does not rail against Stilicho as the other does; but as for the rest, the history is almost the same, and especially in the disparagement of the pious emperors. It seems to me that he, too, produced two editions, just as he did; although I have not seen the former edition of this one, yet from the inscription of the new edition which we read, one may infer that another had been published by him, just as with Eunapius. But he is clearer and briefer, as we have said, than Eunapius, and does not use tropes except perhaps rarely.

XCIX. The Historical Books of Herodian

We have read the eight historical books of Herodian. It begins from the death of Marcus, the Roman Emperor, and narrates how Commodus, the son of Marcus, ^C reigned, and how, having been led astray from the character of his father by flatterers, he was later destroyed by the machinations of Marcia, his concubine, and Laetus and Eclectus. And Pertinax, an old man of noble character, succeeds to the throne; but the soldiers, hating his moderation, break into the imperial house and slay him. And how Julian, having obtained the rule from the soldiers for money, lost it not long after at their own hands. And how Niger, a man appearing to be of gentle character, was raised to the empire while Julian was still alive. And Severus, a man of keen intellect and...

capable of enduring labors, and otherwise crafty, seized the reins of the empire; he overcame his conquered rival and overcame whatever stood in his way, partly through vigorous battles and partly through cunning arts. In truth, he became more arrogant toward his subjects and died of an illness while attacking the Britons. ^A [Lib. IV.] Antoninus, the elder of his sons, thereupon returned after a treaty had been made with them, and took his brother Geta as a partner in the empire, even against his will; whom, after a short while, he killed in the bosom of Julia, the mother of both. This man, striving to surpass all in cruelty and every baseness, while staying in Syria, was plotted against by Macrinus, who feared for his own life from such a slaughter and sought to forestall him. [Lib. V.] With Antoninus therefore removed, Macrinus reigned, a man advanced in age, slothful and not at all self-controlled, but in other respects gentle and mild. ^B Now Mesa, who was the sister of Julia, had two daughters, Soemis and Mammea: of whom the elder had a son by the name of Bassianus; the other, Alexinus: both were said to have been begotten of Antoninus through furtive intercourse. The army, however, seizing the slightest pretext, proclaimed Bassianus emperor in their camp, adding the name of Antoninus; and Macrinus, having been defeated in battles and fleeing from the border regions of Phoenicia and Syria, reached Chalcedon, thinking to make for Rome from there; but those who had been sent for this purpose by Antoninus intercepted him, cut off his head, and brought it back. ^C Antoninus, for his part, as long as he obeyed his grandmother, conducted himself quite modestly, and he made Alexinus his son and Caesar at the same time, whom he renamed Alexander; but when he surrendered himself to flatterers, he left behind no kind of baseness or intemperance. And when he even began to plot against Alexander, he was prevented by the military, whom he then meditated on punishing, and so was killed by them. Alexander, therefore, son of Mammea, reigned for fourteen years; righteously indeed and mildly, as far as it depended upon him, and entirely without bloodshed. But on account of his mother Mammea’s, as he reports, greed for money and sordidness, it came about that both, having chosen Maximinus, were killed in a military mutiny. ^D [Lib. VII.] Maximinus, after him, reigned for nearly three years ferociously and tyrannically, a man haughty and cruel in his ways. Wherefore the soldiers in Africa, rioting and rising up against the governor who had been set over them by him and was similar in character, proclaimed as emperor the former proconsul Gordian, who was now eighty years old, even against his will; and Rome presently received his election with willing spirits, and all the honors of Maximinus [he...—]

^A he likewise stripped away, and added Gordian, the son of Gordian, as Caesar to his colleague. But while Maximinus was preparing for war, Gordian, realizing that he had occupied Carthage 41 together with his son, found himself in total despair of his affairs, and took his own life by hanging. The son, however, after the battle had been joined with Maximinus, was killed and perished. The Romans, deeply grieved by the fate of these men, and at the same time fearing Maximinus and pursuing him with hatred, proclaimed Balbinus and Maximus as emperors in Rome. When a mutiny was stirred up against them by the soldiers, Gordian, a descendant of the first Gordian, being still a young boy and a son of his daughter, was also made emperor together with them. And as Maximus was marching out against Maximinus, Maximinus was killed by his own soldiers, and his head was brought to Maximus, and then to Rome itself. Not long after this, the soldiers mutinied, dragged Balbinus and Maximus from the palace, ^B and after subjecting them to every kind of outrage and torture, put them to death, entrusting the empire to Gordian alone, who was about thirteen years of age. With this, the eighth book comes to an end.

The diction of this writer is clear, brilliant, and pleasant, employing a temperate style that is neither excessively Atticizing—which would violate the innate and common grace of language—nor yet so far lowered into humility that all artistic knowledge appears to have fled from it. Nor does he puff himself up with wordiness, nor omit anything that is necessary; and, to sum it up in a word, he is inferior to very few in all the virtues of history. ^C

Adriani Declamationes

Victorinus Lampadius's son's Consular Orations

Book of Gelasius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, against the Anomoeans, and arguments of Diodorus of Tarsus concerning the Holy Spirit

style is clear and vigorous, and he uses well-wrought phrases and is precise in his axioms; nor is he at a loss for arguments, and he is altogether excellent, were he not too excessively and puerilely—as if he had only just dipped into the books of the dialecticians—abusing the rules of the logical art and the very terminology itself, even if he weaves an apology for such unseasonable speech into his work. For that which he knew, after the fact, stood in need of an apology, he ought not to have undertaken from the beginning. Furthermore, the order of the book is not free from reproach.

Contained in this same volume were also various arguments of Diodorus of Tarsus ^B *On the Holy Spirit*, by which he shows himself to have been already infected with the contagion of Nestorius.

CIII. The Allegories of the Sacred Laws of Philo Judaeus, and On the Life of the Civil Man

The *Allegories of the Sacred Laws* of Philo Judaeus and *On the Life of the Civil Man* were read.

CIV. The Same, On the Manner of Life of the Essenes and the Therapeutae

The *Manner of Life of those who followed the philosophical way of life among the Jews, whether by contemplation or by action*, was also read. The former were called Essenes, the latter Therapeutae. And indeed, the latter were the first not only to build monasteries and *semneia* (for he uses these very words), but also to prescribe a rule of life for those who now lead a solitary life.

CV. The Same, *Caius* (imp.) Reprehended, and *Flaccus* Reprehended

A book of his was read, entitled *Caius Reprehended*, and *Flaccus Reprehended*. ^C

^A In these discourses, the power and grace of his eloquence appear more than in his others. He errs, however, in many points, by proposing peculiar ideas, and by describing other matters foreign to the Jewish sect. He flourished in the times of Gaius Caesar,2 to whom he writes that he undertook an embassy on behalf of his own nation (the Hebrew), while Agrippa was reigning in Judea. Many and various treatises of his are circulated, containing moral discourses and commentaries on the Old Testament, which are for the most part forced toward an allegorical interpretation of the letter; and from this, as I suppose, every allegorical discourse of the Scripture throughout the Church had its beginning. ^B It is said that he was also initiated into the Christian sacraments, but later fell away from them because of some sorrow and anger. But they say that earlier, having arrived in Rome during the reign of Claudius, he met Peter, the chief of the apostles, and became familiarly disposed toward him; from which it also came about that he made mention of and praised the disciples of the blessed Mark the Evangelist (Mark being a hearer of Peter). For this man mentions that they led a philosophical life among the Jews: he calls their dwellings "monasteries," and proclaims that they spend their life given to meditation, fasting, and prayer, possessing nothing in the meantime. ^C He traced his lineage back to priests, and was an Alexandrian by birth. He provided such a wonder of power in his discourses to the Hellenists that it was even commonly said in speech: "Either Plato Philonizes, or Philo Platonizes."

CVI. *Hypotyposes* of Theognostus the Alexandrian

[280] Seven books of Theognostus the Alexandrian were read, of which the inscription is: "Of the blessed Theognostus the Alexandrian, and interpreter of the sacred Books, *Hypotyposes*." In the first book, he treats of the Father, and attempts to show that He is the Creator, and argues likewise against those who posit matter as coeternal with God. In the second, he puts forward arguments by which he says it is necessary that the Father should have a Son; but when he speaks of the Son, he declares Him to be a creature, and that He presides only over rational beings, and ^D other such things, just as Origen…

^A ascribes to Him as Son, whether led by the same impiety, or, as one might say, forced into a defense of the same, proposing these things for the sake of exercise and not from his own conviction, or even because of the condition and weakness of the hearer—who, if it happened that he was entirely uninitiated in the faith of the Christians and unable to receive the exactness of the religion, might be led away from the truth, and who might consider even any kind of knowledge of the Son to be more useful than total ignorance and lack of hearing. But while such a recourse to avoid speaking correctly and retiring from the truth might not seem unpersuasive or worthy of blame, ^B since it is, for the most part, done according to the opinion, belief, and strength of the person being addressed; yet when a written discourse is to be proposed as law to all in common, if one brings forward this forementioned defense for the sake of exonerating one's own written blasphemy, he truly takes refuge in a weak defense. Just as in the second book, so also in the third, dealing with the Holy Spirit, he indeed presents arguments attempting to demonstrate the existence of the most holy Spirit, but for the rest, just as Origen in his book *On First Principles*, so he too drivels nonsense here. In the fourth book, regarding angels and demons, he speaks ^C inane words just as the other, and clothes them with subtle bodies. In the fifth and sixth, dealing with the incarnation of the Savior, he attempts, as is his custom, to show that the incarnation of the Son could have happened, but he speaks much nonsense here too, especially when he dares to say that we imagine the Son as being circumscribed in various places at various times, but that in reality and in actual fact He is not circumscribed. Finally, in the seventh book, which he inscribed *On the Creation of God*, he deals with other things somewhat more piously, and especially concerning the Son toward the end of the work. His phrasing is full and has nothing redundant. ^D He uses words as in Attic and customary language, and in an unpretentious style, so gracefully that he does not depart from the customary mode of expression even in his sentence structures; yet he does not swerve from greatness for the sake of clarity and precision of his words. He flourished, however…

CVII. Basil the Cilician against John of Scythopolis, 16 books.

[index: entries preserved]

^A And he accuses him of six hundred other things: for instance, that he fell under the suspicion of Manichaeism; that he reduced the holy season of Lent to only three weeks; that he did not even abstain from eating bird meat during these; that he used to go to the sacrifices of the Gentiles; and that, being for the most part given over to gluttony, he would never communicate in the completed holy liturgy, but after the Gospel would partake of the mysteries together with the boys, and immediately run off to the table. He scatters and disseminates such things almost throughout his entire book, casting them insolently against that man. The work itself is dramatic in form; he dedicates it to a certain Leontius who requested it. He introduces into the drama the characters of Lampadius, who contends on behalf of Basil, and a certain Marinus, who takes up the role of defending John’s position. After several discussions, he introduces this Marinus, having condemned the man he had taken up to defend, as joining himself to Lampadius; and after him, he introduces a certain Tarasius to renew the contest again. He imagines these men asking and answering such things as he thought would both serve his own purpose and appear to bring reproach and perplexity upon the opponent he was arguing against. He divided the entire work into sixteen books: thirteen of which are in the form of a dialogue, written with much zeal and diligence against only the first book of John; while in the remaining three, he attacks what John had asserted in his second and third books.

In the first book, then, having completed the preface, he dwells upon refuting two chapters: the first, that "the Word suffered in the flesh," and the second, that "it is the same thing to say 'Christ' as to say 'God.'" In the second book, he attempts to show that he was reviled in vain, and that the passage, "There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse" (Isa. XI, 1), was poorly understood by John the Scythopolite. In the third book, he discusses, as he supposes, how one ought to understand the passage, "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him" (John XII, 31), and the verses that follow it. In the fourth book, [he discusses] how the body is said ^B to be "God’s own," and about the union, and about the passage, "God, thy God, hath anointed thee" (Ps. XLIV, 8), and about "I sanctify myself" (John XVII, 19). In this book, Marinus ^C ceases his apparent opposition and agrees with Lampadius. In the fifth book, where Tarasius is imagined to take up the fight in place of Marinus, he handles the accusations against John more bitterly, and the book is almost entirely consumed by these things. In the sixth book, he attacks more vehemently the union regarding Christ our Savior; and he discusses the passage, "God, thy God, hath anointed thee," and how the Church according to him considers the passage, "He was made flesh" (John I, 14). In the eighth book ^D he falls into various absurdities, while of that...

^A "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven" (John III, 13). In the ninth book he discourses on: "And the Rock was Christ" (I Cor. X, 4), and on: "And you shall see your life hanging before your eyes" (Deut. XXVIII, 66), and on: "This gate shall be shut" (Ezech. XLVI, 1). He interprets all these things impiously. In the tenth book, he discusses: "To you has the word of this salvation been sent" (Acts XIII, 26), and concerning: "Who did not spare His own Son" (Rom. VIII, 32), and that: "Your hands have handled" (I John I, 1), regarding the Word of life, and regarding: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son" (John III, 16), and the rest. In the eleventh book he treats the passage: "This is our God; no other shall be reckoned alongside Him" (Baruch III, 36-37). "Afterwards He was seen upon the earth, and conversed with men" (Baruch III, 38). And: "Arise, O God, judge the earth" (Ps. LXXXI, 8), and: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John XIV, 9), and against those who say that the apostles could not teach the truth because of the weakness of those listening. In the twelfth book, he teaches that one of the Trinity suffered, and regarding: "For if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (I Cor. II, 8). He defends in a weak and ^B poor manner the fact that we do not say there are two Christs; however, he adapts his defense to his own will and intention. In the thirteenth book, he finally asks: How are there not two Sons? And truly, from these things by which he institutes his defense, it is necessary to say that there are two Sons. In this matter, Tarasius, as if already defeated, remains silent. Basil, or Lampadius, also ceases his earnest questioning and answering. Furthermore, the three books, the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth, connected in a continuous discourse, fall upon the second and third books of the assertions of John of Scythopolis.

This Basil was a presbyter, as he himself affirms, of the Church of Antioch, at the time when Flavian (54) held the throne there, and Anastasius ruled the helm of the Roman Empire. His ^C diction in the dialogues is for the most part humble, such that he does not even refrain from words taken from the gutter. But he is also not very accurate in composition; he is often found to falter and commit solecisms [88b]. Yet as he labored to be clear in these things, so he is also truly vehement in his arguments against the pious, and practiced in this view, so that he seems to have consumed his entire life in this vanity of striving against piety. And although he is infected with the Nestorian (55) heresy, ^D and clearly Nestorian in his soul,

^A he does not claim Diodorus and Theodore for himself, but praises them as Fathers. And he does not blaspheme against the divine Cyril so impudently in his person; however, he says that this John, against whom he trained his pen, relies on nothing other than the twelve chapters of Cyril, and especially the twelfth, he says, which brings in the idea of the suffering of the divine nature; in which he also brings himself to the end of his vanity. His treatise was composed for a certain Leontius, as we said, whom he extols as most holy and most beloved of God, and as a Father.

Codex CVIII

Theodore the Alexandrian Monk, Against Themistius.

Themistius, Apology for Saint Theophobius.

^B There was read the book of Theodore the Alexandrian monk against Themistius, whose inscription is: "A brief refutation, as it were, of the rash and most absurd contention of Themistius against our Fathers, brought up from above and from the beginning, now laboriously composed by us on the occasion of the questions and propositions set forth by him against the truth, with a clear clarification of the subject matter before us." ^C Such is the inscription of the book, being more like a book than the title of a book; yet both of them, both Theodore and Themistius, are heretics and partisans of those who assert that the Godhead (57) suffered, being addicted to Severus. Themistius, however, or Calonymus (for he also calls himself by this name), is also the leader of the sect of the Agnoetai (58), about which he also wrote a book, having attached the title: "Apology of Calonymus, also called Theophobius, for the Sainted Theophobius" (59). In this book, while also attacking Severus himself, to whom he was nevertheless addicted (such is the force of falsehood, and such are the lovers of falsehood), he demands an accounting for the arguments of Theodore. For Themistius's four arguments, by which he thought he had proved ignorance in Christ, Theodore, weighing and evaluating them one by one, shows that each one contains countless absurdities. Then again Themistius, as if trying to repair his defeat, wrote a single book against Theodore. And Theodore, in turn, having refuted in three volumes the arguments against him, established his own opinion on this matter as the truth. Each of these men is not unskilled in writing, and pursues clarity along with a weighty and steady style in their discourses.

Codex CIX

The Writings of Clement the Alexandrian Presbyter.

^A three volumes of books, of which one has the inscription *Hypotyposes*; the second, *Stromateus*; the third, *Pædagogus*.

Of the *Hypotyposes*, Eight Volumes

CX. Of the Same, the *Pædagogus*, in Three Books

^A less than suitable. At the end, he also makes mention of icons.

Codex CXI: The *Stromateis* of the same, in eight tomes.

The *Stromateis* likewise consist of eight discourses, carrying on the struggle against the pagans and heresies; but he sets forth the headers here in a scattered manner, and as if without order. He seems to give the reason for this at the end of the seventh discourse in these very words: "These things having been traversed by us, and the moral pattern having been delineated as if in outline, and the sparks of true knowledge having been sown here and there, as we promised, in a scattered and dispersed way, so that it might not be easy for any of the uninitiated who happens upon them, to discover the holy things," and what follows. This, then, is the cause, as he says, for his having arranged them in a scattered way. ^B I have found, however, in an ancient book, the same work inscribed not only as *Stromateis*, but in its entirety as follows: *Of Titus Flavius Clement, Presbyter of Alexandria, of the Gnostic Commentaries according to the True Philosophy, Stromateis 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.* Now the first through the seventh bear the same title and are found uniform in all copies. The eighth, however, differs both in title and in subject matter. For in some it is entitled *Who is the Rich Man that is Saved?* and begins thus: "Those who compose encomiastic speeches," and so forth; but in others, it is entitled *Stromateus Eighth*, just like the seven before it, and begins: "But not even the most ancient of the philosophers," and so forth. Now this book of the *Stromateis* in some places does not interpret healthily, but yet not in the same way as the *Hypotyposes*; for it even refutes many things that were said there. ^C

He is also said to have written other works, not a few; and it is testified that others have composed *On the Pascha*, *On Fasting*, *On Detraction*, *On Ecclesiastical Canons* against those who follow the error of the Jews, which he seems to have dedicated to Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem. He flourished when Severus and Antoninus, his son, were reigning in Rome.

Codices CXII, CXIII: The *Constitutions of the Holy Apostles* of Clement of Rome, the *Recognitions*, and other things.

[289 R.] We read the volumes of the books of Clement of Rome ^D

^A consisting of two scrolls, one of which is titled: *Constitutions of the Apostles by Clement*, containing also those synodical canons which are ascribed to the assembly of the Apostles. The other volume is dedicated in the form of an epistle to James, the brother of the Lord, and contains what are called the *Acts of the Apostle Peter*, and his disputations with Simon Magus, as well as the *Recognition* of Clement, and of his father and other brothers; and in some of the books the inscription is: *Recognition of Clement of Rome*. But in some, as we said, an epistle is prefixed as if addressed to James, the brother of the Lord; and this epistle is neither the same, nor does it purport to come from the same person, but in some books it is sent from the Apostle Peter to James, and in others from Clement to James, ^B being different and distinct, as we have already said. The former shows that Peter himself wrote down the things he had done and sent them to James at his request; the latter relates that Clement, by the command of Peter, had committed these same deeds to writing, and after he [Peter] had migrated to the immortal life, sent them to James. Thus, it is to be conjectured that there were two editions of the deeds of Saint Peter published, and with the passage of time one perished, and that of Clement alone survived. For in all the books which it has been my fortune to see (and they are certainly not a few), after those diverse epistles and inscriptions, I have found this beginning of the work to be entirely the same without variation: *I, Clement*, and what follows in order. This work is full of absurd trifles and is replete with many blasphemies against the Son, according to the opinion of Arius. As for the *Constitutions*, they seem open to reproach on three counts only: ^C from a malicious fiction, which is not very difficult to refute; then, because they bring forward certain accusations against Deuteronomy, which are also very easily dissolved; and finally, from Arianism, which one could also refute with a little persistent effort. Yet the book of the *Acts of Peter* (which is inscribed regarding the *Recognitions*) so surpasses the *Constitutions* themselves in clarity and gravity, and furthermore in purity and vehemence, and other gifts of oratory, as well as in the doctrine of various matters, that no comparison can be made between them regarding their style.

This is that Clement ^D of whom the blessed Paul speaks in the epistle to the Philippians: "With Clement and my other fellow-laborers, whose names are written in the book of life." The same man also wrote a notable epistle to the Corinthians, which was so esteemed by many that it was even publicly read.

^A But the so-called second [epistle] to the same [Corinthians] is rejected as spurious, just like the long dialogue bearing the name of Peter and Appion. Some say that this Clement was the second bishop of Rome after Peter, while others say he was the fourth; for they claim that Linus and Anacletus served as bishops between him and Peter, and that he ended his life in the third year of the Emperor Trajan.

CXIV

Lucius Charinus, *Periods of the Apostles*

^B The book entitled *Periods of the Apostles* was read, which includes the acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul. Its author, as the book itself declares, is Lucius Charinus. His style is altogether uneven and irregular; for although he uses constructions and words that are sometimes not altogether base, for the most part they are common and trite. There is no trace in it of the smooth and spontaneous style, nor of the innate grace, by which the evangelical and apostolic discourse is fashioned. It is full of much foolishness and of self-contradiction and inconsistency. For he asserts that the God of the Jews is different and evil, and that Simon Magus was his minister, while Christ is another, whom he calls good; and, confounding and mixing everything, he calls Him both Father and Son. He claims that He did not truly become man, but only appeared to do so. He represents Him as appearing to the disciples in various forms, now as a young man, then as an old man, then as a boy, now as greater, now as smaller, and sometimes as so immensely large that His head reached the heavens. ^C He also invents many trifles and absurdities concerning the cross, claiming that Christ was not crucified, but another in His stead, and that for this reason He mocked those who crucified Him. He furthermore rejects lawful marriages, and asserts that all generation is evil and from the evil one, and he invents a new creation of demons. He also relates absurd and puerile prodigies concerning the resurrection of dead men, oxen, and other livestock. In the *Acts of John*, he also seems to argue against the use of icons, in agreement with the Iconoclasts. In short, this book contains countless childish, implausible, poorly fashioned, false, foolish, self-contradictory, impious, and godless things; and one who called it the source and mother of all heresies would not be far from the truth.

CXV

Anonymous treatise against the Jews and the Quartodecimans; and Metrodorus on the Feast of holy Pascha

An anonymous book was read, which bears the title... ^D

"Treatise against the Jews and those heretics who share their sentiments (77), and against the so-called Quartodecimans, who do not celebrate the holy feast of Pascha in the first month according to the Hebrews (78)." This discourse is vehement, neither redundant nor lacking in pride and boasting. It asserts that our Lord Jesus Christ did not eat the legal Pascha on the holy fifth day (for that day had not been appointed for Him to eat it), but on the following one. And that not even that which He did eat, did He eat in a legal manner; for He did not eat the lamb, nor the unleavened bread, nor did He perform any of the other things which those who observe the legal Pascha are accustomed by usage to keep; but it says that He ate a private, yet mystical, supper, from which He also distributed bread and the cup to His disciples.

^B Another book was also attached, by a certain Metrodorus, being a calculation of the nineteen-year cycles, twenty-eight in number, folded back as it were into a circle, concerning the feast of the holy Pascha. This Metrodorus, whoever he may be (for I have determined to say nothing else about him), collected from the time of Diocletian the feast days—a span of five hundred and thirty-three years—according to what they call the accurate calculation of the fourteenth day of the moon; for neither the Church nor ancient tradition appears to have used these days.

CXVI. Anonymous volume on the holy feast of Pascha.

A book was also read which is inscribed without the author’s name, "Third volume of the work on the holy feast of Pascha, in eight books." This work is written in a simple and very clear style, and contains many fine and noble thoughts. In the fourth book, this author frequently refutes Metrodorus, and while strengthening himself with the testimonies of Scripture, he weaves into these books on Pascha, in the manner of an exposition, many things useful for the "Six Days" (Hexaemeron). He dedicates the discourse ^C to Theodore, whom he calls his beloved brother. He had also written other books on the same subject previously, but this one is more comprehensive and useful, as it treats in detail everything relevant to the topic. For he discusses with clarity and precision Leap Year, the intercalary month, the epacts of the sun and moon, the nineteen-year cycles (79), and the reason and method for investigating these things. He also deals with the months, the new moon, the week and its days, which are called common years and which are intercalary years; ^D and further, regarding the solar cycle of twenty-eight years, and the nineteen-year cycle of the moon, and its fourteenth day. He discusses again at length the lunar months

of the twenty-eight-year solar cycle and the nineteen-year lunar cycle, and of its fourteenth day, and concerning the lunar and solar months, and the new moon of the lunar month and the solar month, and concerning both the mean lunar month and the true month, and from the numbering of the years of the world. He says, moreover, that in the other years of his presence, our Lord and God Christ celebrated the legal Passover, but not so in the year in which He was betrayed; and this requires consideration. For Chrysostom and the Church teach that even then He celebrated the legal Passover before the mystic supper.

Apology for Origen and his dogmas, in five books.

^B We read a book in defense of Origen and his dogmas, which are hateful to God. The work is completed in five books, and it bears no author’s name in the title. The diction is neither clear nor pure, nor does it contain anything else that is worthy of note. The author of the writing brings forward as witnesses in favor of Origen and his dogmas Dionysius of Alexandria, Demetrius, Clement, and many others; but above all the others, he relies upon Pamphilus the martyr and upon Eusebius, who was bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. ^C This apology, however, is for the most part not a resolution of the charges brought against Origen, but rather an endorsement of the accusation. To such an extent is this man not entirely free from the blasphemous opinions of the other. Thus, he confesses that souls exist before bodies, employing, as he thinks, the testimonies of the holy Scriptures and the Fathers to establish this error; and he also imagines a different resumption of bodies. But concerning the holy Trinity he brings forward nothing erroneous. Moreover, he even asserts this of Origen: that he did not err at all regarding the dogma of the Trinity, but that, in struggling against the heresy of Sabellius—whose depravity was greatly exalting itself at that time—and in attempting to demonstrate the Triad of Persons as being most manifest and different in many ways, he appeared to have been swept away from the right path and duty into the opposite direction. ^D Yet, regarding his other dogmas, to which he does not dare to assent with sufficient plausibility, nor does he think it possible to apply the aforementioned cause to them, he brings much effort to bear to show, for these dogmas, I say, that they were either stated merely for the sake of exercise, or were certainly inserted into his writings by others who held different views. He cites as a witness this same man [Origen] crying out and contending for this, reporting that even while he was still alive, he had detected such a deception. Thereafter, he numbers the fifteen chapters in total, on account of which he asserts he is falsely accused, all of which he refutes as being slanders.

^A He carries out his refutations in the fourth volume, and, having arrived at the fifth, he brings forth testimonies from others on his behalf. These chapters are in fact these: they claim that he teaches: 1. That the Son is not to be invoked. 2. Neither is He Himself absolutely good. 3. Nor does the Father know Him as He knows Himself, and that rational natures are introduced into irrational bodies, and that there is a transmigration of souls, and that the soul of the Savior was that of Adam, and that there is no eternal punishment nor resurrection of the flesh, and that magic is not an evil, and that astronomy is the cause of occurrences, and that the Only-Begotten ceases from His kingdom, and that holy beings came into the world as a result of a fall, and not for the relief of others, and that the Father and the Son are invisible, and that the Cherubim are conceptions of the Son, and that the image of God, in relation to Him of whom it is the image, insofar as it is an image, is not the truth. ^B He refutes these, as has been said before, as being falsely spoken against Origen, and, with all his zeal, he declares the man to be ecclesiastical and orthodox. But, my good man, if someone has been shown not to be impious in every possible way, it does not follow that he will immediately escape punishment in those matters where he is clearly held to be guilty of manifest blasphemy.

CXVIII. Pamphili martyris, simul et Eusebii, Apologiæ pro Origene libri vi.

^C There were read the six books of the martyr Pamphilus and Eusebius in defense of Origen: of which five were worked out by Pamphilus while he occupied the prison, with Eusebius present; the sixth, however, was completed by Eusebius after the martyr, having been deprived of life by the sword, had departed to the God whom he longed for. ^D Many other men of great reputation also at that time undertook to defend Origen with apologies. They say, therefore, that in the persecution of the Emperor Severus, Origen wrote to his father Leonidas, urging him on toward the course of martyrdom, which he having bravely run, it fell to him to receive the prize; and that he himself also hastened to strip for the arena of the contests, but his mother was able to restrain his impulse, even against his will: a fact which he himself also points out in a letter of his own. Pamphilus the martyr and many others, who inquired more accurately into the affairs of the man from those very people who had seen Origen, say that he departed this life by a celebrated martyrdom at the very time when Decius was pouring out his cruelty against the Christians. Others, however, say that he survived until the times of Gallus and Volusianus, and, having reached his sixty-ninth year of age, died in Tyre and was committed to burial.

^A This account is indeed truer, provided that the epistles of his that are circulated from after the persecution of Decius are not forged. They say that he both mastered and taught every form of learning. This Origen, whom they also say was surnamed Adamantius because he seemed to hold firmly to whomsoever he might bind with indissoluble arguments, they say was a student and successor of Clement the Stromateus in the ecclesiastical school of Alexandria. They say that Clement was a student and successor to the school of Pantaenus, and that Pantaenus learned from those who had seen the apostles, and indeed had heard some of them as well.

They say that the moves against Origen originated from the following reason: Demetrius was overseeing Alexandria, and he held Origen in high praise, counting him among his dearest friends. But when Origen was intending to set out for Athens, he was elevated to the rank of presbyter by the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, ^B whose name was Theotecnus, who was the one who performed Origen’s ordination, having the approval of Alexander, the bishop of Jerusalem. Because of this, Demetrius’s affection turned to hatred, and his praises were turned into censures, and a synod of bishops and certain presbyters was assembled against Origen. This council, as Pamphilus says, decreed that Origen should depart from Alexandria, and that he should neither stay in it nor teach, but that he was not at all to be removed from the honor of the presbyterate. But Demetrius, together with certain Egyptian bishops, stripped him of his priesthood, and those who were of the same mind as him also subscribed to the decision. ^C When Origen had been exiled from Alexandria, Theotecnus of Palestine gladly received him to dwell in Caesarea and entrusted to him full authority to teach. These are the causes he gives for the eruption of the calumnies against Origen.

As we have said, the Apology for Origen was composed by Pamphilus together with Eusebius while they were shut up in the prison, and they sent this to those who were suffering in the mines for the sake of Christ, ^D among whom was Patermuthius, who, shortly after the departure of Pamphilus, also completed his life by fire along with others. Pierius was the teacher of Pamphilus, he too having presided over the school in Alexandria; Pierius also was a martyr, having been deemed worthy of the crowns of the struggle together with his brother Isidorus, to whom, as they say, temples and houses were dedicated under the persecution of Decius.

The divine Pamphilus was a presbyter; and they say that he wrote down many of Origen’s explanations of the divine Scripture with his own hand.

CXIX. Pierius the Presbyter, Various Discourses

The volume of Pierius the presbyter, whom they say underwent the struggle for Christ together with his brother Isidorus, and who was the instructor of Pamphilus the martyr in ecclesiastical studies and presided over the schools in Alexandria, was read. The book contained twelve discourses. His style is clear and brilliant, and as it were flowing in its diction, showing nothing labored, but moving smoothly, gently, and quietly as if improvised; in the use of enthymemes, he is perhaps more creative than any other. ^B He makes many assertions—perhaps in an antique manner—that are outside of what is currently established in the Church. Yet regarding the Father and the Son, he holds to the faith piously, except that he speaks of two substances and two natures, using the name of substance and nature—as is clear from the passages following and preceding—in place of "hypostasis," and not as those who lean toward Arius. Concerning the Spirit, however, he dogmatizes in a way that is very dangerous and impious; for he asserts that the Spirit is inferior to the glory of the Father and the Son. He has a passage in the discourse titled "On the Gospel of Luke," by means of which it is possible to demonstrate that the honor or dishonor of an image is the honor or dishonor of the prototype. He also implies, following the fables of Origen, the pre-existence of souls. In his discourse "On the Passover and Hosea," he also discusses the Cherubim made for Moses and the pillar of Jacob; concerning these, he confesses that they were made, but he prattles that they were permitted by way of an economy, as if they were nothing, or as if they were one thing while the things created were another; he further claims that they did not bear any other mark of form, but merely a configuration of wings. This Pierius was a presbyter of the Church of Alexandria when Theonas was presiding over its episcopate, at the time when Carus and Diocletian held the Roman scepter. And they say that he attained such a degree of diligence, natural talent, and pleasure in his public sermons, along with utility ^C and ^D...

^A blessing, that he was even called a second Origen; for Origen was at that time held in the very highest esteem. They also say that he was trained in dialectic and rhetoric, and that he was a lover of temperance and voluntary poverty. And while some hold that he finished his life by martyrdom, others prefer to say that after the persecution he lived out the remainder of his time in Rome.

CXX. Irenaeus' five books against heresies

There was read the book of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum (Lugdunum is in Celtic Gaul), in five books; its title is "Detection and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-called," which is to say, "Against Heresies." The first book, treating of Valentinus and the godless error associated with him, begins by—as it were—retracing its steps and going back to the beginning, from Simon Magus ^B down to Tatian, who, having first been a disciple of Justin the Martyr, later tumbled into the error of heresy. He further discourses on those who are properly called Gnostics and on the Cainites, exposing their abominable dogmas; this is contained in the first book. The second book contains the refutation of what is impiously dogmatized by the heretics. The third brings forward every sort of scriptural testimony against them. The fourth dissolves the questions put forward by the heretics. And the fifth demonstrates that all things that were said and done by the Lord through parables, fittingly ^C serve to refute the heretical impostures, both from the remainder of his salutary teaching and from the apostolic epistles. Many other varied writings and letters of the blessed Irenaeus are also in circulation, even if in some of them the precision of the truth according to ecclesiastical dogmas is darkened by spurious reasonings, which it is necessary to mark. They say this man was a disciple of Polycarp, the holy martyr and Bishop of Smyrna, and a presbyter to Pothinus, to whose episcopate in Lugdunum he succeeded. Victor was then bishop ^D of Rome at that time, to whom he wrote frequently, urging him not to excommunicate any from the Church on account of the disagreement regarding the Pasch.

CXXI. Hippolytus' little book against heresies

There was read the little book of Hippolytus—a disciple of Irenaeus

against thirty-two heresies. It begins with the Dositheans and extends up to Noetus and the Noetians. He says that these were subjected to refutations while Irenaeus was speaking, and that he himself, having made ^A a summary of these, wrote this book. Its style is clear, somewhat solemn, and concise, even if it does not attain to an Attic standard. He mentions some other things that are lacking in precision, and that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not by the Apostle Paul. It is said that this man also used to speak to the people in imitation of Origen, whose intimate friend and admirer of his words he was, to such an extent that he urged him to write commentaries on the divine Scripture, having provided him also with scribes—seven shorthand writers and as many others to write beautifully—of whom he himself was the provider of the expense; and since he served him in this way, he used to demand the work from him tirelessly, because of which he was called a "taskmaster" in one of the letters from Origen. It is said that he also wrote a great many other things.

CXXII. The Panaria of Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus, in seven books

There were read the Panaria of the most holy Bishop Epiphanius against eighty heresies, in three volumes but seven books. It begins from Barbarism and descends as far as the Messalians. ^B It is more extensive and more useful than all those who before him have labored against heresies, because whatever was said by them which contained anything useful he has not passed over, and if he was able to discover anything further, he has added it. The style is humble and, as is natural, happens to be unaffectedly Attic in its training. It is weak for the most part in the encounters against the impious heresies; at times, however, he excels in his attacks, even if neither the idiom of his words nor the syntax is improved.

CXXIII. The Ancoratus of the same

There was read the Ancoratus by the same author, which exists as a sort of summary of the Panaria.

[CXXIV.]

Of the same, On Weights and Measures

[CXXV.]

Justinus Martyr, Apology for the Christians, Questions, and Other Matters

This man was the son of Priscus of Bacchius, and had as his homeland Neapolis, which belongs to the province of Palestine; he spent his time in Rome, practicing philosophy in his speech, his life, and his appearance. As he was a burning lover of piety, ^D he had one Crescens, one of those called Cynics, as an opponent, who was opposed to him both in his life and in his religion. By him he was plotted against, as was worthy of his entire manner of life, and he bore these traps; for, having seized upon this as an occasion for martyrdom, he gloriously and joyfully embraced death for Christ.

[CXXVI.]

The Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians and the Epistle of Saint Polycarp to the Philippians

schisms to dissolve the peace and concord which it was fitting should be preserved among them, and urges them to abstain from this evil. His style is simple and clear, approaching the ecclesiastical and unaffected manner of discourse. Yet one might find fault with him in these for asserting that there are certain worlds beyond the Ocean, and secondly, perhaps, that he uses the bird called the phoenix as a most true proof 14. Thirdly, that in naming our Lord Jesus Christ as High Priest and leader, he does not employ even those expressions concerning Him that are God-befitting and more exalted; yet, surely, he nowhere openly blasphemes Him in these writings. The second Epistle also itself introduces instruction and exhortation for a better life, and at the very beginning proclaims Christ to be God; however, he introduces certain stray sayings as if from the divine Scripture, of which the first epistle was not entirely free. Furthermore, he brings forward somewhat unusual interpretations of certain passages. Besides, the thoughts contained in them are somewhat scattered and do not maintain a continuous sequence. ^B

There was read in the same little book the Epistle of Polycarp 15 to the Philippians, filled with much admonition with clarity and simplicity, after the manner of an ecclesiastical interpreter. He also mentions that he sent to them the letters of divine Ignatius, and asks to be informed in turn by them if they should happen to have heard anything concerning him. ^C

CXXVII. The Four-Book Work of Eusebius Pamphili on the Life of Constantine the Great.

There were read the four books of the panegyric by Eusebius Pamphili on Constantine the Great Augustus. They contain not only the other manner of living of this man, ^D

^A beginning from his very childhood, but also all the deeds which contribute to ecclesiastical history, extending until the time he departed this life, a span of sixty-four years. Now in this work, too, he is similar to himself in his manner of speaking, except that his language is strained slightly toward a more brilliant style, and his diction is here and there captured in a more florid manner; yet there appears no great charm or grace in the interpretation, just as in his other books. Nevertheless, he spreads throughout this four-volume work many passages from his entire ten-book Ecclesiastical History.

He mentions that the great Constantine was baptized in ^B Nicomedia, having deferred the bath until that time, because he strongly desired to receive the ablution in the Jordan; but he clarifies nothing about who baptized him. Regarding the Arian heresy, he reports nothing manifest, neither whether Constantine ever adhered to it, nor that he rejected it, nor even whether Arius thought basely or rightly, although necessity compelled him to mention these things, since the synod comprised a great part of the deeds of the great Constantine, and that, in turn, demanded a most detailed history of these matters. He does, however, declare that a sedition arose between Arius and Alexander—this is how he speaks of the heresy, concealing it—and that the God-beloved emperor was greatly pained by the sedition ^C and labored, both through letters and through Hosius, who was bishop of Corduba, to unite the warring parties in friendship and concord, and to have them abandon their mutual strife and questions of this kind; and as he did not convince them, he assembled a synod from every quarter and transformed the contention that had arisen into peace; yet this is not recorded accurately or clearly. Therefore, appearing as if ashamed and unwilling to make public Arius and the decree issued by the synod against him and the just collection of ^D those who shared in his impiety and were expelled with him, and not even the divinely-inflicted and truly just destruction of Arius which every eye beheld—bringing none of these things to light, he merely passed briefly over the history of the synod and of the events that occurred in it and about it. For this reason, when about to discourse even on the divine Eustathius, he does not mention his name, nor the things that were audaciously plotted against him and carried into effect; but leading these matters instead toward sedition and turmoil, he adds that the bishops gathered at Antioch by the zeal and cooperation of the emperor, and changed that which was seditious and troubled into peace. Similarly, where he begins his narration concerning the much-suffering Athanasius, he rushed to pass over these events; regarding the sedition...

^A and the filling of Alexandria again with turmoil, he says that it was calmed by the presence of bishops who had the imperial alliance on their side. Yet he reveals neither who the agitator was, nor what the sedition was, nor what they did to calm the strife; he makes nothing at all clear. Indeed, in almost every instance where there have been contentions or other disagreements ^B between bishops regarding dogmas or some other matters, he maintains the same manner of concealment in his narration.

CXXVIII. The Various Works of Lucian

The [Pro Phalaride] [two orations], the [Dialogues of the Dead], and the [Dialogues of the Courtesans] by Lucian are read, as well as various other treatises on different subjects, in almost all of which he comically mocks the affairs of the Gentiles: for instance, their error and insanity in creating gods; their unrestrained urge and intemperance toward lust; the monstrous opinions and fictions of their poets, and the error in the state born therefrom; the unstable course and accidents of the rest of life; and the haughty character of their philosophers, which is full of nothing but feigned and empty opinions. In short, as we have said, his effort is to provide a comedy of the Gentiles in prose speech. He seems to be one of those who profess nothing at all, for while he mocks and ridicules the opinions of others, he remains silent about what he himself thinks, unless one were to argue that this was his definite ^C opinion: that nothing can be stated definitively about any matter. As far as his style is concerned, it is by far the best: he uses significant and proper diction, which befits an effective genre of speaking. He is, like no other, most studious of distinction and purity, as well as clarity and apt magnitude. He also weaves his composition together so appropriately that the reader believes he is not reading orations, but that some pleasant song—without manifest singing—is being instilled into the ears of the listeners. In a word, to repeat, his speech is most graceful, and is not sufficiently decent for the subjects which he intentionally wished to mock with laughter. That he was one of those who assert nothing with certainty, this epigram inscribed in his book sufficiently shows:

I, Lucian, have written these things, knowing them to be old and foolish, For what is deemed wise among men is truly foolish; No thought among men is distinct, But what you admire, is to others a laughingstock.

CXXIX. The Metamorphoses of Lucius of Patrae

The various [Transformations] of Lucius of Patrae were read. His diction is clear, pure, and delightful in its sweetness; fleeing novelty of speech, he pursues ^D stories that are excessively wondrous,

and one might say, he is another Lucian. His first two books were all but transcribed by Lucius from the book of Lucian which is entitled *Lucius or The Ass*, or from the books of Lucius by Lucian. ^A It seems more likely, however, as far as one can conjecture—for we have no way yet of knowing which was prior in time—that it was Lucian who did the transcribing. For it is as if Lucian had taken the more copious books of Lucius, cut away whatever did not seem to him useful for his own purpose, and, having fitted the remainder together with the same words and compositions into a single narrative, inscribed it *Lucius or The Ass*, which he had stolen from thence. ^B Both works are replete with mythical inventions and shameful obscenities. The only difference is that Lucian, mocking and disparaging the Greek superstition, as he does in his other works, composed this one for that purpose; whereas Lucius, acting seriously and believing in the transformations of men into each other and of irrational creatures into men, and vice versa, and other follies and trifles of ancient myths, recorded and wove these things into his writing.

CXXX. The Four Books of Incredibilia by Damascius

The four books of Damascius were read, of which the first has the inscription ^C *On Incredible Fictions*, consisting of 352 chapters; the second, *On Incredible Narrations Concerning Demons*, 52 chapters; the third, *On Incredibilia Concerning Souls Appearing After Death*, 63 chapters; and the fourth, *On Incredible Natures*, 105 chapters. In all of these one finds very many things that can neither happen nor be believed, poorly fashioned and foolish monstrosities of lies, truly worthy of the impiety and irreligion of Damascius, who, while the light of the Gospel illuminated the whole world, himself lay immersed in the thickest darkness of idolatry. ^D His style, however, is summary, and is neither unrefined nor negligent of clarity, as is usually the case in such tales.

CXXXI. Amyntianus on Alexander the Great, and other things

The work of Amyntianus *On Alexander* was read. He dedicates this discourse to the Roman Emperor Marcus Antoninus, and promises to speak worthily of the deeds of Alexander. But as the work proceeds, it is shown that, ^A while he is a fervent and bold promiser, he is cold and weak in the fulfillment of his promise; for he speaks far more feebly even than those who have spoken before him.

^A Yet he does not lack clarity, though he passes over many things that are necessary.

The same man also wrote other various works, and composed parallel lives, such as those of Dionysius and Domitian in two books, and of Philip, king of the Macedonians, and Augustus in another two books. There is also reportedly a separate life by the same author concerning Olympias, the mother of Alexander.

CXXXII–CXXXV. Declamations of Palladius the Sophist, Aphthonius, Eusebius, and Maximus.

Various declamations of Palladius the Sophist were read, as well as those of Aphthonius, of Eusebius the Sophist, and of Maximus the Sophist of Alexandria. But Palladius excelled the others in every art of rhetoric by a great margin.

CXXXVI. The *Thesaurus* of Cyril.

The *Thesaurus* of Cyril was read. ^B It is a book full of logical arguments, and it fights valiantly and in various ways against the raging madness of Arius and Eunomius; for it skillfully destroys their folly with logical demonstrations, and by interweaving and combining with them the testimonies of Scripture, it everywhere exposes the fragility of their dogma. The divine Cyril also proposes the testimonies of Scripture simply, so that, being surrounded and hemmed in on all sides, the haughty may have nowhere to turn. This book is the most lucid of all his writings, especially for those who can grasp the sense of logical demonstrations.

CXXXVII. The little book of the heretic Eunomius.

The little book of Eunomius was read, an exposition of his own impiety, of which the title is... Since this little book was held in admiration by the partisans of Eunomius, and was carefully kept hidden so that it might not reach others, Basil the Great, having with difficulty obtained it, overturned and crushed it ^C with vigor and brilliance, and by employing every force and faculty of speech. You might say he dashed the Babylonian infant against the firm rock of the faith, and showed that what had previously excited so much admiration was worthy of laughter, like a stinking corpse.

CXXXVIII. Three books of the same Eunomius by way of refutation of St. Basil the Great. Also 40 Epistles.

A volume by the same impious man was read, containing three books, which is as it were a refutation of those absurdities which St. Basil demonstrated were to be found in his blasphemies. They say that this book was in labor with many ^D

^A years of Olympiads, having shut himself up in a small room, and having, through clandestine unions, conceived that wicked monster, he barely brought forth into the light after many years an abortive fetus, which he had conceived through furtive meetings. And even then, he nurtured this wretched offspring, but did not show it even to his fellow-initiates without fear, dreading most of all that it might fall into the hands of Basil, and be torn apart before it had taken shape, and, before it had bloomed, dry up and perish prematurely. Therefore, he carefully, just like the myth of Cronus, swallowed his offspring, hiding and covering it up until the life of Basil, extending into that frail life, should strike fear into him. But when that divine man, having left behind his earthly sojourn, had fled to his own heavenly inheritance, the great fear having been dispelled, the opportunity to publish it at long last arrived, yet even then he did not venture to divulge it to all, but only to his friends. Theodore, Gregory of Nyssa, and Sophronius, whom we mentioned ^B above, having come upon it, having struck it with many lashes of words, no less than the former book, dead and smelling of every impurity, they hurled it back at its begetter. Thus, then, did he pay the penalty for his impiety. As for the character of his style, it is so far removed from all grace and sweetness that one might think he was not even aware that such a thing existed; he merely strives to emit a certain monstrous and harsh sound by the clashing of consonants and by words that are difficult to express and full of consonants, and by a poetic, or rather, to speak more accurately, a dithyrambic manner of expression. His composition is forced, crushed by violence, and beaten out, so that it is necessary for the reader of his writings to strike the air vehemently with his lips if he wishes to pronounce ^C clearly what he, by chance catching and twisting, or even colliding and rashly interjecting, or maiming and lopping off, has barely managed to put together. He also makes his periods long and at times immoderately extended; and he casts obscurity and uncertainty over the whole work, both so that he may, to the many, seem by the power of his cleverness to escape their understanding, and so that he may have the means to overshadow the weak points of his thoughts (for there are many) with what is obscure and difficult to grasp, and to hide the infirmities of his intellect. He also appears to rely on logical methods, while partly attacking others on this account, and partly being very eager to use them himself, although he is frequently (since he took up this study late and has not penetrated to its depths) often deservedly noted for error in many things.

^D His *Epistles* to various persons were also read, numbering forty. But even in these, he employs the same kind of discourse, and has not even heard the laws of the epistolary style, nor in them

Codex CXXXII – CXXXVIII

has he practiced them with any success, so that he has fallen into public ignominy. ^A

CXXXIX. The commentary of blessed Athanasius on Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. I have read the commentary of the great Athanasius on Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. He speaks clearly, as he does in all his writings, but neither this book nor any other of his (which has come into my hands) attains the grace and charm of those letters in which he excuses his retreat and explains the matters pertaining to his exile. ^B

CXL. Five books of the same against Arius. There were read five books of the same holy man against Arius and his doctrines. ^C His diction is clear, as in all his other works; it is likewise sober and candid, vehement and profound, and he wields his arguments with great force; his richness and fecundity in these indeed appeared truly marvelous. Moreover, he makes use of dialectical arguments, not proposed nakedly or with the very terminology of that art (as boys and recent students, showing off in a youthful and vainglorious manner, are wont to do), but rather in the manner of philosophers, magnificently expressed, and solely through pure concepts, and these well-adorned. He also fortifies his work validly with testimonies and demonstrations from Holy Scripture; and, to sum it up in a word, this book alone could suffice to refute the entire Arian heresy. Indeed, one would not be far from the mark who should say that Gregory the Theologian and the holy Basil drew from this book as from a fountain, and poured forth those excellent and limpid streams of their own books against this same error. ^D

CXLI. Basil the Great on the Hexaemeron. We have read the work of the wondrous Basil on the Hexaemeron. The great Basil is pre-eminent in all his books. For he knows how to use a diction that is pure, significant, proper, and altogether polished and panegyrical, better than any other; and in the order and purity of his thoughts he appears first and second to none. He is also a lover of persuasiveness, sweetness, and brilliance, and his discourse flows as if it were welling up spontaneously, like a stream from a fountain. He makes such use of probability, moreover, that if anyone were to set his discourses before himself as an example of polished style, and were to exercise himself in them (provided he did not [Neglect] those things which contribute to this)...

I think he would feel the need of no other instructor, neither Plato nor Demosthenes, whom the ancients advise one to dwell upon if he wishes to become a civil and panegyrical orator.

CXLII. The Ethical Orations of the Same.

CXLIII. The Epistles of the Same.

CXLIV. The Ascetica of the Same.

CXLV. The Lexicon of Helladius.

CXLVI. The Lexicon of Pure Idea.

CXLVIII. Lexicon of political speech.

CXLIX. Lexicon of Pollion.

CL. Lexicon of Julian, Philostratus of Tyre, and Diodorus on the ten orators.

CLI. Timaeus’ Lexicon of Platonic words.

BIBLIOTHECA. — CODD. CXLVII-CLV.

On the vocabulary of Plato, in alphabetical order, a brief work in one book.

CLI. Ælius Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Books of Attic Terms.

CLIII. Pausanias' Lexicon.

CLIV. Boethus' Collection of Platonic Terms.

CLV. The same author’s work on dubius terms in Plato.

^A which he entitles, *On dubius terms in Plato*. If anyone were to collect the words together in one place, and add those collected by Timaeus, he would provide a great benefit to those who desire to read the works of Plato.

CLVI. Dorotheus, On words used in an unusual manner.

^B [324 R.] There was read in the same volume Dorotheus’s *On words used in an unusual manner*, arranged in alphabetical order. It is clear that this treatise is not without utility for the industrious.

CLVII. Moeris, the Atticiser.

Also, Moeris, the *Atticiser*; this little work, too, runs in alphabetical order.

CLVIII. Phrynichus Arabius, *Sophistic Preparation*, thirty-six books.

I have read Phrynichus Arabius’s *Sophistic Preparation* in thirty-six books. The book is a collection of words and phrasing, including some that reach the length of clauses, expressed and arranged with elegance and novelty. Many of these can also be found in the collection of words by Helladius, but there they lie scattered throughout the vast mass of the compilation, whereas here such items are collected together; for it was Phrynichus’s purpose to collect such things, whereas Helladius, while simply heaping up words, if he did arrange anything of this sort, just included it in his common book of words and simply left it there along with the rest. This collection, too, is arranged in alphabetical order.

The author flourished in the time of the Roman Emperor Marcus Antoninus and his son Commodus, to whom he inscribes the opening of his work: "Phrynichus to Caesar Commodus, greeting." But in dedicating the book to Commodus and writing a preface to him—in which he provides an exhortation to the love of learning and extols the book in his discourse—he says that he has composed thirty-seven books up to that time, which he both presented to the Emperor and promised to publish as many again, if a longer span of life were granted. We, as we said, have read only thirty-six, extending from the letter alpha to omega.

Though he says he is offering these books to the Emperor, it is clear that he dedicated them to various people. For instance, he sent the very first of these books to a certain Aristocles, treating it as a sort of diversion for Aristocles' birthday

^A and wishing that text to be a companion to him. He similarly dedicates the second book to him, and likewise the third. He dedicates the fourth to a certain Julian, his fellow citizen and friend, adding that this was done because he had intended to present the work to Aristocles from the beginning, but since the latter had been made a member of the great council in Rome by imperial decree, he had adopted Julian as a friend and companion in his honorable labor in place of him, so that he might use him as both a judge and evaluator of his writings. [H] *On the Sophistic Preparation* [/H] Having spoken thus and made this promise, he nevertheless subsequently presents the fifth book to a certain Menodorus, a friend and learned man, who had also brought against him the charge that the problem concerning the inflection of nouns, discussed previously, had been stated inadequately. He says that, having been ordered by Menodorus to write the book, he had been late in doing so because he happened to be struck by three illnesses: stranguary, which accompanies old age; a long and severe delirium; and a discharge of blood from the belly, along with many other diseases. He promises, however, that if he should survive and be delivered from his illnesses, he would bring this work to completion, as well as anything else he might happen to order that was consistent with elegance, erudition, and novelty. ^B He dedicates the sixth book of this Sophistic Preparation once again to another, a certain Tiberinus.

He dedicates the seventh to another, Menophilus, whom he says has reached the peak of education and has supplied entire phrases that contribute to the proofs in the sixth book of the *Sophistic Preparation*, and he encourages him also to collect as many of these as possible in his own writings. He entrusts the eighth work again to Julian, and asks him, if anything has been said imperfectly—seeing that he was writing while suffering from illness—that he would be so kind as to correct it. He assigns the ninth to Rufinus, stating that Aristocles had been the cause of the beginning of the work, but that Rufinus would be the cause of its completion, because through encountering what had been written, he had perceived both its usefulness and approved of the labor. ^C He turns back again to compose the tenth for Aristocles. The next one is again dedicated to Menodorus; in it, he affirms that he had recently encountered the speeches of Aristides, who was flourishing at that time, and he bestows great praise upon the man. He says that Marcianus the critic ^D despises Plato and Demosthenes, but prefers the letters of Brutus the Roman, and establishes them as the rule of excellence in speech. He says these things not because he accepts such a judgment himself, but so that no one might be surprised if certain people [consider those works inferior to Aristides' fame, thinking that he who has reached the pinnacle of fame in speech thus…]

^A has been surpassed, a man who had attained the pinnacle of glory in oratory. For the envy of some also harmed Aristides, just as it did many other men distinguished by their learning. The eleventh book is also said to be dedicated to Menodorus. As for the following ones (so that we, too, might not be accused of excessive loquacity along with him), one book is addressed to Rhiginus, another again to Aristocles, and another to the Milesian sophist Basidides: in this last, he says that as soon as he had recovered from his illness, he wrote to him and asked that he correct with his file any errors resulting, as is wont to happen, from the infirmity of his illness. All the other books which we have seen were again dedicated to Menophilus up to the end.

This work is, of course, useful to those who are eager to write and to speak well. He says that he distinguishes the expressions he has collected in this manner: some are attributed to orators, others are assigned to historians, and others are adapted for familiar conversation; some vocabulary serves for invectives, and these are also applied to amatory contexts. Furthermore, he maintains that the most excellent rule, norm, and example of sincere, pure, and Attic speech is Plato and Demosthenes, along with the rest of the choir of the nine orators of Greece, as well as Thucydides, Xenophon, and ^B that Aeschines, the son of Lysanias, who is called the Socratic. He also adds Critias, the son of Callaeschrus, and Antisthenes with his two genuine orations, that on Cyrus and that on Ulysses. Of the comic poets, he chooses Aristophanes with his own chorus, in which they use Attic, and of the tragic poets, Aeschylus, the most grandiloquent, Sophocles, the sweet, and the all-wise Euripides. He prefers these to all others, whether orators, historians, or poets. Yet, from these, he again prefers those whom, he says, not even Momus himself would find fault with or even approach; not even if that legendary god they call the Corycaean were to look upon them with longing. He points to ^C Plato, Demosthenes, and Aeschines, son of Lysanias, on account of the excellence of his seven Dialogues, which some even remove from his writings and attribute to Socrates. But enough on these matters.

This author is, if anyone is, most learned, but otherwise wordy and overflowing beyond measure. Indeed, he could have finished this very work in a fifth of the total size without omitting anything necessary, while meanwhile he, by his untimely profusion of words, has extended it into a useless vastness. Thus, while gathering a forest of elegant and charming speech for others, he himself ^D

^A continues to employ it in a manner that is not very commendable, as Phrynichus has accurately observed.

Codex CLIX: Twenty-one Orations of the Orator Isocrates, and Nine Epistles

We have read twenty-one orations of the orator Isocrates, as well as nine epistles. Of his orations, those addressed to Demonicus and to Nicocles are of the deliberative type, containing very useful admonitions, as is the second one addressed to Nicocles, and the one ^B entitled *On the Peace*. Though the *Panegyricus* may appear to be a deliberative oration, in which he seeks to persuade the Greeks, through internal concord, to launch a common war against the Barbarians, by far the greatest portion of that speech is consumed in recounting the praises of the Athenians. The *Areopagiticus* also belongs to the deliberative category, inciting the Athenians to virtue by praising their ancestors while censuring those still living at the time. The *Plataicus* is likewise deliberative, as is the speech inscribed *Archidamus*, which urges the Lacedaemonians to wage war against the Athenians on behalf of the Messenians. The speech inscribed *Against the Sophists* is an accusation against the sophists who disagreed with him. The speech that follows, the *Busiris*, as its title implies, is a panegyric. The eleventh is an encomium of *Helen*. The twelfth is an encomium of *Evagoras*, from which it derives its title, dedicated to his son, Nicocles. The following ^C oration, inscribed *Philip*, is again of the deliberative type, exhorting Philip to give attention to the concord of the Greeks and to consider a common expedition against the Barbarians in Asia. The *Panathenaicus* is a panegyric for the city of Athens and its illustrious forefathers; he states that he began to compose it when he was ninety-four years of age, but because a severe illness afflicted him for three years, he finally brought the speech to completion in his ninety-seventh year. The speech inscribed *On the Antidosis* appears to be of the judicial type, containing a defense against the slanders cast upon Isocrates by Lysimachus. He composed this, the greatest of all his speeches, when he was ^D eighty-two years of age; it is a speech that is mixed and varied, more so than the others. In it, he also sets forth certain passages from his other orations, by which he demonstrates that he is not corrupting the youth, but rather benefiting the common good. The *Against Callimachus* is also judicial, as is the *Aegineticus*, which argues a case concerning an inheritance. Those that also belong to the judicial category are the *Against Euthynus* on behalf of Nicias, the *Trapeziticus*, and the *Against Lochites*, which demands justice for insults and beatings. These, then, are the orations of Isocrates that we have come to know.

and read one and twenty. Now, of his nine epistles, ^A one is to Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily; another is to Archidamus; two are to Philip; one is to Alexander; another is to Antipater; and, in addition, the ninth is to Timotheus and the magistrates of Mitylene.

This orator, however, chose to instruct his pupils in the precepts of the rhetorical art rather than to manage public affairs, as did the other nine orators, among whom was Demosthenes; even though he flourished with his rhetorical speeches before their time, and in their own time, he was not diminished in the glory conferred upon him by them. He employs—as is immediately evident to those who read him—distinctness and purity to the greatest degree, and he displays such great care in the crafting of his speeches that his ornamentation and diligence slip into excess. Indeed, this overly laborious effort of his declares him to be not so much fruitful in arguments as it does lacking in concern for decorum. Furthermore, neither is any gentler emotion, nor any sincerity devoid of simulation, nor any slightly more vigorous power of speech to be detected in him. Only as much grandeur as is sufficient for a civil oration is used effectively by him, and it is combined with a nearly equal degree of clarity. His speech, however, is more languid than it ought to be; and not least does one criticize his pettiness and the weariness caused by his balanced clauses. But we say these things ^B against the merit of his speech, indicating that which falls away and is dissimilar to his own excellence; for when compared with certain others who set out to write speeches, even his faults could be numbered among virtues.

You have the list of the Orations and Epistles of Isocrates. I have suitable witnesses that some have perished. Dionysius of Halicarnassus desires four orations, Caecilius the Roman seven, and Suidas eleven. As for the epistles, Photius has read one to Antipater, which we in turn seek. For the one to Archidamus, which has until now lain hidden, we gladly present it, as transcribed from the Fulda Codex of the most learned Ursini in Rome, and now speaking Latin as best it can. I observe, however, that two epistles to Philip, and another to the children of Jason, while unseen by Photius, have been published. ^C

Isocrates to Archidamus, King of the Lacedaemonians

Knowing, Archidamus, how many people have set out to praise you, your father, and your entire lineage, I thought it best to leave that subject matter to them, since it was very easy and obvious. For it is my intention to exhort you—not to a campaign of the sort undertaken at this time, but to those things from which you will be the author of the greatest benefits, not less to your own city than to Greece as a whole. And I did not choose this subject of writing because I was unaware of what would be easier to treat, but rather because I knew for certain how difficult and uncommon it would be to discover the sort of deeds you should perform—deeds that are noble, great, useful, ^D

^A and yet I could have found so many and such remarkable pretexts for praising your actions that the panegyrics spoken regarding others would not even remotely bear comparison with the one spoken about you. For how could anyone excel the nobility of those descended from Heracles and Zeus, which everyone agrees is found in you alone? Or the virtue of those who founded the Dorian cities in the Peloponnese and occupied this whole land? Or that multitude of battles and trophies that were established under your leadership and auspices? And who would be at a loss, if he wished to expound upon the courage of the entire city, its moderation, and the form of government established by your ancestors? In addition to these points, on what subject matter could anyone fail to discourse, given the wisdom of your father and his management during calamities, and the battle that took place within the city? Of this battle, you became the leader, and having risked your life with a few against many, and having surpassed everyone, you became the cause of the city's salvation—a better deed than which no one could demonstrate. For it is not as great and noble to capture cities or to kill many of the enemy as it is to save the fatherland from such dangers—not an ordinary fatherland, but one that has excelled so much in virtue. Regarding these things, if someone were to discourse simply and not elegantly, and not by merely adorning his speech but by enumerating the facts and speaking plainly, there is no one who would not win approval.

^B I, therefore, although I could have discoursed sufficiently on these matters, also know the following: first, that it is easier to speak fluently about things that have already happened than to give advice about things to come. Furthermore, all men feel more gratitude toward those who praise them than toward those who counsel them. For they welcome the former as well-wishers, but if the latter advise them without being asked, they consider them nuisances.

Nevertheless, foreseeing all this, I refrained from saying things that would be spoken for the sake of favor. Instead, I intend to speak of such things as no one else would dare, believing that those who contend for fairness and wisdom should not choose the easiest of speeches, but the most difficult; nor those that are most pleasant to the hearers, but those from which they will derive benefit, both for their own cities and for the other Greeks, for whose sake I happen now to be standing here.

^C But I am also seized with great admiration for the others who have the capacity for action or speech: that it has never even occurred to them to reflect on public affairs, nor to pity the misfortunes of Greece, which is in such a shameful and terrible state. ^D There is no place in it that has been left behind, which is not teeming and full of war, seditions, slaughters, and countless evils. The greatest share of these have beenfall those who inhabit the coastline of Asia, whom—in the treaties—

^A they have all surrendered not only to the barbarians, but also to those of the Greeks who share our language but follow the customs of the barbarians. If we had any sense remaining, we would not allow them to be gathered together, nor to be led by just any chance commanders, nor greater and stronger battle formations to be assembled from wanderers than from men governed by legitimate rule. These men ravage a small part of the king's territory, but they turn the Greek cities—whichever they enter—upside down, killing some, exiling others, and plundering the property of the rest. Furthermore, they outrage children and women; they shame the most beautiful, and strip the others of the very clothes that cover their bodies, so that those whom you would not have seen before even when adorned for their own sake, are now seen naked by many; some of them even waste away in rags from the lack of basic necessities. Because these evils have persisted for so long a time, neither has any city among those that hold a position of leadership among the Greeks expressed indignation, nor has any of the leading men taken it to heart. Except for your father. For Agesilaus alone, so far as we know, lived with the constant desire both to set the Greeks free and to carry out war against the barbarians. Yet even he missed the mark in one thing—and do not be amazed if, while speaking with you, I mention the things he judged incorrectly; for I am accustomed to speak my mind freely. And I would rightly choose to incur hatred by a just rebuke rather than to curry favor by unmerited praise. My own position is indeed like this. ^B Therefore, the matters that pertain to me stand in this way.

That man, who in all other respects surpassed everyone else, and who was most temperate, most just, and most warlike, had two desires. Separately, each seemed noble, but they did not harmonize with one another, nor could they both be carried out simultaneously; for he wanted to wage war against the King, and to restore to their cities the friends who had fled to him, and to make them lords of their affairs. It happened, therefore, that because of the trouble taken for the latter, the Greeks became involved in evils and dangers; and because of the resulting turmoil, there was neither enough leisure nor strength to wage war against the barbarians. ^C So that from the events of that time it is easy to understand that it is not expedient—where right counsels prevail—to wage war against the King before one has reconciled the Greeks and stopped us from our madness and factionalism. Concerning this I have spoken before, and I shall speak now. And yet some men who have partaken of no education, though they promise that they can educate others, and who dare to criticize my writings while longingly desiring to imitate them, might perhaps say that it is madness for me to be concerned about the calamities of Greece, as if it would fare better or worse because of my speeches—men of whom all might rightly judge that they possess1 great cowardice and small-mindedness, since they pretend to philosophize, ^D while they themselves are occupied with trifles.

They, in order to assist their own weaknesses and indolence, will perhaps say such things. But I, for my part, hold so high an opinion of myself, even though I have reached my eightieth year and am altogether exhausted, that I think it is my duty not only to speak about these matters, but also, in dealing with you, to suggest noble plans, through which, perhaps, some things may be done aright. Indeed, I believe that if the rest of the Greeks were to have to choose from their entire number both one who could best incite the Greeks by his speech to wage war against the barbarians, and one who would most quickly execute what was deemed advantageous, they would prefer no others to us ^B. And yet, how could we not be doing something shameful, when such honorable things are present, for which all would consider us worthy? My own part, however, is of smaller moment; for to express what one knows is by no means one of the difficult things. But it is your duty, by applying your mind to what is said by me, to deliberate whether you ought to neglect the affairs of the Greeks—you who happen to be, as I said a little earlier, the leader of the Lacedaemonians, and are addressed as king, and possess the greatest reputation among the Greeks—or whether you should neglect your present concerns and attempt greater ones. For I say that you ought, having abandoned all other things, to apply your mind to these two: how you might deliver the Greeks ^C from the wars and other evils that are currently present to them, and how you might check the arrogance of the barbarians, who possess more goods than is fitting. That these things are possible, it is my task to instruct.

CLX. The variegated declamations of Choricius the Sophist, and the paraphrases of Homeric verses by Procopius of Gaza.

[336 R.] Read were the declamations of Choricius the Sophist of Gaza and his variegated classes of orations ^D (63). He delights in accurate distinction and purity; and if, for the sake of some utility, he employs a circumlocution, he uses it so opportunely, without running on into an excessive length of period, that it in no way harms [the reader's] perspicuity. His milder emotion is likewise tempered with exceptional candor, nor does he for that reason recede from learned diligence. He uses choice words, although they do not always preserve their genuine usage. For sometimes, on account of a mere deflection of figures, he falls into frigid diction, and there is a point where he slips into a more poetic style. He surpasses himself, however, and is more excellent when he is engaged in descriptions and encomia. He is also a lover of piety, honoring the rites and sanctuaries of the Christians—yet I know not...

^A by what negligence and without any cause, when it is least fitting, he mixes the fables and histories of the Gentiles into his writings, sometimes even when he is discoursing on sacred matters. Many various works of his, handed down in literary monuments, are in circulation. For you may find among them panegyrical orations of his own composition, ^B lamentations, nuptial speeches, refutations, and other things of that kind. He was a contemporary of the Emperor Justinian, but a pupil of Procopius the rhetor—not that other one of Caesarea, however, who, being one of the greatest men, left behind an imperishable glory for those who are more studious, having composed historical writings of much utility for those times, which left a lasting memory of himself to men who were but slightly more cultured. He also had another teacher in that same fatherland of his, likewise a rhetor, to whom, as he was now advanced in age, it was most gratifying to see his pupil occupying the office of teaching in his stead. ^C Many books of his, too, are in circulation, worthy of imitation; there is also an entire book of his, *Metaphrases of Homeric Verses*, transformed into varied modes of expression, which are sufficient in themselves to manifest the man’s great faculty for speaking and his power of declamation—a virtue which Choricius, as far as it is possible for a pupil to do so, has expressed in his *Orations*. Both were pious, and frequently in their orations they discuss, and not irrelevantly, the sacred use of the making of images. Indeed, the death of his teacher, Procopius, provided Choricius with the subject for a funeral oration.

CLXI. Of Sopater, *Various Excerpts in Twelve Books*

^D The *Various Excerpts* of Sopater the sophist were read in twelve books. He compiled this work from many and diverse historians and writers. The first book deals with the gods of the Gentiles as told in myths. These things are selected from the third book of Apollodorus’ *On the Gods* (this Apollodorus was an Athenian, and a grammarian by profession). Nor did he make his selection from the third book alone, but also from the fourth, fifth, and ninth, and again from the first, as well as the twelfth, fifteenth, and sixteenth, and on up to the twenty-fourth. In this collection, he embraces everything that has been feigned mythically concerning the gods, as well as whatever is told historically, along with [material] concerning their heroes and the Dioscuri, and also about those who dwell in Hades, and many other things of that kind. Furthermore, he also collected this book from the second book of Juba’s *On Painting*, and indeed from the...

^A the *Deipnosophists* of Athenaeus of Naucratis. And the first book was compiled from these, and contains these things.

The second book, moreover, is from the first book of the *Epitomes* of Pamphila, daughter of Soteridas, and from the subsequent ones up to the tenth, and from the *Narrations concerning Women who have achieved Virtue* by Artemon of Magnesia; furthermore, from the *Apophthegms* of Diogenes the Cynic, and indeed from other ^B miscellaneous works, and even from the eighth book of Sappho. These represent the collection of the second book.

The third book is gathered for him from the *Omnigenous Silva* of Favorinus, from its books nu, xi, and those following in order, with the exception of tau, up to omega, in which are various histories, and the etymologies of the names of positions, and other such things; in which the third book for him concludes.

The fourth book is compiled for him from a book of an uncertain author (it is titled merely *Collection of Wonders* ^C and from the *Miscellaneous Commentaries* of Aristoxenus, though not from all of them, but merely from the sixteenth book, and from the eighth book of Rufus’s *Dramatic History*. In these one may find things most strange and implausible, and various actions, sayings, and practices of both tragic and comic actors, and other such things. And the fourth book ends with these.

The fifth book is composed for him from the first, second, and third books of Rufus’s *Musical History*, where you will find the varied history ^D of tragic and comic actors. And not only this, but also an account of those who wrote dithyrambs, and of flute-players and citharoedes, and of epithalamial and hymenaean odes, and of wedding songs, and concerning dancers and the others who competed in the Greek theaters: from where and how those who rose to great fame among them originated, whether they were men or whether they were allotted the female nature; and who were discovered to be the authors and originators of which practices, and who of these became favorites and friends of tyrants or kings; and furthermore, which games, and whence, were those in which each displayed his art. And also concerning the festivals, as many as are public to the Athenians. All these things, and if anything else of that sort, the fifth book sets forth for the reader.

The sixth book was collected for him from the same fifth and fourth books of Rufus’s *Musical History*, and it holds an account of flute-players and flute-compositions, both the things that men played and indeed also women. And Homer

^A also, and Antimachus, are the poets who make up a portion of this narrative, along with most of the others who are assigned to this class of poets. ^B Furthermore, he writes about women who possessed the prophetic art, and who the so-called Sibyls were, and whence they came—and these things are taken from the writings of Rufus. He also draws from the second book of the *Halieutica* of Damostratus, and from the first, fifth, ninth, and tenth books of the *Lives of the Philosophers* by Diogenes Laertius, in which he sets forth matters concerning the philosophers: whence that divine thing, philosophy, first took its beginning and how it flourished; who were the founders and leaders of which schools; who had whom as students or, perhaps, as rivals in these pursuits; what customs each individual displayed; whence they traced their lineage; what sort of life they led from the beginning; and at what time they flourished. Hence, from this book you may also learn about rhetoricians and matters pertaining to the art of oratory. The same book is also compiled from the writings of Aelius Dionysius ^C *On the City of Alexandria*, and from the *Egyptiaca* of Hellanicus; from which, having collected many fabulous and fictitious things, along with a great variety of other material, you finally arrive at the end of the sixth book.

The seventh book is elegantly and variously woven from the *History* of Herodotus, as if from flowers.

The eighth book contains excerpts from an ancient codex, which itself is a book that does not bear the name of the one who collected them. In it, he lists the women who were raised to great glory and illustrious name, and the deeds of certain men, along with conversations for the sake of honing the art of speech. He also relates the power of friendship and the apophthegms of virtuous men. He collects these from the following works of Plutarch: *How the Adolescent Ought to Hear Poems*; *On Nature and Labors*, in which he shows that many have often corrected a defective nature through labor, while others on the contrary have corrupted a good one through sloth; and how, in the case of many who seemed slow and inept to everyone in childhood, a sharper and more perspicacious intellect shone forth when they reached their prime. Also, the book *On False Shame*; *On Garrulity*; *On Irascibility*; *How One May Profit from One’s Enemies*; *On Tranquillity of Mind*; his *Political Precepts*; *On Riches*; *How One May Become Aware of One’s Own Progress in Virtue*. Again, his *Precepts on the Preservation of Health* and his *Conjugal Precepts*. ^D In these you may find very many things that are both worthy of report for their deeds and very useful to you for many purposes. The eighth book comprises roughly these things.

The ninth book is likewise similarly compiled in summary form from the treatises of Plutarch: as, for example, from the treatise *On Those Punished by the Divinity Late*, and indeed also from the *Life of Demetrius* and of *Brutus* the Roman, and...

from the discourse which is inscribed to him, *Apophthegmata of Illustrious Men*, and from the *On Rivers* ^A, and *How One May Distinguish a Flatterer from a Friend*, and furthermore also from the *Life of Crates*, of Daiphantus, and of Pindar, and from the book that is inscribed to him, *Apophthegmata of Kings and Generals*, along with which also from his *Symposiaca*, from the first and following up to the eighth. And these things from Plutarch have been collected from these sources. But it has also been gathered from the first and second and third and fourth book of the Roman History of Rufus, in which it is possible to encounter many things worthy of account, even if some of them fall into myths and lengthy trifles. And thus the ninth book is comprised.

The tenth book has been gathered from the *Erato* of Cephalion ^B, which embraces the events concerning Alexander, and indeed also from the works of Apollonius the Stoic, [concerning] as many women as have philosophized or else performed some notable deed, and through whom families have at some time been brought into concord, and also from the Macedonian customs of Theagenes, and from the Lives of Plutarch, of Nicias and Alcibiades, of Themistocles and Theseus, and Lycurgus and Solon, and Alexander the son of Philip, and from the Lives of Cimon and Pericles and Pelopidas and Phocion and Aristides, of which the most part are worth telling and worth remembering. And with these, then, the tenth [book concludes].

The eleventh book contains a collection in like manner from the Lives which Plutarch composed, of Epaminondas and Dion and Agesilaus and Agis and Cleomenes, and Eumenes of Cardia and Philopoemen and Timoleon and Aratus, who being made a demagogue of the Achaeans, commanded their forces seventeen times, performing great deeds of generalship; and indeed also from the Life of Pyrrhus the Epeirote, but also from the first and second book of *On Animals* by Aristophanes the grammarian, and from the seventeenth book of the *Theatrical History* ^C of King Juba. Thus, then, the eleventh book.

The twelfth book of his discourse has likewise been gathered from other various sources, and from the *Account of Painters and Sculptors* by Callixenus, and from the works of Aristo- ^D -nicus *On the Museum in Alexandria*, and from the *Polities* of Aristotle—I mean of the Thessalians and Achaeans and Parians and Lycians and Chians, and those which he [Aristotle] discusses simply in his *Politics*; the usefulness of which is not hidden. And with these, then, the labor of the twelfth book of his collections is spent on Sopater.

Codex CLXII

Eusebius, Bishop of Thessalonica: Ten Books against a certain Andrew

^A There were read the ten books of a certain Eusebius (who was a bishop by rank and orthodox in his faith) composed against a certain Andrew, a recluse—books which took their cause from the aforementioned recluse. For the latter wrote a letter to Eusebius (he calls the letter *paranagnostikon*), compelling him by oaths to read it. Upon reading it, Eusebius first rebukes the man, reproaching him for his ignorance and arrogance, demonstrating that he even errs in his very syllables, and that, although he was unable to produce even one verse without a solecism, he nonetheless rose to the task of writing, having forgotten his ^B calling and the stillness of his ascetic life. Then, he sets out to refute his heretical opinion in many parts. For he was one of those who are called "Aphthartodocetae" from the wicked opinion they held.

And first, he shows that Andrew must be held to account, because he thinks that the name "corruption" is to be taken in only one sense, as if referring solely to sin, whereas our holy Fathers, by whose voices they have misused this term, have handed down that this word is applied to various things entirely. ^C Second, because he presumed to declare that the body of Christ the Lord was immortal, impassible, and incorruptible from the very moment of the union, just as Julian did, even though in this same letter he affirms that he undertook this labor against Severus and Julian, as they are people who do not endure to speak of two natures or two substances in Christ, nor of two properties, nor of two operations. Third, ^D because he asserts that the body of Adam was created before the Fall as neither mortal nor corruptible by its own nature, so that from this, according to his opinion, it would follow that Christ the Lord also took on a body from that very union that was incorruptible and impassible—it being necessary, however, to understand and speak of it as the body of

Adam [having been] by nature mortal and passible, but preserved immortal and impassible by divine grace, until transgression stripped it of that guardianship. For this, too, is the consensus of the holy Fathers. Fourth, [he reprehends him] because he asserts that the present world is incorruptible and without end, when it should be maintained that it is corruptible and mutable. The bishop, in his first reply, exhorted Andrew to correct these matters, as well as other points he had raised, some of which were obscure, others blasphemous. ^B

[345 R.] But he, having received this admonition to amend his ways, inclined towards the worse and seized upon even more corrupt notions. For he soon composed a second book, in which he set out to establish more broadly and, as he thought, through demonstrations, those things he had previously asserted. Against this book the pious Eusebius wrote ten chapters, in which he proves that Andrew, not content with the boundaries of the faith which the holy councils had established, had audaciously composed a certain particular exposition of the faith; and furthermore, that he had torn away many statements of the holy Fathers and, having falsified them, had forced them into his own preconceived opinion; and that he was acting in opposition to both the New and Old Testament and to our holy Fathers by opining that the world is incorruptible and without end. Furthermore, that he says that change, transformation, and flux are to be condemned just as are the passions arising from wickedness, and that it is for this reason that our Lord Jesus Christ assumed a body that is unchangeable, impassible, incorruptible, and without flux. Again, he refutes him for having said that the world is eternal, incorruptible, and unbegotten, while not accepting its so-called transformation into its eternal state, inasmuch as he dogmatizes that this itself is among those passions that are to be condemned. And [he refutes him] because he says that the body of Adam was fashioned incorruptible, immortal by nature, and impassible; and not only this, but that the very earth ("the dust") from which the body was fashioned was also incorruptible. He refutes him again for having taken the name "corruption" in a single sense, by which he also demonstrates that God is not the author of corruption, nor of death, nor of the passion according to wickedness, nor indeed of any of the sins of thought, even if He is established as the creator of corruptible and mortal substances; for those things are from the number of non-existents and do not possess subsistence in themselves. He further refutes him for declaring that the Lord's body, from that very union, is impassible, incorruptible, and unchangeable—which, in order to sustain, as he imagines, he shows that Andrew also makes the other absurd statements regarding the world and Adam. At the same time, Eusebius also demonstrates that the [notion] of corruption ^C and ^D

are used in the Holy Scriptures. ^A For he says that it is used of natural and irreprehensible passions, as well as of those arising from labor, toil, and old age; for indeed old age is the corruption of youth, and labors and toils are the corruption of bodily vigor. It is used, furthermore, of the affliction of the body in ascetic life and spiritual struggles. For the Apostle speaks thus: "Though our outer man is corrupted, yet our inner man is renewed day by day," [II Cor. IV, 16.] and what follows. He also affirms that it is employed for the affliction brought upon the body, whether by wasting, blows, or punishment. It is also said of the harm occurring either to a part or to the whole in living creatures, in seed, and in plants; and indeed of death itself. Furthermore, it is used of the dissolution and the flux of bodies which typically happens to those buried in the earth. Moreover, it is used of a vicious inclination toward evil, that is, of sins. Since, therefore, the name of corruption [348 R.] can be used in so many ways, he reasonably shows that Andrew has been deceived in having attributed only one meaning to these words.

^B He then sets forth proofs according to the refutations, taken from the Holy Scriptures, both Old and New, and from the distinguished Fathers: Athanasius and the three Gregories—I mean the Wonderworker, the Theologian, and the inspired one of Nyssa—as well as Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Proclus, prelate of the see of Constantinople 93, and furthermore the holy martyr Methodius 94 and Codratus 95. For Andrew had torn away ^C certain sayings from some of these, and had falsified them, while having interpreted them either maliciously or foolishly, and from them—as he supposed—he confirmed his own error. But on account of all these things which I have just mentioned, he paid just penalties to Eusebius, I mean for the adulteration 96 of the holy Fathers, and for his wickedness and ignorance: in that he dared to collect certain sayings of heretics and attribute them to our holy Fathers.

He shows thereafter from those things which he ^D put forward in his ineptitude, that he was certain that our Lord Jesus Christ was in no way changed by the resurrection from corruption into incorruption, and that He is equally impassible in His humanity as He is impassible in His divinity, and that he dared to call those blasphemous who think and say that [Christ possessed] a mortal and passible body

our Lord walked in the world in a passible and mortal body. He himself, while having overcome sufferings, death, and the undoing of corruption, does not blush to claim—by a miraculous lie—that the Lord’s body was passible, meanwhile unaware that when he injures the orthodox by calling them "Phthartolatrae," he is truly convicted by his own words of being a "Pathetolatra." He then adds the opinions of the holy Fathers once more, and demonstrates that the Lord’s body was passible, mortal, and by this standard corruptible, until His glorious resurrection, from which point it was changed by that very event into immortality and impassibility. He also indicates that Andrew speaks vanities in branding the orthodox with the shameful name of "Phthartolatrae," for this term fits Arius, Aetius, Eunomius, Apollinarius, and Nestorius, but not the pious. ^B Eusebius also teaches this as well, that the Lord and our God assumed natural and blameless sufferings as the Creator and Architect of nature (which might more properly be called not sufferings, but works of nature), but that He was entirely incapable of receiving those passions which are properly so called—that is, those born of vice. He also teaches that He did not eat and drink with the disciples after the resurrection in the same manner as He did before it; rather, the former He did by the laws of nature, truly restoring and strengthening his flowing flesh with food and drink, while the latter He accomplished supernaturally out of economy, so that He might convince the disciples, and through them all the faithful, that the very same body that had suffered and been tortured unto crucifixion had risen from the dead, and that it was not a different one, even though it had been transformed unto incorruption and impassibility. Having dogmatized these things in a godly manner, he brings the tenth book to a close. His style is clear and simple, using an elegant and, when necessary, highly distinct manner of expression.

Codex CLXIII

Vindanius Anatolius of Berytus, *Collection of Agricultural Disciplines*, in twelve books.

^C I read the *Collection of Agricultural Disciplines* by Vindanius Anatolius of Berytus. This book is compiled by him from the writings of Democritus, Africanus, and Tarantinus, as well as Apuleius, Florentius, Valens, Leo, and Pamphilus; and, indeed, very much from the *Paradoxa* of Diophanes. The work is completed in twelve books, and it is truly useful—as experience itself has taught us in many matters—for cultivating the land and for rustic labors. Indeed, this book is perhaps more useful than the others, as many as have worked on this same subject. Yet, this book also contains here and there some things that are monstrous, unbelievable, and full of Hellenic error, which a pious husbandman ought to pass over, while grasping the rest that will be of use. And indeed, all others who have written on rustic matters [almost always] say the same things about the same subjects...

^A And the others too, who have written books on agriculture, set forth almost the same things about the same subjects, as far as I know, and they do not differ on many points. In those matters in which they have disagreed, the experience of Leo is preferred above the others.

CLXIV. Galen, On the Sects of Physicians

We read Galen's book *On the Sects*. He discusses the sects that have arisen in the medical art. He says there are three most significant ones: one called the logical, which he also names dogmatic and analogistic; a second called empiric, which he also terms observational and memorial; and finally, a third, the methodic. These differ from one another in other respects, but especially in their mode of discovery. For the dogmatic physician constitutes his art starting from the fact that he discovers the methods of healing through reasoning; the empiric, however, does not assemble his art through reasoning, but through experiment and observation; while the methodic, who professes to use both reason and experience—though he uses neither of them with sufficient accuracy—will deservedly be considered distinct from both of them.

^C This book is divided into three parts: in the first, he graphically describes the empiric and the dogmatic, where he also shows what the nature of each is. In the second part, he compares these two sects, which are in great contention and dispute with one another for primacy. Finally, in the third part, he introduces the methodic sect, conflicting with the two aforementioned, with each of the three sects putting forward its own claims and striving to overcome the rest. And this is the end of the third book. It is clear that this work ought to be preferred to all other writings on the medical art. For if one must learn which among all the sects is the best, so that one may then follow it, one must consult this. Indeed, this book seems not properly to be a medical one, but to hold the place of a prologue and to pertain rather to philosophy. It is also certain that, as far as diction and composition are concerned, it is pure and graceful. For Galen was always a student of these forms, even if in most of his writings, by his ill-timed discourses, digressions, and overly long periods, he mixes in books not without annoyance, obscuring the sense of what is said, ^D breaking the flow of the speech, and leading the reader himself into negligence through these rather long ravings; from which defects, at least, this work on the sects is free.

CLXV. Himerius the Sophist, Declamations

Read were the *Declamations*—or *Various Orations*—of Himerius the Sophist. There are two deliberative and three judicial declamations, of which he also sets forth the arguments. And of the deliberative

^A of theories are set forth. And of the deliberative ones, he fashions the first as if for Hyperides, as if he were deliberating on behalf of Demosthenes, and the second for Demosthenes himself, shaping the council on behalf of Aeschines. The remaining three are as follows: one is fashioned against Epicurus, representing a prosecution for impiety as though he were fleeing [from the charge], and another against a rich man who had emptied the entire home of a poor man with his wicked deeds, and he introduces the poor man himself arguing the case. The third introduces Themistocles speaking against the King of the Persians, when the latter had proposed promises for the termination of the war.

These orations were written by him in such a way as to show, in them somewhat more than in the others, his power of speech and the full bloom of his thoughts to the best of his ability. For he abounds in surrounding clauses in emulation of Demosthenes, and he varies them with a wide range of figures, and he blends the orations well with the formal ideas, exalting himself the more by the grand style. As far as the form and its own meaning and emphasis are concerned, he uses language that in no way falls short of clarity; but the resolution of words themselves, which he uses for the most part, though it strikes the ear with a certain pleasant and unusual sound, nevertheless does not afford the same ease of understanding to the general public. He is clear also in his observation of those things which properly pertain to a distinct style of oration. He uses, as we have said, the complex figure, both elsewhere and where he gives an account of any matter. But when he appends his own explanation to these spirited figures, he simultaneously removes all the obscurity that had arisen from them. Furthermore, he frequently and skillfully employs hyperbaton and trope—though more rarely than the complex figure—not without tension and speed, whenever there is need for them. Such, therefore, he shows himself to be in the orations I have enumerated.

^B Next to these he places the *Polemarchicus*, which is an encomium of those who fell in battle against the Persians for the sake of freedom, and a praise of war at the same time. After this is the *Areopagiticus*—or rather, the [oration] for the freedom of his own son, Rufinus. This is not fictitious, nor is the one immediately following it, the monody for the same son who had recently departed this life. Then comes an epithalamium for his companion, Severus; and this one, clearly, is not among the fictitious ones either. He prefaces this one, too, with a theory. Following these is *Diogenes*, or the *Propempticus*; this one also boasts a pre-theory, and it is even fashioned in the manner of a dialogue, being structured accordingly. Then, the *Syntacterius* [addressed] to his companions, for when he was setting out for Corinth. Again, a *Propempticus* to Flavianus, [written] when he was sent forward. ^{C D}

^A A farewell address to Flavian, proconsul of Asia. Next, one to the newcomers around Piso. Again, a protreptic, which is also entitled *Diogenes*. Hence a *Schedium*, arising from a dispute in the school. On the arrival of the Cypriots. On his first pupil from Cappadocia. Soon after, a specimen of his talent—when, having been asked to speak, he first refused, but afterwards discoursed on that very subject: that all beautiful things are also rare. On Musonius, proconsul of Greece; and on Severus, a newcomer appointed governor of the Symplegades. Hence a discourse; on Ursacius the count; on Severus, a companion; on Seylacius, proconsul of Greece; on the Ephesian guests, and the Mysians, and the citizens of Leo. Then on his companions from his homeland; and on Athenaeus the count; and on Privatus the Roman, who was tutoring the son of the proconsul Ampelius; and indeed on the return from Corinth; and on Phoebus, son of the proconsul Alexander; and on Arcadius the physician and count. ^B There is also a farewell oration to friends who had recently arrived; another also to Flavian; and an epithalamium delivered at the Panathenaea. Hence one discourse, and another after it. A disputation held at Philippi, when he was passing through having been summoned by the Emperor Julian. Afterwards, an oration delivered in the city, in praise of Constantinople itself, and of Julian the Caesar. On the sacrifice of Mithras. A dissertation on Sallust the prefect, to which an argument is attached; again on Flavian the proconsul; on the birthday of his companion. A discourse also on a companion's recovery of health; on those who plot against one; on Basil the proconsul; and again on the same Basil. On Hermogenes likewise, who held the proconsulate of Greece; and on Plotianus, likewise proconsul; and again on Ampelius the proconsul; ^C and on Praetextatus, proconsul of Greece, and his companions. Hence, preparing for his departure to the Emperor Julian. Then an oration delivered at Nicomedia, at the urging of the local governor, Pompeianus. Soon after, on the newcomers; again on a newcomer; then on Zeno the companion; and on Aphobinus the newcomer; on him who had returned from the oracle of Neptune; on those likewise who had arrived from Ionia; and on the Ionian guests. Also an extemporaneous piece in praise of his companions, which he recited. An oration which he gave to a friend in Constantinople. A sermon also among his friends after his return from his homeland. An extemporaneous disputation concerning his office of teaching. A rebuke of those who listened to his orations negligently. A *Schedium* against certain students who came to him and seemed to be shunning the reins. On Cytianus and the companions who had listened to him with insolence while he was reciting his *Schedium*. And an exhortation to ^D

^A necessity of embracing variety in one's discourses. Also, the discourse after the healing of the wound. Then the one after the return from Corinth, [both] to the school and to his companions, and the one to the city of the Lacedaemonians, when, obeying a dream, he went to pray to the Amyclaean god. Also, that it is not necessary to deliver all recitations publicly. Also, a conversation that one ought to occupy oneself in the gymnasia. Also, a conversation published in Corinth.

I think that you have diligently read, in my presence, only those discourses of the sophist Himerius—about seventy in number. In all of them, he preserves the same style of diction and the same figure; he employs circumlocution and tropical language in such a way that this ingenious and quasi-familiar use of tropes produces no weariness. Indeed, no one to this day, in my opinion, has used tropes more gracefully or pleasantly. Furthermore, his writings are filled with examples from history and from fables of all kinds, whether for demonstration, or for comparison, or for the delight and beauty of the subject being discussed; with these he guides and varies his discourse. The prooemia and the epilogues—and sometimes even those things that one might call "contentions"—are also adorned by him with these devices. He also makes significant use of the pre-delineation of subjects. But, while such a man in his discourses, he was (as is clear) impious in his religion, even if he imitated the secret barking of dogs against us. He flourished under the emperors Constantius and the most ungodly Julian, and presided over the school of rhetoric at Athens. ^B

Antonii Diogenis Incredibilium de Thule insula libri xxiv

There were read the twenty-four books of Antonius Diogenes, *The Incredible Things Beyond Thule*. The discourses are dramatic, the diction is clear and so pure that it requires little to be understood, even during the diversions of the narratives. It contains a great deal of pleasure for the mind, since it approaches fables and, while weaving the whole fabric of its accounts in a most plausible fiction and arrangement, treats of things that are themselves unbelievable. ^C

Therefore, a certain Dinias is introduced, as the story required, together with his son Demochares, a fugitive from his homeland, who, having traveled through the Pontus and from the Caspian and Hyrcanian Sea to the mountains called the Rhipaean and to the mouths of the river Tanais, being first brought there—compelled afterward by the immense cold, they turned toward the Scythian Ocean, and from there heading toward the Orient, at

the parts of the rising sun; whence, having made a circuit, they traveled for a long time and through various wanderings over the outer sea. The companions of their wanderings become Carmanes, Meniscus, and Azulis: and finally, on the island of Thule, they established a certain interim station for their wanderings. In this very island, Dinias ^A had intimacy with a certain woman named Dercyllis, who was by birth a Tyrian of the noble families in that city, and was residing in that place with her brother Mantinias. Consorting with her, Dinias learns of the wanderings of the siblings, and how many evils a certain Paastius, an Egyptian sacrificial priest, had inflicted upon them. For he, having migrated to Tyre when her fatherland was devastated, and having been received hospitably by the parents of these siblings, Mantinias and Dercyllis—though at first he appeared well-disposed toward his benefactors and the whole household—subsequently afflicted the house and them and their parents with huge evils. She then relates how, after so many family calamities, she was taken away to Rhodes with her brother, and from there was carried astray to Crete, then to the Tyrrhenians, and from there to those who are called Cimmerians; and how she beheld the netherworld among them, and learned many of the things that are there, using as a teacher Myrto, her own handmaid, who had long ago departed this life and was instructing her mistress from the dead. ^B

These things, therefore, Dinias begins to relate to a certain Cymbas, by origin an Arcadian, whom the commonwealth of the Arcadians had sent as an envoy to Tyre, requesting Dinias to return with them to his own country. But since the weight of old age already prevented him, he is portrayed here as relating both the things which he himself had seen while tossed about in his wanderings, and what he had heard from others who had seen them, and what he had learned from Dercyllis as she related her story in Thule: I mean, her aforementioned wandering, and how, after her return from the netherworld, she had come to the tomb of the Sirens with Cyrellus and Astraeus (for she was already separated from her brother); and what she in turn learned from the discourse of Astraeus regarding Pythagoras and Mnesarchus; and what sort of things Astraeus had in turn heard from Philotis, and the marvelous spectacle in his own eyes, which was clearly fabulous; and whatever wanderings Dercyllis, upon returning to her own people, ^C reported in turn: how she had fallen in with a city of men in Iberia who could indeed see at night, but were blind every day; and what Astraeus did there by playing the flute against their enemies, and how they were sent away kindly from there and fell in with the Celts, a savage and stupid race, whom they escaped on horseback, and what occurred regarding the change in the color of the horses; and how from there they penetrated to the Aquitanians, and what great honors Dercyllis and Cyrellus obtained there; and over and above this, what Astraeus [attained through the increase of his own eyes ^D...

^A signifying the lunar phases of increase and decrease, and resolving the strife between the two kings who were contending there for the kingdom, who succeeded one another in power according to such shifts of the moon, so that on account of these things Astraeus became dear and acceptable to that people.

From there he proceeds to relate fables concerning what other things Dercyllis saw and endured, and how she was led to the Artabri, where the women wage war, while the men keep house and attend to women’s tasks. In addition to these things, he describes ^B what befell her and Cyrellus among the nation of the Astures, and moreover what happened specifically to Astraeus, and how, contrary to all expectation, having escaped the dangers that were threatening them among the Astures, Cyrellus, along with Dercyllis, did not however escape the punishment which he had long ago incurred on account of his wickedness, but just as he had escaped these dangerous situations contrary to expectation, so too was he eventually tortured to death. He relates afterwards what that woman witnessed while wandering through Italy and Sicily. How, having arrived in the Sicilian city of Eryx, she was captured and led away to Aenesidemus (who at that time was tyrant of the Leontini). In this place she again falls in with Paapis, that most wicked man, who was staying with the tyrant, and finds unhoped-for consolation for her unexpected calamity in her brother Mantinias, ^C who, having wandered far and long, and having become the guide to her of many most incredible sights—concerning men and other animals, and specifically about the sun itself and the moon, and plants, and islands—furnished abundant material for the fables that she would later relate to Dinias; which [Dinias] is introduced as himself weaving them together and recounting them to Arcadian Cymbas.

Thereafter, how Mantinias and Dercyllis, having taken from the Leontini the satchel of Paapis along with the books inside it, and the chest [360 R.] of herbs, depart for Rhegium and from there to Metapontum, where Astraeus, having caught up with them, informs them that he is following on the heels of Paapis. And how they set out together with him for the Thracians and the Massagetae, ^D as he was going off to his companion Zamolxis. And all the things that they might have seen during this journey; and how Astraeus encountered Zamolxis among the Getae, who was already honored as a god; and what things Dercyllis and Mantinias deemed fit to ask Astraeus to say and request of him on their behalf; and how an oracle was given to them from there that it was fated for them to be carried off to the island of Thule; and how they would eventually return to their homeland, but only after suffering other adversities first, and paying the penalty for their impiety toward their parents (even if they had sinned unwillingly)—namely, that their life was to be exchanged in alternating turns with death, and that they would live during the night, but by day they would always be as dead.

^A Furthermore, he relates how, upon hearing this prediction, they departed, leaving Astraeus and Zamolxis held in the highest esteem among the Getae, along with all the marvelous things they chanced to see and hear toward the North. When Dinias had heard all these things on Thule as Dercyllis related them, he now proceeds to recount the same to Cymbas the Arcadian. Furthermore, he relates how Paapis, having trailed the footprints of Dercyllis and her companions, arrived at the island and, by his magical art, brought this condition upon them, that they should die by day and return to life as night drew on. And he inflicted this condition upon them by spitting openly in their faces. Also, how a certain Thruscanus, a native of Thule and a passionate lover of Dercyllis, seeing his beloved fallen into this affliction by the evil arts of Paapis, was so overcome by such great grief that he suddenly attacked Paapis, struck him with a sword, and killed him—this being, with difficulty, the end of the myriad evils he had caused. And how Thruscanus, when he saw Dercyllis lying as if dead, killed himself as well. All these things, therefore, and many others of the same kind, such as their burial and return from the tomb, the loves of Mantinias, and whatever else befell them, and much more of that sort—when Dinias had learned all this on the island of Thule from Dercyllis’s account—he is now introduced relating them in turn to Cymbas the Arcadian. ^B And here at last is the end of the twenty-third book of the work of Antonius Diogenes, inscribed *Incredible Things Beyond Thule*, although from the beginning of this work, it had provided almost nothing—or only a few slight details—in memory regarding Thule.

The twenty-fourth book introduces Azulis narrating, and from that point Dinias also adds the deeds of Azulis to those things he had previously related to Cymbas. He tells how he fathomed the rationale of those delusions by which Paapis had mocked Dercyllis and Mantinias—that they should appear alive by night, but be dead by day—and how he delivered them from that affliction, having discovered the method and rationale of this torment and the way to cure it from the satchel of Paapis, which Mantinias and Dercyllis had carried with them. Nor only this, ^C but he also found how Dercyllis and Mantinias might deliver their parents from the great evil that lay upon them; for they, acting on the instructions of Paapis as if it were for their own benefit, had subjected them to a severe hardship, having caused them to lie for a long time like the dead. It is added here that Dercyllis and Mantinias hastened to their homeland to restore life and health to their parents.

Meanwhile Dinias, along with Carmanes and Meniscus—Azulis having separated from them—wandered even further beyond Thule itself; and in this further wandering, he is now introduced as relating to Cymbas the incredible sights he saw beyond Thule, saying that those things which he ^D saw were even such as those who are...

students of the art ^A of the stars are accustomed to teach. Such as these are: that it is possible for some to dwell under the arctic pole, and for the night to be found to be one month long, another shorter, another longer, even up to six months, and to hold the full measure of a year. And he says that not only is the night prolonged to such an extent, but the day also responds proportionally with these nights; and he reports seeing other things of a similar nature. He further invents seeing men and certain other things, such as no one has ever seen or heard, nor even conceived in their imagination. And the most incredible thing of all is that, as they journeyed towards the North, they approached as near ^B to the moon as if it were a certain very pure earth, and having arrived there, they saw what it was fitting for him to see who had previously concocted such a heap of inventions. Next, he also relates how the Sibyl learned the art of prophecy from Carmanes. After these things, he says that each one offered his own prayers, and for the others it turned out just as each had prayed; but he himself says that after awakening from that sleep, he found himself in Tyre in the temple of Hercules, and having risen from there, he found both Dercyllida and Mantinias having fared well, and having awakened their parents from that long sleep, or rather from death, and that they were living a happy life in every way.

These things Dinias related fabulously to Cymbas, and having brought out cypress tablets, he commanded Erasinides the Athenian, who was accompanying Cymbas (for he was a man skilled in letters), to write these things down. He also ^C showed them Dercyllida; for she also brought the cypress tablets. And he charged Cymbas to write down these narrated things in duplicate, and that he himself should keep one of the tablets, but that the other, when Dercyllida should depart from life, she should place in a casket and put it in her tomb.

Diogenes, therefore, who is also Antonius, who makes Dinias relate all these stories resembling prodigies to Cymbas, nevertheless writes to Faustinus: that he is writing about the incredible things which are beyond Thule, and that he is dedicating these very things to his sister Isidora, who is greatly devoted to learning. He further professes himself to be a poet of the old comedy, and that, although he has invented false and incredible things, he nevertheless possesses witnesses to these same stories who are far more ancient, from whose writings he has gathered these things with great labor. ^D He then cites the authors for each book who had previously committed the same things to writing, so that the incredible things might not appear to be lacking a credible witness. At the very beginning of the work, therefore, he writes an epistle to his sister Isidora, by which, although he shows this volume to be inscribed to her, Balagrus nevertheless...

^A writes to his own wife, Philas by name (she was the daughter of Antipater), that when Tyre was taken by Alexander, king of the Macedonians, and most things were consumed by fire, a soldier came to Alexander, reporting that he had something strange and wonderful to tell him, and that the sight was outside the city. The king, taking Hephaestion and Parmenion as his companions, followed the soldier, and they encountered some underground stone tombs, one of which was inscribed: "Lysilla lived thirty-five years." Another: "Mnason, son of Mantinias, lived sixty-six years, and afterwards seventy-one." Another title was: "Aristion, son of Philocles, lived forty-seven years, and afterwards fifty-two." Again, another stone was inscribed thus: "Mantinias, son of Mnason, lived forty-two years, and sixty nights and 1700." Item, another: "Dercyllis, daughter of Mnason, lived thirty-nine years, and sixty nights and 1700." The sixth tomb had this epigram: ^B "Dinias the Arcadian lived one hundred and twenty-five years." While they were in suspense reading these (except for the first tomb, whose inscription was clearer), they came upon a small chest by the wall, made of cypress, upon which was inscribed: "Stranger, whoever you are, open, that you may learn the things you marvel at."

Alexander's companions having therefore opened the chest, they found the cypress tablets which, as it appears, Dercyllis had placed there at the command of Dinias. These things Balagrus is introduced writing to his wife, and that he had transcribed these cypress tablets and sent them on to his wife. And from this point the narrative proceeds to the reading and writing of the cypress tablets, and Dinias is also present, recounting what we have mentioned to Cymba. In this manner, then, and concerning these matters, has the fiction of the novels been fashioned by Antonius Diogenes. ^C

He seems, however, to be prior in time to those who have diligently fabricated such things, such as Lucian, Lucius, Iamblichus, Achilles Tatius, Heliodorus, and Damascius; for you might call this the source and root of Lucian’s *True Narratives* and Lucius’s *Metamorphoses*. Indeed, not only these, but also those works concerning Sinonis and Rhodanes, Leucippe and Clitophon, and Chariclea and Theagenes, and the fictions composed about them—errands, loves, rapes, and dangers—Dercyllis, Ceryllus, Thruscanus, and Dinias may be deservedly considered to have provided the example. As to the time, however, in which this author of fables, that Antonius Diogenes, lived, I have nothing certain to state. It may only be conjectured that he flourished not so long after ^D the times of Alexander the Great. He also makes mention of a certain Antiphanes, who was older than himself, whom he...

says was occupied with prodigies of this kind. ^A It is, however, in these stories, and especially as in such great fictions and myths, that two things of most great utility are to be sought: first, that he who has done some injustice, even though he may seem a thousand times to escape, is nonetheless brought in to pay the penalty; and second, that he shows many innocent people, having been near to great danger, to have been unexpectedly saved.

Of the Eclogues, Apophthegms, and Life-Advice of John Stobaeus, in four books

^B There were read the four books of John Stobaeus’ Eclogues, Apophthegms, and Precepts, in two volumes. He dedicates them, for whose sake he says he labored to collect them, to his own son Septimius. This collection was made by him from poets, rhetoricians, and those who have lived brilliantly in public life, from whom (as he himself says) he collected certain excerpts, apophthegms, and precepts of some, in order to regulate and improve the nature of his son, which was somewhat dull toward the memory of his readings.

The first book is entirely physical; the second, in its beginning, is logical, but the rest, and by far the greatest part, is ethical; the third and fourth, except for a very few things, contain ethical and political matters. The first book contains sixty chapters, to which he reduces the maxims and celebrated sayings of the ancients. ^C These are: after having discussed God, that He is the Creator of existing things and governs the whole by the reason of providence; second, concerning those who think there is no providence and the divine powers that follow it in the administration of the whole; then, concerning the justice ordained by God to oversee the things done by men, being the avenger of those who sin, and concerning divine necessity, by which all things that are according to the will of God inevitably happen; concerning fate and the good order of things that come to pass; concerning fortune or the accidental, and that the course of fortune is without reason; concerning the essence of time and its parts, and of how many things it is the cause; and concerning heavenly Aphrodite and divine love; the tenth concerning principles, elements, and the universe. Then concerning matter, concerning the idea, concerning causes, concerning bodies and the division of these, and concerning the smallest, concerning shapes, concerning colors, concerning mixture and composition, concerning the void and place and space, concerning ^D

^A motion. The twentieth chapter concerns generation and decay, concerning the world, and whether it is animate and governed by providence, and where it possesses its ruling principle, and from where it is nourished; concerning the order of the world; whether the all is one; concerning the essence of the heaven and its division; concerning the essence of the stars and their shapes, their motions, and their significations; concerning the essence of the sun, and its magnitude, and shape, and turnings, and eclipse, and signs, and motion; concerning the essence, magnitude, and shape of the moon, and its illuminations, and concerning its eclipse and appearances, and concerning distances and signs; concerning the galaxy; concerning comets, and shooting stars, and such things; concerning thunder, lightning, thunderbolts, whirlwinds, and typhoons. The thirtieth chapter concerns the rainbow, concerning the halo, the parhelion, and rods, and indeed also concerning clouds, mist, rains, dew, snow, rime, and hail; concerning winds; concerning the earth, whether it is one and finite; and concerning its magnitude, and concerning its position, and concerning the shape of the earth; and whether the earth rests or moves; concerning earthquakes; and concerning the sea, how ebb and flow occur; concerning waters, concerning the universe, concerning nature and the causes arising therefrom, concerning the generation of animals, and what follows: how many are the genera of animals, and whether all are rational and sensitive; concerning sleep and death; concerning plants, concerning the nourishment and appetite of animals, concerning the nature of humans, concerning ^B mind, concerning the soul, concerning sensation and sensible objects, and whether sensations are true; how many sensations there are, and what the essence and activity of each is; concerning sight and catoptric appearances, concerning hearing, concerning smell, concerning taste, concerning touch; concerning voice, and whether the voice is incorporeal, and what its ruling principle is; concerning imagination and the criterion; the fifty-ninth chapter concerns opinion, and the sixtieth concerning respiration and its affections. Such are the chapters of the first book, and they contain matters such as these, which belong, of course, to natural philosophy, except for a few things at the beginning, which one might more rightly refer to metaphysics. Through these chapters, as we have said, Stobaeus has set forth the opinions of the ancients, whether agreeing or disagreeing, for us to read. However, in this very book, before he undertakes the chapters I have just listed, he discusses two other ones. The first of these is a commendation of philosophy, ^C and indeed this is compiled for him from various writers. The second, however, concerns the sects that have conspired within it. In it, he likewise records the ancient opinions concerning geometry, music, and arithmetic.

^A The second book is comprised of 46 chapters. It treats, first, of the interpreters of divine things, and how the truth concerning spiritual beings is incomprehensible to mortals in its essence; then, of dialectic and rhetoric, of speech and letters, of poetics, of the character of the ancients, of the ethical form of philosophy, of those things which are in our power, that no one is evil willingly, of what kind a philosopher ought to be, that one must reverence the Divine, and that the Higher Power assists the pious and the just; of divination; that one ought to esteem highly the company of the wise, and shun the base and unlearned; of seeming and of being, and that one ought not to judge a man by his speech, but by his conduct; that those who plot against others are unknowingly harming themselves; of good reputation; of fame; that it is the best measure; that virtue is hard to achieve, ^B but vice is easily handled; that one ought not to make a judgment of those who lack understanding; that hypocrisy, being harmful to those who use it and to those toward whom it acts, should be cast from the soul; that one ought not to be a meddler, for such a thing is a cause of envy and calumny; that in matters where one has erred, the best thing is to repent; of railing, as not being a good thing; that in the midst of railing, one must observe whether we ourselves have fallen into the same faults; of the necessity of life; that one must act at the proper time; of the will; that one must not delay things as it happens; that to suffer misfortune is often beneficial, and especially for the foolish; of upbringing and education; that friendship is the greatest of goods ^C and that similarity of character produces friendship; that in misfortunes and dangers one must not neglect one’s friends; that one must not join with friends in injustice; of genuine and fickle friends; that one must make quick reconciliations with friends, bearing their faults more easily along with forgetfulness of them; that in misfortunes we discern the genuine among our friends; of precepts of friendship; of enmity and of what kind one must be toward enemies; of how it is possible to be benefited by enemies; of doing good; that a favor is greater when bestowed at the right time; of reciprocating favors; that one must not do good to the wicked, nor receive benefits from them; and lastly, of ingratitude. ^D In these are included the chapters of the second book.

^A The third book thereafter contains 42 chapters. The first is on virtue, then on vice, on prudence, on imprudence, on temperance, on intemperance, on fortitude, on timidity, on justice, on covetousness and injustice, on truth, on falsehood, on freedom of speech, on flattery, on prodigality, on parsimony, on self-control, on incontinence, on patience [or the endurance of evils], on anger, on knowing oneself, on haughtiness, on self-love, on conscience, on memory, on forgetfulness, on oaths, on perjury, on the love of labor, on sloth, on shame, on impudence, on silence, on speaking at the right time, on brevity of speech, on garrulity, on kindness, on envy, on fatherland, on being in a foreign land, on secrets, and the 42nd on calumny.

The chapters of the fourth book are these: the first is on the republic, the second on laws and customs, on the people, on the powerful in the city, on authority, and on what the ruler ought to be, that monarchy is the best, precepts on kingship, censure of tyranny, on war, on audacity, on youth, on generals, and on needs in war, precepts on peace, on agriculture, on tranquility, on navigation (and shipwreck), on the arts, on masters and slaves, on common Venus and on bodily sensual pleasures, on beauty, on marriage, and the rest belonging to this chapter. Nuptial precepts, and on children, and the rest belonging to this chapter. That parents ought to be deemed worthy of appropriate honor by their children; what fathers ought to be toward their children. That brotherly love and the disposition toward relatives is most excellent. On domestic economy. On nobility, and the rest belonging to this chapter; on ignobility. On wealth, and the rest belonging to this chapter; on poverty; a comparison of poverty and wealth. That life is short and full of troubles. On grief, that it is very evil. On disease and healing, on health and the preservation of it, on physicians. On prosperity, on adversity; that human success is uncertain; on those who are prosperous beyond their deserts; on those who are unfortunate beyond their deserts; that one must ^{B C D}

bravely bear what befalls; that one must display success and hide adversity. On hope; on things beyond hope. That one ought not to rejoice regarding those who are unfortunate; that the unfortunate need those who sympathize. On old age, and the rest of this chapter. On death, on life; a comparison of life and death. On mourning, on burial. Consolations; that one must not treat the departed with insolence; that the memory of most people quickly fades after death. ^B The sum of the chapters of the fourth book is 58, and of the four books in total, 208. In these, Stobaeus sets forth, as we have said, the opinions, testimonies, and moral anecdotes which John [Stobaeus] has placed before us, derived from his gatherings of apophthegms, precepts, and moral sayings.

The philosophers, moreover, from whom he collects these are roughly as follows: Aegimius, Aeschines the Socratic, Albinus, Amelius, Anacharsis, Anaxagoras, Anaxarchus, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Antipater of Histiaea, Antisthenes, Apelles, Apollodorus, Apollonius, Apollophanes, Arcesilaus, Archenetus, Archedemus, Hecataeus, Archelaus, Archimedes, Archytas, Arrianus, Aristagoras, Aristander, Aristarchus, Aristippus, Aristobrotus, Ariston, Aristonymus, Aristotle, Aristoxenus, Asclepiades son of Aristaeus, Atticus, Beronice, Berosus, Bias, Bion, Boethus, Brotinus, Callicratides, Callimachus, Carneades, Cebes, Chirondas, Chilon, Chion, Chrysippus, Cleanthes, Cleobulus, Clineas, Clitomachus, Coriscus, Crantor, Critias, Critolaus, Criton, Damarmenes, ^C Damippus, Demetrius, Democritus, Demonax, Didymus, Diocles, Diodorus, Diogenes, Dion, Diotimus, Dius, Ecphantus, Ecpolus, Empedocles, Epandrides, Epicharmus, Epictetus, Epigenes, Erasistratus, Ecpulus, Epicurus of Gargettus, Epicurus the Athenian, Eusebius, Erysus, Eratosthenes, Eurystratus, Ecphantus, Epidicus, Eudoxus, Epigenes, Euhenius, Euriphamus, Zaleucus, [Epi-

^A Zeno, Zoroaster, Heraclides, Heraclitus, Herophilus, Themistius, Theobulus, Theano, Theages, Theophrastus, Theodorus, Thales, Theocritus, Thrasyllus, Hieronymus, Hippias, Iamblichus, Hierocles, Hippalus, Ion, Hipponus, Hierax, Hippodamus, Hippatus, Iungus, Criton, Cleobulus, Centes, Coriscus, Clitomachus, Critolaus, Clineas, Carneades, Cleanthes, Callimachus, Critius, Crantor, Callicratidas, Leucippus, Lucius, Lysis, Lycus, Lycon, Leophanes, Longinus, Metæchmus, Metrocles, Metopon, Menedemus, Musonius, Mnesarchus, Melissus, Metrodorus, Milon, ^B Moderatus, Maximus, Nicolaus, Numenius, Naumachius, Naucratas, Nicias, Nicostratus, Xenocrates, Xenophanes, Onatus, Ocellus, Onetor, Panacæus, Pittacus, Periander, Pythagoras, Plutarch, Pempelus, Plato, Panætius, Posidonius, Perictione, Porphyry, Parmenides, Polemon, Pytheas, Porus, Polybius, Plotinus, Protagoras, Pythiades, Pyrrhon, Reginus, Rufus, Solon, Sotion, Sosiades, Serenus, Socrates, Stilpon, Speusippus, Straton, Scythinus, Sphærus, Seleucus, Severus, Timon, Timæus, Taurus, Timagoras, Telis, Hypsæus, Philoxenus, Philolaus, Pherecydes, Favorinus, Phintys, Chion, Chrysippus, Charondas, Chilon, and of the Cynic sect, Antisthenes, Diogenes, Crates, Hegesianax, Onesicritus, Menander, Monimus, Polyzelus, Xanthippus, Theomnestus; and these are the philosophers from whom he made this collection. ^C But the poets are these: Athenodorus, Anaxilles, Archippus, Apollonides, Alcidamas, Aristæus, Antimachus, Antiphanes, Aristarchus, Archilochus, Achæus, Æschylus, Agathon, Alexis, Aristocrates, Amphis, Alcæus, Aratus, Astydamas, Andronicus, Anaxandrides, Aristophanes, Aralochus, Apollodorus, Alexander, Anacreon, Axinicus, Aristophon, Bacchylides, Bion, Biotus, Bathon, Diphilus, Dionysius, Demetrius, Dicæogenes, Diodorus, Dictys, ^D Euthydamas, Eupolis, Euphron, Eratosthenes, Epicharmus, Evenus, Euphorion, Hermolochus, Euripides, Zeno, Zenodotus, Zopyrus, Hesiod, Herodes, Heniochus, Heliodorus, Theodectes, Thespis, Theognis, Theocritus, Thelerophus, Iophon, Hippothoon, Hipponax, Isidorus, Hippothoon, Julius, Ion, Cleanthes, Cleænetus, Callimachus, Critias, Cleobulus, Cratinus, Carcinus, Cercidas, Callinicus, Cleinias, Crantor, Clitomachus, Linus, Licymnius, Lycophron, Leonidas, Laon, Menander, Myron, Moschion, Menip-

pus, Menophilus, Metrodorus, Mimnermus, Moschion, Moschus, Myron, Naumachius, Neophron, Neoptolemus, Nicolaus, Nicomachus, Nicostratus, ^A Olympias, Orpheus, Panyasis, Parmenides, Patrocles, Pausanias, Phanocles, Pherecrates, Philaeus, Philetas, Philemon, Philippides, Philippus, Philiscus, Philonides, Philoxenus, Phintys, Phocylides, Phoenicides, Phrynichus, Pindarus, Pisander, Polyides, Pompeius, Posidippus, Rhianus, Sappho, Serapion, Sclerius, Simonides, Simylus, Sopater, Sophocles, Sosicrates, Sosiphanes, Sositheus, Sotades, Staginus, Stesichorus, Stehenides, Susaron, Telessilla, Therelephus, Theocritus, Theognis, Thespis, Timocles, Timostratus, Tyrtaeus, Xenarchus, Xenophanes, Zeno, Zenodotus, Zopyrus. Verum ^B poetæ, quorum sententias his capitibus est persecutus, isti fuerunt.

Rhetores deinde et historici, regesque ac duces, quando horum quoque testimonia collegit, ii sunt: Aristides, Aristocles, Aelianus, Aeschines, Agathon, Antiphon, Archelaus, Gaius, Gorgias, Demosthenes, Demades, Demaratus, Ephorus, Zopyrus, Herodotus, Hegesiades, Hegesius, Thucydides, Theseus, Theodorus, Thrasyllus, Theopompus, Isocrates, Isaeus, Cornelianus, Callisthenes, Clitophon, Ctesias, Lysias, Nicias, Xenophon, Obrimus, Polyaenus, Prodicus, Protagoras, Sostratus, Timagoras, Trophimus, Hyperides, Philostratus, Chrysermus. Alexander, Agesilaus, Agathocles, Antigonus, Agis, Agrippinus, Anaxilaus, Archidamus, Dionysius, Darius, Epaminondas, Eudamidas, Themistocles, Iphicrates, Hipparchus, Cotys, Clitarchus, Lycurgus, Leonides, Lamachus, Mallius, Pericles, Pyrrhus, Ptolemaeus, Semiramis, Scipio, Scyllurus, Timotheus, Philippus, Phocion, Phalaris, Charillus, Charias, Chares. Aristophanes, Aesopus, Antigenidas, Aristoteles, Aristides the Just, Alcmaeon the physician, Antyllus the physician, Arimnestus, Apelles, ^C Brasson, Glaucon, Galenus the physician, Dicaearchus, Dion, Dionysius, Diocles the physician, Euxitheus, Hermarchus, Hermippus, Eryximachus, Euphranias, Erasistratus the physician, Euryphron the physician, Eratosthenes, Eubulus, Theopompus, Theocritus, Thymarides, Thunon, Hippocrates the physician, Cato, Cephisodorus, Cleostratus, Clitomachus, Licymnius, Mysson, Metrodorus, Metrocles, Nicostratus, Prausion, Simonides, Seriphius, Sotion, Sostratus, Speusippus.

^D But those are the chapters into which John Stobaeus arranged the sayings of the ancients, and from which he gathered them—from philosophers, poets, orators, and

kings and generals—so many and from so many sources. This book is useful to those who have already read ^A the compilations of these men, for the sake of recollection; and for those who have not experienced them, because through continuous study of them, they will be able to reap the memory of many, fine, and varied notions, even if they are summary. Common to both is the effortless and quick discovery of what is sought, whenever one wishes to run back from the headings to the full texts themselves. Furthermore, the book is not useless to those who are eager to speak and write.

CLXVIII. The fifteen orations of the blessed Basil, bishop of Seleucia.

The fifteen orations of the blessed Basil, bishop of Seleucia, were read. ^B The first is on the text: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”; then on Joseph, on Adam, on Cain and Abel, on Abraham, on Moses, on Elijah, and on Jonah. The ninth is on the Centurion. The tenth is on the text: “The disciples were sailing with Jesus,” and what follows. Then on the text: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest,” etc. Then on the Publican and the Pharisee. Also on the text: “Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at the left.” And on the text: “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And the fifteenth is on the text: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?”

In these orations of his, ^C indeed, one may observe that, if ever there was anyone else, he is a great master of figurative and spirited oratory, and of balanced clauses. Yet he retains clarity and sweetness. But because he is excessive in tropes and spirited figures, he produces satiety, or rather, because he is so constant and entirely occupied with these, so that nothing else occurs without moderation, he provides the auditor with distaste and an opportunity for calumny, and incites mockery against the writer himself—as if he were unable to moderate nature with art, or to arrange what was disorderly by a rule. Although he abounds in tropes, and ^D indeed spawns the very style of his allegorizing, he does not for that reason—

that is, as a minor detail—allow it to be carried away, nor does he obscure the meaning with lack of clarity; but through the brevity of the clauses and periods and the emphasis of the words, he removes the difficulty of the tropology. Yet, as I said, satiety dulls the grace, and the unrestrained nature of the trope does not permit the laws of art to speak freely.

^A This man seems rather to be a different person than the great Basil of Caesarea, the bishop (79), who was a friend and house-mate of the thrice-blessed John Chrysostom, to whom he also addressed the book *On the Priesthood*; for many traces of that man’s speeches and thoughts, and especially those concerning the Holy Scripture, appear in the homilies of this Basil, as if both had drawn from the same spring of doctrine what was suitable. ^B And the use of tropes—in terms of both emphasis and familiarity—is no small proof of his association and common reading with John; for that divine man also uses this, albeit sparingly and very opportunely, and by mixing and skillfully smoothing out the grandeur from that source with simplicity, he makes his whole speech an image of civic discourse.

This is that same Basil who also rendered into meter the deeds, struggles, and tokens of victory of the first martyr, Thecla; and other writings of his also circulate (81).

CLXIX. The Books of the Blessed Cyril against the Blasphemies of Nestorius. Various letters, and a Scholion on the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten.

^C There were read the five books of the blessed Cyril against the blasphemies of Nestorius, of which the first refutes ten chapters of Nestorius’s blasphemy, the second fourteen, the third six, and the fourth and fifth seven each. His style of interpretation is fashioned according to his own peculiar manner of expression, though it inclines a little toward a humbler variety of speech.

^D There was also contained in the volume a letter to Nestorius himself, attempting, as it were, to win him over and amicably correct him. And there is also the reply of Nestorius to Cyril, in which he judges those chapters which he had included in his letter to be worthy of condemnation. Another—

[alt-version omitted]

[index: entries preserved]

^A letter also to Valerius the bishop, against Nestorius and his dogmas; and a dogmatic letter to Acacius, bishop of Melitene, or rather one containing an apology for the union and concord with John, patriarch of Antioch. And other various letters of the same subject, in two of which he explains the heaven-taught lesson of the Council of Nicaea. In all of these, he preserves his own characteristic form of speech, whether he is being more intense or more relaxed.

There was also included ^B here a letter to Acacius, bishop of Scythopolis, concerning the scapegoat. Another work is also present, inscribed: *Scholion concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten*, in which these things are explained: What is Christ? In what way is Emmanuel to be understood? What is Jesus Christ? According to what is the Word of God called man? According to what is the Word of God said to have been emptied? How also is Christ one, and how is Emmanuel one? And what do we say the emptying is? Also ten chapters concerning the burning coal which Isaiah saw, and other things similar to these. This work can bring very great profit to those who read it.

CLXX.

Anonymous Work of Testimonies concerning Christ from the writings of the Gentiles, in fifteen books.

^C I read a work of many verses, or rather of many books (for it contained fifteen books in five volumes), in which testimonies and passages from entire books, not only Greek but also Persian, Thracian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Chaldaean, and indeed even Italic, were laid out from those who were held to be famous for doctrine among each of these nations; which indeed this writer attempts to show are not useless to the holy, heavenly, and most divine religion of the Christians. He brings forward matters of this kind concerning the most holy and consubstantial Trinity itself; how it is preached and proclaimed even by those same sages. Also concerning the advent ^D of the Word in the flesh, and the divine signs, and concerning the cross, the torments, and the burial, the resurrection, and the ascension, and the grace of the most holy Spirit which came upon the disciples in the form of fiery tongues in an inexplicable way, and indeed also concerning the terrible second advent of Christ our God, and the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment, and the remuneration of those things which each has done in life. In addition to these, concerning the creation of the universe and providence, concerning paradise, and things similar to these. Moreover, also concerning the virtue proper to Christians, and if there is anything akin to this. Concerning all these matters...

^A he attempts to demonstrate that the Greeks, Egyptians, Chaldeans, and the aforementioned philosophers have philosophized and proclaimed these truths in their own writings. He does not only gather and compile testimonies from those mentioned, but also from the frigid books of Zosimus (who was a Theban from Panopolis); he did not shrink from substantiating the same arguments with these, in which he also sets forth the meanings of Hebrew words, and where each of the apostles preached the saving doctrine, and in what place they ended their human cares and labors. At the end of these books, he also adds his own exhortation, weaving and verifying it with the maxims of outsiders and with Scriptural words; in which it is possible to recognize, most of all, the man’s love of virtue and his piety, which is beyond reproach.

^B Regarding the style of his discourse, it seems to have none at all. For the composition is in most respects neglected, and the diction itself is such that he does not even sometimes abstain from trivial words. And the sense of what he writes is for the most part no better. Therefore, while a sensible person would not deservedly blame the man’s labor and intention, the work itself is not to be regarded in the same light. For he not only often strains to accommodate inconsistent sayings to our divine faith in many places, but even fables and dreams, which would be laughed at by the very authors who produced them, if they possessed any sense. Yet he does not fear to claim that these contribute ^C to our Christian faith, and he eagerly tries to translate the strange meaning of fables and dreams into true, pious, pure, and sincere meanings of the divine dogma; from which it may not unjustly appear that, as he has brought no benefit at all to the true religion, he has provided an opportunity for cavilers to find fault with it. For the Gentiles will henceforth be able to show that some of our men, in order to commend our religion (which alone is pure and true, and needs nothing else), make use of such things as do not pertain to the matter at all, but rather are for the most part utterly alien, because they try to reconcile their affairs with ours, which are, however, as far removed from each other as darkness is from light. ^D Yet he undertook this immense labor, as he himself often testifies, in order that, by showing that the doctrine of the Christians had been foretold among all nations and proclaimed by the most eloquent men in each nation, he might prove to be inexcusable all those among the Gentiles who have not assented to the divine doctrine. And while this intention is indeed to be praised, it was not fitting that he should attempt to establish this, not by matters that were doubtful and incredible, but by those which were permissible and through which faith would naturally follow. However, the name of the one who collected these volumes, I have not been able to know until this day, for the books did not contain...

^A that which we have seen, except that he dwelt in Constantinople, lived with a wife according to the law of marriage and with the children born of her, and that he finished his life after the times of Heraclius.

CLXXI. Treatise of Eustratius, presbyter of the Great Church, on the life of departed souls; and History of Gamaliel and Nicodemus by Chrysippus, presbyter of Jerusalem.

We have read the book of Eustratius, presbyter of the Great Church, who indeed used a style not at all praiseworthy, but his arguments are not to be greatly blamed; and the diction itself is clear. Three things were proposed by him as the main points. First, ^B that the souls of the blessed, as soon as they are released from the body, are active: and not only the souls of the blessed, but altogether, according to the merit of each, every human soul. Those souls, which often and in various ways present themselves to be seen, appear in their own nature, nor does a divine power somehow transformed into the shapes of the holy souls exhibit those operations. For what does it avail to feign either forms or figures, when those matters which have seemed good to the Divinity can be performed more readily by those holy souls themselves? He endeavors to confirm both these points with passages from the Old and New Testaments, as well as with the testimonies of various Fathers. Lastly, he zealously pursues a third point: that the sacrifices and offerings performed ^C by priests for those who have died in the faith, or otherwise prayers, supplications, and alms made by the faithful for them, are altogether of avail for the salvation and remission of sins of those for whom these are offered. Among these, he speaks of offering the holy sacrifice on the third day, taking the mystery of the Lord’s triduan resurrection into the support and aid of the prayer; likewise the nine-day observances, because Christ was seen again by the disciples after the eighth day from the resurrection; and furthermore, the forty-day observance, because after as many days He was last seen by the disciples and ascended into heaven with our human nature.

I also found in that same codex that Gamaliel, the teacher of Paul in the law, ^D both believed and was baptized. Likewise, that Nicodemus, who was once a nocturnal friend, also became a diurnal one, and was crowned with martyrdom; and this history testifies that he was a cousin of Gamaliel. Both were baptized by John and Peter, together with the son of Gamaliel, whose name was Abib. Therefore, blessed Nicodemus, when he was discovered by the Jews...

^A to have been baptized, he was for this reason subjected to many blows, having endured which steadfastly, he died shortly after. This book contained this history, and attributed it to Chrysippus, a presbyter of Jerusalem, who, in a panegyric on the martyr Theodore, mentions, as if in a digression, a certain Lucian, who was likewise a presbyter of the same church, at the time when John held the bishopric there. It is said that this Lucian, on a certain night, about the third hour, in reality and not in a dream, learned what we have mentioned. For it is said that Gamaliel stood over him and revealed everything to him: that he himself truly was Gamaliel, and that he had been baptized by the aforementioned apostles, together with his son Abib, and had been placed in the same casket. That Stephen the protomartyr was also buried ^B in the casket facing the east, and that Nicodemus lay at his feet in another casket, and he indicated through whom and under whom he had suffered; and that the casket after these contained his own body and that of his son. Having said these things, Gamaliel charged Lucian not to allow those relics, from that time forward, to be corrupted through negligence in the sun and rain. Furthermore, that an earthquake occurred accompanying the vision, and that many healings of various diseases were accomplished, with the casket of the protomartyr especially pouring forth healings.

CLXXII-CLXXIV. Sixty-one Homilies of the blessed John Chrysostom on Genesis, in three volumes.

We have read sixty-one homilies of Chrysostom on Genesis, distributed into three volumes: of which the first contained twenty, the second sixteen, and the third twenty-five. But it appears in the first that he began to discourse at the very beginning of the Lenten season, and before that season of fasting had passed, he had delivered these twenty sermons to the people, together with three or four others ^C that had been inserted in the midst of the discourses on Genesis, as was the custom, it seems, when necessary. And one can observe that even if the book bears the title "Discourses" (for so I found it in the copies I read), they are rather similar to homilies; among other reasons, because he often addresses the listeners as if they were present, and asks and answers questions, and makes promises—even though it is possible for a discourse to be formatted and shown in a manner other than that of a homily. Yet, the fact that he does this continuously and persistently, and not according to any set arrangement, makes it clear that they are homilies. He spoke these to the multitude, as can be learned from these very texts, often daily, and sometimes at intervals of more than a day. In this way, the first book, in which ^D were the twenty homilies. The second...

then, contains sixteen orations, of which the first seven were delivered while Lent was still in progress; thus it is evident that during the whole time of Lent, up to the Wednesday of Holy Week, there were twenty-seven orations on Genesis. But the remaining nine sermons of the second book, and the twenty-five of the third, were not delivered immediately or continuously after Easter. For after the sermon on the Wednesday of Holy Week, which is the twenty-seventh on Genesis, he preached in succession on the Holy Cross, then on the betrayal of Judas; and thereafter the homilies were adapted according to the festivals and subjects of the days as they occurred. And after the homilies on the Resurrection, he spoke continuously on the Acts of the Apostles, as he himself signifies in beginning the twenty-eighth ^B oration on Genesis—the one which, as is clear, he also delivered together with those that followed a long time later. For the fifty homilies on Acts, though they are many, occupied him for almost an entire year; for he did not recite them every day, but every fifth or seventh day, and sometimes even more rarely; and some, as he himself relates, when he was already in the third year of his episcopate. As to the time when those he wrote on Genesis were delivered, I have not been able to discover. Only if he mentions in that twenty-seventh homily the homilies which were delivered by him—which he composed in the third year of his episcopate—and not others besides these (for I have not yet discovered this), it is clear that he composed these also while he was bishop: the twenty-seven in the Lent of the second year, and the remaining thirty-four in the fourth year.

On the Style and Eloquence of the Author

His diction here appears, as is his custom, clear and pure, and moreover splendid and flowing, exhibiting meanwhile both a great variety of meanings and a most welcome abundance of examples. Yet the style ^C here is more inclined towards a humble mode of speech, being as much inferior to that which he employs in the homilies on the Acts of the Apostles as those latter are surpassed by the Commentaries on the Apostle and the Psalms. For, since he always weaves his discourse in a pure, illustrious, and well-ordered manner, not without pleasure and artifice, he excels in these writings especially in those virtues—in the richness of examples, in the abundance of enthymemes, and, when the need arises, in gravity as well. Indeed, to say it once, he brought forth these monuments most excellently adorned in their words, composition, method, meanings, and in equipment of that kind. As for what he elaborated on the Epistles of the Apostle while he was at Antioch, and those more precise works which he also wrote as bishop, these can be easily discerned from the ^D texts themselves. What pertains to the history of the Commentaries on the Psalms, however, it has not yet been permitted me to know, unless perhaps one, admiring the power and other virtues of his speech, might assert that he worked them out while at leisure rather than while immersed in public business. For wherever his opinion...

regarding the scripture or interpretation or deeper theory was in need of something, and yet he did not explain it with sufficient diligence, it should not seem surprising at all. For whatever was suited to the grasp of his hearers and contributed to their salvation and benefit, he passed over in no place. Therefore, it is always a cause for me to admire that thrice-blessed man that, in all his discourses, he always made as his goal the benefit of his hearers, while of other matters he cared either not at all or as little as possible. Indeed, he would even ignore entirely the desire to appear learned in some of his concepts, or to attempt to delve into deeper matters, if by doing so he might in any way jeopardize the benefit of his hearers ^A.

Pamphila, Miscellaneous Historical Commentaries, 8 Books

^B There were read the eight books of the Miscellaneous Historical Commentaries by Pamphila. She was married to a man, as she herself points out while introducing her commentaries; already having lived with him for thirteen years from childhood, she says that she began to compile these commentaries. She wrote all that she had learned from her husband, with whom, as we have said, she lived most closely for thirteen years, never letting a day or an hour pass in idleness; then what she had received from anyone else—among the many who flocked to her husband, men of name and reputation for their learning—and finally, whatever she herself had observed while reading. She recorded all these things, whatever seemed to her worthy of speech or memory, into a miscellaneous commentary, and did not divide each point according to its own subject matter, but compiled them as each one appeared and as it occurred to her. She says that this was not because it would have been difficult for her to divide them into their respective classes, but because she considered this miscellaneous writing, with its variety, to be more pleasant and far more agreeable than a work of a single genre. This book is certainly useful for general erudition, for one might find in it not a few necessary things from the historians, as well as some choice apothegms, some rhetorical exercises, ideas of philosophical speculation and poetic faculty, and whatever else of this sort might happen to appear ^C.

Pamphila was Egyptian by birth, and she flourished at the time when Nero held the Roman imperial power. Her diction, as far as one can gather from the preface and from where she happens to say something of her own—especially in terms of thought, as one might expect from a woman—is of a simple style, and is not even in its words alien to that idea. But whenever she records the sayings of the ancients, her speech is varied and not suited to a single form ^D.

Codex CLXXVI. Theopompus's Books of History.

^A We have read the historical books of Theopompus; fifty-three of his historical books are extant. Some of the ancients have said that the sixth, seventh, and indeed the twenty-ninth and the thirtieth have perished. But these we did not see. Menophanes, however, a man who is himself ancient and not to be despised, when discussing Theopompus, says that the twelfth book also perished, even though we read it together with the others. This twelfth book narrates the deeds of Acoris, king of the Egyptians, as he made a treaty with the Barcaeans and took a stand for Evagoras the Cyprian, acting in opposition to the Persian. It explains the manner in which Evagoras unexpectedly gained the rule of the Cyprians, having captured the Citiean Audymon, who held it. It explains by what art the Greeks who followed Agamemnon occupied Cyprus, having expelled those with Cinyras, the survivors of whom are the Amathusians. It tells how the king was persuaded to wage war with Evagoras, having appointed Autophradates, the satrap of Lydia, as general, and Hecatomnus ^B as admiral; and regarding the peace which he bestowed upon the Greeks in place of a palm—that is, a reward—and how he fought more fiercely against Evagoras, and about the naval battle at Cyprus. How the city of the Athenians studiously strove to abide by the treaties entered into with the king, while the Lacedaemonians, elated by their successes, broke the covenants. How, likewise, they struck the peace treaty under Antalcidas. How Teribazus waged war and plotted against Evagoras, and how Evagoras brought charges against him before the king and brought him into conflict with Orontes. And how, after Nectenibis had seized the kingdom of the Egyptians, Evagoras sent envoys to the Lacedaemonians. How the war regarding Cyprus was resolved, and ^C regarding Nicocreon: how he plotted, how he was unexpectedly discovered, and how he fled. And how, regarding his daughter who was left a virgin, both Evagoras and his son, Pnytagoras, unbeknownst to each other, slept with her, while Thrasydaeus the eunuch, who was an Elean by birth, served them in turn in their lust for the girl; and how this became the cause of death for them, as Thrasydaeus procured their slaughter. He relates, then, for what reason Acoris the Egyptian entered into a military alliance with the Pisidians, and about their region and the Aspendians. ^D Concerning also the Coan and Cnidian physicians, that Ascle—

Asclepiadae ^A, and how from Syrnus the first descendants of Podalirius arrived; and concerning Mopsus the seer and his daughters Rhode, Meliade, and Pamphylia, from whom Mopsuestia, and the Rhodius [district] in Lycia, and the region of Pamphylia received their names. Also, in what manner Pamphylia was settled by the Greeks; and the war against one another; and how the Lycians fought against the Telmissians, with their king Pericles leading them, and did not cease fighting until they had driven them within their walls and compelled them to terms of surrender. These are the contents of the twelfth book of the lost ^B Menophanes.

Theopompus was of Chios by birth, the son of Damostratus; it is said that he fled his homeland together with his father, when the father was convicted of Laconism, but returned to his country after his father died there, having secured his return through letters from Alexander, king of the Macedonians, to the Chians, when Theopompus was then forty-five years of age. But after the death of Alexander, they relate that he was driven out from every place and arrived in Egypt; and that Ptolemy, the king of that land, did not receive the man, but even wished to destroy him as a busybody, had he not been saved by the entreaties of some of his friends. He himself names his contemporaries ^C: Isocrates the Athenian, Theodectes the Phaselites, and Naucrates the Erythraean, and relates that these, along with himself, held preeminence in the art of rhetoric among the Greeks. But he says that Isocrates, due to poverty, and Theodectes, wrote speeches for hire and acted as sophists, teaching the youth and reaping gains from that source, whereas he himself and Naucrates, having sufficient means, were constantly engaged in these matters by philosophizing and pursuing learning. And [he argues] that it would not be unreasonable for him to claim the first place, having written not fewer than twenty thousand lines of panegyrical oratory, and more than fifteen myriad lines in which the deeds of the Greeks and Barbarians told up to that time can be read; furthermore, that there is no place of any account among the Greeks, nor city of significance, to which he has not traveled and, by speaking in public, left behind great glory and a monument to his excellence in rhetoric. ^D By saying these things about himself, he declares those who held the first rank in rhetoric in earlier times to be far inferior to his contemporaries, and not even worthy of a second place; and he says that this is clear from the speeches themselves which were written and left behind by each party. For he claims that in his own age this [art] grew immensely.

^A But as to whom he means by those in earlier times, I am unable to determine with certainty. For I do not believe he would dare to disparage Herodotus and Thucydides, when he himself is far inferior to those men in many respects. Perhaps he is hinting at the historians Hellanicus and Philistus, or at Gorgias, Lysias, and others like them who flourished at a time close to his own—men who were not so utterly destitute of skill in oratory. Such is Theopompus’ judgment.

They say that both he and Ephorus were students of Isocrates, and the speeches themselves clearly demonstrate this. For the imitation of the Isocratic style is frequent in the writings of Theopompus, even though he lags far behind in the precision of his craftsmanship. ^B They also claim that their teacher himself assigned to them the subjects for their histories, giving to Ephorus the events before his own time, and to Theopompus the Greek affairs following the time of Thucydides, adapted to the natural abilities and task of each. Therefore, the prefaces to their histories are also most similar, both in their thoughts and in other respects, as if they had both set out from the same starting-line for the stadium of history. Theopompus, however, fills his own historical books with very many digressions on all sorts of matters. Wherefore Philip, he who waged war against the Romans, having removed these [digressions] and having assembled the deeds of Philip—which Theopompus had chiefly undertaken to record—reduced them to just sixteen books, adding nothing of his own and subtracting nothing, except, as has been said, for the digressions.

^C Duris of Samos, in the first book of his *Histories*, writes as follows concerning him: "Ephorus and Theopompus were far inferior to those who came before them. For they had no share in imitation, nor did they have any charm of expression, but were concerned only with the describing." Yet Duris himself is left far behind by these men whom he criticizes in that same arrangement of which he speaks. ^D Whether he made this objection against that arrogant censure of Theopompus—who would not grant even the second place to those who were older—I cannot say; but this much I would most strongly contend: that neither of them ought in justice to be blamed to such a degree. Cleochares of Smyrlea, indeed, speaking, I suppose, of all the Isocratic works—for this is what is meant by his not granting them the lowest position in comparison with Demosthenes—says that the orations of Demosthenes appear most like the bodies of soldiers, while those of Isocrates are like those of athletes.

^A It is clear that Theopompus is inferior to none of the disciples of Isocrates in speaking. As for the lineage of Theopompus, and his education, and his teacher, and those who flourished at the same time, and his orations, and his conduct of life, and the idea and purpose found in his orations, we have enumerated them categorically, as well as the time in which he flourished, and whatever else in his life befell him, thus far.

177. Theodore of Antioch, Five books against those who assert that men sin by nature, not by will.

^B There was read a book under the title, *Theodori Antiocheni against those who say that men sin by nature, and not by will.* The contest in his arguments against them is completed in five books; he writes the book against those of the West who had been infected with this disease. He says that the leader of this heresy, as well, originated from there, but was dwelling in the regions of the East, and was composing books in defense of the heresy he had invented and sending them to those who inhabit his ancestral soil, by which he had drawn many there to his own way of thinking, and had even imbued whole Churches with those absurd opinions. But the author of those books, whether by name or by surname, he calls uncertain. He says that this man also forged a fifth Gospel, and says that he found it being fabricated in the libraries of Eusebius of Palestine. Furthermore, having rejected the version of the divine Old Testament which the seventy interpreters, gathered together, had published, as well as the interpretation of Symmachus and Aquila and the others, he dared to compose a certain unique and new one of his own: since he had not been accustomed from childhood to the Hebrew language as they had, nor had he learned the mind of the divine Scripture, he had ^C entrusted himself for instruction to certain Hebrews of the lowest sort, and from there had undertaken to write his own edition. The tenets of their heresy, to state them in summary, are these: They say that men sin by nature, and not by will—not by that nature in which Adam stood when he was first created (for they say that nature was good, being the work of a good God), but by the nature which he acquired later, after he had sinned, having exchanged the good for the evil, and the immortal for the mortal, through the act concerning evil and sin. By this reasoning, therefore, those who had previously been good by nature became evil by nature, having acquired sin in their nature and not in their ^D choice. Second, it follows for them to say that children, even if newborn, are not exempt from sin, since the nature, having come into being in sins from the transgression of Adam, extends into the whole race born of him, to the sinful (as they might say) nature. They also bring forward this saying: "Behold, in"

^A iniquities I was conceived," and if there are others of the same kind, and they even bring forward this holy baptism and the communion of the immaculate body for the remission of sins, and these things when applied to infants, to the confirmation of their own opinion. Furthermore, that no one among men is just. And this also follows, evidently, from their initial position: "For in thy sight," says the Prophet, "shall no flesh be justified," and such like.

Fourth—O what blasphemous and impious mouths!—that not even Christ our God, having assumed a nature infected with sins, was himself pure from sin. Although in other places of their blasphemy it is possible to see them, as he says, not truly and by nature, but only in figure and appearance, attributing to Him the human nature. ^B

Fifth, that marriage, or at any rate the desire for intercourse and the emission of seed, and all such things by which the human race is propagated by succession, are works of a perverse nature, into which Adam, having fallen through sin, soon received into himself the swarm of all evils through the vice of nature. Such are the dogmas of the sectarians.

Furthermore, this Theodorus does well in that he detests and rejects these things, and sometimes most excellently and powerfully refutes their absurd and blasphemous opinions; and by adapting to the words of sacred Scripture, which they misused, their proper meanings, he convicts them of being altogether ignorant. But this is not always the case with him; for he has appeared to us to be pregnant in many ways with the heresy of Nestorius, and to mutter, at least, the sentiment of Origen concerning the end of punishments. ^C Furthermore, his assertion that Adam was indeed fashioned mortal from the beginning, but that God acted thus only by a schema—so that we might hate sin—as if death had been imposed in place of a penalty for sin—does not, in my judgment, offer a correct opinion at all, but rather appears to be an object for many accusations if one wishes to demand reasons, however much, as he himself might say, such an opinion may fight sharply against heretics. For it does not follow that if something fights against a worse thing, it is immediately good: for evil also fights against itself; but if something is consistent with right reason and known to the divine Scriptures, that is truly to be accepted, even if no heresy dares to resist that opinion.

Nor, again, would I number it among the dogmas of truth as a statement curiously said and unheard of by the Church of God, when he asserts that there are two remissions of sins. The one indeed concerning things committed: but the other (which I know not how anyone, as he speaks, could call a remission) [is] the ^D impeccancy itself.

^A For we need, as it seems, even more explanatory words, so that we may indicate that new remission of sins; which right reason knows as impeccancy, but this [author] calls a perfect and most sovereign remission of sins, and a total abolition of sin. What, then, is this kind of remission of sins, and where is it given, and whence did it have its beginning? It began, he says, to manifest itself from the economy concerning the Lord Christ, and to be given to us in the order of a pledge; but it is given perfectly, and in actual deeds ^B at the restoration after the resurrection, to attain which we ourselves and infants are baptized. But the things up to this point are, as it were, solemn, and make everyone all but agape to reach the end. Tell me, then, therefore, what is this? For we lend you attentive ears. What, I ask, is this perfect remission of sins? We shall no longer, he says, sin after the resurrection. Truly, from what heights of hope you have cast us down! For, that I may now leave off inquiring how it is possible to name this a remission of sins, I shall briefly ask this: What then? For this has Christ become man for you and been affixed to the cross, so that you might not sin there after rising again? ^C Did then those who departed life before Christ appeared [in the flesh] sin [there]? If we are not baptized, shall we and infants still commit sins there? What of it? Will all the unbelievers, in the life of the world to come, again both steal and commit fornication and act impiously and rob and fulfill all the wickedness of their desire? For you have not judged their punishments for what they committed here to be sufficiently just, however grave they may be.

But I have shown from what sources the remission of sins as he proposes it is not to be admitted by me. Perhaps indeed he himself did not willingly come to this, but [did so] that he might dissolve the quandary of those asking: Why do infants partake of the most spotless mysteries? Why are they deemed worthy of baptism, ^D if they are not also full of sins, with sin sown into their very nature? For these are given for the remission of sins. But it was necessary to dissolve that quandary also, which has many ways of being dissolved, from other sources, and by considering the absurdities that follow upon his remission of sins, to invent nothing of that sort prodigiously.

This is that Theodore who, in twenty-eight books against Eunomius, fought not sluggishly, fortifying the opinion of the blessed Basil, or rather, of the truth itself; for neither the diction, nor the composition of his words, nor the mind of the dogmas, nor the multifaceted manner of refutation, nor other things, differ in anything. But he is obscure, even though in diction not

VARIAE LECTIONES

^A unaccustomed, yet he is obscure. For he uses linked periods for the most part, and frequent interpositions, through which the mind is drawn very far from the subject at hand; again, because he abounds in oblique cases of nouns and in participles, and frequently (and not very elegantly) turns and repeats the same things; and finally, because his repetitions are filled with more circumstances than the narratives themselves (which is done entirely without method), and for similar reasons he casts no small darkness over his writings. But he appears to have been more studiously engaged with our holy and divine Scripture, even if in many respects he strays from the truth.

CLXXVIII. Dioscorides, On Materia Medica, seven books.

We have read the volume of Dioscorides De materia ^B medica, divided into seven books. In the first five, he deals with herbs, plants, aromatics, and the preparation of oil and ointment. Also with animals and the utility of their parts. Likewise with trees, juices, and tears, and furthermore with honey, milk, and fat, and with those things called grain and vegetables. In addition, with roots, plants, shrubs, herbs, and whatever of these have either juice or fruit useful for the medical faculty. Indeed, he also treats abundantly of the kinds of wine and of what are called metallic substances. And for most of the things he had set out to discuss, he accurately describes the form, nature, and place of origin, so that what is sought may be more quickly identified. But ^C he ascribes the use of each thing more sparingly, and describes the history less accurately. He also presents a varied preparation of wines in these books. In the sixth book, however, he discusses those medicines which are either harmful or salutary. Finally, in the seventh and last of this work, he writes the history of venomous animals, and by what means those who have happened upon any of these may discover either a perfect medicine or at least whatever relief can be brought. And this is the scope set before this work. Which is indeed most useful, not only to those dedicated to the medical faculty, but also to those intent upon philosophical and physical speculation. Now, as many as have appeared ^D to write about simple medicines after him, some have merely transcribed this book; to others, not even in their own writing has accuracy been of concern, but they have dismembered the entire teaching about each thing, while they collect the form, nature, and origin of the simples separately, and separately again and dividedly write down their use and utility. Alexander, indeed, and Paul, and Aetius, and those like them, did not even take into account the form, but having mutilated the use, they deposited only the sum of it into their own compositions, even if Paul did not...

as he says, he omits, but also gathered up many things of which he made no mention, items of no small utility ^A. But Aetius, while adding nothing himself, has bypassed many things which Dioscorides wrote, I know not for what reason. Nor does Oribasius, who might seem more copious than all of these, record in his own compilations everything Dioscorides mentions, but he has separated the utility from the form and nature. Galen likewise, having omitted many kinds of herbs, has described only the potency or utility of those he did mention—a chilling reason to give for omitting their form and nature; although, in dealing with metallic substances, he has treated them more curiously than Dioscorides, surpassing that man in no small part, and that usefully, yet he does not seem to be surpassed by him in turn as much as he is seen to be surpassed in the case of herbs. Wherefore, in my judgment, no one is easily found more useful than Dioscorides for the understanding of form, nature, and origin. ^B This man, as Galen also testifies, is an Anazarbean; yet I have sometimes encountered books that bore in their title the name of both Pedacius and Anazarbean. He endeavours, however, to appear more accurate and useful than the many who wrote on the same subject before him.

CLXXIX. Books of Agapius

^C [209 H.] I read the work of the hateful and impious Agapius, containing twenty-three little books, and besides these, two chapters over a hundred. In all of which he sufficiently shows himself to be masking under the name of Christian, yet no man is so thoroughly convicted by these very things as being a hater of Christ. He addresses these things to a certain woman named Urania, lauding her as his fellow philosopher. For, dogmatizing and maintaining in every respect the things contrary to Christians, [404 R.] he sets up an evil, self-subsisting principle, from eternity opposed to God, which he calls sometimes nature, sometimes matter, and other times Satan, and devil, and prince of the world, and god of this age, and by six hundred other names. He further maintains that ^D men sin by necessity and against their will, and that the body is of the base portion, while the soul is of the divine aura, and of the same nature (oh for his madness!) as God. He derides the Old Testament, and Moses himself with the prophets, and that most wretched man even mocks the Forerunner of the Lord. And these men themselves, and all that is said and done in the Old Testament (oh, the supreme impiety!), he ascribes to that evil principle which struggles against God. As for the tree in Paradise—

^A he indeed professes to venerate it, yet by his very deeds and opinions he blasphemes in a way that words can hardly express. Furthermore, this detestable man dares to say that he confesses the Trinity to be consubstantial, but he does so impiously and maliciously, only so that he might deceive by these pious terms those who approach him more simply or with less knowledge, and so that, having sweetened and mixed his poisonous doctrine with a kind of honey, he might immediately fill them with his own corruption. Likewise, he says that he honors and preaches the body of Christ, and Christ crucified, nay, even the cross itself, baptism, burial, and his resurrection, as well as the resurrection of all the dead and the judgment. And, to say it once, he transfers and interprets almost all the concepts of piety and the Christian religion to other senses, whether these be absurd and abominable, or foreign and foolish, or inept and incongruous, and in this way he strives to strengthen his own impiety. He has meditated upon such an impiety, compounded with guile, that although he bears intolerable hatred and implacable war—the devil aiding him—against the ever-Virgin Mary, the mother of Christ our God, he nevertheless does not fear God at all, nor feel any shame, in usurping the name of Mary by simulation and falsely calling her the mother of Christ. ^B Therefore, while lacerating the venerable and health-giving cross of Christ with countless insults, and calling it a weapon for repelling the Jews through blasphemy, he nevertheless shamefully dares to say that he holds the cross of Christ worthy of honor and veneration, evidently perversely signifying things by other names. Thus he also tells tales about the body and blood of Christ—not that which we Christians acknowledge, but that which his own rabid and furious mind has invented: he admits the words of the pious, yet barks at the things themselves. Furthermore, he discourses without shame about the sun and moon as if they were gods, and proclaims them to be of the same nature as God; and, lacking common sense, the man lies, saying that their light is not perceived by the senses, but can be understood only by the mind. Hence, he celebrates them with hymns as incorporeal ^C and devoid of form and color, and attributes worship and majesty to them. He feigns abstinence from meats and from the marital state as if they were detestable things—he who is himself most detestable. He also shuns wine as if it were the cause of drunkenness, not considering that this vice is not to be attributed to wine, but to immoderate and indecent use, just as the immoderate use of all foods, and even of water itself, is harmful. The wretched man also discourses about the air as if it were some god, celebrating it with hymns as a pillar and a man. Yet he spurns fire and earth, ranking them in a worse category. Thus, with these and many other ravings and trifles, drawing partly from the superstition of the Greeks ^D and partly from his own invented monstrosities, he presents his own doctrine as a heap of evils and impiety. By tearing apart certain sayings from the holy Gospel and the epistles of the divine Paul, he attempts to twist them and draw them toward his own impiety; and, relying upon the so-called Acts of the twelve apostles, and especially [those] of Andrew, he shows himself to be moved by them and to have his mind corrupted from that source. He also confirms transmigrations, [leading] some to the extreme

^A of wickedness and in giving them to fire and darkness, while others who have lived in a middle way he recalls again into bodies. He uses as witnesses, shamelessly, even those who have loved the Greek religion, and especially Plato, to establish his own impiety, calling them divine and sacred, just as he also calls the Christ and Savior according to him. And he brings forward other things full of great folly, deceit, and godlessness. He seems to fight against the erroneous teaching of Eunomius, [though] he himself—it is impossible even to say how much more godlessly than he—blasphemes.

His diction and phrasing are sometimes not to be despised, especially if he should be laboring over the expression of something, but in other places it is cheap and differs in nothing from [what comes] from the crossroads. The wretch also participated in some philosophical ^B teachings, without preserving even those in an unadulterated and genuine way, but confounding and mixing everything together. He is indeed not far from being energetic and most clever in twisting the true and the straightforward, but entirely simple-minded and foolish in discovering and understanding. His most godless and most useless composition serves only for the refutation and shame of those who are attached to the most impious and godless opinion of the Manichaeans and to that man himself.

CLXXX. The three treatises of Joannes Laurentius Philadelphensis Lydus

^C There have been read the three treatises of Joannes Laurentius Philadelphensis Lydus, *On Prodigies*, *On Months*, and *On Political Offices*. But the one *On Prodigies*, as far as my judgment and experience go, differs little or nothing from fables. The one *On Months*, even if it contains many useless things, can still be of great use for a pleasant and agreeable knowledge of antiquity. Finally, the book *On Political Offices* provides no inelegant history, especially to those who are competing for such things.

This writer uses tropes excessively, and in many places very coldly and strangely, although there is a place where [he uses] them appropriately and gracefully. In other things, moreover, he suffers from great unevenness, being haughty where he should not be, and on the other hand cowering where he should not; he is an excuseless flatterer of the living, ^D and immoderately poured out in reprimands against the dead and those from whom he does not fear vengeance, and he pours out criticisms in the most burdensome way. And in diction, he indeed sometimes uses [language that is] select and elevated in the Attic manner, but there are times when it is base and

^A sluggish, and possesses nothing beyond the trivial. But in his book *On Wonders* and *On Months*, for this very reason, perhaps no one would greatly blame him; yet when he records political offices and recounts historical narratives, and furthermore sets himself to the panegyrics of some, he is a friend to the same inconsistency in his diction, his thought, and the composition of his writings, so that I see no pardon being granted to such a defect.

This man served under the prefects, being in his twenty-first year. At the age of forty, he pleaded cases, then was a *matricularius* ^B; after which time he says he wrote the aforementioned treatises, and was deemed worthy of the imperial court by the judgment of the emperor. As for the time in which he lived, he reached the reign of Anastasius, passed through that of Justin, and lived through, in addition, that of Justinian who governed after him. As for religion, the man seems to be superstitious. For he honors the rites of the Greeks and observes them, but he also observes ours, not giving the reader an easy way to conclude whether he performs these things because he truly believes so, or whether he is playing as if on stage. ^C

Codex CLXXXI. Damascius the Damascene, *On the Life of Isidore the Philosopher*.

*On the Life of Isidore the Philosopher* by Damascius the Damascene was read. The book is of many lines, and is divided into about sixty chapters. Purposing to write the life of Isidore, he dedicated the work to a certain woman named Theodora, who also practiced the worship of the pagans, and who was not unskilled in philosophical learning, nor in whatever pertains to poetic and grammatical facility, but who had even been advanced to the study of geometry and arithmetic, ^D the teaching of which both Isidore himself and Damascius had provided to her and her younger sisters at various times. This woman was the daughter of Cyrina and of Diogenes, son of Eusebius, son of Flavian, whose pedigree traced back to Sampsigeramus and Monimus, from whom Iamblichus also traced his origin—men who held the first rank in idolatrous impiety.

Damascius dedicates this biography of Isidore to her, and her request, with other concurring causes, became the reason that moved the author to write it, as he himself testifies, to his zeal. However, he does not record the life of Isidore so much as the lives of many others—some of whom flourished at the same time as the man, and others who had lived before him—interweaving their deeds and narratives with very many digressions, added to the point of satiety. As for his religion, he was supremely impious, and he carried a mind and a discourse filled with novel and old-wives' tales. Therefore, he also [treats] our holy faith...

appears not infrequently, even if somewhat timidly and with hidden malice, to bark against our holy faith. As for all those whom he extols in his discourse, and whom he celebrates as divine because of the excellence of their learning or because of the sharpness of their intellect—surpassing human nature—he sets himself up as a judge of each one of them. There is no one he does not criticize, finding something lacking in every one of those he admires: in him whom he had praised for his sharpness of mind, [he finds] that he is not sharp in all things; in him who is incomparable in his learning, that he does not know everything; and indeed, in him who, by his virtue, seems close to God, that he is still in need of many things. Thus, each of those whom he had previously raised to the heavens, by dragging them down again and casting them to the ground, he secretly arrogates to himself authority over all and in all things. ^B And so it is that he is constantly engaged in criticizing Isidore no less than he praises him. Indeed, from the logical questions and solutions which he brings forward—either as things to be admired from others, or as coming from his own breast (arrogantly puffing himself up because of the swift agitation of his mind and his more accurate knowledge)—one will find nothing in this man that is more successfully accomplished than in those who are commonly accustomed to engage in philosophy; nor, again, that he has attained the degree of acumen and nimble mental agitation that is at least permitted to a man, let alone to God; nor even that he displays any other things that might even be considered mediocre in philosophical matters. I pass over those things which are deduced with the utmost precision, on account of which, however, he is considered famous and illustrious.

So far as his style is concerned, most of his words do not stray far from clarity. He also has something of other forms which are characterized by words: I refer to a certain roughness, through which the sound is made ^C more harsh and the voice, as it were, more planed down; and, furthermore, a use of the poetic, though rare, and a freer wandering. Tropes indeed so fashion his discourse that they are by no means carried off into an unskilled and frigid manner of speaking, or into any harsher kind of variation, but for the most part they secure for themselves sweetness and grace. Yet, while he is clear in the greater part of his words, he is not of the same character in the whole economy of his discourse. For his composition is not so much composition as a kind of innovation; and the very structure of his circumlocutions, by bringing on constant satiety, obscures not only the hope of clarity, but also all the care that has been put into the discourse. Thus, though his discourse might otherwise be pleasant, it is stripped of all that grace which it could have had from such embellishments by those very things we have mentioned. ^D Furthermore, these circumlocutions do not even fleetingly touch upon any sharp sense, nor beauty, nor speed—things with which one might not ineptly pride himself—yet not even the shoots of these common and trivial ornaments appear here, which might contribute to necessary use or [appropriate] circumstances.

^A Indeed, those figurative expressions, unless they were extended through long periods characterized by redundancy, would never possess the power by which they might divert one from a moderate and proper temperament. Vehemence and asperity, moreover, abound in these writings; though this also frequently flags, not due to any mixture or tempering of ideas—which would be the best outcome—but through a defect in the diction and those elements that possess the strength to render the phrase more powerful and turgid. This happens to many who pursue such a peculiar style of speaking; yet it does not result in any praise, at least for those who could not sustain the burden they had undertaken beyond their strength. Let this, then, be my simple judgment regarding his diction; for in one who is writing a biography, there would perhaps be other and more numerous points to observe. For what need had he to use a grand style? This is appropriate for a legislator or a prescriptive discourse. What, then, of the contention, the immense circumlocution, and the unusual structure of composition? But enough on these matters.

^B Damascius, moreover, dedicated three full years to Theon in the art of rhetoric, and presided over rhetorical exercises for nearly nine years. As teacher of geometry, arithmetic, and the other arts, he had Marinus, the successor of Proclus at Athens. In philosophical disciplines, he had Zenodotus as his master in Athens, who himself succeeded Proclus after Marinus—though he was second to Marinus—and Ammonius, the son of Hermias, in Alexandria, whom he describes as far surpassing the other philosophers of his age, especially in mathematics. Damascius records that he was a hearer of this man in the Platonic works, and in the *Great Syntax* of Ptolemy’s astronomical books. However, he maintains that he acquired the strength of dialectical exercise through the fellowship and familiarity of Isidorus, whom he also commemorates as having eclipsed all the learned men whom that age produced in this very faculty of discourse.

CLXXXII. Eulogius, Archbishop of Alexandria, Against Novatus, in six books.

Lectures were given on the six books of the blessed Eulogius, Archbishop of Alexandria, *Against Novatus* (29) and *On [Ecclesiastical] Administration* (30). As regards the man’s diction, it is for the most part moderately accurate; but in construction, it often deviates not far from a solecism. ^D Furthermore, he is not unskilled in the Divine Scriptures, and he applies their testimonies effectively and

^A persuasively, just as, according to the genius of his style, he teaches and delights.

He relates that Navatus was appointed archdeacon of the Roman Church under Pope Cornelius, to whom, according to the custom of that time, the pontificate devolved when the Pope departed this life; for it was established that the archdeacon should succeed the high priest. But Cornelius (he says), perceiving that he was suffering from pride and was lying in wait for his own death, ordained him a presbyter, thus cutting off all his hopes of reaching the supreme throne. But he, watching for an opportunity, when Cornelius had received certain persons back to repentance for various sins and, having subjected them to the appropriate penance, admitted them to the communion of the immaculate mysteries; seizing this pretext, he broke away from the Church, reproaching Cornelius for being a receiver of sinners, and declared himself the leader of his own heresy: calling his fellow-renegades "Cathari," and the entire body of the Church "Cornelians."

[413 R] In these four books, then, the writer struggles against the sect of Navatus in general, punishing him with scriptural terms. In the fifth book, he argues specifically that the relics of the martyrs ought to be honored, which he says the Navatians dispersed throughout Alexandria refuse to do, whether only those there were infected with such a disease, or whether the entire heresy professed this generally. ^B In the sixth, he overturns the commentaries which are circulated among the Navatians and [which bear] the falsely ascribed title "The Struggle of Navatus the Bishop"; for they arrogantly vaunt that the heresiarch was bishop of the city of Rome. These commentaries are of the utmost crudity in diction, in thought, in structure, and in all those qualities which are considered in composition. They have this as their premise: that while Decius and Valerian were emperors of the Romans, Perennius the ducenarius, having received a mandate from them, forced all the Christians in Rome and the surrounding provinces with most severe tortures and bitter punishments to worship idols. ^C And while many others yielded to the violence—and indeed Macedonius, who was at that time bishop of Rome, having nine presbyters under him, of whom Navatus was one—Macedonius, along with eight of them, sacrificed, with Navatus alone escaping the death of the soul. These are the things those commentaries relate, ^D

^A and it describes the struggle of Navatus through the foolish interrogations of Perennius and the even more foolish responses of Navatus. He says that along with Navatus, Marcellus and Alexander, bishops of Aquileia, and Agamemnon, bishop of Tiberis, as well as certain other Christians, having preserved their faith inviolable, dwelt together in a small house built by them; and that they refused to associate or offer sacrifices with those who had sacrificed to idols. He also reports that at that time the bishop of Alexandria attributed the supreme prelacy of the city of Rome to Navatus. And this is indeed the subject matter of the commentaries on the struggle of Navatus. But in the fifth book, Eulogius, as we have said, refutes these things, demonstrating from the writings themselves that these are lies, falsely concocted and incredible. This, then, is the aim of the five books of the blessed Eulogius. In refuting that sect, he proceeds through passages of Holy Scripture and weaves in certain very useful explanations, although his other points do not conflict with the pious opinion of others, but have been adopted as fitting for the refutation of that sect. ^B

Codex CLXXXIII: Metrical Paraphrase of the Octateuch by Eudocia Augusta

The Metrical Paraphrase of the Octateuch was read, composed in heroic verse in eight books, corresponding to the number and division of the books. The inscription on the manuscript affirmed that this poem was the work of Eudocia Augusta, which is considered truly worthy of admiration, both because it is the work of a woman and one who was living in imperial luxury, and because it is so illustrious. For this work is as distinguished as any other composed in heroic verse. But while it delves more deeply into the laws of the art, it fails in this one respect (though this is the greatest praise for those who believe that books should be rendered as closely as possible), in that it does not strive to soothe the ears of the young by using poetic license to change truth into myth, ^C nor does it distract the listener from the subject at hand with digressions, but it adapts its meter to those ancient writings word for word, so that he who reads these verses does not seem to require those originals. For it constantly preserves the property of the meanings, neither expanding nor contracting anything; and in its choice of words, as far as is possible, it confirms those that are nearest and most similar to the original. Furthermore, when the book evaluated the discourse which it had constructed by the art of versification, it spoke roughly as follows:

^A "Second and this too, a book of divine law, did Eudocia the illustrious queen, of the lineage of Leo, compose."

And the inscriptions of the books of Jesus Nave [Joshua] and of Judges offer testimony to the things already said.

CLXXXIV. The same Eudocia's metrical paraphrase of the prophets Zechariah and Daniel, and three books on the holy martyr Cyprian.

I read, in the same style of verse and the same idiom, the paraphrase of the prophetic discourses of the blessed Zechariah and the renowned Daniel; and the same grace of the craftsman shone through in these as well. Contained also in this volume, written in the same form of verse, were three books in praise of the martyr ^B Cyprian; and the poems themselves indicated, as children are wont to show their mother, that this offspring too was legitimate of the Empress.

The first book recounts the events concerning the martyr Justina, how she was brought over to the Christians, and how, through her, her parents exchanged the impiety of idolatry [for faith]; and how a certain lover, having tried and failed miserably—Aglaidas is his name—approaches Cyprian, who had practiced the art of magic, and asks him to help him in his wretched passion and to make the maiden compliant to him. And how Cyprian, having stirred up all the methods of the magic art and having sent the most violent and wicked of demons against the virgin, was made to learn from those very ones when they were put to shame and defeated by the sign of the cross, and how he departs from any favor toward them, burns all his magic books, and finally is initiated into the faith of the Christians and is baptized, is entrusted as a doorkeeper of the church, and, having been deemed worthy of charisms, cleansed many of diseases and many of demons, and eventually was also deemed worthy of the episcopal ^C dignity. Such is the content of the first book.

But the second book begins by recounting the zeal of Cyprian from his early youth for idols and [for] the service of demons, [and] his desire and study of magic, introducing him as his own narrator; and whatever else he learned concerning the nature of various herbs, plants, and animals of every kind; and that he became a spectator of diverse demonic phantasms; and how from Athens he arrived at Argos, and from there to Phrygia, becoming a sacrificer to the demons everywhere ^D and accumulating much exercise in the magic art; then, proceeding as he did, he entered Egypt for the same reasons and visited the Indians, as [much as]

he saw and learned those things there; and when he had reached the thirtieth year of his age he came to the Chaldeans, and having been initiated into all their lore, he mastered astrology and whatever else is considered wise among them. And because he saw that all these things were refuted and vain, or rather a soul-destroying labor, he applied himself in these arts to the martyr Justina ^A. He recounts in these matters some instances in which he himself appeared to others at different times in different forms through magic, and into what forms he transformed others; and how, departing from the error of the demons, he had the wicked one threatening and terrifying him to the point of despair, and how he was released from this fear by encountering a God-fearing man, Timotheus by name. Further, how at Antioch, before a large audience, he proclaimed that he had perpetrated many abominable and monstrous deeds by which he seduced people so that they held him to be a god; and how he moistened his cheeks with tears and lamentation and, by the memory of his wicked deeds, was on the point of falling again into despair of salvation, had not a certain Eusebius, a most excellent guide to piety and repentance, by the utterances of the Holy Scripture and sacred narrations, dissipated the cloud of despair and illuminated him with the rays of bright hope, and persuaded him to take food, having led him into his house, for he had already lived for three whole days without food; and how he led him into the holy temple, and how he himself, the craftsman, carrying the books of his magic art before the multitude, delivered them to the flames, and distributed his wealth to the poor, and was counted worthy of the flock of the Christians; and this Eusebius, he says, was adorned with the dignity of the priesthood. And how Aglaidas, that serious suitor of Justina, when he did not obtain his desire, then he too distributed his wealth to the poor, and having ignored the demons as deceivers, betook himself to the sacred rites of the Christians; in which the second book ends.

The third [book] contains the martyrdom of the holy Cyprian and Justina the beautiful virgin, who, under Diocletian and Maximian holding the Roman empire, bore witness to the faith by their death. For they were both snatched up to the crown of martyrdom; Cyprian indeed from his fatherland and city, Antioch, whose archbishopric he had also administered after Anthimus, chosen as his own homeland, and she from Damascus; for there, after she had migrated from Antioch (which was also the virgin's own fatherland), she openly proclaimed Christ. Having been arrested, when the impious man was not at all moved by their words, they are hoisted high in bonds and their sides are flayed, while she is beaten with ox-hide scourges. But when no yielding was seen in them by the tyrant, he shut them up separately in prison; and then, having summoned them, since he had tried again with words and failed, into a bronze cauldron (with pitch and fat and wax mixed together in it, and much fire kindled)

he cast the martyrs of the Lord. As those athletes endured ^A bravely in the torments, and rather, as if in dew, joyfully praised God because they had emerged superior to the torments, a certain wretch named Athanasius, a priest of the demons and previously well-acquainted with the blessed Cyprian, and who at that time happened to be an assessor to the judge who was inflicting the torments, seized by blindness of mind, dared to enter into the fire, invoking his own familiar gods, asserting that he would diminish the miracle by not suffering anything himself. But the result only increased it; for he was immediately consumed by the fire and turned to ash. The judge, therefore, hesitating, decided to send the martyrs to Diocletian, and to write to him both of what torments they had endured and how they were superior to all punishments. When the emperor learned of this in Nicomedia, he ordered that the martyrs be beheaded at the river adjacent to the city (which was named Gallus) ^B. Along with them, Theoctistus also was at that hour seen as a martyr, finding as his proof of piety the simple act of having greeted the martyr of the Lord. Certain sailors who had recently arrived from Rome, of whom the martyr Theoctistus had also been a companion, secretly took away the relics of the saints from the guards and carried them to Rome, where also a very beautiful temple was erected for them, near the Forum of Claudius, by the labor of the pious matron Rufina, whose lineage traced back to the Emperor Claudius. And this much for the third book.

CLXXXV. The Dictyaca of Dionysius of Aegae

I read a book by Dionysius of Aegae, bearing the title *Dictyaca*, in which are comprised one hundred chapters. 1. First, that the emission of seed and the generation of the animal is from both parents. 2. Second, that it is not from both. 3. Third, that the secretion of the seed comes from the whole body. 4. Fourth, that it is not from the whole, but from the testicles. 5. Fifth, that digestion ^C is produced by heat. 6. Sixth, that digestion is not produced by heat. 7. Seventh, that digestion is produced by friction or working [of the food]. 8. Eighth, that it is not produced by it. 9. Ninth, that digestion occurs by the proper [heat] of the spirit. 10. Tenth, that it denies this. 11. Eleventh, that digestion occurs by putrefaction. 12. Twelfth, that it denies that digestion occurs by putrefaction. 13. Thirteenth, that digestion is by the property of heat. 14. Fourteenth, that it is not by the property of the humors. 15. Fifteenth, that heat differs in quality. 16. Sixteenth, that heat does not differ in quality. 17. Seventeenth, that digestion of food occurs by heat. 18. Eighteenth, that it denies the same. 19. Nineteenth, that digestion (19. [sic] regarding the) heat ^D is to draw it to itself. 20. Twentieth, that heat is not drawn. 21. Twenty-first, that digestion occurs by spirit. 22. Twenty-second, that it denies the same. 23. Twenty-third, that digestion occurs by the application of the arteries. 24. Twenty-fourth, that it denies the same. 25. That digestion is produced by defect, which is with vacuity.

^A 26. And that digestion does not occur by the application [which is] with unknown absence. 27. That glaucoma occurs due to the atrophy of the visual duct. 28. And that glaucoma does not occur due to the atrophy of the visual duct. 29. That glaucoma occurs by the influx of blood into the visual duct. 30. And that glaucoma does not occur by the influx of blood into the visual duct. 31. That glaucoma occurs by the thickness and expiration of moisture. 32. And that glaucoma does not occur by the thickness and expiration of moisture. ^B [421 K.] 33. That phrenitis occurs by the distension of the meninx and the corruption of the blood. 34. And that phrenitis does not occur on account of this. 35. That phrenitis happens by an excess of heat. 36. And that it is not on account of this. 37. That phrenitis happens by inflammation. 38. And that it is not on account of inflammation. 39. That lethargy occurs by inflammation. 40. And that lethargy does not occur by inflammation. 41. That with those who are lethargic it occurs by distension and corruption. 42. That the lethargic state occurs not because of the quantity, but the quality, of the things exhaled. 43. That the appetite for eating and drinking is spread throughout the whole body. 44. And that this appetite is not in the whole body, but in the stomach. 45. That the appetite for eating and drinking is in the imagination. 46. That thirst is produced from a lack of moisture. 47. And that thirst is not produced by a lack of moisture. 48. That there is a certain double operation in the stomach. 49. And that there is not a double operation in the stomach. 50. That the exterior meninx, which is in the cavity, is the origin of the nerves. 51. And that the exterior meninx is not the origin of the nerves. 52. That drugs purge as they are distributed. 53. That drugs do not purge as they are distributed, but [they purge] by their arrival. 54. That one ought to use purgative drugs. 55. And that one ought not. 56. That one ought to use phlebotomy. 57. And that one ought not to use it. 58. That the administration of wine is not useful for those suffering from fever. 59. And that wine should be given to those suffering from fever. 60. That a bath is to be applied to those suffering from fever. 61. And that it is not to be applied. 62. That one must use an enema during the exacerbations [of diseases]. 63. And that one must not. 64. That one must use inunctions in the beginnings [of illnesses]. 65. And that one must not. 66. That the head ought not to be treated with a cataplasm, but that olfactory [remedies] alone should be used. 67. And that one must use cataplasms on the head. 68. That the induction of vomiting is beneficial. 69. And that one should not use the induction of vomiting. 70. That the heart does not send forth blood. 71. And that it does send it forth. 72. That the heart does not send forth the spirit, but the arteries draw it. 73. And that the heart sends forth the spirit, and the arteries do not draw it. 74. That the heart is moved of itself. 75. And that the heart is not moved of itself. 76. That blood naturally exists in the arteries. 77. [219 H.] That the arteries are not a vessel for blood. 78. That all vessels in the mass are simple. 79. And that the vessels are networks. 80. That...

the nerve is the source of sensation and motion; 81. And that sensation and motion are not accomplished through the nerves. 82. That the heart is the source of the veins; 83. And that the heart is not the source of the veins. 84. That the liver is the source of the veins; 85. And that the liver is not the source of the veins. 86. That a ventricle is the source of the veins; 87. And that the ventricle is not the source of the veins. 88. That the meninge is ^A the source of all the vessels; 89. And that the meninge is not the source of all the vessels. 90. That the lung is the source of the arteries; 91. And that the lung is not the source of the arteries. 92. That the artery along the spine is the source of the arteries; 93. And that the artery along the spine is not the source of the arteries. 94. That the heart is the source of the arteries; 95. And that the heart is not the source of the arteries. 96. That the heart is not the source of the nerves, but the meninge covering the brain; 97. And that the meninge covering the brain is not the source of the nerves. 98. That the faculty of intelligence is not around the heart, but around the head; 99. And that the faculty of intelligence is not around the head, but around the heart; 100. That the faculty of intelligence is about the ventricle of the brain.

These are the things which the little book of Dionysius the Dictyacan ^B discussed. It is not without use for dialectical exercise or for the knowledge of certain opinions proper to medical speculation. He seems also to pass judgment on these opinions, although he does not bear himself towards the established and indisputable in all things.

Conon's Fifty Narrations, and the Bibliotheca of Apollodorus the Grammarian.

The little book, *Conon’s Narrations*, was read. This work is addressed to King Archelaus Philopator, and it contains fifty narrations collected from various ancient writings.

The first is about Midas and the Briges, describing how, having stumbled upon a treasure, he was suddenly raised to wealth, and how, after becoming a student of Orpheus on Mount Pieria, he ruled over the Briges with many skills. And how Silenus was seen near Mount Brimius while Midas was reigning, to which mountain that ^C people frequently resorted, and how that creature, strange in appearance but retaining a human nature and disposition, was led to him. How also all things that were set before him for food were turned into gold, and how, through this, he persuaded his subjects to cross the Hellespont from Europe and settle beyond Mysia, being renamed Phrygians instead of Briges due to a small change in the word. Because Midas had many who reported to him everything that was said and done among his subjects, and because he therefore administered his empire until extreme old age secure from plots, he was said to have long ears; and as time went on, rumor converted those long ears into donkey’s ears, and from a joke started at the beginning, the story was believed to be true. ^D

^A

A Second Narrative, Concerning Byblis

Byblis was the daughter of Miletus, and she had a brother named Caunus. They lived in Miletus in Asia, which the Ionians and those who set out from Athens with Neleus occupied at a later time; but at that period it was inhabited by the Cares, a great nation living in villages. An uncontrollable love for his sister Byblis was kindled in Caunus; and since he could not attain his desire, despite having set many things in motion, he departed from that land. When he disappeared, Byblis, seized by boundless grief, also left her father’s house; and after wandering through many wildernesses, and despairing of her unfulfilled desires, she tied her girdle to a nut tree and hanged herself. There, as she wept, her tears flowed and brought forth a spring, which the natives call Byblis. ^B Meanwhile, Caunus wandered about and eventually reached Lycia. There, Pronoe (who was a Naiad) emerged from the river and told him what had happened to Byblis, and how she had been compelled to die by love. She further persuaded him to enter into a marriage with her, so that he might take possession of the kingdom of that region, as it had already been settled upon her. Caunus then sired Aegialus by Pronoe, who, when his father passed away, took up the kingdom; having gathered the people who had been living scattered about, he built a great and prosperous city upon the river, which he named Caunus after his father.

Third Narrative, Concerning Scheria

Third, the island of Scheria is said to be situated in the Ionian Sea, not far from Epirus and the Ceraunian mountains. This island was held by the Phaeacians, who were originally indigenous, a nation that took its name from a certain king of that region, until the time when a portion of the Corinthians migrated there, changed the name to Corcyra, and assumed command of the sea in those parts. ^C When the king of the island, Phaeax, died, his children Alcinous and Locrus fell into a dispute, but eventually reached an agreement that Alcinous would rule over the Phaeacians, while Locrus, taking his precious movable wealth and a portion of the people, would depart from the land. He sailed to Italy and was received as a guest by Latinus, king of the Italians, who also gave him his daughter Laurinam in marriage. For this reason, the Phaeacians claimed those Locrians in Italy as their kinsmen. It happened shortly thereafter that Hercules, at that time, while driving the beautiful cattle of Geryon from Erytheia, arrived in Italy ^D and was hospitably entertained by Locrus. Latinus then approached his daughter and the cattle...

^A which Hercules was driving, and having seen them, he was moved by desire and stole them. When Hercules learned of this, he struck him with an arrow and killed him, and recovered the cattle. Locrus, fearing on behalf of Hercules lest he should suffer some grievous harm at the hands of Latinus (for Latinus was noble in body and soul), went out to the aid of his guest, having changed his attire. Hercules, however, seeing him running towards him and thinking it was someone else hastening to the aid of Latinus, let fly a spear and killed him. But having subsequently learned the truth, he mourned his friend and performed the customary rites for him; and after he had departed from the realm of men, he appeared as a phantom to the people and commanded them to build a city in Italy at the place where the monument of Locrus stood. And the name remains with the city, honoring Locrus by its appellation. Thus indeed is the third narrative. But why need I transcribe these almost word for word, when they should be reviewed by me much more concisely?

The fourth narrative tells of the city of Olynthus and of Strymon who reigned over the Thracians, from whom even the river formerly called Eoneus derives its name; and that three sons were born to him, Brangas, Rhesus, and Olynthus; and that Rhesus, having campaigned for Priam against Troy, was slain by the hand of Diomedes, while Olynthus, having encountered a lion of his own accord during a hunt, perished; and his brother Brangas, having greatly lamented the misfortune, buried Olynthus ^B at the place where he died; and having arrived in Sithonia, he founded a city, happy and great, naming it Olynthus after the child.

The fifth narrative treats the story of one Rheginus and Eunomus the Locrian, who were citharoedes, and how they arrived at Delphi; and that the Rheginians and Locrians are separated by a river (Alex is the name of the river), and that the cicadas of the Rheginians are mute, while those of the Locrians are vocal; and that Eunomus, as he was competing with the Rheginian, defeated his rival by the song of a cicada. For as the harmony was at that time seven-stringed, and one of the strings had snapped, a cicada alighted upon the cithara and filled in the remainder of the melody ^C.

NOTES

(63) Olynthus, a city of Thrace near Sithonia, was founded by Olynthus the son of Hercules.

(64) Aristomenes says this man was a Rheginian citharoede; read this whole fable in Strabo, Book VI, towards the end of Italy. See also Antigonus, *Mirabilia*, 1. Consult also Clement of Alexandria, right at the beginning of the *Protrepticus*, and Book IV of the *Greek Epigrams*, Pausanias in the *Elis* (second part), and also the *Adagia*.

(65) That these citharoedes were in Delphi in ancient times, the witness is Strabo, Book IX, in [the section on] Phocis.

(66) This is a story which Photius [included] in a certain letter of his to John the Patrician, a commander of the army in Greece, which I thought it would not be unwelcome to append here for you. Eunomus, they say, a Locrian, prided himself on his singing. And he truly softened and captivated the listener. It happened, however, that one of his strings snapped (while he was singing), and a cicada immediately settling on the yoke of the cithara supplied the sound of the broken string. Wherefore Eunomus was able to sing sweetly once more, as he had before. But if you, in place of the cicada and the foreign song, were to stretch again the string of our friendship, which has been broken by I know not what means, perhaps our life might be restored to its former integrity, and having repeated an excellent harmony, it might sing some sweet and pleasant melody of our [former] tragedy turned into happiness; and to men of future times, not Eunomus the citharoede and the tuneful cicada, a creation of ancient myth, but God's patriarch and his divine and praiseworthy friend, will provide a sufficiently great and famous example for posterity. ^D

^A The sixth narration is about Mopsus. This son of Manto and Apollo, upon his mother’s death, receives as a sort of hereditary lot the oracle of Apollo at Claros. At that same time, Calchas, having wandered after the fall of Troy, arrives at Colophon, where Mopsus was exercising the prophetic office. When they contended with each other for a long time, Amphimachus, the king of the Lycians, settled the dispute; for Mopsus forbade him from going out to war, predicting that he would be defeated, whereas Calchas, on the contrary, promised him victory and urged him to go out. But when Amphimachus was subsequently defeated, Mopsus was held in greater honor, and Calchas killed himself.

^B The seventh relates how Philammon, son of Philonis, she who was born of Eosphorus and Cleoboea in Thoricus of Attica, was of surpassing bodily beauty. One of the nymphs fell in love with the young man and became pregnant by him. Shamefaced, she departed for the Peloponnese, and arriving at the shore, she gave birth to Thamyris. When he grew past his youth, he achieved such acclaim in playing the lyre that the Scythians chose him as their king, even though he was a foreigner. But when he contended with the Muses themselves in singing—with prizes proposed for the victor, namely, the marriage of the Muses for him, and for them whatever they might choose from his belongings—he was defeated in the singing contest and was deprived of the light of his eyes.

^C The eighth tells of Proteus the Egyptian seer, whose daughter Theonoe falls in love with Canobus (this man was the navigator of Menelaus that Trojan hero) and is frustrated in her vow. He adds how the beautiful youth Canobus, as Menelaus and Helen were departing from Egypt—having arrived [there] by sea—was bitten by a viper, his leg rotted away, and he died not long after; and Menelaus and Helen buried him in Egypt, where a city named after him is now settled. Furthermore, the last of the mouths of the river Nile takes its name, Canobus or Canobicum, from that navigator.

^D The ninth narration is about Semiramis. He says that she was not the wife of Ninus, as others have reported, but his daughter; and, to speak briefly, whatever others attribute to Atossa the Assyrian, this man refers entirely to Semiramis. I do not know if he thought that one and the same person was called by two names, or if he was simply not better informed about the things narrated concerning Semiramis. He says that the

[429 R.] A item Semiramis, having secretly and unknowingly coupled with her son, then upon learning the matter, had him as a husband openly; and from that time, that which was previously considered detestable, seemed to the Medes and Persians to be right and lawful, ^A that mothers should consort with their sons.

The tenth narrative: Oethon, the son of Neptune and Ossa, king of the Thracian Chersonese, begat a daughter, Pallene, by the nymph Mendeis. When many were seeking her hand, it was proposed as a prize for whoever should defeat Oethon in battle, ^B that he should possess both the daughter and the kingdom. Therefore, those who contended for the marriage were slain, Merops, king of Anthemusia, and Periphetes, king of Mygdonia. After this, Oethon determined that the suitors should not fight against him, but against one another, and that the same prize should be for the victor. Therefore, Dryas and Clitus fought, and Dryas fell through the trickery of Pallene. When this became known to Oethon, Pallene was about to pay the penalty ^C of death, had not Venus come by night, calling upon all the citizens, and snatched the girl from death. With her father destroyed by fate, Pallene and Clitus obtained the kingdom, and the region received the name Pallene from her.

The eleventh narrative recounts the matter regarding the sacrifice of Hercules, which the Lindians offer to him with cursing, and how this originated from a certain Lindian plowman: who, when Hercules asked for food for the boy Hyllus ^D (whom he had taken with him on the road as he was still young), not only did not provide food, but also heaped insults upon him. Hercules, angered by this, slaughtered one of his oxen, and he himself began to feast, and offered it to the boy; meanwhile, the farmer was cursing him from afar. But Hercules, mocking the curses, affirmed that he had never tasted food more sweet than that which had been seasoned with curses.

The twelfth narrative contains matters concerning Tros, the son of Erichthonius and grandson of Dardanus, who reigned over the regions near Mount Ida; and he begat by Callirrhoe, the daughter of Scamander, Ilus (from whom Ilium was named), and Assaracus, and Ganymede, whom Jupiter abducted. This Assaracus reigned together with his father over Dardania, which was the royal seat of the Trojans. But Ilus built up Ilium, and defeated in battle a king of the Bebryces named Byzas, and greatly expanded Ilium.

^A The thirteenth section narrates the story of Aethilla, who was a daughter of Laomedon and a sister of Priam. Protesilaus, having carried her off from Ilium with other captives on his ships, barely makes landfall, after many storms, between Mende and Scione. And while those with Protesilaus were all running up from the shore toward the inland regions to fetch water, Aethilla, among other things, said to the fellow captives that if they arrived in Greece with the Greeks, the misfortunes they had suffered at Troy would seem like gold to them; she thus persuaded them to set fire to the ships. Consequently, the Greeks, even against their will, remained with them in that region, and together they founded the city of Scione and made it their home.

The fourteenth section tells the story of Endymion, that he was the son of Aethlius, the son of Zeus, and Protogeneia, the daughter of Deucalion, and how he had two children, Eurypylus and Aetolus. The latter, having left his ancestral domain in the Peloponnese, migrated with a following multitude to the opposite land, drove out the Curetes, inhabited it, and granted that it be called Aetolia instead of Curetis. ^B But Eurypylus, who was the son of Poseidon, upon the death of his maternal grandfather Endymion, assumed the kingdom of Elis, and gave that city which had been founded by Endymion the name of Elis.

The fifteenth section concerns the Pheneatans and Demeter and Kore, whom Pluto had abducted without her mother's knowledge and led down into the underworld; and how, because the Pheneatans had revealed to Demeter the place through which the descent was made (it was a chasm in Cyllene), she bestowed other good things upon them, and in particular that she would never permit one hundred Pheneatans to fall in war. ^C

The sixteenth section narrates the story of Promachus and Leucocomas of Gnosus (Gnosus is a city of Crete), how Promachus fell in love with the beautiful youth Leucocomas, and how he set before him great and dangerous tasks, all of which Promachus overcame in the hope of attaining his desire. When, however, even after these, he did not attain his wish, he in turn caused Leucocomas distress, because he bestowed his final prize (which was a helmet of renowned fame) upon another beautiful youth, while Leucocomas looked on. Hence, overcome by jealousy, the latter slew himself with a sword.

The seventeenth section concerns Dicaeus and Syleus, brothers, sons of Poseidon, who lived ^D near Mount Pelion in Thessaly.

^A And the one was righteous, and was as he was named; but Hercules kills Syleus, who was an insolent man. He is entertained by Dicaeus, and falls in love with the daughter of Syleus, having seen her being reared by him, and takes her as his wife. She, during the time Hercules was away, dies, stricken by love and longing for him; and Hercules, returning when her funeral was still recent, was about to cast himself upon the pyre, had not those who were present with their words dissuaded him and with difficulty restrained him. And when Hercules had departed, the neighbors built a tomb for the maiden, and in place of a monument, they established it as a temple of Hercules.

The eighteenth section: The Locrians, when at war, because Ajax was of their race, are accustomed to leave a vacant space in their battle line, as if Ajax were indeed stationed in it. When they were drawn up, therefore, in the battle which they fought against the Crotoniates, Autoleon the Crotoniate wished to break through that vacant space and surround the enemy. But being wounded in the thigh by a phantom, he turned back and began to fester ^B until, according to an oracle, he arrived at the Island of Achilles in the Euxine Sea (this island is situated above the Tauric Chersonese for one sailing past the Ister) and, having propitiated the other heroes, but especially the spirit of Ajax the Locrian, he was healed. And as he was departing from there, he says that Helen commanded him to announce to Stesichorus that, if he valued his eyes and his sight, he should sing a palinode for the things he had sung about her. Stesichorus therefore immediately composed hymns in praise of Helen and recovered his sight.

The nineteenth section: How Psamathe, daughter of Crotopus, becomes pregnant by Apollo and, having given birth, because she feared her father, exposes the infant, having named him Linus. And the shepherd who found him reared him as his own, but once the dogs of the flock tore him ^C to pieces. And as she was greatly overwhelmed with grief, she is discovered by her father, who, thinking that she had been corrupted and was falsely attributing her misconduct to Apollo, condemns her to death. Wherefore Apollo, moved to wrath by the death of his beloved, punishes the Argives with a plague. And when they consulted [the god] regarding deliverance from the evil, he answered that they must propitiate Psamathe and Linus. They, besides other honors shown to them, sent women together with maidens to mourn for Linus; and these, mingling lamentations with their petitions, bewailed not only the misfortunes of those [two], but their own as well. And so the mourning for Linus was so becoming ^D that from that time forth, among the poets, Linus became the established theme for every kind of pathos.

^A They also named the month "Arneios," because Linus had been raised among lambs. Indeed, they instituted a sacrifice and a festival for him, both called "Arnida," and on that day, they would slaughter as many dogs as they could find anywhere. Yet not even then did the evil cease, until Crotopus himself, following an oracle, left Argos, and having founded a city in the Megarid which he called Tripodiskion, settled there.

^A Twentieth: Theoclus the Chalcidian, having been taken prisoner by the Bisaltae (these Bisaltae are a Thracian race who live opposite Pallene), secretly sent for the Chalcidians and betrayed the Bisaltae. The Chalcidians first threw the Bisaltae into confusion with a sudden incursion, then, after they had been driven inside the walls, they took the city by the help of the captive Bucolus and Dolius, and expelled the Bisaltae. ^B However, when they violated the pledge they had already given and killed the traitor Bucolus, divine wrath on that account fell upon them, until, by an oracle, they built a beautiful monument to that Bucolus, and by sacrificing to him as a hero, they turned away the evil.

^B Twenty-first: Dardanus and Iasion were the sons of Zeus by Electra, the daughter of Atlas, and they lived on the island of Samothrace. But Iasion, having attempted to violate a phantom of Demeter, was struck by lightning and perished. Dardanus, however, terrified by his brother's example, set out on rafts (for there was as yet no use of ships) to the land opposite, where there were many fields and Mount Ida. ^C At that time, Teucer, the son of the river Scamander and a nymph, held sway over that region; from him, the inhabitants were called Teucri, and the land Teucria. Dardanus, having held a parley with him, received half of the region, and built a city named Dardania where he had disembarked from the rafts. Later, when Teucer died, the whole rule of the region passed to him.

^D Twenty-second: To a Cretan youth, the offspring of a dragon was given as a playmate. He raised it and cared for it diligently, until it grew larger and inspired fear even in the local inhabitants. Consequently, they forced the youth to take the beast out into the wilderness, and he obeyed, though he wept bitterly. But later, when the youth had gone out to hunt and had fallen in with robbers, he cried out for help. The dragon, recognizing his voice, wrapped itself around the bodies of the robbers and killed them, and by displaying signs of their former intimacy, saved the youth from the danger.

^A

23. How Corythus was the son of Alexander, or Paris, and Oenone ^B — whom he had married before abducting Helen — and how he surpassed his father in beauty. His mother sent him to Helen, both to provoke Alexander to jealousy and to contrive some evil for Helen. As Corythus began to become more familiar with Helen, Alexander one day entered the bedchamber and, seeing Corythus sitting with Helen, became inflamed with suspicion and immediately killed him. Oenone, calling down many curses upon Alexander for this outrage and for the killing of her son — for she was gifted in prophecy and skilled in the cutting of herbs — predicted that, if he were ever wounded by the Achaeans and could not find a cure, he would be forced to seek her out; and with that she departed. Later, Alexander was wounded by Philoctetes in the battle for Troy against the Achaeans, and being grievously injured, he was transported by wagon toward Ida; he sent a herald ahead to entreat Oenone. She, however, very insultingly drove the herald away and taunted Alexander to go to Helen. Alexander died on the road from his wound. Oenone, not yet having learned of his death, was seized with great remorse and, having gathered herbs, hastened to arrive in time. But when the herald reported that he was already dead, and that she herself had killed him, she first killed that messenger by striking him on the head with a stone for the injury he had brought, and then, embracing the corpse of Alexander and lamenting at length the fate common to them both, she hanged herself with her girdle. ^C

24. In Thespiae of Boeotia (which city is not far from Helicon) there was a youth born named Narcissus, very beautiful, but a contemner of Love and of lovers. Wherefore others of his lovers began to despair, but Aminias alone remained an assiduous and persistent suitor. Yet when he would not heed him, but even sent him a sword, he killed himself before the doors of Narcissus, having greatly besought the god to become his avenger. Narcissus, seeing his own face and form reflected in the water of a spring, became the first and sole strange lover of himself. ^D Finally, being at a loss, and thinking it just that he should suffer for the loves he had abused from Aminias, he did away with himself. And from that time, the Thespians resolved to honor and revere Love more, and in addition to common worship, to sacrifice to him privately. It is the opinion of the locals that the narcissus, the flower, first sprang from that earth into which the blood of Narcissus had been shed.

Twenty-fifth

Twenty-sixth

Twenty-seventh

^A Having bounded his realm with the two rivers, the Asopus and the Enipeus, from whom the Aeolic race is derived. The second, Dorus, taking a portion of the people from his father, led a colony elsewhere and founded under Mount Parnassus the cities of Boeum, Cytinium, and Erineum, from whence come the Dorians. The youngest, having arrived at Athens, built the tetrapolis known as that of Attica, and married Creusa, the daughter of Erechtheus, and begat of her Achæus and Ion. Achæus, having committed an involuntary homicide, was driven out, went into the Peloponnese, and founded the Achaean tetrapolis, from whom the Achaeans trace their origin. Ion, upon the death of his maternal grandfather, because of his virtue and other merits, was chosen king and ruled the Athenians; whence the Athenians began to be called Ionians, and the whole region Ionia.

^B The twenty-eighth: how Tennes and Hemithea were children of Cycnus, king of the Troad. Cycnus, when his wife died, took another, who became enamored of Tennes, her stepson, and, when she could not possess him, falsely accused him of her own crime. The father, therefore, without a hearing, enclosed Tennes his son in a chest, together with Hemithea, who was grieving immoderately for her brother's misfortune, and committed them to the sea. The chest was carried to an island, and the inhabitants brought it ashore, and Tennes and Hemithea obtained the rule of that land, and the island was named Tenedos instead of Leucophrys. Cycnus, later repenting and having sailed to the island, begged his son from the ship to grant him amnesty. But he, to prevent his father from landing on the island, took up an axe and cut the ship's moorings. And from this, men use the expression "Tennes' axe" for any abrupt action.

^C The twenty-ninth: how the Magnetes, who now inhabit Magnesia in Asia, previously dwelt by the Peneus river and Mount Pelion, and campaigned with the Achaeans against Troy under the command of Prothous, and were called Magnetes. Then, when they were returning from Troy, he dedicated a tenth of them at Delphi in fulfillment of a vow. After a time, they left the sanctuary and, going down to the sea, crossed over to Crete. Later, having been forcibly driven from Crete, they sailed to Asia and delivered Ionia and Aeolis, which had been recently founded and were suffering under many evils, fighting alongside them against those who were inflicting ^D those evils upon them. Hence finally, in the place where they now are...

they arrive and found a city, calling it Magnesia after the name of their ancient fatherland.

^A The thirtieth, regarding Pithenius the Apolloniate, who, while grazing the sheep sacred to the Sun, had sixty of his flock torn to pieces by wolves through his own negligence, for which he was blinded by the citizens. Because God was angered, the land produced no crops for the Apolloniates until, through a stratagem and by appeasing Pithenius with two suburban estates and one house into the bargain—which he himself had chosen—they escaped the barrenness. Now, Pithenius was of illustrious birth, as were all others who, in succession, held the care of the sacred sheep. Apollonia itself (23) is a Greek city in the Illyrian region, situated on the sea, which the river Lous (24), flowing through its midst, empties into the Ionian sea.

^C The thirty-first: how Tereus (25), king of the Thracians who live near Daulis and the rest of Phocis, took as his wife Procne, the daughter of Pandion, king of the Athenians. After he was seized by insane love, he raped the unwilling Philomela, the sister of Procne, and cut out her tongue, fearing that she might reveal the deed. But she, weaving a mantle, inscribed her grief in the threads. Procne, having learned the truth and desiring to avenge the crime, served her own son [Itys] to the husband at a banquet. Then Tereus, when he learned of the execrable feast even from Procne herself, pursued both her and the sister with a sword, as being cognizant of the deed. But as the story takes them away from there, Procne is turned into a nightingale (26), and Philomela into a swallow; and they sing of their past misfortunes for all time. But Tereus, too, in the myth, flew off as a hoopoe. And they say that not even when turned into birds did they put aside their anger, but that hoopoes forever pursue nightingales and swallows.

^D The thirty-second: regarding Europa (27), the daughter of Phoenix (28), who vanished from sight, and how her father sent his sons in search of the sister—among whom was Cadmus—with whom Proteus also sets out from Egypt, fearing the tyranny of Busiris. And how, after much wandering, finding nothing, they came to Pallene; and how Proteus, having offered gifts of hospitality to Clitus (for Clitus was a ruler, wise and just, of the Sithonians, a Thracian race) and having formed a friendship, took his daughter Chrysonoe to wife. Then, with the Bisaltae driven from their own land in the war which was waged against them by Clitus and Proteus, Proteus took command of that region and begot children far different from their father, since hoopoes forever pursue swallows and nightingales.

^A And their father heaped up a tomb for them, for he was polluted by the slaughter, and he purified Hercules from the murder.

Tricesima tertia (Thirty-third): Democlus the Delphian begot a son of striking appearance named Smicrus; he sailed to Miletus to consult the oracle, having with him his son who was thirteen years of age. Through an excessive zeal for sailing and through imprudence, he left him there. A goatherd, the son of Eritharsus, found the sorrowful Smicrus and led him to his father; Eritharsus, having learned of the circumstances and lineage of Smicrus, treated him no differently than his own son and kept him with honor. It relates also concerning Cycnus, who was captured with his two sons, and of the contention, and of the apparition of Leucothea; how she told the boys to admonish the Milesians that she must be honored and that a gymnastic contest of boys must be held for her, for she took pleasure in the contention of the boys. It adds also how Smicrus married the daughter of one of the noble men among the Milesians, and she, while pregnant, saw a vision of the sun entering in through her mouth, passing through her womb, and exiting through her private parts. The seers interpreted this vision as an auspicious omen, and she bore a son, naming him Branchus from the dream, because the sun had passed through the "branchus" (throat) of her. This boy was the most beautiful of human beings, and Apollo, having fallen in love with him upon finding him tending his sheep, kissed him. Where an altar of Apollo the Lover is established. Branchus, having become inspired with the art of prophecy by Apollo, delivered oracles at the village of Didyma. ^B And even to this day, among the Greek oracles that we know, after the Delphic, that of the Branchidae is acknowledged to be the greatest.

Tricesima quarta (Thirty-fourth): After the death of Alexander (Paris), the sons of Priam, Helenus and Deiphobus, contended for the marriage of Helen, and Deiphobus, though younger than Helenus, prevailed through force and the support of influential men. Helenus, however, unable to bear the insult, withdrew to Ida and lived in quietude; where, upon the counsel of Calchas, the Greeks besieging Troy captured him by ambush. He, partly through threats and partly through gifts—or rather, through hatred of Troy—revealed to the Greeks that Ilion was fated to be captured by a wooden horse, and finally, once the Achaeans had taken it, the "diopetous" (heaven-fallen) Palladium of Athena, which was the smallest among many. ^C Accordingly, Diomedes and Ulysses were sent for the theft of the Palladium, and Diomedes climbed up onto the wall by stepping onto the shoulders of Ulysses, but he did not pull up his companion who was reaching out his hands; rather, he went to the Palladium, and having taken it, he returned to Ulysses. And as they were descending through the plain, since Diomedes knew the craftiness of the man, when Ulysses asked him about everything in detail, he did not answer that he had taken the Palladium as Helenus had indicated, but rather another object in its place. But when, by chance, fortune disturbed

the Palladium, Ulysses recognized that it was the genuine one, and standing behind Diomedes, he drew his sword, wishing to kill him so that he himself might bring the Palladium to the Achaeans. But just as he was about to strike the blow (for there was moonlight), Diomedes saw the gleam of the brandished sword; and Ulysses desisted from killing him, as Diomedes had drawn his own sword in return, but reproaching him for his cowardice, he beat him on his shoulders with the flat of his blade, forcing him to go before him. Hence the proverb, ^A "Diomedean necessity," is used for anything that is done against one's will.

35

36

^A Apodastus settled Melos and established the people of the Melians there, taking on the name of Spartans. All the rest, finding no resistance, took Gortyna and settled it along with the Cretan neighbors.

Thirty-seventh. He reports that the island was named Thasos after Thasos, the brother of Cadmus; for his brother, having given him a portion of the army, left him there. Cadmus himself had been sent into Europe by the king of the Phoenicians, having attained great influence himself among the Phoenicians. For the Phoenicians at that time, as it is said, were very strong in power and influence, and having subjugated a large part of Asia, they had established their royal seat in the Egyptian Thebes. Cadmus was sent, not—as the Greeks fable—in search of Europa, whom Zeus, in the shape of a bull, had carried off, being the daughter of Phoenix, but rather, intending to establish his own sovereignty in Europe, he made the search for his abducted sister a pretext, from which the myth of Europa reached the Greeks. While sailing around Europe, he left his brother Thasos, as has been said, on the island, and he himself, having sailed to Boeotia, went up to the place now called Thebes, and having fortified the site with his forces, named it Thebes after his own homeland. ^B When the Boeotians joined battle with them, the Phoenicians were at first defeated, but afterwards, by means of ambuscades, tactical maneuvers, and the unfamiliar appearance of their armor—for helmets and shields were still unknown to the Greeks until that day—they proved victorious. Thus Cadmus, having mastered the land of the Boeotians, and with those who had survived the slaughter having fled to their own cities, settled the Phoenicians in Thebes and married Harmonia, the daughter of Ares and Aphrodite. But among the Boeotians, because of the dread of those arms and the ambuscades, this belief took root, that those men had sprung from the earth along with the arms themselves, and for this reason they called them "Spartoi," as if they had been born from that very spot. This is the true account of Cadmus and the settlement of Thebes; the other is myth and a curiosity for the ears. ^C

Thirty-eighth. How a certain man of Miletus, when his homeland was in danger under Harpagus, son of Cyrus, sailed to Tauromenium in Sicily, and having deposited his gold with a certain friend, a banker, returned home. Afterwards Miletus was enslaved to Cyrus, and he inflicted nothing more severe than they had feared. So the Milesian returned to Tauromenium to recover his deposit. The banker admitted that he had received the deposit, but maintained that he had already returned it. When, after many wrangles and altercations, the Milesian challenged the dishonest man to an oath, the banker devised the following scheme: having hollowed out a fennel stalk like a tube, and having melted down the deposit, he poured it into the fennel stalk and secured it. ^D

^A Then, approaching to swear his oath, he carried the stalk as a staff, as if he were infirm in his feet and supported himself upon it. Before he swore, he handed the reed to the Milesian who was standing near him, as if he would soon take it back. As he raised his hands and swore that he had returned the deposit to the person from whom he had received it, the Milesian, in indignation, threw down the reed, ^B crying out at the same time that honesty among men had perished. And the reed broke, and the deception of the perjury was made plain to the sight by the gold. And thus the Milesian recovered his own gold, but the banker, out of shame and because he was discovered in his wickedness before all, took his own life by hanging.

Tricesima nona. Melanthus was of the lineage of the Neleidae, who ruled over Pylos and Messene from the time of Neptune. When the Heraclidae had expelled him, they took possession of the region by force of arms. He, however, departed for Athens in accordance with an oracle, became a citizen, and was among those held in honor. Now a war arose between the Athenians and the Boeotians over Oenoe, ^C and it was decided that the judgment should be settled by a duel between the kings. Thymoetes, who was then reigning at Athens, feared the contest and ceded his kingdom to anyone who would be willing to risk battle against Xanthus, who was king of the Boeotians. Melanthus, therefore, being enticed by the prize of the kingdom, accepted the condition of fighting, and terms were agreed upon. When it came to combat, Melanthus saw a certain phantom in the guise of a beardless man following Xanthus. As he shouted that Xanthus was acting unjustly and against the terms of their agreement by bringing an ally, Xanthus turned around, ^D distracted by the falsehood of the statement; and Melanthus immediately struck him with his spear and killed him, and in that one contest he secured Oenoe for the Athenians and the kingdom for himself. The lineage of the Erechthidae was indeed transferred from this point to the Melanthidae, among whom was also Codrus. And the Athenians later, in accordance with an oracle, dedicated a shrine to Dionysus Melanthidus and offered sacrifice every year, and they also offered holy sacrifices to Zeus Apatourios, because their victory had come to them through this deception.

Quadragesima historia. The history concerning Andromeda gives a different account from that which the Greek myth tells. It states that there were two brothers, Cepheus and Phineus; and that the kingdom of Cepheus was then in what was later named Phoenicia, but at that time was called Joppe, from the coastal city of Joppe from which it took its name, and the boundaries of his realm extended from our sea to that part of Arabia which pertains to the Erythraean Sea. There was also to Cepheus a remarkably beautiful daughter, Andromeda, and she...

was sought in marriage by a certain Phoenix, as well as by Phineus, the brother of Cepheus. Cepheus, having turned over in his mind for a long time various considerations regarding both of them, decided to bestow her upon Phoenix, and to cover his own willingness by the abduction of his daughter. Andromeda was therefore snatched away from a certain desert island, to which she was accustomed to withdraw to offer sacrifices to Venus. ^A While Andromeda was being carried off by the ship of this Phoenix (which was called the Cetus, whether from the resemblance to that creature or by some chance), she lamented miserably, and with tears invoked those who might bring aid. Perseus, son of Danae, who happened to be sailing by, checked his course; and at his very first sight of the maiden, he was seized with both pity and love. He then vanquished that ship named the Cetus, and slew its crew, who were all but turned to stone from terror. ^B And this, to the Greeks, is the Cetus of the myth, and these were the men who were turned into stones by the sight of the Gorgon's head. Perseus, therefore, took Andromeda as his wife and carried her on his ship to Greece, and it began to be inhabited under his rule at Argos.

41. How the Pelasgi settled at Antandrus. ^C But, as some say, it was because Ascanius gave it to them as the price for his own ransom, after he had been captured by them in an ambush and then released; for this reason they called it Antandrus, because they had received the city for one man. This Ascanius, however, was the son of Aeneas, who reigned over Ida after the capture of Troy. Others report that the Pelasgi settled at Antandrus for a different reason. They say that Anius was born of Apollo and Creusa, and of him was born Andrus, who, having inhabited one of the islands, left his own name to that island too. But after seditions arose, he was driven out from there, and having observed a certain place under Ida, similar to Andrus, he founded a city there and named it Antandrus after the similarity. ^D Andrus, meanwhile, being abandoned, the Pelasgian race inhabited it. Thus Cyzicus also had Pelasgi as its inhabitants; for Cyzicus, son of Apollo, ruling the Pelasgi who were in Thessaly, was driven out with his own Pelasgi by the Aeolians, and founded a city in the Chersonesus of Asia, bestowing upon it his own name. And from a humble origin it grew in Cyzicus to great power, after he wedded Clite, the daughter of Merops, who ruled the regions near the Rhyndacus. Afterwards, the companions of Jason, who were setting out with him for the golden fleece, the Argo...

^A arrived at Cyzicus. When the Pelasgi discovered that it was a Thessalian ship, they attacked the Argo by night, out of their old hatred, since they had once been expelled by them. Jason, not knowing that Cyzicus had fallen upon him, killed him unawares, and with him some other Pelasgi were slain; but the Argo itself set sail for Colchis. Thus the Pelasgi, deeply grieved at the death of their king, at that time entrusted their commonwealth to their nobles, because Cyzicus had left no heir, until afterwards they were driven from Cyzicus by the Tyrrhenians, who, having occupied the Chersonese and overcome in battle those who were part of the Milesians, themselves inhabited Cyzicus.

42. How Gelon the Sicilian desired to seize the tyranny

^B Gelon the Sicilian, aspiring to seize the tyranny, cultivated the favor of the people of Himera, and championed them against the powerful. The common folk, therefore, loved him so much that when he asked for a bodyguard to be given to him, they granted it most readily. Stesichorus, however, the Himeraean poet, suspecting that he wished to affect the tyranny, stood before the people and recited this fable, which was an image of the evils that would later befall them. A horse, he said, was grazing and used to frequent a fountain, but a deer, running through that plain, would trample the grass and disturb the water. Thinking to punish the creature that did him wrong, but lacking the speed of foot to do so, the horse implored the aid of a huntsman; the latter promised to avenge the injury most easily if the horse would receive a bit in its mouth and allow him to mount on its back. And so it was done. The deer was indeed struck by arrows and lay dead, but the horse felt that he had been enslaved to the huntsman. "This is what I myself fear, O Himeraeans," he said, "lest now, while you are in a popular state, you might indeed overcome your enemies through Gelon, but later become slaves to Gelon himself. For any power ^C is grateful to the recipient against the one who gave it, when he can no longer take it back as easily as he bestowed it."

43. Of the cataclysm of Etna

The craters of Mount Etna once belched forth flames like a river over that region, and to the Catanaeans (Catana is a Greek city in Sicily) it seemed that the final destruction of the city was at hand. Wherefore the citizens, fleeing as fast as they could, carried off, some their gold, some their silver, and others whatever seemed likely to provide support in exile. But Anapias and Amphinomus, above all others, took their parents, who were worn out with old age, upon their shoulders and fled. The flame caught and destroyed the rest, but it parted around them, and the whole area about them became, as it were, an island in the midst of the fire. ^D For this reason, the Sicilians called that place the "Field of the Pious."

^A They called that region the "Field of the Pious," and set up stone statues there in memory of those men, as witnesses to both their divine and human deeds.

The forty-fourth history relates how Leodamas and Phitres contended for the kingdom of the Milesians, both being of royal lineage. The common people, distressed by their factional strife, after many calamities finally put an end to the quarrel by a decree that he who showed himself more deserving to the Milesians should be the one to reign. They had at that time two enemies: the Carystians and the Melians. Against Melos, Phitres (for this war had fallen to him by lot) took an expedition but returned without success. Leodamas, however, having performed bravely and magnificently against the Carystians, and having taken their city by force and enslaved the inhabitants, returned to Miletus and reigned according to the agreed-upon terms. ^B By the command of the oracle, he sent to the Branchidae a captive Carystian woman who was nursing an infant, along with many other offerings, which were the tithe of the spoils. At that time, Branchus himself was in charge of the temple and the oracle; he received the captive woman and adopted her son. The boy grew not in the ordinary way, but by some divine fortune, and his intelligence developed beyond his years. Branchus made him a messenger of the oracles and named him Evangelus. Having grown to adulthood, he succeeded Branchus at the oracle and was the beginning and head of the Evangelidae among the Milesians. ^C

The forty-fifth. Orpheus, the son of Oeagrus 57 and Calliope, who is counted as one of the nine Muses, was king of the Macedonians and the Odrysians 58. He practiced the art of music, especially citharoedy; and (for the race of Thracians and Macedonians is fond of music) he was exceedingly pleasing to the people in these matters. Fame had it that he descended to Hades, drawn by love for his wife Eurydice, and that he so charmed Pluto and Persephone with his singing that he received his wife back as a gift. But he was unable to enjoy this favor, through which she had been called back to life, because he did not observe the commands concerning her 59. He was so skilled at charming and soothing with his songs, that even wild beasts and birds, and indeed wood and stones, would follow him out of sheer delight. He was killed by the Thracian and Macedonian women, who tore him apart because he would not share the orgies with them; ^D and perhaps for other reasons as well, for they say that having been unfortunate regarding his wife, he came to hate the entire female sex. Therefore, on appointed days, a multitude of Thracians and Macedonians, armed, would gather at Libethra into a large, magnificently constructed building; and whenever they entered to perform the orgies, they would lay down their arms before the gates. The women, having watched for this, and the

others, inflamed with great rage because they were despised, not only slew those who were lying there, but also dismembered Orpheus himself and cast the pieces into the sea in various directions. When a pestilence later ravaged that region—because no punishment had been exacted from the women—the inhabitants, praying for the plague to be repelled, received a response from the tripod: if they should find the head of Orpheus and bury it in the earth, the contagion would cease. They finally found it, with difficulty, at the mouth of the river Meles, discovered by a fisherman; and it was ^B even then singing, and had suffered nothing from the sea-waves, nor had it undergone any of those foul things which are wont to arise in human corpses due to mortal fate. Instead, it was rather elegant, stained with its native blood, and had remained vigorous after so much time. Having received this head, they buried it in a huge tumulus and from the beginning surrounded it with a heroic monument, until it eventually obtained the status of being considered a divine shrine. It is honored with sacrifices and everything else with which gods are wont to be honored. Meanwhile, that temple is entirely inaccessible to women.

46. As Troy was being captured

47. Althæmenes, a descendant of the Heraclidae in the third generation from Temenus ^A, was in conflict with his brothers. Being the youngest, he departed from the Peloponnese, taking with him a force of Dorians and certain Pelasgians. At that time, the Athenians also sent out a colony with Neleus and the descendants of Codrus; similarly, the Lacedaemonians also sent a people to inhabit another land, led by a man named Delphus and Polis. Both sides invited Althæmenes to join them in their undertaking: the Dorians, to sail with them to Crete, as he was himself a Dorian; the Ionians, to cross over to Asia with them. However, he decided to join neither side, but rather, in accordance with the oracle he had received, to set out for Zeus and Helios and seek a place to dwell from them; and indeed, Crete was the domain of Zeus, and Rhodes of Helios. Setting sail, therefore, from the Peloponnese, he put in at Crete and left behind a portion of the people who wished to settle there; but he himself, taking the greater part of the Dorians, sailed on to Rhodes. ^B Rhodes was inhabited in ancient times by an indigenous people under the rule of the line of the Heliadae, whom the Phoenicians displaced, taking possession of the island. When the Phoenicians were later expelled, the Carians succeeded them, at which time they also inhabited the other islands in the Aegean. Sailing against them, the Dorians defeated the Carians in war and founded three cities: Lindus, Ielysus, and Camirus. The Dorians, therefore, beginning from Althæmenes, have descended down to the present day; and these three cities combined into one great and prosperous city, to which they gave the same name as the island, Rhodes.

48. He narrates the story of Romus and Romulus, differing in some respects from other accounts. He says that Amulius, plotting against his brother Numitor, put him to death and made his daughter, Ilia, a priestess of Vesta, so that she might not give birth nor have relations with a man. ^C Yet she was defiled by Mars, who, after the meeting, revealed who he was and predicted that she would bear twins, bidding her be of good cheer. But when she had given birth, her uncle Amulius cast her into chains, and delivered the offspring to a certain faithful shepherd to be put to death. When he received the infants, he refused to commit the crime with his own hands, but placed them in a trough to be carried down the Tiber. The trough, after much tossing, finally became lodged in the roots of a wild fig tree that had grown to a great size ^D upon a prominent bank, and from there it cast the children out upon the bank onto soft, sandy soil. There a she-wolf, having recently delivered,

^A came upon the wailing children, who were stretching out their hands, and offered them her teats; and they were fed, while the wolf, burdened by the encounter, rested. When Faustulus the shepherd saw this, thinking there was something divine in it, he took them up and reared the children as his own. A long time afterward, he happened upon the shepherd who had exposed them. Having learned from him the whole story concerning the boys, he told them, now that they were grown, that they were of royal lineage, the offspring of Mars, and of all that had befallen both their mother and their maternal grandfather. Now, they were of remarkable appearance, invincible in bodily strength, and possessed of noble daring. Immediately, therefore, seizing daggers, they hid them under their garments and approached Alba. Finding Amulius there without his bodyguards—since their plan was quite unexpected—they exacted punishment, stabbing him with their swords, and brought their mother out of confinement. The common people also joined hands with them, and they reigned over Alba and the neighboring regions. Subsequently, as a vast multitude of people flocked to them, they left Alba and built a new ^B city, which they named Rome, which now, if I may say so, holds dominion over the human race. Furthermore, as a proof of what happened at that time, there is shown in the Roman Forum a sacred wild fig tree, surrounded by bronze railings of the senate house; they also preserve a hut in the temple of Jupiter (a token of that way of life which Faustulus maintained), constructed from rubbish and tender twigs.

Quadragesima nona: On the island of Anaphe ^C (which is above the island of Thera, not far from the Lacedaemonians), a temple was established sacred to Apollo Aegletes, in which the islanders offer sacrifice with mocking jests for a reason such as this: When Jason was sailing home after carrying off Medea from Colchis, a violent storm overtook them, and they were in total despair; the Argives on the ship fled to prayers and vows. Apollo, therefore, holding his bow over them, averted all the evils; and as lightning burst from heaven, the earth suddenly emerged from the depths of the sea, creating an island. Disembarking, because it was the first time they had seen it under the sun, they named it Anaphe from this occurrence, and established a sacred temple to Apollo Aegletes, and cheered themselves because of their unexpected deliverance from their evils ^D and with other festivities. Meanwhile Medea, with the maidservants who had been given to her as a wedding gift when she was joined to Jason, playing after drinking wine, began to jeer at the heroes during the all-night festival; they, in turn, hurled insults back at the women. From this, therefore, the people of Anaphe (for the island has been inhabited since then) perform every year a festival in honor of Apollo Aegletes, mocking one another in imitation of those people.

^A The fiftieth narrative: How Alexander the tyrant was killed by his own wife, Thebe. She was the daughter of Jason, who once reigned in Thessaly, and she had three uterine brothers, born to the father Eulaches: Tisiphonus, Lycophron, and Pytholaus. Alexander, that ruler of the Pheraeans, having them in suspicion, was planning to make away with them; but knowing that Thebe would not easily endure to look on while her uterine brothers were being cut down, he planned to make away with her as well. When sober, he would hide his plan, but when drunk (for he was a slave to wine), he would expose and reveal it. Thebe, having learned of the plan, gave daggers to her brothers and urged them to prepare for the slaughter; then, having drenched Alexander in much wine and put him to sleep, she dismissed the guards of the chamber under the pretext that she was going to use the bath, and called her brothers to the task. They were hesitant, and especially the youngest of them. But she, having threatened them with various things, and claiming that she would immediately awaken Alexander and accuse them of the murder, forced them to take courage; and they slaughtered Alexander as he slept. Thebe then summoned the leaders of the guards and, using both threats and promises, persuaded them to assist her in securing the tyranny. They agreed; and she took the power for herself, but gave the name and glory of the tyranny to Tisiphonus, the eldest of the brothers.

So much for those fifty narratives of Conon. He uses the Attic style, and in terms of composition and vocabulary is graceful and charming, though he has something that is complicated and remote from the common understanding.

^C In the same volume, I also read a small book by the grammarian Apollodorus; its title is *Bibliotheca*. It contained the most ancient history of the Greeks, both that which time has bequeathed to them to believe concerning gods and heroes, and the names of rivers, regions, nations, and cities; and from there, it also covers other matters that reach back to the ancient past, coming down as far as the Trojan period. It also mentions the battles of certain men against one another and their exploits, and, once Troy had been captured, the wanderings of some, especially Odysseus, with whom his account of ancient things concludes. His book is for the most part a summary, and it is not useless for those who are concerned with keeping ancient things in their memory. The small book also has this not-inelegant epigram:

^D Having drawn from the art of my lore the succession of the ages, Thou shalt know the stories of old.

[index: entries preserved]

find everything that the world contains.

187. Nicomachus of Gerasa, Theological Arithmetic, Two Books

^A I have read the two books of Nicomachus of Gerasa, *On Arithmetic as Applied to Divine Matters*. This title is indeed capable of exciting great wonder and a vehement love, even though the work itself—not to say that it is a matter of vain ratiocinations and a waste of idle time—has receded far from its title. For he does not here treat of the numbers from unity up to ten (which he performed in his own *Arithmetic* and the *Introduction* which precedes it), nor does he treat of the matters which are inherent to numbers by their own nature and possess a useful contemplation; but he deals mostly with fictions of a harmful intellect—and of an intellect that strives to adapt things themselves to its own speculation with contentiousness, rather than aiming the thoughts of its mind toward the nature of things.

But as for the fact that the man set out to refer the nature of things that exist to the essence of numbers, and conversely to include them within this, by lopping off, adding, permuting, and dividing—at times the things themselves, and at other times those numbers (which are so friendly to him) and gods, and doing this while proceeding either by one part or by both—although he would have many accounts to give for this, I shall leave it aside. ^B I speak only of this: that desiring to see gods and goddesses in numbers, and attributing this to them solely according to the proper and defined quantity of each, he does not preserve this [quantity] entire while he refers the numbers into the order of the gods, but, as we have already said, by cutting, increasing, and in every way mangling them, he thus worships them for the most part as gods, while meanwhile destroying the quantity which was originally present, so that through this [process] some god might be made, and yet at the same time he strips the same god bare of this [quantity].

Nor is this kind of theology ineffable or hidden. But there seems to be a wiser part of it, and one more worthy of love, which requires that whoever is to enter into this admirable theology—and to penetrate more deeply into its secrets—must not be ignorant of geometry, and must accurately hold the method of calculation, ^C and likewise must not have learned the inspection of the stars in a cursory fashion, but rather must be exercised in musical theories and, indeed, in their instruments as well. For in order that he may deify numbers and fashion them as the causes of the generation of things that exist, he weaves into this god-fashioning, which concerns numbers, certain theorems from each of the aforementioned sciences; ignorance of these would stand as an impediment to the initiation into such great mysteries, and he who has not been perfected in the aforementioned sciences will display his eagerness in vain. And it is necessary, as it seems, to spend a lifetime and

to have exhausted oneself by diligently applying one's attention to these disciplines before arriving at these theological discourses concerning numbers and prodigious fabrications, by which you may finally be allowed to rave completely. Such, then, in summary, or rather speaking only of the title, is the theology of Nicomachus of Gerasa. ^A

[461 R.] Concerning unity, therefore (besides other fictions, not a few, which he mixes into the truth concerning it, and into the natural properties pertaining to it), he also reports this: that it is Mind, then also both male and female, and God, and in a way matter. He truly mingles all things together, and maintains that it is thereafter the recipient and container of everything: chaos, confusion, commixture, lack of light, darkness, yawning chasm, and Tartarus. ^B And they mythologize that it is Styx, and shivering terror, and immixability, and a subterranean abyss, and Lethe, and a rigid virgin, and Atlas. It is also, for them, an axis, and the Sun, and a fiery-sun, and a shape, and the fortress of Zeus, and a seminal reason, and Apollo, and a prophet, and a vaticinator. The reason for these names is, on one hand, that of an unstable and superstitious mind, and on the other, it has not even departed from a childish way of conceiving things. But in this way the unit is both theologized ^C by Nicomachus and his teachers at the same time as it is pelted with insults.

The number two, or the dyad, is for them boldness, and matter, and the cause of things that are unlike, and the interval between the multitude and the unit. From composition and commixture, it alone makes equality, and for this reason it is also equal; but it is also unequal, and a deficiency, and an abundance; and it is alone unformed, and indefinite, and infinite, and the only principle of the even, and not even, nor indeed evenly-even, nor oddly-odd, nor evenly-odd. But most of these things are near to the natural property of the dyad; those things, however, which belong to the monstrous invention are that it is the source of every concord, ^D and among the Muses it is Erato, and Harmony, and patience, and a root—though not yet in act, as it were—and power, and the feet of the mountain of many springs, Ida, and summits, and Phanes. Moreover, this workshop of fables also theologizes the dyad as equal to Zeus, and as Justice, and Isis, and Nature, and Rhea, and mother of the gods, and a fountain of distribution; for it is to them as Rhea, and Phrygia, and Lydia, and Dindymene, and Demeter, and Eleusinia, and Artemis, and Himeros, and Dictynna, and Aeria, and Asteria, and Disa-

Disamus, and Vesta ^A. Moreover, they also have Venus, Dione, Mychaea, and Cythereia. Ignorance likewise, and imprudence, falsehood, confusion, enmity, contention, discord, fate, and finally death. Thus, then, is the dyad theologized by them.

The triad, however, is the first [number] that is odd in actuality, and the first perfect number, and a mean and proportion; it causes the power of the monad to proceed into action and extension. But it is also the foremost and, properly speaking, a system of monads. Hence, the number is then raised by them to the physiological [level]; for it is the cause of that which is three-dimensionally extended, and is the limiter of the infinity that is in number, and is like, and identical, and of the same proportion, and determined. But these are not yet ^B heavy subjects. What follows is unlike. The triad is a certain intellect, and the cause of good counsel and wisdom, and knowledge, the most principle [element] of number, and the mistress and constitution of all music, and in the highest degree of geometry. Moreover, it also possesses the power over things pertaining to astronomy, or the nature and knowledge of celestial bodies; it contains them and leads them unto subsistence. And all virtue is dependent on and proceeds from it. ^C Then follow the mythical matters. For these reasons, the triad is to them Cronian, and Latonian, and the horn of Amalthea; they also render as monsters Ophiona, and Thetis, and Harmonia, Hecate, and Erana, and Charitia, and Polyhymnia from the choir of the Muses, and Aidoneus, and Loxias, and the Bear, and Helice, and that which does not set in the sea, and Damatrame, and Dioscoria, and Metis, and the Triple-born, Triton, the master of the sea, Tritogeneia, Achelous, the inhabitant, and the foot-goddess Curetida, Crataeida, Harmonia, Symbenia, Gamos, Gorgonia, Phorcia, Trisa- ^D mus, and Lydius. In such a way is their triad fashioned into so many of their gods.

The tetrad, again, is to them a great wonder, another god, many-godded, or rather all-godded; for it is to them the fountain of natural causes and the key-bearer of nature. Yet it also brings and reconciles its own constitution and endurance to the disciplines; indeed, it is nature itself and variety. It is also...

^A Hercules, and impetus, and maximum robustness, virile and having nothing feminine. Mercurius also, and Vulcan, Bacchus, Soritas, Maiadeus, or Maiades (for he is the son of Maia, that is, of the dyad, the quaternary). Eriunius furthermore, and Socus, and Diastor, ^B and Bassareus, and bimater (having obtained the mother dyad), of feminine form, yet acting in a virile and masculine way, and awakening madness. Also Harmonia, and Urania among the Muses. Thus, then, is the quaternary monstrously theologized for them, and with this the first book of the theologized numbers according to Nicomachus is completed.

In the second book, however, after the proem, the pentad completes the contest for him. For the pentad is the first indicator of the best and most natural mean, through the disjunction from both extremities of natural number, while in the meantime being conjoined to the unit as to a principle, and to the decad as to an end; and it is capable of encompassing all things that appear in the nature of the world. For by the unit, the world is rooted, while by the decad it is completed ^C and manifest. But it is also the nearest and sole part of the decad. And the elements of the whole are also according to the pentad; for it adds the ether to the four, which the quaternary would not brook to sing of. And many such things. But these are not yet elegant and wise; consider what follows. For the pentad is Anecia, and alteration, and light, and justice, and the least extremity of the faculty of living; and Nemesis, and Bubastia, and jurisdiction, and Venus, and Gamelia, and Androgynia, and Cythereia, and Zonaea, and mistress of circles, and Semidea, and tower of Zeus, and Didymaea, and a stable axle. The lofty-minded also call it ^D immortal, and Pallas, and Credeaten, and Agemonia, and Acreotin, and equable, and free from the yoke, and Orthiatin, and among the Muses, Melpomene, and exchanging for the better, and the mean of means, and the extremity of the productive. On these points, therefore, he also magnifies the pentad.

[240 H.] The senary is called by him a form of a form, and for the soul it is the only one of the numbers that is fitting, and it is the articulation of the whole, the author of the soul, and [the producer] of the vital faculty ([whence also the senary and] Harmony).

^A and it is called, specifically and properly, Aphrodite, both conjugal and nuptial, and androgyne. But it is also called the Yoke-bearer, the goddess of affection, peace, friendship, health, Acmon, and truth. Furthermore, they identify it with Lachesis among the Fates, and as the beginning and midpoint of the whole, and the Far-Shooter, the Triviam, the Dichronia, the Perseia, the Triform, Amphitrite, the Anchidica, and among the number of the Muses, Thaleia and Panaceia. In this way, not even the senary escaped them in their eagerness to prove it to be a god and a goddess.

The hebdomad—what indeed should one say of it? For it is immediately a septenary; and even if usage should wear away the *sigma*, it draws this most easily from the double *xi*, which nature itself, as if by lot, has assigned to the end of the preceding number, that it might be a support for this august number against the wiles of the vulgar. And this is that admirable demonstration, which teaches how it exists as a septenary and ^B a number worthy of worship. Again, it is itself the midpoint of the monad and the decad, Fortune and Opportunity, Athena and Ares, and Acreotis, and Agelia, and Atrytone, the Guardian, the daughter of a mighty father, Tritogeneia, the grey-eyed, Alalcomeneia, Panteuchia, Ergana, the much-invoked, the integrity of nature, the offspring of Amaltheia, the Aegis, Osiris, a dream, a voice, a sound, and among the Muses, Clio; if you wish, also Judgment and Adrasteia, and much of such nonsense. Thus, the all-venerable heptad is celebrated by them with great and long labor as a great and manifold god.

The octad, then, even if it has not obtained such glory (not even in an eighth part), yet since it is also a god to them, it has not fallen from its throne. For they worship it as the supreme Harmony and the Cadmean mother, and Rhea, and the feminine-maker, and Cybele, and Cybebe, and Dindymene, and the guardian of the city, and also as love and friendship, wisdom, understanding, Oreia, Themis, law, the one born before the months were completed, and Euterpe of the Muses.

And the ennead is also put last, both in divinity and in the long description by which the heptad was exalted.

^A Near the eight, it is theologized. For this is the ocean that flows around them, and it is celebrated as the horizon; they also consecrate to it, in their holy language, Prometheus, Concord, Perseia, and the Sun, "Aversion," "Likeness," Hephaestus, Hera—sister and spouse of Zeus—the "Far-Darter," Paean, Nysseida, Agyieus, Enyalius, Agelia, Tritogenia, Concord, Peitho, the Curetis and Kore, Hyperion, and Terpsichore of the Muses.

The decad, however, is to them the everything, the super-divine God and God of gods, because there are ten fingers of the hands and ten toes of the feet, and ten categories, and ten parts of speech. For in order that the decad may be everything to them, they add to the parts of speech a name and a supplement. Why is it necessary to mention how they include in it solid and plane figures, even, odd, evenc-odd, perfect, prime and incomposite numbers, equality and inequality, the ten relations, the spherical, the circular, the generative, the teleological, harmonic [numbers], and suchlike? But how, for them, the decad is the cosmos and heaven, fate, eternity, power, faith, necessity, ^B Atlas, the unwearied god, Phanes, the Sun, Urania, Memory, Mnemosyne; and they would have attributed, I believe, all the aforementioned names of the gods to the decad, had not those who came before them already seized upon these and distributed them, and had these not shrunk from saying the same things repeatedly, since the decad is super-divine for them and holds the power of the divinity that exists in numbers. For this reason, the labor upon it by Nicomachus is also long-winded. For even if the labor on the monad and the heptad is much longer, the one on the monad is so because he wanders through not a few things concerning the subsequent numbers and expands in his introductions. Yet in both, much also lies hidden regarding the decad, just as in the discourse on the pentad, which is nearly equal in length to that of the heptad.

^C But this, my dearest of brothers, is that celebrated and difficult-to-find theology of the numbers of Nicomachus, summarized as if in a head; which, however, by heaven, because of its almost inaccessible and difficult-to-grasp meanings, could in no way remove your own sharp mind and diligence from the sphere of human limitation—since now, the geometric and arithmetical and other mathematical disciplines, as you yourself also know, are being treated by many whom we know with no less attention, I think, than that of the boy Hermias (you certainly know the skill of Ammonius in these matters), and nothing ^D

of the theorems which Nicomachus wove into this study of numbers could escape them. But whence have these perished? Time, I think, and the habit—which does not even spare useful things, while it most easily destroys all useless ones—has introduced a powerful and invincible force, and thereby the labor of Nicomachus, which might have been counted among many useful things, has almost been thought to have perished. Yet it exists and is practiced; and, as you see—and as I know you shall see more clearly hereafter—it reaps no small glory. ^A

188. Alexander, Collection of Marvels, and Protagoras, Six books on the Geometry of the whole world.

There was read the *Collection of Marvels* by Alexander. In this volume he narrates many things that are indeed prodigious and incredible, but he cites others, not undistinguished, as authors who had previously recorded the same. He writes, moreover, concerning animals, plants, certain regions, rivers, springs, herbs, and other things of that kind. His diction is clear, and as he narrates succinctly, he is not entirely devoid of pleasure.

In this same volume were contained six books of the *Geometry of the Whole World* by Protagoras. Five of these, albeit not studious nor as accurate as those who came later, nevertheless encompass a description of the sites of Asia and Libya, and indeed of Europe as well. ^B The sixth book, however, corresponds in a way to the *Collection* of Alexander; for it records the history of things held as paradoxical throughout the world, of which he refers some to more ancient writers, though he draws many also from his own observation, which, no less than the others, put forward the paradoxical. This one too is clear, and in the sixth book especially, concise in its diction.

189. Sotion, On rivers, fountains, and lakes. Nicolaus of Damascus, Collection of incredible customs. Acestorides, Four books of political mythologies.

I read what Sotion wrote, recorded here and there, concerning unexpected things about rivers, fountains, and lakes. This little book also corresponds and agrees with the sixth book of Protagoras and the *Collectanea* of Alexander, ^C except that here it records incredible things concerning fountains and lakes only, whereas those record such things concerning many other matters as well. The language, however, does not depart far from the diction of those others.

In this same volume was read a book by Nicolaus, addressed to Herod, king of the Jews, in which was contained a *Collection of Incredible Customs*. It happens ^D that it has been chopped away and consumed; though even today it is curtailed and...

^A in some places it concurs with some of the paradoxes collected by Alexander, and he added not a few things concerning which Conon also wrote. However, in some histories he differs, relating them in a different manner. His style is also summary, yet it has not departed from clarity, while participating somewhat in inversions and gravitas more so than those mentioned previously. He mentions some things which, even if they seem strange to many, are nonetheless acknowledged, while others are unknown, yet they are not openly positioned for battle against the probable. For he announces many peculiar customs of nations, but one can also find in them things that put forward the implausible. This man, I think, is Nicolaus of Damascus, who flourished in the times of Augustus and was his friend; from whom also a certain kind of cake, which he used to send to Caesar, Caesar called *nicolaus* in honor of the one who provided them. He also left behind an *Assyrian History* in a work of many books, as much as we have of ancient memory in the readings.

Codex CLXXXVIII, CLXXXIX.

In this same codex was read the four books of the *City Myths* by Acestorides. ^B It seems that this man has used the title of his book with more insight than not a few others. For those things which others, whether being more moderate and noting nothing, or in some cases even claiming them as true, wrote down, this man, with love of truth, calling them myths, compiled the history regarding them, or mythology, as he himself likes to say. Therefore, one can find many things in these which Conon gathered, and Apollodorus told in his *Library*, and Alexander collected, and Nicolaus dedicated, and Protagoras anticipated. But in this Acestorides there are also many things recorded which were omitted by those others; yet in many matters which both he and they discuss, it is possible to see that their account is irreconcilable. The man records many things in his own books that are also attested by famous histories; there are also some which are able to prove their own reliability through their vividness. ^C And it seems that he attempted the mythical aspect not to slander the things compiled by him, but to show their grace and ability to entertain. ^D Yet to me, a fair judge, he might deserve to be credited for the fact that, intending to write down many falsehoods along with things that actually occurred, he satisfied criticism with the ambiguous word in his title. As for his style, he is also similar to the preceding writers.

Codex 190. Ptolemy Hephaestion, New History for Varied Learning, in Six Books

I read the *New History for Varied Learning* of Ptolemy Hephaestion in six books. This work is truly useful to those who are eager to labor in historical learning; for it has the means to provide, gathered together in a short time, that which someone would have to labor over a long life to collect from books scattered here and there. It contains many things that are prodigious and falsely fabricated, and—what is more absurd—he even attempts to provide the causes of certain myths, because of which one might suppose they truly occurred. The collector of these stories is himself quite frivolous and prone to arrogance, and his style is not particularly elegant. He dedicates his work to a certain Tertulla, whom he calls not only his mistress ^A but also declares her to be devoted to literature and varied learning. Meanwhile, he rebukes some of those who had treated this subject before him for not doing so correctly. Nevertheless, the majority of the things he recounts—especially those which are neither improbable nor unworthy of belief—provide varied and not ungrateful knowledge.

In the first book, then, he recounts the death of Sophocles, having also mentioned beforehand that of Protesilaus. Then he also writes concerning Hercules, how he ended his life by fire because he was unable to bend his own bow, having reached the age of fifty. Concerning Croesus being saved on the pyre; concerning the death of Achilles; and concerning the courtesan Lais, how she died by swallowing an olive pit. Having related each of these individually, he asserts that those before him had wrongly apprehended and recorded these matters. Next, he speaks of King Alexander, how, when at Ephesus he saw Palamedes being ^B put to death in a painting, he was disturbed in his mind because Aristoneicus, a ball-player and companion of Alexander, was similar to the one being treacherously killed. Such, in truth, was the gentleness of Alexander’s spirit and his great devotion to his friends. Then, concerning that which is obscure in Euphorion’s *Hyacinthus*: "Cocytus alone washed his wounds," referring to Adonis ^C; he explains that Cocytus is the name, who was a student of Chiron in medicine, and he treated Adonis after he had been wounded by the boar. He also reports that the man mentioned in the first book of Herodotus’ *Histories*, who was killed by Adrastus, the son of Gordias, was named Agathon, and that he died while contending for a quail. And how Cadmus and Harmonia were transformed into lions, and how Tiresias was transformed seven times, and for what reason—due to the Cretans—he ^D changed his form.

^A This was called the daughter of Phorbas. That Erymanthus, the son of Apollo, was blinded because he saw Aphrodite bathing after her union with Adonis, and Apollo, being made angry, changed himself into a wild boar and, striking Adonis with his tusks, killed him. Why [473 R.] [244 H.] the poet made doves the ministers of the food of the gods, and what King Alexander and Aristotle said about this, and concerning Homer and the doves. That the poet Epicharmus traced his lineage from Achilles, the son of Peleus. That Homer calls Patroclus "Horseman" ^B by way of excellence, as having learned the art of charioteering from Poseidon, whose beloved he had been. That Odysseus was formerly called Outis (No-one) because he had large ears; and he says that when rain occurred, his mother, being pregnant and unable to hold it in, gave birth on the road, and for this reason he was named Odysseus. That a certain Arcas, Peritanus by name, committed adultery with Helen, who was staying with Paris in Arcadia; and Paris, exacting the penalty for the adultery, castrated him, and from that time the Arcadians call such eunuchs "peritani." As for Achilles, ^C Aristonicus of Tarentum writes that while he was spending time among the maidens at the court of Lycomedes, he was called Cercysera, and was also called Issas, Pyrrha, Aspetus, and Prometheus. That Botryas of Myndus says all the children of Niobe were slain by Apollo. That his father gave a "monitor" to Odysseus to accompany him, Myiscus by name, a Cephallenian. A monitor named Noemon, of Carthaginian descent, also accompanied Achilles, and Eudorus accompanied Patroclus. But Antipater of Acanthus says that Dares, who wrote the Iliad before Homer, ^D was Hector's monitor, and was the one who advised him not to kill the companion of Achilles. And he says that Dardanus, of Thessalian descent, was with Protesilaus, and that Chalcon was appointed as armor-bearer and monitor by Nestos, his father. These were the chapters in the first book.

The second book treats of Hercules, how he was cleansed of his madness by hellebore by Anticyreus, who first discovered this remedy, which abounds in Anticyra in Phocis, even if others say he was cleansed in a different way. That they say Nestor was a beloved of Hercules. That not Philoctetes, he says, but Morsimus of Tra-

- chinius lit the pyre for Hercules. ^A That Hercules had nine toes after one was devoured by the Nemean lion, and that there exists a tomb for the severed toe; though others say he lost it to the sting of a stingray. Yet, it is possible to see in Lacedaemon a stone lion placed upon the tomb of the toe, a symbol, naturally, of the hero’s strength. Whence the custom grew to place stone lions upon the tombs of others as well. ^B Others state differently concerning the lion placed upon the cippus of the monument. That a great swarm of locusts arose from the pyre of Hercules, which devastated the region like a plague, and how that blight was extinguished. How Aphrodite taught the centaur Nessus, her own and Hercules’ beloved, what ambushes to set against Hercules. That Nireus of Scyros was a beloved of Hercules, and fought alongside him against the Heliconian lion; though some say Nireus was a son of Hercules. What the Graces are, which are mentioned by the poet, to which he compares the hair of Euphorbus. That the Nile was called Hercules from its birth, he says, but after he had saved Hera by killing the anonymous and fire-breathing giant who was attacking her, he changed his name from then on because he had warded off the war from Hera. ^C That Abderus, a beloved of Hercules, was killed by Theseus after he had brought him the news regarding his pyre. That Aristonicus the Tarentine claims the middle head of the Hydra was golden. That Alexander of Myndus reports that a dragon born from the earth fought alongside Hercules against the Nemean lion; and that it was reared by Hercules, and having followed him to Thebes, remained in his tent; and that this same creature was the one that, having devoured the sparrow's chicks, was turned into stone. That Hercules built the ship Argo on Mount Ossa in Thessaly, but the name was given to it from Argos, the son of Jason, who was a beloved to him, for whose sake he sailed with Jason on the voyage to Scythia. ^D That Hera, while fighting alongside Geryon, was wounded by Hercules in the right breast, and what things resulted from that. That Corythus, an Iberian by birth and a beloved of Hercules, was the first to fashion a helmet; hence this weapon first received its name from him. That the tomb on Crete, which is called Zeus’s, belongs to that Cretan Olympus who, having rescued Zeus from Saturn, reared him and taught him divine matters. But, he says, Zeus struck his foster-father and teacher with a thunderbolt because he suspected that he was inciting the giants to attack his kingdom. But when Zeus afterwards felt remorse over the dead body of the one he had struck, and could not soothe his grief in any other way, he bestowed his own name upon the tomb.

^A Whose is the saying used by Alexander, son of Philip: "Proteas, take and drink wine, since you have fed on human flesh" (60). And again to Proteas: "What kind of song was Alexander accustomed to use?" and "Whose poem was it?" and "For whom did this same Alexander, son of Philip, write a funeral dirge?" These are the contents of the second book.

The third book treats of Hyllus, the son of Hercules; how he had a small horn grown on the left side of his head, which Epopeus of Sicyon took after killing him in single combat, and carried in it the water of the Styx, and reigned over that country. It is said concerning the water of the Styx in Arcadia, that when Demeter was mourning for her daughter, and Poseidon was importuning her while she was in distress, she transformed herself into a mare, and being angered, she went to the spring and, having seen her form, she shuddered and made the water black. ^B Concerning Hecale, and how many this name was common to. That Alexander’s father was not Philip, but a certain Arcadian of the race of Draco, from whom the myth about the dragon arose. Concerning the dog of Ptolemy, and how it fought for its master, and how after his death, when it was dissected, its heart was found to be covered with hair; it was of the Molossian breed, bearing the name Briareus. Concerning Polydamas. What is the meaning of the line in the poet: "As when the daughter of Pandareos, the green nightingale" (64)? and what follows. Concerning the Palladium, that it was stolen by two, namely Diomedes and Ulysses. Concerning the reed which said that Midas has ^C asses' ears (66). Concerning the Acestalian birds inquired about in Stesichorus. Concerning the Gigonian stone near the ocean, and that it is moved only by the asphodel, being immovable against all other force. That Ropalus was the son of Hercules, who on one and the same day sacrificed to his father both as a hero and as a god. That Amphiaraus was so named because both of the parents of his mother prayed that she might be granted to give birth to her daughter without labor. Whose is the hymn that is sung among the Thebans in honor of Hercules, in which it says: "Son of Zeus and Hera"? And therein [is treated] those who composed hymns by cities, and how Philostephanus the Mantinean ^D poet never wore a garment from his birth, and how Matris the Theban hymn-writer subsisted on myrtle-berries throughout his entire life. And how Eupompus the Samian—who (which is incredible to see and hear) used to rear a wild dragon beast—had a child of this same Eupompus named Draco, who became exceptionally sharp-sighted.

^A He is said to have possessed such sharp vision that he could easily see things twenty stadia away. He, therefore, having been hired for a thousand talents, sat with Xerxes under the golden plane tree and described the naval battle between the Greeks and the barbarians that he was watching, as well as the bravery of Artemisia. ^B And how Plesirrhoum the Thessalian, the writer of hymns, having become the beloved of Herodotus and the heir to his possessions, is the one who composed the prologue to the first book of the Histories of Herodotus of Halicarnassus. For the natural beginning of the Histories of Herodotus was: “The learned among the Persians say that the Phoenicians were the cause of the dispute.” And how Polyzelus the Cyrenean never once laughed; whence also the surname "Agelastus" (the Unlaughing) was given to him. And how, in the worship of the gods, some say that others were surpassed by Antigonus the Ephesian, but others say by Lucius the Hermionian, whom Theophrastus also mentions in his letters. And how Achilles and Deidamia had two sons, Neoptolemus and Oneirus; and how Oneirus was killed through a misunderstanding by Orestes in Phocis, when he began to contend with him regarding the pitching of tents.

Then he discusses certain historical coincidences, ^C as that a rhododaphne grew upon the tomb of Amycus, and those who tasted of it became possessed by a passion for boxing. And how Antodorus, having eaten of it, carried off thirteen victory crowns, yet was defeated in the fourteenth contest by Dioscorus the Theraean, just as Amycus himself is said to have been wrestled to the ground by one of the Dioscuri. And they say that Croesus was born on the feast day of Aphrodite, the day on which all the Lydians offer all their wealth in procession in the name of that goddess. And to his father, while he was sacrificing a bull, it was announced that Themistocles had been born to him, and he indeed perished ^D by drinking the bull’s blood. Darius, the son of Hystaspes, having been exposed by his mother, was reared by the teats of a mare by Spargapises the horse-herd, and he becomes king through the neighing of a horse. And how the slave of the lyric poet Ibycus, Heracles by name, was burned alive because he had conspired with robbers against his master. How Orestes was born on that feast day of Demeter which is called the Erinnyan. How Philip, while still a boy, used to attempt to shoot with arrows in the evening at those stars which he observed falling in their course; and that the seer Diognetus foretold that the boy would rule over many. And indeed, Aster was the name of the man who struck out his eye with an arrow. How Marsyas the flute-player, he who was flayed of his skin, was born on the feast day of Apollo, on which...

the skins of the sacrificed animals are dedicated to him. Regarding Tityus, who plotted against Alexander ^A. How, when his mother was pregnant with Claudius, she longed for and ate mushrooms, and Claudius, eating poisoned mushrooms, perished. Regarding the Centaur, son of Lamia, how he was caught committing adultery, and some say he was killed by Peirithous the eunuch, others by Theseus. Such various cases and events are related in these histories, with which the third book finally concludes.

The fourth book describes how Helen first invented the drawing of lots with the fingers, and how she won by drawing against Alexander; and that she was the daughter of Aphrodite. And how, on the Islands of the Blessed, she and Achilles had a winged son, whom they named Euphorion on account of the fertility of the region; and how Zeus fell in love with him, and, failing to win him, struck him with a thunderbolt on the island of Melos while he was fleeing, and turned the nymphs who had buried him into frogs. And how some say that while Helen was hunting on mount Parthenium ^B she was abducted by Paris, and, struck by his beauty, followed him as if he were a god. Regarding the embroidered girdle, that Hera received it from Aphrodite and gave it to Helen, and that it was stolen by Helen’s handmaid Astyanassa, but Aphrodite took it back from her. What is the meaning of the line mentioned by Homer concerning Helen:

She imitated the voices of the wives of all the Argives.

It is said that Helen was the daughter of Helios (the Sun) and Leda, and that she was called Leonte. And they say that the abduction of Helen occurred because of Aphrodite’s anger ^C at Menelaus, because he had promised a hecatomb to Aphrodite for his marriage but did not fulfill his vow to the goddess. Regarding the "Helenian" herb, which grows in Rhodes, that it took its name from Helen, for it was seen growing by the oak tree from which Helen hanged herself; and those who eat of it are invariably stirred to strife. That Helen fell in love with Menelaus, and in this way he married her. He adds that some relate that Helen went to the Tauri in Scythia with Menelaus in search of Orestes, and was there sacrificed by Iphigenia to Artemis along with Menelaus ^D. Others, however, wish to say that she was carried off by Thetis, who had assumed the form of a sea-calf, while the Greeks were sailing home. He says they report that "Echo" was the proper name given to Helen because she could imitate the voices of others perfectly, but that she was called "Helen" because Leda gave birth to her in a marsh. That a place in Lacedaemon is called "the Sandal" from Helen’s sandal, which fell off there while she was being pursued by Alexander, draws its name from that. As it came to be the child

^A of Alexander and Helen, they disputed the naming (one side insisted on naming her Alexandra, the other Helena); Helen won, taking the verdict by a throw of dice, and thus the girl became the namesake of her mother. They say she was put to death by Hecuba at the taking of Ilium. From the time of the Trojan events, the author says, many have taken the name of Helena: such as the daughter of Aegisthus and Clytemnestra, whom Orestes killed; and the one who served Venus at her meeting with Adonis, the daughter of Epidamnius, whom the Epidamnians honor in the form of Venus, as she bestowed wealth upon those who craved it; and further, the daughter of that Faustulus who looked after the upbringing of Romus and Romulus. As is also that Helena who is so called, who used to eat three kids daily. Also the sister of Dicaearchus ^B the son of Telesinus, and eighteen others, among whom is that Helena older than Homer, the daughter of Musaeus the Athenian, who wrote the Trojan war; from whom, it is said, Homer received the subject matter, and that she possessed a two-tongued lamb. Also the daughter of Tityrus the Aetolian, who challenged Achilles to single combat; she indeed wounded him with a near-lethal blow to the head, but she herself was killed by him. Also, the painter Helena belongs to this list, the daughter of Timon the Egyptian, who in her own time painted the battle of Issus; this painting was housed in the Temple of Peace under the Emperor Vespasian. Archelaus the Cyprian says that a certain Helena was the beloved woman of the poet Stesichorus, the daughter of Micythus; and that she departed from Stesichorus and betook herself to Bupalus; the poet, angered by ^C this contempt for him, wrote: "Helena departed willingly." He claims the story regarding Stesichorus being blinded is false. He then treats of the herb *moly* in Homer, which they say grew from the blood of the giant killed on Circe's island, and that it has a white blossom; and that the one who fought beside Circe and killed the giant was the Sun, and since *molos* means "battle," the name of the herb was derived from this. ^D That Dionysus was the beloved of Chiron, from whom he learned the revels, the bacchanalian rites, and the sacrifices. Concerning the Taraxippus at Olympia and the father and son of the Myrtilli. That Neoptolemus the Maciotian alone, they say, heard the oracle of Phemonoe from a certain Aethus, one of the Delphians; and that Herodotus mentions this Aethus in the first book of his Histories: "Although his name is known to me, I shall not mention it." Concerning the double appellations in Homer, one for the gods and one for men, and that Xanthus alone among the rivers was the son of Zeus, and concerning others endowed with double names. And as in

^A Tyrrhenia, they say, there is a tower called that of Halis, so named from Halis, a Tyrrhenian sorceress, who, having been a handmaid of Circe, fled from her mistress's house. To her, he says, Odysseus came, and she changed him by her sorceries into a horse, and kept him with her until he died, worn out by old age. By this story, even that which is found in Homer, and is a matter of debate, is resolved: "And death shall come to him from the sea." ^B Such is the end of the fourth book.

The fifth book, after these things, mentions—as they say—that Jason, and not Pollux, fought with Amycus. The region also bears witness to this, being called the Iasonian Point, and a spring flowing nearby is called Helen. From this, the epigram of Crinagoras is also resolved: "Procles' horses eat green psalacantha," which Callimachus did not understand, as it is from Eubulus the comic poet’s comedy *On Dionysus*; and [he treats of] the parody of the verse. Now, the psalacantha is an Egyptian herb which, when tied about horses, provides victory and good fortune. They add that others say that ^C Psalacantha was a nymph in the island of Icaria, who, having fallen in love with Dionysus, helped him in his union with Ariadne, on the condition that he would also be with her. When Dionysus would not consent, and Ariadne was suspicious of her, he became angry and transformed her into the plant; later, however, repenting, for the sake of honor he added that plant to the garland of Ariadne, which had already been translated among the stars in heaven. Some say this plant is like mugwort, others like melilot.

As Athenodorus the Eretrian says in the eighth book of his *Memorabilia*, Thetis and Medea once contended regarding their beauty in Thessaly, and having taken Idomeneus as judge, he awarded the victory to Thetis. ^D Medea, therefore, being indignant, uttered this: "Cretans are always liars," and cursed him never to speak the truth, just as he had done in the judgment; and from this, he says, the Cretans came to be considered liars. Athenodorus notes that Antiochus also records this in the second book of his *Local Mythical Histories*. He says that Ilus, the father of Laomedon, possessed a horse's tail [or: a helmet crested with horsehair], as did Melanippus and Idaeus among the children of Priam. That Xanthus and Balius, the horses of Achilles, were formerly Giants, and they alone of the Giants fought on the side of the gods against their brothers. That when Odysseus was shipwrecked near the Thylae of Sicily, the shield of Achilles was washed up near the monument of Ajax, and, having been dedicated to it—

^A it was struck by lightning on the following day. He says that Hercules did not wear the skin of the Nemean lion, but that of a certain lion from among the giants, who had been killed by Hercules upon being challenged to single combat. He says that the dragon guarding the golden apples was a brother of that Nemean lion. Irus in Homer was a Boeotian. The wife of Candaules, whose name Herodotus ^B suppresses, was called Nyssia. She is said to have had double pupils and the sharpest of vision, because she possessed the *dracontites* stone, through which she could see Gyges even through the doors as he went out to investigate. Some, however, want her to be called Tudum, others Clytia, while Abas says she was called Abro. They say that Herodotus passed over the woman’s name in silence because his beloved, a man named Plesirrhous, was in love with a female friend named Nyssia, a Halicarnassian by birth, and, not having been able to possess the woman and having suffered a refusal, he took his own life by hanging ^C from a high place. Hence, they say, Herodotus avoided her name everywhere as hateful. That the Centaurs, while fleeing Hercules, perished of hunger in Tyrrhenia, having been charmed by the sweet singing of the Sirens. That Abderus, the beloved of Hercules, was a brother of Patroclus. That Epipole the Carystian, the daughter of Trachion, disguised her female sex and campaigned with the Greeks, but was detected by Palamedes and stoned to death by the Greeks. That when Alexander was abducting Helen, Menelaus was sacrificing a hecatomb to Zeus in Gortyna, which is a city of the Cretans. That Palamedes ^D reigned over the Greeks in place of Agamemnon; for when Agamemnon had arrived at Aulis and shot a wild goat sacred to Artemis, and the Greeks were prohibited from sailing, the seer Calchas responded that the divinity could be placated and the evil expiated if Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter Iphigeneia to Poseidon; when he refused to do this, the Greeks, moved to indignation, took the command away from him and established Palamedes as king. That Philoctetes perished having been struck by a snake, and Alexander fell having been struck in the thigh by the spear of Menelaus. That upon the death of Demetrius of Scepsis, the book of Tellis was found at his head; and they say that the *Swimmers* of Alcman were found at the head ^D of Tyrannichus the Chalcidian, the *Hybristodicae* of Eupolis at the head of Ephialtes, the *Eunidae* of Cratinus at the head of Alexander the King of the Macedonians, and the *Works and Days* of Hesiod at the head of Seleucus Nicator. Indeed, the lawgiver of the Arcadians, Cercidas

^A commanded that the first and second books of the Iliad be buried with him. Pompey the Great also would not set out on any expedition before reading the first book of the Iliad, for he was an emulator and imitator of Agamemnon. The Roman Cicero, while reading Euripides’ *Medea* in the litter in which he was being carried, had his head cut off. As for Diognetus the Cretan, a boxer, after he had won, he did not receive the crown, but was even driven out by the Eleans, because the man who had been defeated and killed by him was named Hercules, an eponymous hero. For this reason, the Cretans honor this Diognetus as a hero. ^B Regarding the Homeric verse, "Nor did the blessed gods, Menelaus, forget thee," the Pythian [Oracle] parodied this line, using the name Menedemus instead of Menelaus. The question was posed at a banquet of the Emperor Augustus, which Homeric line the oracle had parodied, and who was the person spoken of in the oracle. They say that Menedemus the Elean, the son of Buneas, showed Hercules the method for cleaning the stable of Augeas, and thus diverted the river. He also fought on the side of Hercules. They say that in the war against Augeas, [Menedemus] was killed and buried in Lepreum beside a pine tree. Hercules having instituted a contest there, wrestled with Theseus; and since the contest was an even match, it was said by the spectators regarding Theseus: "This is another Hercules." ^C They say that a certain woman named Phantasia, of Memphis, the daughter of Nicarchus, composed the story of the Iliac war and the narrative regarding the Odyssey before Homer, and that the books were deposited in Memphis. Homer, having arrived there and having received the copies from Phanites the sacred scribe, composed his works in accordance with them. They say that Adonis, when he became androgynous, was said to have had relations with Aphrodite as a man, and with Apollo as a woman.

^D Hercules, wishing to grant a reward to the river Alpheius, having been victorious at Olympia, named the letter Alpha after it and placed it at the head of the letters. This mythographer is babbling, for he says that Moses, the lawgiver of the Hebrews, was called Alpha because he had the *alphos* (leprosy) on his body. Galerius Crassus, a tribune of the soldiers under Tiberius Caesar, was called Beta because he enjoyed using an herb that the Romans call *beta*. And Horpyllis, a Cyzicene courtesan, was called Gamma. Antenor, who wrote the history of the Cretans, was surnamed Delta because he was good and a lover of his city; for they affirm that the Cretans call that which is good *delta*. Thus Apollonius, in the times of Philopator, having become famous in astronomy, was so called because the shape...

[488 R.] of the moon, upon which he had bestowed much study, revolves around it. Satyrus, an acquaintance of Aristarchus, was called *zeta* because of his investigative nature. They also say that Aesop was called *theta* by his master Idmon because he was of a servile and versatile character; for *theta* denotes slaves. Moreover, the mother of Cypselus, because she was bow-legged, was called *lambda* by the Pythian oracle. And Democydes reports that Pythagoras, who described all numbers, was named after the third letter. So much for the fifth book. ^B

The sixth book contains the following chapters: how Achilles, having been slain by Penthesilea, was restored to life by the prayers of his mother Thetis, and having killed Penthesilea, returned again to Hades. Lycophron, in his poem *Alexandra*, says: "Like the barren centaur-slaying nightingale,"

referring, as they say, to the Sirens as centaur-slayers.

They also say that he is called *podarkes* ("fleet-footed") by the poet because they say that Thetis attached the wings of Arce to the child when he was born, and that he was "fleet-footed" because he had the wings of Arce on his feet. This Arce was the daughter of Thaumas, and the sister of Iris; both of them had wings. In the war of the gods against the Titans, Arce deserted the gods and fled to the Titans; wherefore, after the war was finished and victory won, Jupiter stripped her of her wings and cast her into Tartarus. Coming subsequently to the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, he presented those wings to Thetis as a gift, just as they say that at the wedding Vulcan gave Peleus a sword; Venus, a golden cup that had Cupid engraved upon it; Neptune, two horses, Xanthus and Balius; Juno, a mantle; Minerva, pipes; and Nereus, the "divine" salt, as they call it, in a small box, which salt has an incredible virtue for aiding digestion and the appetite for eating.

[Sprinkle with sacred salt]

It then treats of Achilles, born of the earth, and of how many illustrious men named Achilles there were after the Trojan times. This earth-born Achilles received Juno in his cave when she was fleeing the union with Jove, and persuaded her to return to him; and they say this was the first union of Juno and Jove. For this reason, Jupiter also promised Achilles that he would ensure that all who bore his name would be illustrious. Therefore, Achilles, the son of Thetis, also became famous. Achilles was also called the teacher of Chiron, from which the son of Peleus was likewise called so by Chiron. Furthermore, he who first devised the ostracism at Athens was called Achilles, the son of Lyson. They say that another Achilles was born of Jove and Lamia, of such incredible beauty that he even contended for beauty and won, with Pan as judge. For this reason, Venus, angered, cast the love of Echo into Pan; and indeed she so deformed him in appearance that he seemed ugly and unlovable to everyone. Moreover, the son of a certain Galatus was called Achilles, whom he reports to have been grey-haired from his very birth. ^B There were also other illustrious Achilles, fifty-four in number, of whom two were canine and admirable for their deeds as dogs. Priam, he says, became the beloved of Jove and received from him the golden vine, which he later gave as a gift to Eurypylus, the son of Telephus, because he brought aid in the war. Aesop is also said to have received his life back after being killed by the Delphians, and to have fought together with the Greeks near Thermopylae. How Pylius, the son of Vulcan, healed Philoctetes on the island of Lemnos, while in turn learning the art of archery from him. How they say that Melus was born to the river Scamander, beautiful in his youth, for whose sake they say Juno, Pallas, and Venus contended [as to] whose priest he should be, and that Paris, in giving judgment, decided for Venus; from this story at any rate the tale about the apple originated. Hypermenes, in his narrative concerning Chios, reports that there was a servant of Homer named Scindapsus; he was fined one thousand drachmas by the Chians because he did not cremate his master after his death. The one who invented the musical instrument called "scindapsus" was an Eretrian, the son of the flute-player Poecile. ^C Such is approximately the summary of the sixth book.

Finally, the seventh book treats of these matters: Theodorus of Samothrace narrates that Jupiter, when he was born, laughed for seven continuous days, and on this account the number seven ^D

is considered perfect. Achilles, because he was saved from the fire ^A when his mother was burning him, is said to have been called Pyrissous [which is "as if saved from the fire"]. But because one of his lips had been burnt, on that account his father named him Achilles. The Sirens killed Telemachus when they learned that he was the son of Ulysses. Ulysses competed in playing the flute in Tyrrhenia, and he won; he played the sack of Troy, a poem of Demodocus. Stichius the Aetolian, a favorite of Hercules, was found when he was dissected to have a hairy heart; he was killed by Hercules himself, when he was seized by madness and killed his own children; and they add that the hero lamented for this one alone. Mercury, having become enamored of Pollux, one of the twins, 153 presented him with a Thessalian horse as a gift. ^B When Apollo was holding funeral games for Python, Mercury and Venus contended there, and she, being the victor, received a cithara as a prize, which she later gave to Paris, of which even Homer makes mention: "The cithara will not profit you," and what follows.

What is that in Bacchylides said as if by Silenus, and to whom the poem was addressed.

having suffered rejection because he applied himself to another, killed him. But having arrived at Leucas and thrown himself [from the rock], he died. They say also that the comic poet Nicostratus, having fallen in love with Tettigidaea the Myrrhinian, threw himself down and was freed from his love. And they say that Maceta the Buthrotian was given the surname Leucopetras, because four times he cast himself down and was freed from the sufferings of love. And it is said that a multitude of others were freed in this way. And Bulagoras the Pharagorian, having fallen in love with Diodorus the flute-player, threw himself down and perished while already an old man. Rhodope the Amisenian is also said to have perished, having cast herself down, possessed by love for the twin brothers who were bodyguards to King Antiochus, whose names were Antiphon and Cyrus. Charinus the iambic poet was desperately in love with a eunuch named Eros, the cupbearer of Eupator, and putting his faith in the story about the rock, he too cast himself down. But when, from the fall, his leg was broken, and he was expiring from the force of the pain, he poured forth these iambic verses: ^A

Fallacious, perish, perish, O evil Leucas rock: Charinon, alas, alas, me, the iambic poet, You have consumed with empty fables of hope. To such a degree, O Eupator, may you love Eros.

Nereus the Catanaean, moreover, was possessed by love for Pallas the Attic woman, and coming [to the rock] he cast himself down from it, and was freed from his torment. Having fallen, however, he dropped into a fisherman's net spread beneath, in which he was hauled up along with a small chest full of gold. He went to law against the fisherman about the gold, but Apollo appearing in a dream at night deterred him from litigating, saying that he ought to be grateful for his release, and not to be meddling with gold belonging to another besides. ^B

He says that Pan is a sea fish, whale-like in size, not unlike Pan in appearance; and that in this fish is found the asterite stone, which they say ignites when placed in the sun, and is also effective as a love-philtre. This stone, supposedly, Helen possessed, with the image of the fish Pan carved upon it, and she used it as a seal. These, therefore, are the chapters of the seventh book of the new history of Ptolemy Hephaestion, for [the promotion of] varied erudition. ^C

The Ascetica of Basil the Great

We read the so-called *Ascetica* of the holy Basil, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, in two books. The book is useful, if any work is, to every one of those who choose to live piously and to obtain eternal blessings; but especially to those in a coenobium who are wrestling in the ascetic contest. It contains also, from the Holy Scriptures, a compendium of many varied questions, such as contribute to the ordering of one's character, and added to these are [the solutions] ^D

^A the usual grace and clarity clearly shine forth. Yet in some of the questions there is also, in a way, distributed throughout, an emphasis which is not found in language that is youthful and novel, nor obscured by convoluted compositions, nor by any strange and forced curiosity removed from private and civil speech, or by acrimony; but, observing these as is the custom, he interjects emphasis as if by chance, without introducing any sense of artifice into the intention, except insofar as he puts it forward through brevity. ^B However, he did not often make use of clarity regarding the point at issue, since he had set forth the matter in summary fashion and did not see the opportunity for it. Yet, the sharp and persuasive quality extends through his solutions to many of the questions, and everywhere the soul-benefiting and saving quality is present. Indeed, clarity is not marred by brevity alone; it is also affected by the fact that the discourse which requires a solution does not end in a syllogistic form of conclusion, but the mind wanders among disjointed propositions and proofs that are stripped of the force of inference and conclusion.

^B The cause of these things is resolved into the varied method of providence, which I leave to your discernment to examine 50. But in these two books ^C the emphasis does not always occur. For the first book immediately shows nothing of the sort, except once, perhaps, where he wards off an evil omen by silence. For as regards the rest, it is very firm, equally pure and clear; and through both these books there runs a simpler and more familiar speech and composition, adapted and humbled for the ears of the common people, and intending solely the salvation of the listeners. Thus, his first book contains: what is the cause and how great is the danger of such dissension and discord among the Churches of God and among individuals themselves. Second, that the transgression of every divine commandment is punished severely and terribly, and this is demonstrated from the Holy Scriptures. Third, concerning our orthodox faith, that is, our pure and sincere confession of the most holy Trinity. The second book ^D sets forth briefly, by way of summary headings, a kind of description of the Christian man, and a similar description again of those who are set over the teaching of the Gospel. Then, as it were, certain ascetic rules, as in a question-and-answer format, put forward—

fifty-five in number—and again, more briefly, three hundred and thirteen others.

CXCII

We have read the work written by the holy monk and confessor Maximus to the most holy priest and abbot Thalassius, in which he records the solutions to 164 hard questions from Scripture. In the preface, however, he discusses the origin of human perturbations, and asserts that sin, not being anything substantial at all—no quality, no quantity, no habit, nor even the perturbation itself considered naturally in any of existing things—is only a deficiency of the natural faculties within us, in their operation toward their end; or, in this way, an irrational movement of the natural faculties, by a misguided judgment, toward something other than their end. I speak now of that end which all things naturally crave, but which Adam, having fallen ill with the deceit of the evil one, did not recognize, and was dragged down into total sensory perception, becoming like the beasts. And in proportion to the concern he took for the knowledge derived from sensory perception, to that extent he fell away from divine knowledge. And in proportion to the extent he continued in this falling away, to that extent he was nailed to and carried along by the enjoyment of the known sensible things. And in proportion to how much he clung to these, to that extent he kindled the love of harmful self-love. And in proportion to how much he was held by self-love, to that extent he devised many and various ways of pleasure; for these are the offspring of self-love. ^C And since all wickedness is destroyed along with the things that constitute it—finding by experience itself that pain is always the companion of pleasure—he struggled against pain, which was beyond his power, and fought vehemently against it, imagining that which was impossible: to separate these from one another, and to revel in pleasure alone while keeping self-love joined to it. From this comes the whole throng of the passions; for by claiming pleasure for ourselves because of self-love, and fleeing from pain, we devise the countless generations of destructive passions. For instance, if we claim the pleasure that is in self-love, we beget gluttony, pride, avarice, and whatever else produces pleasure in a given way; but if we flee the pain that is in self-love, we beget anger, envy, hatred, despair, and whatever else is deprived of the pleasant disposition. And out of the mixing of both, hypocrisy, flattery, deceit are born, and in a word, all other kinds of wickedness that are inventions of this mixed craftiness. ^D But, as we have said before, of the divine

cognition man fell through deception, and turning himself entirely to sensation, he began perversely to acknowledge the visible creation as God; for [the sake of] the bodily need he had of it, he worshipped the creation rather than the Creator. By this very body, in performing that pernicious service, he always felt pleasure and experienced deep sorrow, ever eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil through experience of it, and through sensation providing that knowledge. And perhaps one would not miss the truth by saying that the visible creation is the tree of good and evil; for it has by nature the power of producing both pleasure and grief in its reception. Or again, because the visible creation also has spiritual reasons [257 H.] that nourish the mind, and yet again a natural power that indeed delights the sense but perverts the mind, for this reason it was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for it becomes a mistress of passions to those who partake of it in a bodily way. ^B Therefore, perhaps God also forbade man from partaking of it for a time, so that first, as was right, having acknowledged through participation in grace his own cause and the immortality given by grace, and having, through such participation, strengthened himself toward freedom from passion and immutability, as one already having become God through theosis, he might contemplate the works of God with God, suffering no harm from them, and might receive the knowledge of them as a god by grace and not as a man. Having philosophized on these and such things ^C in the proem, and having promised that he would examine them more perfectly and accurately elsewhere and would set apart a proper treatise for them, he proceeds to the Questions and Answers. Of these, the first question is: What does it mean, "My Father is working until now"? [b] The second is about him who in the Gospel carries a pitcher of water. [c] The third is about: "Do not possess two tunics." [d] IV. About the cursed earth in the works of Adam. [e] V. About: "He who is born of God does not commit sin." [f] VI. About: "For this reason it was preached even to the dead." [g] VII. About: "God is light." VIII. About how "we are now children of God" and how we shall be after these things. [i] IX. About: "He who fears is not perfected in love." [j] And: "There is no want to those who fear him." [k] X. Who is his prin- ^D

- ^A cipality ^B that the angels did not keep, and what is reserved for them. XI. What is that tunic defiled through the flesh. XII. What is the meaning of: "For his invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." XIII. What is the meaning of the same passage: "They worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator." XIV. On the verse: "For your incorruptible spirit is in all things." XV. On the calf that was molten in the desert. XVI. On the angel threatening death to Moses on the journey to Egypt. XVII. On the text: "If the doers of the law shall be justified," how is it that those who are justified in the law fall from grace? [500 R.] XVIII. What is the meaning of: "As many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law." XIX. What is the fig tree withered in the Gospel, and all that pertains to it. XX. On what is the meaning of: "Having despoiled principalities and powers," and what follows, and how is it that one who never put them on is despoiled of them? XXI. If in the ages to come God will show the riches of his kindness, how is it that the ends of the ages have come upon us? ^B XXII. On the text: "The Lord God will give unto him the throne of David his father," how does he give it, given that the kingdom of David has passed over to the nations that did not know him who was born of him? XXIII. What is the meaning of: "Passing through the first and second ward," and what is that iron gate? XXIV. [258 H.] On the text: "The head of every man is Christ," and what follows. XXV. On the king of Babylon, and Judah, and the nations. XXVI. On the revelation made to Peter concerning Cornelius, and how some contended against Peter because of Cornelius. XXVII. To whom it was said: "Come, let us go down, and there confound their languages." XXVIII. What is the meaning of that in the Acts: "Who through the Spirit said to Paul that he should not go up to Jerusalem." XXIX. What is the difference between the cup and the baptism. XXX. On the text: "If God does not dwell in temples made with hands," how was he said to dwell in the temple of the Jews? XXXI. On the text: "If perhaps they might feel after him and find God." XXXII. On the text: "Amen I say to you, whosoever shall say to this mountain," and what follows. XXXIII. On the text: "Whatsoever you ask when you pray, believe that you shall receive," and what follows. XXXIV. On the fact that we are commanded to eat the flesh and drink the blood, but not to break the bones. XXXV. What were the bodies of the animals offered in sacrifice to the Israelites. XXXVI. On the viper that seized Paul's hand. XXXVII. On the Saddu-

^Aceous question, where they imagined seven brothers joined to one woman. XXXVIII. What those three days signify, during which the crowd remained in the desert with Christ? XXXIX. What is the meaning of the number of six water-pots at the wedding of Cana of Galilee? XL. What is the meaning of the number of five men of the Samaritan woman, and the sixth who was not her husband? XLI. How do we say: We both commit and know sin; but Christ, while made sin, did not know it? XLII. On the tree of life and the tree of disobedience. XLIII. To whom did He say [God]: Behold, Adam has become as one of us? For if to the Son, how is Adam compared with the Son? But if to the angels, how does He again compare the angel to Himself? XLIV. What does the breast of the offering ^B and the shoulder of separation signify? XLV. What is the difference between a mirror and an enigma? XLVI. What is that: The voice of one crying in the desert, and the rest? XLVII. On the cisterns and towers built by Uzziah, king of Judah. XLVIII. What is it again in the same book of Chronicles: And Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib had come, and the rest. XLIX. What again in that same book: And king Hezekiah and Isaiah the son of Amoz prayed, and what follows? L. What is: Many brought gifts to the Lord and presents to Hezekiah the king of Judah? LI. On that: And Hezekiah did not render according to the retribution which God had rendered to him, and the rest. LII. On Hezekiah again: They buried him above the ^C sepulchres of the sons of David, and what follows. LIII. Regarding that which is written in the first book of Esdras concerning Zerubbabel: He lifted up his face to heaven toward Israel; and concerning his prayer. LIV. On that: All were of Israel from the age of twelve (except for children and women) four myriads, three thousand, three hundred and sixty, and what follows. (Which is the first in the Greek.) LV. On that which is written in the second book of Esdras: And the enemies of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin heard and came to know what the voice of the trumpets was, and what follows. (In the Greek also, these are not held in the second book, but in the first, chapter 5, near the end.) LVI. What is: The supplication of a just man avails much, being ^D active? LVII. On that: In which you rejoice for a little while now, if there is need, after being grieved, and the rest. How is it that one who is grieved in temptations can rejoice?

LVIII. On that salvation which the prophets sought after and searched diligently. LIX. On that: As of a lamb without blemish and without spot, Christ having been foreknown; by whom was he foreknown? What is the meaning of: For the time is come for judgment to begin at the house of God, and the rest? LXI. On the sickle which Zechariah saw flying. LXII. On the golden lampstand which the same prophet saw. LXIII. What is: In which dwell more than one hundred and twenty thousand men, who have not known their right hand or their left? Who are these men, and what is the right and the left? LXIV. Why, after the death of Saul, who had wronged the Gibeonites, was justice demanded from the innocent David, with his country afflicted by famine, until he delivered seven men from the seed of Saul to the Gibeonites?

This divine man and noble confessor labored to resolve these questions. His discourse is continuously extended in its periods, and he delights in hyperbaton, becoming strong also in circumlocutions, though he does not aim to speak in proper terms. From this, there runs throughout this writing of his both obscurity and difficulty in understanding it. Moreover, he has followed in his speech the roughness of a tumid style (as far as composition and cadences are concerned), and does not study to be pleasant even to the ear. Furthermore, the translation of his words is by no means floridly composed to attract favor or to charm the reader, but is adopted simply and carelessly. Besides this, he almost exhausts his own students; to such a degree do his solutions depart from the letter and known history—or rather, even from the very thing that was asked. Only if someone happens to take pleasure in tangling his mind with anagogical interpretations and contemplations would he never find anything more varied or more diligently elaborated than these. For he not only collects the opinions of others pronounced on certain doubtful points, but also adds his own, which display a beauty and skill no less—if not greater—than those of his diligence. Everywhere, however, the piety of the man and the pure and genuine desire for Christ shine forth.

Of the same, twenty-seven Epistles.

Furthermore, his Epistles on various subjects were read, which are soul-profiting and necessary for those who study to correct their morals and to keep their mind awakened toward piety, twenty-seven in number.

^A Of these, one was fairly long, sent to John the philosopher. Its chapters are generally as follows: First, a rebuke of those who have undertaken to defend the followers of heretics, and especially those of Severus. Second, that we must by all means preserve the tradition of piety handed down to us inviolate. Third, concerning the difference, and in what way it is permissible to confess piously two natures in Christ after the union. Fourth, that number neither divides nor is divided, nor does it bring any division at all into the whole according to its own logic, to which it is added. Fifth, how number may be used piously to indicate a difference. Sixth, how the statement of the blessed Cyril in his letter to Succensus is to be accepted; and that the expression "in two" does not conflict with those who say "one incarnate nature of the Word," unless it is understood impiously after the opinion of Nestorius. Seventh, that the difference in Christ is of things—that is, of substances—not of qualities, and that every difference necessarily carries with it the quantity of the things of which it is the difference, and quantity in turn carries the number that expresses it, whether it be continuous or discrete. Eighth, that it is impious to say that Christ is one composite nature, and that this conflicts with the truth. Ninth, concerning the composite hypostasis, and a brief exposition of the terms received by the Catholic Church concerning the faith which are correctly pronounced regarding Christ. Tenth, a more natural discussion concerning the composite hypostasis, along with an accurate demonstration that those who confess Christ as one composite hypostasis by no means fall into the errors of those who call Him one composite nature. Eleventh, that it was by way of assumption alone that the union of the Word with the flesh took place, as one pre-existing and willing to unite with the flesh—a thing which cannot be observed at all in any other composite being. For in other things, the union does not occur through the assumption of one by the other, but both come together from a state of non-existence toward the completion and subsistence of the composite being. This, then, is the letter to John and these are its chapters.

Of the remaining letters, three are to Thalassius, presbyter and prefect; ^D two to John the cubicularius; two to Sophronius the monk, surnamed Eucratas; one to John the Sophist; and another to Jania the prefect. Again, one was sent to Thalassius, prefect and presbyter, another to Jordanas the presbyter and Stephanus the prefect and presbyter. Also one to Cyrisicius the bishop, and again another to John the cubicularius, and similarly to Stephanus the prefect, along with one to Conon the presbyter and [index: entries preserved]

to the ^A prefect. Again to Thalassius the prefect and presbyter, and two to John the bishop. Again to John the cubicularius, concerning that sorrow which is according to God; and two to Constantine the Illustris and sacellarius. To the abbot Polychronius also three, and to Julian the Alexandrian, who had been converted from the heresy of the Acephali, one epistle, and another in the name of George the prefect of Africa to certain nuns excommunicated in Alexandria. In all these twenty-seven epistles, while another style of his discourse and his piety shines forth in particular, yet obscurity—well done to the man who at least in this part honors and observes the laws of an epistle—was nowhere rashly employed. It is clear, indeed, that certain things which brought about obscurity ^B have been in part rejected here, and in part corrected.

CXCIII. The Ascetic Discourse of the same blessed Maximus, and the Centuries On Charity.

There was also read the Ascetic Discourse of the same holy Maximus, fashioned by way of question and answer. The discourse is useful indeed to all, but especially to those who lead a life given to the study of piety. For it is a teacher and mentor of those morals by which one might become a citizen of heaven; and it provides a truly varied opportunity for attaining, in part to the knowledge, and in part to the practice, of charity.

There was also associated in the same volume another work, ^C amounting to four hundred chapters, and inscribed to a certain Elpidius, a man devoted to holiness. The author himself entitles the labor *On Charity*, perhaps because he takes his starting point from this, and frequently discourses upon it elsewhere. Although there are also many problems and theorems therein (by which theology is strengthened, and the life of man is rendered more holy and pure), those who diligently read through these can harvest a truly abundant fruit.

The style of his discourse is constructed here as more elegant and polished, indeed, than the others; nor is there anything there that anyone, for the sake of finding fault, could shake out. Only, in some places, he does not prefer Attic words to others.

CXCIV. The Epistle of the same blessed Maximus to George the Eparch, and the Centuries of Theological and Moral chapters, or two books, and five Epistles.

There was read, moreover, an epistle of the same holy man to George the eparch, very useful and full of ^D compunction. His diction, however, running into clarity and gentleness, does not retain any spurious element

^A which shows that it preserves the relationship undefiled. In the same volume was read a book consisting of one hundred chapters, and another similarly finished with an equal number, in which both theology shines forth and the adornment of morals excels. And there would in no way be any adulteration of their natural affinity with those four hundred chapters, if not for the fact that the allegorical sense introduced in many places, by suggesting that they are in some way of the same kind ^B as the arrangement of that work which strives for an exposition of scriptural problems and solutions, and which is dedicated to Thalassius, a presbyter and abbot, stirs up suspicions that the affinity of the latter to these matters is supposititious by reason of that familiarity.

In the same volume were also read various epistles of the same author. The first of them is to Peter the Illustrious, whose title is: *A short discourse on the mystery of Christ the Lord, and against the dogmas of Severus.* Its chapters are these: A more natural investigation concerning number; concerning difference and quality more accurately, and concerning the orthodox profession of these things. That it is to be held as blasphemous if anyone says simply that Christ is one nature. Concerning a composite nature, and the reason for it; and that it is impiously said by some that Christ is one composite nature. He who says that Christ is God and man after the union, at the same time confesses with the very names themselves that the natures necessarily exist after ^C the union; rightly, as appears, desiring to believe consistently with those things he has said. Concerning the expression "in two." A right confession of one nature of the Word according to the opinion of the Fathers, and the rejection of one composite nature. A more natural discussion concerning a composite hypostasis. Also a demonstration that those who confess Christ to be one composite hypostasis do not fall into the same absurdities as those who assert that He is one composite nature. That that union according to the flesh was made by assumption alone, as of the Word pre-existing, and working the union with the flesh by will. This is the letter to Peter the Illustrious.

The next is written to Cosmas, a deacon of Alexandria, concerning common and particular, or regarding essence and subsistence. Its first chapter is an argument taken from the principal nature, namely: that none of the things that exist is identical to another in both essence and subsistence, because essence and subsistence are by no means the same, ^D so that things which are the same in essence are, at least in subsistence, different, and those which are the same in subsistence are different in essence and nature. Second, that Christ

^B by being united to the extremes through the commonality of his own constituent parts in essence, retained the difference which is preserved in respect of the other parts, while by the properties of his parts, he demonstrated in respect of subsistence that he is the common whole of both. Third, that the things which are common to the parts in respect of subsistence define the whole, that is to say Christ, ^C as separate from the extremes, while the things which are common to the parts in respect of essence join Christ, as a whole, to the extremes in an essential manner. Fourth, that since Christ is perfect God and the same is perfect man, he possessed both that which is common to them and that which is proper, by which he effected the union and distinction of the extremes in himself; by the union of the extremes in himself, testifying to the natures out of which he was composed as being preserved in him, and by the distinction of the extremes in himself, presenting the singleness of his own proper hypostasis. Fifth, a brief dissertation concerning difference, by which it is shown that the quantity of the united things is preserved according to essence. Sixth, a broader and more physical treatise concerning difference and quantity and the number which indicates them. [509] Seventh, that he who does not know that nature and hypostasis are not the same, dogmatizes piously concerning Christ regarding the union and the difference, of which the one is seen in respect of hypostasis, and the other in respect of nature. Eighth, that Severus, by forcing nature and hypostasis to be the same, confuses the union and makes the difference a division; by which he is convinced both of scattering the Word of the Trinity into a quaternity, and of cutting the mystery of the one Godhead into a duality, and of banishing Christ from every substantial existence. [265] Ninth, a brief exposition, with a correct defense of the true confession of the holy Fathers. But in these points, such is the case. And it is clear from these very chapters that it is useful for piety. And the phrasing, as is suitable in such a work, seeks clarity and is not inelegant. ^D Moreover, he also writes to Pyrrhus, who at that time still held the rank of presbyter and had not yet ascended the chief archiepiscopal throne. In this letter he calls Pyrrhus divine, and bears witness to his pious knowledge and holiness. But when Pyrrhus, as it seems, had asked him to write about certain matters, the wise Maximus not only declines, calling himself stammering and slow of tongue, but on the contrary implores him rather to teach him by letter: What is operation, and how many-fold is it? And what is the effect, besides this? And how do action and work differ from these? And in what way can it be said or thought that there is one operation in Christ? And this indeed is the content of the letter to Pyrrhus. He also writes to a certain Thomas, who had requested solutions to certain difficulties. But the words of

^A Gregory the Theologian and divine Dionysius are also mentioned. From the former's oration on the Son, the passage: "Therefore the unity, once moved from the beginning," and what follows; and: "moved from the unity on account of its riches," which is from his other oration on peace. Another is this: "To the one head," and the rest. A third, from the same oration, the passage: "For this one who is now despised by you," and what follows. A fourth, to the passage: "For as the Word was neither obedient nor disobedient," and the rest. And of the inspired Dionysius, he explains the passage: "How do you say, Jesus, who is above all things, is substantially united to all men?" and the rest, as well as other various passages. And these are contained in the first letter to Thomas; in the second, he makes a kind of repetition of certain sayings ^B already explained in his theological work, and interprets in the same way the passage: "Through the medium of the mind consorting with the flesh until the stronger has gained the victory." But enough of these.

CXCV. Letter of the same Saint Maximus to Marianus, and Dialogues with Pyrrhus, on the two wills and operations in Christ.

The letter of the same Saint Maximus, which is inscribed to Marianus the Presbyter, was read. In this he discourses on the natural will—that is, the appetency—and on counsel or deliberation. Also on preference, and on what things we deliberate. Furthermore, on judgment, free power, and opinion. In addition to this, on prudence—that is, foresight—and how after the resurrection the will of the saints and of God will not be in all respects one and mutual, nor will all desire one and the same thing, ^C as some assert; to which is added an eleventh chapter, that one will cannot be attributed to Christ, whether you call it natural or elective, as it seemed to some. This is the letter, which not only contributes much significance to true religion, but is also useful for many other beautiful reflections.

PLE.

^A had imposed exile upon himself and fallen from the see of Constantinople. However, this dialogue is written in a humbler style, whether because the author wished to preserve the sincerity of discourse held extemporaneously, or whether he intended something else; for which reasons not even the rules of dialectic wish to be favorably disposed toward him. Nevertheless, even so, the struggle is useful to the pious.

Of the holy Ephraim, forty-nine Discourses

We have read the forty-nine discourses of the holy Ephraim. Of these, the first makes himself one who laments what he had done in his life, and it serves in place of a prologue to the subsequent exhortations. The second is an exhortation introducing brothers who are in a coenobitic life. The third exhorts to piety. The fourth instructs those who are first brought to the monks; and the fifth, and the sixth, and the seventh, and the eighth, and the ninth. The tenth and the eleventh and the twelfth are in some way common. Likewise, the thirteenth and the fourteenth, and the fifteenth, and the sixteenth, and the seventeenth, and the eighteenth, and the nineteenth, up to the twenty-third are introductory. Then the one that follows records a common exhortation. The twenty-fifth ^B makes its exhortation about the fact that one must not change places. The twenty-eighth teaches that one must not reject a deserter of the coenobium who returns and repents. The twenty-ninth, from a historical event, sets forth what an evil disobedience is, and that a Christian must be patient and better than harboring grudges. The thirtieth is concerning the passions, that one must flee them. The thirty-first is on how one must encourage those who are negligent. The thirty-second is on how it confirms the strength and power of temperance and chastity in contradiction. And the thirty-third gives precepts concerning chastity. The thirty-fourth obtains silence for those who wish to live together. And the thirty-fifth discusses not letting the eyes roam; and also instruction through a question, whether the thought of fornication is destroyed by abstinence from foods, and by what other thing. The thirty-sixth is concerning meekness. The thirty-seventh is directed toward the insubordinate, whom it also restrains, lest they be cast headlong to the extreme end of perdition, by the fear of God and by the judgment of the tribunal to come. ^C The thirty-eighth instructs in good reverence. The thirty-ninth is directed toward those who fall because of their own negligence and pretend excuses for their sins. The fortieth is for a brother who has fallen, and concerning repentance. The forty-first exhorts that one must not swear nor speak evil.

^A The forty-second establishes that Heli the priest was justly punished, addressed to one who doubted concerning this very matter. The forty-third discourse treats of the fear of God, and the forty-fourth of love. The forty-fifth is written to Eulogius, who had requested it, and unfolds exhortations and instruction regarding many virtues. The forty-sixth is composed for a slothful monk, who with many fine counsels is led back from his return to the [secular] life. The forty-seventh is a condemnation of wickedness. The forty-eighth demonstrates how much the solitary life differs from the life in the world. The forty-ninth describes the second coming of the Lord, and exhorts men to repentance.

In these admonitory discourses of the holy man, one might rightly admire how deeply the power of persuasion penetrates, how much sweetness flows from them, and, in short, how much the character of the soul blossoms within them. ^B Yet it is no wonder if his diction and figures of speech incline toward the more common and unstudied usage of conversation; for this reproach should not be directed toward the originator of the thoughts, but toward their translator. For those who are well-versed in the Syriac tongue know that he excels so much in words and tropes that it is ambiguous whether such great power and elegance of his discourse proceeds from these or from the recondite sense of the thoughts. Therefore, the humility of his diction is not so much to be wondered at, as is the fact that, through such an apparent triviality of words, such great salvation and utility is poured forth upon the readers.

The discourse concerning humility and the despising of self, extended into a hundred chapters, is also imbued with the same power of speech and grace. ^C Likewise, the discourse concerning the fact that one ought not to laugh and be puffed up, but rather to continue in mourning, does not falsely indicate a mutual affinity and similarity with the preceding ones; it teaches that one ought not to laugh and be puffed up, but should rather continue in tears, and it truthfully declares our kinship with others. In the same way, the discourse delivered by him to the Metebine monks, which teaches gentleness and meekness, also persuades one to flee malice, and leads one toward long-suffering, while rebuking irascibility. Thus, it shows that heaven and beatitude are prepared by patience, while at the same time it sets forth the misery of a humble mind. Moreover, it introduces the fear of God, which is the author and beginning of eternal wisdom, and condemns the contemner of God to punishments. ^D Add to these

^A truth is the mother of many virtuous achievements, while falsehood is their destruction; and likewise, obedience renders those who practice it blessed, whereas a disobedient spirit makes one the heir of a curse and much other shame. And to be pure of envy and jealousy is to be enriched by love, while those who are possessed by these passions are subject to the judgments of the devil, just as are those who are given over to reviling. He discusses temperance and intemperance in the same proportional manner. This, then, concludes the discourse to the monks of Meteba. Other works of the man, translated into Greek, also circulate in great numbers, full of grace and power. The Syrians say that he wrote over a thousand treatises, to which even Eusebius, he who bears the surname of Pamphili—whose credibility is weighty in history, though not in matters of dogma—bears witness. ^B

Codex CXCVII: Three Ascetic Books of the Monk Cassian

The little book was read in which are contained two treatises of the monk Cassian, a Roman by birth. The first is addressed to a certain bishop, Castor, who had requested that it be written by him. It announces the forms and rules according to which the monastic life was lived in Egypt, divided into those groups which, from the derivation of the word, are called cenobia. ^C The second book, also inscribed to the same man, takes its title from those eight vicious thoughts, to which he attributes gluttony, lust, avarice, anger, sadness, acedia, vainglory, and pride. These discourses are most useful, if any are, for those who choose to undertake the ascetic struggle. And there is in them so much power and, as it were, divinity, that even to this day, if any convent of monks is governed according to this form and these precepts, it truly flourishes and shines forth beyond others, for it is seen to be a workshop of virtues; whereas he who rejects these groups is tossed about by some few remnants of virtues as if in a shipwreck. Therefore, it is necessary to despise nothing of what is handed down in them; for these are an exposition and explanation of the Lord’s law and of the evangelical life. ^D Moreover, the diction itself also corresponds to the thoughts in him, as it brings with it not only clarity, but is furthermore endowed with such ability that it is easily and without any force impressed upon the minds of men: indeed, it also.

provides much that is terrifying and fearful, and capable of turning them toward repentance. It is illumined and crafted with great skill. ^A

Thirdly, in addition to these, a short treatise was read, which, after the death of Bishop Castor, was addressed to the one who had succeeded to the oversight of that monastery, for whose sake the rules had been sent previously. It is indeed related to the aforementioned [works], but it teaches what discernment is, that it is greater than the other virtues, whence it is born, and how it is for the most part granted from above. It also argues, by scriptural testimonies, that this must be carried out, and what is the scope and what the end of those who are tested in ascetic struggles. It introduces in these matters a certain Moses, a man admirable in his virtues, teaching and confirming his dogmas by the very deeds he sets before their eyes. ^B After him, it brings forward a certain Serenus, in no way inferior in his manner of life and employing the same teaching: [to wit], that it is impossible for the human mind not to be disturbed by demons, but that it can never be compelled or necessarily forced to fall into evil; our part is either to repel or to admit that turbulence and movement. Furthermore, [it teaches that] demons, not penetrating the soul, do not know human thoughts, but discern them from certain external evidences; for it belongs to the Holy Trinity alone to penetrate the soul and all other things. Likewise, that there are various kinds of demons—some fierce and very harmful, others less so, and others still that are jocose. And here is the end of the third book. Serenus, meanwhile, promises that he will explain at an opportune time what had been asked—that is to say: For we wrestle not against flesh and blood 94, and what follows. It is to Leontius that this third book is dedicated. ^C

Codex CXCVIII

The Book of Holy Men, or the Lives of the Holy Men who flourished in the time of the Great Antony.

We read the *Book of Holy Men*, which recounted their lives and righteous deeds for the spiritual progress and profit of those who read it. It was, as it appears, an epitome and summary of the so-called Great *Limonarium* [or Spiritual Meadow], which declares the lives and deeds of those ^D

^A who flourished after Antony the Great, as well as those who came after them. Just as what is called the *New Paradise* records the ascetic struggles of those still more recent, down to the time of the Emperor Heraclius, and even slightly beyond. But this book before us presents, in twenty-two collected headings, the utility and manner of acquiring each of these, through various narratives.

The first chapter contains an exhortation to the progress of perfection from various persons; the second shows the profit that comes from solitude; the third deals with continence, and how one must practice continence not only regarding foods, but likewise regarding the other movements of the soul; the fourth [deals with] how we should safeguard ourselves against the battles of fornication that rise up against us; the fifth with poverty, and how one must, at the same time, guard against greed; the sixth with patience and fortitude; the seventh that one should do nothing for the sake of show; the eighth that one must not judge anyone; the ninth with discernment; the tenth that one must always be sober [or vigilant]; the eleventh that one must pray unceasingly and with attention; the twelfth how one must be hospitable and practice mercy with cheerfulness. ^B Concerning obedience, the thirteenth [chapter] instructs; the fourteenth [chapter] concerns humility; the fifteenth concerns long-suffering; and the sixteenth concerns love. Furthermore, the seventeenth [chapter] is about those who have the gift of vision; the eighteenth [chapter] is about elders who perform wonders. The nineteenth [chapter] is about the God-pleasing way of life of various Fathers. And finally, the twentieth [chapter] contains the apothegms of those who have grown old in the practice of asceticism; then the twenty-first and twenty-second introduce discourses of elders regarding their thoughts toward one another. And in addition to all these, the twenty-second [chapter] contains the maxims of Hesychius, presbyter of Jerusalem. In these, the whole account of the book is completed; it is a work most useful, if any is, for those who exercise their lives for the inheritance of the heavens. It possesses the clarity that it promised, ^C and as for the rest, it is of such quality as would befit men who are not laboring over words, but have dedicated all their toil and zeal to the practice of [virtuous] deeds.

CXCIX. John Moschus, the so-called *Leimonarion* [Spiritual Meadow].

A book was read, consisting of three hundred and four short accounts. This work, too, contributes most fittingly to the monastic life, and is nearly the same in its instruction as the former work.

^A It deals with the aforementioned subjects, except that it records ^A the deeds and actions of men who lived later, which are worthy of imitation. Indeed, from that point on, it reviews the lives of those who were distinguished in virtue up to the time of the reign of Heraclius and even beyond. The author gives the book the title "The Meadow"; some, however, call it the "New Paradise." Its compiler, John by name, was surnamed Moschus; he first renounced the world in the monastery of Saint Theodosius, and afterwards spent time with the monks who practiced asceticism in the desert by the Jordan and with those who struggled in the New Laura of the great Sabas. From there he traveled to the regions of Antioch, to Alexandria, and the desert near it, and as far as the Oasis, having gathered the achievements of many great men, ^B some of which he saw with his own eyes, and others he learned of by fresh reports at that time. Furthermore, for the same reason, when he had also traveled round the islands on his way to Rome, having acquired and learned similar things there as well, he composed this present work, which he dedicates to Sophronius, or Sophronas, his disciple, and offers it to him, having anticipated in his mind that a change for the better in his life was about to take place.

The diction of this work inclines to a lower and simpler style than the former. Furthermore, you will not find the same number of narratives preserved in all the books, for in some they extend to three hundred and forty-two, ^C this number having increased either by the further division of some chapters or by the insertion of others. Nevertheless, the intelligent and God-loving man who derives fruit from all of these would never complain of the excessive length of this writing.

[CC]

The Ascetic Books of Mark the Monk, in eight volumes, and one book Against the Melchisedecians

The eight books of Mark the monk were read, ^D of which the first bears the title *On the Spiritual Law*, and is useful to those who have set out to lead a religious life; just as the next one also demonstrates that those who think they are justified by works fall into a vain, or rather, a most dangerous opinion. Other salutary precepts are added there, which are equally conducive to a spiritual life and discipline. The third book, on repentance, has as its aim to teach that this is always appropriate, and it advances to the same level of utility.

His diction, then, is clear, as far as common words are used and the discourse runs through the main points: even if it is not perfected according to the Attic [standard]...

^A, if anywhere some obscurity is observed, it retreats from the explanation provided by words [clarity], not because it is difficult to express, but because such things are of a nature to be understood primarily through the action itself. And this is not only apparent in the cited discourses, but also in those that follow; and not only in this man, but in almost all who have made it their study to report on ascetic laws, passions, and dispositions through the medium of ^B works. The *manner* of such obscurity sometimes arises from this source, in that the knowledge gained from the works themselves is not very content with explanations provided by mere words. But so much for this.

The fourth discourse, composed in the format of question and answer, shows that saving baptism has mystically granted us liberation and the cleansing of sins, and has instilled the grace of the All-Holy Spirit, and other such things. The fifth shapes the mind toward its own soul, as if sharing counsel, through which it shows that we ourselves, and not others, are the cause of our sins. The sixth is formed into a dialogue, introducing a certain scholastikos conversing with Mark himself, the chapters of which are: that he who is wronged should not take revenge ^C nor condemn those who do the wrong, but should consider the injuries inflicted upon us by others as a collection of [payment for] our own sins; and that wanting to please men is a difficult thing; and how one must place prayer, by a wide margin, before every bodily task; and what the will of the flesh is. The seventh book, not drafted in the form of dialogue, deals with fasting. The eighth, written to a certain monk named Nicholas, teaches by what means ^D anger and wrath are most lulled or even completely abolished, and by what means fleshly desire is extinguished. These eight books, even if they differ among themselves more or less, nevertheless take the one who works [the ascetic] by the hand, as it were, into practical philosophy. The ninth book, which struggles against the Melchisedecians, lashes out no less vehemently against its own progenitor, who was tainted by the blot of this heresy; yet whoever desires to search out usefulness from every direction will not waste his time reading this either. The order of these books is not the same in all codices; for some place certain ones first and others last, so that some even assign the final position to the first ones.

Codex CC

Codex CCI

Definitions of Diadochus, bishop of Photice in old Epirus, 10; and 100 ascetic chapters. — Discourse of Nilus the monk in 153 chapters. — And the Consolatory work of John of Carpathus.

[524 R.] I read a booklet in which, after ten very

small chapters ^A which do not exceed the number ten, the first is as follows: The first definition of faith is a perception of God free from passion; the second, as a definition of hope, is the departure of the mind toward things hoped for; the third, a definition of patience, is to endure unceasingly while beholding the invisible, as though it were visible, with the eyes of the mind; the fourth, a definition of lack of greed, is to be as disposed not to have as someone else is to have; the fifth, a definition of knowledge, is to be ignorant of oneself while caught up in God; the sixth, a definition of humility, is a continuous forgetting of one's own righteous deeds; the seventh, a definition of freedom from anger, is a great desire not to be angry; the eighth, a definition of purity, is a sense always attached to God; the ninth, a definition of love, is the increase of affection toward those who inflict injury; the tenth, a definition of perfect transformation, is to account the horror of death as joy in the delight of God. To these ten, therefore, the hundred chapters are subordinated. And this discourse is composed for the best of those who are training, and to those who are practiced in the very works that lead to perfection it offers nothing unclear; for knowledge gained through experience allows itself to be easily taught by words. The inscription makes Diadochus, bishop of Photice in ancient Epirus, the father of this discourse.

^B In the same volume, I also read a discourse by Nilus the monk, divided into fifty-three and one hundred chapters. In these, that divine man sets forth a form of prayer. Many other of his works worth reading are also circulated, which discuss various topics and are brought forth in the form of letters ^C and as treatises, bearing witness not only to his manifest perfection in works but also to his ability in speech. Yet, even if Diadochus is not equally diffuse, the hundred chapters written by him are in no part placed in a lower rank than those I have just mentioned. For his diction is so composed that it cannot be censured, and his sense presents wisdom born of actions. However, he sometimes surpasses the book of Mark, which precedes it in both ^D the forms I mentioned, in his maxims. He himself, indeed, provides a handle to those who critically examine him at the end of the hundredth chapter, whether it was corrupted by the interpolation of someone, or whether he was carried away by some other oversight; for I would pray that his being judged according to this supposition might not turn out to be true. But in what I reviewed a little before, there prevails in many respects...

^A even John the Carpathian, who gives to his work this title: *Consolatory to the monks who had urged him from India*. He also completes his book in one hundred chapters.

CCII.

The Interpretation of Daniel by the blessed Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr, and his Homily on Christ and Antichrist.

I read the interpretation of Daniel by Hippolytus, bishop and martyr. Although he does not expound it word for word, he does not skip any of the meaning, to tell the truth. He recounts many things in the ancient manner, not as they were later examined more accurately, although it is not fair to demand from him an account of these. For it is proper not to demand an account of things omitted from those who have laid the foundation of a study, but rather to be content ^B with the very effort and with what they have attained to in their investigations as far as they were able. However, that he should dare to ascribe the coming of Antichrist (when the end of this sensible world also shall follow), which Christ did not reveal even to his disciples when they asked him, to five hundred years after Christ—as if the six thousand years from the first foundation of the world were then being completed and its dissolution were at hand—is truly a sign of a mind more ardent than it should be; and this decision convicts him of human ignorance, not of inspiration from above. His style is clear and as much to the point as possible, and it would be suitable for an interpretation, even if he does not much respect ^C the Attic laws.

We also read another discourse of his concerning Christ and Antichrist, in which the same character of speech is prominent, and the simplicity of his thoughts is even greater and more ancient.

CCIII.

The Interpretation of Daniel by the blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus.

We read the interpretation of Daniel by the blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. This wise man is, by a great margin, superior not only to Hippolytus but also to many others in the exegesis and clarification of the prophetic utterances. His expression is, if anyone’s is, suitable for interpretations; with pure and significant ^D words he reveals everything hidden and obscure, and with a certain pleasantness, as if by a soothing charm, he invites one to read him. Moreover, from the fact that he does not digress or wander into any bypaths from the intended subject, he not only brings no satiety, but he also teaches his readers those things which are called into question with ease and in a convenient manner, without any confusion or dissipation. His choice of words also, and the very composition of his prose, does not avoid the origins of Attic elegance, unless something perhaps occurs there that is overly fastidious.

^A For it is indeed typical of him to be removed from what one might call the hearing of the many; yet this is because he does not deviate from the fitting interpretation. And, in short, he is ^B among the best of interpreters and has not easily brought himself to explain things better than he. For while others may be able to speak clearly and track down the meaning of the things considered, it is the task of the good Theodoret—not in this work alone, but I would almost say in all his writings, which are indeed many, and with which he has marvelously illuminated the Holy Scripture by his diligence—to speak clearly while at the same time omitting nothing that is necessary for the sake of brevity, and to avoid digressions or displays of wisdom that are otherwise not useless but that drift away ^C from the subject at hand, unless such things are perhaps employed in such a way that it is not perceived that he is departing from the proposed matter. Therefore, in some points of this exposition of divine Daniel, he agrees with the martyr Hippolytus, but in more he disagrees, the most notable of which are these (94).

CCIV. The same author’s Exposition of the Octateuch, and On the books of Kings and Chronicles.

I have read the explanation of the Octateuch by the same divine man, which has obtained a title perfectly congruent to the work: *On difficult passages of Holy Scripture* (95); which includes also those on the books of Kings and Chronicles. This work is primarily most useful, and it immediately places before ^D the eyes of readers a genius that is, as it were, natural to the father. Beyond the fact that the form of expression customary to him shines forth here, it also possesses, if you look to greater clarity and ease of comprehension, another advantage: that the book is divided into chapters by way of questions and solutions.

CCV. The same on the XII Prophets.

We have read a book by the same author on the twelve prophets, adorned with the same elegance of diction and thought.

CCVI. Procopius the Sophist, School of commentaries on the Octateuch, and on the books of Kings and Chronicles.

The *School of commentaries* by Procopius the Sophist on the Octateuch of the Old Testament, and on the Kingdoms and Chronicles, have been read. This interpreter is diffuse and prolix, not, however, because he occupies himself with superfluous matters that pertain nothing to the subject.

but because he frequently notes the diversity of opinions on the same subject. He also notes in his preface that this work of his has grown into a large mass, which, in turn, rises to the level of Theodoret's brevity and charm, so that it would be most fitting and useful, if, ^A after reading that author, one has leisure to read the labors of this man as well. His style is most excellently polished, even if it is somewhat more ornate than the simpler form of a commentary properly requires.

CCVII. The Same: On the Prophet Isaiah

CCVIII. Eulogius, Archbishop of Alexandria: Against the Novatians, in Five Books

CCIX. Dio Chrysostom: Eighty Orations

of this man, and he wandered through many lands. He appeared to be skilled in speech, and especially in those matters where he advised the regulation of moral character. He flourished during the times of the Emperor Trajan, and spent much time with him, and obtained the greatest honor and favor, such that he even used to ride with the Emperor in the imperial carriage. His father was Pasicrates, and he himself was a rhetorician and philosopher by profession. They say that he adopted such severity of character that he often appeared in public wearing a lion’s skin. He uttered his voice in a calm and steady manner, and his gait was by no means hurried, yet not sluggish or broken, and the rest of his bodily movements were not inconsistent with this. He was moreover slender, and by no means large in body.

They say that he wrote many and varied orations; eighty of them reached our knowledge. These orations earned him the nickname of “Chrysostom” (“Golden-Mouthed”) among the men of his age. ^B For the most part, however, as I said, the orations of his which I know are deliberative; but when it is appropriate for some judicial element to be blended with the deliberative, he shows equal virtue in this type of oration as well—and among all of them, especially the *Rhodiacus*. For it is sharp in its enthymemes, and possesses that condensed character of speech, and abounds in intensity along with creative power. Moreover, he is excellent in his use of examples and prolific everywhere, drawing them from various sources and fitting them aptly to the subject at hand. He also very willingly interweaves certain fabulous narratives with his admonitions, ^C for which reason he seems to have pursued a simple style of speech. For rarely would one see him, following the example of Plato, bringing in such fables as those which (as in the *Borysthenica*) add some lift and grandeur to the discourse.

Therefore, for the most part, he is, as I have said before, simple in his ideas, and his vocabulary is common and popular, and neither his composition nor his structure innovations for the sake of displaying sublimity or courting pleasantness. And truly, at least in his words and the connection of his nouns, you would think that this writer had proposed to himself a clear style of speech; but while he draws out the rendering of his sentences at too great a length, and interweaves the discourse with digressions as much as possible, ^D he deviates not a little from this practice. Although this variety might perhaps be termed a certain characteristic of his idea and his own style, rather than an indication of a defect. But the fact that he draws out his prooemiums, or those things which are like prooemiums, at too great a length—this plainly shows that he is not using a form of speech adapted to familiar conversation, but rather one suited for public and historical delivery, and he renders the head larger, as it were, than the rest of the body of the oration.

Of his orations, therefore, the first four, concerning kingship

are those which have been mentioned. ^A Next, the fifth, which is called the Libyan, and which also depends upon them, recounts the Libyan fable. The sixth follows it, which speaks of tyranny: as the seventh does of virtue. The eighth, bearing the title of Diogenes, or the Isthmian, narrates certain deeds and sayings of Diogenes at the Isthmian games. The ninth is also called Diogenes, or On Slaves. He exhorts all individuals to be diligent and anxious for themselves, neglecting what comes from without; and that it is not profitable to pursue a runaway slave. For it is absurd, he says, if those who are wicked hope to live better without their masters, and if the masters, not judging them to be worthless, do not think they will fare better if they do not suffer from the folly of the runaways. The tenth oration ^B is entitled the Trojan, and it is studiously elaborated to prove that Ilium was not captured. He therefore opposes Homer with some harshness, and describes the opposite of all those things which were composed by him in the Iliad. The Olympic, or On the First Knowledge of God (which attempts to demonstrate that very thing), is the eleventh. The twelfth bears the title: Delivered at Athens, Concerning Exile. And it was truly delivered there, and it teaches that exile has nothing burdensome: that riches, also, and glory and power are transferred more quickly from those who possess them to those who did not even hope for them; but that the pursuit of wisdom and the exercise of virtue are enduring goods in this life and constant riches, and accompany those who emigrate from here as well. The thirteenth is entitled the Euboic or Hunting [Oration]. ^C He introduces certain persons in Euboea living such a life, through whom he demonstrates that a private life, even if it be poorer, is much more pleasant and useful than that of those who experience disturbances and luxuries in the cities. The fourteenth is named the Rhodian. In this oration, he censures an absurd custom which was then prevalent among the Rhodians. For as for those whom they decided to honor with statues, they erected no new statue to them, but used those that had been set up for the ancients, either changing the inscriptions to the names of those who were to be honored, or, if the titles did not appear due to the injury of time, engraving new ones, and at the same time sullying the glory of the deceased (as much as lay in them), and at the same time bringing disgrace upon those whom they had decreed to honor, by [associating them with] the statues of others which had no resemblance to them. ^D In this oration, the great power and faculty of Dion for refuting others shines forth remarkably. The fifteenth is entitled, Delivered to the Alexandrians. In it, he exposes and criticizes the character and customs of the mob. He further [argues] that it is by no means fitting that even the Alexandrian people, who have so many incentives of their own toward virtue, should become as it were a slave to the disturbances and seditions that spring up in the state. He warns especially that the error which was committed in the public assemblies and theaters must be avoided. The Tarsian...

^A speech, which follows, argues that happiness in cities is never to be measured by springs, rivers, the beauty of porticoes and buildings, or the abundance of crops, and other such things that are commonly praised, but rather that those cities are commendable in which the discipline and virtue of the citizens shine forth. This oration also chastises a certain absurd and shameful custom of vocal display which had been adopted from the habits of the Alexandrians, admonishing those accustomed to it to abstain, or rather, falling upon them more sharply himself. The second speech exhorts not to pursue magistrates with calumny, nor to be immediately incensed by small offenses and to accuse them rashly.

XVIII. The eighteenth, to which no title is prefixed, was delivered at Celaenae in Phrygia; it discourses on how long hair is no sign of virtue, just as are none of the other things that pertain to bodily adornment, nor even their opposites. A eulogy of the city itself is attached to this.

XIX. The title itself presently indicates ^B that it was delivered first at Borysthenes, but was later recited in his native land. In it, the author relates various things, and further, in imitation of Plato, he declares that he had discoursed to the Borysthenites concerning the Creator of all things, and concerning the adornment and movement of the whole world and its elements. This speech is more illustrious and weighty than the others.

The Corinthian oration, being the twentieth, was delivered at Corinth; he rebukes the citizens there because they had once honored him with a statue, which, however, after his departure, they had removed, led by some false calumny. This speech is close to the Rhodian oration in the power and virtue of its expression. ^C Although, here as almost everywhere else, the length of what he establishes by way of exordium lacks merit.

XXI. It is inscribed *Concerning the Concord of the Nicomedeans with the Nicaeans*. This is the state which this speech strives most of all to bring about, which is presented opportunely and not without the pleasant recollection of the event. For thus the power of persuasion is accustomed to insinuate itself better into the minds of men.

XXII. The title signifies that it was pronounced at Nicaea: *Concerning Concord, the Sedition Having Now Been Extinguished*. The purpose of the man here is to celebrate with praises the deed that occurred there.

XXIII. It was recited in his native land, *Concerning Concord with the Apameans*; he treats of this very thing there, just as in the ^D speech immediately following he exhorts the Apameans to enter into concord with the Prusians.

XXV. It is a *Disputation in the Fatherland*. The speaker himself pretends to be ignorant of the reason why they listen to him willingly and eagerly, when his speeches propose nothing useful.

The twenty-sixth speech is inscribed *Political*, and was recited in his fatherland, just as the one that immediately follows, a *Testification of Benevolence toward the Fatherland*, because it had received him honorably while he pursued it with a benevolent mind. To these succeeds an *Apology*, or *Defense*, concerning his own...

^A residence in a foreign land—that he should better provide for his stay abroad because of the disorder in the city, and then, later, even for giving his house to the fire—mildly reproving those who were angered, and asserting that it is better to wander abroad because of civil disturbances than to remain at home. He says that the indignation of his fellow citizens against him had arisen from the fact that he had restored a building that had already been falling into ruin. The 30th also, *Speech in the Fatherland*, bearing this title, looks toward the same subject. And the 31st was spoken in the Fatherland, but is titled *Political Speech in the Assembly*, and it counsels them to refrain from mutual insults and abusive outrages, and to dissolve their dissension into concord. Likewise, the one that follows was also spoken in the Fatherland, and is titled *Refusal of Office in the Senate*; for it also indicates as much, because the author refuses to hold office, having been chosen by vote. The 33rd, *On Administrations in the Senate*, offers this title, and after a brief praise of the senate, Dion clears himself of those things for which he had come under suspicion, namely, that the things which he had done as an individual in the administration of the city had not proceeded from his father’s counsel. The next speech, titled *To Diodorus*, introduces a certain exhortation to virtue, and he says he is praising the city, in that he adorns with praises Diodorus, who had praised it. The 35th, titled ^B *On Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides*, or *On the Bow of Philoctetes*, constructs the deception by which Odysseus, having been sent, went off taking the bow. In the 36th speech, the title speaks *On Homer*, and a certain praise of the poet shines through, as also in the one titled *On Socrates*, [concerning] the philosopher. The 38th speech, *On Homer and Socrates*, shows that Socrates was a follower and student of Homer, and demonstrates that the philosopher learned from him not only the proper handling of examples, but also drank in the other grace and power of discourse. The 39th, titled *Agamemnon, or On Kingship*, sets forth that a king ought to use the best men as counselors, and to obey them, and not perversely follow his own whim. And the title *Nestor* contains how it is fitting to use exhortation toward kings. The one that follows, *Achilles not obeying Chiron*, shows that he did not manage the war according to foresight and art, but rather through rashness and the strength of his hands, and later he could not escape the consequences of his disobedience. The *Philoctetes* is also a paraphrase of the misfortune that befell him. Following these, the *Nessus and Deianeira* ^C seems to adjust to a certain consistency and order, by means of some remedy, that which was unreasonably fabricated regarding them. ^D

^A *Chryseis* is a laudatory oration regarding Chryseis. The oration *On Kingship and Tyranny* discusses these very subjects, as do the three subsequent orations *On Fortune*, which present pleasant and at the same time philosophical meditations. In the same manner, the three orations *On Glory* which follow these exhort and admonish one not to make account of the glory of the multitude; and beautiful and useful observations are interwoven with this admonition. ^B The 51st oration is titled *On Virtue* and discusses it. The 53rd treats *On Philosophy*, as does the 54th, *On the Philosopher*. The 55th, inscribed *On Habit*, demonstrates that a philosopher is not to be judged by his tunic and sandals, nor by the external appearance of his attire, but that it is the life itself that constitutes the philosopher. ^C The 56th, which received the title *On Confidence*, and the one following it, *On Diffidence*, advise one to be on guard as to whom one trusts or commits oneself; not even to those who seem to love one the most. For many who trusted others have met with great calamity, whereas those who fortified themselves with diffidence have achieved a brilliant salvation. But these are the contents of the oration *On Diffidence*; the one preceding it argues how being trusted has also, for the most part, brought great injuries upon those who were trusted. The subject of the 58th oration, just as its title, is *On Law*; as is that of the 59th, *On Custom*, showing that it performs as much as the law is accustomed to do, but with pleasure and persuasion rather than with force, and much more safely. ^D The two following orations discuss *On Envy*, and the 62nd, *On Riches*, denouncing its troublesome and treacherous nature, and presenting poverty, when accompanied by justice, as being far more advantageous. The 63rd is inscribed *Among the Cilician Orations, On Freedom*; and it pronounces that man to be free, who is master of his own perturbations and affections of soul, even if a thousand masters command his body; and conversely, that man a slave who is obedient to his own evil affections, even if he seems to rule over the entire world. To the same intent also discusses the one that follows, which bears the inscription *On Slavery and Freedom*; as does the next, which is the second *On Slaves*. And the one after that, *On Grief*, admonishes that a noble and intelligent man ought not to collapse before this passion, but rather to look down upon it and brush it aside. And the oration *On Greed*, which is the 67th, advises one to avoid this evil. The 68th oration bears the title *On the Exercise of Speaking Well*, and suggests this same subject. Soon after, the 69th treats and is inscribed *On the Desire to Hear Others*. The 70th title is *On Retirement*, and it teaches that it is not by seeking out distant places that one avoids the vicious affections of the soul and the tumults of life, but by turning toward oneself and hastening to know oneself, having a reason that taxes the evil coming from elsewhere. The oration following this one, which acts as...

^A a brief interim account. The next, as it is inscribed [On Beauty], discusses the adolescent in the same way. In the same place, he states that what is considered beautiful is not the same among all peoples, even barbarians, but that one thing obtains among some and another among others. LXXII. It discusses both peace and war, and bears that title. LXXIII. He also declares the wise man to be happy; and it is followed by a discussion [On Happiness]. Hence, it treats [On the Genius/Demon]. He calls those "genii/demons" who are allotted the rule over others in such a way that, through them, it goes either better or worse for the subjects. LXXVI is [On Deliberation]. LXXVII is titled [A Discussion on those things which are accustomed to happen at symposia]; he narrates some of these things, and how most mortals are accustomed then to turn their gaze toward philosophy when life is beset by sad circumstances. LXXVIII and the one following it, inscribed [Melancomas I and II], both contain praise of that adolescent, as well as the memory and mourning of one deceased in the abundance of successful circumstances. The last and eightieth, which bears the name [Charidemus], mingles praise and mourning for the deceased youth.

CCX. Caesarius' Ecclesiastical Chapters 220

CCXI. Dionysius of Aegae, Dictyaca, 100 chapters

^A refutation might immediately be opposed to every assertion. Furthermore, the elocution is neither particularly ornate, nor, however, is it neglected to the point of lacking grace: especially since this work was prepared by its author not for any ostentation, but rather for dialectical disputation, to whom a spare style of speech and a sequence of related matters were a concern. The book is useful for those who are trained in dialectics, and the following is almost entirely comprised by its subject matter.

1. That the sowing of the seed and the vitality comes from both, and conversely that it does not come from both. 2. That the seed is secreted from the whole body: and conversely from the testicles alone. 3. That concoction occurs by heat: and conversely that it does not. 4. That concoction occurs by friction: and that it does not occur by friction at all. 5. That concoction occurs by putrefaction: and conversely that it does not. 6. ^B That concoction occurs by the property of the spirit: and conversely that it does not. 7. That concoction occurs by the property of the juices; or not at all. 8. That concoction occurs by the property of heat: and not so. 9. That digestion occurs by heat: and not so. 10. That the distribution of food occurs through the attraction of heat: or not at all. 11. That digestion occurs by the spirit: or not so. 12. That digestion occurs by the application of the arteries: not so, but in this way. 13. That digestion occurs by absence combined with a vacuum: and that digestion is accustomed to occur through an uncertain or any kind of absence. 14. That glaucoma arises from the fact that the visual pore is deprived of its nourishment: and not so. 15. That glaucoma of the eyes occurs from the flowing of blood into the visual pore: and not so. 16. That glaucoma occurs by the thickness of the humors and by exhalation: and it does not occur so. 17. That phrenitis occurs by the distension ^C of the meninx and the corruption of the blood: and that it does not occur so. 18. That phrenitis arises from an excess of heat: and not so. 19. That phrenitis arises from inflammation: and not so. 20. That lethargy occurs from inflammation: and not so. 21. That those who are lethargic become so through distension and corruption: and not so. 22. That the appetite for eating and drinking is spread through the whole body, and that it exists only in the stomach. 23. That the appetite for eating and drinking is situated in the imagination. 24. That thirst arises from a lack of humors: and not so. 25. That a double power of extraction is observed in the stomach: and in truth not so. 26. That the lower (11) membrane of the brain in the concavity is the beginning of the nerves: and in truth not so, but the outer one. 27. That medicines, once diffused through the body, purge; and not so, but by their very approach. 28. That purgative medicines should not be used: and that they should be. 29. That a draught of wine should be allowed to those suffering from fever: and that it should not, since it is ^D pernicious. 30. That baths are useful for the feverish: and that they are in fact harmful. 31. That in the increases of diseases one should use a clyster: and that one should not. 32. That at the beginning of diseases one should not use ointments: and that it is very useful for this to be done. 33. That the head should be treated with a poultice: and not so, but that one should use only olfactory agents.

^A 34. That inducing vomiting is unprofitable: and that it is profitable. 35. That the heart does not send forth blood: and that it does send it forth. 36. That the heart does not send forth spirit, but that the arteries draw it in: and the contrary. 37. That the heart is moved by itself: and that it is not moved by itself. 38. That blood naturally exists in the arteries: and that the arteries are not the vessel for blood. 39. That all vessels are simple in their bulk: and that they are complex and interwoven. 40. That sensation and movement of the living being occur through the nerves: and that this is not so. 41. That the heart is the source of the veins: and that it is not the source. 42. That the liver is the source of the veins: and that it is not the source. 43. That the ventricle is the source of the veins: and that it is not the source. 44. That the meninge, or skin of the brain, is the source of all vessels: and that it is not the source. 45. That spirit is the source of the arteries: and that it is not the source. 46. That the artery which is situated along the spine is the source of the arteries: and that it is not the source. 47. That the heart is the source of the arteries: and that it is not the source. 48. That the heart is not the source of the nerves, but the membrane surrounding the brain: and that it is not the source. 49. That the faculty of understanding is not around the heart, but around the head: and the contrary. 50. That the faculty of understanding is in the middle ventricle of the brain: and that it is not so. This is the extent to which the thesis reaches.

CCXII. Aenesidemus' Books on Pyrrhonism

they remove without doubt. ^A But those who belong to Pyrrho are skeptics, and are freed from every dogma; and none of them has said that all things are absolutely incomprehensible or comprehensible, but that nothing is any more this than that, or at one time such and at another not such, or to one person such, but to another not such, or to another not even existing at all. Nor again do they say that all things are commonly of such a kind that anyone can attain them, or that he cannot attain at least some of them, but that it is no more possible that one should attain them than that one should not attain them, or that one might attain them now, but then not. Indeed, it is not even true, nor false, nor probable, nor improbable, nor an existing thing, nor a non-existing thing, but, so to speak, one and the same thing is no more true than false, or probable than improbable, or existing than non-existing, or at one time such, at another time such, or to one person such, and to another not such. For the Pyrrhonist defines ^B nothing in general, not even this very thing, that nothing is defined; but since, as they say, we do not have [the means] by which we might express the thoughts of the mind, we speak in this way. Those who belong to the Academy, he says, especially the current one, at times agree with Stoic opinions, and if one must tell the truth, they appear to be Stoics fighting against Stoics. Secondly, they dogmatize about many things. For they introduce virtue and folly, and posit the good and the evil as principles, as well as the true and the false, and indeed the probable and the improbable, and the existent and the non-existent, and they firmly define many other things, saying that they only dispute about the apprehensive perception. Wherefore those who belong to Pyrrho, because they define nothing, remain altogether irreproachable; ^C but to the Academics, he says, like accounts must be rendered as to other philosophers. But the greatest point is this: that while they are in doubt about any matter presented to them, they do not only keep the same order perpetually, but they also never fight against themselves, whereas the others are not even conscious that they are fighting against themselves. For to posit something and to remove it at the same time, without doubt, and at the same time to say that some things are commonly apprehensive and not, brings about a manifest contradiction. For how is it possible, if one knows that this is true and that is false, to still be in doubt and hesitate, and not clearly choose the one and stand aside from the other? For if it is unknown whether this is good or evil, or this true and that false, and this is existing and that is not, it must certainly be admitted that each thing is incomprehensible; ^D but if it is apprehended clearly by sense or by intellect, each must be called comprehensible. Aenesidemus of Aegae, beginning his discourse with these and similar things, sets forth the difference between the Pyrrhonians and the Academics; and he subsequently delivers, according to the same line of reasoning, first the whole training of the Pyrrhonian arguments in a summary and outline manner. In the second book, beginning already to go through in detail what was mentioned in the outline, he discusses matters concerning the true and the causes and the passions and movement, and coming into existence and passing away, and what is contrary to these, indicating by dense, as he thinks, syllogisms that all of these are a-poric and incomprehensible. And his third discourse is about movement...

^B and sensation and the properties pertaining to them, examining similar contradictory arguments, and he brings these also to what is unattainable and incomprehensible. In the fourth book, he says that tokens, just as we call the evident tokens of the non-evident, do not exist at all, and that those who believe they do are deceived by an empty obsession; and he raises, one after another, the aporias arising from habit concerning the whole of nature, the world, and the gods, striving to ensure that nothing falls within comprehension. The fifth discourse is also set forth by him, concerning the aporic objections against causes, asserting that nothing is the cause of anything, and that those who engage in causal reasoning are deceived, and he counts the ways by which he thinks they, having been led into causal reasoning, have been carried into such a delusion. And the sixth also brings goods and evils, and indeed the chosen and the shunnable, and further the "preferred" and "dispreferred," into the same hairsplitting ^C, insofar as it rests with him, excluding even these from our comprehension and knowledge. He arms the seventh book, however, against the virtues, saying that the philosophers labor in vain in fabricating opinions about them, and that they "beguile themselves" as if they had already arrived at the practice and contemplation of them. And finally, the eighth stands against the "end," admitting neither blessedness, nor pleasure, nor prudence, nor anything else as an end—whatever any of the philosophical sects might conceive of—but simply that there is no end of the sort that is celebrated by all. So then, the discourses of Aenesidemus are whetted for such a contest; but that they are a vanity and a great prattle, both Plato and many others before us have provided the refutation; and that they contribute nothing to a dogma, this is also manifest, since he even attempted to drive the inherent dogmatic contemplations from our mind. To those, however, who labor in dialectical study, if the instability of his reasoning does not lurk within, and if the judgment is directed ^D toward keenness without being corrupted, the book is not useless.

CCXIII. Agatharchides' Historical Work.

I read Agatharchides' *Historical Work*; some call him Agatharchus. His homeland was Cnidus, and his profession was that of a grammarian. That he was a scribe and also a reader, a service provided to Heraclides Lembus, through which he was assisted by him, made him known. He was also a fosterling of Cinnæus.

^A We learned that this man wrote the history of ^A Asian affairs in ten books, and that his history extends to forty-nine books regarding European affairs; moreover, he also relates in five books all that concerns the Red Sea and what pertains to it. He himself brings the whole of the aforementioned compilation to mind at the end of the fifth book, where he also says that he ceased writing for certain other reasons, and because his advanced age was declining into senility. However, there are some who claim that he wrote other treatises as well, of which we have never yet known any. They say he compiled an epitome of what he had written regarding the Red Sea into a single book, and indeed also five books On the Troglodytes; and an epitome of the Lyde written by Antimachus; and again another ^B epitome of those who have written about the collection of wonderful winds, and that he compiled selections of histories, and also wrote about the associations of friends among themselves.

This man is, as far as I could recognize from reading his books, grandiloquent and abundant in sententiae. He delights more than others in the magnitude and dignity of his discourse, yet he does not appear to be overly addicted to overly select words. Nor, however, while he does not use ordinary and customary words throughout, does he form new ones himself; unless, perhaps, as some craftsman of vocabulary, he creates a certain phrasal style presenting a new appearance through words that are not new. And this artifice he presents to you so ingeniously that it does not appear as an innovation at all, nor is it any less clear than if he had used common words. He also uses sententiae that manifest his prudence no less than his industry. ^C For the more apt adoption of the mutation of words, he is better prepared than others. Furthermore, he secretly and latently disseminates throughout the entire work a pleasantness that can soothe or expand the soul. When he applies himself to tropes, he uses them without any sense of labor. This he achieves in himself not through the mutation of the words themselves, but through a certain ingenious and sweet transition and conversion to other subjects. For there is no one among all we know who is more skilled than he is at assuming a noun in place of a verb, and again changing a verb into a noun, and diffusing words into a discourse, and compressing a discourse into the form, as it were, of a noun. He is a follower of Thucydides in the abundance and preparation of public speeches, and ^D while he equals him in the magnitude of his diction, he even surpasses the man in clarity. Such, in short, is this man, having attained glory even from grammar itself. And even if the thoughtless vote did not confer upon him the appellation of rhetorician, yet to me he seems no less than the grammarians to be second to none.

Codex CCXIV. Hierocles, On Providence and Fate, in seven books.

^B There has been read the book of Hierocles, *On Providence and Fate*, and on the conformity of our free will with the divine governance. This author is by profession a philosopher; his book designates a certain Olympiodorus as, so to speak, a censor, who also provided the occasion for his writing, as he was a lover of philosophy who was by no means unversed in political wisdom. For he had been distinguished in Roman embassies, and had brought many great barbarian nations to join the Roman Empire, things which also paved the way for him to acquire high magistracies among them. Such, then, was this Olympiodorus, to whom the book is addressed; and to this same person the author added, at the end of the first book, a consolation, as he was grieving beyond measure for the loss of an adopted son, and was of a spirit not only sorrowful but also of a sadder countenance. ^C This commentary, *On Providence*, presents a discourse by one who is as well-disposed toward the opinion of Plato as he is toward that of Aristotle. For he aims to reconcile these men in their opinions, not only in those matters which discuss Providence, but also wherever they teach that the soul is immortal, or wherever they philosophize about the heavens and the world.

He contends that as many as have judged these men to be in disagreement and conflict have been led very far from their true meaning and have erred entirely from the truth, some by their own inclination toward the urge for contention and madness, others by being subjected to preconceived opinion and ignorance. He reports that the number of those of the former order was huge, until the wisdom of Ammonius eventually shone upon the world—a man whom he declares to be called "taught by God." For he explains that this man, having purged the opinions ^D of the ancient philosophers and having pruned away the nonsense that had sprouted up on both sides, demonstrated that in all the principal and most necessary dogmas, the opinion of Plato and Aristotle is in accord.

To this end, therefore, the work of Hierocles strives with great zeal, and by arguments it builds up what it maintains those men held; and it contends sharply with those who have endeavored to maintain the contrary party. I refer to the Epicureans and the Stoics, and as many as perhaps cherish Plato and Aristotle but do not correctly interpret their thoughts. Likewise, he refutes those who labor in the art of genethlialogy (birth-chart casting), while demonstrating their false opinion concerning fate. And those who by mechanical devices or sorcery dare to do away with the Providence of things that exist, with similar...

^A arguments and questionings he subjects to investigation. But to speak briefly, he rises up against all those opinions which lead the more unlearned to this point, that they believe divine Providence either does not exist at all, or is of no account and to be held in contempt.

According therefore to the opinion of Plato, this discussion assumes that God exists by nature before it [Providence], as the surveyor and observer of this entire structure, which he says was brought forth by its artificer from no underlying material; for His will alone sufficed for the existence of things. But since corporeal substance was joined by creation with the incorporeal, he establishes that a world most perfect from both natures, at once dual and one, was constituted: in which the demiurgic wisdom has decreed the highest, middle, and lowest parts of the world according to the nature of each. He says that the first of these, endowed with reason, are called heavenly and gods; and that those which have attained the region ^B immediately after this order are called rational, ethereal, and good demons, having become interpreters and messengers of good things to men; and finally, that the human race holds the lowest rank, and these he records as being called earthly animals and immortal souls, and (as Plato would say) immortal men. These three kinds, he says, are attached to each other in one living being or chorus and concord, yet their natural distinction is preserved without being confused by that union and mutual connection. And indeed, that the superior take precedence over the inferior, yet that the Father and Creator of them all, God, rules over everything. And this paternal kingdom of His is both considered to be and is Providence, which distributes to each kind that which is appropriate to it. Moreover, he says that that justice which accompanies God’s Providence is called fate. For while the name of fate is distracted into many meanings ^C by those who delight in novelties, he himself thinks that fate is nothing other than what he records that Aristotle and Plato believed. For he does not admit in any way the randomly posited necessity of the genethlialogists, nor the Stoic force, nor even that fate which Alexander of Aphrodisias posits, and which he leads to the point that it becomes absolutely identical with the nature of Platonic bodies; nor does he admit that genesis which is diverted from the accustomed order of nature by magical incantations or sacrifices. But he extols only that fate, as we have said, which Plato and his school uphold: that is, a certain judicial operation of the Divinity, according to the laws of Providence, directing our affairs in good order and series toward that end to which free actions are carried by a settled purpose.

Yet although you see these things contained in the writing of this man, nevertheless ^D there is a frequent and great struggle for him regarding the prior life of human souls and their transmigration into other bodies. For

^A he does not accept the transfer into irrational animals, but he zealously defends the passage from human beings into other human beings. He turns this dangerous and futile opinion upside down, by means of it, as he thinks, strengthening divine Providence; and by means of it establishing our free power and autonomy; and yes, indeed, aiding fate, which is dear to him. He is driven by strange notions, and he brings forward what he supposes to be stable structures from arguments that are in fact inconsistent, from which, in truth, the dogma of Providence could not be established even if it were brought to his mind. Indeed, if one were to wish to prefer the truth to this man, through the very arguments by which he strives to establish it, he completely introduces its destruction. For by positing for it a rotten foundation—as we have shown more broadly elsewhere, as the subject demanded—he has shown it to be easily overthrown and untenable in the opposite direction. For the doctrine of the pre-existence of ^B souls and their transmigration, which he presents as the prop and foundation of Providence, and of free will, and of fate—this doctrine, being completely banished by the truth into the realm of the irrational and the impossible, it is clear that everything he attempts to argue through those doctrines—both Providence, and our free power, and fate—is overturned alongside them, and his laborious endeavor dissolves into nonsense.

Of his work

The entire work is divided into seven volumes. The first ^C is arranged to set forth those things which he himself had reflected upon regarding Providence, justice, and the judgment that comes down upon us according to the merit of our deeds. The second, collecting the Platonic opinions, appends their specific proofs from the works of Plato himself. The third, setting forth the objections which one might use against what has been handed down, attempts to dissolve their sophistry. The fourth seeks to bring the so-called oracles and priestly laws into agreement with what Plato taught. The fifth attributes the Platonic doctrine of the matters proposed to Orpheus, Homer, and all others who were known before the appearance of Plato. The sixth takes all those who came after Plato—assuming Aristotle himself as their leader—up to Ammonius of Alexandria, among whose most famous acquaintance were Plotinus ^D and Origen; and so he attempts to prove that all of Plato’s successors up to these men, to whom a name for wisdom had been left, were of the same opinion as Plato, and he sets down as worthless and wretched those who attempted to separate the opinions of Plato and Aristotle from their consensus, and he accuses them of having adulterated many of the Platonic writings, even though they claimed Plato as their teacher.

^A Likewise, he says, those who profess to honor his share of the Aristotelian writings do so for no other reason than to set the Stagirite against the son of Aristo. The seventh discourse, having taken up a subject peculiar to itself, treats zealously of the discussion of the aforementioned Ammonius, and maintains that Plotinus, Origenes, Porphyry, Jamblichus, and those who follow in order—as many as happened to be born of that divine generation, as he himself says—down to Plutarch the Athenian, whom he also records as his teacher in such dogmas, all of them concur with the purified philosophy of Plato. The diction of this author is clear and pure, and suited to philosophical study, although it is not adorned with painted and superfluous colors or a variety of rhetorical flourishes.

CCXV. Joannes Philoponus, Against Jamblichus' work On Statues

Read the book of Joannes, surnamed Philoponus, ^B against the work of Jamblichus which he entitled *On Statues*. The scope proposed to Jamblichus is to demonstrate that images—for he includes these also under the name of "statue"—are not only divine but also filled with the presence of the Divinity; and this not only in the case of those which, having been fashioned by the hands of men through some secret art, were termed "heaven-sent" because of the obscurity of the craftsman (for he claims these are of a celestial nature and fell from there to earth, whence they also gained their name), but also those which the art of casting, ^C sculpting, and carpentry fashioned for a clear fee and labor. Jamblichus writes that the works of all these exceed nature and are greater than human opinion; he includes many things, partly by narrating incredible myths, partly by referring them to obscure causes, and partly by not fearing to write things contrary to what is seen by the eyes. He divides the entire treatise into two parts, calling one the Major and the other the Minor. Philoponus attacks both, using his customary style of speech and adapting the composition to a form habitual to himself; for he does not depart from what is pure and clear, yet he does not shine with elegance or Attic phrasing. ^D Furthermore, in many places he produces refutations of Jamblichus’ arguments that are noble and reach through the very causes of the matters themselves; at other times, he brings forth refutations that only touch the surface, relating them to names alone and wandering far from the matter at issue, even when the subject is very vulnerable to refutation and betrays its own weakness.

CCXVI. The works of Oribasius the physician

Read four volumes in which Oribasius has comprised the medical work composed by himself; and

in addition to these, seven others, produced in nearly the same form by the same author.

Oribasius the physician's Compendium of Galen to the Emperor Julian.

Therefore, in the first volume, he reduces to a compendium the things which Galen the physician had written. He inscribed this labor to Julian, the desertor of the Christian religion, using approximately this beginning: ^A “At your command, O most divine Emperor Julian, I have willingly obeyed your desire to reduce those books written by the admirable Galen, which are useful for the medical art, into a more concise form. For as he himself says, for those who choose to apply themselves to this art—whether they happen to be destitute of natural disposition, or have not attained the appropriate age, or have often not even begun the first lessons, and for these reasons are unable to learn the more expansive treatises by heart—the things now to be written will suffice; for they will need a shorter time for learning, and will have an easier grasp, as the condensation into brevity will not be ^B obscure. And to those who are well-versed in preparatory studies, and are hindered neither by nature nor age from becoming imbued with more perfect precepts, this kind of synopsis is also suitable: for the most necessary things will be suggested concisely to them at the time when the necessity of the actual work of healing presses upon them.”

Thus, Oribasius prefaces his work, promising to gather only those things which are pleasing to the man and which pertain to the medical art and the exercise of that art. This labor of his is comprised of ... ^C

CCXVII. Seventieth book of the same author’s Collection of Medical Works.

The second work also offers its dedication to Julian, and is completed in seventy books; it provides a utility no less, but indeed rather greater, than the former, despite its length. It also prefaces its text in this manner: ^D “The epitomes which you, O most divine Emperor Julian, previously ordained me to fashion, when we were staying in the Western Gauls, I brought to a close as you wished, and they were fashioned from those things only which Galen had written. But when you, having praised them, added a second task for me—that I should search out everything that the most excellent physicians had said, which was most opportune, and gather into one volume everything that pertains to this same end of medicine—I decided to fulfill this also to the best of my ability and with a ready mind. Thinking it superfluous and altogether foolish to write the same things often, whether they were written by the best physicians or by those who did not treat matters so diligently, I shall gather only those things which were left to us by those who...”

^A make use of the most accurate principles, following the Hippocratic doctrines. On this occasion I shall also use such an order: first I shall gather the matters concerning the material part, then whatever has been said regarding the nature and constitution of man, after which treatments concerning hygiene and recovery will follow, and after these whatever belongs to the theory of diagnosis and prognosis; finally, matters pertaining to diseases, symptoms, and the correction of those things which are contrary to nature."

Such is the form ^B and the second treatise with which he introduces his work, beginning from that hypothesis just as the one before it, which teaches the powers inherent in foods. It sets them forth in seventy books, as he had received them. The work is, indeed, as much later in time as it is superior in utility. For it contains not only those things which Galen correctly committed to literary monuments, but also those things which were passed over by him and proposed by others for instruction. And to me, indeed, this labor seems useful—if not to all others who have hitherto been engaged in the use and contemplation of the medical art, then certainly before most others; and this for the very reason that he does not merely hand down his own [teachings] clearly and omit nothing, but for the most part, the things he has gathered are expressed in various ways. Whence, if anything here happens to be stated somewhat obscurely by someone, it is immediately clarified through the ^C explanation of others. Wherefore, to those applying themselves to the study of medicine, I would be an advocate that they should studiously immerse themselves precisely in this work. And such, then, is that second collection of medical treatment and contemplation by Oribasius.

CCXVIII

The Same, Compendium to his son Eustathius, in ten books

Also a third work has been elaborated by the same man, as he himself testifies in the preface. It is a Compendium of that second [work], inscribed to his son Eustathius, and divided into nine books, in which are proposed those medicines for diseases which can be easily prepared and are readily available. However, he completely omitted the entire category of surgery from this collection. And so, this book brings no small or ^D meager utility in exciting the memory of those who are already experienced in the practice and speculation of the medical art. Likewise, to those who hope that they can attain the knowledge of this art for the first time by means of this compendium, I would say it would bring no small utility in a short time, were it not for the fact that it lacks method and pronounces nothing definitely, leaving those who are somewhat uninstructed in these matters and who are proceeding more readily towards treatments [vulnerable] to the greatest harm of the sick, and sometimes even of the healthy, since in their own works...

BIBLIOTHECA - COD. CCXVIII

^Amost grievous harms to the sick—and sometimes even to the healthy—I have seen forced upon them in the very performance of the work. But in the nine books mentioned above, he includes a compendium of those seventy.

In the first book, he discusses the caution to be exercised in bodily exercises and the exercises themselves, of evacuations in general and in particular, as well as those that are matters of ingenuity and those of which nature is the mistress. He discusses the air, and baths both natural and artificial; he discusses sweats and poultices, as well as the use of the basin with pure oil and oil diluted with water. Finally, he discusses those things that, by biting or otherwise dissolving the skin, bring about that cure of long-standing diseases ^B which the Methodists call "metasyncritic."

In the second book, he treats of the power of simple medicines and their selection; of the preparation of those known as "painless" unguents and plasters; and of the weights, of the plasters called "contused," and of the decoction of medicines which are compounded for the making of plasters.

The third book contains compositions of every kind of medicine.

The fourth is composed concerning the power of foods and their preparation, as well as of hydromel and other kinds of drink that might be useful to those who are ill, concerning the drinking of milk, and finally concerning waters.

The fifth book teaches what befalls those who are pregnant, their diet, and what kind of nurses should be chosen; the upbringing of an infant, and the things that usually happen at that age. ^C He discusses fatigue arising from exercise, and that for which the cause does not appear externally at all; and likewise the constriction of the skin. You will find here also the diet of the elderly, and whatever external things befall the body causing a deformity, as well as their removal and cure. He discusses further the preservation of the teeth, and what restores the difficulty of hearing and the dimness of the eyes, and a treatment for the harm brought about by surfeit, as well as a diet for a life of business. ^D He also prescribes a regimen for those by whom food is spoiled, and for those traveling by land or sea. He discusses the thinning and nutrition of the flesh, after which he treats of the knowledge of the temperament and the cure of it when it has been overturned.

^A In the sixth book are collected those things which are signs for judging diseases correctly and safely. Likewise, the cure and prognosis of fevers and symptoms, with the kinds of fevers and their remedies added. He deals with hunger, fainting and syncope, as well as pain and hiccup. Item, regarding canine appetite, and conversely, prostrate appetite, and the cure of immense hunger. Furthermore, he treats of nausea and vomiting, and of insomnia, torpor, colliquation, thirst, and the medicine for an ulcerated sacrum.

^B In the seventh book, he deals with all ulcers, both those which are called simple and those which are hollow, indeed also those which require a scar and those with excessive flesh: where he also brings a remedy for burns caused by fire. Item, regarding papules, itch, pustules which are called phlyctaenae, and regarding ruptured and malignant ulcers. He also records cures for carbuncles and cancers; likewise for convulsions, dislocations, and ruptures: for which things he prescribes how a point, reed, thorn, or stake fixed in the flesh may be extracted. Concerning hangnails, ulcers of the joints, and the eruption of blood. Concerning wounded nerves, dislocated joints; concerning inflammation and the affection which arises from defluxions; concerning gangrene and sphacelus; concerning apostemes or abscesses and fistulas; concerning erysipelas and herpes. Item concerning scirrhus, edema, terminthus, and epinyctis. Concerning severed ligaments and thyme, figs, and furuncles. Concerning warts and myrmecia and similar things. He sets forth medicines for the so-called ganglia, for chilblains, and for fissures; and for ulcerated private parts. ^C Furthermore, he treats of leuce, alphos, leprosy, scabies, impetigo, and swellings; and how theriac made from vipers is a great aid to those with elephantiasis. And these things are contained in the seventh book.

In the following book, Oribasius treats of the loss of memory and of those who are tormented by excessive waking or heavy drowsiness: then what ephialtes is, and the comitial disease, and vertigo, apoplexy, black bile, insanity, vehement love, and lycanthropy: and the remedies for these. Concerning diseases of the brain related to these, and the bite of a mad dog. Concerning paralysis or the resolution of nerves, and a rigor which cannot be warmed. Concerning convulsions and the distortion ^D of the limbs, and concerning headaches. Moreover, for the scorching of children, for foul odor of the nostrils, for bruises under the eyes, and for inveterate ecchymoses. Item, regarding the fissuring of the lips. Also for ephelis and moles of the face, and black spots of the eyes, and pimples, and fig-like prominences of the chin. Concerning foul odor of the armpits: concerning various pains of the eyes, concerning the louse disease, concerning obstruction of the nostrils, and concerning those who have been strangled. And this is the eighth book.

^A The ninth and final book embraces that kind of disease which is situated around the chest and the internal organs, and extends down to the private parts. He also recounts women’s diseases and prescribes remedies against gout, joint disease, and sciatica. Such is the third treatise composed by Oribasius.

CCXIX. The same author’s four books to Eunapius.

Oribasius holds that his fourth work is an *Artis Compendium* (Compendium of Medicine), completing it in four books. He records that Eunapius (whom he also proclaims to be most eloquent) was the author behind his composing of this work. He says he proposes to deliver remedies that are easily prepared; he carries out this teaching in almost three ways. First, he reviews the powers of simplicia (simple medicines) universally and the use of each individually. Next, he teaches the cure for each disease. Third, besides the knowledge of the affected part, he also explains the method of medical treatment. Finally, in the fourth place, he treats the subject matter that pertains to preserving health, which he also places before those others already enumerated. And so he starts immediately by beginning with nature itself, by which I mean the feeding of an infant.

Furthermore, this labor written for Eunapius is nearly the same and twin to the work he wrote for his son. For neither includes a method for surgery; and they agree in other matters as well, except that they do not maintain the same or similar order. In certain respects, one is slightly superior to the other, as for instance in many of the localized diseases, and concerning the knowledge of simple medicines, the work written for Eunapius is better. And in turn, the book to Eustathius has something elsewhere that it can boast of over the former. But gratitude is due to the man for the labor undertaken on both. For he labored on both (just as with what he had written previously) not for the sake of any inconvenience in the writer, but rather for the sake of benefit. ^B However, as to the character of his speech, it might seem doubtful and superfluous to judge anything. For these volumes were collected by him from various and all sorts of sources; and a medical man should not render an account to the prudent for the elegance of his speech or his skill, but rather if he should happen to have rendered or demonstrated any of the medical functions less correctly.

I have seen another work by the same author, distinguished by the same number of books, and inscribed *Paratu-facilia* (Easily Prepared). ^C This one referred its subject matter to a certain Eugenius, whom he also calls eloquent. It is added that the writing will be useful to those living in the countryside, to those traveling, and wherever a supply of physicians is not ^D

^A available. But this book, while it differs in its title and the person addressed in the dedication, is in all other respects quite clearly nothing but a copy of the work to Eunapius, so that I have even come to the conclusion that it was never composed by Oribasius at all, but rather this is a mistake by the one who, from the beginning, copied the book sent to Eunapius, who changed the title to "Easy Remedies" and substituted Eugenius for Eunapius; or perhaps someone else, seeking glory for himself from the dedication, resorted to this fiction in order to write "Eugenius" instead of "Eunapius" and "Easy Remedies" instead of the title inscribed there.

CCXX. Theon the Archiater's *Man*.

^B I have read the medical book of Theon the Archiater of Alexandria, which is entitled *Man*, and is dedicated to Theoctistus. He begins his treatments from the head and continues down to the feet, recording certain remedies for the diseases of all the affected parts of the human body. He does not explain the nature of the disease, except perhaps in a few instances, nor does he set forth the teachings concerning the matters he proposes to discuss with becoming precision. But after writing down the remedies for those diseases which usually afflict the feet and joints, he proceeds next to discuss simple purgative drugs, and attempts to offer certain reasons—not correctly, in my opinion, nor adhering to the truth—for why the nature of these drugs exerts a purgative power. After this, he treats the composition of all kinds of medicines which provide sufficient utility for the aforementioned diseases and for all the other afflictions of the human body, assigning remedies to the individual diseased parts which he had omitted. Furthermore, he brings forward plasters, remedies against fatigue, ^C as well as eye-salves and various antidotes prescribed by different physicians. With this, the work is concluded. However, this book offers about the same utility as the synopsis of Oribasius.

CCXXI. Aetius of Amida's *Medical Books in XVI Volumes*.

We have read the medical book of Aetius of Amida in sixteen volumes. ^D Now, he has compiled this entire work not only from those authors from whom Oribasius drew his books for the Emperor Julian, and for Eustathius and Eunapius, but also from the therapeutic books of Galen, and indeed from Archigenes and Rufus, and in addition from Dioscorides, Herodotus, Soranus, Philagrius, Philumenus, Posidonius, and certain others who have left behind a name and glory for themselves in the art of healing. He begins by briefly mentioning, from Galen, the powers of simple drugs and foods, and from this starting point...

^A the work concludes with the sixteenth book, which provides instruction on the diseases of women. To these he attaches other chapters, teaching the method for cleaning the face and the rest of the body, and in addition the preparation of oenantharia [vine-flower wines] and other things of that kind. Thus, as we have said, the entire work both begins and ends. To detail it: the first book briefly touches on the powers of simple foods and medicines. ^B The second then brings forward in brief the power and use of metals, and the usefulness of living creatures, whether taken whole or in their parts; this could also be considered no small part of the treatise on simple medicines. His third book discusses exercises of every kind, and whatever induces exercise. Then, after these evacuations or those hidden eductiones of humors, he treats of phlebotomy, distinguishing not only the modes of incision, but also setting down the magnitude, the forms, the opportune time, and the measure of the evacuation. Presently he treats of arteriotomy, and the medicine for stopping the blood of the arteries, and of the cupping glass, scarification, and the choice of leeches. He discusses the diet and use thereof, purgative medicines, and the varied preparation of purgative wines. He deals with purgative wine mixed with honey, spiced wine, absinth wine, rose wine, honey of roses, and oxymel, and with purgative fish-sauce [garum], honey, and wine-garum [oenogarum], and oxygarum, and with a softening broth, ^C and with milk, and purgative oils; concerning all these he advances instruction. Furthermore, he also speaks of composite oxyporia [easily-passing medicines] and various purgatives, and of pastilles and purgative buccellati [small baked loaves]. He also writes of purgative aloedaria, and likewise salts, and those five celebrated "hierae" [sacred medicines], as well as remedies for those on whom the purgative medicine has not acted, or who have been evacuated beyond measure. He discusses vomiting, and to whom hellebore should be given, and what it can do, and who are suited for it, the testing of hellebore, the preparations for one about to drink it, the differences in the use of hellebore, and the care of those who have taken it. He continues with purgative epithemata [topical applications], and whatever parts in us are cleaned, I mean the eyes, ears, and the rest; regarding the fumigation that contributes to the same effect, and concerning agents that evacuate the ^D small intestines, and the curved parts of the liver, and similar things. He treats of the air, winds, and stellar influences, and of waters and baths, both those prepared by art and those brought forth by nature; of cold washing, and the sitting in a tub of oil, and the sprinkling of the face, and perfusion, insessions, humectation, and dry fomentation. He speaks of various kinds of plasters, of the dropax, pication, sinapism, rubrication, and in what cases one should use metasyncritical remedies, or those that evoke humors from the depths. And these things are contained in the third book.

^A The fourth book contains a collection of matters pertaining to the preservation of health, commencing with the diet of infants; it explains the ailments of infants and their remedies, and discusses the diet for all ages and various modes of life, the reduction of flesh, and the restoration of those who are depleted. It also deals with fatigue arising from exercises, its differences, the fatigue that arises from sexual intercourse—the cause of which is unknown, and which they call spontaneous—and what care should be employed for digestion. It treats the treatment of thickened skin, of burning heat, and of timely friction; of indigestion, drunkenness, and the correction of intemperance. It teaches the discernment of the best temperament, the symptoms of a hot temperament and of others, both simple and compound—not only for the whole body, but also for the head, brain, stomach, lungs, heart, liver, and testicles—and provides remedies for all of these if they happen to deviate from their natural state.

The fifth book of Aetius discusses diseases, and first of all febrile illnesses; it ^B diligently treats their signs, prognoses, diagnoses, and cures, as well as everything else that pertains to this medical theory: what is to be judged the beginning of a disease, and that it is said to be threefold. It discusses what is the access of a disease, what is its remission, what its vigor and decline, both in the partial access of the disease and in the whole body; what are the signs of recovery in the sick, and which are fatal; and which of these are judged to lead to health or death more slowly, more quickly, or in a moderate way. [It treats] of the signs of pulses and the diagnosis of urine, and what these things signify; of the signs of excrements, the prognosis of vomiting, and its significance; of the eruption of blood from the nostrils and of female purging; of the critical signs of sweats and abscesses; and of the indication [provided] by sputum. Furthermore, a well-skilled physician will recognize whether a disease is perfectly resolved or not, even if it might appear resolved, and [will determine] the very day and hour at which the sick person will pass from life. [569] It makes an exposition concerning popular, ^C common, and pestilential diseases, and concerning those who are seized by syncope from various causes, and concerning the fainting of mind which likewise happens to the living creature from various causes. It discusses headache in those having fevers, and insomnia, eye pain, dimness of sight, and the treatment of those to whom it happens that blood flows through the nostrils during fevers, and how one must make provision for those having fevers. It treats of the bladder, difficulty of urination, pains in the loins, an ulcerated sacrum ^D and testicles, and the anus. It [treats] of pustules diffused over the whole body or occurring in part of the body during fevers, and of tremors and convulsions; for these it prescribes sweet drinks that are especially useful during fevers. And here the fifth book concludes.

^A In the sixth book, he treats of all the diseases of the head and the brain, teaching not only of these, but also of their remedies. He addresses those bitten by mad dogs, and cases of apoplexy and paralysis; for the resolution of the eyebrow, eyelids, tongue, vocal organ, and throat when they are afflicted by this same malady, and for their cure. He treats also of canine spasm, and the cure for a paralyzed bladder, of the penis, the rectum, the leg, and any other member; and of tetanus, or distension. He discusses the various headaches arising from different causes, and of cephalæa and hemicrania. He records the cures for alopecia, hair loss, and the falling out of eyebrows, as well as dyes for the hair, agents to make it curly, hair removers, remedies for hair that is thinning, depilatories, and agents for thinning the hair. He treats of dandruff, pediculosis, achores, and those eruptions that happen to the head without a manifest cause; and he goes through the cures for all these and similar things. Also for the various diseases occurring in the ears from different causes, and for hemorrhages from them, for parotids, and for all diseases that arise in the nose, as well as for sternutatories and the means by which one may stanch excessive sneezing. He sets forth the remedies and cures for all these in the sixth book.

^C In the seventh book, since his sixth book halts after having gone through the diseases of the head as far as the ears and nose and the strains thereof, he begins by treating the nature of the eyes and the many kinds of diseases that arise around them, whether they suggest an internal cause or result from and are produced by external factors. He teaches about arteriotomy, about scythismus, about subspathismus, and about angiology, prescribing in these sections ointments, cataplasms, and various types of collyria, by which diseases of the eyes are treated. These matters are painstakingly worked out by him in the seventh book.

^D In the eighth book, at the beginning, he mentions something concerning the adornment of the eyebrows, what is meant by a black-and-blue mark under the eye, and how it is formed and how it should be treated. He discusses how the face may not be burned by the sun or wind, and by what means it is possible to keep it free of wrinkles and to remove a swarthy color, and otherwise to adorn it, and how to change the complexion of the body so that it is sweet-smelling. Thence he treats of all the diseases that arise in the face, mouth, and tonsils, both those that proceed from an internal cause and those that occur due to external factors. Thus covered herein are the various discomforts of the teeth and their cure, as well as those of the tongue, the uvula, and simply everything that is included in the definition of the mouth, among which are considered Cynanche (39) and Sy-

- nanche, which are maladies settling in the pharynx. The tonsils ^A are also included with those mentioned. [He discusses] how it is possible to resuscitate those who have been strangled, provided they have not yet been surrendered to death. He also makes a record of arterial diseases and their remedies, and [writes] about catarrh and cough; he also writes of cough-relieving medicines that soothe pain, as well as fumigations and plasters. He discusses orthopneic and asthmatic patients and those with difficulty in breathing, as well as palpitations around the heart; and further, having gone through the diseases of the lungs and the chest, he brings the discourse to a conclusion with the instruction on pleurisy, both that which is truly present and that which is thought to be present, describing what each of these is, and what contributes to their cure.

In the ninth ^B book, he begins with cardiac diseases, and proceeds to discuss those whose stomach is troubled by black bile, and simply all the diseases that settle at the orifice of the stomach, enumerating poultices and remedies for those whose stomachs are impaired by various maladies. In these, he also discusses those convulsed in an epileptic manner from the stomach, as well as anorexia, canine appetite, indigestion, and their treatment. He also teaches how one must give aid to those suffering from drunkenness. He prescribes care for those with a congested stomach, and [writes] about flatulence and ileus, and simply about those suffering pain in the colon; also about a flux of the belly, and the so-called celiac affection, and about emaciation, ^C about worms, both round and flat, and those called ascarides. [He writes] about diseases that settle in the intestines, and [for] those who have swallowed gold or copper or anything of that sort. He records remedies for these, and lists for dysenterics the so-called upper and lower enemas, troches, suppositories, ointments, and plasters, and finally concludes the book with a discourse on lientery.

He begins the tenth book with the debility of the liver, and from there he treats of all its diseases and [the means] through which these may be healed. Then he moves on to conditions of the spleen, discussing its ^D varied intemperance along with the methods of cure: flatulence, inflammations, scirrhus, and unnatural tumors and indurations. He then treats of jaundice, or the "arquatus" disease, and bad bodily habit; and likewise of dropsy, or water beneath the skin: he delivers the methods of whence each of these diseases arises and how they might be cured; with this the labor of the tenth book is finished.

In the eleventh book, he treats of diabetes (which is a profluvium of urine), and of the debility of the kidneys in those excreting bloody urine. Hence [he treats] of stone in the kidneys, stone in the bladder, and of inflammation, induration, and suppuration of the kidneys. [He writes] also of dysuria, strangury, and ischuria, and of a relaxed bladder, of those who urinate in their sleep: and of an inflamed bladder.

Furthermore, [he treats] of satyriasis, priapism, gonorrhea, and nocturnal emissions. For all these aforementioned diseases, he enumerates the causes, as far as it is possible, and their preventions and cures. At the very end of the discourse, he also ordains exercises and cures for those who are unable to engage in sexual intercourse. ^B

In the twelfth book, he discusses sciatica, gout, and arthritis, or articular disease, enumerating both the general and particular causes of these ailments, along with their varied cures and whatever other diseases usually accompany them. He prescribes various evacuations for these, as well as unctions, malagmata (softening poultices), anointings, acopa (remedies for pain), and ointments; likewise, purgatives accommodated to these, and antidotes, and as many other things as may bring aid to the aforementioned diseases.

In the thirteenth book, he discusses ravenous and venomous animals, the conditions and diseases they produce in those bitten, and expounds their cures. He provides the same teaching concerning venomous wild beasts. Not only this, but he also demonstrates with equal study those plants or herbs that become poisonous to those who use them. He also discusses fungi, bull's blood, and milk curdled in the stomach ^C as well. He further explains what metallic substances become harmful to the living creature if taken into the stomach. He treats, in addition, of the drinking of cold water or wine that becomes harmful to man; of those who have been strangled, those who are in danger of suffocating in water, and those who have fallen from a high place. He also touches upon animals that serve as omens or as means of precaution, especially those kept in the house. Upon these, he discusses the theriac of Andromachus made from vipers, its preparation, its use, the time for using it, its testing, the measure of the dosage, and the diseases for which it is most suitable. He writes of other theriacs as well, and of the Mithridatic antidote, its preparation, its use, and when it is useful; to which he also appends other types of antidotes. He writes of two kinds of Cyphi. Thence, he treats of elephantiasis, pruritic eruptions, psydrax pustules, papules rising from sweat, ulcerous eruptions of the lower legs, and the scars ^D left by ulcers that darken the body. Following these, he discusses the two kinds of vitiligo, or alphos, and of leuce, and finally of leprosy, enumerating their origins, the causes from which they occur, and their cures. This, then, is what the thirteenth book teaches.

In the fourteenth book, he is diligent concerning the various diseases of the seat.

^A regarding the thymuses in the genitals, and fissures, and inflammation, and noma, and carbuncles, and ulcers occupying the urinary passage. Concerning the itchy and pruritic scrotum, and its inflammation, as well as that of the testicles; and concerning the kinds of hernia; and also concerning the composition of plasters, and the manner of boiling the ingredients that are put into them. Furthermore, concerning those whose nerves have been wounded or bruised, and concerning swellings in the groin, and inflammation in general, and also concerning apostemes and hollow ulcers, explaining what each of the aforementioned is, and setting forth their cures. ^B He also arranges remedies against the worms that have developed in ulcers, and for noma and the putrefactions of ulcers, and also for hemorrhages. He also treats of sinuses and fistulas, gangrene and sphacelus, and concerning cancerous tumors and carbuncles and erysipelas, and herpes, and epinyctis, and terminthus, and pustules, detailing their origins and the therapies suitable for these. Furthermore, he treats of those who have been burned by fire or hot water, and the cure of those who have been whipped, and of abrasions, and intertrigo, and flesh that has been bruised or torn, and of spasms and sprains, and concerning dislocated joints and chilblains. Likewise, concerning the pterygia of the fingers, and paronychia, and about bruised, bloody, loose, rough, and leprous nails; and by what remedies it can be brought about that instead of nails that have fallen off, others may grow; and concerning rings that sometimes happen to get stuck on the fingers; and concerning corns and fissures of the feet, and concerning varicose veins. After he has taught all these things usefully and according to the laws of the medical art, he finally concludes that part of medical doctrine which deals with the dracunculi of the arms or legs; and there he puts an end to the fourteenth book.

In the fifteenth book ^C he treats of lax tumors, of inflations, and of hard tumors, of atheromas, goiters, bronchoceles, melicerids, steatomas, and ganglia, of aneurysms, and honeycombed sores, and hydrocephalics, explaining the origins of these also, their causes, the surgery and other cures, along with the preparation of many and various kinds of plasters.

In the sixteenth and final book, he writes concerning the location of the womb, its size, and the rest of its formation. He also writes on the time when a woman is accustomed to be purged and to conceive, ^D on the time of their conception and the signs of their fertility, and whether they have already conceived, and concerning other conditions of pregnant women. He also writes on the care and solicitude to be applied to them, then which women are more and which less suited for childbirth; on difficult labor, and those who are born in an unnatural way; on the embryotomy of the infant and the failure of the secundine, or the secondary caul. He also treats of the causes for which a man or a woman might be sterile. The remedies for all the aforementioned are recounted in this book, such as potions, pessaries, and fumigations for conception. Hence, he proceeds to all the diseases of the breasts and mammaries [index: entries preserved]

^A with the wisdom proper to the art, weaving together their origins, their modes of generation, their surgeries, and all other therapy. After this, he discourses on the suppression of menstruation in women caused by various factors, and on excessive menstrual cleansing, and on the female flux, both red and white, as well as on hysterical suffocation and gonorrhea, setting forth the therapy for these very well. He also deals with other variegated diseases of the uterus, namely abscesses, tumors, moles, dropsy, ulcers, and the like; among these, he writes on the closure of the uterus, on an imperforate womb, and on similar conditions, detailing their therapies. He also records the cures for nymphotomy ^B and for caudal growths, varicocele, excrescences (thymi), and similar things, following the same method. To these he attaches detergent preparations for the face and the rest of the body, and the compositions for fumigations. And here Aetius completes his entire work on the medical faculty, thus bringing to an end that which he had studied in medicine.

181 (a) The labor of this man ^C, as far as I have been able to determine, surpasses the syntopses of Oribasius, whether that which he inscribed to Eustathius or that to Eunapius, in all respects. For he does not only excel in that he renders the causes, and brings forth recognitions, observations, and definitions, but also in that he transmits the cures more copiously. Nor, again, is he seen to surpass these treatises merely, but also whatsoever Oribasius accurately reduced into an epitome from Galen: both because he presents his own doctrine with greater clarity, and because he treats of more diseases. But when the labor of Aetius presumes to compare itself with the collection of Oribasius, which comprises seventy books, it might perhaps be judged inferior: both because it passes over the treatment of anatomy, which that work explained, and because ^D it likewise omitted the consideration of the use of parts, which was the work of a philosopher rather than that of a practicing physician. Indeed, it may perhaps yield somewhat for these same reasons, in that it does not surpass that epitome collected from the writings of Galen. But I would certainly say (observing the negligence of men today, and their greater inclination toward all other things than toward those by which the healing of the sick is accomplished) that this collection should be brought into use before other writings: especially by those whose purpose it is not to investigate the more abstruse medicine, or to attain knowledge and truth with the aid of physiology, but who have regard only for the healing of bodies, and to be lacking in nothing that pertains to its use. For those who wish to demonstrate in reality that diseases are driven away by cures must diligently wear this book in their hands, and apply labor and study to it. Whoever obeys this admonition, he will surely soon find the fruit of his labor by experience.

Codex CCXXII. The Commentaries of the Monk Job in nine books.

^A Having read the work of the monk Job, contained in nine books and forty-five chapters, to which he also appends certain other matters. The author himself gave the book the title: *Commentary on the Incarnate Word*, because, as he says, it contains many questions concerning the plan of salvation (oikonomia). In the speculative problems, the author certainly does not appear incompetent or feeble; yet he does not proceed with equal success in his solutions. For while he generally seeks out the solution in most instances, in some cases he is satisfied with the mere appearance of the answer, without penetrating any deeper toward a more certain truth; indeed, some might perhaps say that he often allows his own efforts to yield to the appearance that presents itself. However, to the extent that I have been able to discern, he is a commendable lover of piety, both in the present work and in his treatise against Severus, nor is he to be despised for his diligence, and he is remarkably well-practiced in the commentary of the Holy Scriptures. He relates that he undertook this labor at the command of a man distinguished for his virtue.

Books I and II. Why was the Son of God, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit, made man?

He proposes his first question: Why did the Son of God, and not the Father, nor the Holy Spirit, assume the human form? He considers the solution to this question to be as follows: Since the Son is the Word, and man was originally honored by the Word and as the image of God, but later fell from these ^B and was compared to senseless beasts and became like unto them, ^C for this reason the Word came to those who had fallen into irrationality, repairing our ruin and recalling us to our original dignity by a return. For the Word, he says, became flesh (that is, he assumed our nature, which had fallen into irrationality, possessing nothing of intelligence but being entirely inclined toward the things of the flesh), and dwelt among us. 2. For this cause as well, he says, the manger—the table of the irrational, providing food for oxen and asses—received the Word recently issued from the virginal womb. The oxen, for being clean, represent the symbol of the ancient people of Israel; the asses, for their impurity, represent the gathering of the Gentiles. The Word recalled both of these, who had already fallen into irrationality in their deeds and opinions. Just as also the prophet Isaiah predicted somewhere: ^D In the midst of two animals you shall be known; when the years draw near you shall be recognized. And he says the net in the Gospel is a testimony of the utter irrationality into which the human race had descended, so that even of the fish

which are for the most part mute and irrational, it differed in no way; whom the net, which it is certain was cast by the Word, drew up from there, and restored the gift of reason to those destitute of it. 4. Furthermore, that command of the Word, upon receiving which Peter found the stater in the mouth of the fish that had been opened, ^B is an argument that the human race has been freed from irrationality by the Word. For he asserts that the stater signifies the royal coinage, or at any rate the Lord’s oracles; for the Lord's words are silver tried by fire. And that the stater lay hidden in the mouth of the fish signifies the fact that the power of reason and its grace had been confounded and buried in those who, like fishes, had become brute. This gift, Peter, having been strengthened by the Word and having opened the mouth, cleanses and manifests, and having brought it into the midst, helps to put its proper use into practice. And he says that the fact that the incarnate Word sat upon an ass and a colt ^C symbolizes the same thing. Yes, indeed, and the fish also which, after the resurrection, was being roasted upon the coals; for that which was previously irrational, while being scorched by the Word as if by fire, not only sheds its irrationality, but also becomes the spiritual food of the Word. Furthermore, he says that the gift of tongues bestowed upon the apostles signifies the decree of their apostolic ordination, so that they might learn even from the configuration that they had obtained such a gift in order that they might serve the things of the Word with the words of the Word. And the Forerunner also, whom the holy Scriptures proclaim as the voice crying out for the Word, signifies nothing other than what has been said, but rather that the Word arrived to heal the infirmity of irrationality. Which David also says: ^D *He sent his Word, and healed them.*

These things, then, he pursues in the first two books, acting with a youthful vigor in the initial contest against adversaries who say that the Son became man and came as Savior for this reason: because for those called to adoption it was necessary that the Son, and not some other, be both and be called the leader and restorer of that adoption.

Lib. III. — Why the Son of God became man?

9. In the third book he provides the reason why the Son of God was made flesh, and says that it was necessary for the Creator and Potter himself to both refashion and renew the shattered craft. For even though the Father is likewise Creator, as is the Holy Spirit, the holy Scripture nonetheless continuously bears witness that all things were made through the Son. Therefore it was necessary for the Potter, since the vessel had slipped away, to take it back to himself and recover it through a refashioning. But what indeed do the holy Scriptures say of these things?

^A “All things,” it says, “were made through him, and without him was made nothing,” and, “From him,” it says, “and through him, and to him are all things,” and, “Through whom he made the ages.” Nay, indeed, the choir of our fathers that sprang from thence has taught us that it is divinely fitting for the Father to do all things through the Son.

Having thus rendered a solution for the problem at hand, he passes on to another that arises from it, and seeks: Why, when one and the same efficacy, glory, and power are contemplated and celebrated in the holy Trinity, do both the holy Scriptures and the holy Fathers nevertheless continually affirm that the Father made all things through the Son, but not the Son through the Father? He weaves this problem together very keenly, but his solution says that all things which befit the divine majesty are common both to the Father and to the Son; however, that all things which are predicated of the Son are traced back to the Father as well, inasmuch as the Son himself does not repel the Father from those works ^B which the Son is said to perform, but rather introduces and joins him in the hymn of praise. Furthermore, since the Son is the Right Hand of the Father, and Arm, and Wisdom, and Word, and Power—but the Father is not said to be any of these to the Son—the Father may reasonably be said to do all things through the Son, since the same order is seen in our own case, but not conversely the Son through the Father.

He brings forward yet another cause, not of the controversy just mentioned, but of the one immediately preceding, though it does not seem to me to be sufficiently consistent. For he asserts that since it is said that all things were made through the Son, if the incarnation had not also proceeded through him, this statement would have provided a proof of falsehood. For one who says that all things were made through the Son does not thereby say that the Son himself underwent their nature; ^C God forbid! Rather, that they have become his creatures.

Then, he wisely asserts that the world was both created and recreated by the same one. For this argument is an evident one, by which those who adhere to the insanity of Manes might be refuted. For if that impious throng of Manichaeans, although the holy Scripture proclaims both to have been perfected by the same one, nevertheless attributes the making of the universe to I know not what adversary of the Son, to what blasphemies would they not have fled, if the holy Scriptures had pronounced that the world was made by one, but refashioned by another?

To the chapters we have just related he adds an eleventh. ^D Since, says Jobius, the Scripture is accustomed to call the Son Creator by a certain excellence, by a just distribution at the same time it consequently assigns to him privately the power both of judging and of issuing laws, and much more besides, the faculty of renewing the creature (when this had been deformed). For it is for the Creator to know the nature, and knowing it, according to the reason of those receiving the

conditions, to impose laws. ^A For it belongs to a lawgiver to pass judgment both upon those who have despised the law and upon those who have lived according to it. Wherefore the Father, he says, judgeth no man, but hath given all judgment unto the Son; and again, The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He who, by remolding the creature through himself, and being the first to fulfill the laws, sets himself before us as a model of the life, which it is easy to institute aright, if only we look to the Prince and Guide. For that is an excellent lawgiver, who does not merely dictate in words what ought to be done, but leads the way by his own actions, for which reason it is also said: What Jesus began to do and to teach.

^B 11. He seeks then: Why was salvation not wrought through a man? Or why did no angel clothe himself in flesh? He answers that the salvation of men was attempted not once through men, through Moses, to be sure, and the prophets; but never did even one single nation, say, the whole of the Jews, recover from that common disease. How then could one who was a man, sick with the same whole mass of corruption, have healed the human race, or bound the strong man, and spoiled his goods? How, moreover, could a mere man have cleansed a human being of the same nature as himself, being himself a participant in the same defilement? For no one is clean from filth. Nor, again, of any angel, if the incarnation had been entrusted to him, was it in his power to triumph over the principalities and powers and put them to an open shame. ^C How also could a servant have reformed those lordly and royal precepts—I mean of the law—into that better evangelical institute (through which alone the ascent to heaven is given us) by changing the order, which the Savior did when he said: These things were said in the law, but I say unto you? How likewise, at the command of a fellow-servant, would the demons and their prince have been sent into the darkness, seeing that the archangel Michael, debating with the devil over the mere body of Moses—and that a just man—dared not of himself bring against him a railing judgment? How could he, being a servant himself, have raised us to adoption? Or how would our nature have been recognized as having attained the power, as now through the Son, to be seated together on the paternal throne?

^D Having gone through these points, he gives the reason why the Jordan and the Red Sea were divided as Moses and Elijah and Elisha passed through: then, reverencing the command of the Lord which was in them (for it is the work of nature, when a weight has fallen into the water, for it to be divided and part asunder; so that by these nothing more excellent than nature was wrought through the miracle performed by them), but when the Lord’s foot treads it, the sea is no longer divided while serving its nature; but beyond nature, it sustains the

^A Master, held fast for a better purpose than its own. Therefore, while ignoring the suffering according to its nature, it does not deny its nature [585 R.]; but by the supernatural, it proclaims the Master’s path of continuity. One might conjecture, he says, not absurdly, that the indivisibility in the Master’s walking upon the water signifies the indivisibility of the Divinity, while the division, as it happened in the time of Moses and others, signifies human coarseness and that we are composed of two things, matter and form, from which all other bodies also consist.

Having said these things, he proceeds to the thirteenth chapter, in which he asks: *Why did the Word not redeem the human race by his naked divinity?* And first he says that even if this had been done, nothing would have prevented those who utter nonsense and dare all things (since those madmen insolently dare to demand an account from God about any subject whatever) from seeking again another mode of salvation, not being content with the one that had been provided, and again, when another was given, finding fault with it and seeking another that was not granted. Next, what greater madness can there be than to imagine that one knows what is beneficial better than He who in wisdom brought forth and sustains all things?

But this point is also resolved here: *How does both common sense and divine Scripture celebrate God as omnipotent, yet the divine Paul says: God cannot deny himself* (42)? Furthermore, there are six hundred other things which it is proper to say God cannot do: such as not being able to lose his goodness, nor to be subject to change, and other things of that kind. To this doubt, the following solution is immediately proposed: When we say that God cannot do things, these things are neither realities nor can they fall into the nature of things at all. For where has it ever been set forth that God would deny himself, or change, or fall away from his goodness, or that what was true would become false? But He is called and proclaimed as omnipotent because He can do everything that is becoming to Him and salutary for created things, when He so wills. Otherwise, this very saying—that God cannot do what is not becoming to Him—truly pertains to power. For if all those things are a kind of deprivation and impotence, how will it not be the highest power and fortitude to be placed at an infinite distance above all these?

^D Perhaps he too would not depart from rectitude who might add this to what has already been said, namely, that this reasoning does not attempt to subvert the omnipotence of the divine power alone,

and simply, by ^A attacking, to endeavor to overturn His omnipotence, but clearly to labor with every force to confound the nature of all things and transmute it into another form. For if justice cannot do what injustice does (for justice would never commit an injury), then vice would be more powerful than virtue in its efficacy; and if a man cannot be a stone, then a stone would be more powerful than an animate, rational being. And yet, if one were to reverse these things, one would see them to be no less weak, since things that were thought to be superior in power would again seem weaker than those they had overcome in ability; and the same applies to all other things. Such reasoning is a game and the plaything of sophistic prattle. The wickedness or ignorance of such people should be reproved ^B because they either do not know, or certainly do not wish to know, that the term "power" is twofold. For one meaning signifies power in the proper sense, according to which God is called omnipotent and each of existing things is said to perform what is according to nature by its innate and proper strength; the other signifies only that which is becoming and appropriate. Therefore, when we say the Divine cannot deny Himself, we mean that it is neither becoming to God nor appropriate to disavow His own essence; likewise, when we say that He cannot undergo change or fall away from goodness, we mean that it is not becoming to Him ^C nor appropriate to apply to Him the things of change or alteration. This not only bears no trace of any weakness, but is rather an irrefutable testimony to His omnipotent power. And the same applies to other matters. But these things are by way of a digression.

14. This diligent author of the present book makes the fourteenth chapter, in which he argues that the restoration of creation ^D is of greater worth and wisdom than its formation; for among other reasons, the formation was brought about by word, but the restoration by the very hand of the Creator. And he says that Paul also speaks, exalting the magnitude of the wisdom, "To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus." And he demonstrates that the unsurpassable love of God toward us is shown not by saying that at the beginning He formed man, nor that He fashioned him according to His own image, nor that He undertook any other of the great and wondrous works. But what? The incarnate presence of His Son, through whom our restoration came to be. "For so," says he, "God loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that the world might have life through him." For whose love would it not be, I do not say to give the Only-Begotten for us unto death, but even this very thing, that the Son, being Lord of all, was pleased to take on the form of a servant, because the naked deity could not come into the sight of man, nor through bodily works and actions—

^A be shown the life-rule proclaimed by Him, by which salvation was to be secured for us, and to become associated with us for the sake of learning. And he says this is what is meant by His leaving the ninety-nine sheep to come for the one that had strayed, which He even lifted onto His shoulders. For He did not recreate our nature by the Word in the common and customary manner by which He created the universe; but that which He suffered for none of the others—not for angels, not for any other nature—this He underwent for the salvation of men, having been made a servant in place of the Master. ^B With good reason, therefore, as I was just saying, He is said to have left the ninety-nine sheep; for the parable enigmatically indicates that He not only withdrew and departed to a work more unexpected and more admirable than creation, but that He also revolutionized custom itself, since He accomplished our renovation not in the manner in which He founded this universe in the beginning, but in a new way, and one which can be expressed by no speech.

15. He adds further, ^C that it was reasonable and necessary for the Word to procure salvation for us through the flesh. For when every other path and method had been applied in vain (since both prophets and leaders of the people, and wondrous miracles, and benefits, and threats, and punishments, had preceded, some in part and others in a universal way), yet the human race admitted no change for the better, but the disease rather became incurable; then by necessity and consequence, or rather by the ineffable abundance of His goodness, the Word, having assumed flesh, offered Himself as leader and teacher and restorer, with the good will of the Father and the cooperation of the Holy Spirit. This is also seen by those who love contemplation as the reason why the Word was emptied into flesh in the last times, and not from the beginning; for when those to whom this care was applied did not admit the preceding care and providence, then at last in the last times He repaired our nature by Himself. ^D

185 (a) He attaches to these another question, which seems capable of being raised as an objection. But it was necessary, they say, for man to be established from the very beginning as upright and good, so that he might neither cause such great troubles, by flowing continuously toward worse things and thereby needing the manifold and varied care of God the Governor for the recovery of his salvation, nor that that which was once created in the image of God should ever be violated by injury. He says these things are objected; but let such men hear from the Truth itself: "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss." Furthermore, there follows from these points a further absurdity, that they are content neither with God's providence nor His judgment, but wish the Creator himself to be formed and adjusted by their own counsels and opinions, and

that the creation should be directed according to their votes, even if they have not yet come to the light of the sun. But they further declare that man must necessarily be both good and evil at the same time. For to seek that he be good, but to demand that he be so by necessity, is at once to remove free-will, and to make nothing that men do worthy of palm or recompense; for that which is involuntary is neither subject to reward nor liable to punishment. But, says he, what prevented men from being created in the same condition as the angels? Yet, in the case of the angels, choice reigns, and nothing is done by them by necessity. Witness the fallen Lucifer, and as many of the demonic race as deserted with him. How, moreover, could it be better for us to be produced with the angelic condition, when sin in them admits of no repentance, and is therefore devoid of all forgiveness, whereas our mortal race, although it sins, rises again through repentance? Indeed, after the advent of Christ the Lord, it is possible to see even in men greater works than those which the angels perform. For mark: I, Paul, say to you, that even if “an angel from heaven should preach to you anything other than what you have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. I, 8-9). And again: Michael the archangel did not dare to bring a blasphemous judgment against the devil (Jude 9), but we have received ^B the power to “tread upon serpents and scorpions and upon all the power of the enemy” (Luc. X, 19). And truly, none of the angels ever dared to call himself—or anyone else—God or the Son of God; but our race is even called “gods and sons of the Most High” (Ps. LXXXI, 6). And the one among them who was called Lucifer, for having said he would be like the Most High and would set his throne above the heavens (Isa. XIV, 14), having forfeited the good things he possessed, is held up to mockery for ages and remains condemned; but to us, the decree of truth has granted the freedom to be made like the Father and to be seated as fellow-throned with His Son. And what is greater: “He raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Ephes. II, 6). And, “If we endure, we shall also reign with Him” (II Tim. II, 12). And, “We know,” another of the apostles again testifies, “that ^C when He appears, we shall be like Him” (I Joan. III, 2). So that for those who desire to have it, the honor of the angels has already been bestowed.

“But,” he says, “we sin more readily.” But the more frequently we do so, the more quickly—if we are so minded—we rise again; for the all-wise Guardian has bestowed upon us countless ways of repentance and salvation. But you are a lover of kinship with the angels. And yet you have been deemed worthy of a greater one; for we have become kinsmen of the Lord according to the flesh. And further ^D

the sin of those beings, even if it is less than ours, is subjected to a greater punishment. ^A For "the mighty shall be mightily tormented" (Wisd. vi, 7). But He who brings the most grievous punishment upon them does not bring the same severity of penalty upon us for the same offenses. Nay, among us it is more quickly wiped away, whereas with them, once it has been instilled, it remains indelible; and for us, our union with the body provides a cause for pardon, but for them, by how much more excellent they are considered to be than the body, by so much more inexorable is the punishment meted out. Wherefore also the vessel of election said: "We shall judge angels, how much more the things of this life?" (1 Cor. vi, 3). And, "The saints shall judge the world," for being bound to the density of flesh and performing better things, we judge and rebuke those who are free from bodily fetters but do not do the same or even do worse things, having accomplished better things with power less than those who possessed the greater capacity. Moreover, for us who sin, the whole of life is set out for repentance and amendment, while for the angels, punishment immediately laid hold of those who sinned. For "to gloomy darkness," he says, "having cast them down, He delivered them to be kept in judgment" (2 Pet. ii, 4). And by countless other arguments the all-wise providence of God toward us is made known, and the folly and insanity of those who wish us to have been created angels rather than men is exposed. Even if He had fashioned man according to the nature of the angels, not even then would the desire to find fault have been suppressed, but they would again be seeking another nature that would surpass the angelic state. ^B But you, consider also this for me: if Adam, having been fashioned according to the image of God, had been equal to the angels, neither would we have been deprived of the glory of the angels. But if, having been made a little lower than the angels, he was nevertheless lifted up in mind and did not even preserve what he had received, how, if he had obtained greater prerogatives, would he not have fallen into an even more grievous collapse? Nor should you overlook this: that which happens by necessity is not of the rational, but of the irrational and inanimate nature. Wherefore, the reasoning which removes free will from man exchanges the rational animal for the horse or the ox or the fish, or whatever bears the nature of plants. But if he who holds such opinions defines such a penalty for himself, he is not unjust in his judgment (for he has found a punishment worthy of the transgression), and he himself refutes the detestable nature of his own opinion. Having thus set forth certain things of this kind, the expositor of the proposed subjects concludes the fifteenth chapter in praise of free will.

Chapter XVI

composed of two things that are very distant by nature? ^A He strives to undertake to solve the question, but he is carried along in a way that is rather deficient for such a problem. First, he submits patristic passages; second, he says that it was necessary for the earthly realm to be adorned by [the Divine] Word, just as the heavenly [realms] were adorned by the heavenly powers, and for this reason man, a composite animal, emerged upon the earth. Weaving these and other such things together, he completes the chapter.

Then he asks: Why does the Word of God become flesh? And he resolves the question in one respect by saying that ^B He is doing so in order to leave us a pattern of virtue, through which the ability might be present to us—not by necessity, but freely and willingly—to walk in His footsteps by imitating Him. Next, he puts forward the passage of Gregory the Theologian: For He bears flesh, he says, because of my flesh, and He is mingled with a reasoning soul because of my soul, cleansing like by like. And further, in order that He Himself, being the Word, might liberate the rational part that had been enslaved by the irrational, by calling it back. In addition to these points, since Adam, having been conquered, ^C buried the God-like image within himself under the myriad passions of the flesh and transmitted the harm to his descendants, for this reason the Lord becomes flesh and receives the drop of our nature into the sea of His own divinity, so that the mortal might be swallowed up by life and might transmit the gift to the whole race, and in order that He might display the ineffable sea of His own philanthropy toward us. And [he notes] that it was necessary for the Creator Himself to become the renewer of His own creature that had flowed away.

Furthermore, he adds that the Holy Scripture often refers to things that are spoken of commonly regarding the Trinity as specifically applying to one of the ^D venerable Persons. Thus, the creative power, though attributed equally to the Father and to the Holy Spirit, is nevertheless, in the economy of salvation, assigned once more to the Son as something preeminent. In this way, one may also find our salvation, which the Word accomplished, referred back to the Father. For He spoke to us, he says, in the Son (Hebr. 1, 2). And: That the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known, which He wrought in Christ (Ephes. 3, 10); and: For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works (Ephes. 2, 10)—the Apostle clearly calling the renewal a workmanship and a creature. And again: Having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Him to sum up all things in Christ (Ephes. 1, 9), and myriad other things. For if we believe that all things were made through the Son, there is nevertheless a necessity to confess the Father also as Creator, on account of the identity of will, energy, and power; and likewise the Holy Spirit. And especially since those who have been renewed attain the holiness [of the Spirit], and persever

perseverance in that renewal, it is the particular work of the all-holy Spirit to create and to preserve. Concerning created things, David also says ^A: "And all their power by the Spirit of his mouth." And it is clear that in those things which the prophet speaks, "By the word of the Lord the heavens were established," he praises the Word as the Creator (for he calls the first solidification and generation a "firming"), and [he praises] the Spirit as the one who brings fulfillment and power, by those things which he added: "And all their power by the Spirit of his mouth." And Gregory, that divine tongue, also says: He first conceives of the angelic powers, and that conception was a work which was completed by the Word and perfected by the Spirit, and a myriad of other things. Usefully, and in a way befitting instruction and introduction, the proclamation of the knowledge of God has come forth. For indeed, through the Old Testament, the Father is proclaimed first as the primary cause of all things, and the Son appears second as the creative cause, and the Holy Spirit third as the perfecting cause. For the perfecting things are aptly named after the perfection which appears in the progress and growth of both things and times, like a crown of victory adapted at the end to ^B the labors of the athletes. Wherefore also, God, having first formed man, then to perfect him, "breathed into his face the breath of life."

18. He, this indefatigable man, has collected these and other similar things by which he teaches that the Holy Spirit is the perfecter, where he says: For this reason, the enlightened catechumens walk in white garments for seven days. This was also the reason why the Old Testament, which bore a shadowy type of baptism, observed this same thing: "And you shall eat," he says, "the loaves that are in the basket of consecration. And you shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of witness for seven days." And the Old Testament did not describe only the number of the days, but also the other sequence of events. For here, too, we are baptized first, then we are anointed with the myrrh, and from there we are deemed worthy of the precious blood. Thus, in exactly the same way, Moses, prefiguring these things, first washes with water those who were being consecrated, then clothes and girds them, then bestows the anointing of oil, ^C and then sprinkles them with blood, and leads them to the partaking of the bread. Wherefore also the blessed Luke in the Gospel says that first the cup of the Lord's blood is blessed, and the faithful partake of it, and then finally they partake of the bread. The divine Apostle, however, sometimes places the blessing of the cup before, and sometimes places it after the blessing of the Lord’s body. For he says: "The cup which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?" Then: "The bread which we break." And again: "You cannot partake of the cup of the Lord ^D and of the table of idols." These and other such things concerning the fact that the Holy Spirit is a perfecter are what this indefatigable man has labored to prove.

^A Since he has discoursed upon these matters, he attempts to render the cause of the aforementioned different order; and he says that, since in our case the blood is formed first, and then it is changed into flesh, the Scripture, advancing by a natural path, has preserved this order also in the narration of the mysteries. But the order of the common table, on the contrary, imitates that order; for first on it the bread is placed, and then the wine is brought in. And he adds that this common table, in turn, corresponds to our formation: for since, as it seems to Job, we were fashioned from clay, and clay is of earth and water—and nourishment is also, in a way, a formation, filling up and refashioning what has flowed away—for this reason, just as in the formation made by God the dry was taken before the moist, so also in the formation we make in imitation of this, the bread is taken before the wine. And he himself philosophizes about the order in this way, even if it is somewhat beneath the dignity of theology. ^B However, to wear white vestments, he says, when those who are baptized are being baptized, is a symbol of that angelic splendor, which represents the purity of mind in them, devoid of the mixture of matter and passions; and once the illuminated person has become a partaker of grace, he ought to keep himself within the gifts of that received brightness. And with these remarks, the eighteenth chapter is brought to an end by him.

Nineteenth chapter, wherein he discusses the reasons for which Moses did not begin the story of the creation of the world from the creation of the angels.

^A Secondly, Moses wished to demonstrate their Artificer and Creator to those under the Law through the sensible world as through an image, since at that time they were still grosser, and could scarcely perceive the Creator and Artificer of visible things from sensible objects and those akin to them. But this could not be rightly accomplished by a discourse beginning with angels; for it is an altogether useless and very weak endeavor to seek to provide knowledge of the unknown from things that are themselves unknown, rather than from things that are apparent. Moreover, the Jewish nation even before the Law was given, though not correctly, at least in some manner glorified God; yet they did not even know the name of angels, except for perhaps one or two, to whom the grace of the Spirit had revealed it. ^B That which we say is confirmed by the fact that even now the sect of the Sadducees confesses that God exists and is the Architect of the world, while they stubbornly deny that any angels exist at all. The nature and title of angels, however, being unknown at the beginning, first came into knowledge from the time when Abraham’s piety toward God became known; from there, increasing by degrees, it was spread to all the race of the pious. Yet Moses himself, at the end of his own history, joining them with the rest of creation, says: "Rejoice, O heavens, and let all the angels of God worship him."

Thirdly, he adds that point: If visible things are nearer to us and more apt for knowledge than invisible things, then Moses, in handing down the origin of sensible things, rightly omits for the time being greater matters for those who are beginners, because of their inaccessibility and the difficulty that would require much instruction. ^C Consider also here with me: concerning sensible things, there is only one thing to be taught, namely, that they were produced by God; whereas concerning intelligible things, these two must be taught: that they exist, and that they have received their subsistence from God. For this reason, Moses does not mention the angels when he begins to narrate the creation of the world, lest any of those who are unstable and easily swayed should imagine that the whole was brought into being and created by angels. For if, even when Moses provided no grounds in his writing, not a few of the Hebrews—and those who delight in their error—babble that the world and the things contained in the world were created by angels, how much greater the contagion would have been, if anything of that kind had been written by the lawgiver himself! ^D Now observe with me the precision of this reasoning. From the transgression of Adam unto the generation of Noah, the nature of angels did not come at all into human knowledge. That was the first age of all. Nor in the second age, which ends in that daring building of the tower, nor yet the third age can boast of the knowledge of angels, which, as is manifest, extends until Abraham began to know God. But after those promises were made to Abraham, which, as it were, were laying the foundations and pre-arranging the Lord’s incarnation, the human race began rather to turn the eyes of its mind to the light of the truth.

and the wavering of the soul began to be confirmed by the stable faith of religion; then, certainly, one of the angels is introduced ministering to Abraham’s handmaid Hagar, ^A who might console her while her soul was in suspense and failing. By this utterance alone, history shows that there is a great distinction between ministry and creation, and between the Creator and created things. For the latter is a matter of lordship and authority; the former, of obedience and servitude. Wherefore even Paul, being more learned in the Law than others, exclaimed: *Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister?* (Heb. 1, 14) For this reason, therefore, as I said before, history does not record the creation of the angels at the beginning. And when the author has related these things, and attached others to them which (to me at least) do not seem to bring what was necessary to the proposed subject, he brings the third book to a close. ^B

Books IV and V: Why the Son of God became man.

The fourth and fifth books are concluded in two chapters, and they touch upon nothing other than that it was most fitting that the immutable and natural image of the Father should cleanse us—who were created according to that image, but who had already corrupted that form—from our filth, and restore us to our former beauty; and that it was necessary that the true and hypostatic Wisdom of God should liberate those who had turned into foolishness and had become like beasts from their stupidity, and restore them to the dignity of a rational creature. ^C

Book VI: Why the Son of God is Creator and Judge.

The sixth book proposes this first chapter: Why the Son of God is called the Creator of both our first existence and our reformation at the end of the ages, and then also the Judge of all at the time of the general resurrection. For since these three states are connected to one another and are referred to the same Lord and Artificer, the question and solution concerning them also have a connected and coherent logic. For since He created, He justly repairs those who are lost. And since this is so, He consequently also gives the law to His own creature. Whence it is also made plain that it is His prerogative to pass an incorrupt judgment, both upon those who keep the law and those who willingly violate it. Since, therefore, the question has been posed: Why, when there is no difference of higher or lower rank in the Trinity, the Son is nevertheless proclaimed rather as the Artificer and Formator, it is manifest that, this one problem being solved, the remaining questions which arise from it in succession are also solved. Wherefore he affirms that it is rightly and deservedly that the creation of the universe is referred to the Son by way of excellence. For when the Word had come to us in the flesh, many and greater heresies arose concerning creation. In these, some, being ignorant of the true and unique Creator, ^D into various causes of the world’s creation...

^A they launched, and some did not merely overflow into a multitude of gods, but also, setting evil against good, they tore the indivisible governance of the universe into opposing providences. Others, again, making themselves bitter and unjust dividers of the indivisible and in all respects equal Divinity, attributing the entirety of God’s majesty to the Father, repelled the Son and the Holy Spirit from the participation of the same nature: a pretext being seized (as the senselessness of them supposed) because the Old Law proclaims and celebrates one God, whom it also calls Father, and it would be an act of audacious impiety to confess the Son or the Spirit as God. Of these, there were those who labored from an ignorance of the Son and of the Spirit—as many as were corrupted by the Jewish and Hellenic mind—and others who, while possessing knowledge, yet possessed it falsely, as did Arius and those of Macedonian persuasion, who impiously numbered the Creator among the things created. ^B See then, since such an error was able to grow so far and wide, if, in addition, the dignity of the creation of the universe were defined as belonging solely to the Father, and furthermore the redemption and the judgment, what color or pretext of madness would not have been provided to the impious to dare to claim that the Son and the Holy Spirit either do not subsist at all, or, if they do subsist, to relegate them to the rank of creatures? For this reason, therefore, the Father, for a just cause, yields to the Son, both in the dignity of the creation from the beginning, and [the dignity] of the reformation, and also of the judgment. Yet, it does not follow that if the Father yielded to the Son in any of those things which we have just mentioned, that He immediately yielded in all things. For this would not have been the [work of] Providence that disposes all things wisely, since, ^C when no such occasion at all appeared for it, many of the impious distributed the two Testaments to opposing legislators. Wherefore, in a way that is utterly fitting and worthy of God, and with a dispensation full of wisdom, not only are formation and reformation attributed to the Son, but judgment as well (even though these things are common to the three persons), by way of excellence. Thus, therefore, the God-loving writer resolves the proposed question: to which also are added other matters, which do not have an utility equal to those mentioned above.

Meanwhile, he introduces into the present doubt another point worth investigating. ^D For he asks: Why is the Father placed before the Son, and then the Holy Spirit is ranked third? And he says that the divine nature, being ineffable and incomprehensible, is evidently not to be expressed or named by any reasoning or word for what it really is; but those to whom it is revealed through an ineffable dispensation, it is not revealed as it is, but as it is right and useful for those to whom it appears; and thus it casts the rays of its beauty upon those who gaze intently upon it, and allows them to partake of it as they are able. Therefore, to speak more profoundly and more theologically, whether one speaks of a Trinity or of a Monad,

^A or of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit, or of the Godhead, or of anything else, if we conceive or name that incomprehensible and ineffable nature, these things are not it, but are above these things. Wherefore the interpreter of ineffable things also cries out: *Ex parte cognoscimus, et ex parte prophetamus; cum autem venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est.* And his genuine disciple, the wise Dionysius, has left these same things witnessed in almost the same words, especially where he treats of the perfect and the One. Since, therefore, most of those things which are said about God do not signify what He is, but rather lead us by the hand, and, according to our capacity, lift our mind above ourselves through things and voices familiar to us: it is manifest that such is the reason why, in speaking, the Father is put in the first place, then the Son, and after him the Holy Spirit. Just as somewhere also the Lord Himself, instructing us, says to the disciples: *Euntes docete omnes gentes*, ^B baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; since the divine nature in itself is neither susceptible of being put first nor put second, but is placed above every notion of number and singularity. For number and unity are spoken of in regard to substance, but the divinity transcends the whole of substance. Just as, therefore, God knows all things that exist in time without time, and knows without division those things which are divisible, and without flux those that flow; so too all created nature knows in time that which exceeds time, and knows in a divided way that which cannot be divided, and that which is ineffable through a voice formed by names and words familiar to us.

After this he examines: For what reason is the Son assumed as middle in the articulation, while the Father and the Holy Spirit are the extremes? ^C He answers: Because God is called the balance of justice, in a certain proportion with our balance, therefore in the divine nature also, an order of this kind is devised, so that the Son, having occupied the middle place, might maintain exact equality with the extremes. For He Himself accomplished both the creation in the beginning and the subsequent restoration of our race. Moreover, even the example of the balance hints at the equal weight and equal power of the infinite-powered Trinity, with none of the three persons rising higher or inclining more toward the lower, but being balanced in an equal and peer and in no way differing glory and essence, and logically weighed. Whence also in created things equality is given, and justice is balanced with equal weights. These things, then, are woven together for him according to the twenty-second chapter of the sixth book, ^D and the twenty-third.

24, 25. After these things he says that a certain analogy is preserved

^A in the double Trinity, which is considered in the wings of the Seraphim. And indeed the middle corresponds to the Father, the extremes to the Son and to the Spirit; and that the trinitarian declaration of holiness, being in every way unchanged, hints at an unchanged [315 H.] state regarding the essence, power, and authority of the three hypostases. And it seals and joins together the coessential and unified nature of the three by the introduction and application of the one "Lord." He also signifies that the entire duality of the wings represents the knowledge which descends to us through them, even if it is ministered through immaterial spirits; it does not come down simple, but materialized, being adapted to composite beings from our own types and forms, as something composite; for all that is material is twofold, being composed of matter ^B and form. Furthermore, they say that the intellectual powers are composed of sanctification and essence, which the duality of the wings hints at; it is clear, however, that the knowledge of these, in relation to the perfect and super-simple knowledge which is reserved solely for the creative Trinity, being deficient and having imperfection, cannot be free from all duality. The very word "holy," proclaimed without any complexity and without any other intervening term, also suggests the simple, uncompounded, remote, and inviolable nature of the divine, in relation to every other nature and hypostasis. And this word "holy," of the holies, hints at that which is set above and is incomparable to every other named holiness; for even those who are called "holy" on account of the divine would be judged profane and unclean if compared to God, just as all kings are servants, and things that are, when compared to the One who truly is, are as things that are not. The word "holy," therefore, as has been said, proclaims concerning God that which is set apart, isolated, and transcendent above every other nature. ^C For "holy" here does not mean being clean from some stain passing through the body or soul—far from it. For where is the praise of God, or rather, how is it not an extreme insult to take as a form of praise the assertion that the divine is free from our passions? Rather, it hymnalizes that which is set apart, set above all other things, and withdrawn. Such a meaning of the word is customary in the divine Scripture, as in, "Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord,"-—that is to say, "set apart." And again in the book of Judges: "Thou shalt bear a son, and no iron shall come upon his head, because the ^D child is sanctified," and ten thousand other instances. Thus, clearly, is a place, or bread, or wine "sanctified," which we say are set apart for God and are not brought into any common use.

^A Furthermore, he attempts to produce belief in the fact that immaterial powers bring heavenly things to those of us who are material, by introducing that pair of tongs 57 which one of the Seraphim, being sent to the prophet, brought, carrying the coal. For it is clear that by corporal symbols that immaterial power was revealing to the prophet mysteries of certain incorporeal and intelligible things, as the Holy Scripture teaches us that, just as it is impossible without some intermediate thing—and not without thicker matter—to take up fire, so also it is impossible for any divine things to be apprehended without material symbols and other things adapted to those who would receive them. ^B There is also the pair of tongs, designating the matter, just as the coal denotes the divine nature. For "our God is a consuming fire" 58, and "the words of the Lord are refined by fire" 59. And the very voice of the tongs announces the touch, which clearly is seen only among sensible things. ^C Perhaps also it may be said not without plausibility that the dispensation of the Word for our sake is enigmatically prefigured by the aforementioned symbols; for the divine fire, with the thickness of our flesh [interposed], has conversed with us. It is possible, he says, that the tongs also signify the legal shadow, and the coal the New Testament; for indeed, through the legal symbols, the mysteries of the New Testament are revealed and delivered to those of sound mind. He adds, moreover, that when the Lord’s body is set forth upon the holy table, for this reason those who stand on either side of those performing the sacred rites wave fans made of wings over the dreadful mysteries presented there, bearing the symbols of the six-winged ones, so that they might not allow those being initiated to remain fixed upon the things seen, but, having lifted them with the eyes of the mind above all that which is joined with matter, might prepare them to ascend through the things which are seen to the invisible contemplation and that ineffable beauty. ^D For even when the Lord was present corporally, the Seraphim served Him with fear and trembling; and that agitation of the wings which the ministers utilize is a dim specimen of this fear and trembling. If, however, the Seraphim are declared to minister even to the Word now made flesh—so that they lose nothing of the service which was in heaven on account of His descent to earth—it is clear that the other order of incorporeal spirits also adored the Incarnate One with the worship of latria. For when those who hold the first rank among them do not alter their service, they immediately confirm that the same ministry is exhibited by those who follow them. For it is written that "angels also came and ministered to Him" 60. Now, the name of angel, as those skilled in divine things know, is common to all intellectual powers. And again, concerning the Firstborn being brought into the world, the holy...

^A Scripture speaks: *And let all the angels of God worship him*. Therefore, as soon as the priests approach the altar, the sacred cantor from the higher place cries out thus: *Holy God, holy mighty, holy immortal*. He asserts that this hymn is composed from the venerable and awesome profession of the Seraphim. He says, however, that he did not come to this concept of himself, but that a certain man from the Jewish people, imbued with the doctrine of truth, who had received from the Church the authority to teach others as well, a man wise in other respects and shining in his life, was the author of this doctrine for Job, when he explained from where that holy hymn was composed. He traces it, indeed, to the Cherubic ^B hymn and the XLth Psalm of the sacred cantors, from which that canticle was fashioned. For in this Psalm, God is celebrated as the mighty and the living: but the word *living* was changed into an equivalent term, *immortal*, while the word *mighty* was retained, and thus that sacred canticle was woven together. Moreover, the words "God" and "holy" are set forth to make a distinction from the images of idols, which are earthly, the works of human hands, and truly abominations. "Mighty" is used against the mute, immovable, and weak idols; "immortal," finally, because idols neither breathe nor have any power to effect anything, nor have they received even the slightest fragment of life. He recounts also that this same holy man taught him—just as it is reported by other writers—that the blessed ^C Proclus (who was prelate of Constantinople) was instructed in the construction of the aforementioned hymn through a revelation, when the angels were singing this sacred hymn, and he was the first to receive the initiation from them. With such a discussion, the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth chapters are closed.

26. In the twenty-sixth chapter he says that the number of the six days at the beginning of the creation of the world is a type of the knowledge of the Trinity, and that this is made manifest both from other things and from that: *Day to day uttereth speech, and night to night showeth knowledge*. Nay, also from that: *In the head of the book it is written of me*: to those who had at least attained to perceiving in those six initial days that there was nothing to be understood of those things which appeared. For the head and beginning of the book, that is, of all divine Scripture, is the work of the six days, in which the creation of the world was perfected, from the magnitude and beauty of which the Creator Himself is acknowledged and praised. He asserts, however, that these same six days refer to the image of the Trinity and contribute to the knowledge of the mystery, no less than the symbolic and sacred account of the six wings of the Cherubim. These things certainly teach...

^A that the knowledge of the creative Trinity comes through material and composite things; and even further, that the threefold property of that simple and incomposite substance is enigmatically denoted by the material and composite. And hence, through the double Trinity, the knowledge of that Trinity which exceeds all simplicity is revealed.

Establishing faith in things seen, he says that the seventh day is a figure of that time in which there will be rest for us from bodily and heavier labors, as Paul also affirms elsewhere: "There remains a sabbatism for the people of God; for he who has entered into his rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from his own" (Heb. IV, 9). If the seventh day is a figure of the rest from our material works—when, according to the same divine Paul, "we shall exchange the imperfect for the perfect" (I Cor. XIII, 9) of knowledge—we have reasonably perceived the six-day work to be a figure of material knowledge, according to which God is known to us "in part and in enigmas."

To these things he adds the opinion of Gregory the Theologian (51), who says that the mystery of the Godhead is revealed to us up to three persons: "Moved from the Monad," he says, "on account of its riches, and surpassing the Dyad on account of matter and form, from which bodies [are made], but defined by the Triad on account of its perfection (for the first among numbers is the triad, which exceeds the composition of the binary), so that the Godhead is neither confined within narrow limits nor poured out into the infinite." He adds to this another cause why the Godhead has proceeded as far as the Trinity, and says: "Because alone among numbers the triad is the clearest figure of a scale. A scale produces equality, and at the same time signifies it. Whence, in numbers alone, the ternary occupies a middle place, equal and immutable between both extremes, so that in the three no composition at all is perceived," in which [considerations] the sixth book for this speculative man is completed.

^B

Book VII

In the seventh book, he discusses that the holy Scripture records three transitions of polities, which it also names "earthquakes." The first is the transition from the cult of idols to the legal order of the commonwealth, in which the Father alone is most manifestedly proclaimed, while the Son and the Spirit are indicated rather in symbols and enigmas. The second is the transition from this to the Gospel, in which the Son and the Holy Spirit are revealed more clearly. And the third is that final, more immaterial and more divine lot, in which the uniformity, indivisibility, and omnipotence of the Trinity, as far as created nature can attain, arrives at the ^C certain knowledge of men.

The divine David proclaims the first earthquake with these words: "The earth was moved at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob" (Psal. CXIII, 7). For he adds: "The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the works of the hands of men." ^D

And he joins the second in saying: "Bring unto the Lord, O ye kindreds of the nations, and enter into his courts," not however into the Jewish and sole court; for he immediately adds: "Let the whole earth be moved at his presence; tell it among the nations, that the Lord hath reigned." And again: "The Lord hath reigned, let the earth be glad, let many isles rejoice." Then: "Thy lightnings shone to the world; earth saw and was moved." And many such things are with him. Isaiah also says: "When he shall rise to shake the earth." And the divine Paul records both the second and the third earthquake when he invokes the words of the prophet Haggai: "Whose voice then moved the earth: but now he hath declared, saying, Yet once more I move not only the earth, but also heaven." And he points out that Gregory the Theologian also records these things. ^B

28, 29. But having spoken these things, he proceeds to inquire more profoundly: Why is the Father preached first? And the solution is, that the providence of God concerning us brought this about economically, striving by this most wise method to lead [men] away from the multitude of gods. For it would have been absurd and inordinate for one who wished to call [men] away from a multitude of gods to entrust the Trinity of the Godhead to souls who, for a long course of time, had looked with awe upon the multitude of gods. Especially since the notion of the Father, by a silent and mute suffrage as it were, confirmed that the Son and the Holy Spirit exist, and gathered together the knowledge of them, not by harming the weak, but by mystically delineating the foundations of piety. For the Father is altogether the Father of the Son, and the Spirit also might be called ^C of someone. The Father, therefore, offering no handle for a multitude of gods to anyone, could be preached to the multitude, especially since it was the custom both among the Hebrews and the Gentiles, and among men themselves, to call God Father; for by this custom the supernatural conjunction of the Son with the Father, and their co-existence and eternal relationship with each other, was shadowed over. However, we learned from the precious things among us to call God Father according to the human manner. For there is nothing among us more pleasant, or more honorable, or more venerable, than the paternal appellation, nor indeed anything more familiar or nearer to beneficence. For the father brings forth those who did not previously exist, ^D and nourishes them, and cares for the food of his children; which things, and even more so, according to the condition of the first cause, pertain to God, whence they pertain by participation also to the procreating Father, from which we were instructed to call God Father after the manner of the earth-born. But that we should call the divine Spirit or Son is not a principle that arises in us in this way. Nor does the numbering of these with the Father thus remove from those who have been eager to commit impiety the pretext [of polytheism],

as the proclamation of the Father alone by Himself. ^A Therefore, it was profitably and providently that the Father alone was clearly proclaimed through the Law and the Prophets, so that the preaching might offer no stumbling block to the simpler-minded, while yet introducing to those who are more contemplative the notion and confession of the Son. But if the Son had been proclaimed first, the wisdom of the Economy would not have unfolded in the same way; nor, indeed, if the all-holy and life-giving Spirit had been.

To this same providence and cognition there pertains the fact that the Father was not incarnate. For how indeed could it be tolerated, if, in place of the text, "You are my Son, this day I have begotten you," ^B He were to say to the incarnate One: "You are my Father, this day you have begotten me"? For what would the Jewish nation not have done in its madness, having found—in a thing so barely credible and so contrary to reason—a refuge for their daring, if the incarnate One had said: "I am the Father of God"? How, likewise, would this not appear a fable, if some voice from heaven were said to call the incarnate One: "This is my beloved Father, in whom I am well pleased"; or if He Himself were to say: "The Son has sent me, and He is greater than I," and all other things of the same kind? These same things could be said also regarding the holy Spirit. And yet, the holy Scripture speaks even more clearly concerning Him ^C than it does concerning the Son. For concerning the Son it says: "The right hand of the Lord has wrought power," and: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were established," and whatever else is of this kind; while in meaning it coincides and agrees with the significance of the Son, it does not depart from the variation in the word. But see the clarity and non-variation of the expression concerning the holy Spirit: "By the Spirit of His mouth is all their power," ^D "The Spirit of the Lord has filled the world," and: "Your good Spirit shall guide me in the straight path," and: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me," and: "The divine Spirit is that which made me," and: "You shall send forth Your Spirit, and they shall be created," and countless other things.

In this, too, you may observe the ineffable wisdom of God: that the Son is spoken of in theology with substitute terms, while the holy Spirit is called by His own proper name. For the term "Son," when uttered, introduces immediately an existant subsistent, which to those suffering from the disease of polytheism would have provided an occasion to run back to that very error which they were being taught to flee. The Spirit, however, even if He is likewise recognized by the pious as subsistent in Himself, can nevertheless be veiled among the multitude and the simpler-minded, as if He did not introduce another Person, and yet, even while being uttered, it strengthens the prerogative of the monarchy. For just as when it is said: "My spirit was vexed," it does not introduce two

^A persons, but retains the unity of the essence, so the Spirit of God was heard by the ancients in a cruder way, and as heard by us, it gave no scandal of polytheism. Therefore, the Spirit is spoken of explicitly in the Old Testament, but the Son is not; rather, He appears through certain names that are themselves unable to divide the unity of the hypostasis, such as: "Hand of God," "Arm," "Wisdom," "Power," "Right Hand," "Word," and others of that kind. For these, even in human nature, do not divide the unity into two, nor do they distinguish the person. But wherever the name of "Son" is brought in, since the Son, once mentioned, immediately denotes a difference of hypostases, as in that passage: "You are my Son," it brings this forward while veiling and covering it; for it adds: "Today I have begotten you," and: "Ask of me," ^B things which, being human and less fitting for the divine nature, covered and veiled the appellation of the Son. And the same applies to similar instances.

But why, pray, are Right Hand, and Word, and Power, and whatever others there may be, called [those] of the Father, but the Father is not called [that] of the Son? Is it because the Father is not from the Son, but the Son is from the Father? Furthermore, the hand, the arm, the wisdom, and the word are said to be of a man, whereas no one would say that the man belongs to the right hand, or to the wisdom, or to similar things; just as we do not say the tree belongs to the branch, but the branch to the tree. Also, the Holy Spirit is called the finger of God. But since the finger is said to be of the hand, it is aptly said to be of the Son as well, who is the Father's Right hand, and not only of the Father. But the inverse is not true, that the Son is [the Son] ^C of the Spirit; for the hand would not be called [the hand] of the finger. Nor, therefore, was it expedient for these reasons either to proclaim the Son or the Spirit instead of the Father from the beginning. For God was called the Father of men, as I just mentioned; but for God to be called our Son or Spirit would have been judged strictly absurd and by no means fitting. Wherefore, the Father, being proclaimed then, on account of the familiar use of the word, commonly signified and pointed to one person. If, [at that time], the Son or the Holy Spirit had been proclaimed, a duality of persons would have been immediately admitted; for whoever heard "Son" would immediately have referred it to the Father, and likewise the Spirit; for the mind would ask whose Spirit it was: [and] those whom the disease of many gods held in its grip would be rendered incurable by the very theology that was meant to save them. Add to what has already been said that it could not have come to pass that the person of the Father could be hidden by some clever method, just as the persons of the Son and of the Holy Spirit were. For the Spirit of God being called Right Hand, and Wisdom, and Power knows how to escape the wicked sound of polytheism; for it escapes the notice of the many that it implies a difference of persons. But if the Father of God were proclaimed, even if you were to take [the term] as referring to the One begotten, or to the One proceeding, ^D one would no longer be able to escape the distinct...

^A reality of the persons, nor could a remedy for those infected by the blot of idolatry be effectively applied in a similar way. Therefore, not even then—if the Father had been called the hand of the Son or of the Holy Spirit—could He have hidden Himself or concealed the duality of the persons; not to mention [saying] that no one could ever have supposed that what we have now recounted could even have been uttered at all, or judged to have any sense or character. Why, then, was the Trinity not proclaimed from the beginning? Because, just as a brilliant beam of light, while life-giving, is entirely injurious to those suffering from eye ailments if it comes all at once, so too was the theology of the Trinity harmful and destructive to those blinded by the worship of many gods. But these matters the God-loving writer treats at length in his seventh book in those three chapters which follow the twenty-sixth in order.

^B The thirtieth chapter proceeds to explain how the first "earthquake" served as a foundation for the second, and proved useful not only to those who lived under Moses by proclaiming God the Father, but also to those in the time of grace. For after He had brought it about that God was believed to be the Father of men, each of those who genuinely cleaved to God was deservedly called a son of God; and from this, a door and a way were opened for the economy of the incarnation. Hence, when the second earthquake proclaimed the Son—the term being already customary to use even of mere men—it did not so disturb the hearers, as their ears had been softened by the usage of the Old Testament, and they were no longer driven to madness by the word ^C as they would have been, had it not become familiar to them from the Old Testament. For just as, under the legal polity, the open proclamation of the Son or the Holy Spirit appeared harmful, for the reasons we have previously mentioned, to those who still bore the scars of the injury of polytheism, so too was it impossible for the Father or the Holy Spirit to be incarnated, shrouded, and given the power to lie hidden in the way it happened with the Son. For if, even when the title "Son" was common and well-worn by usage, they were still maddened to the point of rushing upon the Son Himself ^D after He had taken flesh, because He said He was the Son of God (which He was)—thrusting Him to a precipice, striking Him with blows, and finally hanging Him on a cross—what would they themselves and the disciples not have done, seeing the form of a servant, if the One who was incarnated had said, "I am the Father, or the Holy Spirit"? Thus, the entire economy was managed in a way worthy of God and above human speech and thought, and wrought the salvation of mankind.

However, the Word was not incarnated from the very beginning, owing to other reasons, and also because it was not proper to apply the greatest of medicines to the disease [suffering] patients immediately.

But further, because if the Word had been incarnated from the beginning, he would not only have provided the same benefit as he did upon arriving at the end, but he would also have been considered by idolaters as an encouragement to their error. For if, when the children of the Greeks were established ^A, they easily raised men subject to the same passions to the dignity of God, how would they not, knowing the Word appearing in the flesh and being praised as God, have drawn from there examples of the gods fabricated by them, and not most readily taunted those who were attempting to tear them away from this error, by saying that those very people who were reproaching them were also preaching and worshipping a man as God? For this reason, at the time when the Greeks were fabricating gods, the unity of the Father was also preached ^B. Therefore, it was necessary for those things first [arguesei, edei] to be abolished through the preaching which proclaimed only the Father; and then, once the error of inventing gods had been given over to oblivion, for the true God to be manifested in the flesh. Thus, indeed, is the reasoning concerning the incarnation of the Word at the end of the days. And just as that first earthquake, through contrary rationales, provided a medicine for the multitude of gods by concealing the distinction of the persons, so also in the last times, when the Jewish opinion, having been strengthened by law and time into one person, had put the multitude of gods to flight, the Son at that time, in a way becoming to God and with love for mankind, takes on flesh and gradually reveals the mystery of the Trinity.

^C [He] used humble words and concealed the ray of his divinity, but through his works he brought it about that the majesty of his omnipotent power shone forth, and through these same works it seemed to be proclaimed. And hence also, he says: *The words that I speak, I do not speak from myself; but the Father who abides in me, he does the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe for the sake of the works themselves* (John xiv, 10). He employed the humility of the words for two causes: first, indeed, to mitigate the effervescing envy of the Jews; second, however, also to express to us an example of humility by his own deed; and third, because the splendor of the words does not entirely ^D make the actions shine forth at once, when nevertheless the nature...

^A of his works, being of such exceeding and divine operation, lifts up with itself the humility of his words.

Furthermore, in this place he expounds the meaning of a certain evangelical saying: "What is easier to say: Thy sins are forgiven thee, or to say: Arise and walk?" He says that the first is easier, since that expression, "are forgiven," does not have a pronunciation of words as if it were being uttered from one’s own authority and command (for nothing prevents even one who is not the Lord of the forgiveness from announcing it), whereas "Arise and walk" depends entirely ^B upon a masterful command. Besides, "Arise and walk," bearing an irreproachable authority in the deeds themselves, also included the forgiveness. For he who bestowed the grace of walking was evidently also bestowing the forgiveness of the offenses on account of which he was held by the disease; for it is the way of a humane Master both to inflict the lash upon those who sin, and to deliver the one who has been struck both from the wound and from the sin itself. And knowing that the deed was confirming the forgiveness of the sins and demonstrating the mastery of the one forgiving, he adds: "But that ye may know that the Son of man ^C hath power on earth to forgive sins," et cetera. But it was necessary for the mystery of the incarnation of the Word to be covered as if by a shadow, both so that it might be more eagerly received by the hearers, and so that it might be hidden from the prince of darkness. For the God-bearing Ignatius says that three things were hidden from the prince of this world: the Virginity of Mary, the Conception of the Lord, and the Crucifixion of Christ. For the divine Paul also says concerning the princes of this world: "For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

Having said these things, he adds that the eternal and super-archic ^D Trinity is always and in the same way the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but it is above what we conceive or speak. For everything we say or think about God, we speak and think by analogy from the things and words that are among ourselves. But the all-holy Trinity is equal in honor and equal in power, managing all things for our salvation, and whatever we are able to theologize about it, it graciously bestows these things upon us and again approaches us. Therefore, in the beginning, as has been said, on account of polytheism, divine Scripture, condescending—not as the Trinity exists in nature or order, but as it is easily received by us—proclaims the Father clearly, then the Son at the second shaking, in which we also receive the knowledge of the Spirit, though not the perfect one; for this comes to pass in the age to come and in the final shaking, when the whole Trinity is manifested and revealed to us more clearly. For even if the [knowledge] of the Spirit...

is given to us, as the vessel of election testifies, we have not yet attained to the perfection of the spiritual state. For the very name of an "earnest" is indeed a token of the perfect gift, but it is not the gift itself. And in many places Scripture speaks of the Spirit as the earnest of the future inheritance and the first-fruits of eternal blessings, so that we receive the perfection of the Spirit after the redemption of the body.

Jam ^B when that which among men is called Father and Son is declared and known through the bond of marriage, for this reason the predictions ascribe the two earthquakes of the present life—the former to the Father, and the latter to the Son. Again, since the Holy Spirit transcends the density of bodies even as it exists among us, that higher and more illustrious life—which is the life of the resurrection (for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage)—rightly and fittingly pertains to the Spirit. But in that time of life during which fathers beget children, it was necessary that God the Father be acknowledged as preceding the Son in order, not because the Trinity requires any order (for where there is immutable equality, what order can there be?), but so that through that order, which is by its own inherent and wise disposition, children might be exhorted to honor their parents.

Also, the Holy Scripture, exalting the dignity of the Spirit, designates the whole Trinity by the name of Spirit. Such is the word: "God is Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." This also: "Every sin shall be forgiven unto men," but he who "blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven"—a passage understood of the whole Divinity, which matches the aforementioned purpose. This supernatural knowledge of the Deity in the Trinity, which is now "through a glass and in a riddle," is perfected for us in the future through the Spirit. For thus ^C this [third] movement refers to the Holy Spirit, just as of the two preceding it, one is referred to the Father and the other to the Son.

Moreover, the earthquake which is first in order is the last in dignity and in the magnitude of its utility. For it is manifest that grace is much greater and more useful than the [ancient] law. But the second is also less than the third, inasmuch as "now we see through a glass and in a riddle; but then face to face." Wherefore also, "When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." And consider, I pray you, the most wise and equitable balance of the divine Providence as it works. To those of old, the Father appeared to possess the preeminent dignity; again, under the new law, the Son appeared to some as less, but to many as equal; and the Holy Spirit appeared to many as less, but to a few as equal. ^D In order, therefore, that the inequality arising from human opinion might be reduced to equality, that first

^A earthquake, which was attributed to the Father, held a lesser dignity; the second, which was the Son's, held a greater one than that; and the third, that of the Holy Spirit, one more excellent than both. Thus you may clearly perceive how that which is inequality in human opinion, through the inequality of the three periods, has combined into a wonderful and stable equality, the majesty of the Trinity receiving, as it were, a certain splendor and illumination. That the order which is in the Trinity regards only the arrangement for the masses, and does not spring from that ineffable and supernatural nature, is taught by that mystic of hidden things, who received this instruction from God, so that he sometimes set the Son and the Spirit before the Father: "For there are diversities of gifts," he says, "but the same Spirit; and there are differences of administrations, and the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, and the same God." And writing also to the Galatians^B: "Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father." So that the fact that the names of the God-ruling Trinity—which transcends every order and every word—are sometimes placed before and sometimes after, does not maintain some natural sequence of order, but is arranged and varied for the salvation of the hearers. This, then, that glorious and burning lover of divine studies treated diligently in the thirty-first and thirty-second chapters.

33. In the following chapter he puts forward the causes for which the Old and New Testaments are interwoven with passages difficult to grasp and interpret, though the Old Testament has more of such difficulties, and the New less. And regarding the Mosaic writing indeed, he affirms that, since they were a type and shadow of good things to come, it was fitting to put forward both the words and the composition of the words in the type and shadow in such a way that obscurity might grow. Although these, in the double tablets of the law, offer also a double utility, in that they flash their own spiritual light inwardly to those who have ascended higher in mind, while they delight the duller sort with the shadowing of the letter. But the future goods—of which the knowledge of the Trinity is the head—were hidden for the causes which we have very often rendered: I mean, on account of the weakness of the hearers, and that the prince of darkness might be hidden, and thirdly, so that polytheism might be removed completely from the midst, with no pretext left for the wandering and more ignorant to fall into error from the Trinity being proclaimed clearly and without veiling. And the sacred Scriptures are like a gold-bearing earth, which does not offer tested gold and a gain greater than the labors to everyone nor to the ^C chance comer, but to those who mine them laboriously and scientifically. Just as, therefore,

^A he who handles fossil sand for ornament, or for the sake of play or jest, and exerts no effort to investigate what lies hidden beneath it, neither escapes ignorance nor the censure of negligence, so too he who clings only to the letter, without searching for the treasure hidden in it, or gathering the profit of the meanings in its depths, could not escape from ignorance or the accusation that follows those who are slothful. And yet, the very fact that the divine meanings are hidden testifies to their most precious and lofty nature, and instead pricks the souls with a desire for inquiry—those souls, that is, which set before their ease what is God-pleasing and laborious.

[628 R.] The wickedness ^B and rashness of the Jews regarding things which should not be ventured is also a cause of the obscurity in the Old Testament. For, in order that they might not excise and obliterate the testimonies of the Scriptures concerning Christ which have a manifest and clear meaning, for this reason these are brought forward cloaked in mystery. And thirdly, because the Jewish people, being dismissive and contemptuous of divine precepts, so that they might not learn clearly that all the things of the Law were to pass away, and to pass over into another polity—things which were held in honor and esteem among them—and from such clear knowledge be led even more toward contempt of the commandments (for why, one might say, should I cherish what will shortly be dissolved and for which there will be no use after a short time?), for this reason these things are covered with obscurity and difficulty of apprehension. For if, without any cause, they turned away from the commandments of God thousands of times, without knowing anything of their change, nor that they have an ^C imperfect character, nor that they are types and shadows of another polity, what would they not have done if they had learned clearly from the Scriptures themselves the resolution and replacement of the commands delivered to them? Moreover, the law of imparting instruction everywhere obtained that those who were recently being imbued with first elements should have the more perfect things concealed until the time of perfection, and that students should be prepared by introductory teachings for the understanding of the more perfect things. Beyond what has been said, we see that nature itself is thus governed and regulates its own works. For the first sowings and the seeds do not clearly show the perfect form in themselves, but bear the reasons for them hidden; for example, the grain is not an ear of corn, though it hides the reason for the ear within itself. ^D The same order of nature is recognized in other fruits and seeds also. Such a relationship, then, the Law also maintains with Grace; for what Grace perfects is possessed as a crop from the seed sown through the Law. For what reasons, therefore, the Mosaic legislation took on obscurity, has been said in a moderate way.

Now, that the law of Grace also is obscure and not manifest to everyone has as its cause the newness of the instruction of the hearers and the weakness of their mind. Whence also the vessel of election says: "I fed you with milk, not with solid food; for you were not yet able" (I Cor. III, 2). As

^A all food that is unsuitable is harmful to the one who partakes of it, so too knowledge, even if it proposes the most absolute truth, is unhelpful to the imperfect. For if the New Testament explains the mystery of piety more clearly than the Old, [nevertheless] since it also holds the character of a beginning and a seed, it reveals the perfect things not immediately to those being initiated into the life already being renewed, but according to progress. Furthermore, that one should not rashly and unphilosophically cast holy things to the dogs—that is, to those who oppose and bark against them—nor pearls before swine, whose life is the mire of pleasures, is a command from the Master that directs teaching. ^B Apart from what has been said, the sanctifying rite is called a mystery, and a mystery is not something common, nor is it easily accessible to the profane. Indeed, holy things are surrounded spiritually by the Seraphim and Cherubim, and materially by veils, wings, gates, and bars; so too, therefore, our holy Scripture ought to be veiled from profane men, so that holy things may not be insulted, but revealed to the initiated and the faithful. Moreover, since that which is easily acquired is not as highly valued as that which is gained by toil, it is reasonable that the holy Scripture hides its treasure from the slothful, while bestowing it upon those who labor. But also, all that is noble and virtue itself is attained and enjoyed through sweat, whereas vice is both easy and ready at hand for all. And that which is achieved with labor is desired more; but that which is obtained easily is discarded just as easily, and is closer to being despised than to being desired. ^C For this reason, Adam, who was deemed worthy of divine communion and other goods without struggles or labors, easily slipped away from what he enjoyed; and since he made a life free from pain and toil the cause of his downfall, the all-wise Physician cures the disease with contrary remedies, establishing the law that "in the sweat of your face" you shall eat your bodily bread, and providing a spiritual table for those whom spiritual love fills. But apart from what has been said, if the understanding of the contemplation according to Scripture were universal and without labor, where would be the rewards of those who keep vigil and strive for it? Or who would apply himself to its laboriousness, if those who touched upon it slothfully had the same portion? So that, because of the things said, it has appeared both just and useful that the meanings of Scripture were not set forth more plainly nor cast about unguardedly, nor laid open commonly to all, even to the unworthy. ^D Yet, regarding what has been said, no one among those who are lovers of labor and worthy of the grace of spiritual understanding would reproach the obscurity of Scripture

But why should the negligent and slothful ^A be vexed if they fail to grasp it? For if they judge the knowledge of divine things to be worthy of some labor, why do they not apply themselves to things they value? And if they think it is necessary for nothing in regard to virtue, why are they vexed, suffering no loss? Indeed, what injury could one who seeks to learn the meaning suffer from obscurity? For it is, it truly is not difficult for those who wish and seek to learn. For the labors of many holy men unfold and lay open the divine Oracles, and any who choose to apply themselves to these will not fail in their desire. But he who does not choose this, it is manifest that even if they were clearer than all things, he would not arrive at a knowledge of them.

That what has been said is true is made evident by those who do not even know the bare names of the apostolic epistles, nor even those of the prophets or other holy Books, whether they be ^B of the Old or of the New Law, and who are even unable to recite their list by voice. And yet, what is dark, what is obscure, and what is difficult about knowing a list of names? And what study does it require? Yet to those who do not wish to, these matters remain no less unknown than Scripture itself. Therefore, the obscurity of the words of God is not the cause of the people’s ignorance, but rather the carelessness and negligence of these people has caused even the clearest things to be unknown. Among them, as has been demonstrated, there is no difference between what is clear and what is obscure; whereas this obscurity, besides offering a sincere utility of its own, renders the studious wise and endowed with virtue.

Furthermore, he who desires the meaning of holy Scripture to be illuminated for him, if he is seeking human glory, is ^C justly driven away from the vestibule of divine wisdom; but if he seeks it for the sake of virtue and the reward from above, then in proportion to the labors and sweat with which it is pursued, so much an unshakable enjoyment of that reward results for the contestants. But this, too, belongs to the providence of that inexplicable wisdom. For God, removing at the beginning from our lot every cause for complaint, grants to us in paradise delights free from troubles; however, when it is proven by our own deeds that a life devoid of labor and misery is useless to humans, He has mingled the weight of labors and miseries into our life as if it were a remedy, setting this before us as a stadium and ^D a wrestling ground, which could procure for us great gain and many rewards. With these the author concludes the thirty-third chapter, and at the same time the seventh book.

*Book VIII*

The eighth book institutes a conflict regarding two things. The first comprises the solution to a certain difficulty, which contains a serious and not inelegant argument. He reports, moreover, that this difficulty arose from the construction of a certain line of reasoning, through which it is proved that God has a Son; and he attributes the author of this construction to Gregory of Nyssa. The argument states...

itself is as follows: Whoever acknowledges that God is not irrational, concedes that he possesses a Word, and that this Word is immortal, just as He who is immortal is immortal: but the immortal Word, besides Him whom we establish as the Son, can be nothing else. That argument ^A, therefore, which proves that it is necessary for God to have a Son, is of this nature. Next, he introduces an objection from a certain friend, whom he celebrates as most reverend. And the objection is, that nothing prevents the same things from being assumed regarding the Son and the Holy Spirit; for God is both of these. And thus the mystery, according to this line of argument, will proceed not merely into the Trinity, but into infinite persons. He attempts to refute this objection, which is indeed acute and complex, with various arguments, yet not (as far as I judge) with sufficient accuracy, although he sweats much in laboring in this matter, having brought forward no fewer than thirteen arguments. And for worshippers of piety, some of the things said there might not be inept, but they are such that they not only offer nothing to a contentious man that might propel him toward piety, but rather provide occasions for mockery. Someone however might say, using concise and not at all superfluous speech, against him who quarrels insolently with this ^B objection: If someone, having first posited the Father, then questions him as to whether He is endowed with reason or is irrational, and from that constructs that a Son must be added to the Father, the curiosity of this objection might perhaps have some appearance and strength. But if one omits this (for it is neither expedient, nor did the admirable Gregory put forward this argument in such a way), and puts forward the word "God" itself, which is the common and indivisible name of the three divine persons, and questions regarding this, either concerning the Word, or the generative power, or even, if you like, the vivifying power, here he will both establish the mystery of the Trinity, and will give no room to one who might wish to examine the construction itself with excessive curiosity. For where is it equal or even nearly similar to take one single hypostasis in place of the whole divinity, and to dispute contentiously about this same one regarding those things which could justly be theologized concerning the whole Godhead? For nothing prevents one who falls into such an absurdity from concluding from this, without any skill, by babbling: since you confess God in ^C the Trinity, it is also necessary for each of the Trinity to be multiplied into another Trinity. Against such ravings, I think no sensible refutation could be directed. However, the solution to this objection would be of this kind, or any others which advance along the same path. This, then, is the first chapter of the seventh book.

35. The second point he asks is: Since the Son and the Spirit proceed equally from the Father, why is the one called Son and the other Spirit, and why do both not keep the title of sonship, just as they do not keep the relation? When he has doubted in this way, he applies the solution, saying: Entirely does theology, from things known to us, [apply] a genuine and equal term regarding the divine ^D nature...

^A, through the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, [and] has submitted to us the ineffable and unnameable name of the Godhead, by means of familiar and life-long appellations. And since it is customary and appropriate in the case of sons among us to speak of generation, but in the case of the Spirit of procession (for "Spirit," he says, "going and not returning," and, "His Spirit shall go forth," and, "that the Spirit passed through Him and shall not subsist"), since therefore in the human race we adapt generation to the Son, but procession to the Spirit, we have been taught in a divine manner, by an analogous reasoning even in the case of the ineffable and supernatural nature, that the Son is begotten, but that the Spirit proceeds. For this reason, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, because even among us He is called the Spirit of each of these; but the Father or the Son is no longer called the Spirit of the Spirit, because not even among us is this the case. That the divine nature, by its own nature, is ineffable and inconceivable, every common perception acknowledges, and it is proclaimed in many places of the Holy Scriptures, and almost the entire choir of our wise Fathers bears witness to the same, whose words, since they are not at all doubtful, it is not necessary to point out. Jobius pursues these matters in the eighth book.

Book IX

In the ninth book, having prefaced a little, while he says that Joshua son of Nun asks the commander-in-chief: "Are you ours, or of our adversaries?" ^B Jobius argues that he was not seeking whether he was one of the sensible enemies, but whether he was one of the spiritual ones. For many things taught Joshua that he was neither from the ranks of those enemies, nor yet from his own army; for the suddenness of his appearance, ^C and the fact that none of the adversaries dared either to pass through the middle of the enemy camp or to come into the sight of the commander, and besides this, that he who had dared such things had done nothing hostile at all. Otherwise, it would not have been for the wisest of commanders not to know what sort of habit and equipment those of his own tribe had, and what sort the foreigner had. But Joshua indeed knew that the vision was one of the intellectual spirits, but he was seeking to learn whether that which appeared was from the enemies or from that army which was guarding Israel. Concerning this, therefore, he treats in the prologue.

After this he asks: How might both be conceded, both that we have attained a grace greater than the angelic dignity, and that we shall appear equal to the angels in the resurrection? ^D And the question is solved, first, that nothing prevents the same thing, according to one respect, from enjoying some slightly greater honor, but according to another, being of a lesser condition. For in so much as the Master, having assumed our body, joined it to Himself 46

^A and having brought it up above every Principality and Power, made it sit at the right hand of the Father, it is evident that our nature has been preferred to the angelic dignity. And in so much as the multiform wisdom of God, which He showed in Christ Jesus, was made known to the Principalities and Powers in the heavenly places through the Church—which is the people who have believed in Christ—in this also our race has carried off the prerogative. [329 II.] Thirdly, in that we have been honored by His munificence with the enjoyment of those things into which the angels long to look [k]. And in so much as both having fallen, both Adam and the angelic orders, He saved the nature of the former by assuming it, but not so the latter, it is evident from this that our nature has been deemed worthy of greater honor. But the fact that in the resurrection men will be as the angels [l] does not teach an equality of either race, but testifies to a similar manner of life; for then, just as the angels do not, so too will the human race have no need of marriage or bodily intercourse. Moreover, nothing prevents men from being equal to the angels [m], or even if they were slightly diminished in comparison to them, of enjoying a greater gift, since they, having obtained a nature devoid of body, and having fallen from their own glory and dignity, remain in their subsequent condition without repentance; whereas we, having received a lower condition than theirs from our very origin (due to the conjunction with the body), and then having transgressed the commandment, do not love to remain in that fall, but with repentance hasten to recover the lot of those who fell, and indeed, through the superabundance of ^C [divine] munificence, we obtain heaven and the kingdom of God for an inheritance instead of paradise.

Having thus resolved the question, he proceeds to the exposition of the parable [n] which introduces the younger and prodigal son and the elder one together with the father, and arranges their history as follows. In the elder son, he says, the angelic powers are represented (for they surpass our race in dignity both in time and in manner), while in the prodigal, the human race is represented, and in the father, the Creator and Master of all. [637] But the elder son's vexation at the recall and gracious reception of the younger does not represent this as being the mind or disposition of the angelic powers; rather, the parable fashions these things in this way to demonstrate the magnitude of the benefit, so that because the prodigal son experienced such great kindness after such great profligacy, even the order of angels itself—if envy could fall into their nature—would have been indignant and would not have considered such a magnitude of benevolence tolerable. For how otherwise would it be consistent for them to rejoice over one sinner who repents [o], and yet again to envy what the most loving Father embraces?

^A For such is the character of the composition of the parables; for they do not embrace only things that have occurred or are to occur, but also those which anyone might interweave to represent more vividly their capacity to strike, or to delight, or to follow in sequence, or simply to present what is opportune and useful. And he refers the parable of the hundred sheep to both angels and human nature. He also makes mention of the other explanations of the parable of the prodigal son, but he prefers the aforementioned one to all of them, striving to polish it with a varied display of ingenuity. He treats this in his thirty-seventh chapter with great care.

30. Furthermore, he asks in the thirty-eighth chapter: How is ^B Christ said to have died for all, when the incarnation of the Redeemer happened many ages after the infinite progeny of men had been born and again been destroyed by death? And the problem is dissolved thus: that in many places the holy Scripture testifies how, just as redemption through Christ came to those then living, so it also came to those who were in the underworld. For the prince of the apostles says: *For to this end Christ died and rose, that he might be lord both of the dead and of the living.* And again: *He went and preached to the spirits in prison, that they might be judged indeed in the flesh, but live in the Spirit*. That is, that the faithless, who through their infidelity had remained sinners, might be condemned, as having become entirely flesh and cut off from the Spirit; while as many as had believed in Christ (who was justice itself) even in Hades might enjoy spiritual joy. ^C He asserts, therefore, that the phrase *that they might be judged in the flesh* is said concerning the unbelievers, and *live in the Spirit* concerning the believers. He brings forward the discourse as providing a representation as if of some one thing; because even if the condition of the believers and the unbelievers is not the same, they are nonetheless gathered together into one order of the underworld. And thus we can also say that the same body is sickly and healthy, according to one part of itself and another. Moreover, just as we say that someone is judged and punished by fire, so also does holy Scripture say: *That they might be judged in the flesh*. For it is the most grievous punishment (especially at the time of the resurrection) when the righteous are enjoying that pleasure ^D which surpasses all things human, and live in the Spirit, that the multitude of sinners then in the naked flesh, and without any spiritual grace, are spending and wasting their life for eternity. Yet it is also possible to give another explanation to this saying. For the divine Paul says: *If any man’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, but so as through fire. And the fire will test each one’s work, whatever it is*. And so that no one might think that just as the sin is to be burned up and consumed, so too is the sinner, he adds this: that if the works burn and disappear, not

^A so will the worker of sin himself disappear; but he shall be saved—that is to say, he shall remain, being preserved in everlasting punishment. And in order that the word "saved" might not seem to those in heresy to imply that, once the sin is consumed, each of the sinners will become part of the choir of the just and of those who are saved, with the punishment ceasing and the enjoyment being proposed as common to all, he adds after "he shall be saved" words that manifestly overthrow their reasoning: "yet so as by fire," meaning that he is not set free from the torment by means of fire. Similar, therefore, is that which has been said regarding those in Hades who did not believe in Christ. For he wishes the expression "That they might be judged according to the flesh," ^B and what follows, to mean that they are judged indeed with such a judgment as flesh is naturally subject to, but that they live nevertheless—not as corruptible flesh, dissolvable by the weight of punishments, but, being preserved deathless by the power of the divine Spirit, they pass their endless and laborious life in incorruptible and eternal punishment. But this explanation of the passage is, as it were, a digression; the goal was to show that the common Lord and Savior suffered death not only for the living, but also for those descended from Adam who died long ago, and that through Him salvation is both preached and bestowed upon all. But by those things through which the premise is constructed, the first of the arguments is articulated.

In the second place, he argues thus: If the resurrection brings about rewards and crowns for virtue, and the cross ^C brings about the resurrection, and without it it is impossible for anyone to attain any good things, it is clear that for the salvation of us all Christ delivered Himself to death. Having said these things, he discourses upon and unfolds the Lord’s voice which says, "I came not to call the just, but sinners to repentance." And he says that the Savior did not utter this dividing the multitude of men into sinners and just. For such a thought conflicts both with sacred Scripture and with the very nature of things. For, first of all, the common Savior was calling all—not some and not others—and granting them to enjoy salvation, but was also making His teaching common. And the fact that the Gospel is preached in the whole world overthrows the distinction of sinners from the just. And Paul says, ^D "We are all one in Christ." And the parable of the net proclaims the common condition of those captured for the catch; for it does not hunt some and not pursue others, but it nets all that fall into it alike. And the sheet shown to Peter depicts the common calling of all, not merely of the unclean, while excluding the clean no longer. And, "Christ is the end of the law."

^A unto righteousness to every one that believeth, and not to sinners only. But he himself says again, in another place, that he is to preach to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Again, how shall it not seem to contradict that [saying]: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel"? For in that the sheep were lost, they were in every way closer to righteousness and virtue than the Samaritans and the Gentiles. And how does he [Christ] testify that the children must first be filled, and that the remains [of the bread] were to be left for the little dogs? Moreover, when he instructs his disciples, he says: "Into whatsoever city or village ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy" (not who is a sinner), "and there abide till ye go thence." This the seller of purple, not being ignorant of, said to those about Barnabas and Paul: ^B "If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there." And that saying [must be interpreted] concerning the apostles, who were the standards of virtue: "Unto you it is given to know the mysteries, but to them it is not given," that is, clearly, to the unworthy.

To all these things here said, how then will that saying not appear in clear opposition, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners," if one were to take the judgment of this passage by dividing mankind into a rank of sinners and righteous? Furthermore, if he has not called the righteous, and the sinners do not come (for "every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light," and "An evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth evil things," and "How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not!")—if, I say, he did not call the righteous, and the sinners preferred to recoil rather than approach (as we have said), to whom then was the Gospel preached?

And observe this for me now from the very facts themselves. It was necessary for the Mother of God to be on earth: he called her who in all virtues surpassed all others. It was necessary for him, who was without a father, to name a father and brothers upon the earth: he did not deem it fit to choose these from among robbers and harlots, but from those who shone in righteousness. Such was Joseph, and such were his children. ^C But as for James, the height of virtue to which he ascended, and the reputation he provided for himself among the Jewish people, his very name proclaims. For the people, because of the greatness of his virtue and his boldness in dealing with God, called him Oblias, that is, the bulwark and protection of the people. Again, it was necessary for the Forerunner to precede the Word: and he who was greater than the prophets, and indeed than all men, precedes him. It was necessary that a witness be offered to testify to his glory. Therefore Simeon and Anna... ^D

the precursor of the Word; he runs before the greater of the prophets and of all men. ^A He had to set forth a witness to his glory; he called Symeon and Anna. He had to take on disciples; he appoints the most excellent and chosen men. "For I know," he says, "whom I have chosen." He had to raise the dead—[the Bethanian] Lazarus—but only from a pious house, in which Martha and Mary [dwelt], whom the divine decree declared to have chosen the good part. It was necessary that some be called from among the Gentiles; Cornelius is called as the first fruits of the others. Yet, how great he was in virtue even before baptism, the Sacred Scriptures proclaim. Two thieves are fixed to a cross; but why does one who is grateful open paradise to himself, [while] the blasphemer, on the contrary, carrying the indelible scars of his sin, is sent away from his punishment into damnation? ^B

Thus, in every nation, family, and condition of life, we see that those who live more according to virtue are the ones who are called, both in running to and in following the one who calls, rather than those who are given over to contrary pursuits. But if you were to name some harlot or publican to me, know that even from that number and rank, those who approached the calling Savior were those who still retained a small spark of human nobility, and so were deservedly held and called worthy, in comparison with the multitude who did not approach God. Where, then, is the calling of sinners, when we see that among harlots, publicans, and thieves, only these were the ones to embrace this divine calling—they who, though they were in such an abyss of evils, nevertheless excelled others in their zeal for better things? ^C Nor is it right to pass over this: the company of the virgins was ten in number; yet only the five wise ones enjoy the bridal chamber, while the five foolish ones are driven away. And he who had not brought a wedding garment, while the others remained in their own place, is alone cast out. But who are those taken up by the angels on the last day of judgment to meet the Lord? Is it not manifest that they were the righteous, and not these sinners? What then is the meaning of: "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners"? It means that I have come to call the entire human race—which has fallen short of accurate and perfect righteousness—and to lead them back to that state from which they slipped. ^D For although our race has differences among itself regarding their way of life—some having lived in more extreme ways, others in more tolerable ways—yet no one is without sin. The very phrasing of the saying itself, pronounced without the relative article, accords with this understanding. For if he had said, "I have not come to call the righteous, but the sinners," perhaps the assumption might have had room to think that he had called the sinners, but no longer the righteous. But the absolute nature of the expression, having proceeded without reference, shows that the assumption is entirely erroneous. This is also confirmed by that divine Paul, when he says: "Christ came into this world to save sinners," for

^A I am the first. And again, having previously accused, "Jews and Greeks all to be under sin," as it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." And the statement, "The Lord came to seek and to save that which was lost," refers clearly to the whole human race; which is also understood as the complement of the hundred rational sheep, just like the drachma that was lost, being one of the ten drachmas. For indeed death reigned over this [race], according to the same divine Paul, not over some and not over others, but from Adam until Moses, among whom were Abel and Enos and the rest of the choir of righteous men and prophets under the law. Again, the same herald of charity and ardent lover says: "To those who love God, all things work together for good, to those who are called according to his purpose." Then: "Whom he foreknew, he also predestinated; and whom he predestinated, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified, and glorified." Also: "He chose us before the foundation of the world," not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles; and, "The election obtained it, but the rest were hardened." And, "Who is the Savior of all men, especially of them that believe." And it would be ^B an endless task to recount such things by number. The diligent author, having examined these things more zealously, brings the thirty-eighth chapter to an end.

39. As for the dissension which appears to be in the Holy Scriptures, he investigates and examines it curiously. For he doubts how the Lord was not able to work miracles in his own country, "because of their unbelief," and again, when answering those who complained that the disciples did not cast out the demon, he attributed the cause to the accusers, saying: "Because of your unbelief." Yet his genuine disciple Paul says the contrary: "For signs," he says, "are for the unbelieving, not for them that believe." And he resolves the difficulty, saying that in a general and common sense, signs are wrought for the sake of the unbelieving, the wonder-worker providing for their leading into a saving persuasion; yet they are offered to those who, on their part, provide the aptitude for obedience and receive into themselves the benefit from them. But all those among the unbelievers ^C whom we know to be voluntarily blind to supernatural works, to them the offering of signs is unprovided and vain. So that it is both consistent and harmonious that signs are offered to unbelievers, yet also that they should not be offered to them: offered, because through them they might gain salvation; and not offered, because ^D

they sink into the depths of destruction; out of which, while others gather great profit, they themselves, acting wickedly, are dragged down to worse things. But these matters are in this chapter.

^B In what follows, entering upon a God-loving investigation, he provides the causes: Why, for the sake of fallen angels, did the [Dei Filius] not become an angel, in the manner that for the sake of men He became a man? He offers this as the primary cause: since, of all rational nature, man alone was bound to flesh and matter (and matter is prone to a fall), and being, moreover, composed of two warring natures—each of which compels the living creature to its own condition—the animal is prone to be torn apart and divided (for the [Sapientia enim carnis, ut divinus ait Paulus, legi Dei non est subjecta]), therefore, man alone among those endowed with reason, being bound in such bodily fetters and then offering from himself repentance for his fall, justly requires more or greater providence to rise up, and enjoys more abundantly the divine help. And what from the beginning he showed us to be ^C inferior to the other rational creatures, this the just Judge declared to have brought us the cause of great salvation, who bound us indeed to the flesh to repress pride, through which even the orders of angels, having fallen headlong into an irreparable lapse, had an incurable transgression, but then He also converted that appointed bond of matter into an occasion of infinite beneficence. For what greater or more excellent beneficence could there be, than to see our nature seated at the right hand of God the Father, and to contemplate the once rebellious nature as now obedient, peaceful, and reconciled to the Parent of all? This, after having assumed it, the Word accomplished through His offering of the first-fruits. And leaving this peace to me in the world through the apostles, as if by way of a pledge, He seems to ^D say: [Pacem meam do vobis (g). Et: Non quomodo mundus dat pacem (r).] To which his genuine disciple also concurs: [Pax, inquit, Dei, quæ exsuperat omnem sensum, custodiat corda vestra (s).] And: Justificati ex fide pacem habemus ad Deum, per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum per quem et accessum habuimus (t). For it is not indeed this peace born of war that we should understand here as being among us; but rather that which each one has with himself, and through this with the Giver of this and the provider of our undisturbable salvation, which also guards our hearts and exceeds all sense, and which the world cannot give. Therefore, that saying does not conflict with this: [Non veni mittere pacem, sed gladium (u).] For he says: I did not come to bring the worldly peace. Again: [Eritis odio omnibus (v)], and many such things. For the affinity of the pious with God provoked the impious to hatred, envy, and fear. He came, therefore,

the Savior, to bring peace, which makes what belongs to the body to be in accord with the soul, and subjects the inferior to the dictates of the superior. ^A And He granted this, having united our factious nature with the peace-bestowing Godhead. This is what the divine Paul also teaches, saying: *For what was impossible for the law, in which it was weak through the flesh, God, having sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.* So that it is fitting to say of this: *Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.* Therefore, the holy Scripture proclaims the economy of the Word toward us to be the justice, judgment, and mercy of God, inasmuch as by the just judgment of God, of all rational creatures, those only who were fashioned from clay were deemed worthy of such honor and ineffable mercy. ^B It indicated the same also through Hosea, saying: *I will betroth thee unto me in justice, in mercy, and in compassions.* And ten thousand other holy utterances proclaim that on account of the bonds of the flesh and its sympathies, the human race was deemed worthy of compassion; and in exchange for this matter that was joined to us, the Lord recompensed us with His incarnation and the goods that flow from it. For *He remembered,* says David, *that we are dust, and that we are flesh*; and Job: *Remember that Thou hast fashioned me as clay.*

^C One might say that a second cause of such forethought for the human race is that the Creator did not provide nature with perfection from the beginning for the human race, as He did for the angels, but willed that it should at length attain perfection through gradual progress; and for this reason He bestows perfection as a reward for virtue and as a recompense for the trials endured. And indeed, He set man in the middle between death and immortality, having made him lord of the choice of either. But the angels, and whatever else is rational and incorporeal, secured the perfection that is in nature from the very moment of their coming into being. ^D Hence David also says: *Mighty in strength, doing His word,* that is: those who are not weighed down or hindered by any material things, as we are, and so they fulfill what is commanded quickly and without any hesitation. It was therefore consistent with the ineffable and just judgment of God, that for those who were imperfect, He should supply what was lacking at whatever time it was pleasing, but that He should not provide the same care for those whom He had established as perfect from the beginning; but that He should judge with equity, since it was right that the latter should be content with the things they themselves occupied, while the needs of those who had once been deprived were to be fulfilled. Indeed, as many of the angels as fell, did not fall because matter tore them away, nor because flesh dragged them down, but because their own will chose what was base, and they were brought down from their own glory. But we, while the flesh disturbs and the passions from it...

provides inciting feelings, fall into most sins not entirely willingly, but yet not entirely against our will. For the demon race, even if it delights in blood and rejoices in passions through the flesh, was not granted a nature that performs any of these things on its own, nor does it have an inherent cause of its own that drags it toward what is forbidden. For it neither wields a sword with its right hand for slaughter, nor, by consorting with an adulteress, does it violate human marriages; nor does anger urge it to commit murder to avenge a received injury, nor does it have a love for bodily union. But we, often incited by the weight of matter, do things the choice of which we detest, and giving way for even a short time to the intensity of sobriety, we are again led away captive by our passions. Hence Paul also cried out: "I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, there dwells no good; for to will is present with me," and what follows; and again, ^B "For the good that I will, I do not; but the evil I do not will, that I practice." Justly then, he says, though we sin more than the demons, we obtain forgiveness, but they do not.

Furthermore, he says, even if one were to grant that our Savior and Redeemer took on the nature of angels for their salvation, no profit would accrue to them from that union. For necessity would not move them, any more than it does humans, from the fall to a better state; but a most excellent way of life and an inclination toward God, which is unblemished faith, produces a life that is pleasing and approved by God, for which the incarnate Word became our guide and teacher. Yet neither of these was of service for the instruction and learning of the angelic race (for they knew both clearly), as they had knowledge of these things from their very creation. For the incorporeal, unlike us, has no need of such things. For even the demons recognized the Son of God present in the flesh, and proclaimed Him Judge, and Punisher, and Lord. And the ^C holy Scripture bears witness, saying, "You believe that there is one God; both the demons believe, and tremble"; and elsewhere, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know: but who are you?" From which it is clear that the demon race not only knew God and feared and revered Him, but also knew His genuine attendants.

He also adds this as a cause of the ineffable love for mankind. He opens to us heaven, which was previously inaccessible and invisible; which is also, I think, called the kingdom of heaven. For according to the divine Paul, "He inaugurated for us a new and living way"; and, "He did not enter into holy places made with hands, but into heaven itself, to appear now before the face of God for us."

He therefore revealed this way to us, and the proof of justice for us to be guided by it was that, having learned, we might desire it, and having desired it, we might prepare ourselves for the object of our desire. To the angels, however, heaven had been known and witnessed from the beginning, and they had been led into its knowledge. Furthermore, by being united to us, He grants to us through His own resurrection both resurrection and incorruptibility and immortality; yet the incorporeal race, being immortal, has no need of such grace. Moreover, for our sake He sojourned in the flesh and liberated us from the tyranny of the devil by which we were held, triumphing over the principalities and powers on the cross, and granting us the power to tread upon all the strength of the enemy. ^B But if He had assumed the nature of those beings, whom would He have destroyed? Over whom would He have triumphed? What kind of power would He have given to whom, and against whom?

Furthermore, beside what has been said, for us who have fallen there was no remaining model that retained the same nature intact; but for the fallen demons, uncounted hosts of incorporeal beings stand immutably, and they are set forth as a model of godly conduct and an example of unwavering rectitude. Therefore, God our Lord, who provides for and does all things wisely and beyond what can be expressed, and the Word of God, since human nature had fallen, not only assumes this nature out of the infinite power of His love for men, but also through it bestows upon all who are of the same nature correction, incorruption, and those other countless good things, whereas He judges it neither just nor useful to assume the nature of the demon. Thus, then, the chapter following this is also concluded by the speculative and diligent writer. ^C

42. He investigates why for us the change both from the worse to the better and from the better to the worse is so frequent, varied, and almost continuous, whereas for the incorporeal beings, for some the good is immutable, and for others the vice. He provides the cause: that in us, while the inclination of the soul struggles in either direction because of the flux and vacillation of the underlying matter, that matter sometimes overcomes reason, and at other times is overcome by it; in those beings, however, to whom matter can in no way creep in, reason alone holds sway over all actions. Therefore, regarding those who have fallen to the worse of their own accord and truly in the manner of those who are governed by nothing, their fall becomes incurable, since they have nothing within themselves stronger that could call back the self-governing mind—once it has flowed of itself toward what is worse—to that which is better; just as, conversely, for those who have willingly and autonomously received the love of the good, ^D that desire is preserved, untroubled by any flux and undisturbed by any impulse. We, however, are as it were dual beings; and therefore, even when led by repentance for things wrongly committed, we do not accuse ourselves as though we were strangers.

^A For when two are fighting, and each in turn is both victorious and vanquished, how could there be an immutability of the fall in these? And not only in actions that earn praise or censure does change and reflux possess dominion in us without resistance, but also in our other operations and affections. For we are able neither to sit nor to stand forever, since immediately the relaxation of power following the nature of each excess [consequent upon them] follows. And this is clear, as it happens because of the difference and battle of the elements within us. For the heat impels toward the upper region, while the earthy element is heavy and drags us down toward the earth. And in the case of other such things, likewise. This has no place in incorporeal nature, but just as in us there is variety and multiformity, so in them there is established simplicity and uniformity. ^B Whence, to the simple and uniform there follows that which is hard to alter and hard to change, but change and alteration attend the composite. That, however, not all immutability at all is seen to be absent even from incorporeal substances (for the demonic [nature] was changed from better to worse), one might perhaps excuse that by saying that the incorporeal nature itself made a beginning of turning and alteration. For it too was brought into being from non-existence, even if it had its existence free from the intermixture of matter. And perhaps, because of this one turn, they themselves also displayed one change of mind toward evil. Having said these things, this godly man, ^C given over to sacred studies, lashes out at Origen’s impious, foolish, and highly wandering trifles concerning demons and angels and men and stars and the rest of the created things that fall under sight, and finally puts an end to the forty-second chapter.

43. In the following chapter he seeks these two things: first, why the holy and intelligible powers, as far at least as they have come to our knowledge and the oracles have instructed us, preserve the good immutable from beginning to end, just as the evil ones preserve their wickedness; and why, when many men were about to be punished, the Savior said the fire was prepared for the devil and his angels. And to the first question, on both sides—that is, ^D of the angelic and the demonic—he blames their simplicity and uncompounded and uniform nature, and because of this, the fact that there exists in them an inability to accept the opposite modes of change. To the second question he responds that the fire is written as having been prepared for the devil and his angels, but not for men, because in us a change from worse to better is not despaired of, whereas they, by their own will, have provided the result that was past hope. The aforementioned saying of the Savior at once...

^A serves for the solution of the second doubt, and at the same time for another argument, by which it is shown that the nature of demons cannot be changed from evil.

After these things, in the 44th chapter, it is investigated for what reason those who approach the laver of regeneration renounce Satan and his works, but not likewise wicked men and their deeds. Yet, if we renounce not the nature of demons but their works as evil, it ought to follow that we should not renounce the nature of men either, but rather renounce their deeds. For that the deeds of demons are greater and more grievous, and beyond our nature, no one could rightly offer as a solution to the doubt. On the contrary, this very thing increases the difficulty, if indeed one prays to avoid ^B those things which he is neither born to do, nor is led to perform. Thus he structures the problem, and then subjoins its solution. First, he argues that demons cannot repent—which is indeed far more grievous and abominable than other much greater sins, which are committed by men who can be led back to the way through repentance. Second, that from the beginning the Savior, the guardian of our security, set an immovable boundary of enmity between the devil and us, so that, by maintaining an immortal hatred against him within ourselves, we might no longer receive the deception offered by him ^C—just as each of those who are baptized, as if confessing that they had been deceived until then along with their first parent, Adam, rightly and wisely renounce the friendship of the deceiver henceforth. Concerning men, however, even if they live wickedly, the Lord commanded nothing of the sort; nay rather, He commanded the very opposite. And among six hundred other things of this kind that I could mention here, one is most necessary: that the rule of the Church, looking out for mutual charity (which the wicked demon tries to tear apart in a thousand ways), commands that it be built up and maintained by every way and wisdom. Wherefore, He does not permit us to hold even the wicked themselves, although they are our neighbors, as detestable or to be hated: but on the contrary, as far as it is possible to do so, He commands us to love and cherish them. ^D Nay, He even commands us to think of purging and healing their malice, and to bring them to ourselves, but in no way to repel them. And Paul also warns of this among other things, who became to the Jews as a Jew, and to the Greeks as a Greek, and to those without law as one without law, and to all things to all men, that he might by all means save some. But if the company of the just had abstained from sinners from the beginning until now, who would have been saved? Or how would the world have been caught in the net, if, while sinners confer no utility upon one another, the good—

^A or those who are in the act of frantic rage and casting off [the faith], were rejected? But furthermore, the sheet seen by Peter, and being full of both clean and unclean animals, signified rather the association and reception of the evil, not their rejection. But if, while the Word of God everywhere ordains love and proclaims it to be greater than every other virtue, we nevertheless behave towards one another in a hostile manner, and each of us, on account of envy, maligns his neighbor even if he were excellent, and sometimes even lays traps for him—[657 R.] if we had seized upon such a pretext, I mean that of renouncing the wicked by law and covenant—I, from what I observe of human nature, say that [we would treat] even our benefactors [in the same way]; since those who trouble us at all, even if they do so justly, we would absolutely hate and shun in an extraordinary manner, inasmuch as we would be putting forward the divine commandment as a covering for our envious judgment and for the great shame we feel for the things over which we hate one another, using it as an advocate; and we would not abandon our enmity toward such people even until the hour of death, even though the goodness of the Master, which ordains our laws, commands that the sun must not set upon our wrath, and declares that we must be imitators of His Father, being kind to all even to those who hate us, "who makes His rain fall upon the just and the unjust, and makes His sun rise upon both parties alike." ^B And indeed, if it had been decreed for the wicked among men that those who are being enlightened should renounce them, then a wife would have taken this pretext to separate from her husband, and the husband from his wife, a son from his father, a daughter from her mother, and a slave from his master; for each of these would have fortified himself with his own proper covenant with God, and would have established this as an inviolable law, confirmed by his own will. For these reasons, therefore, we are commanded to flee from, loathe, and renounce the devil alone, the demons, and their works, and to profess and pray that we might remain entirely free from their mindset, because of their unswerving and immutable inclination toward evil and because they are never satiated by their sins. But toward one another, whether the sin be committed against a man or against God, we ought not to pass a swift and abrupt sentence—for this is destructive to our innate affection for one another, because of the matter which is bound up with the human race, and because for those who have fallen, the hope of restoration still remains. ^C Therefore, even if someone says, "I am not like one of the demons," if he speaks the truth, he is not to be rejected; but he who acts arrogantly like the Pharisee and boasts that he is not like the tax collector is condemned; for it is neither certain whether he who stands will not fall, nor whether he who has fallen will not rise again. Apart from what has been said, one must also consider that, since the nature of the demons is incapable of repentance, while we come to baptism through repentance, ^D by which [alt-version omitted] those who are immutable—

^A should we not first renounce the very thing that is immutable? And if he who asks forgiveness for his former wickedness and impiety, how could he exclude from mercy those who are human and subject to the same passions, once he has received it himself through repentance?

But these things are covered also in the current chapter, in which he says that in the resurrection we shall live the angelic life, no longer leaning toward any evil, but being made firm in the immutable state, not having acquired this by nature, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, just as the order of angels themselves. For this reason he also says, “However, the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John,” ^B meaning in the abundance of the Spirit toward immutability. Since the common Creator and Lord called John the greatest among those born of women in the gifts of the Spirit, showing the difference between the state of the future life and the present one, he says that, even if the Forerunner is now greater in spiritual gifts, yet such will be the change of present things for the better in the future life, and such will be the abundance of the Spirit, that even he who is lesser there shall receive more magnificent gifts than those who have received greater ones here. For he who lived here, even if he had attained something greater, did not yet possess immutability; but he who is lesser in the kingdom of heaven, whoever he may be, once he has received goodness, carries it unstably and forever, subject in no way to the infirmity of change.

^C In the forty-fifth chapter, he comes to the question of how those two, the first-created in each species, the devil and Adam, fell immediately upon their creation. That Adam is the first-created of all those of his own kind is doubtful to no one. But that the devil also fell as a leading commander is read in Job: “This is the beginning of the creation of the Lord, made to be mocked by His angels.” And the prophet: “How did Lucifer fall, who rose in the morning?” For Lucifer, as he is closer in some motion than the other stars, is the first herald of the sun. The Scripture indicates somewhat obscurely that this ^D proportion once applied to the devil with respect to the “Sun” of spiritual justice. But as for the matter at hand: even if it is not at all pleasant, he says, that the first-born of both creations, both the intelligible and that which shares in the senses, should have fallen into ruin, yet their fall is put forward as a universally useful example for all their descendants, crying out like a herald that they should take great care of their own safety, lest they fall into the same evils as those men, or be held captive by the love of such things through which one might fall into destruction; but rather, that they should in every way and with all their might detest disobedience and the sin that is committed through it, since even the very foundations and roots of creation itself did not deem themselves worthy of the necessary

attention, and so they fell so shamefully. ^A For this reason, our wise Molder and Provider, for the discipline of all who were to come after, immediately and in a way before the proper time, inflicts punishment upon each of the two, condemning the one to mortality, and changing the place of the other; and in exchange for the life above and in blessedness, He gives back darkness and Tartarus, mixing a medicine appropriate to each ailment. For Adam, having supposed he would become a god and that his eyes would be opened and he would be enriched with the knowledge of both good and evil, was shown to be mortal and susceptible to many passions, and he brought upon himself a nature largely blinded and full of all kinds of ignorance; while he who placed his ^B throne in heaven in his fantasy and imagined himself like the Most High was justly cast beneath the earth and entered the caverns of Tartarus, and for them, there came to be insatiability and a falling away from the proportion of the good in which they had existed. For it is of the wise physician's art to apply contrary remedies to contrary conditions. ^C But with these reflections, the reader learned in sacred things and lover of contemplation concludes the forty-fifth chapter.

Codex CCXXIII

Diodorus, Bishop of Tarsus, Contra Fatum

The work of Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, *Against Fate* was read, in eight books and fifty-three chapters. In these books the writer is indeed pious, and he does not swerve into that sect regarding the Son of God which the impious madness of Nestorius tore asunder. Yet in his arguments, while he sometimes employs the truth skillfully and aptly in refuting those who maintain the doctrine of fate, there are other times when he carries on the struggle only with the appearance of the matter, and without clearly or accurately examining the dogma of his opponents. Whence, often, he would seem to be contending not with those against whom he has undertaken the struggle, but rather with some others. Nevertheless, a fair-minded judge would not blame him for those points where he may not always succeed, but rather, for the zeal with which he strives to overthrow the error of fate, and for the fact that in not a few instances he succeeds against it, he is justly acknowledged as worthy of honor and gratitude. ^D Yet, in the fifty-first chapter, while he is shaking down the opinion of fate, he also stitches together the opinion of Bardisanes. This, however, is something half-mad and half-cut: for he releases the soul from fate and from what is called astrology, preserving for it the self-same

^A authority, but he subjects to its governance the body and what pertains to the body—I mean wealth and poverty, sickness and life, and death, and whatever is not in our power—and all these things he dogmatizes are the works of fate. The studious and earnest Diodorus clearly and valiantly refutes this man, declaring that while in word he proclaims only half of error, in reality he confirms the whole; for most bodily affections are accustomed to occur and be perfected through the soul’s operation and cooperation, and yes, indeed, through sympathy.

In the first book, therefore, after reporting other things about fate, and whence that error derived the audacity to speak so freely, he rises up against the opinion which asserts that this whole [universe] lacks an origin (for he thinks that from this opinion—which makes the world unoriginated—the fiction of fate is also constructed ^B); and with this he brings the first book to an end, without desisting from the same struggle in the second.

Wherefore, also in the tenth chapter, demonstrating that both the world itself and the man dwelling in it have an origin, he proceeds to the argument in this way. Since, he says, each of the individual men is corruptible and originated, it is manifest that their nature also is brought to a similar dissolution, enduring only in the successions to one another; for that which lacks an origin does not possess its incorruptibility in successions, but rather in itself and according to its own ^C subsistence. That the world also has an origin is manifest from that which is in it—fire, water, earth, and air; for these too are both corrupted and generated by part and by each one. That the earth, again, is corruptible is evident from the fact that both man and other animals, when they perish, are converted into earth. For that these are corrupted into it is a proof that they received their origin from it, when it had been corrupted in the beginning. Add to this that even now most animals are generated and come to be from this, when it is turned and corrupted. But that which is turned, even if its corruption were not manifest, how could it lack an origin? For every change is a falling away ^D of that which pre-existed according to nature, and especially of its unoriginated state. If man were unoriginated, how could he be disposed by genesis, that is, by fate? For that which lacks an origin has no need of anything external for its own subsistence.

If, however, someone, compelled by the evidence of things, should perhaps confess that things on earth, in the sea, and in the air are indeed originated, but should claim that the genesis which accomplishes these things is a certain continuous course, and works and effectuates all the aforementioned things eternally as something un-

-^Abegotten, it carries its own refutation. For it is impossible that these things should be both generated and not eternal, and yet admit of an eternal dispensation. For one may protect and manage the things that exist; but those that do not exist, one first creates, and only then governs and manages: one does not first manage and govern things that are not, and then create them.

He says that the elements are generated and that they obviously have need of one another; for that which is unbegotten is also immutable and needs nothing. But the elements have need of one another, both in order to be preserved and in order to preserve the living beings within them. And all the world is generated, since a composition is seen in it, being made up of heaven and earth and the things in their midst. For if, just as an eye or head is to the rest of the body, so the heaven is the most precious of the cosmic elements, yet nonetheless, just like a head and eye, even though they are most precious, they suffer in the same way as the rest of the body; so too, heaven, being in the same condition as earth and water and air and all the corruptible things within it, has not escaped our common corruption. ^B But indeed, how are the things managed by genesis unbegotten? Or how did things which did not need others for their existence come to have need of a foreign management, and one that is not good? And what will they possess better than being managed, if by having an origin—the state of being unbegotten—it is present to them? And yet every alteration of an unbegotten nature is a corruption and an abandonment of an unoriginate substance. And how did those unbegotten things endure being managed by genesis, not for the purpose of preserving their unbegotten state, but to be kept safe? But if anyone should call their alteration unbegotten, he introduces the most impossible thing of all; for alteration is an affection that has a beginning, and no one would call an alteration unoriginate. And to speak concisely, the all-wise alteration of the elements and of the living beings and bodies derived from them, and the varied difference of shapes and colors and other qualities, all but utters a voice, urging us not to think the world unbegotten or spontaneous, nor yet devoid of providence, but ^C clearly to know and indubitably to understand that it is God who bestows upon all these things both existence and well-being.

Perhaps, however, they will say that the other things are generated, but that only the nature and position of the stars is unbegotten. But first, whose genesis was it before these things were generated? Or who created the elements? Or was there no other, but they created themselves? An unbegotten thing could not sustain an arbitrary change; for that which is according to nature is dear to all, and most especially to the unbegotten nature; nor would it suffer change from another against its will; for that which is superior is free from violence, and there is nothing superior to an unbegotten substance. And how could things that in no way exist, come to be without a creator? And how, by depriving God of this power, do they attribute to them the ability to bring themselves forth from non-existence? ^D Verum illud forsitan dicent; cætera quidem ortum habere omnia, sed solam stellarum sive naturam, sive positionem ortu carere. At primo : cujusnam sit genesis illa, priusquam aliquid factum esset? Quis vero elementa creasset? an alius nemo, sed hæc ipsa? Verum quod ortu caret, nunquam sponte sua mutationem ullam subeat. Nam cum omnibus illud gratum esse solet, quod secundum ejus naturam est, tum illi maxime naturæ, quæ ortu careat. Neque vero hæc, si nolit, ab alio quopiam pati res ulla possit. Quoniam quod validius est, vi nulla [minore] cogi queat, et sane nihil illa

^A power; but if they were strong enough to produce themselves, why did they not also provide for their own administration, instead of needing the care of another? For it is far more difficult for a thing to come into being than it is for a thing that has come into being to remain in existence. How is it then that they could bring about the more difficult task, and yet not be able to achieve the easier one without receiving it from another? And how can "genesis" administer the earth and air and the other things which it did not create? For it is the work of the creator to also administer, because he alone knows the nature of his own creations, and how they might be held together, and from where they might be confounded and destroyed. But if they should dare to attribute the creation of the elements also to fate, let them tell us which star, upon entering its zodiacal sign, fashioned the earth, and which one fashioned the air, or the fire, or the water? They cannot say, even if they should try to pursue their babbling further. Moreover, if "genesis" does not create only once, but often performs the same acts after some cycles of time, let them show us the many wholes of earths that have often been generated, and many of waters, and many of seas, from which they might also constitute infinite worlds. But this is impossible; therefore, it is also impossible that "genesis" has even once brought forth any one of the elements. ^B If, falling from one madness into another, they should say that the elements were created by God, but are administered by "genesis"—which is supposedly itself unbegotten, just as the Divine is—they reveal their own folly even more clearly. For why would the Divine subject the creation that is his own to an unordered "genesis"? Is it because he himself lacks the wisdom to provide for it? Who could endure such blasphemy, or such senselessness, that the Divine has the power to create, but lacks the foresight that even that unordered "genesis" has snatched for itself? And an infinite swarm of other absurdities follows. But if, just as God created the creatures out of his goodness, he also provides for them, then this fiction about fate, or "genesis," is certainly superfluous and foolish. How, moreover, can the heaven be unbegotten, since it is a part of the composite world which it encompasses on all sides? For that which has no birth can neither encompass anything nor be the place of other things, but is free from such conditionings and from all passions. ^C But even from the very hypothesis they devise, it is clear that neither the heaven nor the stars are unbegotten. For they speak of some of them as beneficent and others as maleficent, and they assign houses of some to others, in which, while they are staying, some become more malignant, or indeed change from benign to malignant, while others, on the contrary, either fall from being evil into beneficence, or are rendered more benign than they were before. How then can the unpassioned, or the simple, or the uncompounded, or the unbegotten, or myriad other attributes be conceived of these things? In which points the second argument of his is also completed, along with its ten chapters, which ended at the twentieth, having taken their beginning from the tenth. ^D

^A In the third book, he attempts, through the twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, and twenty-fourth chapters, to refute those who assume the heavens to be spherical, yet the refutations do not proceed through arguments that possess strength. He does not wish to concede a spherical shape to the heavens, because he believes that fate is introduced by such a position. And yet, no demonstration proves this; for if the heavens are spherical, it does not at all follow that the concept of fate is necessarily established. The twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth chapters propose pious arguments, but they do not exhibit great strength for the refutation of the hypothesis at hand. In the twenty-seventh, having set forth opinions concerning the heavens and the stars within them—which he claims belong to the astrologers—he neither presents these honestly, nor does he show that the attacks made against them proceed through demonstrative or even probable reasoning. The twenty-eighth chapter, rising up against the same opinions, falls into the same failure of proof, though it does not miss the mark of what is probable. In the twenty-ninth, he explains how, by partitioning the entire earth into twelve equal parts corresponding to the twelve signs of the zodiac, they refer the segments of the earth and those who dwell in them specifically to each of the signs, with the parts of the earth being situated below, and each of the signs of the zodiac being situated above, riding like a cloud upon the assigned portion of the earth. For since, according to them, the celestial pole is carried in constant motion, and the twelve signs of the zodiac are carried along with it, it is impossible for the same sign to occupy the same segment of the earth always; rather, through the course of the pole, each sign will pass through all the segments of the earth, ^B being at one time in the east, at another in the west, and at another in the south, being rotated with the celestial motion, and not standing fixed upon any one point. From which it follows that each of the zodiacal signs no less occupies the assigned segment of the earth than a foreign one. Furthermore, if, according to them, the earth possesses the ratio of a center and a point with respect to the heavens, and any given sign of the zodiac is many times larger than a segment of the earth in both breadth and length, how is it possible for each of the twelve portions of the earth to share an equal measure with each of the zodiacal signs and to extend along with it, and on this account to have a kinship with it? And this is even more difficult given that the whole earth is not inhabited, but for the most part, owing to the excess of heat and cold, is uninhabitable by men, and from the beginning is entirely distinct. ^C But if they do not say that the signs possess the segments of the earth topically, nor by bodily size according to their breadth, ^D but rather that each of the zodiacal signs naturally delights in each part of the earth, then to no purpose…

^A at all do they distribute the regions of the earth according to the figures of the signs: for instance, when they assign to the claws or pincers of Cancer certain projecting and extended parts beyond the mass of the whole, and to the horns and feet of Taurus again other locations, which approach more closely to the natural form of these creatures.

Furthermore, ^B if individual signs of the zodiacal band naturally delight in individual sections of the earth, in such a way that they harm and mar its parts with earthquakes, wars, fire-ravages, or barrenness whenever some malignant star appears, and conversely assist them greatly with agriculture, building, and fertility when some benign star is brought to them, how is it that there are found certain places which, on account of excessive cold or heat, remain perpetually desert? Neither has any beneficent star, having removed that solitude, brought a temperate climate to these, nor has any malignant sign, ascending to habitable places, reduced them to sheer solitude and desolation? For even if there have occurred here at some time floods, or hail, or lightning strikes, by which the things in those places perished, yet again these places have been restored to their natural fertility, whereas to those deserts no auspicious star has ever yet been of any use. But nature, of course, prevails, both in the solitudes and everywhere else, that same nature implanted in all things by God, so that neither does rain fall where it is not wont to do so by nature, nor do those places that have been accustomed to suffer terrible cold ever lack snows.

But if any, perhaps, take this immutable order in the nature of places as an indication and argument that individual zodiacal signs delight in individual parts of the earth, surely the changes of fertility into sterility and the movements of the earth itself sufficiently prove that this argument is weak. For although the temperate climate of blessed places has very often perished, the uninhabitable harshness of the solitudes has never been changed. These, therefore, are the things which are treated in the thirtieth chapter in such a way that they possess some consistency and probability, whereas the rest are partly stated in the preceding chapters, and partly seem to be constructed only for outer appearance.

^D But in the thirty-first chapter, dismantling the opinion of the astrologers, he asks: Why do they call the zodiacal signs the houses of the wandering stars? Is it because these are fixed in the heavens? Then as many stars as remain fixed in the same way would equally be their houses. Not so; but [they say instead] that it is because the wandering stars are in motion. But then, for the same reason, all the fixed houses would also be theirs. But is it because each of the fixed stars delights in a wandering star? Why, then, are the wandering stars not also houses of the zodiacal signs? And why are not the beneficent and the maleficent wandering stars, and those zodiacal signs that are mutually familiar to one another, houses of one another in turn? If, however, [they say it is] because the signs are composed of many stars, while each of the wandering stars is of a single kind; then presently also any one of the fixed stars...

should be to form houses for the planets; for one might find many configurations, if one wished to search for them, among the other fixed stars as well. But if it is because only the zodiacal signs cooperate with the planets in producing effects, why do the planets not also, in turn, act as houses for the zodiacal signs, cooperating with them? And if it is because they have the power to make the influences of the zodiacal signs either void or effective, ^A how is it that they are not also one another’s houses, possessing the power to bring both authority and dissolution to each other’s effects, as they claim? And how is it that only the zodiacal signs cooperate with the planets? Is the rest of the choir of fixed stars in vain? And how is it that they claim the planets are capable of doing good and evil at all? Is it because they move? In that case, none of the twelve zodiacal signs will do either good or evil; nor will any other of the fixed stars. But if they say it is because the planets travel through them, then the zones and the regions of the air, through which they also travel, would have much more power to do good and evil; for they do not touch the heaven in which the planets are, as they say, for they are much lower. And why is it that the moon undergoes waxing and waning, and while they introduce forward motions, stations, and retrogradations for the other planets, they allow the sun and moon to be free from such retrograde wandering? And if Saturn, which appears small, is yet—as they say—the largest of the planets because it travels along a higher orbit, why is the sun larger than the moon, running as it does in the fourth zone from it? For it ought to appear much smaller than the moon. Thus, everything that the labors of astrology sustain is false and fabricated. Thus, then, is the thirty-first chapter concluded.

The thirty-second chapter brings forward nothing true for the refutation, nor even anything that has the appearance of the observable facts; but however pious this man appears in his reasonings here, he is just as feeble—at least as far as his refutation of the error is concerned. And the thirty-third chapter is of the same character as far as the efficacy of its form is concerned; for the objections he brings forward there to refute the heavens being spherical ^B would be common objections against those who posit that it is hemispherical, or in the shape of a vault, or any other form of that nature. And there the third book ends.

In the fourth book, however, and in the thirty-fourth, thirty-fifth, and thirty-sixth chapters, he treats of these matters: from the difference that exists between the habitable and the uninhabitable parts of the world, and between the climates (climata) themselves, he undertakes to refute genesis, or fate. For he says, what motion of the stars causes one part [of the earth] to be uninhabitable due to extreme cold, and another due to extreme heat, and one part to be inhabited only with difficulty because it is forever melting from heat, and another to be likewise inhabited with difficulty, as it is constantly snow-covered and ^C rendered savage by the cruelty of the cold? And why does it not change for them... ^D

by that perpetual genesis which produces so many and such constant mutations in other climates? It is certain, therefore, that it is neither the course of the planets, nor the arrangement of the celestial signs, but the single nature of the sun, determined by distance and the situation of places, that produces the varieties we have already mentioned. ^A Furthermore, why, when the rest of the earth everywhere is irrigated by rains, does the Nile alone, at certain times of the year, overflow in Egypt and, pouring itself into it, render it fertile with crops? And why does the interior region of the Thebaid, which they call the Oasis, have neither river nor any rain to irrigate it, but is gladdened only by the flow of springs, which exist through the great labor of the inhabitants, and not of their own accord, nor by rains falling into the earth and returning again through its veins, as happens among us? And the sign of this fact is that places which lie at the foot of mountains send forth such springs as to produce even entire rivers, no less limpid than sweet, while meanwhile the most open fields, which are farther from the mountains and are for the most part flat, either have no water at all, or only a small amount, and that heavy and salty, not flowing but found in pits, and not even sufficient to quench thirst during the whole summer. ^B If all things are governed by genesis, how does it happen that when a planet enters a humid sign familiar to it, rain does not fill all the earth at once, but in one place there is an abundance of water, and in another, at the very same time and not at any great distance, the land is blighted by the lack of rain? And yet you may see that even the opposite can sometimes happen in these same places—unless, perhaps, each people has some peculiar genesis, as they themselves imagine, or some sign arising locally in a singular way overturns those communal effects of genesis, and the power of universal genesis is vain if a particular genesis does not coincide with it. Therefore, the geneses of individual parts of the earth move the air, and a humid sign, together with its kindred planet, will be able to accomplish nothing if a particular fate resists it. ^C For what reason, moreover, is potable water rarer in some places, while in others it abounds, and furthermore, the inhabitants enjoy hot waters produced spontaneously? The greatest mountains of Sicily, Gaul, Lycia, and other not insignificant nations send forth an eternal fire in such a way that it is visible at night even to those situated at a distance, and it is neither diminished by frosts, nor extinguished by rains, nor does it harm the earth's produce; while the peoples living adjacent to these same mountains suffer nothing of the sort, nor can they demonstrate what has given rise to such a great difference in places, airs, waters, fields, and mountains. For if the twelve signs of the zodiac and the seven planets [are what produce these things], why then do they not operate the same way everywhere? Furthermore, you might find poor and rich, rulers and subjects, the sick and the healthy, and the rest [of such conditions] everywhere. How then is it that rains and droughts, and what we have mentioned, are not everywhere the same? As for a vein of gold or silver, or copper, or tin, or lead, or the other metals...

metallic things, from what kind of genesis is it found to have originated? Therefore, we piously confess ^A that God bestowed this great variety, and countless others, upon the earth primarily for our sake; but that on account of this, Fate fashions artisans so that they might use materials, neither we would say, nor would any other person of sound mind. Moreover, if each climate remains, having been adorned with countless differences from one another from the foundation of the world, and has stood unmoved from eternity ^B by the transformations of genesis—being unharmed in no way (for neither have the tidal movements of the sea ceased, nor the unquenchable springs of fire, nor the differences of animals in each climate, nor the immutability of ten thousand other diversities)—since such things are exempt from the genesis they claim, how can they say that nothing is produced, or remains, or is governed without it?

I would gladly ask them: what movement of the course gave the beginning for being to herbs, plants, and animals? For ^C it is necessary that the hour of the genesis of each of these be apparent, when they were fashioned from the earth: that the genesis of the palm tree was one thing, and that of the fig tree another; and that there was one peculiar to the dog, and another to the camel; and not the same for the horse, the dove, men, and the others likewise. If, then, they are able to say why genesis does not also fashion the aforementioned from the earth now, let them teach us; for the cycle of genesis will not achieve something just once, but does the same thing often. Why ^D is it that the beginning—if they were not fashioned from the earth—would not have been brought forth, yet after this none of them would sprout from the earth, but is instead preserved through the mutual succession of one another? Or how is it that genesis, while not possessing the most sovereign and necessary thing—I mean the fashioning of all things from the earth—is sovereign in sustaining, accomplishing, and destroying?

Furthermore, if they say that they predict events that will happen to each of those things being born from that accurate knowledge of the hour—I mean to a man, and to an ox, and to a bird, and to a ship, and to a city, and to all things for which they claim to have foreknowledge—how is it that, not knowing the times of the geneses of the earth and sea and air, they profess to tell of the affections, and motions, and changes of these? And how would one not distrust them, and how would one not turn away from their immoderate arrogance? For they will never be able to provide the peculiar geneses for all things individually. Indeed, it is also a consequence that there are as many differences of geneses as there are kinds of those things being produced. For how could the same genesis of the course produce a dog and a lion, and a man and a horse, things that differ so much from one another?

And how could they fashion such an infinite multitude of times? ^A Indeed they will not be able to, not even if tens of thousands of days made up their year. But the falsity of their position becomes most clearly exposed if one contemplates those things that are constantly producing offspring, such as dogs, or pigs, or birds, and by no means least, those things that produce the most offspring. For pigs and fish and dogs consume the time of the day in producing many offspring, and the fish, I imagine, consumes many days, since the multitude of its eggs is transformed in order into myriads of fish, which are then born one by one. In these days, it is absolutely impossible that winged creatures, or land animals, or swimming creatures in the entire world, and in the whole sea, and in rivers and lakes, should not be being produced.

But one might learn more precisely what I am saying from what follows: ^B When the mild spring arrives, every herb blossoms and brings forth, and every species of tree does the same, and many kinds of winged creatures and land animals and sea creatures, by mixing, conceive. And infinite kinds, at the very same time, bring their seeds to completion, and infinite trees bring forth their fruits, not in one single moment, but over many days, while some are still blossoming on the same plant, others are growing, and others are ripening. Nor is the proportion of birth and conception different in all animals, which under no circumstances can share the same moment of genesis. Add to this that some carry their offspring in the womb for an entire year, some for ten months, some for forty days, and there is a multitude of other differences found here. What star, therefore, entering into what sign, determines the measured time of gestation for each kind? And why, when the period of life is not equal in the genus of animals, do they nevertheless have an equal gestation in the womb? Let them say, ^C therefore, whether these things also proceed from genesis, so that they may be laughed at even more. But if they avoid their disgrace by silence, how do they say that nothing happens without genesis? And I do not yet mention the differences of those being born. For some are like their parents, as men and horses and lions, but others are not so, as bears and wasps and bees and whatever comes forth from eggs. And some are born even without combination, while others absolutely not without it. And who could enumerate the innumerable differences in these, not only of animals, but also of plants and herbs and similar things? The causes of all of which it is just to seek from the fathers of fate, ^D if indeed, according to their opinion, all things depend on genesis, both the fact of existing and the mode by which they exist, and being carried in the womb, and suffering and acting and dying. Or was the matter of genesis only scrutinized by them for the sake of wretched men, so that the most beautiful of all things among us, the power of free will, might be ignored, and God not be thanked for the things with which He has benefited the race? But how again could genesis, while assigning untimely…

additions, create four-headed fetuses, or give more hands and feet than nature requires, while yet denying feet to reptiles—which would be useful to them for walking—or eyes to moles, and to others those things which they need? Furthermore, it does not allow those to whom it gave untimely additions to live (for all those of monstrous form are short-lived), and by its addition it destroys the whole nature of these. Yet for those from whom it has taken away what belongs to nature—whether feet, or hands, or eyes—it permits them to live in such a way that they have no consolation for their mutilated body. If one therefore refers these things to fate, he becomes the author of absurdity no less than that other. But if he recognizes it as a failing of nature, he removes every occasion for accusing the Divinity. For just as He has established that it should run according to certain laws of its own, so also He has allowed it to be carried along, according to a certain useful reason, in accordance with the condition of mortals. Therefore, nature, keeping its own measure, produces nothing affected by any injury; but if, having fallen into excess or deficiency, into terror or violent passions, it permits anything against the laws imposed upon it, it soon preserves no integrity even in those that are begotten. Furthermore, why do some living creatures not nourish their offspring, as vultures, crows, and almost all fish do among the winged and swimming creatures? Yet some even nourish their parents in their old age; likewise others even nourish an illegitimate fetus substituted for their own, while most do not. But who could recount the innumerable differences of all things? These, then, are contained in the fourth book.

BOOK FIVE

In the fifth book, he pursues other matters, and before those, he similarly discusses fate. If that which parents beget, he says, happens from genesis, it is manifest that the genesis of children, and its hour, was defined by the genesis of the parents. If not, then the genesis of those who beget does not perfect those who are begotten, and the long discourse about fate is in vain. For if the fact that a fetus is sown, is carried, and comes forth perfect or imperfect is a work of the genesis of the begetters, it is clear that their hour also proceeds from the same. If not this, then neither that. But if geneses are from other geneses, and the very moment of birth proceeds from the fate of those who have begotten, it would be easy for the lovers of this to take one genesis of a man, and from it tell the genesis of parents, and grandfathers, and even of ancestors, and the passions and actions of the soul and body of all these, and their shapes, colors, and sizes. And not only this, but also from this same one genesis it would be permitted to predict who are to be generated, and all future kinship in order, with its actions, and whatever else has been mentioned above: so that no one, neither of the past nor the future, would be unknown—a claim they themselves would mock. But you

^A should also consider this: The genesis of children, they say, makes parents miserable, even if happiness were awarded to them by their own genesis. Sometimes the genesis of children even takes away and overcomes the genesis of the parents, since it is an effect of the latter. But the genesis of parents also makes children miserable, and that of brothers makes brothers so, and likewise for spouses, even if one has a different genesis and was born from elsewhere. And, most wretched of all, genesis forces parents to feel hatred instead of love toward their children; it makes children hostile to their parents, brothers to one another, and spouses to their partners, inciting them to slaughter and arming nature against itself, throwing the entire kinship into turmoil. ^B And while one man laments because his son is ill or his wife or husband has died, he is ignorant of the fact that the genesis of each one of these individuals both compelled them to love one another and brought misery upon them, surrounding them with sharp pains at the deaths of their loved ones. Could any man of sense endure such things? Again, they monstrously assert that slaves are made miserable by the genesis of their masters, as are herds of goats, oxen, and other animals by the genesis of their owner, and likewise entire armies by the genesis of a king. Thus, ^C countless geneses are overturned by that single genesis of one man, whether toward better or worse things, even though those who are fortunate or unfortunate because of that one man's genesis possess myriad differences in ages, years, months, days, hours, fathers, mothers, and relatives, and at times even undergo the same manner of death, whether by the sword, or by the sea, or by some similar occurrence. Yet I myself find that the genesis of servants or soldiers, as they themselves might say, overcomes that of their master or king; for they sometimes deceive or poison their masters, or attack them in other ways, as their own genesis arms them against their lords. And if they should claim that it is the householder’s genesis that gives the slaves the power to do evil, they only increase the difficulty. For the genesis of masters does not just force ^D the subordinates to be defeated, but even to overcome the one whose genesis it is; and that genesis of the king stirs up against him even those who would never have dared such things according to their own fate. For it is utterly impossible that the geneses of so many soldiers at once should conspire in the death of their master. Likewise, the genesis of a city holds sway over the entire multitude of its inhabitants. For when it fails, it removes from the scene the infinite varieties of ages, distinguished by many geneses, destroying them in one and the same ruin. In the same way, air—when corrupted—and a flood often destroy an entire nation; for it is impossible that so many geneses should have one form of death. But if someone, even though it is impossible, were to concede that the genesis of a city or of the air is overturned by the genesis of the multitude, then one of two things must be granted: either to invalidate the one by the many, or for this one to follow the many, separating itself from its own proper operation.

^A One could say the same thing regarding woods, grasses, herbs, and all animals. If, therefore, the births of things are overturned by one another, and those of children destroy those of their parents, and those of the latter in turn destroy those of the former, and in like manner those of spouses among themselves, and the birth of houses destroys those who inhabit them, or vice-versa, the birth of the inhabitants destroys those of the houses, and simply, as has been said before, from every side birth overturns and dissolves itself. But thus indeed he discourses in the forty-second chapter. ^B

In the forty-third chapter, he says that we also confess that things on earth, in the air, and in the sea are subject to various actions and affections, whether natural or voluntary; but that fatal necessity is the cause of all these things, this we both turn away from and refute, beginning from inanimate things and proceeding to brute animals, and from thence passing on to rational humans. For example, the magnet stone snatches up iron, and it does not only snatch it up, but also imparts to it the power to snatch up another, and that one again another, up to many. Dittany, again, is an herb hostile to venomous animals; for even when they merely perceive its scent, it transforms them into an inactive state. And among herbs, the aglaophotis alone shines at night as much as its name signifies, and it flees a person who desires to take it, and this while it is rooted, moving in an unnatural manner from place to place; for in those which are rooted, there does not exist ^C transitive motion. The chameleon, an animal, changes its body into many colors, and it appears such as that which is near and lying beside it, whether it be wood or stone or anything else of that sort; for it adapts its own color to that of the other. The seleucis, moreover, is a bird so hostile to locusts that as many as fall under its shadow perish. To others, again, night is more suitable for seeing than day; and for some, what is food is lethal to another, and even drink does not befit all animals. Furthermore, some among quadrupeds, and all flying creatures, are destitute of the faculty of passing urine. And what need is there to recount in detail the infinite differences among animals, both in food and drink, in form, in song and silence, in ^D dwelling, in migration and return, in service and freedom, in temperance and lust, in labor and idleness, in boldness and cowardice, and in other innumerable variations? What, then, is the motion of the fatal course that established each species as such? Why is the entire species of such a kind, and neither does a hare become bold, nor a lion fear, nor would any other animal undertake to flee the operation innate and proper to its kind, but each species is throughout the same, only the human race is varied by changes;

^A but if genesis preserves each species everywhere in the proper character of its nature, how is the contrary found in humans? For indeed, there is cowardice and boldness, anger and gentleness, wickedness and probity, and all things contrary. Where, then, is the course of genesis? Are there not seven planets and twelve signs of the zodiac? Why, then, has it provided such a difference of passions and pursuits for humans, but not for the rest? For the donkey everywhere carries burdens, the leopard is predatory, and the other animals preserve the order of their species likewise. In exactly the same way, the nature innate in brute animals according to each species prevails over genesis, the stars rising around it, and all that long concatenation of houses. For where is Mars? Whose brute animal’s right hand has it armed with a sword, or covered its body with a breastplate, or protected its head with a helmet, or its ^B legs or feet? For it has neither armed wolf against wolf, nor engaged lions in battle lines against one another. But who would study to recount what no one can enumerate? For if nothing occurs outside of genesis, how does no star, no wandering planet, no star rising nearby, no sign of the zodiac provide these things to the brute animals born together with humans, which it has partitioned to man? Does it not provide the art of weaving, nor smithing? Nor has it established some as teachers and others to learn from those of the same kind? But if someone should assert that animals are taught by us, first he will show but few of such things, and why not all of them, it will be more difficult to demonstrate. Secondly, they are never taught by mind or intelligence, as is man; but animals are taught by deceit or fear. Just as a dog, or monkey, or horse, if restrained by blows, observes those things that are shown to it: not that it thinks these things will be useful to its master, but because it is beaten if it does not do them. The parrot also, deceived by craft, imitates; for by a mirror placed nearby, it is cheated into imitation. For those who wish to teach them speak secretly from behind the placed mirror; but the parrot, thinking it sees another parrot, hastens to the imitation of those sounds, having no understanding of what is said, though it may have learned everything articulately. And indeed, only the parrot is so taught, but not the eagle, nor any other animal. But how is this not once again against the law of genesis, that while it produces these other animals destitute of reason, some of them are nevertheless taught by humans, and one who is never released from these laws ^C surpasses the bounds of genesis? But if they should say that bees are also taught by one another, in this too they maintain a falsehood; for the bee operates by nature, not by art. Although even in this way the difficulty is increased. For why do not other animals in their own kind also both teach and are taught by one another? For who taught the crows or vultures to fly, to whom even their parents are not naturally constituted to provide food? ^D How is it that genesis, which makes kings and rulers, has failed among them? For neither does a donkey rule a donkey, nor does a wolf rule wolves; nor is one of them poor while another is rich; nor anything else that partitions the human race. Where then are the rising stars, and the genesis, and the multitude of effects for them? Or is it only among these miserable ones…

that they have snatched away such great power? And yet, by the strength of all other living creatures, man is the most powerful. For he excels in intellect even those who are ^A stronger, and while walking upon the earth he becomes master of those that fly, and he catches those that swim in the depths, and in a word, he is mightier by reason and intellect than all of them. How then does "genesis" have power over him who rules all things, yet is unable to rule those that are held under his command? But it seems that this device has been set up against men by the wicked one, so that, thinking that living piously and acting righteously is a work of necessity, they might become alienated from God, and, persuaded that doing the opposite springs from the same cause, they might omit no sin at all. Therefore, genesis does not exist; it is feigned by the enemies ^B of truth against the truth, just as it is refuted by its friends.

For even to one scrutinizing matters precisely, irrationality would not be found to be the cause for animals not learning what men learn, just as neither is rationality the cause for man’s myriad practices. For how many deaf, dumb, foolish, unskilled, and graceless people does genesis produce according to their own system! What then did rationality profit him who from the womb came forth blind and deaf, or those similar to him, and than how many irrational creatures are they not worse, both for life and for learning? What harm did irrationality do to the bee, or the spider, or the ant, if it performs ^C what it practices according to nature without hindrance? And what harm did it do to the other animals in regard to their own task, to have received the irrational instead of the rational? Did irrationality constrain the swan or the cicadas from singing with their wings? Or perhaps genesis is able by nature to create musicians; and how is it that it did not also create orators and sophists? And why, as the irrational animals know, do we not also know without learning? But the irrational cannot learn the things of the rational because of their irrationality. And how is it that they do not teach one another because of their common irrationality—cranes to teach swans, donkeys to teach dogs, ^D and each to teach the other’s skill? Thus, it is not because of irrationality that human learning is unreceivable by irrational creatures, but because of the difference of nature brought forth by the Creator. And what star is it that, having occupied this sign of the zodiac, created the genus of wild beasts from the earth or of cattle, or of those that swim from the sea? And why does it not accomplish the same thing now? And how is it that genesis, which brings about untimely deaths, did not also show a ten-year-old as an old man, or one whose face is crowned with its first beard? And if it cut the length of the time of each one’s life into five or six, and sometimes even incommensurably shorter, how is it that it never did so five or tenfold? And why do I speak of fivefold…

^A or even extend it to threefold or twofold?

When that man had said these things, he presently set forth a description of the climacteric, so that he might more accurately pursue an exposition of these astrological names and schemata. He adds, then, if all animals are governed by the course of the stars and their schemata, how is it that no star or schema, or the rising of a neighboring constellation, ever made a mule a father or a mother, although they often mate with fertile animals? Nature, in truth, crushes its power and everywhere overcomes it: in the production of time, in the meeting of bodies, in the variety of bearing offspring, in the change of ages, and in all other things that occur according to nature, which that ^B power can change in no way. For why does no horse or donkey escape the scourge of men, while the rest of animals do not endure the blow of these? And if there are any that do—though they are rare—the difficulty is not solved even so. For why do not all the rest also endure it, being much more numerous? Furthermore, among those that are beaten with lashes, the brute animals are free while they are growing up; for as soon as they begin to carry burdens, they also begin to be beaten. But man is especially scourged in his boyhood; when, however, he has grown to man’s estate, he is either never or at least rarely struck. Wherefore, from these—from bulls, swine, poultry, men, horses, and perhaps some others—are the genitals cut away, and iron renders them sterile instead of fruitful, when nevertheless other animals are not only not harmed by the necessity of the stars but even set it forth as something to be mocked? Why, finally, while the same position of the stars maintains the same course, if plants are cut, they put forth branches again, and the pruned herb rises as it did before, or even higher, whereas in animals, if any limb should happen to be cut off—an eye, or a nose, or a finger—fate in no way assists in the restoration of this limb, although they maintain that it grants to them ^C what it took away, but not the property of nature? And this very thing—who determined that the movement and schema of the stars should assign some things to brute animals and others to rational beings? And who adjudged death by the sword to swine, poultry, goats, and oxen, and whatever is similar to these, while most of the other animals do not know this violence? But furthermore, of these that are slaughtered, formerly, while the rite of sacrificing to idols prevailed, an infinite [357 H.] multitude was often sacrificed in a single hour; now, however, that this has ceased, are not these animals subjected to the sword in the same way? Yet the constitution of the stars, as they would say, constantly holding the same course, has thus changed the condition of these animals unevenly, while it has not changed the manner of the ancient life of other animals. And if it has changed some in a way similar to these, but when...

[A(861)] the course of the stars remains nonetheless uniform and is shown to be subjected to an inescapable necessity. And this is the end of the fifth book and the forty-third chapter.

217b. In the sixth book and the forty-fourth chapter, he adds these points: ^B If, he says, the course of generation produced man and the other animals from the earth, how is it that now, without the process of mating, it is by no means found to produce either man or those manifold species of living creatures? But if it even now produces some of them, such as worms and certain things of that kind, why did it not also exhibit, in the same manner, all the other species that were produced from the earth at the beginning? But if the course of the stars did perhaps fashion men from the earth at the beginning, why did it not produce them as already instructed in the arts? But instead, it was long after that the building ^C and weaving arts, and history, geometry, rhetoric, and countless other arts were first devised and came to be through human reasoning. But if they would speak nonsense by claiming that men emerged from the earth already learned in the sciences, how were they born learned at that time without instruction, when now they acquire learning only with many labors and exercises? Where, then, has that ancient course gone, which fashioned men as wise from their very birth? And whence has this current one arisen, which, by its nature, produces those who are skilled only through labors and long exercise? What, then, was the bloodthirsty Ares doing at that time, when men were not arming themselves ^D against one another? Where was that course of the stars which makes kings and leaders, many generations later, when men had not yet even thought of living in villages, much less of a city or of a government? Why is it that, while men were formerly counted as discoverers of the arts, now, content with what has been discovered, they do not attempt to progress further? Or is it manifest that the mind given to men by God, having discovered what is useful for life through time and labor, and above all with help from above, stopped there, and did not struggle in vain to devise new things? And how is it that, of the same race, one nation wears its hair long, while another shaves it? And that one tribe practices incest with mothers, while the majority consider the act abominable? And they are divided by countless other [358 H.] differences [862 (A)] of laws, ways of life, and customs; and no course of stars either shaves those who grow their hair, or compels those who are shaved to grow it, nor does it make others do things that they have not learned according to their own laws. And these are the contents of the present chapter.

In the next, he adds that, even if the lovers of fate should think to have recourse to the rising of neighboring stars (which are different from the signs and planets, and are not related to the fatal events of generation, nor do they agree among themselves, but rather, according to the differences of climates, each provides its own effects), let them tell us ^B where that...

^A fixed and immovable book of nature is. For everyone is constrained by its own energies, from which—as they say—the effects are demonstrated. And yet, not all possess the same measure of the earth, as for instance the portion of the Persians and Iberians, or that of the Lazi and Romans, or of whoever else. How then is this or that nation governed by customs, laws, and habits so opposed to one another? And secondly, how have most nations, settled within the borders of their own lands, changed into the customs of the Romans? ^B And thirdly, the Jewish people migrated to Egypt, yet did not depart from their ancestral laws. And again, departing from Egypt, they inhabited Palestine and Arabia, having driven out in war those who dwelt there before—the idolaters—and they did not turn away from the Mosaic laws. Indeed, not even when the nation was led away captive to Babylon, and after many years was dispersed over the whole earth, did it desert its ancestral laws; neither did any of the rising stars nor generation itself compel them to dissolve the commandment of circumcision or of the Sabbath. But our own race—I mean that of the Christians—having its beginning four hundred years ago, suddenly occupied the entire world, and withdrew each nation from its own rites, and transformed it into a life of piety, not by moving them from their native land, but by their dwelling in the same place as before; and thus, it left behind those ancient ^C influences of these stars as weak and deserving of laughter. Thus, the doctrine brought forth by unlettered men manifestly overthrew these things, to which cowardly generation gave way in shame. For the world once obeyed the Assyrians, then Babylon held sway, then the Medes received the empire, and after them the Persians, until finally the power passed to the Macedonians; yet each nation retained its own customs and was governed by its own kings, and at least acknowledged that common Lord who ruled over all. But now, just as there is but one religion, so too the kingly power is held by one, and over three hundred nations or more, only one legitimate majesty of the Roman empire presides, just as there is only one religion. Yet no one at this time is compelled by generation either to worship idols, or to marry his mother, or to commit other deeds by which those fearsome nations ^D were not only discrepant among themselves, but were also distinguished from nations opposed to them. Let them explain to us, therefore, how fate brings about a change in religion and doctrines, yet has no power to change other things? For it seems never to have induced anyone, either by persuasion or by compulsion, to conceive a desire for infamy, or poverty, or sickness, or servitude, or injury, or for myriads of other such things. But just as nature has been seen everywhere to be more powerful than the effects of fate, so also reason, preserving the dignity of its own freedom, is shown clearly enough, in things which it does voluntarily, to conquer those trifles.

^A Verumtamen, if acting piously or impiously proceeds from genesis (the stars), let them explain to us, I would like to know, what genesis makes a man a Stoic? What an Epicurean? What kind of Peripatetic, or what a Platonist? What genesis makes one sacrifice to Bacchus, or to Ceres, or to the Sun, or to the Moon? What leads the Egyptian to worship a beast, or a dog, or a cat? What makes a Manichaean, what makes Valentinians? But if they cannot indicate this, I advise them not to exalt themselves further. It is therefore placed in us, not in the operation of genesis, to worship the divinity in this way or that. If indeed this is the case, then to worship simply, and to not worship at all, is likewise in our hands; for the whole is made up of its parts. How, moreover, is it not most absurd that an evil man should be made such by genesis, and yet be hated for the name of his wickedness? And similarly, that a good man should be made such and be worthy of admiration, and similarly an adulterer or a murderer? And that one should be forced by the same power to commit evils, and yet be punished for that very thing? To appoint legislators, to punish the wicked, and yet for others to impose upon them against their will the necessity to sin, or the other things with which the life of men is filled? These things, if they are in our power, carry with them a guilt that we must sustain; but if genesis holds the supreme power, then this must be blamed, or certainly He who created it. Thus, on every side, fate is shown not only to be in no way consistent, but also to be impious and shameful. With these things, the sixth book and the forty-fifth chapter are concluded.

^C In the seventh book, he resolves a question supposedly put forward by the astrologers. For they say, he states, if evils do not proceed from fate, whence do they exist? To whom he responds as follows: If you wish to learn whence the evils that we inflict upon one another arise, while you see their perpetrators with your own eyes, you seek another cause in vain; but if these are the evils that we suffer against our will, even of this the solution is clear to the eye. We have disturbed life itself with a whirlwind of every kind of wickedness; we do what God hates and turns away from; therefore we suffer what we do not want, so that we may not hereafter fall into vices. Unless, perhaps, it was fitting that those who are subject to such crimes should furthermore enjoy prosperity, so that God might be ignored even more, and we might be carried more readily into evils? But if God forces us to commit evils through fate, how does He again punish us as if we were sinners? It is one thing, as is clear, to permit anyone to use their free will and to choose what they wish, and another to compel them to commit evils. "How is it," he says, "that you, being ignorant of the depth of God’s dispensations, could ever come to turn your minds to that figment of genesis? Because you, crawling upon the earth, have by no means ascended to the height of the judgments of the Creator Himself, therefore you have been led to attribute the causes of the things done by us to the stars, and to the moon and the sun, and to babble that the things we see ourselves doing are not our own; and that the things which the stars can in no way effect, these, however...

^A they compel to be falsely represented? But I myself, he says, in writing these things, have been compelled by genesis, according to you, to write its refutations, so that in this way it rises up against itself more fiercely than any other enemy attacking it from without.

What profit is there, then, in learning the things that are expected from genesis? For if it is granted to those who know them to avoid the things that fate has decreed, the prediction is nonsense; for the power within us prevails over genesis. And especially for those who are learned in fate, it will come about that they can dissolve its chain; for these [people], knowing better than others the things ordered by genesis, will allow nothing of what it threatens to befall them. But then again they say that being able to free oneself is not outside the series of genesis. Therefore, genesis is divided into opposing things: it partly applies prediction, and partly mocks the prediction; what could be more ridiculous than this? Furthermore, there is also in other respects much injustice and inequality. For why did it not persuade everyone to learn, so that all might be delivered from such things? But if, even having learned it, it is not possible to escape, why is it necessary to learn in vain and be consumed by worries and be struck before the blow and be tormented before death worse than by death itself?

^B This, moreover, is clear to all: that he who introduces fate both removes from the virtuous their praises and crowns, and proclaims an unjust penalty and accountability for the wicked. For if each one came by necessity to do what he does, then there is neither a reward for well-doing nor the exaction of punishment for wickedness; which cannot but utterly confuse and subvert our life, and is most shameless for those who sharpen their tongue against God. Was it not enough for the wretched, if they were compelled to think, say, and do evil things, but, when they ought to be pitied, has hatred and punishment also been added?

But if someone says that it is not for us to know why God created such a genesis, he, while pretending to act modestly, attacks piety, and through those very things by which he seems to speak moderately, he becomes more impious. For if genesis is truly good, while it appears evil to us, and that indeed through genesis itself, it is no longer my error if I think it evil, which is not evil, but rather [the error] of Him who inserted such a judgment into our thoughts through genesis. For if it is my error, then the things that pertain to thoughts, which speech and action follow, will be extraneous to genesis, and genesis will have been in vain. True moderation, therefore, and cautious circumspection is not to have falsely imagined an evil genesis, and then to attribute the thought of evil to God; nor again that ^D which, in a guise of humility, introduces a grievous deception. The genus of piety does not...

insult God through those things by which it seems to honor Him, nor does it destroy His goodness by providing Him with authority over evils. For the authority of God neither knows how to do injustice, nor will it be able. It does not make a murderer and then punish him; it does not forbid one to stumble, and then force one to disobey, and then punish the one who has disobeyed. ^A These things are neither fitting for God, nor does any pious mind accept such reasoning. We perceive what is fitting, and we concede to Him the complete comprehension of the things that happen in the world, and we do not contend to comprehend them, knowing that we will not comprehend them. We know the true authority of God to be that it is neither overcome by evil things nor uses its goodness for anything but the benefit of His creations. Consider also this: in hunting, they irritate bulls to move them to ^B combat, and if they do not use their anger, the masters get angry; but the course of the stars rewards those who follow their results with death. Again, we punish disobedient servants, but we honor those who are obedient; yet this genesis, which compels both to think and to do these things, commands one to stumble and then subjects those who have been persuaded to punishments, and sometimes makes us just toward those under our hand, while it itself, seeing the most unjust things, is not ashamed before us. Is it not the height of madness to think these things? But chapter forty-five discusses such matters.

[697 R.] In the forty-sixth chapter, he says that those who are demented by genethlialogy subject even the Architect of all things to it. They say, indeed, that just as acting righteously proceeds from genesis, so too does being heard when praying, and being filled with the presence of God, ^C and being deemed worthy of more divine revelations. So from what they dare to say, they declare God to be a minister of genesis, and a benefactor only to those to whom its course has graciously granted the benefit; than which what could be more impious or godless? And if they take these and such things away from fate, by cutting off from it the greatest of goods, they register it as ruling over only wickedness. But long time has also shown that very many have turned from virtue to vice; so that it again gains mastery over those it did not control, having changed the good into the base. Thus its thesis confuses and disturbs all things, and before all else, it casts down and overturns itself.

He says in the following chapter (which is the forty-seventh) ^D that even some of those among the Greeks who philosophized, when they turned their minds to such things, detested and laughed at the fiction of genesis. And yet they opined, no less than these, that the heaven is spherical, and indeed they thought no differently concerning the composition of the signs of the zodiac and the movement of the planets. What then...

^A is their opinion, that while they accept this, they reject that? Because they believe that the movement of the stars is indicative of events happening on earth, on the sea, and in the air and the other elements, but not that it has a compelling or causative force; and that it announces future events just as divination, augury, and all similar arts do. And it does not happen because it predicts, but it predicts because it happens; and the things here are not governed by the necessity of the stars, but they only signify beforehand the things that are to come. But although those who think in this way have repelled the great impiety of the astrologers from themselves, they have not arrived at the perfect truth. And thus the seventh book concludes.

The eighth book, ^B starting from the forty-eighth chapter, says that two heavens were created: one, higher than this visible one, which subsisted together with the earth; and the second, which we see. Of these two, then, one holds the place of a roof, and the other, likewise a roof for the earth, serves as a foundation and base for the heaven above it. And there is one earth. And that the heavenly things are assigned to the superior powers, and the sub-heavenly things to visible ones. He argues that the heaven is not spherical, but maintains the shape of a tent or an arch. And he brings forward testimonies from the Scriptures, as he thinks, to support this opinion, not only regarding the figure, but also regarding the setting and rising of the sun. He also provides the cause for the increase and decrease of days and nights, and investigates other things of this kind with curiosity, which, in my opinion, are not necessary, even if they have some connection to the sacred oracles. Hence, while you would judge this man to be pious from what he reports, you would not say that he just as accurately brings forward testimonies from the sacred Scriptures with reasoning.

Since then, passing on to the forty-ninth chapter, he proclaims to us the laws and admonitions of Holy Scripture, and that great mystery of our redemption (and not without merit, indeed); ^C where he also excellently critiques astrology from those same divine books.

Then, moving to the fiftieth chapter, he attacks that same error no less vigorously, reporting these things among others. If anything, he says, that has been predicted by them seems to happen by chance, it does not happen immediately because it was predicted; for many of the things we have contemplated have happened to us, and being suspended in expectation of some business already moved or about to be moved shortly, we have discovered afterward that it had such a beginning or end as we had hoped; yet we do not for this reason relegate ourselves to the order of prophets, but we recognize this outcome to be one of chance or conjecture. For if they were to predict something alien to human life, and then an unusual thing ^D were to emerge—I do not say many times, but once—it would be reasonable to marvel; but if indeed the things...

that, I do not say more frequently, but even once, it were to happen, there would be reason to marvel. But since the things that usually happen are what they appear to predict, what is ^A wonderful if they conjecture correctly? For it is not easy for someone who says so many things to be wrong. Indeed, it would be more wonderful if they always blundered. ^B And if they even have demons as helpers, as they certainly do, who confirm their predictions, I would no longer wonder if they conjecture correctly, but much more if they did not conjecture correctly. For demons, being most versed in the writings of astrologers, assist them, employing every effort to effect these things, in order that, by infusing the too-credulous with that error about fate, they may further persuade them to despise God. Such books predict wealth, poverty, and whatever else is wont to happen in this life, to which things the demons can surely offer their help without difficulty. For even we ourselves, if we only wished, could bring about not a few of these things in others, either by persuading, or by deceiving, or by using force. And indeed, the crowd of demons holds sinners in its power, and leads and drives those who obey it wherever it wishes. They want our life to be adjusted to the fallacies of the astrologers, so that, noting that the outcomes indeed agree with the astrologers' predictions, but not observing their authors, we may not only be deceived by the course of the stars, but also, having no regard for piety and justice, fall into the abyss of impiety. And this very thing—that they do not perceive the machination described above, which has been composed against men—would be the work of the demons, having enlisted sin and impiety, by which the wretched are hindered from understanding both their scheme and, likewise, the depth of divine judgments. For how will the Divine reveal either the snares of the demons or the mysteries of His own providence to those who make it their aim to despise His commandments? For indeed, the things we know to be unjust, these we perform; ^C yet we do not pursue what we know to be laudable; and do we still hope that we shall perceive unknown things? When you have done those things which you have learned, and have through virtue rendered yourself worthy, then finally you may marvel if you are unable to learn things that are more perfect. But as long as you are full of passions and despise God, how will you learn either His mysteries of providence or the assault of the demons against you? And how would demons not easily conquer those for whom God is not a defender, dragging them toward those things which the books of the astrologers predict, so that, with the fiction of fate in them bolstered, they may fall away from God even more? Yet, if we strove toward virtuous things with as much zeal as we have for evil, we would not be ignorant of how much we are esteemed by God, nor how much strength we have against the demons. For although God is everywhere, ^D He draws nearer to those who love Him through their deeds; and where God is, who is he that would hide the treachery or who would plot at all? Having set these things forth, He arms the sacred oracles again against fate, exhorting men to depart from such error. And by saying, "for signs, and for seasons, and for"

days and years," that the sun, moon, and stars were made by God, he indicates that the events which took place under Jesus son of Nave, and those under King Hezekiah, and those at the time of the Lord’s passion, are signified.

Having thus discussed these matters in the fiftieth chapter, he proceeds to the fifty-first ^B, in which he refutes the heretics who stem from Bardesanes. For while they profess to accept the prophets, and confess that souls are free and possess autonomy from genesis, they nevertheless subject the body to its direction. For riches and poverty, disease and health, life and death, and whatever is not in our power, they say are the work of fate. But if, according to Isaiah, the astrologers of the heaven do not know what will come to pass, and according to the opinion of Jeremiah, all this study is vain, how do these men say that they accept the prophets, while they make the body a slave to fate? For God used to inflict upon the Jews both threats and bodily sufferings, ^C and likewise provided benefits, regarding which He declared through Isaiah that the astrologers have no knowledge. How then is it possible both to believe the prophets and to grant to fate the entire power over bodily evils and benefits, and for those who are obsessed with it to predict future events? Unless, perhaps, in their madness they might say that [God] distributes good things to the pious and the opposite to the impious, and that the Divine itself serves fate. And how will souls not be subject to genesis, if God himself, the creator of all, works along with it and serves its effects? ^D If, moreover, those things which were administered of old through angels and prophets were not the work of genesis, nor were those things which our Lord Jesus Christ wrought as he appeared in the flesh, when He healed a myriad of human bodies, how do they still wish to claim that the body is administered by genesis? For they will either render false the notion that God threatens punishments to the disobedient and does good to the obedient, or else, if the first is true, the second is a fable.

To these things, how can it be that, while bodies are subject to genesis, the souls are nonetheless removed from its command? For if the discovery of a treasure, the building of a house, or the acquisition or disposal of other bodily things—and indeed the punishment of fornicators or adulterers—comes from genesis, it is necessary that the soul be impelled to the discovery of the treasure, and to the learning of architecture for the sake of the house, or of weaving for the sake of a garment. Indeed, it must be conquered by a woman's love so that the body may bear the punishments of its own offense; nay, even be incited to murder on account of the genesis which has passed the sentence of death; and so for other things. For hardly anything bodily will come to pass unless the soul yields and assists, and it is necessary for those who follow Bardesanes, or indeed for the soul to be...

to obey and help, so that it is necessary for the followers of Bardesanes either to subject the soul to genesis, or, if they do not dare this, even to declare the body free from its rule. Thus the fifty-second chapter ends. ^A

In the following chapter he refutes the utter impiety of those who dare to subject even our Lord Jesus Christ to genesis, taking the appearance of the star as their pretext. This folly he refutes well and wisely, piercing them with many arguments, among other things, and by showing that the star which appeared was not one of the many existing in the heavens, but a certain more divine power, shaped into a star, which proclaimed the birth of the common Lord. ^B He says that the Magi received from the Chaldeans that a star would be herald of the birth of the common Savior according to the flesh, and that for them, as fellow-practitioners of the same art, that Balaam—who even against his will, in place of a curse, by blessing Israel, included in his blessing the birth of the king who was to be born and the star as his herald—had declared the prophecy. And once born, the Lord appeared to the Persians before other nations, showing that through Him grace and salvation are provided for such Magi and sorcerers as desire it. Having gone through these and other similar matters, in the final chapter he makes a recapitulation of the things said, and at the same time brings to completion the fifty-third chapter and the eighth book. ^C

Furthermore, in his expression, the man is pure and clear, and in his enthymemes and the construction of his arguments, such as we have already indicated in part in these excerpts of his work.

222. COD. CCXXIV. Memnon’s Histories.

CAP. I. — Summary of the history following concerning Heraclea Pontica.

Memnon’s history, from the fifth book to the sixteenth, sets forth all that happened around Heraclea Pontica (for that is the scope of the work), recounting the tyrants in it, their deeds and characters, as well as the life and end of others, and whatever pertains to these things.

CAP. II. — The learning and cruelty of the tyrant Clearchus.

Clearchus, he says, was the first to seize tyranny over the city. He says he was not untrained in philosophical education—for he was one of the disciples of Plato, and he attended the orator Isocrates for four years—but that he showed himself to his subjects as cruel and bloodthirsty, if any man ever did, and proceeded to such a height of arrogance that he even declared himself the son of Zeus. ^D

nor was he content with the genuine color with which nature had stained his face, but would smear it with various dyes, one after another, so that it appeared bright and ruddy to those who looked upon it. ^A Indeed, he would also change his clothing, adapting it for both terror and luxury. Nor was he wicked only in these things, but also ungrateful to his benefactors, violent in all matters, and bold in performing nefarious deeds. By nature, he was industrious in slaughtering those he targeted, acting not only if he were contemplating anything hostile against his own countrymen, but also against foreigners. Yet he acquired a library for himself, by the praise of which he surpassed others whom tyranny rendered famous. ^B He frequently escaped many ambushes laid against him due to his slaughters, cruelty, and injuries; but at last, he was barely struck a lethal blow by Chion, son of Matris (who was a magnanimous man and linked to the tyrant by bonds of blood), together with Leon, Euxenon, and not a few others who had entered into a conspiracy; he died in the bitterest pain of this wound. For the tyrant was performing a public sacrifice for the people. Deeming the occasion opportune for their action, those who had conspired with Chion drove a sword with Chion's hand through the flanks of the common enemy of his country. After many, and increasingly savage and painful, tortures, and terrors struck by apparitions (these apparitions were the images of those he had murdered in a cruel manner), he exchanged life for death on the second day, having lived 58 years and held the tyrannic empire for twelve. ^C At that time Artaxerxes ruled over the Persians, and afterwards Ochus, who succeeded his father in the empire. To these, while he was still alive, Clearchus frequently sent envoys. As for those who had been the agents of the tyrant's death, almost all of them were slaughtered: some by the bodyguards at the very moment of the attack (where, however, they behaved as valiant men), and others, having been captured shortly afterward, were put to death after enduring atrocious tortures.

CAP. III. — The savagery and cruelty of the tyrant Satyrus, his brotherly love. A dreadful disease. Divine vengeance even in this life.

Satyrus, however, the brother of the tyrant, being left as guardian of the children, Timotheus and Dionysius, assumed the command, and he surpassed not only Clearchus, but all tyrants in cruelty. ^D For he took vengeance not only upon those who had plotted against his brother, but he behaved no less savagely toward their children as well, who were not even aware of what had been perpetrated by those who had begotten them, and he exacted the punishments of criminals from many who were innocent. This man was entirely devoid of all philosophical learning and the liberal arts, his mind being inclined only toward savagery; nor did he have the will to learn anything human or moderate, nor the capacity implanted by nature, but was the worst in all things, even if time itself tempered the man, so that at length a satiety of civil blood and slaughter took hold of him. Yet he took first place in brotherly love. For, in order to preserve his brother's rule intact and free from injury for his sons, he had such regard for it, that although

as a concern of care for their own, even so he lived with his wife, whom he loved singularly, yet would not beget children by her, but by every stratagem imposed upon himself the penalty of childlessness and of begetting no issue, so that he might leave absolutely no one to lie in wait for his brother's children. While he was yet alive and burdened by age, he handed over the supreme command to Timotheus, the eldest of his brother's children; and not long after, he was seized by an incurable and most grievous malady—for a cancer ^A having sprouted between the groin and the scrotum, it preyed upon his inward parts, spreading ever more bitterly; from which, as the flesh became putrefied, a discharge flowed, exhaling most heavy and intolerable stenches, so that neither the attendants nor the physicians could endure or withstand the virulent fetor of the putrefaction. Constant and sharp pains tortured his whole body, by which he was delivered over to vigils and convulsions, until the spreading of the ailment, having reached his very viscera, cut off his life. He, too, like Clearchus, at the time of his death, gave those who saw him to understand that retribution was being exacted for the things he had cruelly and unlawfully inflicted upon the citizens; for they say that often during his illness he prayed that death might come upon him, but did not obtain his wish, instead being consumed for many days by the bitter and heavy malady, thus paying what was owed to fate, having lived for sixty-five years, of which seven were spent in tyranny. Agesilaus was at that time king of the Lacedaemonians.

Timotheus, son of Clearchus, the third prince. His merits toward the republic and private citizens. His heroic virtue in wars. His untimely death. The honor paid to him by his brother after his death.

Timotheus, therefore, having received the power, thus ^C reformed it toward a more mild and democratic state, so that he was no longer termed a tyrant, but, because of his actions, a benefactor and savior. For he discharged debts for the creditors from his own means, and provided money without interest to those in need for their trade and other aspects of life; and he released from prison not only the innocent, but also those under charges; he was a judge both accurate and, at the same time, humane; and in other matters, he was upright, and his judgment not distrusted. For which reasons he also treated his brother Dionysius with fatherly love and care in other matters, and immediately had him as a partner in his rule, and then as his successor. Truly, he also conducted himself bravely in matters of war; he was large-minded and noble in body and soul, but also grateful and not ungracious toward the resolution of battles. He was capable of discerning affairs, and energetic in carrying out what had been considered; his character was merciful and upright, and in his boldness he was at times terribly severe, but in his moderation he was humane and gentle. Wherefore, while he lived, he was indeed fearful to his enemies, and all trembled before him whenever he was hostile, but he was sweet and gentle to those he governed. Hence, even at his death, he left behind a great longing for himself, and stirred up a mourning ^D equal in intensity to that longing. Now his brother

Dionysius committed his body to the pyre with magnificent expense, and shed tears from his own eyelids as if offering a libation, and poured forth sighs from his own heart for him. He also held equestrian games, and besides these, gymnastic, thymelic, and theatrical ones; some were held immediately, and others later, which were even more magnificent. These things the ninth and tenth books of Memnon’s history describe, as far as we touch upon them in this summary. ^A

Caput V. — Dionysius the fourth prince, a most fortunate king, does not neglect opportunities for expanding his empire. He overcomes adverse fortune by effort and fate. Excess of ambitious joy. He wards off danger by art. A fortunate marriage, and the fortune of Amastris. Wondrous vicissitude. The method of empire expansion. Fate. Human diligence. Society. Affinity. The highest degree of happiness. Sloth. Death and legacies. He earned the title of "the Benign" from his character. Curators of the children of Dionysius. Amastris married to Lysimachus.

When Dionysius had taken up the reins of empire, he did not exert his efforts ^B in vain in expanding it. For Alexander, having defeated the Persians at the Granicus, had laid open a secure opportunity for expansion to those who wished it, since the power of the Persians, which had hitherto been an obstacle to everyone, was being diminished. Yet he subsequently experienced the various turns of fortune, especially when the exiles from Heraclea were sent as envoys to Alexander—who now without doubt held Asia—and solicited their return and the ancestral democracy of their city. On account of this, he came close to falling from power; and he would have fallen, had he not, through great wisdom and shrewdness of mind, and through the goodwill of his subjects and his compliance toward Cleopatra, avoided the wars threatened against him, partly by yielding, assuaging anger, and restraining it with delays, and partly by making counter-preparations. ^C But after Alexander ended his life while staying in Babylon, whether extinguished by violent death or by disease, as soon as Dionysius received the news, he consecrated a statue of Joy; and upon the first arrival of the rumor, he was affected by such an overflow of joy that he was struck by the sudden consternation of being human. For he was nearly carried off in a fit of vertigo and appeared to be losing his sound mind. Now, when Perdiccas was managing the affairs of the supreme empire, the exiles from Heraclea incited him as well toward the same ends; but Dionysius, employing the same methods, while standing nearly on the razor's edge, nevertheless avoided the many dangers intended for him. But Perdiccas, because he conducted himself wickedly, was killed by those whom he ruled, and at the same time that fervent hope of the exiles was extinguished. ^D Accordingly, affairs for Dionysius turned toward a happier state. The greatest push toward his happiness was his second marriage. For he took as his wife Amastris, and she was the daughter of Oxathres; this man was the brother of Darius, whom Alexander stripped of his empire, taking for himself as wife his daughter, Statira, so that the women were cousins to each other, and they possessed a special affection between them, which their shared upbringing and life together had caused to take root in their souls. But this Amastris, Alexander, when he was betrothed to Statira, joined to Craterus (this man was one of those most beloved to him). Now, with Alexander away from the realm of men...

λιπόντος ^A Διονυσίῳ ἡ Ἄμαστρις συνοικίζεται. Ἐξ οὗ ἐπὶ μέγα ἡ ἀρχὴ αὐτῷ διήρθη πλούτου τε περιβολῇ τῇ διὰ τῆς ἐπιγαμίας προστεθείσῃ καὶ ἰδίᾳ φιλοκαλίᾳ· καὶ γὰρ καὶ τὴν τοῦ Διονυσίου πᾶσαν ἐπισκευὴν τοῦ Σικελίας τυραννήσαντος αὐτὸν ἐπῆλθεν ἐξωνήσασθαι, τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐκείνου διαφθαρείσης. Οὐ ταῦτα δὲ μόνον αὐτῷ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐπεκράτυνεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ εὐπραγία καὶ εὔνοια τῶν ὑπηκόων, καὶ πολλῶν ὧν οὐκ ἐκράτει πρότερον ἡ κυριότης. Καὶ Ἀντιγόνῳ δὲ τὴν Ἀσίαν κατέχοντι λαμπρῶς συμμαχήσας, ὁπότε τὴν Κύπρον ἐπολιόρκει, τὸν ἀδελφιδοῦν Πτολεμαῖον (στρατηγὸς δὲ οὗτος ἦν τῶν περὶ τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον) φιλοτιμίας ἀμοιβὴν εὔρατο παρ' Ἀντιγόνῳ γαμβρὸν λαβεῖν ἐπὶ θυγατρί. Ἡ δὲ παῖς ἐκ προτέρων ἦν αὐτῷ γεγενημένη γάμων. Οὕτω γοῦν εἰς μέγα δόξης ἀνελθὼν καὶ τὸν τύραννον ἀπαξιώσας τὸ βασιλέως ἀντέλαβεν ὄνομα. ^B Φόβων δὲ καὶ φροντίδων ἐλευθερωθεὶς καὶ ταῖς καθημεριναῖς τρυφαῖς ἐκδιαιτηθεὶς ἐξωγκώθη τε τὸ σῶμα, καὶ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν πολὺ πλέον ἐλιπάνθη. Ὑφ' ὧν οὐ μόνον περὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν βαθύμως εἶχεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπειδὰν ἀφυπνώσειε, βελόναις μακραῖς τὸ σῶμα διαπειρόμενος (τοῦτο γὰρ ἄκος μόνον τοῦ κάρου καὶ τῆς ἀναισθησίας ὑπελείπετο), μόλις τῆς κατὰ τὸν ὕπνον καταφορᾶς ἐξανίστατο. Τεκνωσάμενος δὲ τρεῖς παῖδας ἐκ τῆς Ἀμάστριος, Κλέαρχον, Ὀξάθρην καὶ θυγατέρα ὁμώνυμον τῇ μητρὶ, μέλλων τελευτᾷν ταύτην τε τῶν ὅλων δέσποιναν καταλιμπάνει καὶ τῶν παίδων κομιδῇ νηπίων ὄντων σύν τισιν ἑτέροις ἐπίτροπον, βιοὺς μὲν ἔτη ^C πέντε καὶ πεντήκοντα, ὧν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς τεσσαρεσκαίδεκα ἐγνωρίζετο, πραότατος ἐν αὐτῇ, ὡς εἴρηται, γεγονὼς καὶ τὸ Χρηστὸς ἐπίκλησιν ἐκ τῶν ἠθῶν ἐνεγκάμενος, καὶ πολὺν πόθον τοῖς ὑπὸ χεῖρα καὶ πένθος λιπών.

Οὐδὲν δὲ ἧττον καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἐκείνου ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀναχώρησιν τὰ τῆς πόλεως πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν ἐφέρετο, Ἀντιγόνου τῶν τε παίδων Διονυσίου καὶ τῶν πολιτῶν οὐ παρέργως προνοουμένου. Ἐκείνου δὲ πρὸς ἕτερα τὰς φροντίδας τρεψαμένου, Λυσίμαχος πάλιν τῶν περὶ Ἡράκλειαν καὶ τῶν παίδων ἐπεμελεῖτο, ὃς καὶ Ἄμαστριν ποιεῖται γυναῖκα. Καὶ κατ' ἀρχὰς μὲν λίαν ἔστερξε, πραγμάτων δὲ αὐτῷ προσπεσόντων αὐτὴν μὲν ἐν Ἡρακλείᾳ λείπει, αὐτὸς δ' εἴχετο τῶν ἐπειγόντων. Εἰς Σάρδεις δὲ μετ' οὐ πολὺν χρόνον, τῶν πολλῶν πόνων ῥαΐσας, μετεπέμψατο ταύτην, καὶ ἔστεργεν ὁμοίως. Ὕστερον δὲ πρὸς τὴν θυγατέρα Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Φιλαδέλφου (^D Ἀρσινόη δὲ ἦν τὸ ὄνομα) τὸν ἔρωτα μεταθεὶς, διαζυγῆναι τὴν Ἀμαστριν αὐτοῦ παρέσχεν αἰτίαν, καὶ καταλιποῦσαν τοῦτον καταλαβεῖν τὴν Ἡράκλειαν. Ἐγείρει δὲ αὕτη παραγενομένη καὶ συνοικίζει πόλιν Ἄμαστριν.

CAP. VI. — Clearchus, princeps. His military valor. Mutable fortune. Degeneration. Parricide.

Clearchus, having then reached man’s estate, presided over the city of Heraclea; and in no few wars, whether repelling others with his own might or defending himself against those who brought war upon him, he gave a distinguished account of himself. Among these exploits, ^A while he served Lysimachus in the war against the Getae, he was captured along with the king; and when the king was released from captivity, he himself was also later sent away through the prudence of Lysimachus.

Clearchus, therefore, and his brother, succeeding to the paternal kingdom, proved far inferior to their father in lenity and kindness toward their subjects. Nay, they even descended to a nefarious and execrable crime. For they caused their mother, who had committed no great offense against them, to be suffocated at sea through a remarkable plot and wicked artifice, once she had entrusted herself to a ship.

CAP. VII. — The vengeance for the parricide. Lysimachus, a foreign lord and benefactor.

For which reason Lysimachus, so often mentioned in this history (for he was then ruling in Macedonia), although he had alienated Amastris from himself on account of his intimacy with Arsinoe, yet because he still bore within himself a spark of his former affection, and deemed this monstrous and detestable crime intolerable, he kept his mind’s resolve strictly to himself, ^B while meanwhile displaying to Clearchus the zeal of an ancient friendship. Yet, with much art and stratagems composed for deception (for he is said to have been the most skillful of men at concealing his wishes), he entered Heraclea as if for the common benefit of those receiving him. And while he put on a mask of intimate paternal affection toward Clearchus and those attached to him, he removed those parricides from the midst: first Clearchus, and then Oxathres, demanding justice for the matricidal murder. ^C Having brought the city under his own protection, and having turned the wealth collected under the tyranny of the tyrants into his own booty, and having restored to the citizens the republic for which they had long waited, he withdrew into his own kingdom.

CAP. VIII. — Heraclius the tyrant. Women’s impotence.

Having returned, therefore, to his own lands, he began to extol Amastris with praises, and to admire her character and empire, such that he confirmed it, raised as it had been to such magnitude, power, and majesty; and he would uniquely praise Heraclea, but he also included in his praise Tius and Amastris, which she had founded, famous for its own name. By having these things often on his lips, he stimulated Arsinoe to desire dominion over cities so highly celebrated, and to seek as a gift for herself what she coveted. ^D Yet he, pretending the gravity of the gift, at first did not admit her prayers, but in time, being besought, he yielded. For Arsinoe was ingenious at circumvention, and old age itself had already rendered Lysimachus easy to manage.

and so Arsinoe, having gained the rule of Heraclea, sent ^A the Cymean Heraclitus—a man devoted to her, though otherwise harsh, and terrible in the speed and cunning of his designs. Upon taking charge of Heraclea, he managed affairs with great rigor in other respects, and by bringing charges against many of the citizens, he punished no few of them, so that they again lost the happiness that had barely dawned upon them.

Chapter 9. — On the parricide of Lysimachus against his son Agathocles, by the counsel of his stepmother, and his own death.

However, Lysimachus, by the intrigue of Arsinoe, destroyed Agathocles—the best and eldest of his children (born to him by a former wife)—first by secret poison, but when that was vomited up by the grace of Providence, with the most shameless determination ^B he condemned him; for after casting him into prison, he ordered him to be slaughtered, having falsely charged him with a conspiracy against his father. Now Ptolemy, who had carried out the crime with his own hand, was a brother of Arsinoe, and bore the nickname "Ceraunus" [that is, "the Thunderbolt"] because of his perversity and madness. Lysimachus, therefore, was justly hated by his subjects for the murder of his son, and Seleucus, learning of this, and knowing how easy it would be to cast such a man from his rule as the cities were revolting from him, joined battle with him. Lysimachus fell in the battle, struck ^C by a javelin. The man who struck him was a Heracleote named Malacon, serving under Seleucus; and when he had fallen, his authority passed over to the side of Seleucus. And here ends the twelfth book of Memnon's history.

Chapter X. — The Heracleans, having expelled the tyrant, assert their freedom.

In the thirteenth [book], he recounts how the Heracleotes, having heard of the destruction of Lysimachus and that it was their fellow-countryman who had killed him, took heart and showed themselves as men valiant in their desire to recover the liberty that, for eighty years, had been taken from them by domestic tyrants ^D and, after them, by Lysimachus. They therefore approached Heracleides first, trying to persuade him to leave the city, having been provided not only with safe passage but also with splendid gifts, on the condition that they might recover their liberty. But when they saw that they not only failed to persuade him, but that he fell into a rage and was even dragging some of them off to punishment, the citizens made a pact with the garrison commanders, granting them equal citizenship and the payment of the wages of which they had been deprived, and they seized Heracleides and held him prisoner for a time. Released then from fear, they razed the walls of the acropolis to the foundations and, having sent an embassy to Seleucus, they appointed Phocritus as the superintendent of the city.

Chapter XI. — Zipotes Bithynus Heraclienses infestat.

Now Zipoetes, the ruler of the Bithynians, being hostile to the Heracleotes—previously on account of Lysimachus, and at that time also on account of Seleucus—

^A (for he had disagreements with both) made incursions into their territory and desisted from no kind of wickedness. Yet his army, while engaged in this business, was not free from calamities, though they suffered ills not much milder than those they inflicted.

Cap. XII. — Alienation of Seleucus from the Heracleotes. Return of the exiles and restoration of the republic.

At this time, Seleucus sent Aphrodisius as governor to the cities of Phrygia that are adjacent to Pontus. After he had completed the business for which he had come and was returning, he was, on the one hand, lavish in his praise of the other cities, but, on the other hand, he accused the Heracleotes of being ill-disposed toward the interests of Seleucus. Seleucus, therefore, provoked by this, treated the ambassadors who had come to him with contempt and frightened them by berating them with threats. Yet one of them, Chamaeleon, not at all shaken by these things, addressed the king thus: "Hercules, ^B Seleucus, is *karrōn*" (for among the Dorians *karrōn* signifies one who is stronger). As the king did not understand the expression, he remained fixed in his anger and turned away. For the ambassadors, therefore, it seemed worthwhile neither to return home nor to remain there. When these things were reported to the Heracleotes, they fortified themselves against other eventualities and began gathering auxiliary forces, sending embassies to Mithridates, the king of Pontus, and to the Byzantines and Chalcedonians to request aid. The remainder of the exiles from Heraclea, among whom was Nymphidius, urged them to return, demonstrating that this would not be difficult if they did not seem to be violently and turbulently demanding the things their ancestors had lost, and he persuaded them with very little effort. Wherefore, since he found a successful outcome for the return in the way he had advised, once they were brought back, both they themselves and the state that received them lived in common and equal ^C joy and pleasure. For the citizens treated them most humanely and allowed nothing that contributed to a moderate sustenance of life to be lacking for them. In this way, therefore, they reclaimed their ancient dignity of nobility and governance.

Cap. XIII. — Seleucus in the Macedonian expedition and cruelly murdered by Ptol. Ceraunus.

Seleucus, elated by his success against Lysimachus, determined to cross into Macedonia, for a longing for his fatherland, from which he had campaigned with Alexander, impelled him; and intending to complete the remainder of his life there (for he was now worn out by old age), he entrusted Asia to his son Antiochus. Ptolemy Ceraunus, the affairs of Lysimachus having been brought under the authority of Seleucus, was himself also living under him; yet he was not neglected as if he were a captive, but, as a child of royalty, he was held in honor and treated with care, nay, he was even adorned by Seleucus with magnificent promises that, should his father die, he would be led back to his paternal kingdom of Egypt. So liberally and honorably was he treated. But well-deserved benefits made the wicked man no better. ^D For he set up a conspiracy, and having fallen upon his benefactor, he murdered him, and helped by the speed of his horse, he fled toward Lysimachia; in which place, having put on the diadem with glorious...

and mounting a horse, he fled to Lysimachia; there, having put on the diadem, he descended with a splendid bodyguard into the camp, and those who a little before had been bound by the oath of allegiance to Seleucus, compelled by necessity, received him and hailed him as king.

CAP. XIV. — Antigonus’s expedition to Ceraunus, aided by the Heracleans. Antigonus’s flight.

Antigonus, the son of Demetrius, having learned of what had transpired, attempted to cross over into Macedonia with infantry and naval forces, hastening to anticipate Ptolemy. But Ptolemy, having the ships of Lysimachus, met him and drew up in battle formation. Among these ships were others as well as those summoned from Heraclea, including hexeres, penteres, and aphracts, and one octeres called the "Lion-bearer," which was a wonder to behold for its size ^A and beauty; for in this ship, eight hundred men were rowing, each according to their numerical rank—so that they would number eight hundred on one side—making sixteen hundred in total on both sides. Those who were to fight from the decks numbered twelve hundred, and there were two helmsmen. The engagement having taken place, Ptolemy prevailed, putting the fleet of Antigonus to flight, the ships from Heraclea having fought more bravely than the others; and among the Heraclean ships, the "Lion-bearer" octeres carried off the prize. Antigonus, having thus fared poorly with his fleet, retreated into Boeotia. Ptolemy, having crossed over into Macedonia, held the kingdom firmly.

CAP. XV. — The atrocities and death of Ceraunus. Antigonus’s succession to the kingdom of Macedon.

Immediately, therefore, manifesting his own depravity all the more, he married his sister Arsinoe, pretending that this was the ancestral custom among the Egyptians, and slaughtered the children she had borne by Lysimachus; after which he also expelled her from the kingdom. And having perpetrated many lawless deeds in two years, when a portion of the Gauls had migrated from their homeland due to famine, occupied Macedonia, and joined battle with him, he met a death worthy of his cruelty, being torn apart by the Gauls; for he was taken alive after the elephant upon which he was riding was wounded and threw him off. Antigonus, the son of Demetrius, having been defeated ^B by the navy, upon Ptolemy’s being killed, received the kingdom of the Macedonians.

CAP. XVI. — Patrocles, prefect of Antiochus, is slain with his army by the Bithynians.

Antiochus, the son of Seleucus, though with difficulty and not even in its entirety, having nevertheless recovered his father’s kingdom after many wars, sent his general Patrocles with an army into the region beyond the Taurus. He chose as his deputy Hermogenes, an Aspendian by birth, who had set out to invade other cities and specifically Heraclea. But having been placated by the embassy of the Heracleans, he withdrew from their territory and, having struck a treaty of friendship, turned towards Bithynia through the lands of Phrygia. Yet, having been ensnared by the Bithynians, he was destroyed, both he himself and the army with him, after having displayed, each man in his own place, the deeds of a valiant man ^C against the enemy.

Caput XVII. — The alliance of the people of Heraclea with Nicomedes and the recovery of the cities.

Caput XVIII. — The war of the people of Heraclea with Zipoetes, his defeat and victory.

Caput XIX. — The war of Antiochus with Antigonus and of Nicomedes, and the Heraclean aid.

Caput XX. — The migration of the Gauls into Asia, and their distinct settlements.

to be settled. The terms of the agreement were: that the barbarians should remain forever bound in friendship to Nicomedes and his descendants, and should not give aid in war to anyone who might solicit them by ^A legates without the judgment and will of Nicomedes, but that they should be friends of his friends, and enemies to those who did not love him; and that they should also aid the Byzantines, should any need arise, and likewise the Tiani, Heracleotes, Chalcedonians, Cierani, and certain others who held rule over the nations. Upon these conditions, Nicomedes transported the multitude of the Gauls into Asia; of these, there were seventeen in number who were illustrious for their rule, but those who were preeminent and the leaders among them were Leonorius and Lutarius. ^B This migration of the Gauls into Asia was initially thought to have proceeded to the detriment of the inhabitants, but the end showed that it turned out for the best; for while kings were eager to abolish the democratic state of the cities, the Gauls, by resisting those who attempted this, rather strengthened it. Nicomedes, therefore, first against the Bithynians, with his own aid and the barbarians whom he had armed from Heraclea, both subjugated the province and cut down the inhabitants, for the rest of the booty was divided by the Gauls among themselves. These, having overrun much territory, eventually withdrew and cut off from the land they had subdued that which now bears the name Galatia, dividing it into three parts; and they named some the Trogmi, others the Tolistobogii, and others the Tectosages. And the Trogmi built the city of Ancyra, ^C the Tolistobogii Tabia, and the Tectosages Pessinus.

CAP. XXI. — Of the cities of Astacus and Nicomedia; the series of the Bithynian princes.

Nicomedes, having been raised to a shining height of prosperity, built a city named after himself opposite Astacus. ^D The colony of Megarians settled Astacus at the beginning of the seventeenth Olympiad, having named it by oracle after Astacus, a certain noble and great-spirited man from the lineage of those who were called the Sparti and earth-born at Thebes. Having endured many assaults from those living nearby and having been frequently worn down by wars, this city, after Athenian colonists were later added to the Megarians, put an end to its afflictions and attained no small increase of glory and power, with Dydalsus at that time holding the rule of the Bithynians. Upon his death, Botiras reigned, living for seventy years. He is succeeded by his son Bas, who also vanquished Calantus, the general of Alexander’s forces, although he was well-prepared for battle, and ensured the Macedonians refrained from Bithynia. His life spanned seventy-one years, of which he reigned for fifty. His son, successor to the rule, Zipotes, having become illustrious in wars, killed one of the generals of Lysimachus and drove another

having ^A prevailed over Seleucus, who nonetheless held both Asia and the Macedonians under his power, he founded a city by Mount Lyperus, calling it by his own name. After he had spent 76 years in life and extended his administration of the kingdom for 48 years, he left four sons. Nicomedes, the eldest of the sons, succeeded him in the kingdom, acting not as a brother to his brothers, but as their executioner. Nevertheless, he also strengthened the Bithynian kingdom, most of all by assisting the Galatians in crossing over into Asia, and he built a city, as has been indicated, bearing his own name.

Cap. XXII. — The war of the Byzantines with the Calatiani, a colony of the Heracleotes.

After some time had elapsed, a war broke out between the Byzantines and the Calatiani (who were a colony of the Heracleotes) and the Istrians over Tomis, an emporium neighboring the Calatiani, which the Calatiani had intended to turn into a monopoly for themselves. Therefore, an embassy was sent from both sides to the Heracleotes ^B seeking a military alliance. They, however, gave no martial support to either side, but instead sent mediators to both, that they might settle the controversy peaceably; although this effort of theirs turned out to be without effect. Consequently, the inhabitants of Calatis, having suffered many losses, at last descended to conditions of peace, nor were they able to recover their strength to any significant degree after such a calamity.

Cap. XXIII. — The testament of Nicomedes, and the exclusion of Zeilas from the war with the Bithynians by the help of the Galatians.

Not much time had passed when the king of the Bithynians, Nicomedes, as his death was approaching—after his son Zeilas, born from his previous marriage, had fled to the king of the Armenians, having been driven out by the machinations of his stepmother Etazeta, whose own children were still of tender age—declared the sons born of his second wife the heirs to the kingdom; and he appointed guardians: Ptolemy, along with Antigonus and the people of the Byzantines, and indeed also of the Heracleotes and the Ciani. Zeilas, however, with an equipped force (to whom the Tolistobogii ^C from among the Galatians were giving courage), returned to his paternal kingdom. But the Bithynians, striving to preserve the dominion for the little ones, gave their mother in marriage to the brother of Nicomedes, and they themselves, having received an army from the aforementioned guardians, awaited Zeilas. Both sides engaged in frequent battles and maneuverings and eventually entered into a peace, since the Heracleotes had distinguished themselves in those battles and had acted in the settlement of the war with a view to what was advantageous. For this reason, the Galatians, regarding Heraclea as an enemy, invaded it as far as the river Calletes; and having become masters of much booty, they returned home.

Cap. XXIV. — The pacification of Heraclea between Antiochus and the Byzantines.

At this time, when Antiochus was waging war against the Byzantines, the Heracleotes ^D assisted them with triremes: and it was through their intervention that the war was made to progress only as far as threats.

Chapter 25. — The Heracleans assist Mithridates against the Gauls, but at a high price. Nymphis the historian.

Not long after, Ariobarzanes departed from the ranks of men, leaving behind his son Mithridates; ^A but contentions arose between him and the Galatians. For this reason, holding the boy’s age in contempt, they harassed his kingdom. And when the royal party was laboring under a lack of provisions, the people of Heraclea supported them by sending grain to Amisus, from whence it was easier for the Mithridatic forces to find sustenance and a cure for their need. Because of these things, the Galatians sent an army again into the territory of Heraclea and ravaged it, until the Heracleotes sent an embassy to them. Nymphis, the historian, ^B was the leader of the envoys; he, having won over the army with five thousand gold pieces in common, and the leaders individually with two hundred, persuaded them to depart from the country.

CHAPTER XXVI. — Ptolemy's liberality toward the Heracleans.

Ptolemy, the king of Egypt, having ascended to the pinnacle of prosperity, was inclined to benefit the cities with most magnificent gifts; he also sent five hundred artabae of wheat to the Heracleotes, and dedicated for them a temple of Heracles in the citadel, built of Proconnesian stone.

Chapter 27. — Summary of the narratives concerning the origins and growth of Rome, the kingdom, consuls, emperors, and the wars with Pyrrhus, Hannibal, Perseus, and Antiochus.

The author, having reached this point, makes a digression into the Roman empire, ^C tracing from what origin they sprang, and in what manner they settled here in Italy; he touches upon what occurred and was done before the founding of Rome, who ruled over them, against whom they waged wars, the establishment of their kings, and the change of the monarchy into a consulate; and how the Romans were defeated by the Galatians, and the city would have been captured had not Camillus come to their aid and rescued it. He relates how, when Alexander was crossing into Asia and had sent them a letter [commanding them] either to conquer, if they were fit to hold authority, or to yield to their superiors, ^D the Romans sent him a golden crown worth many talents; and how they waged war against the Tarentines and Pyrrhus the Epirote who was aiding them, and by suffering some things and badly afflicting their enemies with others, they brought the Tarentines to subjection and drove Pyrrhus out of Italy. He also recounts the affairs the Romans conducted against the Carthaginians and Hannibal, and the successes against the Iberians by others and by Scipio, and how, though proclaimed king by the Iberians, he did not accept it, and how Hannibal was defeated and fled. And how the Romans crossed the Ionian Sea; and how Perseus, the heir to the Macedonian kingdom of Philip, having rashly broken the treaties made by his father with the Romans, was defeated in war, with Aemilius Paulus celebrating a triumph over him. [He tells] how Antiochus, of Syria and Comagene...

and the King of Judea, broken in two battles, they cast out of Europe.

Chapter 28. — The envoys of the Heracleans kindly received by the Roman commanders in Asia.

The author has thus far discoursed regarding the Roman empire. He then continues the history he has proposed. The Heracliotes, when the Roman commanders had crossed into Asia, went to meet them by sending envoys, who were kindly received and brought back letters full of humanity from Aemilius Paulus (or Publius Aemilius): in these, he promised that the Senate would be a friend to them, and that there would be no lack of Roman prudence and care, if ever they had need of such things. ^B Afterward, they sent an embassy to Cornelius Scipio, who had secured Africa for the Romans by war, in order to confirm the friendship previously promised. And after these things, they again besought him through envoys that he might reconcile Antiochus to the Romans, and they exhorted him to write a decree to the king that he should lay aside the war against the Romans. Cornelius Scipio also, replying to the Heracliotes, used this inscription: "Scipio, Imperator, Proconsul of the Romans, to the Senate and people of the Heracliotes, greetings." And in these letters he affirmed that the benevolence toward them remained fixed and firm, and that the Romans had resolved the war with Antiochus. The same things which Lucius had written, Publius Cornelius Scipio, his brother and commander of the fleet, also replied to the Heracliotes after they had sent their embassy. A short time later, Antiochus renewed the war against the Romans, but being defeated in a battle fought with the utmost strength, he laid down his arms, once the conditions of peace were accepted. ^C These conditions excluded him from all of Asia Minor and deprived him of his elephants and fleet of ships, leaving him only Commagene, Syria, and Judea. The city of the Heracliotes, under the commanders appointed by the Romans (whom I mentioned just now), enjoyed the same grace and humanity, until at length it arrived at these laws between the Romans and the Heracliotes: that they should cultivate not only friendship between themselves, but also an alliance, against whomsoever and for whatsoever cause there might be need. And the pacts of this treaty, of the same tenor and form, were inscribed on two bronze tablets, of which one is held by the Romans, affixed in the temple of Jupiter in the Capitol, and the other at Heraclea, also in a temple of Jupiter.

Chapter 29. — The Heracleans, forced into straits by Prusias; the slaughter of the same.

After the author had set these things out in the thirteenth and fourteenth books of his History, he begins the fifteenth and relates as follows: Prusias, he says, the king of the Bithynians, being wonderfully industrious and diligent, and famous for many deeds, among other things subdued by war Cierus, a city of the Heracliote territory, renaming it Prusiada instead of Cierus. ^D He also took Tium, which was subject to their jurisdiction, so that he surrounded Heraclea on all sides by sea. From this, they were constrained into straits; and this is his undoing.

in a state of violent siege, and killed very many of the besieged; and the city was very near to being taken, had it not been that as Prusias was climbing up a ladder, he was struck by a stone thrown by one of those on the ramparts, and his leg was broken, and this accident forced him to desist from the siege. For having been struck in this way, he was carried home in a litter by his Bithynians, not without the bitterness of pain, and having passed not many years after, living as a crippled man in name and in reality, he reached the end of his life. ^A

Cap. XXX. — The siege of Heraclea by the Galatians.

The Galatians who live above the Pontus, before the Romans had yet crossed into Asia, having a desire to make trial of the sea, attempted to occupy Heraclea first, and they did not deem it difficult; for it had greatly declined from its ancient power and had begun to slip gradually into contempt. Therefore they attack it with all their forces, nor was it unmindful of its allies, but prepared itself with whatever the circumstances allowed. Consequently, it was besieged, and time was wasted, which drove the Galatians into a lack of necessities; for the Galatian man knows how to wage war with wrath and not with the necessary equipment. Therefore, when they had departed from the camp to collect provisions, the townsmen, having made a sally and fallen upon them ^B unexpectedly, captured the camp itself, killed many, and easily captured those who were scattered throughout the country, so that not even a third part of the Galatian army returned to Galatia. And from this success they again conceived hopes of rising to their former glory and prosperity. ^C

Cap. XXXI. — The Heracleotes assist the Romans. The Marrucini people.

The Heracleotes assisted the Romans in the war against the Marsi, the Peligni, and the Marrucini (these are nations that have settled above Africa, on the borders of Gades) with two decked triremes; and when the war had been brought to a prosperous conclusion, having been adorned with many prizes for outstanding valor, they were returned to their homeland in the eleventh year. ^D

Cap. XXXII. — The war of Mithridates against the Romans and its causes.

After these events, a grievous war was set in motion by Mithridates, the king of Pontus, against the Romans, having taken for its ostensible cause the seizure of Cappadocia; for Mithridates, having caught his nephew Ariathes by deceit and peaceable oaths, slaughtered him with his own hand and took possession of it by force; this Ariathes had been born of the sister of Mithridates to Ariathes. For from boyhood Mithridates was most murderous; for having received the throne at thirteen years of age, not long after, he destroyed his mother, whom his father had left as a partner with him in the kingdom, while she was held bound in prison, by the violence of that act and by the length of time, and he also killed his brother. And by war he also subdued the kings around Phasis.

as far as the climates beyond the Caucasus: his kingdom having been amplified with great forces, he displayed an immense tumor of arrogance. On account of which, the Romans, holding his designs the more suspect, had made a senatorial decree that he should restore the ancestral kingdoms to the kings of the Scythians. ^A But he, while moderately obeying the commands, was meanwhile attaching the Parthians and Medes, and Tigranes the Armenian, and the kings of the Scythians, and the Iberians, into a society of war; and he was adding other causes for war. For since the senate at Rome had appointed Nicomedes, born of Nicomedes and Nysa, as king of Bithynia, Mithridates opposed to him Nicomedes, surnamed the Phrugian. Nevertheless, the election of the Romans prevailed, against the will of Mithridates.

CAP. XXXIII. — The victories of Mithridates over Nicomedes, and the slaughter of Roman citizens in Asia.

An interval of time having passed, when sedition had flared up in the Roman Republic between Sulla and Marius, Mithridates ordered Archelaus, the commander of his forces, to lead 45,000 foot soldiers and 10,000 cavalry ^B against the Bithynians; and, the standards having been joined, Archelaus emerged the victor. And Nicomedes also fled with a few. Mithridates, having learned this, when the auxiliary forces were close at hand, moved his camp from the plain beneath Amasia and made his journey through Paphlagonia, bringing with him an army of 150,000. But Marius, having under his standards the forces of Nicomedes (which were being scattered at the mere reputation of Mithridates), with a meager band of Romans, submitted himself to Menophanes, the tribune of Mithridates, and, repulsed, he fled, having lost his entire army. Mithridates, therefore, invading Bithynia securely, obtained both the cities and the region without a fight; and among the other cities of Asia, some were captured, and others conceded to the faith of the king. And suddenly a vast transformation of affairs took place, ^C with the Rhodians alone persisting in their friendship with the Romans. And for this reason, Mithridates moved war against them by land and by sea, although the Rhodians excelled in virtue and fortune to such a degree that the king himself was nearly brought into the hands of the enemy during a naval battle. Mithridates having learned afterwards that the Roman citizens, dispersed through the cities of Asia, were an impediment to his designs, wrote to the cities that in one day they should all kill the Romans among them. And the majority, obedient to his word, perpetrated such a great slaughter that on one and the same day 80,000 met death by the sword.

CAP. XXXIV. — The victories of Sulla over Taxiles and Archelaus, the commanders of Mithridates.

But indeed, when Eretria and Chalcis, and even the whole of Euboea, ^D had attached themselves to Mithridates, and other cities had gone over to him, the Lacedaemonians also having been defeated, the Romans sent out Sulla with a proper battle line. At his arrival, some cities made a voluntary surrender, while others came into his power by force. Nor did he put to flight a small army of the Pontics. He also captured Athens; and the city would have been razed to the ground, had it not more quickly

the Roman Senate would have checked Sulla’s resolve. Post ^A frequent conflicts, in which the Pontics excelled, when affairs were already beginning to change with happy success, a lack of provisions pressed upon the royal troops, because they abused their food supplies prodigally and did not know how to manage what had been acquired properly. And they would have fallen into the most extreme calamity, had not Taxiles, having captured Amphipolis, and Macedonia consequently deserting to him, provided from there a large supply of provisions. He and Archelaus, having mixed their armies together, led more than 60,000 men under their standards, and they had their winter quarters in the region of Phocis, intending to meet Sulla. But he, having taken with him L. Hortensius, who had arrived from Italy, pitched his camp while leaving a sufficiently long interval in between. But as the soldiers of Archelaus turned to foraging in a disorganized manner, Sulla attacked their camp unexpectedly; he killed as many as he caught who were powerful in strength, and as for those from whom there was no fear of an attack, he surrounded them in the place and ordered them to light fires, so that they might wait for those returning from foraging, with no suspicion provided of the adverse event. As this had been prudently provided for by the commander, it turned out happily; and the Sullani obtained a magnificent victory.

CAP. XXXV. — Heraclians vindicate the Chians who were reduced to slavery by Dorylaus.

^B Mithridates then, accusing the Chians because they had sent aid to the Rhodians, attacked them through the agency of Dorylaus, who, although with much labor, took the city and divided the territories among the Pontics, and placed the citizens on ships and carried them off to Pontus. But the Heraclians, since there was a friendship between them and the Chians, having attacked the Pontic ships during their passage—which were carrying the captives—even though they did not resist (for they did not have sufficient strength), they led them into their city. And immediately, providing them abundantly with necessary things, they refreshed the Chians; and subsequently, having presented them with magnificent gifts, they restored them to their homeland.

CAP. XXXVI. — Valerius Flaccus, successor to Sulla, ^C is murdered by Fimbria, and the successes of the latter.

Under these circumstances, the Roman Senate committed the Mithridatic war to Valerius Flaccus and Fimbria, with mandates that they should assist Sulla if he was defending the interests of the Senate; but if not, they were to join battle with him first. He, therefore, at the beginning, was buffeted by various vicissitudes of adverse fortune. For he endured both famine and the iniquity of Mars; yet, in most matters, he enjoyed the successful outcome of fortune. And having progressed through the borders of the Byzantines into Bithynia, and thence toward Nicaea, he pitched his ^D camp. But Flaccus, while he took it indignantly that Fimbria was more favored by the army—because he ruled in a more mild and humane manner—and that his command was preferred, and consequently he accused both him and the more noble of the soldiers; two, inflamed with anger more than the others, slay him. On whose account the Senate was indeed angry with Fimbria, but nevertheless, by disguising its indignation, it...

ensured that he be voted the consulship. ^A He, having become the commander of the entire force, brought under his control some cities voluntarily, and others by force. The son of Mithridates, joined with Taxiles, Diophantus, and Menander—the most distinguished of the commanders—and leading a large force, confronted Fimbria. At first, the barbarians held the upper hand. But Fimbria, thinking to repair the losses sustained in the pitched battle by a stratagem (for the enemy was superior in number), when they had arrived at a certain river that divided both armies, [H.] following a heavy rainfall just at dawn, the Roman commander unexpectedly crossed the river. He fell upon the enemies while they were weighed down by sleep in their tents, so that they did not even perceive it. ^B Having caused a great slaughter, few of the commanders and cavalry escaped death. Among those who escaped was Mithridates, the son of Mithridates, who arrived safely at Pergamum to his father, Mithridates, along with his retinue of cavalry. Such a heavy and remarkable disaster having thus befallen the royal forces, most of the cities went over to the Romans.

Cap. XXXVII. — Sulla's peace with Mithridates.

Marius having returned home from his flight, Sulla, fearing (for he was one of his opposing faction) lest he suffer in return the same injury he had inflicted upon him, sent an embassy to Mithridates, suggesting to him terms of peace with the Romans. ^C When he eagerly embraced the peace and requested that they meet to reach an agreement, he promptly set out. When they had traveled through some space between them and had processed to meet each other, Dardanus provided them with hospitality for the purpose of concluding the treaty. There, having ordered the attendants and companions to withdraw, the pacts were made in this manner: Mithridates should withdraw from Asia for the Romans, and let the kings of the lineage rule over the Bithynians and Cappadocians; the kingdom of all Pontus was to be confirmed for Mithridates; and he was to provide Sulla personally with eighty triremes and three thousand talents for his own return to Rome; and the Romans were to hold nothing against the cities for having defected to Mithridates. ^D Yet this, according to the terms of the peace, did not have the event, for later they enslaved many of the cities. Sulla then returned gloriously to Italy, and Marius again withdrew from the city, and Mithridates returned home, having once again brought under his hand many of the nations that had defected due to the misfortune into which he had been cast.

Cap. XXXVIII. — Murena renews the war against Mithridates. The Heracleotes assist neither side.

After these events, Murena was put in charge of the war. To him, Mithridates sent ambassadors, holding out the terms of the peace initiated with Sulla and contending that they should be valid and firm. But he was not appeased by the embassy (for the ambassadors were Greeks by nation, and philosophers in their way of life, who...

(who were philosophers by life) disparaged Mithridates rather than commended him) moved against Mithridates. He confirmed the rule of Ariobarzanes of Cappadocia, and at the incursions of the Mithridatic kingdom, he founded the city of Nicæa. During these events, both Murena and Mithridates sent embassies to the Heracleots, each in turn calling upon them for an alliance against the other. They, however, deemed the power of the Romans ^A formidable, and they also dreaded the proximity of Mithridates. Therefore, they replied to the envoys from both sides that, as so many wars had broken out, they could scarcely maintain their own safety, let alone assist others. But many advised Murena to move the war against Sinope and attack the royal seat, as if he captured this, he would easily master the rest. But Mithridates, having fortified this with strong garrisons, took a personal stand to wage war. In the first skirmishes, the king’s forces were superior; then the battle turned into a draw, and the eagerness of the combatants was replaced by hesitation. ^B Therefore, Mithridates turned toward the regions of the Phasis and the Caucasus, while Murena departed for Asia, and each settled his own affairs.

CAP. XXXIX. — The expedition of Lucullus and Cotta against Mithridates.

Not long after, Sulla departed from life in Rome, and the senate sent Aurelius Cotta to Bithynia and Lucius Lucullus to Asia, with instructions to wage war upon Mithridates. Mithridates prepared another substantial army, and the number of his triremes, along with his smaller ships—which they call penteconters and cercuri—was not small. He gave a force to Diophantus the son of Mithras and sent him into Cappadocia, to install garrisons in the cities, and if Lucullus should arrive in Pontus, to meet him and block his forward progress. He himself kept under his ^C banners 150,000 infantry, and 12,000 cavalry, whom 120 scythed chariots followed, along with an abundance of every other type of artillery. He pressed on through Timonitis, Cappadocia, and Galatia, and arrived in Bithynia on the ninth day. Lucullus meanwhile ordered Cotta to hold a station at the harbor of the Chalcedonians with his entire fleet.

CAP. XL. — The Heracleots join Mithridates and kill the Roman publicans.

Mithridates’ fleet, passing by Heraclea, was not received by the city, but they did provide the market that was requested. As was natural, after ^D commercial relations had been established, Archelaus, the commander of the navy, seized Silenus and Satyrus, noble men of Heraclea, and did not release them until he had persuaded them to grant five triremes to assist him in the war against the Romans. By this act (which Archelaus had maneuvered with cunning), the people of Heraclea earned the enmity of the Romans. When, therefore, the Romans established public auctions in other cities, the Heracleots...

they exposed Heraclea as well, for the reason stated before. ^A When the tax-collectors entered the city and began to demand money against the custom of the state, they cast the citizens into mourning, for they considered this to be the beginning of slavery. Wherefore, although the situation required that they should send an embassy to the Roman senate to beg to be exempted from the tax-collecting, they were persuaded by a certain most audacious man in the city to do away with the tax-collectors, so secretly that no one knew anything of their death.

Cap. XLI. — Battle at Chalcedon with Mithridates, disastrous for the Romans.

^B A naval battle having then been joined at Chalcedon between the Romans and the Pontics, and the infantry forces of both the King and the Romans having clashed in battle (Cotta was in command of the latter, Mithridates of the former), the Bastarnae put the Italian infantry to flight and wrought a great slaughter of them. The same fate befell the fleet, and in a single day both land and sea were foully filled with Roman corpses; in the naval conflict 8,000 were slain and 4,500 captured; of the Italian infantry, 5,300. On Mithridates' side, about 30 Bastarnae and 700 of the rest of the multitude fell. This success of Mithridates caused the spirits of all to collapse in a servile manner. But Lucullus, having his camp at the Sangarius river, and having learned of this disaster, lifted the spirits of his shaken soldiers with his words.

Cap. XLII. — Mithridates subdued at Cyzicus by the martial prowess of Lucullus and by shipwrecks.

When, however, Mithridates turned toward Cyzicus with high spirits, desiring to bring his forces against the city, ^C Lucullus fell upon his rear, and bringing his battle standards against him, routed the Pontics in a memorable victory and stripped them of their strength. He cut down in battle considerably more than 10,000, and captured 13,000. But the Fimbrian army, suspecting their commanders—as if, on account of the most audacious crime against Flaccus, they could no longer rely on their loyalty—sent secretly to Mithridates, promising to defect. He, considering this invitation a godsend, when night fell, sent Archelaus to confirm the agreements and to bring those who were joining his side. But the Fimbrians, when Archelaus arrived among them, seized him, and made away with the band that had come with him. Following this misfortune, famine also oppressed the royal army, and brought destruction to many. Nevertheless, though smitten by such adverse events, he did not desist from the siege of Cyzicus; but shortly after, though he had ^D suffered and done many things, he retreated, leaving the city unstormed, having appointed Hermæus and Marius to lead the infantry—who were leading a force of over 30,000 men—while he himself planned his return by sea. And as he embarked on the triremes, many and varied forms of evils set upon him at once. For while the soldiers were preparing to set sail, the ships, seeing that

and some are already filled, others are shortly to be filled, they hung on and held fast; and because of the multitude of those doing this, some were submerged while others were capsized. The Cyzicenes, seeing this, charged the Pontic camps, and slaughtering those left behind who were infirm, they plundered whatever remained in the camp ^A. Lucullus, pursuing the infantry at their rear, overtook them unexpectedly at the Aesepus river, and made a great slaughter of the enemy. Mithridates, meanwhile, having gathered such forces as he could in Pontus, was besieging and attacking Perinthus; but failing in this, he crossed over into Bithynia.

CAP. XLIII. — Triarius's exploits against Mithridates. The city of Prusa. The fable of Nicaea and Bacchus.

^B When Barba had arrived, bringing a strong force of Italians, and Triarius, the Roman leader, having moved his camp, was besieged Apamea, the citizens, after having withstood the enemy for as long as they were able, finally opened their gates and admitted them [383 H.]. The Roman force also captured the city of Prusa; it lies at the foot of Mount Olympus in Asia. From there, Triarius arrived with his forces at Prusias, a city on the sea; in ancient times it was called Cieros. It is said that the Argonauts landed there, and that Hylas ^C disappeared, and that Heracles wandered about in search of him, and many other things of this sort are said to have happened. Upon his arrival, the Prusienses easily received him, having driven out the Pontics. From there, he approached Nicaea, which was guarded by a Pontic garrison; but the Pontics, perceiving that the minds of the citizens were leaning toward the Romans, withdrew by night to Mithridates in Nicomedia, and the Romans took possession of the city without any difficulty. This city of Nicaea derives its name from a Naiad nymph ^D who was named Nicaea; it is the work of the Nicaeans who had campaigned with Alexander, and after his death, while they were seeking a homeland, they founded and populated this city [740 R.]. The Naiad Nicaea is said to have been born of Sangarius, the lord of that region, and Cybele; she cherished her maidenhood more than she desired relations with a man, and she spent her life in the mountains and in hunting. Dionysus was in love with her, but though he loved, he did not attain her. Since he did not succeed, he tried to supply what was lacking in his plan with devices. He filled the spring from which Nicaea was accustomed to drink when she was exhausted from hunting with wine instead of water. She, suspecting nothing and acting according to her custom, drank her fill of the treacherous stream, and even against her will she served the desire of her lover; for overcome by drunkenness and sleep, Dionysus had intercourse with her, and she bore children by him, Satyrus and others. Now the Nicaeans, who raised up the city and populated it, were at first neighbors to Phocis; but because they were constantly rebelling, the Phocenses finally expelled them from their homeland, and so that their city might be razed and destroyed, they...

they were frequently factious, were later deprived of their fatherland, ^A for having brought about its destruction and the ruin of those in Phocis with great zeal. But that is how Nicaea received its name and its foundation, and that is how it passed to the Romans.

Cap. XLIV. — Mithridates yields to Cotta and Triarius, and occupies Heraclea by guile.

Mithridates, meanwhile, was staying in Nicomedia. Cotta, desiring to repair some of his previous losses, came from Chalcedon, where he had been defeated, to Nicomedia, and encamped one hundred and fifty stadia from the city, avoiding a pitched battle. There, Triarius arrived with great haste and of his own accord to join Cotta; and as Mithridates retreated into the city, both Roman armies prepared to lay siege to it. But the king, learning that the Pontic forces had been defeated by Lucullus in two naval battles, one near Tenedos and the other in the Aegean, and considering himself unable to face the Roman forces now present—for his fleet as it was sailing up the river encountered a violent storm and he lost some of his triremes, while he himself was carried with the majority of them into the Hypius river—was delayed there by the storm. Having heard that Lamachus the Heracleote, whom he held bound by an ancient treaty of friendship, was at the helm of the government, he lured the man with many promises to help him be received into the city. He had even sent money for this purpose. Lamachus performed what had been asked of him. By preparing a public banquet for the citizens outside the city, at which he gave his word that he would not keep the gates closed, he enticed the people with wine, and made an effort to ensure that Mithridates would arrive to them that very day by prearrangement. And so the city, without even sensing the arrival of the Heracleote, fell into the hands of Mithridates. The next day, the king summoned the multitude, addressed them with friendly words, and urged them to keep faith toward him; he then entrusted the guarding of the city to Connacorix ^C with a garrison of four thousand men. The pretext was that he would defend the citizens and preserve them if the Romans should plot anything against them. Hence, having distributed money among the citizens, and most especially among the magistrates, he directed his course of navigation toward Sinope.

Cap. XLV. — The second battles of the Romans against Mithridates.

Then Lucullus, Cotta, and Triarius, the Roman commanders, having united their forces at Nicomedia, resolved to make an incursion into Pontus. But when the capture of Heraclea was reported to them, and, as the treachery was not yet known, they supposed that the defection had occurred by the will of the entire city, it was decided that Lucullus should march with the bulk of the army through the interior and Cappadocia against the king and his entire realm, and that Cotta should besiege Heraclea. Triarius, however, having taken the fleet, was sent into Crete and Hispania.

^A intercepting the Mithridatic ships returning around the Hellespont and the Propontis. Mithridates, hearing this, prepared himself and sent embassies to the kings of the Scythians, to the Parthian, and to his son-in-law Tigranes the Armenian. The others refused, but Tigranes, although he hesitated for a long time, was urged again and again with no small annoyance by the daughter of Mithridates and finally promised his alliance. Meanwhile, Mithridates sent various generals against Lucullus, and in the engagements that followed, the shifts of fortune were manifold, though in most cases the aura of victory favored the Romans, and the spirit of Mithridates languished. Having therefore assembled forty thousand infantry and eight thousand cavalry, he dispatched Diophantus and Taxiles to join those previously sent. When they had joined those who had arrived earlier, the enemies initially tested each other in nearly daily skirmishes, and then two cavalry battles took place, of which the Romans won the first, and the Pontic forces the second. While the war was being drawn out, Lucullus sent men to bring supplies into Cappadocia. Taxiles and Diophantus, learning of this, sent out four thousand infantry and two thousand cavalry, with the intention that by laying an ambush in between they would seize the supplies from those bringing them. When they came to blows, the Romans proved the stronger; for when Lucullus sent reinforcements to his own men, a clear rout of the barbarians took place. In their flight, the Roman force, guided ^B toward the camp of Diophantus and Taxiles, arrived, and after a fierce battle was fought against them, the Pontic forces held out for a little while, but then, with the generals being the first to withdraw, they all gave way. The generals themselves arrived as messengers of this disaster to Mithridates, and a great multitude of the barbarians perished at that time.

Chapter XLVI. — Fuga Mithridatis periculosa.

Thus, with the affairs of Mithridates having clearly declined, the slaughter of the royal wives was carried out, and he himself fled secretly from Cabira, where he had been dwelling, without the knowledge of his other subjects. In his flight, he would have been captured by the Gauls who were pursuing him, even though they did not know it was the fugitive king, had they not happened upon a mule carrying gold and silver from the treasures of Mithridates and been delayed by the seizing of these goods. And he himself escaped safely into Armenia.

Chapter XLVII. — Lucullus Eupatoriam et Amisum capit.

Lucullus sent Marcus Pompeius as a commander against Mithridates, while he himself pressed on with his entire force against Cabira; having besieged the city, he held the barbarians who surrendered themselves under a truce and took possession of its walls. Thence he proceeded to Amisus, and in his discourse urged the Romans who were in it ^C to submit, since he could not persuade them, he left this place and shifted his efforts to the siege of Eupatoria... ^D

transfert: and he feigns that he is attacking it negligently, so that the enemies, provoked by this example of similar negligence, might by a sudden change bring to a successful conclusion what he had planned in his mind. And the outcome corresponded: by that stratagem the city was captured. For while the guards suspect no such thing, but act securely, he orders the soldiers to seize ladders, and gives them the opportunity to scale the walls. And thus Eupatoria is captured and immediately razed. Not long after, Amisus is also captured, the walls having here too been overcome by the enemy by the application of ladders. ^B And at first, no small slaughter of the citizens takes place; but afterwards Lucullus, having halted the slaughter, restores both the city and the region to the survivors, and treats them with greater clemency.

CAP. XLVIII. — Mithridates flees to Tigranes and is requested in vain.

At Mithridates, having arrived at his son-in-law’s, does not obtain the requested interview, but he does receive a guard for his person from him, and is treated with other offices of hospitality. Lucullus also sent his envoy, Appius Clodius, to Tigranes, demanding Mithridates. But he does not hand him over, affirming that he respects the censure of all men if he should betray his wife’s father to an enemy. He admits, indeed, that Mithridates is wicked, but claims that he must have regard for their kinship. He also writes a letter back to Lucullus in these terms, which ^C provoked him to anger, because the king had omitted the title of *imperator* in the inscription, and had complained that Lucullus himself had not attributed the title of "king of kings" to him in his letters. Here ends the fifteenth book of the History.

CHAPTER XLIX. — Cotta besieges Heraclea.

The following history, however, commemorates these events. Having moved his Roman camps, Cotta marched against Heraclea. But first he led them to Prusias. (This city had previously taken the name Cieri from the river flowing past it, but the King of Bithynia took it from the Heracleans and renamed it after himself.) Thence he descended to the Pontic Sea, and passing along the coast, pitched his camp near the walls located on the height. The Heracleans trusted in the strength of the place, and as Cotta ^D pressed the siege vigorously, they fought back along with the garrison; and there was more slaughter of the Roman multitude, though the Heracleans also suffered many wounds from the missiles. Therefore, Cotta sounded the retreat for his troops from the assault on the wall, and having pitched his camp at some distance, he was entirely intent on cutting off the besieged from their exits for necessary supplies. When, therefore, a famine arose, they sent envoys to the colonists, asking for a supply of food for purchase. And the embassy was received kindly.

CAP. L. — Triarius subdues the remainder of Mithridates' fleet.

^A A short time before, Triarius, equipped with a Roman fleet, having set out from Nicomedia, launched an attack on the Pontic triremes, which, as the narrative stated above, had been sent off toward Crete and Iberia. But when he learned that the remaining ships had retreated back into the Pontus (for many of them had perished in storms and various naval engagements in their respective locations), he overtook them and joined battle near Tenedos. He commanded triremes himself, while the Pontic forces were sailing in somewhat fewer numbers. When the battle was joined, at first the king’s men resisted, but later, after a notable rout occurred, the Roman army was victorious with great power, and thus the entire Mithridatic fleet, as much as had sailed with it to Asia, was captured.

CAP. LI. — Cotta summons Triarius to the siege of Heraclea.

^B Cotta, who was encamped near Heraclea, had not yet attacked the city with his entire army, but was bringing them up in sections, placing some Romans in front, but many Bithynians. As many were being wounded and killed, he devised engines, of which the "tortoise" seemed the most terrifying to the besieged. He brought this machine forward, having moved his entire force along with a tower that was in a precarious state, to see what would happen. But when it was struck once and then a second time, and not only persisted beyond expectation but the battering ram was broken off from the rest of the machine, it brought encouragement to the Heracleans and distress to Cotta, who was disturbed that the city might never be taken. On the following day, having brought up the machine again and achieved nothing, he burned the machine and cut off the heads of the engineers. Leaving a garrison at the walls, he spent time with the rest of the multitude in what is called the Lycaean plain, as the place had an abundance of provisions. From there, he ravaged the entire region around Heraclea, driving the citizens into great straits. They sent embassies again to the Chersonesites in Scythia, and to the Theodosians, and to the dynasts around the Bosphorus, for the sake of an alliance; and the embassy returned successful. ^C But while the enemies were pressing upon the city, troubles from within attacked it no less severely. For the garrison soldiers were not satisfied with what the common people survived on, and by beating the citizens, they ordered them to provide what was not easily available. And even more cruel than the guards was their commander, Connacoris, not only not preventing the violence of his men but even freely permitting it. ^D Cotta, having ravaged the land, attacked the walls again. But seeing the soldiers sluggish and dispirited for the siege, he gave up the attempt at wall-fighting and sent to summon Triarius, that he might fly to him with the triremes as quickly as possible and cut off the supply of provisions to the city by sea.

^A Triarius, therefore, taking the ships he had, along with twenty Rhodian vessels (making a total of forty-three), crossed into the Pontus and signaled his arrival to Cotta. On that very day, Cotta led his army against the walls, and the arrival of Triarius's fleet became visible. The people of Heraclea, disturbed by the sudden approach of the ships, launched thirty vessels into the sea—though they did not man them fully—and turned the rest of their efforts to the siege. The Heraclean fleet set sail against the approaching enemy. First, the Rhodians (for they were considered to excel the others in skill and bravery) engaged those from Heraclea, and immediately three Rhodian and five Heraclean ships were sunk. Then the Romans entered the naval battle, and having suffered and inflicted many losses, but having caused greater damage, they routed those from Heraclea and forced them to flee toward the city, fourteen ships having been lost. The victorious fleet then anchored in the Great Harbor. Cotta also called back his infantry from the assault. Those under Triarius, sailing out from the harbor every day, hindered those who were attempting to bring grain to the besieged, and a terrible shortage of provisions seized the city, such that the so-called choenix of grain rose to forty Attic drachmae. In addition to other calamities, a plague ^B also fell upon them (whether from a change in the air or from an unaccustomed diet), producing death in various forms of suffering. Among those who perished was Lamachus, who died after a much more bitter and lingering agony than the others. This plague struck the guards in particular, so that a thousand out of three thousand died. The Romans were not unaware of this affliction.

CAP. LIII. — The betrayal and sack of Heraclea; the dissension of the Romans.

Now Connacorix, failing under these afflictions, resolved to betray the city to the Romans and to exchange his own safety for the destruction of the Heracleans. A certain Heraclean man, an emulator of Lamachus's designs, gave him assistance; his name was Damophile, and he had been appointed commander of the city's garrison following the death of Lamachus. Connacorix was wary of Cotta, as he was a man of difficult character and uncertain loyalty, but he communicated the matter to Triarius. Damophile joined them in this project with no less zeal, and having received the terms of the agreement, by which they hoped to prosper, they prepared for the betrayal. However, what was being plotted by the traitors leaked out to the common people. The city ran together into an assembly and called for the garrison commander. Brithagoras, a man of prominent authority among the commoners, having met with Connacorix, set forth the situation in which Heraclea stood, and moved that, if he approved, they should confer with Triarius for the common safety of all. After Brithagoras had perorated these things with many interspersed entreaties, Connacorix rose ^D and...

refused to hand over the inheritance, but under the guise of freedom and better prospects, he urged them to hold out. For he feigned that he had learned through letters that the king had been kindly received by Tigranes his son-in-law, and that no long interval remained before sufficient aid could be expected from there. ^A Connacorix played this theatrical role for them. Wherefore the Heracleotes, deceived by these words—for one always believes what one desires—put faith in these cleverly concocted tales as if they were true. Connacorix, when he saw that they had been led into a trap, at the dead of night embarked his army on the triremes quietly (for the treaty entered into with Triarius permitted them to depart unharmed, and to carry off with them whatever profit they had made), and he himself set sail with them. Damophiles, meanwhile, opened the gates and received the Roman army and Triarius; some burst in through the gate, while others scaled the battlements. Only then did the Heracleotes realize they had been betrayed. ^B Some surrendered themselves, while others were cut down; the valuables and furniture were plundered, and great cruelty was wreaked upon the citizens, as the Romans remembered what losses they had suffered in the naval battle and what hardships they had endured during the siege. Consequently, they did not even spare those who had fled to the sacred places, but slaughtered the suppliants beside the very altars and statues. Wherefore, many slipped over the walls in fear of inevitable death and scattered throughout the entire region; some were even forced to desert to Cotta. When he learned from them of the capture of the city, the slaughter of its people, and the plundering of their wealth, he was filled with rage and hastened with all speed toward the city. ^C The army also shared his indignation, as they had not only been robbed of the glory of their hard-fought successes but had also been defrauded of all their spoils by those same people. And they would have engaged in a fierce battle with their own countrymen and would have cut one another down, had not Triarius, perceiving their agitation, pacified Cotta with many words and, by pledging that the spoils would be shared in common, checked the internecine war.

CAP. LIV. — Cotta burns the plundered Heraclea, and on his return loses a large part of the booty in shipwrecks.

When he heard that Connacorix had occupied Tium and Amastris, Cotta immediately sent Triarius to take those cities away from them. ^D He himself, meanwhile, after taking those who had surrendered and the captives, administered the rest with every cruelty. For while he was searching everywhere for wealth, he did not even spare the sacred things, but moved the statues and likenesses, many and beautiful as they were. Indeed, he even removed the Hercules from the marketplace and his equipment from the pyramid, which in expense, size, and also rhythm, grace, and workmanship was inferior to none of the most praised works. It was a club forged of pure gold, with the lion's skin draped over him, and a quiver of the same material, with the bow and...

filled with arrows. Many other things as well, equally wonderful and ^A beautiful, having been taken from the temples and the city, he placed upon the ships. And finally, having ordered the soldiers to set fire to the city, he burned it in many places. Thus the city was taken, having held out against the siege for two years. Triarius, having arrived at the cities assigned to him, having granted safety of departure (for this man intended to conceal the betrayal of Heraclea by occupying others) to Connacorigis, he received the cities under certain conditions. Cotta, however, having completed matters in the way stated, hands over the infantry and cavalry together to Lucullus, and dismisses the allied forces to their respective homelands; he himself sails away with the fleet. There, a part of the ships that were carrying the spoils of the city, being overloaded beyond measure, broke apart not far from the shore, while others, due to a north wind blowing against them, were cast by storms into the shallows, and most of the goods they were ^B carrying were lost.

Cap. LV. — Leonippus, Cleocharis, and Seleucus, prefects of Mithridates. Dissension, tyranny, and perfidy at Sinope.

Then Leonippus, to whom, along with Cleocharis, the care and protection of Sinope had been entrusted by Mithridates, having despaired of the situation, sends word to Lucullus regarding a betrayal. But Cleocharis together with Seleucus (for he too was a general of Mithridates, equal in the authority of his office to those already mentioned), having learned of Leonippus’s betrayal, gathered an assembly and accused him. But the people did not accept it; for he seemed to them to be an upright man. Therefore, the faction of Cleocharis, fearing his favor among the populace, murdered the man by night from an ambush. ^C The common people indeed took this event badly, but Cleocharis and his party, having become masters of affairs, ruled tyrannically, thinking that by this means they would evade punishment for the murder of Leonippus. Meanwhile, Censorinus, an admiral of the Romans, conveying fifteen triremes bearing grain from the Bosporus to the Roman camp, put in near Sinope. Against him the triremes of Sinope, commanded by Seleucus, sailed out, and joined in a naval battle. Having defeated the Italians, they seize the grain ships for their own gain. Cleocharis, therefore, emboldened by this success and good fortune along with his colleague, oppressed the city with a rule more tyrannical than before. For, without causes being debated in a lawful trial, they hurried the citizens to execution and abused their power with much other cruelty. However, it happened that the interests of Cleocharis and Seleucus ^D were split in opposite directions. For the former favored persisting in the war, while Seleucus was of the opinion that all the people of Sinope should be massacred, and that the city should be handed over to the Romans for a magnificent reward. Yet, since neither of their opinions was approved, they loaded everything they possessed into merchant vessels and sent them off to Machares, the son of Mithridates, who was at that time in Colchis.

CAP. LVI. — Lucullus receives Machares, son of Mithridates, into friendship. The tyrants flee. Sinope is captured.

At this same time, Lucullus, the Roman commander, arrived at the city and besieged it with vigor. Now Machares, the son of Mithridates, sent an embassy to Lucullus concerning friendship and alliance. He gladly accepted, saying he would hold the agreements fixed, provided that he did not send supplies to ^A the Sinopeans. He not only did what was commanded, but even sent to Lucullus what he had prepared to send to the Mithridatics. When the faction around Cleochares saw this, they gave up all hope, and having loaded great wealth onto ships and abandoned the city to be plundered by the soldiers (these things were done under cover of night), they fled by ship to the interior of the Pontus (the region was inhabited by the Sani and Lazi as colonists), having set fire to the remainder of the ships. When the flame arose, Lucullus noticed the action and ordered ladders to be brought to the wall; the soldiers climbed over. At first there was no small slaughter; but Lucullus, pitying the calamity, stopped the killing. In this way, then, Sinope came under Roman control. Amasea still resisted, ^B but not much time passed before it, too, surrendered to the Romans.

CAP. LVII. — Mithridates finally and with difficulty obtains aid from Tigranes.

Mithridates, having lingered for a year and three months in parts of Armenia, was not yet admitted into the presence of Tigranes. But when Tigranes was shamed into granting him an audience, he met him with a magnificent procession and received him royally. After having spoken with him in private for three days, he then treated him with the most brilliant banquets and, having shown his goodwill, gave him ten thousand horsemen and sent him back to the Pontus. ^C

CAP. LVIII. — Lucullus ravages Armenia, and the treasures of Tigranes are scarcely saved.

Lucullus, having come into Cappadocia and having as a friend its governor Ariobarzanes, unexpectedly crossed the Euphrates on foot and led his army to the city where he had learned that the concubines of Tigranes were kept, along with many things of great value. He left behind others to besiege Tigranocerta, and another army to attack the more important fortified towns. ^D As Armenia was being besieged in many parts in this way, Tigranes sent to summon Mithridates back. He also sent an army around the city where he kept the concubines, and they, having arrived and having blocked the exits from the Roman camp with a hail of arrows, sent away the concubines and the most precious of the treasures by night. When day dawned, the Romans, fighting bravely together with the Thracians, slaughtered a great number of the Armenians, and they captured no fewer alive than they killed; however, the things that had been sent away beforehand remained safe and reached Tigranes.

CAP. LIX. — Lucullus' victories over Tigranes at Tigranocerta; and the surrender of the city.

^A Having gathered eighty thousand men, he descended to rescue Tigranocerta from the pressing evils and to drive off the enemy. But as soon as he saw the small size of the Roman camp, he spoke arrogantly and with contempt of them: "If they are ambassadors," he said, "there are many of them; but if they are enemies, they are very few." Having said this, he began to encamp. But Lucullus, having drawn up his line of battle with singular skill and zeal, and having inspired confidence in his men by his exhortation, immediately put the right wing to flight; soon a collapse occurred nearby, and then all gave way. A terrible and irresistible rout fell upon the Armenians, and the slaughter of men followed in proportion to their numbers. Tigranes, therefore, having placed the diadem and the insignia of his reign upon his son, fled to a certain fortress. Lucullus turned back toward Tigranocerta and pressed the siege with greater effort. Then the commanders of Mithridates in the city, having despaired of the whole situation, surrendered the city to Lucullus, seeking their own safety.

CAP. LX. — The dealings of Tigranes with Mithridates, and the embassy to the King of the Parthians.

Mithridates, having returned to Tigranes, encouraged him and placed upon him royal attire not inferior to what he was accustomed to wear. He also proposed a plan for gathering an army (since he himself had a force not to be despised), in order to recover the losses of the victory through war. But Tigranes, attributing more virtue and prudence to him, and judging him more fit for wars against the Romans, yielded everything to Mithridates. He himself, meanwhile, sent an embassy to the Parthian Phraates, asking him to yield to him Mesopotamia, Adiabene, and the great valleys, as they call them. ^C And when the ambassadors of Lucullus also came to the Parthian, he pretended in private to be a friend and ally to the Romans, while in private he pretended the same thing to the Armenians.

CAP. LXI. — The hatred of Rome toward Cotta, and the action taken by Thrasymedes of Heraclea.

Meanwhile, Cotta, having returned to Rome, was honored by the Senate and ennobled with the title "Ponticus," because he had captured Heraclea. But when the unfavorable report of his actions reached Rome, he was met with public hatred, and his vast wealth increased the envy against him. To deflect this, he brought most of the spoils into the public treasury, although this did not make the Romans any gentler toward him, since they were convinced that he was returning only a few things out of the many he had taken. They immediately decreed by public vote that the captives from Heraclea should be released. Furthermore, Thrasymedes, one of those from Heraclea, accused Cotta publicly before the assembly, putting forward the goodwill of his city toward the Romans, and arguing that if there was any deviation from this, it was not done by the will of the city, but by the fraud of the magistrates and the force of their opponents. With a miserable lament, he set before their eyes the burning of the city and how deep and vast the destruction was that the fire had wrought, and how the statues...

destined to be among the assailants. He went on to relate the burning of the city and all that the fire destroyed, and how Cotta tore down the statues and carried off the loot, and dismantled the temples, and all the other cruel acts he had committed; and he enumerated the infinite amount of gold and silver of the city, and the other prosperity of Heraclea which he had claimed for himself. ^B After Thrasymedes had recounted such things with wailing and tears, and the Roman commanders had been softened by the misfortune (for a great crowd of captives had also come forward, men together with women and children, clad in mourning garments and holding out olive branches of supplication, accompanied by lamentations), Cotta came forward in turn and spoke a few words in his native tongue, and then sat down. And Carbo stood up and said, "We, Cotta, ordered you to take the city, not to destroy it." And after him, others also similarly accused Cotta. To many, therefore, Cotta seemed deserving of exile; but, exercising moderation, they deprived him of his broad stripe (laticlavus). To the Heracleans, however, they restored their land, their sea, and their harbors, and passed a decree that none of them should be subjected to slavery.

Chapter LXII. — The striving of Thrasymedes and Brithagoras for the restoration of Heraclea and its liberty.

When Thrasymedes had accomplished these things, he sent the majority of the people back to their homeland; he himself, however, with Brithagoras and Propylus (Propylus was the son of Brithagoras), remained for a time and administered the affairs that the needs of the fatherland required. ^C And when a few years had passed, he returned to Heraclea with three merchant ships, and strove with all zeal to restore it, as if recalling it to a second rebirth. But for all his efforts, he barely succeeded in gathering eight thousand souls, including the household slaves. Brithagoras, however, as the city was already growing, formed hopes of bringing the people to their original liberty; and after many years had passed, and the Roman empire had already devolved upon a single man, Gaius Julius Caesar, he hastened to him. Others of the nobility, as well as his son Propylus, served on the embassy with him. Thus, Brithagoras became known to Caesar, and having managed to approach him more closely in friendship, he received a promise, but he was unable to recover their liberty at the first opportunity, because Julius was not in Rome but was distracted by business elsewhere in the world. ^D Brithagoras did not, however, desist from his undertaking, but by moving around the whole world with Caesar, he and Propylus were constantly in his sight, so that the emperor showed clearly that he approved of the man's petition. Finally, having spent twelve years in the familiarity of the Romans, when Caesar had already decided to return to Rome, Brithagoras, exhausted by old age and continuous labors, died, leaving great grief to his fatherland. And thus the sixteenth book of the Histories of Memnon also comes to an end.

The writing is indeed prudent and pursues a concise style, though it is not [240a] without clarity. [alt-version omitted]

^A Not neglectful, yet cautious as to digressions, unless some necessity perhaps compels their interweaving [757 R.] and forces things external to the main theme. For it does not often incline toward this, but having mentioned the pressing matter, it returns again, with an easy turn, to the original intent. As for vocabulary, unless it rarely happens to diverge, it uses ordinary terms97. We possess the first eight books of the history, and those after the sixteenth; they have not yet come into our view.

Concerning Clearchus, Tyrant of Heraclea Pontica. From Suidas.

From Diodorus Siculus, Book XV. Concerning the same Clearchus.

From the same Diodorus, Book XVI.

From Theopompus of Chios, concerning the same Clearchus, in Athenaeus, Book III.

Concerning Timotheus, Tyrant of Heraclea Pontica, son of Clearchus. From Diodorus, Book XVI.

From the same Diodorus, in the same book.

From Athenaeus, Book XII, concerning the second Clearchus.

Concerning Zathras and Clearchus the brothers, tyrants of Heraclea. From Diodorus, Book XX.

[CCXXV.]

Book of Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, against the heretics Severus and Timotheus.

65'. The book of Eulogius, Pope of Alexandria, against Timotheus and Severus.

VARIE LECTIONES 97 uses 5.

^A And Severus [argues] more broadly, but Timotheus more accurately. He dedicates this book to Domitian, the high priest of Melitene.

The first book is composed of four chapters, and the second of sixteen. After the introductions, the first book explains the reason why the writing was produced, and how he had done this at the urging of pious men. Upon which he sets forth a law and a canon: that it is not right to judge writings in part, nor to take certain fragments and form a judgment about the whole mind of the author through them. For the prophet also pours out a curse upon such people, saying: Woe to those who prophesy out of their own heart, and see nothing at all. This law and canon is also confirmed by the votes of our holy Fathers. For indeed, Eustathius, the high priest of the Antiochians, writes in his six books against the Arians in these very words: ^B "But the paradox-mongers, the chorus-dancers of the Arian stage, claim that Christ committed sin." And a little later: "As for that, 'that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself,' they neither keep it in mind nor utter it with the organs of their tongue; but like grave calumniators and accusers, they undermine the passage and institute a struggle of accusation." Then [he adds the] decree of the law: "Those who struggle lawfully with a zeal for truth must accept all things in abundance, but not with fraudulent intent, partly keep silent and partly snatch [out of context] to present [them]." Likewise, the divine Basil, writing to the Sozopolitans, also writes: "This impiety of the conceit is not new, but long ago began with the absurdity of the insane Valentinus, who, by snatching a few words of the Apostle, prepared his own impious fiction." So it is in the madness of heretics ^C to take a certain part of Scripture and, by falsifying it, to calumniate the rest through it, and by the calumny and mutilation of the holy Oracles, to construct their own impiety for themselves. Thus, Peter, the prince of the apostles, might also be accused by the impious, as if he were dividing Emmanuel; for he says: "Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with him." And indeed, ^D one would accuse Paul, who traversed the world with the preaching of piety, [of being] a mutilator and a calumniator with similar injuries, in the things he said when orating to the Athenians: "He commands all men everywhere to repent, because he has appointed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness, by the man whom he has ordained, having given assurance to all, having raised him from the dead." Regarding which he again writes to the Hebrews: "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications to him who was able to save him from death," and what follows. The calumniator, therefore, setting himself up as the judge of his own theft and laceration, not as [one] baldly saying that our Lord Jesus Christ is a mere man, would hold the heralds of him in contempt, but [he is] not thus a friend of the truth. And adding to the aforementioned matters, the things declared on the other side by the herald of piety concerning the Savior, [he is] beyond every injury of [the] piety...

^A of those who are teachers. For instance, he will join to the aforementioned matters the statement: "the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever, Amen;" ^B or indeed also this, "Who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power." He who joins these things to the former will refute the impious Nestorius by them, and will display piety more brightly. ^C And so, too, the admirable Basil advises that judgment regarding words should be made, in those where he writes to the monks: "Things said ambiguously and those seeming to be spoken in a covered manner in some places of the divinely inspired Scripture are clarified by those things that are agreed upon in other places." That it is not necessary to judge the piety of a writer by certain fragments and cuttings, so brightly does the truth emit its ray that it made even Severus himself—though blind in these matters—yet to be convinced of this consistency. For he writes to Julian of Halicarnassus: "It is necessary, therefore, to read the instructions of the holy teachers of the most holy Church carefully as occasion arises, and not to bring them forward one by one and hazard dangerous conjectures about their entire meaning. ^D This must be observed also in the apostolic and evangelic writings, and indeed in all divinely inspired Scripture, since the piety of a writer is not to be placed in one expression of an epistle or work." Thus also the lightning of the true canon allowed Severus, though he was blind, to enjoy its own light, yet he was enabled to recognize the inexplicable power of the law. But as for his customary opinion, he neglected it. For the book of the blessed Leo of pious memory, he did not read as he preached it, but, weighing it with a contrary tongue and by certain fragments and by prefacing it with pernicious discourses, he appeared to write piously about impiety, while he himself was in fact guilty of those things which he dared to object against others. For who else cast a sharper dart against the impious Nestorius than Leo with a robust voice: "The impassible God did not disdain to become a passible man, and the immortal to submit to the laws of death"? But the sycophant passes over these things, while he cuts away other certain sayings and drags them to his own dogma, and he is not ashamed of that aforementioned voice; nor does he wish to acknowledge the law cultivated by him. For if the entire epistle of the one among the saints, Leo, wandered through certain ambiguities, and [if] from those things which the Acephali blame for the division of the one person [it] provided for them an easy opportunity for the ignorance of calumny...

since piety is evident through ten thousand proofs, how is it that the calumniators do not seize upon a second [case] in addition to the first impiety? But so much for these two heads. ^A

The third would be the comparison of the words of holy Leo, which are being calumniated, and the providing of the text from the same volume, through which the unjust judgment of the calumniators is brilliantly branded.

Now, among the points being calumniated, the first is this: "For each nature preserves its own property without deficiency; and just as the form of the Word does not remove the form of the slave, so the form of the slave did not diminish the form of the Word." This statement, considered in itself, is a fruit of a pious mind; but let it be compared with what is in the same epistle, ^B for in this way the wickedness of the impiety would be more thoroughly exposed. For it runs thus: "The same only-begotten of the eternal Father was born eternally from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin, which temporal birth did not diminish His divine and eternal birth, nor did it add anything to it." Up to the words: "He was conceived, indeed, it is clear, of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin mother, who, with her virginity thus preserved, gave birth to Him, just as she conceived Him while her virginity remained intact." Did Nestorius ever understand these things? Will anyone find any calumny against these, even if he has the devil himself, a murderer from the beginning, cooperating with him in this matter? Why, then, do we not adapt even what is ambiguous to these, but rather dare to draw from them to incite further calumny?

See how the Acephalus, not ashamed, again attacks another statement, saying: ^C "'Insofar as both are related to one another, both the lowliness of the man and the greatness of the divinity; for just as in having mercy God does not undergo change, so man is not consumed by the greatness of the divine dignity.' How was he not struck with shame when opposing the statement that says: 'The divine nature was united to the passible nature, so that this, truly appropriate for our healings, the one and the selfsame mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ, might be able to die by the one, and [yet] not be able to be ended by the other.'"

Again, they bring forward a third point for accusation: "For each form works with the communion of the other, until the divinity shines forth in miracles, while the humanity is subjected to insults." ^D The accusers falsely claim that the statement teaches that there are two who act. But he, again, by opposing his own voice to them, shuts the mouths of those who say this, saying: "One and the selfsame [person] is truly the Son of God, and truly He is the Son of man. God indeed, insofar as: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.'"

man indeed, insofar as: "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." Up to the point: "Whom as man, therefore, the cunning of the devil tempts," to whom, because He is God, the order of angels ministers. For [the author] clearly explains the things spoken of here, and shows that they are superior to whatever the heresy seeks to slander and to any devilish deception at all. ^A

Fourth, they attack the saying: "When the baptism begins from the forerunner John, lest it be unknown that the divinity is read in the obscure veil of the flesh." The voice of God the Father sent down from heaven says: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." But they are soon ashamed of the dignity of the Roman Pontiff. For he says thus: "Therefore the Son of God came into this lowliness of the world, descending from the heavenly throne, and not departing from the glory of the Father, born in a new manner and by a new generation. In a new manner indeed, that He who was invisible might be made visible among us," up to: "God truly, the same also man truly." And after this: "How therefore, to embrace many things, it is not of the same nature to weep out of compassion for a dead friend, and presently to raise up the same man, now living, when the obsequies of the four-day-old dead one had already been dispersed, at the command of the voice," and the rest up to the saying: "Whoever through the revelation of the Father has confessed Him to be both the Son of God and Christ." ^B

But again the heresy tears apart the said word. Even if it is most certain that in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and man, there is one person, yet that is another thing from which the common injury is attributed to both, and another things from which the common opinion arose. But the holy man turns the impudent against these impious ones. He says, namely: "After the resurrection of the Lord, which evidently also took place of His true body, since no other rose unless He who was crucified and died," up to: "But we shall confess one Son of God and the Word and the flesh." ^C

But the heretical mind still presses on, and slanders that which says: "For this reason, therefore, the union of the person must be understood as being in each nature." But even here the one being slandered defeats them with their own weapons, saying: "Therefore, in the whole and perfect nature of man, God was truly born, whole in His own [nature] and whole in ours." And the rest: "Therefore, as He remains in the form of God, He created man, so in the form of a servant He became man." ^D

^A Again the heresy arms itself against: "What nature is it that hangs, fixed by nails, to the wood of the cross?" And again the soldier of piety puts the enemy to flight, bringing many companions to his side; furthermore, on his own he also casts them down. For speaking about Eutyches, he says: "He who did not recognize our nature in the only-begotten Son of God, neither by the humility nor by the glory of the resurrection." And what follows up until: "What is it that separates Jesus, if not to separate the human nature from Him—the mystery through which alone we were saved—is a foolish attempt to work through shameless fictions."

These, then, are the statements of the blessed Leo—statements that are in vain maligned and put those who malign them to shame; they so bind up the union that one wonders how the sycophants did not charge the man with confusion from these, just as they fabricated the division from those they maligned. For in saying that the impassible God did not disdain to become a passible man, and the immortal to be subject to the laws of death, and the timeless to begin to exist in time—how did this escape the bitter sycophants, so that they did not charge the man with confusion through these very words? ^B Yet, just as these things stitch together the division, so too do they refute the confusion.

Why on earth did the author traverse [the subject] with such words? A twofold war was at that time mounting against the Church: it brought forward Eutyches as the ringleader, and from the other side Nestorius, who even after receiving the blow and falling was still fighting. Against both, therefore, the champion of piety, locked in battle, wounded his opponents with appropriate and fitting darts. Warring against Nestorius, he seems to the unintelligent to introduce confusion through his confession of the supreme union; while engaging with Eutyches, and defining the difference of the natures with precision, he is accused of proposing a difference of persons. ^C But the impartial listener ought to examine the scope of the author and consider the entire sequence of the writing. That the enemy attacked him from two sides, he clearly teaches himself, writing to the most pious Emperor Leo, anathematizing both Nestorius and Eutyches. It was necessary, therefore, to heed the labors of the Fathers piously, and not to be ready to slander instead of being fair-minded; and just as when the Arians refer the humble words and the passion to the Godhead of the Son, so as to bring Him down to something inferior to the Father, the Fathers—forced, you say—use coarser expressions, naming the Lord's ^D human nature and the nature assumed.

CCXXVI. Another book by the same Eulogius against Theodosius and Severus.

The book of Eulogius, the most holy pope of Alexandria, was read, in which he appears to have undertaken the cause of the doctrines of piety, casting shame upon the defenders of impiety. He inscribes it, indeed, [index: entries preserved]

^A that he may shame the defenders. And the Tome of the holy Pope Leo is proposed to him, being insulted and slandered by Theodosius, and in some places by Severus, of the Acephali; he brands their senselessness and malice, showing that they do not demonstrate anything true or necessary, but rather what is false and fabricated; and that they are not arming themselves so much against him with whom they are wrangling, but no less against all the saints together, whose very names—as if they did not honor them—they do not deny that they reject. And before all, he clearly sets them forth, whereby they disparage the pious Leo, as also casting their vote against the blessed Cyril and (what is more wonderful) against themselves. For those very expressions, at which they bark, he brings forward from the blessed Cyril, as he said many times, and from the choir of other saints, whom Athanasius and the Gregories and Basil and Ambrose and Amphilochius fill out. And finally, the refutation of their madness brings forward Severus himself everywhere as the author of the doctrine of those against whom the holy Leo is attacked by Theodosius and that same Severus with myriad insults of heresy ^B. Thus he demonstrated how he armed those led by his madness, so that, striking mortal blows against themselves, they receive no perception of their own condition. This writer is indeed pure and pleasant, and he makes his refutations by a short and smooth path, and brings nothing forward without cause. Against the fourteen chapters into which the heretics divide the book of the blessed Leo—offering no captious accusations or inept vituperations—he himself divides his refutation into as many chapters, a strong and valid rebuke of the calumny of the Acephali. And there is added to these the defense of the Council of Chalcedon, which the evil tongue of the heretics tears asunder, saying that the union according to hypostasis is not expressed in its own words. For he shows that very many of the holy Fathers, not only before the Council of Ephesus but also those following it, did not use this very expression, but by other words showed their same piety; which also the council did. ^C But not only this, but he also shows that the most holy Cyril himself, in his union with the Orientals, did not use such words. And he asserts that Cyril meant to show by the union according to hypostasis that the hypostasis of the Word was united to the human nature without change. Furthermore, because the Fourth Holy Council, having held in reverence and approbation the writings of Cyril to Nestorius (in which not once, but twice and four times the union of the person of the Word is clearly declared), blocks the mouths of the heretics—for they had imagined that it did not understand the union according to hypostasis—and because of all the things for which the Acephali dared to accuse the divine Leo and the holy Fourth ^D Council of Chalcedon, with a short discourse he drives away the cause of the accusation, refuting their accusations and striking shame into his adversaries with insoluble arguments, and shows that they are engaged in conflict with themselves rather than with those whom they attack, or with the holy Fathers, or with us.

This holy Eulogius previously held the rank of presbyter in Antioch, and presided over the monastery of the all-holy Theotokos, which is called after Justinian. He embarked upon other noteworthy works as well; eventually, he was appointed prelate of Alexandria. ^B

CCXXVII. Invective speech of the same Eulogius.

An invective speech of the same holy man was read, directed against the temporary union that had occurred between the Theodosians and the Cainite Acephali. For these, having formerly been divided from one another, later delivered to each other the very dogmas for the sake of which they were ready to die, and coalesced into a certain short-lived and impious union. ^C From there, however, each party flowed back into its former impiety and separated again toward the opinions from which they had merged into one. He proves, therefore, in this little book, that the union did not effect an "economy," as seemed to them, but rather brought to light the complete betrayal of their faith. He also divides the species of economy, which the Church of God acknowledges, into three types, and he conducts his refutation by showing that the impious pacts they entered into followed none of these three types; but, as we have said, both parties, in the name of unity, perpetrated a betrayal and denial of their entire religion. And first, he says that the principle of economy does not seat just any casual spectators and arbiters over the matter, but rather the ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God, and those to whom the laws of the episcopal thrones have been entrusted—of whom the so-called union of the Cainites and Theodosians acknowledged no one. ^D Furthermore, right reason only employs economies when the dogma of piety is not at all harmed; for when that remains pure and unadulterated, the economy finds a place to be established in something external to it. Often, too, a temporary economy has gone forth for a short time, tolerating and embracing something that should not be, so that piety might receive continuous and unshaken strength, and to dissolve the assaults of those who were lying in wait for the truth; and these people, who were about to bring great destruction, bursting forth upon a broad path, were settled with entire certainty (while the rulers of the Church meanwhile conceded nothing of the precise truth). Thus, Paul, because of the unavoidable snares of the Jews and the occasions of defection, circumcised Timothy. He himself also has his head shorn and is purified, he who to the Ga—

Galatians writes: "Behold, I, Paul, say to you that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." But he establishes this instruction for a brief time, just as necessity teaches, and the example ^A of the Church constantly and forever maintains stability and integrity.

The second form of governance finds its strength in words. For when the dogmas of the Church are rightly held and proclaimed through other words free from scandal—even if they are not well spoken—it happens that these are passed over in silence. But one who disposes his own words with judgment and silence causes the sound of the former dogmas to be heard throughout the whole world. Gregory, surnamed the Theologian, testifies that the great Athanasius did this: "After," he says, "he found them in agreement, and in no way differing in word, he gathered them by connecting the names to the things." And in his oration on Pentecost, you may see that same master prevailing in this very form of governance: "But you are offended by syllables," he says, "and by the voice; give the power of the divinity, and we shall give you pardon for the voice."

^B And he says that there is a third form of governance, when persons are often overlooked, even if a decree has been promulgated accurately against them, nevertheless with the right doctrine prevailing. According to this 'economy,' as he says, Theophilus was in communion with Gelasius, who had the Palestinian Eusebius written in the sacred diptychs; and Cyril did not abstain from communion with Theodore of Mopsuestia, who was likewise being anathematized in the East in the same way. For he saw that the most vital points of piety were being preserved in the unsullied dogmas. For up to that time, sound doctrine prevailed, and nothing had yet been innovated regarding the dogmas of the Church. ^C Dividing 'economy' into three parts, and demonstrating that the union of the Theodosians and Gainites proceeds according to none of them, he showed that each party, having been shut into betrayal regarding its own religion, stood nowhere but, having been confounded, fell apart again from each other and waged war against one another. Criticizing these and other such things, and referring to what they call the union of the Acephali, he showed through many other things clearly ^D that no trace of 'economy' was acted upon by them, but a clear betrayal and denial, for the sake of which they previously boasted they would endure death a thousand times over. Thus, then, he discusses the matters concerning the Acephali in this booklet.

The volume also contains a letter of his written to Eutychius, Archbishop of Constantinople, which he wrote while still serving as a presbyter, containing an assurance of orthodox and catholic piety and faith.

CODEX CCXXVIII.

Various Orations of Saint Ephræm, Patriarch of Theopolis.

^A There were read the various Orations of Saint Ephræm, Patriarch of Theopolis. He was a Syrian by race and by speech, but he understood the Greek language quite skillfully. He also held civil magistracies, from which, having finally been proclaimed Count of the East, he was elevated to the highest seat of the Church. They say that he, while conducting other affairs in a manner worthy of praise, especially shone forth in the generous distribution of alms. The man composed various books, of which three have reached us so far. Almost all of his works that we have seen strive for the dogmas of the Church, and defend the holy Synod of Chalcedon as being elevated above and prevailing over any heretical reproach.

^B In the first book, the first oration of his is an epistle sent to a certain Zenobius, a scholasticus of Emesa, who was infected with the stain of the Acephali; he seeks to defend the words that were scoffed at, which were biting and severe, contained in the epistle of Leo, Roman Pontiff. He prefaces the discussion of these words with a certain usage of the holy Trisagion Hymn. For Zenobius, having severed himself from the communion of the Church, sought out this colorable excuse, claiming that the sentence of the holy hymn was recently divided. Ephræm, however, maintains that the Orientals attribute this same hymn to Christ Jesus, and therefore commit no sin even if they add: "Who was crucified for us." The Constantinopolitans, however, and the Westerners, refer the sentence to the highest and most holy font of all good things, the consubstantial Trinity; for this reason, they do not endure that this be added: "Who was crucified for us," lest any ^C passion be attributed to the Trinity. For in many provinces of Europe, instead of "Who was crucified for us," they substitute: "Holy Trinity, have mercy on us." From which the intention of the pious becomes clearer, so that they accommodate "Holy God, holy mighty, holy immortal" to the holy Trinity, and with accurate and consequent reasoning they append that "Who suffered for us." Thus, therefore, he declares that both parts think and assert correctly concerning these things, since they are found to in no way corrupt anything in other pious dogmas. He truly affirms here that both fulfill this correctly, and neither finds any reason why either should be censured or called into question. But he himself thinks thus, that because this sentence is wrongly accepted by the heretical Acephali, and a great assault is made upon the pious, it is deservedly that our other Fathers decreed that it is not fitting to add that to the sacred ^D hymn, "Who suffered for us," and that the hymn which treats of the Trinity is fitting:

since the Cherubic hymn itself, in the Trinitarian voice and proceeding from the beginning from the Trinity which is above all holiness and goodness, was recognized as a melody. But whether this man decided well or otherwise concerning the Trisagion (for perhaps the occasion ^A offered him some excuse for making such a judgment), I am not able at this moment to deliver an unhesitating judgment based on a different opinion; except that it does not cease to admonish the Scholastic not to be separated from the body of the Church.

In this epistle he also counts as the second canon—I know not on whose authority, nor agreeing with whom—that which is numbered second in the second synod of the 150 Fathers at Constantinople, attributing it to the 166; he follows the same method of enumeration not only in this work but also in his other writings.

^B Beginning the path of the orthodox faith, he prefaces that what has been decreed by our Fathers concerning theology ought not to be compared with the statements of Pope Leo concerning the incarnation. Rather, the theological matters of the one must be compared with the theological matters of the other, and those concerning the economy with those that have an analogy to them. As for those who set theology against the economy, they provide a pillar of their own unjust opinion; yet those against whom they whet their tongue, if they are not moved by them, remain nevertheless irreproachable. Having premised these things, he recites certain statements from the epistle that the most holy ^C Leo wrote to Saint Flavian, and indeed also from that which he sent to the Emperor Leo, in which he displays the man’s brilliant theology and proclaims in a loud voice that the same Son of God is also truly the son of man, being suffering and impassible, immortal and subject to death; and in a word, he explained with certainty and divinely the supreme union of the Word and of man. Moreover, in these same letters he judged that Nestorius should be openly excommunicated, who dared to call the blessed Virgin and Mother of God not the mother of God, but only of man. He also states that the blessed Leo was the first to proclaim clearly in these very words that the blessed Mary is the Mother of God, whereas no one among the Fathers before him had stated it so clearly; and he pursues these ^D points in the first chapter.

The next follows, in which it is shown that Saint Leo, agreeing with the rest of the Fathers, confesses that there is one and the same Son; and that he attributes to the one and the same both the form of each and the diverse natural action, nowhere introducing division into the union, but proclaiming the incarnate God the Word to be one. He adds to the opinion of Leo the dogmas of Cyril, showing them to conspire together, and indeed also those of Gregory of Nyssa and of Julius the Roman; besides these he also sets down the words, using which...

^A the blessed Leo endured the impious calumny of heresy from the followers of Severus, which same calumny—not once nor twice, but five times—had been cast by Cyril against both natures, I say. And he shows that not only Cyril used this victorious expression—the mention of which leads the followers of Severus to impute impiety to the God-bearing Leo—but also the wondrous Basil. And he proves that the holy Leo agrees with the chosen Fathers, not only in this expression [777 R.] but also in all other dogmas and words against which the heretics have not been ashamed to bark; for he shows that the aforementioned Fathers held the same opinion and made the same confession as the man, and indeed also Athanasius, the great struggler, and Gregory, renowned in theology, and Proclus of Constantinople and the Golden-mouthed John. But this is what he treats in the second chapter.

The third ^B is that the articles placed before the natures in Christ by no means imagine, nor do they suggest, a duality of sons; rather, it is a property of the divine Scripture, which does not introduce a duality of persons (as has been stated), but preserves the united natures as uncut and undivided. For indeed the heretical madness also poured out this injury against the epistle of Leo, for he said: "Just as in showing mercy God does not undergo change, in the same way man is not consumed by the greatness of the dignity." Therefore, concerning what was said in the third chapter, from the Gospel voices and from the apostolic [words], and indeed also from the blessed Fathers of ours, Ignatius the God-bearer, and Julius, and Athanasius, and the Gregories, and Basil, he refutes the impious, [showing] that the use of these articles (for all these men used them) does not imply any cutting or division of the union. To which he adds: "Which things are also related to both." This was expressed by Leo, not as a declaration of time, but is accepted as "for that" [purpose], throughout all.

The fourth chapter, ^C proposed by the heretics in blame, he declares to be entirely blameless by means of a similar method, setting forth voices consistent with the one accused, which the choir of our holy Fathers is accustomed to use. Now the chapter is the very words of the holy Leo, and they say these things: "By weeping, he demonstrated the reality of his own flesh; but by raising Lazarus at the command of his voice, he revealed his own immaculate divinity." For both things have been done and said by one and the same [person].

The fifth chapter, taking up a pretext proposed by the same heretics regarding similar voices of the same holy man, he rebuts through the same method. ^D And the voice is: "What nature is it that has been pierced by the nails on the wood of the cross of the one who has been fixed to the cross?" In this chapter, and by the method of Isidore

the distinguished monk (who was an Alexandrian by birth and held in reverence by the high priests), he brings forward various accounts from different epistles, which in all respects agree with those that the heretics are accustomed to slander as not pious.

^A And in these, indeed, the epistle to Zenobius is treated. Other letters are sent to the Emperor Justinian: the one commending his piety, the other giving a clear testimony of piety regarding certain religious monks inhabiting the desert. The third one shows that the synodical letters of Anthimus were accurately written and sent concerning the dogmas of the faith; but another is sent to Anthimus himself after the synodical letters, not excusing the praise of them, as if no impiety of Anthimus appears in them, except that he very minutely and accurately demands that Anthimus be received, and that Eutyches and the dogmas of Eutyches be excommunicated.

^B An epistle is also sent to Domitian, who, having chanced upon certain words of his, as he writes, was disturbed in mind and desired his doubt to be resolved. The words are these: "It is not possible for one person to be united to another person as a person, just as it is impossible to constitute Peter and Paul as one and the same person; nor for one substance to join in identity of substance with another substance, in that it is of a different substance, as for the nature of soul and body to be unable to effect one nature, unless one should perhaps introduce some common factor, according to which even before they were united they did not differ from one another, such as referring (the substance) to the created, or to that which is under time, or similar things. For then, diverse natures would no longer have come together into one nature. But those substances which from the beginning possess consubstantiality in some very far-reaching commonality seem to hold the same standing." These, then, were the things that troubled Domitian, and for which he sought and obtained a solution. ^C First, he approaches the doubt with an argument that is not incredible; then, he confirms that his own proper and pertinent words are correct through the voices of the holy Fathers. And this is indeed what the epistle to Domitian treats.

Another (epistle) is written to a certain Syncleticus, by name (a metropolitan of Tarsus, as the letter indicates), which also carries forward the struggle against the Acephali. In it, he brings forth the Fathers who, after the union, recognize the nature, and in no place through them do they suffer either a union of persons, nor one that is divided, nor one that is separated. And testimonies confirming the matter at hand are again brought forward, of Cyril, I mean, and of Gregory the Theologian, and of other Fathers. And that the Church of God and the synod at Chalcedon confess the one God the Word of the holy Trinity to have been incarnate and made man, whose union according to hypostasis they both understood and preached, and primarily the Mother of God ^D

^A Elizabeth called her, when she says: *And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?* But Blessed Pope Leo later set forth this statement more clearly than others. For thus he writes to the Emperor Leo: “Let Nestorius be excommunicated, who believes Mary to be the mother not of God, but only of man,” and these things are indeed in the subjoined epistle.

^B He also writes to Anthimus, Bishop of Trapezus, in which he welcomes the Emperor Justinian as pious, and relates that the unhappy Eutyches constituted a heresy because he did not sustain that two natures subsist in one hypostasis; and he clearly points out that the Fathers all teach and preach this, but that the instability of his mind is not to be endured, since Christ consists of two natures, and after the union He is no longer two, nor known in two, but one nature is prodigiously asserted after the unity. He says that the robber-synod at Ephesus, asserting these things, agrees with them: “To these we all also agree,” and that the Synod of Chalcedon condemned both Nestorius and Eutyches under an equal and like anathema. And that to know the natures after the union in one hypostasis is alien from all division; and both Cyril himself and the rest of the choir of God-bearing men proclaim this with clear voices. Eutyches and his followers, for the sake of unity—that is, a double unity— (O what madness and excess of impiety!) proclaim two natures, but no longer after the union. And that those who anathematize Eutyches and his doctrines immediately and unwillingly proclaim the fourth ecumenical synod; for there was no other ecumenical synod, but this one alone, having received him with his pestiferous opinions, as has been said before, in that robber-synod of Ephesus, entirely cut him off and cast him out. It appears that he wrote these things to Anthimus while he was staying in the royal city, but had not yet come under its episcopal laws; whom he also exhorts to contend against the Nestorians and those who think in the manner of Eutyches. And this is what that epistle contains. ^C

The one to Brases the Persian, since he himself had requested this, discusses the holy and consubstantial Trinity from the divine Scriptures, but not from the testimonies of the Fathers; ^D and also concerning the presence of the Word in the flesh, and concerning the holy and most glorious Virgin and Mother of God, Mary. And the Scriptures for him are both the Old Testament and the words of the Lord and the apostolic preachings, through which the truth and confirmation of the questions proposed were brought forth. More than the others, he dwells upon the subject in which the incarnation of the Word is taught, for the occasion itself required a longer treatment of it. Such is the labor of this epistle.

^A He writes also to certain monks who were devising a schism from the catholic and apostolic Church of God; whom he endeavors to unite again through the exhortations of the Fathers, showing that their sentiments do not differ in any way from those of other heretics, and that they gain no advantage from them, just as those others do not. By various testimonies of the Fathers, he establishes that in one and the same person a diverse natural operation is discerned, and that for the full measure of piety it is sufficient to believe and call the most holy Virgin Theotokos; for when anyone says that God became man and was born of the holy Virgin, he appears to have used the theology of the archangels. ^B He writes also another epistle to the deserters from Callinicus, desiring to reconcile them to the Church of God, showing that She is free from every heretical stain, and that the conventicles held apart from Her are dens of thieves. And he suggests that they ought to imitate Simeon, Baradatus, and Jacob, men celebrated for their virtue throughout the whole world, who passed their entire lives in ecclesiastical discipline. And this is what this epistle contains. ^C The next discourse sets forth a synodal proceeding of the same most holy patriarch, Ephraemius, in which Syncleticus (whom the preceding discourse mentioned as having been bishop of Tarsus) is called to account because he had received non-orthodox libels from certain persons, whence he had imbibed heretical opinions, as well as a certain monk named Stephanus, who was called the syncellus of Syncleticus. And as the discourse proceeds, it is proven little by little that each of them did not adhere to the correct doctrines of the Church, but was sliding toward the malady of Eutyches; yet, because Syncleticus was at last compelled to profess the faith, the synod is dissolved. [Nevertheless, he says, upon his finally embracing piety, the synod is dissolved.] In this proceeding, it is shown that the blessed Cyril sometimes used "nature" for "person," when he says that the one nature of the Word had taken on flesh; for he would not have said this—having often confessed two natures—as if changing his mind to one nature, unless he had now taken the term "nature" in place of "person." And he confirms this from other utterances of the same Cyril, and [shows] that such is the mind of the Church. And this proceeding contains other useful matters ^D against the confusionist heresy.

After these things, there was written into the book an epistle to Magnus, bishop of Berrhoea, in which [it is taught] that Emanuel should be acknowledged in two natures (as is asserted in the fourth and general synod), teaching and explaining that the usage of speaking of "the one nature of the Word made flesh" has the power of proof against those who separate the natures from one another, but not against those who deny the difference of the natures on account of the union. Just as the [expression] "the one nature of the Word made flesh" fights against those who separate the natures from one another, so also...

separates the natures from one another, so also the confession of union in two natures ^A according to subsistence convicts and puts to shame the intention of those who confuse them. Thus, both the union according to subsistence in two natures and the one incarnate nature of the Word strive against the opinions opposed to them and to each other, yet neither is brandished against the other; for neither is the one incarnate nature of the Word spoken of to the destruction of the difference of the natures, nor does the union in two natures, which is recognized according to subsistence, introduce a division of the natures from one another. Consequently, the union of the two natures is a confirmation of the one incarnate subsistence of the Word, preached as unconfused and undivided in difference. Writing these and many other such things through the aforementioned epistle, he strengthens the dogmas of piety, while refuting the madness of those who exhibit the shamelessness of confusion. And having exhorted the recipient of the letter to augment and multiply what he has written, as if his capacity were not yet exhausted, he brings his letter to a close.

He writes another letter to Eunoios the monk, in which he argues that our holy Fathers do not contradict either themselves or each other when they discuss corruption and incorruption, and that ^B incorruption is a kind of health, not a destruction of our nature, whereas corruption is a disease. Whence he confirms by the testimonies of the Fathers that even Adam, before the transgression, possessed incorrupt flesh and was in all things co-essential with us. Having confirmed these things with quotations from the Fathers, and having appended many other things useful for piety to the epistle, he puts an end to it.

Following these, there are also seven panegyrical orations of his: one on the feast of the holy prophets, another on the Nativity of our Saviour Jesus Christ, another before the holy fasts, another on the instruction of the neophytes, and indeed another on the feast of the archangel Michael at Daphne, another on the holy Quadragesima, and on one of the ninth [day] of the holy Quadragesima. Yet there is an eighth oration in addition to these, delivered during the holy week for the neophytes. The first volume, therefore, which came into my hands, contained these.

Codex CCXXIX. Another book of the same.

^D I read another book by the same holy man, who presided over the sacred customs of Antioch, in four discourses. The first discusses the slandered words of Cyril, which he wrote in his second epistle to Successus, and puts forward an attack against the Severian heresy. The second is a response to Anatolius the scholastic concerning the things he wished to learn. The third contains an apology for the holy and ecumenical council of Chalcedon, written to Domnus and John, who were ascetics in the second Cilicia. The fourth is addressed to the eastern monks, who were themselves also caught in the corruption of Severus.

^A In the first book, he brings forward that calumniated expression, as has been said, from the second epistle to Succensus, in these words: "Let the man who moves among us be once again an example for us. For we recognize two natures in him: one indeed of the body, and the other of the soul; but divided into pure notions, and as in thin phantoms—that is, in the cogitations of the mind—we receive the difference, yet we do not place the natures as by parts, nor do we concede to them the force of section on either side, but we understand one to be of one, wherefore the two are no longer two, but by both together one animal is perfected." These are the words that have been called into calumny. For Cyril refused to establish a difference between the soul and the body, of which man is composed, by words. Wherefore he says thus: "We do not place the natures by parts," but he added "division" ^B in speaking Wait, he says: "We understand one to be of one." And what is this? For he asserts one hypostasis here, but not one nature, and he renders this more manifest by showing: "By both together one animal is constituted." How, therefore, can it be possible for the nature of the soul and the body to be one? But see again another madness of the heresy: "One ought to understand," it says, "not to speak." Although who does not know that that which is rightly understood is also rightly spoken, and conversely, that which is wrongly understood, it is not right even to speak? But if because he says: "We understand one of one," and then said "one nature after our fashion," it is fair to understand it as of one animal only, but not fair to speak it. Therefore, it is not to be asserted and understood that there is one nature for those to whom this pertains. But how did he say the same thing whole, which he ought not to have said? But let these trifles go. "Again," they say, "he says: 'So that the two are no longer two, but by both together one animal is perfected.' Therefore, ^C he says the two natures no longer remain two natures." And if, they say, in the example he does not say the two natures remain two, it is clear that also in the case of Christ this will be consistently considered. And they say these things not understanding, first, that not all things in an example ought to be considered just as they are in the thing exemplified; second, that when he said "are no longer two," he meant that they do not exist by parts and independently, but, as he said before, by both together one animal is constituted. And note how he does not say "from both" (ex utroque), but "by both" (per utraque), the animal is made, signifying that each nature is preserved in the animal that is perfected. For what prevented him from saying, instead of "by both," that "by one" the animal was perfected? For if the two no longer remain two, but have come together into one nature, he ought to have said that "by one" the animal was perfected. And again he did not say, "By both, one nature was perfected," but "the one animal," that is, the hypostasis. And rightly he did not say, "One nature was perfected." For to assert this is the heresy of Apollinarius, who said: "The divine mixture, God and man, perfected one and the same nature," ^D and although he deals with the same example in the first epistle to Succensus: "If it seems fit, let us take for the sake of example our own composition, by which man...

we are men. We are composed of soul and body, and we see two natures, one of the flesh and another of the soul, so that in the composition the two natures are contemplated." He does not, therefore, say that by no longer being two they have become one nature—far from it—but that they do not exist separately or autonomously. That the nature of the soul and body is different, and that even after the composition it is contemplated within the composite, Gregory the Theologian ^B also testifies in his discourse *On Baptism*, saying: "Since we are formed of two beings, soul and body, one visible and the other invisible, there is also a twofold purification," and so forth. Furthermore, the blessed Cyril in the ninth book of his *Commentaries* upon the evangelist John writes thus: "The divine Scriptures teach us to believe in the one who was crucified, died, and rose from the dead, as not being a different Son than the Word who is in him." Then: "I do not say this in regard to an identity of substance (for the body is body and not the Word, even if it is the body of the Word), but in regard to the true filiation." Where then is the identity of substance, that is, of nature, of soul and body? Or how are these one, when one cannot find an identity of natures and substance? Eustathius the Great, the high priest of Antioch, and Antiochus of Ptolemais say the same things, in which he says: "Lord, Son of David, the twofold and the simple, the two and the one, without the economy being divided, without our salvation being dichotomized, so that neither God is found to be passible nor man saving the world by himself." And the golden mouth ^C of the Church, and a myriad other chorus of our God-bearing Fathers, recognize the one Christ in two substances and natures. However, that the one incarnate Word exists and is known in those things from which he was composed, Cyril shouts again: "For as he is," he says, "perfect in divinity, so also in humanity." And again: "We do not claim that the only-begotten Son of God himself, insofar as he is known and is truly God, suffers in his own nature by the body, but rather that he suffers by the earthly nature." And again: "For it is necessary that both be preserved in the one and true Son: both that he does not suffer divinely and that the suffering is said to be human, for it is his flesh that has suffered." Truly, then, the wise Cyril says these things, but the heresy says: "He suffered divinely and at the same time humanly." But the same [Cyril] says again: "The perfection in humanity and the manifestation of our own nature has been brought in by the saying 'incarnate'." And above, concerning the flesh ^D of the Word, he says thus: "It is neither diminished nor (as he says)

^A in accordance with the opinion of those men; nor has the nature of the Word passed over into the nature of the flesh, nor, on the other hand, has the flesh passed over into his; but while each remains and is understood in its own natural property, the ineffable and unspeakable union has shown us one nature of the Son, although, as I said, incarnate." See, clearly, he says that even after the incarnation each of the things united remains in the state of its own nature.

The author, having gone through these points, says that what is consubstantial with the consubstantial is not united according to hypostasis (for neither soul is united to soul according to hypostasis, nor body to body), but things that are of different substance, being united, effect a union according to hypostasis; and those things arising from the union are not converted into a single identity of substance. ^B Therefore, if we wish the one incarnate nature of God the Word—that is, the one hypostasis—to be established, we recognize in it the difference of the things united according to substance. We therefore understand the "one incarnate nature of God the Word" as one hypostasis. For if, by asserting "one incarnate nature," we understand "nature" in the strict sense as being incarnate, we introduce the Father and the Holy Spirit as incarnate; for the nature of the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit is one and the same. But this matter must be examined more accurately. What, then, does the heresy say? "We speak of a union of two natures, but after the union, one." But if they mean "nature" and "essence," how are they not convicted of holding the view of consubstantiality and of becoming one in substance? But if they refer to one person or one hypostasis, they speak well. Let them know, however, that the perfect and indivisible union admits neither of the division of the things united, nor of ^C confusion or merging of substances. For so says the blessed Cyril in his *Commentary on John*: "One is the Son and Christ, admitting no division regarding the becoming-man, except in so far as one might speak of the distinction—and that alone—between the nature of the Word and the nature of the flesh, as not being the same to our understanding." And again, writing to Eulogius, let them not be ignorant of this also: "For where a union is named, it does not signify the gathering of one thing, but of two or even more, and things differing from one another according to nature. If, therefore, we speak of a union, we confess that there has been a union of the flesh, quickened intelligently, and the Word." And again from the same work of his: "For what will you do when the One who is simple makes his entrance to us as double?" And the holy man will be found thousands of times confessing that the one Christ does not depart from the consubstantiality of the Father and of our own nature. And the president of Iconium, the holy Amphilochius, ^D speaks thus: "See, then, how the inspired Fathers have declared the Son to be consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, and consubstantial with the Mother according to humanity, double in regard to essence, i.e., nature, but not double in regard to hypostasis." And Amphilochius is among those most worthy of credence. For Cyril uses him as a witness against the impious Nestorius; and Ambrose, that admirable confessor, has left behind such a writing: "Add the unions of divinity and flesh; he is called God the Son, the one in the other, because in him both natures exist."

The holy Cyril ^A has also used this expression against Nestorius. And in the discourse which is titled *On the Interpretation of the Faith*, the same confessor says: "Those who say that Christ is a mere man, or that God is passible, or that he was converted into flesh, or that he possessed a body brought from heaven, or that it is a phantasm, or that the Word of God is mortal, or that he needed the work of the Father in the resurrection, or that he took up an inanimate body, or a man without a mind, or that the two substances of Christ were blended by commixture into one substance, and do not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is two unconfused substances, but one person, on the ground that Christ is one and the Son is one—these the holy and catholic Church excommunicates. For the Fathers did not say that the consubstantiality of the Word and the flesh, that is to say, one nature, came to be; far from it. Just as the holy Ambrose, writing against Apollinarius, says: 'But while we are refuting these, others have sprouted up, saying that the body of the Lord and his divinity are of one nature. What Hell vomited up such a blasphemy? The Arians, whose error spreads with greater contention, asserting that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not of one nature, have attempted to say that Christ's divinity and his flesh are of one nature.'" The same thing, but more clearly, Athanasius says in his letter to Epictetus.

Having said this, the author ^C next brings forward the testimonies of the Fathers regarding nature, or substance, and hypostasis, or person—how that which is common is called nature, and genus, and substance, while hypostasis and person are called that which is individual. And he speaks correctly who calls nature "substance," and vice versa. One may, indeed, use the name of "nature" for "hypostasis" improperly, yet one must not understand it according to the caprice of the impious, but according to the mind of the pious. For if the expression is used for the person and for the one that has been perfected, then one must accept the term of "nature" in place of "hypostasis"; but if it is about the natures out of which the one Christ was perfected, then one must understand the term "nature" instead of the proper nature and substance. For by observing these things, we shall nowhere find our holy and eloquent Fathers contending with one another. And that this is the mind of the Fathers, listen to the victorious Cyril from his first letter to Succensus: "For it is in no way possible for any created thing to pass over into the essence, or nature, of the divinity. For flesh is a creature; it is clear, therefore, that he takes 'nature' here to mean 'substance.'" And again from his letter ^D to Nestorius: "For he spoke of the Father as his God, even though he is God by nature and substance,"—although he accepted the concurrence of essence with nature—"and again: For when he bears witness of himself from the divinity: 'He that seeth me, seeth the Father.' And: 'I and the Father are one.'"

'"—we understand his divine and ineffable nature, according to which he is one with his own Father through the identity of substance. For it is plain to everyone that he confirmed that nature and substance signify the same thing. ^A And the holy Amphilochius, as is clear from the forementioned, says the same. But that "nature" is taken instead of "substance" has been shown; that it is also improperly taken instead of "hypostasis," the same Cyril will testify. For in his *Antirrhetici* he says: "We therefore of necessity, contending against his arguments, assert that the union took place according to hypostasis, while the term 'according to hypostasis' reveals nothing other than that the nature, or hypostasis, of the Word alone—that is, the Word himself—was truly united to human nature, without change or confusion, as we have often said; he is perceived to be one, and Christ is the same, both God and man." ^B The great Basil of Cappadocia, whose fame traverses the whole world, also teaches that form and essence are the same. Proclus, the patriarch of Constantinople, likewise: for the former called "form" essence, but the latter "nature." Thus our Fathers, saying that our Lord Jesus Christ consists of two natures, understand this as two substances, just as when they say "in two natures," [they mean] "in two substances." And the Son of Thunder also teaches this in saying: "That which was from the beginning, which we have seen, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life." For he declared the one and the same [person] to have, by the means we have mentioned, both a tangible and an intangible nature. For he showed that the intangible Word was handled, and he announced beforehand that the invisible had been seen; ^C so that he becomes a teacher to others, that the one Christ is recognized in a tangible and intangible substance, and in a visible and invisible one. For even if both belong to one person, yet no one of sound mind could say that the same nature is both tangible and intangible, and visible and invisible. Thus also ^D the body of Christ received by the faithful does not depart from the sensible substance, and remains undivided from the intelligible grace. And spiritual baptism also, having become entirely one and existing as such, preserves the property of the sensible substance (I mean of the water), and that which has come to pass does not perish. But the impious Nestorius, who appeared as the author of fighting against God with those who are diametrically opposed in impiety, imagined two natures divided and having their own hypostases, and he devised to make them one by a single act of adoration, notwithstanding the division of the natures according to the hypostases. But Eutyches, who is also an adversary of God, did not deny the hypostatic union, and, led by repentance, he learned to assert that our Lord Jesus Christ was incarnate from the Virgin, which he had not wanted to do. But he execrated those who assert what he himself had previously asserted, that he brought flesh down from heaven. And though often and vehemently compelled, he never wished to confess that he is consubstantial with us: for while preaching one nature, when he ought to have confessed that he was consubstantial with us in the flesh, he ex-

- ^A posed himself to the anathema. The first discourse, therefore, having run through these things, reached its aim.

In the second discourse, he gives an account of five chapters, of which Anatolius the scholasticus sought an understanding: the first, whether our Lord Christ, who is God, is recognized even now in the flesh; the second, if Adam was created composite, how was he fashioned immortal; the third, how we may be assured that the evangelist John still remains; furthermore, if Adam was ^B created immortal, how was he ignorant of what was useful; and finally, what is the meaning of: *Behold, Adam has become as one of us*?

The first chapter he confirms and proves through many Scriptural and Patristic voices. And first, from what Isaiah 22 said concerning the incarnate approach of Christ our God: *Who is this that comes from Edom*? That is to say, from the earthly one. And the same one again: *His garment from Bosor*; and the Hebrews call *Bosor* "fleshy." And again: *Why are thy garments red, and thy vesture as from the treaders of the press*? ^C Which signifies the mystery of the passion, after the passion and in the ascension. And again, another prophet, as if in the person of the Lord, says, as though questioned by the intellectual powers: *What are these wounds in the midst of thy hands*? [416 H.] For the Savior answers, saying: *Those with which I was struck in the house of those who loved me*. But also at the time of the ascension, the angels who were standing by say this: *He shall so come, in the manner ye saw him going into heaven*. And the first martyr Stephen, at the time of his martyrdom, recognizing the Lord Christ standing at the right hand of the Father, in the same form ^D in which he lived with his disciples, openly confessed the venerable and divine vision. And the vessel of election, being initiated into the truth, hears Christ calling from heaven: *Saul, Saul [20, 30], why dost thou persecute me*? And upon his asking, *Who art thou, Lord*? *I am*, he says, *Jesus the Nazarene, whom thou persecutest*. For the words "the Nazarene" and "Jesus" clearly indicate the truth of his flesh. And Gregory of Nazianzus bears witness to the same, as does Cyril in the book *Against the Consubstantialists*, and Basil in *On Faith*. But also Cyril again, writing to Acacius, bishop of Scythopolis, and in his interpretation of the word "Averruncus" (that is, the expeller of evils). For each of these, and countless others, preach that he came and remained with the flesh, and shall so remain until his second appearance. Therefore he is also both heavenly and earthly, visible and invisible. Visible, indeed, with his divinity, though not according to his divinity, but according to his body; and again invisible with his humanity, not according to his humanity, but [his] divinity; created and uncreated, and other things according to

^A the aforementioned pious distinction are observed. For indeed our flesh, having been united to God the Word hypostatically, was not changed into the substance of the Word, even though it became the flesh of God; nor was the Word [changed] into flesh, even though He made this flesh His own in the economy; but one and the same is called and is Christ, and that from which and in which Christ is understood is preserved without innovation and without separation, not as one and another—God forbid—but as has been frequently said, one and the same. The same is genealogized and is without genealogy, clearly according to one thing and another. For indeed the holy Scriptures say, *He is a man, and who shall know him? and who shall declare his generation?* but again it cries out, *The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David.* So that according to His divinity He is without genealogy, but according to His humanity He is being genealogized. The same one foreknows all things (for He is by nature God) and yet is said ^B to be ignorant of the last day because of our lump [of nature]. And: *Ye neither know me, nor know my Father*; and again, clearly according to the human [nature], *Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am.* Furthermore, *If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true*; and elsewhere, *If I bear witness of myself, my witness is true.* The one is with respect to the divinity, but the other with respect to the humanity. Therefore, one and the same is uncircumscribed and circumscribed, as having two generations and substances, yet one. But if He is of one substance according to the flesh—this is against Manes—they will confess one generation of Him, and He will be called Son of man in vain. Thus far [he proceeds] in the first chapter.

Alternative [teaching] is thus argued: Whether Adam was created mortal or immortal in the beginning, it is evident that God did not make death, nor does He delight in the destruction of the living; but ^C by the envy of the devil death entered into the world. For He commanded man to remain for a time in incorruption, delivering to him a commandment to be guarded, which having transgressed, he became corruptible instead of incorruptible. For man, having been endowed with freedom of will, snatched for himself of his own accord what is worse, having abandoned the better. But we know that the soul itself, immortal and intelligible having been created, after the fall was handed over to death, even if not sensible, yet (what is more grievous) intelligible. For sin is a kind of death for it, preparing for it punishment and eternal corruption: *Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.* Therefore, God alone is simple and uncircumscribed. For everything that is circumscribed is not simple, for all things ^D besides God are composite.

^A That which is composite can nevertheless remain immortal is witnessed by the intellectual orders and the soul; and it is witnessed even more by the resurrection, in which man, though composite, is no less than he was before, rising to immortality, and rising with both soul and body. For *this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.* And let no one say that the body then changes into the substance of the soul; for even if it becomes more subtle and radiant, it yet preserves the images of the body, and it is a man, bearing the marks of a man. This is witnessed by the aforementioned Enoch and Elias, and the son of thunder, John, who are still living in the body; for the Creator, having taken them as the first-fruits of our whole mass, showed to all that if Adam had not sinned, he would still be living with his body. ^B Yet even these, although leading a long-lived existence, will taste death at some time, even if it be in the twinkling of an eye. Observe the faith [displayed] through them, as it is brought forward from three generations: Enoch, who was taken before the Law; Elias, after the Law; and, in the time of grace, the disciple whom Jesus loved. Therefore, if Adam had not sinned, he would have lived incorruptible, together with these.

That the virgin John survives, as you have inquired, is witnessed by tradition just as it is for Enoch ^C and for Elias; and that which is in the Gospels also leads us to the same understanding. For Christ spoke of the manner of death by which Peter was to die for Him; and Peter, having heard this, immediately asks about the evangelist John, it being evident that he sought to learn nothing else about him but the manner of his death. But as for this man, what is that to thee? For he heard nothing else from the Savior regarding him, but [rather] He turned the question toward something else which was inconsistent, as if ignoring and counting as naught the teacher’s prophecy regarding himself. And regarding Peter’s inquiry as to the death which John was about to die, and the Savior’s saying, *If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?* how does the truth not predict his remaining until His advent? Wherefore blessed Cyril accepts that *Follow me* was said by the Savior regarding ^D the death of St. Peter. But that which follows, *Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die,* and what follows, not only does not contradict [the truth], but even harmonizes with it. For no one would say he is immortal, but that he remains with Enoch and Elias until the second coming of the Lord; which the disciple himself also confirming, says that Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, *If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?* And it is clear that He denied his being immortal, but confirmed his remaining until He comes. But if Eusebius of Pamphilus, in writing his Ecclesiastical History and numbering the times in which he lived, reaches as far as the times of Trajan, there is nothing to prevent this, even if he says so. Let each one perceive this in his mind, as the times show Enoch, and as the Holy Scriptures clearly show how many years he lived. But no one on account of this should deny the translation of the just with the body. To this opinion agree the actions of the beloved John.

and his life, which not a few cite. For it is said that, having been laid in a certain place at his own suggestion, when sought, he was suddenly not found, but only the ^A holy oil, welling up from the place in which he was laid for a brief moment; from which we all draw that holy oil as from a fountain of holiness. But this is clear, that the present question, even if it deviates from the truth, does not bring danger to the soul. For the search for truth concerning the faith, when it is perverted, causes great shipwreck to the soul, and for that reason it is necessary to hold fast even to a short syllable that contributes to the truth; the investigation of problems opposed to piety, however, is a good thing if it reaches the end of the truth, but if it departs from it, it is indeed not good, yet it does not bring destruction upon the soul. Thus is the second and third question disposed of.

Adam, created immortal, was ignorant of what was beneficial, just as the devil and his apostate powers were before him. But the statement, *Behold, Adam has become as one of us* [Gen. III, 22], even if to some it has seemed to be said by way of irony, is not so in reality: not indeed that he had truly become God, for this is altogether impossible and blasphemous. What then does *Behold, Adam has become as one of us* mean? Behold now, He says, he has received the sense of what it is to imagine himself to be God. To that disposition of his, God speaks these words, and convicts his wickedness. Moreover, we find God upbraiding us for our instruction in many places in Scripture. ^B

And this is the second reason. It is possible, however, for that statement, *Behold, Adam has become as one of us*, to be uttered as an ironical figure, and to abstain from a word of reproach, and to show a lamentable statement concerning the wretched. Let each one choose what pleases him.

In the third discourse, writing to Domnus and John, monks in Cilicia Secunda, he reports this concerning the Synod of Chalcedon: that it is the standard of the right faith, and that it pleases Cyril to preach one incarnate hypostasis of the Word, and one person, and that the Son is perceived as consubstantial with the Father in divinity, and similar to us in humanity. This, of course, is to confess two natures, from which one Christ was formed. For knowing two generations of the one Christ and our God, we are ignorant of neither the distinction of the flesh nor of the Word according to substance. This is the faith which the proclamation of the Council of Chalcedon sets forth, which then three hundred and seventy bishops ^C signed by subscribing, in which the admirable men Simeon and James and Baradatus confirmed this same faith with their own writings. Since these things are so, it results that, where there is one union according to hypostasis, ^D

all suspicion of division is driven away; for to know the difference of the essences is not to divide them, according to the blessed Cyril. That the Council clearly proclaimed the Word of God, who became man, to be consubstantial with us, a doctrine taught by our holy Fathers, though it had not yet received confirmation by the decrees of an ecumenical council. For it most certainly would have been rejected, since the impious opinion of Eutyches had spoken out boldly in the robber synod, and had not been condemned by another; while he was absolved of his just condemnation, the guilt was transferred to the venerable Flavian, who had deposed him. Although he proclaimed clearly one incarnate nature of the Word, that is to say, a hypostasis, and at the same time asserted that He is consubstantial with us, he [i.e., the author] says: the holy Fathers do not use the word nakedly and examine it wickedly, but pay attention to the pious mind of the writer. And he brings forward witnesses for this admonition: Athanasius in his book *Against the Arians*, Cyril in the *Thesaurus*, and John Chrysostom in his *Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians*. He says, for instance, that for the Word of God to suffer in the flesh is the opinion of the Church, just as it is blasphemous and to be rejected to proclaim Him to suffer according to the nature of the divinity. And he brings forward various testimonies: from Cyril's *Scholia*, from the second letter to Succensus, from the first to Nestorius, from the *Thesauri*, from the interpretation of the *Apompaion*, and from the *Apology for the Twelfth Anathema*, and from the letter to the queens, and from the commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, and on Isaiah, and on the eighth psalm, and from the discourse *On Impassibility*, and the discourse *On Passion*, and from his *Commentary on the Gospel of John*, book VII, and from the *On the Incarnation*, in one place and ^B another, and from the Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Testimonies are also added from Gregory and Basil *On Thanksgiving*, and from the letter to the Sosopolitans and to Apollinarius. Nay, even [testimonies] of the great athlete Athanasius from various discourses. Regarding those following Severus who rave, claiming that one must hold in mind the difference of species and nature of those things which have come together into an ineffable union, but that one must not express it, the holy man pours out widespread laughter at their folly, and before the man himself, common sense does this, and the voice of Paul saying: "For with the heart one believes unto justice, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Rom. x, 10). He asserts and says, we proclaim one person, that is, one hypostasis of the Word incarnate, ^C since the divine Dionysius the Areopagite also posits Jesus as simple. And concerning the union according to hypostasis, righteously against ^D

^A the piety of the faithful it is called composite; but that the essence is composite, no one dared to say except Apollinaris. And the Lord Himself, revealing that His hypostasis is indeed composite, but His nature is no longer so, having entered to the disciples while the doors were shut: "Handle me," He says, "and see for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me have"; and elsewhere: "God is a Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." How, then, are these not contradictory? It is because, according to the essence of the Godhead, He does not have flesh, since essence cannot be composite, but according to the Person and the hypostasis He has it, even as He was seen to have it; and what He did not have according to essence (for He was not composite), this He possesses according to hypostasis (for this is composite); and while according to one essence He does not have the other, yet according to hypostasis He possesses both. Thus, He has both flesh and spirit according to hypostasis; but according to essence, neither is the spirit flesh, nor has the flesh undergone the nature of the spirit. Blessed Cyril, explaining this, says: "For if flesh is flesh and ^B not deity, even though it has become the flesh of God, I find a difference according to essence, even though I confess the Son to be one." And in the Gospels, when Christ says: "That they may be one as we are one, I in them, and You in Me," He showed both natures to be consubstantial. For the divine nature is one with the Father in the Word of God, and it is one again in them, that is, according to our essence. Agreeing with these things, Cyril thus explains the statement: "Just as," says he, "I am in them, because He bears their flesh, and as You, O Father, are in Me, because I am of Your essence; so I desire that they also, having been brought into a certain union, may be mingled with one another, and, having become as it were one body in Me, may all be one, as all are contained by the one temple that was taken up." The prophet Isaiah also asserts these things in saying: "A child is born to us, a Son is given to us, and God is the mighty and powerful One"; for through "child" He proclaimed the One consubstantial to us, and through "God," the One consubstantial to the Father and the Spirit. And Gregory of Nyssa, writing against Apollinaris: "If," he says, "the nature ^C of each of these is perceived in contrary properties—I mean of the flesh and of the Godhead—how are the two one?"

Having said these things, the holy Ephrem attacks those who impiously interpret the Lord's saying: "And He dwelt among us." For he rebukes them: for instead of that, "He was seen on earth and conversed with men," they perversely understood the phrase, equating it to the one that says: "Lot dwelt in the cities of the Jordan, and he dwelt in Sodomus," thus censuring the foolish sequel, he explains that the word "dwelt," ^D

^A in unfolding the meaning, clarifies the declaration: *The Word became flesh*, and serves as a refutation of those who are liable to accuse the Word of any change or alteration. For the evangelist, having said: *The Word became flesh*, immediately adds: *And he dwelt among us*, thus teaching through each word the union into one hypostasis and the immutability of each of the two natures. Having thus contemplated the expression, he calls Chrysostom as a witness, and along with him Cyril and Athanasius and Gregory the Theologian, who understood the passage in the same way.

Thence he again brings forward quotations of which Domnus and John are the authors, and shows that they themselves, even against their will, acknowledge among many things those which the holy synod at Chalcedon decreed, and that they irrationally avoid it. To declare, however, that our Lord Jesus [422 H.] Christ consists of two natures before the union, he declares to be thoroughly impious and absurd. For the nature of the Word was always, as it was after the incarnation, coeternal and consubstantial with the Father; ^B but the flesh, not yet having been united to the Word, was not at all among the existing things. How then, unless one chooses to be a partner in impiety with Nestorius, is it possible to either think or say that the Lord is from two natures before the incarnation? It is, however, pious and the opinion of the orthodox to say after the union—as we perceive Christ to be among two—that he is from two natures, which the synod at Chalcedon also upheld; for it clearly and openly proclaimed Christ to be perfect in divinity and our God, and perfect in humanity. But if any of those from the party of Severus should say that if there are two natures in Christ, there will also be two persons and hypostases (for a nature is neither un-personed nor without hypostasis), ^C let them know that they do not perceive the indecency of their father which they are covering up; for Severus himself, while saying that Christ is "from two natures," is not ashamed to set forth and declare that he is composed of two persons and two hypostases. Yet one must know that "nature" is often spoken of regarding things that exist, but it does not necessarily introduce "person" as well, just as "nature of water," and "nature of anger," and "nature of war" and "strife." For where has anyone ever, when he spoke of a nature, foolishly called it a person? And again, we say that each of us humans has a nature of the soul and a nature of the body; but not even myths have invented a "person of the soul" or a "person of the body," or a "hypostasis of the soul" or of the body.

That to confess the union of two natures and one hypostasis and one person is of the sound mind and the proclamation of the Fathers, ^D John Chrysostom, in expounding the Gospel according to John, bears witness in the eleventh homily, saying: "By union and conjunction, God the Word and the flesh are one, with no confusion having occurred, nor destruction of the substances." And Cyril also, in his letter to the Orientals: "For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, even if the difference of the natures is not unknown." And Ambrose of Milan in his discourse *On the Incarnation*: "Those, however, who do not excommunicate…"

^A from the bond of the apostolic Church those who dare to deny that there are two natures inconfusedly, and one person according to which there is one Christ and one Son." To these points also Cyril of Jerusalem, Amphilochius of Iconium, and Proclus of Constantinople — who in his *Forty Days* sermon thus speaks: "The divine nature is uncreated, the assumption of my flesh is unadulterated; and there is one Son, not dividing the natures into two hypostases, but by a wondrous dispensation uniting the two natures into one hypostasis." ^B And Paul, the bishop of Emesa, expressing the presence of the Lord and vehemently illustrating it, thus says: "Immediately the leader and tongue of the Apostles said: *You are the Christ, the Son of the living God* [Matth. 16:16]. *You are the Christ*—that is, the twofold nature; *You are the Christ*—and he did not say 'Son,' but *the Son of the living God*, by which he indicated one person." Indeed, Hilary, confessor and bishop of the Gabalitani, in his fourth book *On Faith and Unity*, proclaims these things, as does Cyriacus of Paphos, one of those three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers. The same is true in the book which Ambrose, bishop of Milan, inscribed to the Emperor Gratian, and in his book *On Apollinarius*, and *On the Incarnation*. But also Peter, the martyr and prelate of Alexandria, and Basil of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Gregory the Theologian in his *Nativities*, and the second book *On the Son*, and his second epistle to Cledonius, testify most ^C abundantly to these very things; and Amphilochius in his epistle to Seleucus, and Chrysostom in his first commentary on Paul’s epistle to Timothy, and Proclus the Byzantine in his sermon on the birth of the Lord, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, in his epistle to the virgins, and Cyril in his first and second epistle to Succensus, and to the Orientals, and to Acacius, bishop of Melitene, in his book *On the Incarnation*, and in his epistle to Eulogius the priest, and in his *Treasuries*, and in other various books. Gathering together these opinions of the holy Fathers, the holy Synod of Chalcedon confirmed the orthodox religion. Wherefore, to argue against this synod is to attack the holy Fathers as if with malice.

Forasmuch as Christ, our true God, did not divide the property of his divinity nor his humanity, but in a union of person he himself, one and the same, performed all things, both human and divine: he again cites as witnesses the same holy Fathers: Julius, prelate of Rome, from the book *On the Union of the Divinity and Flesh in Christ Jesus*; and Athanasius, prelate of Alexandria, from the epistle to Maximus the philosopher, and from other various discourses; the third book ^D of Gregory of Nyssa *Against Eunomius*, and his *Catechetical Oration*; and Basil of Caesarea from his epistle to the Sozopolitans, and also the learned Cyril in his book *On the Incarnation*.

and from the *Thesauri*, and from the second epistle to Succensus, and from the interpretation to the Hebrews, and from the *Scholia*.

Having gone through these, the author brings forward the utterances of the Pope of blessed memory, Leo, and says that he is aligned against those impious heretics—Valentinus, Marcion, Manes, Apollinarius, and Eutyches, and others like them—and is therefore maligned and attacked by those conspirators. This is the first point. For just as when God shows mercy He undergoes no change, so man is not consumed by the magnitude of the divine glory. Second: Each form acts in communion with the other. For the heresy claims that these two ^B prefixed articles, "God" and "man," are representative of two persons and two hypostases, and that they signify the union only by connection. But Athanasius, both Gregories, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and the Lord Himself refute this impudence, having themselves also used similar and equal expressions in many places, demonstrating by such a prefixing of the articles that it is not some particular man, but the universal—nor the hypostasis of the Father or the Son, but the common nature—that is designated, and that the articles are joined to the nouns not only in the nominative case, but are declined together in other cases as well. For instance, Matthew says: "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him." And again: "The Son of man is going to come in the glory of His Father." And he adds: "Tell the vision to no one, until the Son of man is risen from the dead." And the divinely inspired Paul says: "For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ abound unto the many." For in all these instances, the mention of "man," being preceded by the generic article, in no way divides our one Lord Jesus Christ into a difference of hypostases. The God-bearing martyr ^C Ignatius, writing to the Smyrnaeans, similarly uses the article. And Julius, Pope of Rome, in his epistle to Docius, says that he is anathema whoever does not confess that the man from Mary is God incarnate. The same is held by the much-suffering Athanasius in his treatise *On the Faith*, and by Gregory the Theologian in his second epistle to Cledonius, and indeed also by Gregory of Nyssa in various discourses, and by the blessed Basil in his treatise *On the Faith*, ^D and by Epiphanius in his book *On Heresy*; but also by Atticus of Constantinople in his epistle to Empsychius, and by John Chrysostom in his homily on Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, and by Cyril in the *Thesauri*, and in his *Explanation* of the prophet Malachi and of John the Evangelist, and in his book *On Worship in Spirit and in Truth*. It has it thus: "For it enriches the dwelling place of the supernal nature."

Since all these things, along with the articles, bring forward both the divine and the human nature, how does he who accuses the blessed Leo on account of the bringing forward of the articles not bark against all of us, the God-bearing Fathers? ^B

But let us see, too, this: "For each form works with the communion of the other what its own is," the Word working that which is the Word’s, and the body performing what belongs to the body. For even here it will be shown that he is of the same opinion and the same mind as our holy Fathers; for all assign human things to the man and divine things to God, just as the learned Cyril also does in his Commentary on John: "If, he says, Jesus was said to progress in age, wisdom, and grace [425 H], it is the work of the dispensation. For the Word of God allowed the human to be carried through the ways of its own nature." And in his discourse against Nestorius, "Observe, he says, how he himself, having conceded nothing, nor having suffered that which is weak to affect his own nature, has allowed it to go to his flesh and through its own laws; and the thing is also called his own, because his body is his own." And in the *Thesauri*: "To be troubled is a property of the flesh; but to have power to lay down his soul and to take it again is a work of the power of the Word." And one who wishes to collect countless other things from this divine man and from the rest of our Fathers will not be at a loss; ^C for the Gregories and Athanasius and Amphilochius and Chrysostom and Ambrose and the rest of the choir of saints proclaim the same things.

But since those who disagree have proposed that Gregory of Neocaesarea, Athanasius, Julius, Cyril, and Erechthius believe in one incarnate nature of God the Word, he makes the meaning of the phrase clear, saying that it also teaches the difference between the united natures. For unless the human nature and the divine differ, either the nature of the flesh is entirely inverted into the essence of the Godhead, or the Godhead into the flesh, and so it becomes one—which is the godless opinion of Apollinaris and similar heretics. Cyril, however, in his second letter to Succensus, showing that the difference of the natures is confessed through this phrase—when he says "one incarnate nature of God the Word"—he added: "If, however, as I have said, in speaking of the incarnation, there is a clear and unambiguous confession of him, that he has become man, nothing prevents us from understanding that he is one existing and unique Son, Christ, who is the same God and man, as perfect in divinity, so also in his human condition." See how he clearly declares how that which was said by him is in agreement with the Fathers: "One" ^D

as, just as in divinity He is perfect, so also in humanity. ^A Behold, he has clearly shown how it is said, both to him and to our other Fathers, "One nature of the Word incarnate." The expression clearly teaches the difference between the natures, yet it also indicates the extreme and inseparable union of God the Word and the flesh, and that the Lord Christ is one and the same who is incarnate, not two sons, as Nestorius blasphemously suggested, in accordance with which this very expression was put to him. For what else could it mean, that "He is the same, God and man," if not two natures united in one hypostasis? Just as the Theologian Gregory also said, "Two natures, God and man," and interpreting himself, he said, "So that he who calls Christ God and man confesses two natures united according to hypostasis." And the holy ^B Cyril also, adding, "As He is perfect in divinity, so also in humanity," teaches that the Lord is to be recognized in two natures, so that the saying "one nature of the Word incarnate" is not spoken so as to deny that the things united according to hypostasis are recognized, but to demonstrate that God the Word became man indivisibly, and did not dwell in a man as in one of the prophets. One might find many other things in the same epistle, through which the confession of the two natures in Christ is confirmed, but placing the natures separately is proven to be of heretical thinking. But putting forward "one nature of the Word incarnate" against Nestorius does not do away with the difference of the natures, but manifests the duality of the hypostases. For Nestorius was banished from the Church not because he recognized two natures in Christ, but because he divided the indivisible into two persons; ^C so that the "one nature of the Word incarnate," while refuting Nestorius, indicates nothing other than that one must preach one hypostasis of God the Word incarnate, which is the mind of piety, and which the Council of Chalcedon dogmatized. Nevertheless, when the much-struggling Athanasius spoke of "one nature of the Word of God incarnate," he said this not to do away with the recognition of the difference of the natures which fulfill the union according to hypostasis, but he himself also, wishing to show ^D that the Son is one who is incarnate and became man, and struggling especially against Paul of Samosata, who insanely dogmatized that the Son before the ages was one, and another appeared in the last days. And Julius, who is among the saints, followed the same line of thought; for he too armed himself with the same expression against Paul of Samosata and those like him. However, if Erechthius understands the expression as Athanasius and Cyril and Julius do, this would be better; but if he understands it contrary to their opinion, it is no wonder, for many holy men have discovered that he was afflicted with the disease of Eutyches, which he himself reveals, speaking as follows: "If indeed Christ was from human seed, I would concede that the fruit is according to the root; but if from the holy Spirit, according to the voice of the archangel Gabriel, He is born God, since He was generated by God." Thus indeed Erechthius, who, it is likely, did not understand the words of Elizabeth, who, blessing Mary the Theotokos, exclaimed: "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" (Luc. I, 42). Nor did he understand Isaiah: "There shall be

the root of Jesse, and he that shall rise up to rule the Gentiles, in him the Gentiles shall hope" (Isa. XI, 10), and many other things.

^B After this, he discourses on the difference that substance, genus, and species have in relation to hypostasis, observing that the former denote what is common, while the latter denotes the person, also called by the Greeks the particular or individual. And, according to his custom, he brings forward various witnesses for his own opinion, [Athanasius, Basil, Julius, and Cyril]: and he says that if ever anyone should find any of the aforementioned men calling nature a hypostasis, it should be understood that this is said not properly but catachrestically [abusively]. For if it were not so, we would be doing an injury to our holy Fathers by saying that they contradict themselves and one another. Athanasius did, however, use the term "nature" in place of "hypostasis" in his epistle to the emperor Julian, saying: "It is fitting to call, or rather to confess, the nature and hypostasis of the Word as incarnate." And Julius, too, in the epistle written by him to those who were contending against the divine incarnation of the Word, what elsewhere he called the one nature of the Word, here he calls hypostasis; for he says... but also blessed Cyril in his Scholia says thus: "That the hypostases, or the natures, have remained unconfused, we shall know from this." And again in the third chapter of his Anathematisms: "If anyone, in the case of the one Christ, divides the natures or the hypostases after the union, joining them only by a bond of dignity, that is, of authority, and not rather by a concurrence which is according to natural union, let him be anathema." And, explaining himself and at the same time refuting Nestorius and showing in what way he [Nestorius] conceived of two natures, he says: "Those, therefore, who divide the hypostases after the union, and place each one separately—that is, the man apart and the God apart—and who conceive for them a connection only according to dignity, do altogether set forth two sons." The same holy Cyril, who elsewhere pronounced the one nature of the Word of God incarnate, says in his third epistle to Nestorius: "In one person, therefore, must all the utterances in the Gospels be assigned; the one hypostasis of the incarnate Word, for there is one Lord Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures." There is nothing in common between those who say that the two natures subsist in their own and particular ^C hypostasis, as Nestorius does, and those who say that they have attained unity, ^D as the Word was united according to hypostasis, as the holy Church, and the holy synod, and Leo the pontiff proclaim. But there is an infinite difference between impiety and piety, and as much as light is distant from darkness.

^A

For since the followers of Severus are refuted by the voices of our God-bearing Fathers, who shone forth before the synod in Chalcedon and proclaimed the two natures in the hypostatic union of the Word, they immediately turn to slandering them, wearing a mask of slander that appears plausible, as they think, but more deeply mocking them than those who insult them openly. For they say that the duality of natures was indeed stated by them, but not by conviction, nor willingly, nor by a confession of faith; but as in a refutation of false knowledge, and according to dispensation, and at the time, and compelled by some heretical necessity. And what would this be but to declare these teachers to be hypocrites and cowards [H] and traitors to the truth, preferring a doctrine alien to their own piety and heretical, and being dragged rather into their abyss than pulling any out from thence? ^B For where is it possible for such people to say with Paul: "Our word toward you was not Yes and No, but in Him it was Yes," [I Cor. 1, 18] when they are turning to ten thousand ways in life and mimicking the changes of the Euripus? But what, again, does the heresy say? "Pardon is to be given to the Fathers; for the violence of the opinion prevailed," just as if it had obtained the power to revile and condemn what it wishes, and again to dismiss sin, and as if not crying out: "Our lips are our own; who is our Lord?" [Ps. XI, 5] But if, because the Fathers fought against heresies, and even if they slipped from piety, they are for that reason worthy of pardon, how is it that those at Chalcedon did not enjoy the same sympathy from you, even if they seemed to corrupt something? For they too, contending against two heresies, that of Nestorius and that of Eutyches, set forth their dogmas. But so blind and deaf is impiety everywhere, and it knows not how to see or hear even what it itself puts forward. ^C The synod at Chalcedon, immediately at its beginning, added its authority to the things which blessed Cyril dealt with at Ephesus against Nestorius, and it received the two synods held before it as defining the faith, and it bound Arius and Macedonius and Nestorius in the same anathema; and those who carve up the mystery of the dispensation into a duality of sons, just as it condemns those who dare to say that the divinity of the Only-Begotten is passible, so also it binds with the same fetter of the anathema those who imagine two natures of the Lord before the union, and form one after the union. ^D It decreed, moreover, just as those before it did, that it is permitted to no one to set forth another faith, that is, to write or compose or hold a view other than that which the first and second ecumenical synod handed down. But as for those who dare to write or teach another symbol besides this, who wish

^A to be converted from Judaism or Hellenism, or indeed from any heresy whatsoever, let the bishops or clergy be stripped of their dignity, and the monks or laity be excommunicated. These things were said, in the main, by Pope Leo in his epistle to Flavian of Constantinople, wherein his piety shines forth clearly. And in the same place ^B he concludes his discourse with an exhortation and advice, urging those who are about to receive the epistle to put aside their error and embrace the opinion of the pious. Thus, indeed, regarding the third book.

But he elaborated the fourth book for certain monks of the East, who were infected with the heresy of the Theopaschites, of which one—by easily demonstrating the charges to be false—clears himself of the crime; yet he also urges them to convert from their heretical opinion, offering testimonies for the orthodox doctrine which he had also used in the prior book, I mean those of Athanasius, Ambrose, Cyril, and the holy Fathers, through whom they proclaimed with a loud voice that our Lord Jesus Christ is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity. ^C One of these is that of the holy Ambrose, bishop of Milan and confessor, which he set forth in his book *Against Apollinarius*, which runs as follows: "But in as much as we accuse these men, others have arisen saying that the body of the Lord and His divinity are of one nature. O what hell breathed forth such blasphemy! For the Arians are by now more bearable, whose error is confirmed by these men, asserting that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not of one nature, since these have proclaimed the divinity of the Lord and His flesh to be one." ^D The triumphant Cyril brought forward this passage from that holy man against Nestorius, from which his trustworthiness and excellence are displayed. The holy Cyril himself also says many other things strengthening piety, and in his book *On the Faith*: "The temple was destroyed at the time of the three-day burial, with Him willing it, and He raised it again, and it was united to the Word Himself in an ineffable manner, not mixed in Him during those three days, nor clothed in flesh, but keeping in Himself the unconfused property of the natures, which were of different essence." And again in his commentary on Matthew, book I: "Unless the divinely inspired Scripture had known that Christ is man and God, even if he were understood as one and the same. The blessed evangelist therefore assigns what is, as it were, appropriate to each part, keeping the discourse of the mystery clear and unconfused. For he knew that these things, indeed, were proper and fitting to the limits of humanity; those, however, to the excellence of the ineffable divinity." Therefore, Cyril confesses not only two natures but also two operations, as he speaks in the *Treasuries*: "For He does not bring forth into those which are of another generation and essence the unchangeable virtues and operations." And again: "Just as they have a separate definition of essence or quality, so they also preserve a different operation." And again: "For we shall not grant that there is one natural operation of God and the creature, so that neither...

should we reduce the created to the divine essence, nor should we drag down the excellence of the divine nature into a manner befitting those that are begotten."

Since, however, those to whom I was writing sought purely for the phrasing ^A of what was said by certain of the Fathers, he brings forward a passage found in the interpretation of Cyril to the Hebrews, which reads as follows: "We do not say that some form of fusion of the natures into one another has taken place; rather, with both remaining what they are, we understand the Word to be united to the flesh." And again from the same source: "And we surely do not say that a fusion, as it were, has occurred regarding the natures, so as to change the nature of the Word into the poverty of a man, for instance, nor again the human into that of the Word himself; but rather, with each being understood and existing within the bounds of its own nature, we say that the union has taken place, the Word having dwelt bodily in the temple which he took from the holy Virgin." Likewise, Basil of Caesarea in Cappadocia says in his treatise Contra Eunomium: "Therefore, with all straining and caution, it must be considered how the truth of both natures is manifested in one and the same [entity]."

^C That our Fathers, however, proclaim not one, but two natures in Christ in the hypostatic union, has been stated previously, but nothing prevents me from presenting it even now. For the holy Gregory of Nyssa says in his treatise Contra Apollinarium: "If, therefore, the nature of each of these is contemplated in the contrary properties—I mean of the flesh and of the Divinity—how are the two one?" And the holy Ephrem, in his *On the Incarnation* and *In Margaretam*, says: "The connection of the assumption is not diminished, so that it might lose what it had, and become what it had not. But perfect is what it assumed, and what it acquired." And Cyril also in his epistle to Eulogius, and in the first to Succensus, and in the *Oration on the Faith*, and in his book *Against the impious Nestorius*, and in the *Thesauri*, says the same. Likewise, in his treatise *On the Incarnation*, he says: "But that He brought both together into one according to an economic conjunction, the properties of the natures are shown to us by many thousands of arguments." And after other things: "The wise John also contends and strives in his discourse, almost as if gathering the natures together and binding the power ^D of the properties belonging to each." And from thousands of other of his discourses, the same can be gathered. Explaining the prophet Zechariah, he speaks thus: "The divine Ezekiel said... [Ezech. X, 18]: He said that he saw upon the throne one seated of a dual nature." And again, in the second book of his *Commentary on John*, he has: "Whenever you perform some act,

when the simple one enters into a dual nature?" and ten thousand other things. Why did the holy synod not declare Christ to be from two natures, explicitly crying out that the same [Christ] was born of the Father ^A before the ages according to his divinity, and in the last days for us and for our salvation [was born] of Mary the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin according to his humanity? Furthermore, if it embraced the letters of Cyril, which everywhere proclaim that [formula] "from two natures," why does the heresy rage so vainly against the holy synod?

But look at the malice of the heretics. For when the synod said: "For they teach perfection concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and they set the Lord's incarnation before the eyes of those who receive it faithfully," the accuser hysterically cried out that it was speaking of a Quaternity in the Trinity. Why? Because, having mentioned the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it added the Lord's incarnation as if it were a [fourth] person. But the sacred writer turns this blasphemy back upon the heads of the calumniators, demonstrating with countless testimonies that this order is ancient and traditional: that after the praises of the holy and supernatural Trinity, the holy Church theologizes the incarnation of the one from the holy Trinity, by no means being accused of adding a fourth number. Thus Cyril speaks in the seventh book of his *Worship in Spirit and Truth*; ^B thus too in his *Commentary on John*, and in his *Commentary on Matthew*, and countless others.

Clearly, indeed, in many of his books, the divine Cyril preaches and hands down that Christ is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity. With this the holy synod, acting in harmony, also preached the one and same Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten, in two natures, unconfusedly and indivisibly. With this, Cyril again agrees in his epistle to Succensus, saying: "Understanding, therefore, as I have said, the mode of the incarnation: let us see how two natures have come together into one, through an inseparably union, without confusion, and insolubly. For flesh is flesh and not divinity, even if it has become the flesh of God; and in the same way, the Word is God and is not flesh, even if he made flesh his own by way of dispensation." And after other things: ^C "So then, as far as it can fall under the understanding and under the eyes of the soul, in what way the Only-Begotten became incarnate, we say that there are two natures, but one Christ, Son, and Lord, the Word of God who has become incarnate and man." And in the epistle to the Orientals: "For a union of two natures has taken place; therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord." And in the epistle to Acacius, Bishop of Melitene: "Therefore, when the mode of the incarnation is curiously investigated, two things are seen by the human mind, joined to one another in an ineffable way and without confusion, via the union, whereas the incarnate one ^D is not understood at all, but one from. . .

both, both Son and Christ and God and Lord, is believed and firmly accepted. And in the *Scholia*: It says that He became flesh and dwelt among us, in order to demonstrate through both that He became man and did not lay aside what was His own. For He remained what He was, yet one is understood in the other, namely the divine nature in the humanity ^A, housing that which is indwelling, and not suffering any mixture or diffusion or change into that which He was not. For the being said to dwell in another does not become that very thing in which He dwells, but is rather understood as one in another. And in the *Explanation of Leviticus*: For this reason, two birds are taken, and they are understood again as both being one, except that they are living and pure. For the Word Himself by Himself is receptive of all life and purity, and the temple taken from the Virgin contains the same Word within itself. For it was His own body, and not another's conveyance; for this reason, there is also one Lord Jesus Christ. And in the *Explanation of the Gospel according to Matthew*: Therefore, the true and intelligible stater, as exhibited in the material image, is the same our Lord Jesus Christ, ^B a double character. And subsequently: The intelligible stater, therefore, that is, the royal coin, who is in unity a double character, offered Himself for the redemption of the life of us all. And again in the book *Against the Arians*: The discourse concerning the Son is therefore double; therefore, what belongs to God is to be attributed to God, and what belongs to man is to be attributed to man. And shortly after: Therefore, the wise and sagacious—for I will say it—would speak, bringing forward a double and faithful argument in these matters, and assigning to the fitting times the sacred disputation. And in the ninth book *On Worship in Spirit*: The base is of silver and of two [elements]; for Christ is bright on earth and transparent, according to that: "God is the Lord, and He has shined upon us," as if holding a double meaning, for in this is God and man recognized. For this, I think, is what it means to have a base of double silver. And in the book *Against Nestorius*: For the flesh is one thing beside the Word of God, according to the account of its own nature, and again the nature of the Word Himself is another essentially. Thus the opinion of saint Cyril ^C agrees with the sacred and ecumenical synod.

Again, however, the same holy synod asserting: Nowhere has the difference of the natures been taken away on account of the union, but rather the property of each nature is preserved, and [each] is gathered into one person and one subsistence; see how in no way the victorious Cyril dissents. For in the first epistle to Nestorius he says: Not as though the distinction of the natures were removed by the union, but rather ^D

that it has wrought for us one Lord and Son and Christ, both of divinity and of humanity, through the ineffable and inexpressible concurrence into unity. And again in the *Scholia*: For He worships as having taken the nature that worships, and the same again is worshipped as existing beyond the nature that is worshipped, insofar as He is understood as God. And see how Cyril brings in no division of the one Christ, neither by the nominative case nor by the accusative. Again, the same person says in the same *Scholia*: Therefore, one must not divide the one Lord Jesus Christ specifically and into God specifically, but we say that we must think of one and the same Jesus Christ, for those who know the difference of the natures and keep them unconfused with one another. And in the *Thesaurus*: Finally, what else could it be that he called “ignorance” economically, but to preserve again for the humanity the order appropriate to it? For it is proper to humanity not to know future things. And in the second epistle to Succensus: For even if the Only-begotten Son of God is said to have become incarnate and human for us, He is not seen as mixed with them on that account, nor has the nature of the Word passed into the nature of the flesh, nor has the flesh into His, but each stays and is understood in its own natural property. Whoever receives these things in this way dissolves the scandal; but he who asserts the contrary is subject to the terrible decree of the immaculate voice, saying in the Gospels: "Woe to the man through whom the scandal comes." Thus the council and Cyril. And not only Cyril, but also all the rest of the choir of holy men, as being of the same mind, are thus recognized as being of one voice.

^C But still, see the impudence of the heresy. For it censures him who had called his epistle a *Tomus*, the ignorant and crude fellows not knowing how the same Cyril and the strenuous Athanasius, and the companies of other Fathers, call their own pious labors *Tomi*. Therefore, the name of *Tomus* deceived them in vain and led them into heresy.

But the impudent and shameless heretics do not quit, in that which they agree upon, to propose a temporal and passing conjunction; and they interpret this “insofar as” (*en hosō*) as meaning “until” (*heōs*). But the holy writer shows that this adverb in the sacred Scriptures does not only signify a temporal sense, but in many places it often signifies the infinite. But it seems to me that “insofar as” here does not mean “until,” but should rather be taken as “to the extent that.” Except that the blessed Gregory the Theologian ^D used these same terms beforehand; whom Leo follows.

Again, the heresy slanders the holy Leo, because, it says, he spoke of the one and the same as having both the humility of the flesh and the greatness of the divinity; and certainly if he did not pre—

-^Aviously say "of the one and the same," he would perhaps have provided the foolish with a handle for the suspicion that he posits the flesh and the divinity part by part, even if the wording did not even then indicate this. But since, having previously said "of the one and the same," he added both the humility of the flesh and the greatness of the divinity, how is it not the height of madness to place the blame on the blameless? Since the writings of our holy Fathers are also full of such expressions, I think it superfluous to present a collection of examples. And if, indeed, anything of the sort is suspected in the words of the blessed Leo, it was necessary, according to the Gregory who is among the saints, to draw what is ambiguous towards a more pious interpretation, but not audaciously to force it toward impiety. But if the Theologian Gregory does not refute them in any discourse, let them at least be brought to silence by the apostle Paul, who says, "Bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ."

They again fall upon the words of the man in which he says: "For each form operates with the communion of the other what is its own, the Word working what is the Word’s, and the body performing what is the body’s." See, they say, he has posited two persons, and has declared their operations to be separate. Yet neither the wording nor the sequence of the meaning demands anything of the sort. For where did he say that each form operates "part by part"? Or where did he leave out "with the communion of the other," that is, in the union of the natures? But if he who said these things is to be accused, then let Cyril also be accused, who says nothing different in his books *Against Nestorius*. For he says: "He permits the body to make use of the laws of its own nature, and to have tasted death; and that this was suffered, since the Word that was united to it permitted it for our benefit." And again in his *Treasuries*: "He permits to the body and to humanity those things which are fitting to them, as a true demonstration that he assumed flesh and became man according to the Scriptures." But this is enough on this point.

^C That "form" is not understood as hypostasis or person, but as essence, Basil, the brilliant herald of the Church, clearly teaches in his book *Against Eunomius*, as does Cyril in the *Treasuries*, saying: "The form which he who exists in the form of God took, is consubstantial with us, since it is also from us. But the form of God is the Son; therefore he is consubstantial with him whose form he also is." And before these, the great Paul: "Who, being in the form of God... did not count it a prize to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant." For it is manifest that the Son was not an existing person of the Father, nor of the same hypostasis, but of the same essence in which he is also said to exist. Again, the holy Basil, in his book *Against Eunomius*, in the first chapter, speaks thus: "The 'in form' is in the essence of God." For the form is not one thing and the essence of God another, lest he be composite who, according to his form...

^B is equal—is also equal according to essence. Truly, the same things are also taught by the holy Amphilochius of Iconium in his epistle to Seleucus: "Wherefore, I also confess that the form of God and the form of a servant meet together in one person, that of the Son and Lord Jesus Christ; and thus I confess Christ to be God and man, the Son of God, but one Son of two natures—passible and impassible, mortal and immortal, intelligible and invisible, palpable and impalpable, beginningless and having a beginning, uncircumscribed and circumscribed."

Of the aforementioned men, given their excellence in piety, the blessed Cyril adduced testimonies against Nestorius according to the ^C third holy synod. And indeed Proclus of Constantinople and Cyriacus, bishop of Paphos, one of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, hold the same things—the former in his *Pulcheriana* after the Nativity and in his Oration on the Epiphany, and this same one also says the same things in his Oration on the Incarnation. And Chrysostom says the same in his Sermon on the Assumption, and Gregory of Nyssa in his book ^D *Against Eunomius* says this: "What is the radiance of the glory? What is that which is pierced with nails? What sort of form is snatched to death, and what sort returns from Hades?" Thus, indeed, the whole choir of holy Fathers everywhere agrees with the holy synod and with the holy man Leo.

But the impudent heresy, again shameless, says against the holy Leo: "In saying that 'part of him shines with miracles, and part has fallen to insults,' he introduces a duality of sons and persons." Yet if, as he said, "He shines with miracles, and he has fallen to insults," if even to some extent this might provide a handle for a pretext, still, since he does not say this at all, but says that one part shines with miracles and another lies under insults—saying that both, both the sufferings and the miracles, belong to the same—how could he provide a handle for any impiety? All our Fathers teach the same thing. Indeed, Gregory of Nyssa, writing in his *Against Eunomius*, did not refrain from using even those things by which, rather, the heresy is puffed up. For he does not construct his discourse according to the neuter, but according to the masculine gender. For he says, "Who is the one who became weary from the journey, and who is the one who, sustaining the whole world by the Word, works without labor?" And in continuation, "What is the radiance of the glory, and what is that which is pierced with nails?" For these things are clear, he says, even if one does not explain them by word.

Again they deride the blessed Leo, saying thus: "That just as the Word is inseparable from the equality of the Father’s glory, so the body has not left behind the nature of our race." And what do these words differ from saying that he is consubstantial with us according to his humanity and consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity? This pleases no one but Eutyches and those who are subject to his madness. But Leo adds these things to what was said before: For one and the same is truly the Son of God, and truly

^A Filius hominis, quod omnes vires impiorum imbelles potest confundere.

Ephraemius adduces these things in defense of piety against the heretics; and he also sets forth the words of his own book, in which he illustrates the proclamation of the piety of that archbishop, and not even the shameless audacity of the impious dares in any way to lay hold of any of these things, among many of which this is true: "The impassable God did not disdain to become a passable man, and the immortal to subject himself to the laws of death." The synod clearly excommunicates Nestorius through this same Leo, saying thus: "Let Nestorius be anathema, who believes the holy Virgin to be the mother not of God, but only of man, so that he constructs one person for the flesh and another for the divinity." ^B How then does he think with Nestorius, when he thus condemns Nestorius and his dogmas?

Again, the heretics slander the fourth synod, saying that it decreed that it is permitted to no one to set forth—that is, to write, or to compose, or to hold—another faith than that which it set forth. Yet the synod did not define this, even though they shamelessly lie about it; but it is the faith which the 318 holy Fathers set forth that it honors and deifies, and besides this, it said it is permitted to no one to set forth another faith, and the rest. ^C It is clear, especially from these synodical voices themselves, that when they are read alone, no other construction or synthesis of the proven truth is needed. And it did not decree this while acting otherwise, but as it decreed, so it is known to be acted upon everywhere; for it teaches and delivers to those who approach piety no other symbol than that of the holy Fathers.

But the heretics pour ridicule rather than slander upon their own heads, in those things where they say that it is maligned by many. For how many synods spoke against the first holy ecumenical synod, and at that time also had a fullness of archbishops? And as for that of the 150, some of the Egyptians did not even wish to know if it had happened. ^D But let us leave aside this folly.

Since those to whom he wrote regarding their own impiety (as they thought) brought forward a certain saying of Julius of Rome, the wise writer showed that the saying was spoken against Paul of Samosata and the second heresy of Nestorius, and to forbid one from thinking that the two natures are distinct and separate, just as one is forbidden to think of two hypostases, persons, and sons. For indeed, the "one nature" in Christ, as used by Julius here, is taken for the "hypostasis," and it contradicts neither the truth nor our other God-bearing Fathers. And this is made clear by the same Pope Julius against Marcion, Valentinus, Apollinaris, and Euty-

^Aches, letting fly the dart through his sacred utterances. For he says in the treatise on the consubstantial: "Whence it is necessary that both the corporeal as a whole and the divine as a whole be spoken of. And he who cannot discern in united, distinct things what is the proper quality of each will fall into discordant contradictions; but he who knows the proper qualities and preserves the unity neither lies about the natures nor could he be ignorant of the union." From which it is clearly evident how the holy Julius confesses two natures; for he took "nature" in the aforementioned words to stand for "hypostasis."

He also censures other not insignificant absurdities which those against whom the holy Ephraim wrote had inserted into their ^B epistle, showing them to be full of impiety. But that which is worthy of wonder is that the things which Cyril foretold, the same things were subsequently pronounced by a council; as for instance, in the words: "Nowhere is the difference of the natures removed by the union." And again: "The natures concurring into one person and one hypostasis." These are the things which those who are hostile to Cyril malign.

This man of God, Ephraim, follows up on these points. He appends, moreover, the epistles of the holy Simeon, who struggled in the standing on the pillar, and those of Baradatus, sent to Basil, bishop of Antioch, and indeed also to the Emperor Leo, with each of them being written separately to each of the two, one for each. That of Jacob, however, was written as one and the same to ^C the same most pious emperor. All are composed in a candid and simple style, yet are full of the Holy Spirit and of our sacred doctrine. Likewise, they proclaim that the Council of Chalcedon remains constant in these sacred dogmas, by the common testimony of the writers, and they urge those who receive them to love and proclaim those things which were decreed in it, bringing with them a consolation and exhortation.

CCXXX. Eleven Orations of blessed Eulogius, Archbishop of Alexandria.

^D 267a I read the volume of eleven orations of the holy Eulogius, Archbishop of Alexandria. The first he addresses to the Roman pontiff; who had received a synodical letter from the writer, but he signaled that it was deficient, because it had neither approved by name the titles of the four synods, nor set them forth here, nor indicated the number of each synod, nor did it make mention of the epistle of holy Leo word for word. But neither were Eutyches, nor Dioscorus, nor Severus handed over to anathema. And because this expression, "in two," was stated more obscurely than was fitting. These were the things which those had...

^A accused him of: but the holy man, in rendering an account regarding those things of which he was accused, ^B says first that all things deemed worthy to be accepted have been comprised in the synodical heads. Indeed, he does not shrink from speaking about them again at greater length. He does this studiously and piously, bringing it to a most excellent and perfect conclusion; and, among other things, he adds our sacred confession of faith, adhering most of all to the stated opinion regarding the incarnation of the Lord. In this he professes the indivisible and unconfused union of the two natures according to hypostasis, and cuts down the heretical offshoots from both sides with the sword of truth. He uses the word "mixture" piously indeed, but he uses it testifying that it is not used according to the mad Apollinarius, nor yet according to the audacious Eutyches, but as the law of piety warrants: inasmuch as he knows to declare one Lord our Jesus Christ to consist in two natures, indivisible and unconfused, in perfect divinity and perfect humanity; so that the mixture does not signify confusion for him, nor does the expression "in two" introduce division. ^C He declares that Athanasius and Cyril also concur with these, who themselves also confessed "one nature of God the Word incarnate," for when they said "incarnate," they proclaimed the nature that was assumed. Passing on through these things, ^D as he also strives in his other writings, and marking well the word set before him, he says that the present expression is divided into three meanings. For "incarnate" could be taken either as meaning "clad in flesh," and as it were conformed in shape, just as bronze is in the form of a statue; or that the nature of the Word was changed into flesh, and as it were "incarnated" one nature came forth; or that the one nature of the Word existing, according to the incarnation, is no longer perceived as one alone, but with the flesh, preserving its own incommutability and integrity, and that of the assumed flesh. Therefore, the first two interpretations are those of Apollinarius and Eutyches; but the third is the thought of the preaching of the Apostles, which the choir of our blessed Fathers received from that source and preserved. And it is clear that if anyone should wish to think piously, in saying "one nature of the Word incarnate," he would be graced by thinking the same as those who perceive and declare two natures, unconfused and unmixed, in one and the same Christ; otherwise, he thinks with Apollinarius and Eutyches. For here, "one nature" is said instead of "one hypostasis," and "incarnate" instead of "human nature," so that there is no difference between one who says "one nature of the Word incarnate" and one who says "one hypostasis of the Word which has assumed the human nature." Wherefore our Fathers, explaining the expression, add: "The difference of the natures not being withdrawn through the union, but rather each being preserved in its own bounds and definition of nature, in one and the same Christ Jesus our God." Wherefore, if they are recognized as preserved, they are preached as recognized, and what are preached are also numbered: clearly

to speak piously of one incarnate nature of the Word and of two inseparable natures in the hypostatic union causes no difference in the discourse of piety. Having said these things and others like them, he concludes the first discourse. ^B

The second is inscribed as "Dogmatic," and it, too, announces an exposition of faith. In it he theologizes piously about the Trinity and likewise discourses upon the economy, though more concisely than in the preceding, yet omitting nothing of the accuracy. Having run through these matters, he concludes his labor with an exhortation, by which he urges those who are departing from the Church to embrace the common concord. In this discourse he says that of the doctrines handed down in the Church by the ministers of the Word, some are dogmata and others are proclamations. And the difference is this: dogmata are proclaimed with concealment and wisdom, and are often deliberately wrapped in obscurity, so that things holy may not be exposed to the profane, and pearls may not be cast before swine; whereas proclamations are spoken without any obscurity, especially those that treat of the observance of commandments and of divine fear. There are, furthermore, certain dogmata more obscure, which are, so to speak, altogether held in silence, but are mystically handed down only to those who possess spiritual wisdom through the living Word, for the faithful to be entrusted with these. ^C He also makes a distinction concerning those things said about Christ, positing some as said truly and properly, and others by way of reference. For they are referred back to us, inasmuch as he is the head of all of us, as he took upon himself what is said of us—sin, the curse, and similar things. For the Apostle says, "He who knew no sin, he made to be sin for our sake" (II Cor. v, 21). And again, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us" (Gal. iii, 13). Thus also did he take upon himself our disobedience and ignorance, as the head of the whole body; and that saying, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Ps. xxi, 1; Matt. xxvii, 46) he adopted as his own out of ineffable love for mankind. ^D

The third discourse contends against those who have slandered the holy Fathers and the Council of Chalcedon. And first he examines the epistles to Succensus written by the blessed Cyril, and whatever other things seem to concur with these (for the adversaries, from such expressions, as if from some citadel, rage against the dogmata of piety). After that, he also refutes other slanders. Now, he first proposes the opinion of the heretics, namely the second epistle to Succensus, which says that to speak of two inseparable natures after the union is contrary to those who revere one incarnate nature of the Word. Against these, the patron of truth argues, as one who...

^A says this to those who profess that the nature of the Word is incarnate. To these the advocate of the truth counters, saying that those who believe in one incarnate nature of the Word wish, by this expression, to make clear the union according to hypostasis, and that the Word did not assume a pre-existing man, but truly became flesh. However, this is not sufficient to show the perfection of the mystery. For where, through this expression, is it possible to understand whether the assumed flesh was ensouled or not, and whether it was merely shaped as flesh or had truly become flesh? Whence, too, is it clear that the things that came together remained complete and unconfused? For none of these things can be found clarified from that expression itself. For this reason, the statement in question is grasped both by Apollinarius and by Eutyches: the one confusing the elements that came together, and Apollinarius ^B imagining the flesh to be soulless. But the expression is also pleasing to Manes, who fashions the incarnation in form and fantasy. Those, however, who speak of "two inseparable natures" do indeed preserve the things that came together as unconfused, but neither do they, by these same words, proclaim the union according to hypostasis. For it is possible, again, to take the term "united" maliciously, as Nestorius did, through honor, glory, and other heretical contrivances. Therefore, the divine Cyril also says at the end of the aforementioned Epistle that the word "indivisible," when added, seems-to us, in a way-to be a sign of the right faith, but they themselves do not understand it so. For "indivisible" among them, according to the new terminology of Nestorius, is taken in another way. For he says that the man in whom the Word of God dwelt is indivisible through ^C parity of honor, identity of will, and authority. Wherefore, the great Cyril understands "indivisible" in two ways: one way heretically, and the other properly and in an orthodox manner. By using "indivisible" in two ways, he rightly said that to say "one incarnate nature of the Word" wars against the Nestorians who assert "two inseparable natures." The same thing that was said belongs to the orthodox Church, if the ambiguity is removed. It is removed, moreover, in other ways, but especially by assuming the union according to hypostasis. For this same addition, by accurately fulfilling the requirement, both dissipates the fraud of Nestorius and confounds the heretics. Each expression is therefore imperfect, as it became clear from the foregoing, by not taking up the other. And so I understand the expression that says "one incarnate nature of the Word" and that which says "two unconfused natures" to each achieve completeness when coupled one with the other. For the "incarnate nature of the Word" introduces simply ^D the union according to hypostasis, while he who speaks of two inseparable natures signifies the unmingled and unconfused state of the things that have come together. Therefore, an expression that is separated from the other and is advanced sophistically would justly incur condemnation. So, rightly, the holy Cyril, addressing Nestorius, blames as imperfect the expression that speaks of two inseparable natures, and one that is unable to refute the sect of the heretics, and argues against it with the one that says "one incarnate nature." With which, if it comes joined, it shows sincere piety, clearly proclaiming two inseparable natures in the hypostatic union. Thus, certainly, it is permitted that one, [269a] when he speaks of one incarnate nature of the Word...

and especially when contending against Apollinaris, or Manes, or Eutyches, ^A might be speaking imperfectly, and rather aiding the opinion of those men, and attacking and overturning the opinion of Cyril, and even pressing those who confess two natures inseparable in the hypostatic union.

That, however, confessing two natures in the hypostatic union is consistent with the Church teaching one incarnate nature of the Word, the guardian of accuracy, Cyril, clearly showed. For he received most gladly and with great joy those Eastern bishops who, while not at all stating that there is one incarnate nature of the Word, yet both taught and held the opinion of two natures in the hypostatic union. For Saint John, who occupied the episcopal throne of Antioch, wrote that "a union of two natures has taken place; therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord." In accordance with this understanding of an unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Theotokos, because the Word of God was made flesh and became man. And Cyril, that ardent lover of accuracy, not only gladly and very joyfully accepted these things and what followed from them in the writings, ^B but also honored with praises Paul, the bishop of Emesa, who had been sent by him, for having spoken in a public assembly, and magnified him as one of the same mind, because he held the same opinion that he himself and Cyril, who sent him, held. His discourse pursued that text: *The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us* n. [It was interpreted in a second way: *The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.*] This is in our nature. Preaching such things, that Paul is adorned with the praises of Cyril.

Behold also again John declaring two natures, and one Son: "Another is the tabernacle, and another that which dwells; another is the temple, and another the God who dwells within." Attend to what is said. ^C I did not say: "Another person and another person," as in the case of two Christs or two sons, but "another thing and another thing," as in the case of two natures. When, therefore, he said *He dwelt among us*, and proclaimed two natures, then he added: *And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten.* These and other such words of the holy evangelist John prove that the dogmas are true along with the aforementioned ones. Beginning from his own doctrine, he says: The holy prophet Isaiah v, foretelling the eloquence of the teachers in Christ, said: *You shall draw waters with joy out of the fountains of the Savior.* Behold, then, we have drawn for ourselves water from the holy fountain of the aforementioned teacher, who, being kindled by the torches of the Holy Spirit, ^D shows us the great and holy mystery of the Savior. Thus, holy

I say, of the teacher, who, also enlightened by the illuminations of the Spirit ^A, explained to us the great and venerable mystery of the Savior. Thus, the fervent lover of truth, Cyril, calls the holy John, who turns two natures upward and downward, a holy fountain, full of the light-pouring of the all-holy Spirit, and a bright interpreter of the venerable and great mystery concerning Christ. Nor only this; but also writing to the same John, who is among the saints, regarding the aforementioned high priest Paul, he speaks in these very words: "Upon the arrival, then, at Alexandria of the lord and most God-fearing ^B brother and fellow-minister Paul, we were filled with joy, and very reasonably so, as such a man was mediating." And again: "That the dissension of the Churches has been entirely superfluous and not at all appropriate, we are now most especially fully convinced, since the lord and most God-fearing Bishop Paul has brought a document containing an irreproachable profession of faith." Thus, he proclaims this man to be a cause of joy for the high priest Paul, and he proclaims the faith of the Orientals brought ^C through him to be irreproachable. And in addition to these things, showing clearly what happens in the case of the Orientals and what they commonly profess, so that no one might take the liberty of transferring the contentious security to whatever they might wish, but rather to a peaceful agreement and settlement, he makes this final point in these very words: "We know that the divine men skilled in Scripture have delivered the utterances regarding the Lord, in part attributing them as to one person, and in part distributing them as to two natures, and some they hand down as worthy of God with respect to the divinity of Christ, and others as humble with respect to the humanity." To which he adds his own judgment: ^D "Finding them to be of the same mind as us regarding these things, which harmonize with our own expressions—for 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Eph. iv, 5)—we gave glory to God, the Savior of all, rejoicing with one another that the Churches both among you and among us possess a faith in agreement with the divine Scriptures and the tradition of the holy Fathers." And who else could be more eloquent or more trustworthy than Cyril to interpret Cyril, and to establish that his opinion is pure and unadulterated by heretical admixture, in which he declared that he and the Orientals held an identical view regarding piety? He showed clearly that there is no difference between confessing two undivided natures in one person, or one hypostasis, and confessing the one nature of the Word made flesh with a rational and intelligent soul.

Not only writing to those of the East does he bear witness to their orthodox opinion, but when some accused him of having accepted the Orientals who confess two natures, he himself writes to Valerian, Bishop of Iconium, on their behalf, that the Orientals have condemned Nestorius, and [have followed] the holy Fathers.

and with us confess the holy Virgin to be the Theotokos, and that there is one Christ, Son, and Lord, ^A the Word of God begotten of God the Father, and in the last times born of a woman in the flesh; and that the same one is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, not dividing him into two sons or Christs or Lords. And those who dare to speak against them, as liars and deceivers and claiming as their father the father of lies, he exhorts to abhor and cast away. But furthermore, in the letter to Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, concerning these Orientals, he speaks thus: "They do not divide the one Son and Christ into two, but they say the same one is from God the Father as God, and from a woman in the flesh as man; and as he could not be understood as consubstantial with us according to humanity, nor with the Father according to divinity, unless he be understood as at once both God and man, the same one," which Nestorius did not admit. ^B Thus, not only does he defend the Orientals who speak of two natures, but if anyone accuses them, he becomes their champion; and, what is surprising, even if they do not add "indivisibly," he does not say that they divide the natures. For he knew that he who says one Christ, one person, one hypostasis, the same one God and man, and the Theotokos Virgin, nevertheless, even if he does not add "indivisibly," as one who confesses from these statements the hypostatic union, he also brings in that which is truly indivisible. And the same lover of sound and divine peace, writing again to Acacius, says: "It is possible to speak of two natures, and not to conceive in any way of a division of the natures, since one joins to the aforesaid statements the hypostatic union." ^C And writing to Eulogius, he deemed him to be in agreement with himself, as one who believes in one incarnate nature of the Word, when they confess two natures indivisibly in a hypostatic union.

Some reprehend the exposition which the Orientals have made, and they say: "Why did the Prelate of Alexandria bear with them, and praise them, while they confessed two natures?" The Nestorians assert that he also thought this way, ensnaring those who do not know the matter accurately. But it is necessary to answer those who reprehend them that not everything which heretics assert ought to be avoided and reprehended; wherefore he admits the Orientals who confess two natures—for they assert them piously—but he condemns Nestorius, not because he said two natures, but because, asserting two natures, ^D he did not accept the hypostatic union, just as he did not accept the one incarnate nature of the Word. For shortly after, he adds, "Even if Nestorius says two natures, signifying the difference of the flesh and of the Word of God, he does not yet, however, confess the union with us; for we, uniting these things, confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord." This is the common confession of both him and the Orientals. Then again he brings forward: "We confess one incarnate nature of the Word," as if saying...

^A We, while confessing the difference of the things that have come together, say that there are two natures, but also, in setting forth precisely the union, we again join to this the "one incarnate nature of the Word." For the former is indicative of the difference of the things united, while the latter is indicative of the union according to hypostasis ^B itself. From the things he said concerning Nestorius, he all but cries out: If Nestorius also knew the union with us, confessing one Christ, one Son, one Lord, we would have accepted him even if he said "two natures," provided that by such a term he intended to signify the difference between the flesh and the Word of God, and did not contrive it to tear asunder the union. But if saying "two natures," as he himself said, signifies the difference between the flesh and the Word of God, and this must be preserved after the union, it is clear that he also teaches that the two natures be preserved after the union; for if the difference is preserved, it is necessary that those things of which there is a difference also be preserved together. And by saying that the Orientals agree with him, although they nowhere say "one incarnate nature of the Word," but rather say that the natures are two, while united by the union according to hypostasis, he clearly declares that the terms do not differ. So the council, even if not with [its] tongue, yet by its intention, knows how to proclaim one incarnate nature of the Word.

Not only from what has been said is this easy to perceive, but also from the letter which the blessed Flavian wrote with his own hand ^C and presented to the Emperor Theodosius; the council decreed that this be read before others. For it contains, word for word, as follows: "For we confess Christ, after the incarnation, from two natures in one hypostasis and in one person, acknowledging one Christ, one Son, one Lord. Then we do not refuse to say also 'one nature of the Word of God, yet incarnate and become man,' because from both there is one and the same Lord of us, Jesus Christ." Now you, observe this too. The council continuously speaks of the same and one Christ. And what is this other than to confess the union according to hypostasis, or, if you please, the one incarnate nature of the Word? For, apart from the quibbles of the heretics, this usage previously brought forward contains no difference regarding the ^D afore-mentioned meaning.

Just as in preaching our Lord Jesus Christ out of two natures from divinity and humanity, the council likewise celebrates him, so also by saying "in divinity and humanity," it thinks and confesses in two natures. For Christ is not [only] out of these, nor is he [only] these, nor is he merely in these, but he is from whom he is, and in whom he is recognized, and these [very things] he is. And thus the admirable Ambrose also dogmatizes in his fourth book on the incarnation: "Where God exists from eternity, he foresaw the mysteries of the flesh, not separated, but one." After...

this, he adds: "being one, and one in each, that is, both in divinity and in body." Furthermore, in another discourse, from which the learned Cyril also brought forth a testimony against Nestorius, the good Ambrose says: "The one Son of God speaks in each, since each nature is in Him." Severus perverted this saying, but he gained nothing from his wickedness. For he turns the phrase "in each" (in utraque) into "in the each" (in utroque), that he might persuade men that the voice indicates not the nature, but the mode of speech, as if he speaks in each mode, both divine and human. This is immediately refuted by its own internal checks, but it is likewise overturned by the aforementioned usage; for by saying the very word "in each" (in utroque) within that same passage, he himself explained what he meant by "in each," that is, by joining both divinity and ^B body. So whether he speaks "in each" (in utraque), as we have the uncorrupted words of Ambrose, or "in the each" (in utroque), as that sophist of wickedness corrupts the phrase, nevertheless the two natures are indicated, because the same Ambrose, as has been said, by saying "in the each," that is, in each reality, has provided that the phrase be referred to the divinity and the body. And the same one, writing to Albinus, says: "that he may be perfect in each nature." But enough of these things.

If, however, anyone brings forward to us Athanasius in his book *On the Incarnation*, and Gregory Thaumaturgus in his book *On the Faith in Part*, [as] forbidding to assert two natures in Christ, let such a one know (as we have said often) that neither the other Fathers asserted two natures, nor did they embrace one, but they often rejected it; for after the word "indivisible" was introduced, they neither rashly embraced it nor interpreted it imprudently; for they did not take it in a disordered way. But once the union ^C according to hypostasis was agreed upon in accordance with what has been said, no one who was pious was seen who did not heartily embrace this word. Let no one, therefore, say (for this has nothing to do with piety) that the Fathers forbade saying "two natures" in Christ; but let him show when or where they forbade those who confess the union according to hypostasis to say "two natures" indivisibly? For observe here, too, how Athanasius says: "We do not confess two natures, one to be worshipped and one not to be worshipped." ^D You hear how he said "one to be worshipped and one not to be worshipped." And who does not know that "to be worshipped and not to be worshipped" divides the One into two hypostases, whereas they proclaim the union according to hypostasis?

But the meaning of the great Athanasius is clear; yet the testimony submitted under the name of Gregory Thaumaturgus (for it is said to be his, but that absurdity manifestly declares it to be Apollinaris') is brought forward, exposing its own impropriety. For it says: "And there is true God without flesh manifested in the flesh, perfect in true and divine perfection, not two persons nor two natures; for we do not say that we worship four." See how the impiety is manifest? For by saying "perfect" in divinity, he left out the humanity; and to add,

^A that he appeared in flesh without flesh is a bitter shoot of the insane cultivation of Apollinaris.

But the testimony which the heresy brings forward from the letter of Julius of Rome to Dionysius is undoubtedly not genuine. For the holy Cyril, while adducing the need for his letter to Dacius at the Synod of Ephesus, did not deign to call it to mind, which he had acknowledged in the synod in these words: "The Son of God, dwelling in men, not working in a man, is perfect God in the flesh, perfect man in the Spirit; not two sons, one the begotten Son assuming flesh, and another a mortal man assumed by God, but one only-begotten in heaven, only-begotten God on earth." The statement of Pope Julius, which was acknowledged by the synod, is such as this; and if he had known the text which they bring forward from the letter to Dionysius to be genuine, and especially one that condemns Nestorius, he would not have disregarded it.

^B Furthermore, it must be understood that the wise Cyril uses "man" as an example, not to show that there is one nature in Christ, but that through it he might set forth the hypostatic union. For when he says that the body and soul in our own composition are of different kinds, and that by being united they have constituted one nature of man, he did not add "embodied" or "ensouled." But when speaking of the Word, having said "one nature," he immediately adds "incarnate." For the fact that he rarely passed over it in silence testifies not to a contradiction of his opinion, but rather to its confirmation. For often, what a person proclaims constantly and has implanted in all as a firm opinion, he knows to be acknowledged and clear; sometimes he passes over it in silence, not by his silence rejecting what he has often proclaimed, but showing it to be so firm and manifest that it no longer needs words or ^C remembrance. Thus, therefore, the learned and steadfast Cyril does not simply teach the one nature of the Word, but "incarnate," and not even this simply, but with a rational and intellectual soul, having established and laid this as a foundation beforehand in the minds of all; and because of its being well-known and beyond dispute, and by stating the summary of the expression in part, he left the rest to be understood and heard along with it. And indeed, he is one who is profound in thought, not always entrusting his mind to words and names, but adapting and adjusting both the words and the names to his meanings. For hear what he says in the first of the *Thesauri*, and what he says in the letters to Succensus. In the former he says that God the Word became high priest for us, as if taking up the man from Mary or the temple as a kind of garment; ^D but here, "He did not therefore become man, but He assumes man." How, then, does he explain himself there, where he says he did not assume, while here he says he did assume? For he brings it forward as if it appeared so to Nestorius. What is this but to entrust the meaning to words, and to consider words

^A to be weighed by the mind; so that if, in speaking, he were found to be defining the nature of the Word made flesh—that is to say, not changed nor departing from its own proper perfection—he should not simply be debarred from this teaching (for how could he prevent others from doing what he himself so brightly accomplishes?) but rather be forbidden from speaking in such a way as it appeared to Nestorius to do The renowned Eulogius, moreover, clarifying the one incarnate nature of the Word, says this: that if anyone wishes to examine the mind of the teacher more accurately, he will find that he desired nothing else by this expression than to demonstrate the immutability of the Word, so that the saying might not be referred to anything else, but rather to the divinity of the Only-Begotten. For in the dialogue which is entitled *That Christ is One*, we say there is one Son and one nature of Him, even if it be understood that it came to be in the assumption of flesh that has a rational soul. By which nothing else is designated than the immutability of the divinity. Therefore, the "one nature of the Son," as has been said, in celebrating the immutability of the divinity, in no way abolishes the two natures united according to hypostasis. Thus, the ^B lover of piety would understand what was said by the teacher to Eulogius: "Finally, one Son, and one nature of the incarnate Word," which is to say, not changed nor departing from its own proper perfection.

And it is necessary to refer that also to the meaning, so that the blessed Cyril is nowhere seen to have called the nature of Christ "one," but everywhere calls Christ one, and one person, and Christ’s hypostasis one, but not one nature. ^C Indeed, he prohibits in the letters addressed to Succensus calling it one nature in the composite; for he says: "If we remove the fact that from two and different natures the one and only Christ is, indivisible after the union, the adversaries will bring forward this: 'If the whole is one nature, how was he incarnate?'" By saying "the whole," and by saying "after the union," it is clear that he does *not* speak of things before the union, but of those after it, which is the composite. For Christ is indeed a certain whole; and if the whole is not one nature, it is certainly above nature. Gregory, surnamed the Theologian, shares this view, and although he calls both "one," it is not by nature, but by the council. ^D Although the unfortunate Eutyches confessed the union from two natures, he wickedly spoke of one after the union. For which cause the synod at Chalcedon and the one before it at Constantinople justly condemned him. But the famous Dioscorus received him with as much zeal as possible, differing nothing from Apollinarius. For the impious Apollinarius, in his book *On the Incarnation*, see what he writes: "O new creature and divine mixture! God and man have formed one nature." From which, as if by aqueducts, others derived their impiety after him. Do you also see the old mire? For Valentinus, word for word, thus...

speaks: "At the Galilæans, who say there are two natures in Christ, we pour out much laughter; for we say that the nature of the visible and invisible is one." Indeed, Manichæus too, writing to Scythianus and rebuking those who speak of two natures, says such things as these: "The Son of the eternal light manifested His own nature on the mountain, not having two natures, but one in the visible and the invisible." ^A And Polemon (who praised Apollinarius as his teacher), blaming our holy Fathers for that which those of Severus’ party at Chalcedon [448 H.] did—see what he says: "It is not worse to conceive of God and man as one and the same, for they are not ashamed to confess one incarnate nature of the Word, as one composite. For if He is perfect God and perfect man in one and the same, then He is two natures, according to the new division of the Cappadocians and the opinion of Athanasius and the arrogance of those in Italy." And they pretend, as if they were one of us, to hold the mind of our holy Father Apollinarius, but they proclaim, just as the two Gregorys do, a duality of natures. How then was it possible to restrain the impetus of such impiety, and the pasture of the heretics creeping about and feeding upon the souls of men, ^B if the divine zeal of the holy gathering at Chalcedon had not clearly and godly proclaimed two undivided natures in the hypostatic union of Christ? ^C For with the heretical rush thus raging, if the tower of piety had not turned back the stream, nothing would have prevented many from being drowned in their error. So, if the term for the two natures was not known to the Fathers before, the synod had the necessity, for the sake of their madness, to discover and proclaim it. Since it was known to almost all the holy men, how was it not necessary to set it up against the enemies by public decrees? For just as the synod at Nicaea set the "consubstantial" against the impious Arius, who blathered of another substance of the Father and the Son, although the term was not yet current among the Fathers—and was even forbidden by those by whom Paul of Samosata was declared a heretic—so also the holy synod armed itself against the aforementioned impious ones by saying there are two natures in Christ, not being the first to discover the terms of piety itself, but also having many teachers of these before it. ^D But if someone were to dispute about Julius saying there is one nature in Christ: first, it is not yet clear if the expression is genuine; second, it is proper to know that it was later among the Romans that the name of "nature" and "hypostasis" was scrutinized and distinguished, and the heretical tares strive in vain to gather their seed from there. For while the terms were still undifferentiated, nothing difficult occurs, but rather...

it is quite logical to use the term "nature" instead of "hypostasis." But these things may be said on behalf of Julius. ^A Furthermore, the heretical mindset is shameless, and it says: "Why, just as we speak of man as being from two natures, and then after the union we also confess one nature for him, do we not also, when speaking of Christ as being from two natures, confess one nature of him after the union?" We know indeed that a compound is one nature, and by using an analytical method we recognize the two that have come together. But the heretical shamelessness demands these things. Let the ignorant learn that a compound is then called "one nature" without impediment when the names of the simple things from which it was composed are not strictly applied to it. For example, no one would call a man "body" strictly, nor "soul"; for he would not admit the definition of the body, nor that of the soul. However, often, common speech, departing from precision, and the sacred Scriptures, using the liberty of the Spirit, ^B denote the whole man by a part, not enduring to submit to the yoke of the slavery of dialectical vanity. Since no one could take a more proper example of the ineffable and incomprehensible union, and as we assert that Christ consists of divinity and humanity, we say that the same one is likewise both God and man; wherefore also the all-holy Virgin is properly and truly always called Theotokos. Wherefore the example of man is rashly turned by the imprudent into an occasion for calumny, and for the overturning of the union of the two natures in Christ, occurring without confusion and without division according to hypostasis ^C.

That Christ our God is strictly both things—from which he is, is said, such as God and man—many others proclaim, and the divine Cyril also, in his letter to Succensus, says that one and the same person is this and that. And he writes similarly also to Valerian, the bishop of Iconium: "Wherefore we confess that what is from the flesh is flesh, and what is from God is God; Christ is both according to the same, being one Son, one Lord with his own flesh." For what else does "both" confirm than that the same one is God and man? But although Cyril proclaims these things, yet some have dared to bark that Christ is from divinity and humanity, but is neither man nor God. ^D Nor do they revere that divinely inspired and loud-voiced saying of Paul, who cries out: "Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same also unto the ages" (Heb. XIII, 8). Through "yesterday and today," he confesses the same one as man; through "unto the ages," he proclaims the same one as God. And again, the same [Apostle says]: "One God, one also mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus" (I Tim. II, 5). Wherefore Christ is properly both God and man. And Athanasius, showing himself a true disciple of Paul,

thus speaks: "Since Christ is also God." If anyone should attempt to collect the testimonies of Basil and the holy Gregories and the other holy Fathers, the discourse would be drawn out to infinity. For the wise Cyril, citing the teacher of the world, Paul, as a witness, in his work *Against those who are unwilling to confess the holy Virgin as Theotokos*—for thus he also entitles the discourse—see what he says: "The voice indeed he did not utter, namely this, 'Theotokos'; but he proclaimed Christ as God above all things." And again: "If he did not understand Christ to be God at the same time as man, he would not have added 'according to the flesh'; for this is spoken clearly regarding him who is not only man, but also something else existing in substance." The same god-bearing man in his second anathema cries out the same things: "If anyone does not confess the Word from God the Father to be united by hypostasis to the flesh, and that Christ is one with his own flesh, that is to say, the same being both God and man, let him be anathema." And in his address *To the Queens* he likewise shows that one Christ was thus revealed to us, being the same simultaneously God and man. And countless other things. It is clear, therefore, that the difference is great and infinite between the mystery regarding Christ and the example regarding man; for the former is named from those things of which he is, whereas the latter is clearly named from those things from which he has proceeded.

But the madness of the heretics again blames the fourth synod ^A for having set forth a definition, contending that such an undertaking was altogether forbidden by the first synod held at Ephesus. Yet if, according to their raving, the synod forbade the producing of any other definition at all, it was the first of all to bring a sentence of condemnation against itself; for it defines and lays down this very thing, which neither of the synods before it had defined. Moreover, the union according to hypostasis is a definition of it, which was not established by the ancient councils. Indeed, it also condemns the Constantinopolitan synod of the 150 holy Fathers, from which they themselves rave; for that council, by casting down the Spirit-fighter, added and harmonized the theology concerning the Holy Spirit to the definition proclaimed at Nicaea. For if the preceding ones escape blame by adding [to their predecessors], then those who follow them will not be judged differently for similar actions. Thus does folly mix up and pervert all things. For the synod at Ephesus indeed forbade any other faith to be set forth whose dogmas were contrary to the synod at Nicaea. But when those [dogmas] in it remain unsullied, it was its task to add what the occasion requires; ^B both the nature of things and the tradition of the Church is seen always to have loved this. Wherefore also at Alexandria, before the ecumenical synod had been assembled, the blessed Cyril, gathering the elect of the priests therein and drawing up a written faith, sent it to Nestorius.

^A Thus, then, does piety escape unjust accusations; but the heretical party, on the other hand, is not ashamed to leap upon other calumnies, saying that the Synod of Chalcedon fights against the dogmas of Cyril. For, they say, he indeed in his letters to Succensus and elsewhere teaches that Christ is of two natures, but that synod, banishing such an expression, has instead ordained two indivisible natures; so much more eager is heresy to slander than to speak the truth. For the synod cast out Dioscorus as one who, while admitting that Christ is of two natures, would not endure to receive the two natures, because it savored of the heresy of Eutyches; and it did not simply condemn saying that Christ is of two natures, but rather the saying it according to the manner of Eutyches and Dioscorus. Yet by declaring that there are "two indivisible natures" with a pious intention, it also introduced the [teaching that He is] "of two natures." For it is manifest that while Eutyches spoke of two natures, he did so impiously. Therefore, it was not the expression dear to Cyril that the synod rejected, but the impiety of Eutyches. For when, in the midst of the proceedings at Chalcedon, the faith of holy Flavian was read, in which it was written: "We confess Christ to be of two natures after the incarnation, in one hypostasis and in one person, confessing one Christ, one Son," the synod cried out that they also held these same views and recognized this to be the faith of the Fathers. How, then, does it fight against Cyril in saying these things, or turn away from those who piously say "of two natures"? Having gone through these points, the hierarch Eulogius, adding to the aforementioned remarks an exhortation calling the deserters back to ecclesiastical union, brings his discourse to an end.

The next discourse also deals seriously against the slanderers of the Synod of Chalcedon; for he makes use here also of the example of man, which Cyril used piously, but which the heretic brings forward impiously. He asserts that one nature is spoken of concerning Christ, just as concerning man. Unless he is acting for the sake of piety, he fights more against it, even if he does not perceive it. ^C For he asserts that concerning dissimilar parts, the whole is not named by the names of the parts, but is known by its own proper appellation; if this is so, it will be known as being of one nature. Thus does heresy weave its sophism, but Eulogius, the disciple of the Word, refuting its empty babbling with the testimonies of the Fathers, shows that the one Lord Jesus Christ is properly and truly called both God and man, so that if in those cases where the whole does not receive the names of the parts, neither is "the one" [nature] brought in, then in those cases where the whole properly receives the appellations ^D of the parts, by them the "one nature" will also be considered. The wise author, however, brings forward the divine Cyril elucidating himself as to how and why he used the example of man. For since Theodore of Mopsuestia was criticizing the example of man...

as being unsuited to the mystery of Christ, Cyril in that which is called his first tome brings forward in return: “We know him to be one and the same, both from God the Father divinely 857 and from a woman according to the flesh; but we have made use of the need for the example, keeping at every point the union indivisible and pushing aside division.” Do you hear for what purpose Cyril takes up the example? For it is not so that you might innovate a single nature of Christ [1053, B], but so that Theodore and Nestorius might be put to shame by the use of the example, the holy Cyril keeping that which pertains to the union both indivisible and inseparable. But you, perhaps, following the example, would not endure to call Christ properly either God or man, because not even in man, the example, is body or soul properly expressed? But if you force him to say these things, because in the ineffable union of Christ, from which he himself is composed, these things are properly said. Therefore, even if man were said to be of one nature, no logic of consequence would demand that Christ also should for that reason exist of one nature. Wherefore you will find the admirable Cyril saying that man is one nature, but you will not catch him saying that Christ is one nature. If, however, someone is afraid to say “two natures” lest he introduce division, first let him not even say “two natures” in such a simplistic way, but let him add the qualifier “indivisible,” and then let him confess also in one ^C hypostatic person and one hypostasis, or in their place, if he wishes, “one incarnate nature of the Word.” For anyone who speaks these things according to the canon of precision of Cyril would not even afford slanderers a handle to accuse him of dogmatizing a division of the natures. For even when the Orientals spoke of two natures, and others were stirred up to slander them as if they were dividing one from another, writing to Acacius, since by saying “two natures” they also conjoined that which is “indivisible,” and confessed that they see the two natures in one and the same Christ, he declares the slanderers to be children of the devil, but it is impossible for those who confess according to the mind of the Orientals to ever introduce division. Observe also Athanasius, how he sets forth what he writes concerning the incarnation of the Word against those afflicted with the teachings of Apollinaris. For by saying “through both” in several places, he was never suspected by any of the pious of introducing division. He says: “But he who is by nature God is generated as man, so that through both he might be one perfect being, the same God and man in all respects.” And Gregory, surnamed the Theologian, in his *Apologeticus* says: “This is the emptied Deity, this is the assumed flesh, this is the new admixture; God and man, one out of two, and through one both.” Indeed, even writing to Valerian of Iconium, Cyril says: “Therefore, admittedly, he says, that which is from the flesh is flesh, and that which is from God is God; but it is Christ who is both according to the same; as therefore God and man does not divide the one Christ, neither does the expression ‘both’: ^D thus neither does the term ‘two,’ except by the fact that some divide the sense and are unable to bring forth any fruit of the good sower.

^A But do you consider for me the heresy that is being stirred up anew. Cyril, he says, proclaimed the speaking of two undivided natures to be wrong, thinking it to be opposed to the view that holds there is one incarnate nature of the Word. But its arrogance is easily cast down. For the term "undivided" is used in two ways here, as the author clearly shows in his other discourses; and one way is friendly to Nestorius, while the other is honored by the pious, and for this reason they are opposed to one another. For the "undivided" as a matter of relation is cast off as a weapon of Nestorius, but the "undivided" according to hypostasis—that is, the union according to hypostasis—is clearly both proclaimed and embraced. Just as, therefore, if someone speaking of a union in Christ does not attach "according to hypostasis" to the union, he makes the expression suspicious, so if someone says there are two undivided natures, without adding "according to hypostasis," he falls into the same suspicion. Likewise, he who says that God the Word took on a man, if he does not explain the expression from another angle (for it is possible for it to provide an occasion for the hearers to err or to think correctly, according to the mind or opinion of Nestorius or according to the orthodox reason), is not free from blame. ^B Therefore, also Cyril, who is acute in reconciling controversies, in his *Thesaurus* states that the man born of Mary was taken up by God the Word just like a garment or a temple; yet in the epistles to Succensus he says: "Therefore He became man, but He did not take on a man, as Nestorius thinks." And mark the sagacity and prudence of his judgment. Here he piously asserts [the] man taken up as a temple, and yet he condemns Nestorius, who asserts that a man [by God] was taken up. Both are indeed correct and pious. For Nestorius babbled that a man was taken up together with a human hypostasis. Cyril, therefore, teaches that God, by taking up humanity—whether it be a pre-existing or a subsisting human hypostasis, but rather a human nature subsisting in the divine hypostasis itself—truly became man without any change of the divinity. ^C Wisely, therefore, and in like manner, the divine Cyril argues in his epistle to Succensus, and says that he who asserts two natures after the union to be undivided, but does not add "according to hypostatic union," is struggling against those who dogmatize that there is only one incarnate nature of the Word. For the term, if it is taken only partially and not in its integrity, and is sounded only nakedly, is by no means sufficient for one to be in agreement and of one mind with those who proclaim one incarnate nature of the Word. But if anyone, while asserting two undivided natures, adds also "according to the hypostatic union," he will speak rightly and piously, and he will find Cyril to be in agreement. And listen to what he sets forth at the end of the same epistle: "The term 'undivided,'" he says, "added to the text, seems indeed to be to us a mark of an orthodox opinion, but they do not understand the term in this way." So if they understood it thus, they would be speaking orthodoxly and would be in accord with the opinion of Cyril. For ^D the term "undivided" is for him a mark of an orthodox opinion for those who attach to the term [the notion of] conceiving it along with—

^A the hypostatic union; but for heretics, even what is "undivided" is [in reality] divided or torn apart. For they actually sunder and divide that very thing according to the hypostatic union. Thus, one would also censure those who indeed call the two natures "undivided," but do not confess the union according to hypostasis; for these people truly fight against those who hold that there is one incarnate nature of the Word of God. Those, however, who, while speaking of two natures, consider them to be undivided in the hypostatic union, I would neither censure, just as I would not censure the Orientals who say the same things. Rather, I would not vote that they either hold opinions contrary to my own or contend against the one incarnate nature of the Word.

Do you, however, examine with me how not even the expression "one nature of the Word incarnate," if brought forward ^B simply in this way, maintains what is above reproach. [861 R.] For the statement "one nature of the Word incarnate" might be used both by those by whom the flesh that was assumed is thought to be soulless, and by those by whom the confusion of the things that have come together is held in impiety, and by those by whom the nature of the Word is madly poured into flesh. But Cyril, the teacher of exactness, equally detesting every one of the heretical opinions, through the term that is commonly set forth, clearly defines the undivided and unconfused [nature] of the natures that have come together, and he makes this [expression] even more precise by teaching that the incarnate nature has been enlivened by a soul both rational and intellectual. Wherefore, ^C as has often been said, he declared that the Orientals, insofar as they did not utter this exact phrase but put forward its equivalent (for they said they revered two natures in the hypostatic union) and did not even employ the word "undivided," were nonetheless orthodox; for although they did not write the words "according to hypostasis," he openly bore witness that they were in agreement with him, since he knew that, from the things they said—confessing one and the same [person] as the one begotten of the Father timelessly and of the Theotokos Mary in the last times, and revering the same [person] as both God and man—these statements were concomitant with the phrase concerning the hypostatic union.

It must be known, therefore, that our Fathers, who spoke of the hypostatic union, ^D through this phrase proclaim the union of two certain natures coming together—an union that cannot be torn apart; and if the things that came together have remained unconfused, the proposed phrase does nothing to harm the truth. In the same way, when it is said that there is one incarnate nature of the Word, it carries almost the same meaning. It is not denied, however, that it is easily seized by many heretics according to their own whim; so that, consequently, it is not to be accepted nakedly, but as Cyril, who was expert in divine matters, employed it—that is, by adding that it was enlivened by a rational and intellectual soul, and by contemplating along with it the unconfused [conjunction] of the things that have come together. Thus, then, in each case...

the voice not being precise, they show forth one person, but they do not clearly explain the unconfused nature of the things that have come together. ^A Again, those who profess the two natures to be indivisible, while they have explained the unconfused nature, have not concurrently explained that the person or hypostasis is one; so that it is necessary, for those who say the two natures are indivisible, either to append the union according to hypostasis, or to state that one nature of the Word was incarnate, or that He is the same God and man; for without one of these things mentioned, the term being put forward as incomplete would justly be criticized. Having gone through these things and things like these, the author, and having added an exhortation calling for concord, puts an end to this present book.

The Fifth Discourse

The discourse next to this discusses those who think that the Christian faith ^B can be comprehended by human reason: in which he philosophizes piously and clearly about divine things, and by his method of argument shows the Christian religion to be certain, and declares what it follows most of all. He teaches how the differences of properties in us are openly distinct, by which one differs from another, and how the characteristic marks of one person are known not to be shared by another individual, and prevents them from becoming common. But in the holy Trinity the properties remain immutable, and are joined by an indivisible union; and although the power of the persons is one, they nevertheless have in that very difference a divine and ^C ineffable conjunction with one another, according to which the Son is known in the Father, and the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit in the Son and the Father, with the conjunction everywhere prevailing and not dividing that which is indivisible, even in the properties. And indeed, what it means to be is one thing in the case of the super-essential Trinity, and another in us; for there, the Being is above essence, but here, it is not even strictly being. For how could that which is brought forth from non-being be strictly being, and that which by its own nature falls back into non-being, even if by the grace of the Creator it was honored with the gift of being always and of attaining immortality? God, therefore, is for us one, and ^D known as Trinity, being the fount of incomprehensible wisdom and sanctifying power. Whence there is one God and Lord, His wisdom and His sanctifying power. For the Father is indivisible from His own wisdom and from the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit, being worshipped in one nature, not divided into one and another God, as in our case, we who, by the incommunicable nature of properties and by the difference of operation, are divided and separated, and by division throughout, we subsist in difference from one another. Therefore it is not possible to say, as in our case, so also in His, that this is first in relation to that, or that the other is second or third in relation to that. For the Trinity is truly a Monad,

^A neither because it is a monad does it contract the Trinity, nor because it is a Trinity does it divide the Monad. For we do not understand the "One" in the divine substance as we do in created things, among which it is not even possible to contemplate what is strictly "One." For that which is "one" in number among us is not strictly one. For what is called "one" among us is not strictly one, but something "one." And this is both one and not one, inasmuch as it bears the name of "one" while in reality it is divided into many things.

If, however, the theologians praise the "One" when speaking of the divine nature by comparing it to the mind, they do so only because of the impassible generation of the Word. For pious understanding declares the Divinity to be exalted even above the nature of the mind. For even in the mind ^B identity is seen, and difference, movement and rest, and it is not entirely devoid of duality. But rest is seen in it on account of the identity of its essence, while difference and movement are seen on account of its sovereign impulse and operation; for it is not the same thing to say "one" simply, and to say "one" in relation to something else. Hence, although it may be one in subject, yet when it considers itself and is known by itself, it is proved to be double instead of simple; a thing which, even if it has some resemblance, is entirely alien to the strictly One and to the blessed nature. Therefore, it is not "one" in number, nor as a principle of number, nor as a magnitude or a principle of magnitude; for it is exalted above all quantity ^C and part and composition. But, if one must speak boldly, the divine is one in the simplicity of its existence, not as something "one" considered under a triple name, or divided into parts, or composed of many; for this "One" is ineffable and unnameable, since it is the cause even of the One itself, the unifying principle of every unity, and one that is simplified above every one and every multitude, because it is strictly Being and is known to be in all things and above all things, being the maker of the essence of all beings, yet established above in its supersubstantial and proper singleness, being hymned as a unity and monad; the Son known in the Father, and the Father known in the Son; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, ^D having the Father as the principle, but coming down through the Son into creation for the benefit of those who receive Him, the generation not being known as a degradation, nor the procession being contemplated as a division. For if anyone were to grant these things, he would also facilitate the progress to a tetrad and a pentad and to infinity, in accordance with the myths of the Greeks. The divine, then, is strictly one, admitting no multitude, as it is an accurate and true unity contemplated, if one must say so, as identical according to nature. Whence, even if we name subsistences or persons or characteristics, wishing to interpret what the mind has known as far as is possible, we do not divide the One, we do not partition the Monad, we do not shatter the Unity, but while theologizing it in eternal singleness, we jointly theologize it in three subsistences, not subjecting things beyond mind to human calculations, nor

^A by analytical inquiries insulting things that are beyond discovery. Therefore, those who, going beyond these limits, either divide this ineffable Unity or confine the Trinity of subsistences into a monadic poverty, we turn away as enemies of piety.

Having expounded these and similar matters, he ^B disputes against those who contend that the hypostasis is nothing other than a bare property, and with many more arguments of true piety he blunts their impious opinion. For if the person and the property are the same, while we say that the hypostasis of the Word was incarnate, it is manifest what follows from that, and it is more manifest because of the blasphemy which tacitly recoils upon the heads of those who force one to say these things. Furthermore, how can the Holy Spirit, if [He] is a property, proceed from the Father and be sent by the Father for the benefit of the creation? Moreover, every person of subsistent things subsists by itself: how then could a property subsist by itself, if that subject were not previously there, of which it is said to be a property? Also, the sacred senate of the Fathers teaches that the divine essence is in three persons; but no one has affirmed it in three properties; rather, on the contrary, it is in the essence and through the essence that properties are known to be. But certainly no one would assert the essence through the properties. For even if it has been said by the Theologian that there is one nature in three properties, nevertheless, property and ^C what is proper are not the same thing. Then, even if the usage of the term [property] by the Nazianzen be an abuse of language, one should not immediately assert that the person and the strictly-so-called property are the same; but since the property, as it were by a sign, expresses [and] constitutes the person, just as it seems to Basil and most of the Fathers, what is absurd in the statement of Saint Gregory that [there is one nature] in three properties? Why should he not decide that person and property are the same, but designate the hypostasis as if by an excellent sign, that is, by the property? Therefore he adds, "intellectual, perfect [subsistences] subsisting by themselves," which no one, unless bereft of mind, would accept as applying to properties. ^D Besides what has been said, the first holy synod declared the persons to be consubstantial; but who, unless he were insane, would call properties consubstantial? And if anyone dares to call properties consubstantial because they are often seen to concur in the same essence, he, forgetful of himself, has fashioned another meaning of consubstantiality; and especially since he [would then be calling] heterogeneous things—I mean quantity and quality and whatever else it is impossible [to unite into one nature]—all these things the new legislator [that is, the heretic in question]…

to be united into one nature, all these things this new lawgiver ^A commands us to conceive and speak of as being of the same tribe and of the same substance; for in our own substance, quality and quantity and relation and—if there be anything else—those things which are divided into incommunicable principles are clearly seen. But this error provided us with abundant material for refutation.

But not even so does the contentious litigator know how to be silent. For some teach that the hypostasis consists of the combination of substance and property; which opinion manifestly introduces composition. But where then would be that simple and uncompounded nature of the Godhead in the Trinity? Others even put forward Basil the Great as a teacher of this expression, not wishing to understand that this wise man, in delivering neither a definition nor a descriptive account of the hypostasis, did not take up the name of "combination," but wishing to stop the mouth of the Anomoean ^B who was striving to bring the unbegottenness and the essence into the same thing, and to transfer the difference between the begotten and the unbegotten into the account of substance, so that he might introduce not only different, but even contrary substances both in the Father and the Son. For this reason, Basil, managing his arguments with judgment in the struggle against the Anomoean, combines the particular with the common, paving the way for us to an unconfused and distinct understanding of the truth. For the human mind cannot with a simple and single act of apprehension grasp at once that which is unified and simple, and also the threefold number of the hypostases; for this reason, as the teacher said, by the addition of properties, it marks out the particular notion of the hypostases. And indeed the method is a help for our weakness and a co-worker for the apprehension of the incomprehensible; not, however, that it would produce the simple nature of the Godhead, or any of its hypostases at all, as being combined. And for this reason he added that it is impossible to obtain a particular notion of the Father ^C or the Son without the addition of the properties by which the intellect is articulated. And that which in what preceded he called "combination," this he now named "addition," making what was said clearer; for the manners of indicating his property, he says, will not disturb the account of his simplicity; or else it would show that everything that is said about God makes God composite for us.

Having gone through these things, the good Eulogius raises another difficulty that is being stirred up. "For tell me," he says, "when we combine the particular with the common, are we lying or speaking the truth when we do this? ^D But if we are lying, why do we even utter words whose subject cannot be grasped? But if we are speaking the truth, then would the person [of the Trinity] to whom we apply the word be something combined?"

^A

This is indeed the question posed. He replies to this from what has been said before. For, he says, because the human mind, on account of the weakness of its nature, cannot attain the definition of the Entity that truly is, it is compelled to use words that are in some way combined, and to join the particular to the common, not being able to signify the simple, which is simultaneously distinguished in the hypostases, purely and in and of itself. If it were possible to express the simple by a simple word—no less than by the composition of words—it would suffice; and the mind would never have recourse to combinations. But it is not compatible with the simplicity of the divine substance that the incomprehensible should suffer at the hands of the poverty of our words; since the teacher himself, after having spoken of a combination, immediately hymned the divine as everywhere simple and incomposite, and has done so many times elsewhere, all but shouting that the addition and the combination are a problem of our weakness, ushering us toward the apprehension of the truth, though he never took the boldness to drag the simple and incomposite of nature down into duality and composition. For in an ineffable and inconceivable manner, the Adored is at once observed as Being and as Trinity; the one is understood according to the theology that is unrelated and beyond us, the other according to the relative theology that pertains to us. Thus, it seemed that the problem was resolved.

^B If, nevertheless, anyone thinks that the problem still clings to what was said at the beginning, let him add to the previous reasoning that even when we affirm God to be inexplicable, we do this by words, and we outline by thought what is beyond our understanding; and the timeless we subject to temporal notions and movements; and the continuous and immutable we represent to ourselves by mutable and discrete images. So that if anyone, as we suffer in being led to the contemplation of the divine, should try to force these notions onto the reality itself, he will turn everything upside down, and above all, he will cast himself into an abyss of helplessness.

The holy Eulogius then explains another question arising from the proposed doubt. If, he says, neither property is hypostasis, nor the combination of essence and property, what else could it be? And the question is solved as he says: We have learned from the Church to call one of the Trinity a hypostasis. ^C But what is a hypostasis? If the question is about created things, it is easy to answer, because to err and not to hit the mark in these is not so grave a fault. But if it is about the simple and blessed nature, it is not safe to answer anything beyond what the God-bearing Fathers have handed down. Nevertheless, it is permitted to say in scriptural fashion that the hypostasis of the Son is the image of the invisible God, which [is] in itself the whole ^D showing forth the Father. And if one should reply that it is also the wisdom of the Father...

^A or the Word or the power of the Father, I shall be in harmony with the sacred terminology. And concerning the hypostasis of the Father and of the Spirit, one might similarly draw from the sacred oracles and, giving an answer to those who ask, reply piously and irreproachably. [872 R.] You, however, will be able to speak, rendering the account of the hypostasis of the Son: God born of God, timelessly and impassibly; and similarly also of the Spirit, God proceeding and flowing from God eternally and without flux; and in like manner, intending to set forth in speech the hypostasis of the Father, you will say: From whom the God Word was begotten, with no division or passion of any kind being contemplated, even conceptually, in the process of his generation; and if you wish, And from whom the Spirit ^B proceeds ineffably and inconceivably and impassibly and co-eternally, and if there is anything else of this sort that can be said, with the divinely inspired Scripture providing us with spiritual wisdom and assisting the intent of our will. And yet, not even the things said are entirely free from the imagination, which reshapes the composition; but surely by not using the word "synthetic" and "composition" and the like, he does not seem to disturb or offend the hearer. And with these things, the present discourse of his is also brought to a close.

He, the same holy man, also writes to Domitian (who was bishop of Melitene), asserting that it is not inappropriate to profess one nature of the God Word incarnate. For he did not judge the holy Eulogius blameless for having used the phrase; ^C but Eulogius, having shown from his frequent previous discourses, and to those who rightly understand the phrase, that no impiety lies beneath it, teaches that those who say "one nature of the Word incarnate" do not affirm one nature simply made from both natures, so that the things that have come together are confounded by mixture, but rather that they mean that the Only-begotten Son of the Father was united to flesh according to hypostasis, being the same God and man, as also is the opinion of the Theologian (for, he says, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" [b]). Having spoken at length on these things and having defended them, he affirms that Cyril also holds the same view, among which in particular he says: "For if, having posited one nature of the Word, we had remained silent, not adding 'incarnate,' but as it were setting the economy outside, the argument for those who wished to ask where the perfection in humanity was, or how our essence subsists, might perhaps have been not unpersuasive; but since both the perfection in humanity and the manifestation ^D of our essence have been brought in by the saying 'incarnate,' let them cease supporting themselves with a reed." Therefore, this word "incarnate" has brought in the two natures, binding them together indivisibly, as Cyril himself proclaims. Hence, he often appears to speak of one nature of the Word incarnate. For if only one nature of Christ...

b John 1, 14.

^B But what would the nature of humanity be, if not, as he himself taught elsewhere, flesh endowed with a rational soul? And for this reason, each of those that have come together into union is again preserved indivisibly. It is evident, therefore, from what has been said, that those who hold the orthodox—or rather, the catholic—teaching of the "one nature of the Word incarnate" according to Cyril, have no other goal in view than any other person who proposes such an expression—or rather, a mode of speech—that asserts the two natures are thoroughly joined in Christ the Lord indivisibly. For when the blessed Cyril teaches that through the incarnation itself each of those that have come together into union is preserved indivisibly, what other goal or purpose could be envisioned by him than that which proclaims and accepts the two natures in Christ the Savior as united indivisibly?

And he explains this more clearly in his second epistle to Succensus. For when he had explained in it what is meant by this very phrase, the "one nature of the Word incarnate," and had taught that He remains the true and natural Son of God, even though, by the assumption of flesh—not inanimate, but endowed with a rational soul—He emerged as man from a woman, and yet having added that on this account [Christ] will not be divided into two persons or sons, but will remain one even so, he adds ^C how He is not without flesh nor outside the body, but possesses His own proper body, indivisibly according to the union. And in the epistle to you, and in many other places, he is read to teach the same.

But the followers of Severus, because they recoil from acknowledging the difference of the natures after their union, first maliciously and impiously set aside the terms that declare the difference of the natures; and then, as if indeed overturning them, they bring forth the "one nature of the Word incarnate." But the catholic religion does not act this way; rather, having added this term, it immediately shows that by it, on the contrary, each of those that have been united by an indivisible method is preserved. It convicts the impious, while showing that the "one nature of the Word incarnate" signifies nothing other than the indivisible union according to hypostasis, with the nature of each [constituent] preserved at all times, whole and unconfused. For it acknowledges two natures indivisibly, as it proclaims the difference of those that have come together; and it teaches the "one nature of the Word incarnate," as if dogmatizing that the same Word of the Father, who is before the ages, became man and was incarnate.

^D Having said these things and similar things in defense of the proposed term, and having demonstrated that the Synod of Chalcedon held and proclaimed the same things, both through other evidence and through those things by which the synod confirmed the confession of faith of the holy Flavian written in his own hand, he clears the term of the suspicion of heresy, and he clears himself of any

^A sincere opinion, which Domitian had suspiciously imputed to him, thinking that he did not use such an expression sincerely from his heart and propose it, but out of a certain dispensation, so that by it he might draw his listeners without difficulty to unity and cut off the pretexts for the dissensions of the Catholic Church. Having written these things and others of this kind (which he had also set out in the previous books) and having shown himself an ardent defender of the Council of Chalcedon and of the epistle of the holy Pope Leo in many and various writings, he put an end to the epistle.

The same venerable man also writes to a certain Christopher, whom he himself calls most holy in the address of his letter, having been asked by him to ^B respond to certain questions from the Holy Scriptures. The questions are as follows: First, "How must one understand what is said in the second Book of Kings: 'And God incited David to count the people'; and after that: 'Because he counted, He was angry with him'?" He asks for solutions. Eulogius replies that in the Divine Scriptures, God, just as He is called Lord, is named not only the true God, but also the prince of evil himself. In this sense Paul said: "In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers." And the Savior: "You cannot serve two masters." Hence, in the first book of Paralipomenon, it says openly that David was incited by Satan to count the people: except that our copy does not agree with the one sent by you. For thus it has: "And the anger of the Lord was added to wax hot against Jerusalem, and He moved David among them," and what follows. So that it seems that he who is called the devil in Paralipomenon is here called the anger of the Lord. And whether it is thus [as I read], or as you have written, the passage of Scripture stands; I believe, however, that the solution to the question is certain and clear. That the term "Lord" and the term "God" are ambiguous in Holy Scripture, and likewise (as has often been said) are taken in a contrary sense, has been explained. Nothing, however, prevents us from confirming this with another similar passage. For in the law laid down concerning the celebration of the Passover [after he had said] to anoint the lintel and the doorposts with blood: "You," he says, "shall not go out, everyone from the door of his house until morning, and the Lord will pass through, striking the Egyptians, and will see the blood on the lintel and on both ^C doorposts, and the Lord will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike." It is clear that one is the Lord whom he says will pass through and strike the Egyptians, and another is He who prevents the destroyer from entering into the houses of the Israelites and striking them. Such also is that which is said concerning Balaam. For the Scripture says that God indeed permitted him to go to those who were calling him; but that God was angry because he was setting out to them. And here he says that another God is insinuated, who...

gave him permission, and another who was angry with him; for he who gave the permission would not be angry with the one carrying out what was permitted, or rather, the one who gave the permission should not have been angry, or the one about to go away, intending to be angry, should not have permitted it. He himself, then, seems to resolve the ambiguity through the homonymy in this way; but to me it seems better for the question of the proposed difficulty to be addressed by Theodoret and other holy men. ^B He also says that when David sinned in the census, the people paid the penalty, not because he sinned in counting them, but because the people gave aid to the parricide Absalom who was waging war against his father, and, carried away by that same sedition, preferred him who had snatched the kingdom out of ambition or pride to the one who had been anointed king by God. Having thus solved (as it seemed) the first difficulty, he also solves the second, which is as follows: how is it to be understood that the Apostle says in one place that Christ dwells in our hearts, and in another, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” when there is a great difference between a dwelling and a garment? For a garment touches only the surface of the skin, whereas a dwelling receives the whole person. He affirms that he is king and shepherd in a distinct sense; he called him king of rational beings, but shepherd of brute animals, named according to the varied need of those who receive his benefits (for neither could anyone be correctly said to be king of irrational animals, ^C nor shepherd of rational ones). Thus it is also permitted to interpret the present passage: for the wisdom of God dwells, as the divine Paul himself says, in those over whom he rules, and who are rooted and built up in him. But he puts on Christ who can also put him off again later. Therefore, we rightly say that he dwells in those rooted in him, but for others, thanks to his unspeakable kindness, he becomes a garment, providing protection, so that they may not perish by turning to Christ from the north wind, which is harsh and cold, and which breathes a pestilential and destructive air for souls: “For from the face of the north evils shall be kindled.” Having thus solved these two difficulties in this epistle, he ends with the offering of prayers.

^D Furthermore, the same man discussed in the ninth book or argument the matters in which the praise of the solitary life is contained, and describes what a monk is, and explains the method of his living. He exhorts the practitioners of the monastic life to order their lives according to the rule of their profession, and to conform themselves to the solitary life and to the unity of the Church. Now those at whom his admonition is directed were of the faction and sect of the Severians, as is not obscure, [to whom, how the] opinions of the heretics themselves, their ancestors, [are at variance] with one another,

^B and that they possess nowhere anything stable or solid, he lays bare and reveals, and from that absurdity, he suggests that they look toward the union of the Church. For he brings forward some who say that the differences are preserved after the union, as Severus does, and others who say they are not preserved at all, as Timothy does in other works and in those where he contends against Leo, who is among the saints. And not only does he himself refuse to say they are preserved, but he also declares those to be guilty of impiety who, if any, teach that the difference of the natures is preserved after the union. But Severus, on the other hand, while saying that the differences are preserved, does not acknowledge that the things by which the difference is perceived are preserved. And he does not teach this everywhere; for he is fickle in his faith and multiform; for in some of his writings, he admits that the very things themselves are preserved. Thus, not only against each other, but also against themselves, they assemble a faction alien to piety. From this, exhorting those who are factious to concur with the mind of piety, he narrates in passing [the history] that Marcian convened the synod at Chalcedon, and that when he had departed from life, Leo became master of affairs, and the Egyptians, having returned from the holy synod, filled the world with disturbance, impiously and falsely spreading rumors that the synod had cast out Cyril and welcomed Nestorius. Leo, suppressing this irrational roar, sent the decrees and acts of [the synod] in Chalcedon everywhere throughout the world with encyclical mandates, ^C and ordered each of the bishops and priests, and also those who shone in the monastic life, to confess their mind in writing; which they also readily did, the number of bishops having been summed up to one thousand six hundred, and no one dissented except Amphilochius of Side, who, not long after, himself also agreed by his subscription. With whom stood also the great Simeon, who had spent that angelic life upon the pillar, and Baradatus, and others who had attained the same degree of discipline. Having run through these things and having set forth that Severus was rightly sent away under anathema, he concluded his discourse to the end.

And the following discourse bears the same inscription, ^D and offers an exhortation to those who were separated from the Church, urging them from the battle and difference of the heretics themselves against each other to perceive the correct mind of the Church. He says also whence the heretical view was cut into ten thousand divisions and dissections. For it interrogates the children of the Church, whether, just as they say there are two natures, they also endure to say there are two hypostases, and since they say there is one hypostasis in Christ, it asks whether they also dogmatize that there is one nature in Him, this...

^A or inversely, whether they think that those who speak of one hypostasis also agree to one nature. When this start to the movement had been taken, that great and implacable war of the heretics among themselves broke out, as to whether nature and hypostasis are the same thing; since we say there is one nature in the Trinity, it is necessary to confess one hypostasis, or since the hypostases are three, nature also must be divided into three. And from there they imagined that nature means one thing, and essence another, and they further partitioned nature into general nature and individual natures.

And Severus, writing to the grammarian Sergius, says: "We wish to say that Christ is one essence, so that we do not take away the difference of the things that have come together. For if an essence or a quality has once been made one, how does the difference according to essence remain of the natures from which the one Christ exists? For if there is one quality and essence, he posits the difference thereafter in vain." And indeed, on the same foundations upon which Severus relies to refuse to assert one essence, he is compelled, even against his will, to deny that there is one nature in Christ. Moreover, some of the more impudent ones, admitting that nature, person, and essence are the same, did not shudder to affirm that there are also three essences in the Holy Trinity, whence they teach, if not in word, yet in mind, three gods and three ^B deities. And these are condemned as prodigiously fabricating three essences in the Trinity, while those [are condemned] because they do not think that God the Father, or the Son, or the Spirit is properly called God; these, perhaps, are the ones who think that the hypostases are only marked or figurative properties. And thus their sect has progressed, dissected into many other such opinions and errors, just as [it has progressed] regarding the difference of the natures that have come together in Christ. For to some triflers it has seemed that the difference perishes after the union of the natures, while to others it has seemed that the difference is preserved; these, too, are divided into two. For those who want the difference to remain, do not, however, want it to remain by means of those things through which the difference exists; while others, even often conceding those things by the force of necessary consequence (this is another piece of nonsense and another madness), yet utterly refuse to call them two natures. For the word "two," they say, expresses the things that differ as parts and by themselves. Having discussed these and such things briefly, and having extended his exhortation, he brings the present discourse to a close.

He composes another discourse against the Agnoetae, or "the ignorant." He says that certain monks from the desert ^C near Jerusalem

^A stirred up this dogma, being misled into attributing ignorance to our Lord Jesus Christ from things He Himself said: "Where have you laid Lazarus?" and, "Of that day or hour no one knows, not even the Son," and others of this kind. But this holy Eulogius maintains that our Lord Jesus Christ was ignorant of neither the grave of Lazarus nor that final day, neither according to His humanity nor, much less, according to His divinity. For even the humanity of Christ, having come into one hypostasis with the inaccessible and substantial wisdom, could not be ignorant of anything, just as it could not be ignorant of any of the present things, nor, in like manner, of the things to come; nor is it possible for what was said by Him to be falsified: "All things that the Father has are mine," unless indeed those who dare all things are to drag the Father Himself into this ignorance.

^B He claims, however, that when the Savior said, "Where have you laid Lazarus?" He said it to bring the Jews who were present to an understanding and to keep it in their memory. And not only this, but that He also performed other things, such as, "Loose him, and let him go," in order that from what they had seen in part and heard, a faith—both visible and beyond dispute—might be committed to their memory, never to be erased. He says also that some things said about Christ are said figuratively, and others in accordance with the truth: figuratively, for instance, that He became sin and a curse for us (for these things did not happen in reality, but as the Head appropriates the things of His own body, He takes upon Himself the things of the body); but it is said in accordance with the truth that He became man, and hungered, and thirsted, and the like. So if one wishes to say that He was ignorant in a figurative sense, in that the body—or human nature, of which He is the Head—is not without ignorance, he would not be wandering far from what is probable, nor would he be thought to be declaring that the Wisdom of the Father is ignorant of anything.

^C But if those uneducated men bring forward the words, "Where have you laid him?" to accuse Christ of ignorance, why will they not also cast the same ignorance upon the Father, when He inquires and says to Adam, "Where are you?" and to the fratricide, "Where is Abel your brother?" and, "The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah has multiplied, and their sins are very great; I will go down therefore and see if they are acting according to their cry, and if not, that I may know." And Jesus also asks the demon: "What is your name?" And it answers: "Legion is my name, for we are many." Nay, even to the blind He says: "What do you want me to do for you?" How is it not evident that these things were not asked out of ignorance? But of the demons He asks how great the multitude is of those who are possessing [a man], in order to show his disciples that He was already superior to many, and to confirm their faith ^D and give them courage to trample over serpents and scorpions and over all

^A the power of the enemy. He questions the blind, that He may elicit a petition from them; for as much benefit as we receive from petitioning, so much do we grasp the sense of the benefit already accepted. Moreover, concerning that which is said about the last day, that no one knows it, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father alone, some suppose it to have been said for this reason, that the disciples, thinking the last day to be imminent daily, might always continue watching. But nothing prevents us from interpreting this also as said figuratively, just as the saying: "You know my folly," and that saying: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" Some say that He declared ignorance of the last day to show and demonstrate the mark properly belonging to human nature, not that He Himself was ignorant—far from it! (For no one is exempt from the charge of dangerous rashness who would ascribe ignorance to Him, either according to His divinity or His humanity). But, as the blessed Cyril says, when by subtle mental conception and images of the mind we separate one thing from another through contemplation, then we see the proper signs and properties of each nature as it is in itself. Or, as Gregory the Theologian teaches, when natures are distinguished by reason, the names of the natures are divided simultaneously. The proper sign of pure and naked humanity is ignorance. By this reasoning, therefore, ignorance might be ascribed to the humanity of Christ, when considered as the nature of simple and pure humanity, precisely in accordance with those things which it has from itself. And this is what the Theologian explained when he said: "He knows as God, but He is ignorant as man," if one separates the seen from the understood. Having said these things, he adds that if any of the Fathers admitted ignorance in the Savior with regard to His humanity, they did not put this forward as a dogma, but in order to withstand the madness of the Arians, who transferred all human things to the divinity of the Only-Begotten, so that they might show the uncreated Word of God to be a creature; they judged it ^C more consistent with the economy to attribute these things to the humanity rather than to allow them to drag these [attributes] down to the divinity. And if anyone should concede that those [Fathers] spoke these things by way of figure or anaphora, he will be judged more religious. Having set these things forth, he brings his discourse to an end.

The final book contains a discourse bearing the title: "Decretum in Samaritanos editum" [A Decree Issued Regarding the Samaritans].

^A They who were deluded by him bore his name, being called Dostheni. This man was a reviler of the prophets of God, and especially contumelious toward Judah, one of the twelve patriarchs, [885 Rep. R.] and not even the ten thousand praises written of him in the Mosaic Scriptures put him to shame. Having thus disparaged and mocked all those mentioned, he drew everything—the prophecy and all other dignity—unto himself. He adulterated the Mosaic Octateuch with ten thousand diverse forgeries, and compiled other books, foolish and monstrous and contrary to the spiritual law, which he left to those who believed him. He also anathematized the resurrection. Thus, the factions were split into rival and blasphemous opinions. Each party presented petitions for its own position and against the opposing side, each preferring the prophet honored by them over the other. The holy Eulogius sat as judge over these, with a most frequent synod of bishops and men illustrious in rank. Marcian now held the Roman scepter, in the seventh year of his reign. Having examined the claims of each side, the holy Eulogius exposed both parties as far removed from the truth, and proved from the Sacred Scriptures that the Messiah predicted by the prophets was our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God. He showed that those parties were laboring under a most grave error: the former for falsely claiming that Joshua the son of Nun was that predicted prophet, and the latter for monstrously inventing that the impious Dosthes or Dositheus was he. And thus he dissolved the assembly, the matter and the judgment being concluded, and the third volume having come into our hands.

In this book, the author, eager to demonstrate the resurrection from the Mosaic testimonies, speaks as follows: "If the matter of the resurrection were not most true, how would God have said to Abraham: 'But you shall go to your fathers in peace, buried in a good old age'? For how could he go, and to whom could he go, if he were no longer to exist, and they to whom he was going likewise did not exist? And how again, a little further on, does the divine oracle say concerning him: 'And failing, Abraham died in a good old age, an old man and full of days, and was gathered to his people'? For what is the gathering to that which is not, and how is the existent added to those who do not exist? And what, furthermore, does it say concerning Jacob, that 'all his sons and all his daughters gathered together to comfort him, and he would not be comforted, but said: I shall go down to my son mourning into Hades'? For how could a descent be conceived of that which does not exist, and how indeed does he descend to his son, who—from ^D [the context of] delusion—"

^A can in no way whatever be what Dositheus’s trifling story claims? Again, when blessing his sons, Jacob says: *I am gathered to my people.* For if he knew his existence to be terminated at the end of the present life, how did he speak of being gathered to his people—he himself not existing, and his people not existing at all? But see also what the Master and God of all Himself says to Moses, when He leads him up to the mountain beyond Nebo, and shows him the land which He was about to give to Israel as an inheritance? ^B For He adds: *And thou shalt see it: then: And thou shalt be added to thy people, as also thy brother Aaron was added.* For whom would that not strike with awe, with God Himself crying out and saying: *I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob*? For how could the true God be God of those who no longer exist, but have perished into nothingness? And why did He plant the paradise in the East, in Edem, in which He placed the man He had formed, if He knew that he would immediately transgress and be sent into exile from that place, and that none of the men after him would ever dwell in it again? For if everyone, whether those who have lived this life piously or those who have lived impiously, after the course of the present life is run, is dissolved into non-being, and no one remains who might inherit the paradise and enjoy the holy delights within it, how does this ungrateful and impious opinion not show ^C that [man] was created in vain, and by this injury to Him, how does it not insultingly reproach God himself, the common Maker of all things, when it accuses Him of having done things which not even a moderately prudent man would ever do?

Thus, refuting through the sacred Scriptures Dositheus’s impious opinion about the resurrection, he shows that the world is corrupted (for that man monstrously feigned it to be incorruptible, while the soul he feigned to be corruptible), and that the nature of the angels came into being from God (for even the nature of these, the creature of non-being, that babbler supposed), and yes, indeed, that the demonic race both originated and remains (for the Dositheans used to say that idols were demons, but they acknowledged no other race of demons); he thus exposed that his insanity had progressed to such great madness.

In this book, he proposes an inquiry: why, when there were many animals counted ^D among the clean ones, only five were sacrificed and used by the ancients [the Jews] for divine matters—namely, the goat and the ram and the ox, the turtle dove and the pigeon? And he resolves it, saying that the ancient things are a type, and that most things are referred to the contemplation of riddles, and that five from among the clean ones were sacrificed, since he intended to signify our five senses in equal number: for the legislator commands and intends that we, having been purified or cleansed, should join these to the Word. And these are the excerpts [from the orations of Eulogius].

Sophronius of Jerusalem’s Synodical Epistle.

I read the synodical epistle of Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, which was sent to Honorius, the Roman emperor. This epistle is full of piety, ^A though it innovates in many places in its wording, like a colt prancing in its leaps; yet it accurately defines the orthodox opinion as much as possible, and it does not show any chance learning regarding the sacred dogmas. In this epistle you will find Magnus condemned along with Apollinarius, and Theodoret not cast out from the Church, even though he had borne a bad and wicked judgment in those matters in which he voted against Cyril. But it also [explains] how the ancient Origen is one person, and the one after him, who was called Adamantius, is another; and how Jacob the Syrian, from whom the sect of the heretical Acephali took its name, is condemned along with the other heretics. The epistle also asks Honorius of Rome, ^B if anything that ought to have been said has been overlooked, that he, as one who is able, might both supply and correct it; and that he [Sophronius] would owe him great gratitude if he were not frustrated in his request, and that he would never be unmindful of the benefit. But these are the things which the synodical epistle of the most holy Sophronius declared in that book.

In the same volume were contained testimonies of various holy Fathers, both those who were before the fourth synod, and those who flourished at the time of it, and those who were even later. These testimonies proclaimed the twofold operation in Christ our God, the leaders and chief ^C of whom were Leo, the high priest of elder Rome, and that same fourth and ecumenical holy synod, and Petrus, the most holy bishop of Myra, and Gennadius of Constantinople, and the bishop of Photice named Diadochus, and Euphræmius, the prelate of Antioch, who also fought bravely in many books against the Acephali; and Dionysius, plentiful indeed in words, but more plentiful in contemplation, the disciple of Paul, martyr of Christ, and bishop of Athens; and Justin, who confirmed philosophy with the blood of his martyrdom; and the hardy Athanasius, prelate of Alexandria; and ^D Gregory, the vessel of the mystery of theology, and Basil, the ornament of the Church, and Gregory of Nyssa, the river of words; and Cyril, the victorious; and Ambrose of Milan, the unshaken in freely confessing the judgment of God; and John, the bishop of Constantinople, golden in speech and tongue; and Severianus of Gabala; and the holy Theodotus (who presided over Ancyra); and John of Constantinople, drawing both his lineage and his name from Cappadocia, a man who was truly a dwelling-place of virtue; and the blessed Eulogius, the archbishop of Alexandria, who with many words refuted the opinion of the Acephali; and John, the prelate of Scythopolis, who wrote learnedly and piously concerning the synod of Chalcedon; and Heraclianus, bishop of Chalcedon, who engaged in a great struggle with the Manichaeans; and Leontius, who lived a solitary and monastic life; and the blessed Anastasius of Theopolis,

and Symeonius the monk and presbyter (the passage ^A recognizing the saint is from an epistle which he sent to the emperor Justinian, and it also contains a struggle against the Nestorians and Eutychians; Justinian himself, the pious emperor, in the writings he addressed to Zoilus—who was patriarch of Alexandria—called this epistle the *Thesaurus*); yes, and also a certain Constantine, who held the dignity of quaestor (for he also labored on a treatise against the impious Theodosius, from which passages concerning the two operations are transcribed). In addition to all these, there is also a certain Theophilus, one of the pious and learned, who waged a great struggle in his writings against Severus, whom that hateful and contentious sectary, himself a most wretched writer, called by way of insult a *calligrapher* (implying vanity). These passages, therefore, as the book contained them, were attributed to the aforementioned holy men, the Fathers; they would be useful for the refutation of those who impiously hold the opinion that there is one operation in Christ. There was also contained among the aforementioned a passage from an anonymous booklet; but the treatise from which the passage was taken clearly showed Severus being bravely overcome by his arguments.

CCXXXII. The book of Stephen Gobarus the Tritheite.

I have read the book of a certain Stephen, a Tritheite by sect, who is also called Gobarus. The work seemed to be of great labor, but it did not yield a result equal to the effort; for it displayed a desire for praise rather than any great utility. The very chapters which he treats, and which he referred to ^C common and ecclesiastical questions, were fifty-two in number, with a few particular ones added to them. These contain double opinions, and not only double, but even contradictory ones. He did not confirm these opinions with arguments, nor with words of holy Scripture, but only with citations—as the author thought—of various Fathers, some of which held the opinion of the Church, while others held the contrary. The contrary opinions, indeed, were asserted by ancient passages and by men of old who did not labor much for a definitive opinion—of which some were not actually embraced, yet to him who collected them, they seemed to be embraced; but the ecclesiastical opinion is confirmed by the testimonies of men who truly understood the faith. These, then, are the chapters concerning which a double and contrary ^D opinion is presented by means of testimonies:

That the property, and the character, and the form is the hypostasis, but not a conjunction of substance and property, nor an independent existence. This indeed some testimonies first confirm; then again, afterwards, others present the contrary, that is, that the form and the property, and the character

^A are not an essence, but the character of the essence. And in other headings, so that we may not be compelled to repeat the same things on each point, different usages, by taking up the opposition, seem to establish the proposed argument on either side.

— As the Baptist John was conceived in the month of October; the contrary to which is that it was not in this month, but in November.

— As the Theotokos received the annunciation of the Lord’s conception in the month of the new fruits, that is, April, which the Hebrews call Nisan; but she gave birth to our Lord Jesus Christ when nine months were completed, that is, on the fifth of January, at the middle of the night, which is before the eight days of the Ides of January; but the contrary opinion to this is that she did not receive the annunciation in the aforementioned month, but on the twenty-fifth of March, and gave birth to our Savior not on the fifth of January, but before the eight days of the Kalends of January.

— That in the resurrection we shall take back the very same body in every respect which we now wear, having received no difference toward the incorruptible; and the contrary, that we shall not receive the same body as this that now decays.

— That we shall rise again in the same form; and that we shall not, but in another.

— That at whatever age each person departed this life, at that same age he shall rise again; and the contrary, that it is not so, but even children shall rise in a perfect stature, and not all at once, but in parts.

— That at the time of the resurrection we shall take on a thin, airy, ethereal, and spiritual body; and that we shall not, but an earthly, thick, and solid one. ^B

— That the Deity is of human form and ensouled, and that it designates the bodily shape that is "according to the image," according to which man was fashioned in imitation of the archetype; and that the angels have bodies whose shape is the same as that of human bodies; and that the human soul has proceeded from the divine essence; and the things contrary to these: that the Deity is neither of human form, nor shaped at all, nor is it naturally any other of the things aforementioned; and likewise that the angels are not bodily, but incorporeal, and that the soul of man is not from the divine essence.

— That the body of man before the transgression was different, which they also call "luminous," and another after the transgression, which we now wear, the fleshy one, and this is what "coats of skin" are, which we shall also lay aside in the resurrection; and, on the contrary, that our flesh is not the "coats of skin."

— That the righteous shall rise first, and with them all the animals, and for a thousand years they shall live in luxury, eating and drinking and begetting, and after this the universal resurrection shall take place; and, on the contrary, that there is no prior resurrection of the righteous, nor a thousand-year luxury, nor marriage.

— That after the resurrection the dwelling of the righteous shall be in Paradise, and that it shall not be in Paradise, but in the heavens, and that Paradise is not in heaven, nor on earth, but in the places that lie between them.

As for the Paradise that is above, it is Jerusalem, and it is in the third heaven, and the trees that are within it are intellectual and possess understanding and reason, and it is from there that man, after the transgression, was brought down to the earth. Then there is the contrary view, that Paradise is not in the third heaven, but upon the earth. ^A — [472 H.] That the good things prepared for the righteous neither has the eye seen, nor has the ear heard, nor have they entered into the heart of man. However, Hegesippus, an ancient and apostolic man, in the fifth book of his *Memoirs*, I know not what possessed him, says that these things are said in vain, and that those who say them lie against the divine Scriptures and the Lord Himself, who says: "Blessed are your eyes which see, and your ears which hear," and so forth. ^B — That those of the sinners who are delivered into punishment are purified of evil therein, and after the purification are released from the punishment. Then also that not all who are delivered to punishment are purified and released, but only some; and that, which is the true mind of the Church, no one is released from punishment. That to be burned and not consumed is to be corrupted in an incorruptible manner. Titus, the bishop of Bostra, writing against the Manichaeans in the first book, says: "How could corruption be a corruption of itself? For something always corrupts something else, not itself. If it were to corrupt itself, it would have had no beginning; for it would be corrupted while it was corrupting itself or while existing; for it is impossible, according to common notions, to conceive of an incorruptible corruption." And it is clear that this holy man said in one sense that it is impossible for corruption to be incorruptible, and the divine John said it in another; for one said the corruption was incorruptible, meaning that which is everlasting and happening perpetually, ^C [896 R.] while the other said that corruption is not incorruptible, that is, that corruption cannot be impassibility and incorruption and a savior of the things subject to it. But since both meanings exist, Gobarus, the author of the work at hand, not understanding the different meaning, has handed down the conclusions as if they were mutually opposed. That the age to come is the eighth; and the contrary, that it is not the eighth, but the ninth. That the body of our Savior Jesus Christ after the resurrection was subtle, and agile, heavenly, light, and not tangible: and for that reason He entered with the doors closed. And that a tangible and crass body is different from a subtle one, and as such is of a different figure and a different substance. The contrary of this is: that our Lord Jesus Christ, after the resurrection, did not have a pure, nor subtle, nor agile body, but that He entered with the doors closed by magical art, not by the nature of the body itself. ^D — That Christ did not lay aside His flesh after the resurrection, but sits at the right hand of the Father, one with His flesh; and on the contrary, He will come to judge the living and the dead not having put on flesh, but possessing a divine body. That the Lord will not come in His second advent, but in naked divinity. Gobarus, setting this as a chapter and bringing forward the testimonies of Titus, bishop of Bostra, and having a thousand other testimonies he could bring forward to show that the Lord Jesus Christ will come in divinity alone, omitted them all, and mentioned none, everywhere displaying his own impiety.

of closed doors. ^A That Christ did not put off his flesh after the resurrection, but sits at the right hand of the Father with his flesh; and to the contrary, that he will come to judge the living and the dead, no longer having flesh, but a more godlike body. ^B That the Lord does not come for the second appearing with flesh, but in naked divinity. Govarus, having posited this as a doctrine and citing the testimonies of Titus, Bishop of Bostra—having thousands of others that he might have gathered which establish that the Lord Christ does not come in naked divinity—set them all aside and made mention of none, showing everywhere the impiety of his mind, which unashamedly dogmatizes for a single nature in the denial of the flesh. ^B That an impassible, invulnerable, and immortal body is of a different substance and origin than our body; and that corruptible and mortal things, in passing into incorruption and immortality, admit a change of substance. ^B That every definition, while remaining perfect, preserves the nature of the things defined; but if anyone should take something away from it or add to it, the definition is dissolved. These two chapters, therefore, just as the small ones mentioned a little before, are defended by testimonies from one side only, and not from both of the opposing views. ^B That the Word of God is wholly in all things and above all things, and is whole in the body which he united to himself hypostatically; and simply, the substance of the divinity fills all things in nature, and power, and operation, and passes through each of the things that exist by its participation in the whole. And that it is not so, but that God is outside the universe in substance, but is in all things by his own powers. ^B That before the creation of the world God also created the angels; and that it is not so, but that he created them on the first day of the creation of the world. ^B That angels and demons are united to bodies, and that neither of them are united to bodies. ^B That angels and rational souls and all intellectual creatures are by nature and according to nature incorruptible; and from the opposite point of view, that they are not by nature, but by grace immortal, whereas by nature God alone is immortal.

^A That angels descending from heaven to earth took on flesh and generative parts, and having consorted with women, begat giants, and taught them crafts and evil arts; and the giants, consorting with irrational creatures, begat monstrous men and demons of both male and female sex; and those angels are punished where the fire of the earth is kindled and hot waters burst forth; and that the souls of sinners become demons. And on the contrary, that the apostate angels, being without flesh, did not consort with women through themselves but through men as intermediaries; or rather that they did so neither through themselves nor through men; and that the souls of men are not changed into demons. ^D That the heaven is spherical and moves in a circle; and that it is neither spherical nor moves in a circle. ^D That what is said, "The Spirit of God was moved over the water" (Gen. 1, 2), was the Holy Spirit; and that it was not the Holy Spirit, but one of the four elements. ^D That the Lord’s Day is at once the eighth and the first; and that it is not so. ^D That the souls of men are intelligible bodies, and are of the same figure as the exterior form of the body; and on the contrary, that it is incorporeal.

^A That the souls of men existed before the foundation of the world, and that they descended from the heavens into bodies, as did those of Moses, the prophets, Socrates, Plato, John the Baptist, the apostles, and even that of the Lord himself. And on the contrary, that the souls of men were not in heaven before their bodies, but came into being at the generation of the body; yet that the body pre-exists, and then the soul; or rather, that they neither pre-exist nor post-exist, but exist together with one another. — That God fashioned the body of Adam from the earth; and that it was not from the earth, but from water and spirit. — That the breath which God breathed into the face of Adam was temporary, and not like the Spirit, eternal; and that it was not temporary, but an immortal soul. — That it was not the soul that was temporary, but the mind, so that man is composed of three parts: mind, soul, and body; and that the breath ^B breathed into him was none of those things, but the Holy Spirit, which was not itself called soul or mind, but that which created the soul. — That the earth, water, and other elements are changed into fruits and plants, and food into flesh, nerves, and the other parts of the body; and on the contrary, that the earth is not changed into plants and fruits, nor food into our body. — That after death the soul departs neither from the body nor from the grave; and on the contrary, that the soul does not remain with the body or in the grave. Here Gobarus, abounding in a thousand testimonies, adduces only those of Severianus, bishop of Gabala, and Irenaeus. — That everything generated is corruptible and mortal, but by the will of God it remains indissoluble and incorruptible. And on the contrary, that what is corruptible by nature cannot be incorruptible by the will of God. For he who says this teaches things contrary to himself, and assigns impossibilities to the Creator. To confirm this opinion, he adduces the testimony ^C of Justin Martyr, from the book in which he refutes the errors of the Gentiles, and [argues] against the assertion of Plato: "Since you have been created, you are not immortal, nor altogether indissoluble; you shall not, therefore, be dissolved, nor shall you die the death, having obtained the law which is stronger than my will." The Martyr himself, refuting the Platonic sophism, shows that Plato introduces the Creator as if He were speaking against Himself and applying no consequence to His words: for it is necessary either that everything generated is corruptible according to the former definition, or that he lies in saying that everything generated is corruptible. Gobarus, overturning the Gentile argument, endeavors to translate it to the opinion of the Church.

^D These earlier chapters, therefore, adorning them with two contrary testimonies, as he thought, he descends to those which belong to one side only. And first, indeed, he says

^A which is the thirty-eighth chapter of the whole compilation, how blessed Eustathius, who presided over the high priesthood of Antioch, thought concerning the incarnation of our Lord; and next, how the most holy Cyril, the chief priest of Alexandria; and how the teachers of the Church understood that, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels, nor the Son, but the Father," and how Severus understood this.

Having briefly gone through these chapters, he passes again to the double presentation of authorities, and makes the forty-second chapter: that our Lord Jesus Christ was nourished with milk from the Theotokos Mary, and that he was not nourished with milk. — That saying, "He who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John the Baptist," the Savior said of himself; and that it was not of himself, but of John the Evangelist. — That our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified at thirty years of age; and that it was not thirty, but thirty and three; and that it was not thirty and three, but forty; and ^B that it was not thirty, nor forty years only, but even more, not far from fifty.

At which time the Lord delivered to the disciples the mystery of the New Testament, he ate the legal Passover; and that he did not at that time eat the legal Passover. — That the bronze serpent, which Moses lifted up in the desert, was a type of the Lord; and that it was not a type, but an antitype. — That it was Thomas who cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest; and that it was not Thomas, but Peter.

That at the time of the passion the divinity was separated from the body of Christ; ^C and that the divinity was separated neither from the soul nor from the body. — That the Savior gave his own blood as a ransom for the human race held captive to the enemy, the enemy choosing this; and the opposite, that he did not offer this to the enemy, but to God and Father. — That Christ arose more gloriously and wonderfully than he was transfigured on the mountain; and that, having risen, he did not transform his body into the glory owed to it, but showed it to be such as it was even before death. And this, indeed, Cyril says, but Dionysius of Alexandria says the contrary.

^D That on the twelfth of the first month Mary anointed the Lord with ointment in the house of Simon the leper, and on the thirteenth the Lord delivered the mystical supper to the disciples, and on the fourteenth he suffered the saving passion, and on the fifteenth he rose from the dead, and on the sixteenth he was assumed: or not so, but on the fourteenth he ate the mystical supper, and on the fifteenth he was crucified, and he rose on the sixteenth: or that not even this, but that the resurrection of the Lord took place after three days and on the Lord’s day, and after forty days he was assumed.

That from the evening of the fifth, when the Lord was delivering the mystical supper to the disciples, then his body was sacrificed.

^A Up to this point, he has discoursed on the common doctrines and questions of the Church, covering almost every head, for the most part strengthening either side of a contradiction by means of opposing testimonies, and confirming a few by testimonies of a single opinion. Henceforth, however, he treats of certain particular heads, eighteen in number, such as: What opinions did Severus hold concerning the holy ministers of the Church? And how does he feel about the things stated by Cyril and John in the letter to Thomas, bishop of Germaniceia? And that he does not approve of the things said regarding the restoration of all things by Gregory of Nyssa, nor those of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis and martyr, nor of Saint Irenaeus of Lugdunum, where they say the kingdom of heaven is a certain enjoyment of sensible foods.

^B Divine Basil does not accept holy Dionysius of Alexandria in many places, especially where he seems to confirm the heresy of the Arians. He defends him, however, not as one holding impious sentiments, but as one who, through an excessive zeal to combat Sabellius, deflected his language to the contrary opinion. Moreover, he says he uttered impious words concerning the Holy Spirit. But the great Athanasius also defends the same man, Dionysius: "For Dionysius," he says, "never agreed with the Arians, nor was he ignorant of the truth, nor was he condemned for impiety by other bishops, nor did he utter Arian expressions as if setting forth doctrine." Theodoret also offers the same reasoning on behalf of the aforementioned Dionysius. ^C Furthermore, he presents testimonies as to how Theophilus and the synod with him were disposed towards holy John Chrysostom; and what opinions Atticus and Cyril held concerning the same most holy John of Constantinople; and what impressions the most devout Isidore of Pelusium held concerning Theophilus and Cyril, the hierarchs of Alexandria, and concerning holy John Chrysostom—accusing the former of hatred toward Chrysostom, while praising and honoring the latter. Severus, impelled to chide blessed Isidore, but finding no cause, falsely attributes to him an Origenistic opinion, although he himself again retracts this, overcome by the truth. ^D Furthermore, what opinions Hippolytus and Epiphanius held concerning Nicolaus, one of the seven deacons, and that they condemn him strongly. Ignatius the God-bearer, however, and Clement the Stromateus, and Eusebius of Caesarea, and Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, condemn the heresy of the Nicolaitans, but affirm that Nicolaus himself was not of that sort. That Hippolytus and Irenaeus say that the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews is not his; Clement, however, and Eusebius and a great many others of the Fathers number this among his other epistles, and say that this Clement translated it from the Hebrew. The great Athanasius of Alexandria admits Origen and Theognostus in many books. And Titus of Bostra, and Gregory the Theologian in his letters, call him Philocalus. And Nyssenus mentions him in a praiseworthy manner, and...

Dionysius of Alexandria also, writing to that same man, and even after his death writing to Theotecnus, the bishop of Caesarea, praises Origen. And Alexander, the bishop of Hierapolis and martyr, writing to the same Origen, greatly attaches himself to the man with his words. ^A Dionysius Alexandrinus writes to this same man, and writing after his death to Theotecnus, bishop of Caesarea, he praises Origen, and Alexander of Hierapolis, writing to Origen, mollifies him greatly with his words. — Theophilus and Epiphanius are very much opposed to Origen. — What the blessed Hippolytus sensed concerning the heresy of the Montanists, and what Gregory Nyssenus sensed.

These, then, are the more particular points in these matters; but he turns again to something more general, and brings forward testimonies that the soul of every deceased person is helped ^B most greatly by the prayers, offerings, and almsgivings performed on his behalf, and, on the contrary, that it is not so.

Thus far, indeed, we have found that Gobarus had finished the book of his chapters.

CCXXXIII. The apologetic book of Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, for Gregory Nyssenus

I read a book by the author Germanus, who was first ordained at Cyzicus, and afterwards served as patriarch of Constantinople; this book is entitled *Retribuens et legitimus* [The Retributing and Legitimate], which is much the same as if you were to say: Concerning the true and legitimate retribution that is paid out to men according to how they have lived. Such is the promise ^C of the title. The discourse struggles to show that Gregory of Nyssa, who is among the saints, and his writings are free from the error of Origen. For since to those to whom that delirium is pleasing—that is, that there is to be expected a liberation from that place for demons and for men cast into eternal punishment—to those men, I say, seeing that he was a man singular in doctrine and distinguished in eloquence, and seeing the bright estimation of his holiness sung in the mouths of all, they set about to inject into his clear and salutary writings the dark and pernicious poisons ^D of the Origenian dream, and secretly to subject a heretical madness to the virtue of the man and to his celebrated doctrine. Wherefore, partly by false additions and partly by right arguments violently distorted, they tried to slander many things from his irreprehensible monuments. Against whom Germanus, the patron of piety, whetting the sharp sword of truth and leaving the enemies prostrate by the wound, established as victor and superior him against whom the heretical rabble had plotted and set snares. His style in this brief work is pure and clear, felicitously grabbing at the tropes of words, with a style charming and elegant, not verging toward frigidity, validly insisting on his purpose, even equal to undertaking contentions, mixing in nothing beyond necessity, omitting nothing which is necessary to be said, as much in construction and epicheiremata as in enthymemes, and it is as it were a clear standard of sound doctrine. Thus also if anyone [is among those who are] vehement...

^A in their struggle, and [is among those who are] neither weaving foreign matters into what is necessary, nor overlooking any of the things that ought to be stated, whether in their constructions or in their epicheiremata or in their enthymemes—he is, just as he is an unwavering standard of pious dogmas, so also a fine and enviable example for those who wish to write persuasive and clear and graceful discourses, and who prefer spiritual instruction to ostentatious display.

He strikes down, then, first of all, the heretical dogma which trifles that the demons will return to their ancient state, and that those who have ended their lives in sins, after certain defined punishments, will pass over into the choir of the just. He refutes this mythic impiety, first from the very words of the Master, and secondly from the apostolic proclamations, to which he also appends prophetic testimonies, which ^B clearly demonstrate that just as the ineffable enjoyment of the just is eternal, so also the punishment of sinners is endless and without foundation. He not only casts down the heretical and alien insolence from the passages cited, but also from other holy men; and indeed (which is more powerful) from the very writings of him whom the heresy had struggled to make its advocate through evil craft. Through all these holy testimonies, he exposes it as a mythic fiction that is destructive of the soul and baneful to all ecclesiastical order, while he strengthens and elevates the mind of piety that hates evil.

Having thus prepared the way beforehand and strengthened the bulwark ^C of the truth, from which it was destined to be easy to overthrow the enemy, he then advances the set passages of the holy Father, with which the wicked and base hucksters of dogmas, mixing water with wine—or rather, who practiced upon the teachings of the Church—attempted to corrupt them. By citing these holy passages, he triumphs over the Origenists, who were convicted [of manipulating things] within their own domain, by proving them to be caught red-handed. He shows them to be, on the one hand, counterfeiters of that which is uncorrupted through shameless and impudent additions, and on the other hand, constantly suspecting the addition, [he shows how] they were driven by much other audacity and folly to act with effrontery towards their own heretical interpretation. And, to speak as a word, he ^D declares all of the man’s labors to be free from any heretical depravity and from the calumny that tends toward impiety. This immunity, and the refutation of their wickedness, is established and revealed both from the preceding and subsequent portions of the corrupted passage, and from many other thousands of the words of the blessed Gregory, which rightly preserve the orthodox and uncorrupted doctrine. And having contended well in these matters—and as no one else could have done better—he brings his industrious work to a conclusion with salvific prayers and doxologies to God. The books which the alien sect had plotted to ensnare with their traps, and which Germanus, the primary defender of the truth, kept unharmed by the assault of these robbers, are the *Dialogue on the Soul* to his sister Macrina, and indeed the *Catechetical Oration*, and the one which undertakes the exposition of the *Perfect Life*.

Excerpts from the Oration of Saint Methodius concerning the Resurrection

^A 293a Read was [the work] of the holy Methodius, bishop and martyr, from his oration concerning the resurrection, the 57th selection of which says the following: That the body, he says, is not a bond for the soul, as Origen supposed, nor are souls called prisoners by the prophet Jeremiah because they happen to be in bodies. For the body is not posited as hindering the energies of the soul, but rather the body is carried about and cooperates toward those things to which the soul invites it. But how ought one to understand that of the theologian Gregory and many others? That Origen asserted that the body was attached to the soul as a bond after the transgression, whereas before it lived without a body. And [he said] that this very body which we wear is the cause of sins; for this reason he also called it a bond, as it is able to hinder the soul from good works. That if the body was given as a bond after the transgression, it was given to the soul either for good or for evil. Now, for good it is impossible; for no physician or other craftsman gives to one who has sinned a remedy so that he might sin more, much less God. It remains, then, [that it was given for] evil. But truly we see that from the beginning, Cain, while clothed in this body, committed murder; and it is manifest to what crimes his descendants gravitated. Therefore, the body is not a bond of ^B evils. Nor is it a bond at all, nor did the soul put it on later after the transgression. That man, he says, is most truly called [by nature] neither soul without body, nor again body without soul, but that which is composed of the union of soul and body into one form of beauty. But Origen, like Plato, said that only the soul constitutes man. That he speaks of the difference between man and other animals; for to them have been given different shapes of nature and forms, as many as the solid and visible nature produced when God commanded, whereas to man it was given to be similar to God, and [to possess] the form of God, and all things that pertain to the perfect and primogenial image of the Father and the Only-Begotten Son. And by what reasoning the saint says this, must be investigated. ^C 293b He says that Phidias the sculptor, when he had fashioned the Pisan image from ivory, commanded that oil be poured inside the statue, so that it might preserve an immortal power within it in this way. That the devil, he says, is a spirit made by God concerning the matter, just as it was pleasing to Athenagoras (just as the rest of the angels were also made by the same God), and [he says that] to him [was given] the... ^D

administration ^A entrusted to him. For the constitution [of the angels] [was made] by God for the purpose of providence towards those adorned by Him, so that God, while holding the total and general providence of all things, might be the authority and power upon whom all things hang. But the rest, in the offices to which God made and appointed them, remained; yet he himself acted insolently and became wicked regarding the administration entrusted to him, having conceived envy against us, just as those who, after this, became enamored of bodies and 909 conversed with the daughters of men for intimacy. For God had ordained that they too should have free will towards either, just as in the case of humans. And how is this to be understood?

^B By "garments of skin" he implies death. For he speaks concerning Adam: whom God the Almighty, having made immortal, knowing that from the craftiness of the devil he had become evil, just as also the devil who deceived him, on this account fashioned for him the garments of skin, as if clothing him in mortality, so that through the dissolution of the body, all the evil that was born in him might perish.

He says that two revelations happened to Saint Paul: for he says, not even does the Apostle propose that Paradise is in the third heaven, as those who know how to listen to his subtle words perceive. For having said, "I know such a man caught up to the third heaven," he adds, "And I know such a man, whether in the body or apart from the body, God knows, that he was caught up into Paradise," he indicates that he saw two great revelations, having been taken up twice clearly, once to the third heaven, and once to Paradise. For the phrase, "I know one caught up to the third heaven," confirms that a revelation had specifically manifested to him regarding the third heaven; but the phrase, "And I know," being added again, "such a man, whether in the body or apart from the body, God knows, that he was caught up into Paradise," ^C shows that another revelation was manifested to him again regarding Paradise. He says these things because those of the opposite view were positing that Paradise was intelligible, based on the apostolic dictum, as being above the heaven, so that they might conclude that life in Paradise would be without a body.

^D He also teaches that to do or not to do evil is in our power, because we would not give punishments for evils committed by compulsion, nor would we receive rewards for good deeds. But to think or not to think of evils is not in our power. Hence he says that the divine Paul says: "For what I do, I do not practice; but what I do not will, that I do," which is to say, "It is not what I will to think, that I think; but [what I do] not will." Moreover, he affirms that the vice of thinking evils is eradicated through the presence of natural death,

^A seeing that for this reason death was given by God to the one who has sinned, so that evil might not remain immortal. But how has this been said? It must be noted that it has also been stated by other Fathers of ours, that for those who depart through death at that time, sins are neither increased nor diminished.

A brief exposition of certain apostolic sayings from the same book of Saint Methodius.

I read in the same book a brief explanation of certain apostolic sayings.

Let us see what we have to say regarding the Apostle. For that which was said by him: "I was living once without the law" (Rom. vii, 9), ^B indicates the life passed in the protoplasts—the way of life up there in paradise, as we posited from the beginning—before the commandment, not outside the body, but with our body. Yet we lived without concupiscence, being utterly ignorant of what force or impulse concupiscence might have. For not to have a definition according to which one ought to live, nor a free power of explaining the divine command (by what manner one must live, so that one may attain the due reward or be condemned), this absolves one from every charge of sin, because no one desires those things which are not forbidden. Even if he has desired them, he will not be accused. For to desire does not fall upon things that are present and placed within one's power, but upon those that are present, yet not placed within our power. For how could anyone love that from which he is not kept away, and of which he is not in need? Hence, "I would not have known concupiscence, unless the law had said: Thou shalt not covet" (Exod. xx, 17; Rom. vii, 7). For hearing, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it; and in whatever day you eat of it, you shall surely die" (Gen. ii, 17), then they conceived and gestated concupiscence. Therefore it was well said, "I would not have known concupiscence, unless the law had said: Thou shalt not covet," nor to eat, unless it had been said: "You shall not eat of it." For from this, sin took an occasion to deceive me; for when the commandment was given, the devil had an opportunity to work within me concupiscence. For without the law, sin was dead, as if, the commandment not being given, sin was ineffective. I, however, lived before the commandment blamelessly, not having a directive according to which I ought to live. But when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died, and the commandment which was for life was found by me to be for death (Rom. vii, 9, 10). Because after God had legislated, and had distinguished for me what must be done and what must not be done, the devil worked concupiscence in me—for the promise ^C of God given to me was for life and incorruption, so that, being obedient to it, I might have life and joy always flourishing toward immortality—but for one who spurned it, it turned into death, since the devil, whom he now called "sin" because he himself is the architect or author of sin, taking an occasion through the commandment to deceive ^D

and having led me astray, slew me, by that saying, "In the day you eat of it, you shall surely die," having brought it about that I became subject to condemnation. Thus the law is indeed holy, and the commandment of God is holy and just and good, because it was given not for the sake of harming, but for the sake of saving; for let us not think that God does anything useless or harmful. What then? Did the good become death to me, given that it was a commandment regarding the greatest good for me? Far be it; for the commandment of God did not become the cause of my being enslaved to corruption, but the devil, so that through the good the evil he wrought against me might be manifested, and that the inventor ^B of sin might be exposed as an exceedingly great sinner. [483 H.] We know that the law is spiritual, and therefore it is the cause of no harm to anyone; for spiritual things dwell far from irrational concupiscence and sin. "But I am carnal, sold under sin," as if he were saying: "But I, being carnal, and placed in the midst of good and evil as one possessed of free will, so that it is in my power to choose what I wish" (for He says, "I have set before your face life and death"), having inclined toward disobeying the spiritual law, that is, the commandment, and toward obeying the material, that is, the serpent's suggestion, I was sold through such a choice 913 and fell under sin, to the devil. Hence, from that point on, sin, besieging me, settles in and inhabits and dwells in my flesh, as a penalty imposed upon me for having transgressed the commandment, namely, that I should be sold to evil. Hence that saying: "What I do, I do not understand; and what I hate, I do" (Rom. VII, 15); this is not to be understood of deeds, but of thought alone. For it is not in our power to think or not to think absurd things: but whether or not to make use of those thoughts is in our power. For we cannot prevent thoughts from falling into us, as we receive them breathed in from elsewhere; but we can choose not to be persuaded by them or not to make use of them. Therefore, the "willing" that they might not be thought ^C lies near us, but the "performing" so as to extinguish them, that they may not rise again into the mind, is not in our power, as I said. So that the sense of the saying is as follows: "For the good that I will, I do not." For he wills not to think of those things which harm him, since this good is altogether blameless. "And this which I will, the good, I do not; but what I do not will, I do, the evil," not willing to conceive it, yet conceiving what I do not will. And consider if it was not for these very things that David also interceded with God, being vexed at thinking even those things which he did not will: "Cleanse me from my hidden faults, and spare your servant from those of others. If they do not have dominion over me, then shall I be blameless, and I shall be cleansed from great transgression" (Ps. XVIII, 13, 14). And the Apostle himself also in another place: "Destroying counsels and every height that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" (II Cor. X, 4, 5).

^A If, however, anyone who dares to proceed to the same [Pauline] passage should reply as if the Apostle were teaching that not only in our reasoning do we hate evil and do what we do not will, but also in our actual performing of it—using the text: "For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing" (Rom. VII, 19)—we would ask him, if he truly speaks as he says, to explain what that evil was which the Apostle hated and did not want to do, yet did, and what that good was which he wanted to do, yet did not do. But, on the contrary, whenever he wanted to do good, just as often he would not do the good he wanted, but rather would do the evil he did not want. Yet, how is it that, when exhorting us to shake off sin entirely, he declares: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (I Cor. XI, 1)? ^B By this means did he suggest not that one should do what one does not want, but only that one should think in that way; for otherwise, how could he be a precise imitator of Christ?

It would be good, then, and most joyful, if we had no enemies and adversaries. But since this is impossible, we cannot do what we want—for we do not want to have adversaries who drag us into passions (which would be to be saved without effort)—and that which we want does not happen, but rather what we do not want occurs. For it was necessary that we be tested; let us not surrender, O soul, let us not surrender to the evil one, but receiving the armor of God which protects us, let us put on the breastplate of justice and shoe our feet in preparation for the Gospel. Above all, let us take up the shield of faith, with which we shall be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the wicked one, and the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, ^C which is the word of God, so that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil, to destroy his counsels, and every height that exalts itself against the knowledge of Christ. "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood" (Ephes. VI, 12).

"For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. And if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature" (Rom. VII, 19, 20), speaking rightly [as the divine ^D Paul]. For you remember how we explained previously that, after it happened that man was deceived and disregarded the commandment, from that time sin, because of disobedience, took its origin to dwell in him. For into such a state the situation fell. Oppressed by anxious miseries and importunate thoughts, having been emptied of the breath of God and filled

^A with fleshly concupiscence which the wily serpent has infused into us. Hence God devised death, whereby He might destroy sin in us, so that if we had remained immortal, concupiscence, ever sprouting up, might not also be immortal. Whence the Apostle: *For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, there dwelleth no good thing;* by which he wishes to declare that sin, after the transgression, has nested in us through concupiscence, of which, as it were, new sprouts, thoughts tickling the flesh, are always being excited in us. For there exist two kinds of thoughts: one born of concupiscence, which insinuates itself into our body, which, as I have said, consists of sense or thought of a corporeal spirit; the other, however, proceeding from the law of the divine precept, which we have received as a natural law implanted by God, which excites our mind to virtue. Whence we delight in the law in our mind, for this is the inner man. Yet we [delight] in the law of the devil according to the concupiscence inhabiting the flesh. For the devil, who fights back and opposes the law of God, as if it were a certain impulse of the mind toward the good, is he who always pushes our bodily and vicious senses toward impiety. For Paul seems to me to explain here clearly three laws: one according to the good implanted in us, which he plainly called the law of the mind; ^B a second, which comes about from the devil's impulse or temptation, when he often drags the soul toward wicked imaginations, which he says wars against the law of the mind; and a third, according to sin festering in the flesh from concupiscence, which he called the law of sin dwelling in the members, by which an [man] is often induced and enticed to sin and wicked actions. For it seems as if to us ourselves [at one time] this is better, at another that [is] worse; and when that which seems better to us by nature has become more powerful than that worse thing, the mind is borne with full force toward the good; when, however, that which is worse has insolently usurped the kingdom, the man is driven back down the contrary path, headlong into worse thoughts and counsels. ^C For this reason the Apostle desires to be liberated from it as if from death and destruction, just as the Prophet also: *Cleanse me from my secret faults,* he says. Therefore the very words of the Apostle declare this, saying: *For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man; but I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?* Not calling the body death, but the law of sin lying hidden in the members through the transgression, and always dragging the soul to the death of sin. ^D Therefore he immediately adds (for indeed, being liberated, from what kind of death he desired to be liberated—but who liberated him?): *The grace of God through Jesus Christ.* And so,

^A Aglaophon, it must be noted: if, as you suppose, he called this body death, he would not later have invoked Christ as his liberator from such an evil; for what wonder would we have gained from the coming of Christ? And why in the world would the Apostle, as if strengthened by the coming of Christ to be liberated by God from death, have declared this, when it was the lot of all, even before Christ came into the world, to die? Thus, O Aglaophon, it is not this body that he calls death, but the sin which dwelt within the body through desire, from which God ^B delivered him through the coming of Christ.

For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has liberated us from the law of sin and death. So that He who raised Jesus from the dead, through His Spirit dwelling in us, might make alive our mortal bodies, with sin in the body being condemned to destruction, so that the justification of the natural law, drawing us toward the good according to the precept, might appear ignited. For God cured the weakness of the natural good within us, which was ailing, having been overcome by the desire inherent in the body, by sending His Son, who assumed flesh similar to the flesh of sin, so that with sin condemned to destruction, that it might no longer bear fruit in the flesh, the property of the natural law might be fulfilled, abounding by obedience ^C in those who walk not according to the desire of the flesh, but according to the desire and guidance of the spirit. For the law of the spirit of life, which is the Gospel (which is other than the aforementioned laws, having been established through preaching for obedience and the remission of sins), has liberated us from the law of sin and death, having utterly conquered the sin that was reigning over the flesh.

He says that plants are neither nourished nor grow from the earth. For he says, "Someone might doubt how the earth, when transformed, can be taken up into the bulk of trees. For it would be necessary, since the underlying earth is always being snatched away through the roots into the whole substance of the wood, that the place where the tree grew should become hollowed out; so that such a line of reasoning on their part regarding the nature of bodies ^D is futile. For how, in any way at all, can the earth, entering through the roots into the trunks of plants and being broken down through the pores into all their branches, be transformed into leaves and fruit?" Thus, it is possible to see tall trees, whether cedars or pines or firs, bearing much foliage and fruit every year, while nothing of the underlying earth is assumed into the bulk of the oak-tree; for it would be necessary, if it were true, that the earth ascending through the roots should be changed into wood, and that the entire place round about should be hollowed out: because what

is dry is not accustomed to flow, as the moist is, always toward what is moving. ^A Indeed, fig trees and other such plants, once they have often sprouted in the recesses of buildings, are recorded not to have consumed anything of the building into themselves at all. If, therefore, one wished to collect the fruit and leaves of many years, one would see that their volume had become many times larger than the earth in the foundations of the buildings. Whence it is most absurd to think that the earth is changed into the abundance of fruits and leaves, and is consumed, even if everything occurs through it, while it uses the base and place itself. For neither does bread come to be without a mill ^B or place or time or fire, and yet none of these is, or becomes, the bread, just as may be seen in six hundred other cases.

That [the saying], *For we know that if our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved* [II Cor. v, 1], etc., is used by the Origenists to destroy the resurrection of the body, claiming that the "tabernacle" is taken for the body, and the "house not made with hands in the heavens" is what they call their spiritual vestments. Hence, the holy Methodius says: One must understand ^C "earthly house" here, in a transferred sense, as this brief life, and not this tabernacle. For if you think that our body is understood by the "earthly house" which is to be dissolved, then explain what the "tabernacle" is, of which the house is being dissolved. For the tabernacle is one thing, and the house of the tabernacle is another, and we ourselves, to whom the tabernacle belongs, are something else again. For if, he says, *our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved*, signifying that we are the souls, and that the body is the tabernacle, then the "house of the tabernacle" ^D is the enjoyment of the flesh in the present life, figuratively speaking. If, therefore, this life of the body is now dissolved like a house, we shall possess that one in the heavens which is not made by hand. He calls it "not made by hand" in contrast to this life being called "made by hand," because all our adornments and the pursuits of this life are fashioned by the hands of men. For the body, being the workmanship of God, is not said to be "made by hand," because it was not fashioned by the arts of men. But if they say it is "made by hand" because it was fashioned by God, then the souls and the angels and the very vestments themselves in the heavens will also be called "made by hand"; for these too are the handiwork of God. What, then, is the "house made by hand"? It is, as I have said, this brief life, supported or built up by human labors: *In the sweat of thy face*, he says, *shalt thou eat thy bread* [Gen. iii, 19]. When this is dissolved, we possess that immortal life, not made by hand, just as the Lord himself declared when he said: *Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of iniquity, that when you shall fail, they may receive you into everlasting tabernacles* [Luc. xvi, 9]. For what the Lord there called "tabernacles," the Apostle here calls "vestments," and what [he called] "friends of iniquity" there, the Apostle here [calls] the houses to be dissolved of the lodging or habitation. Just as, therefore, when the days of our life...

^A of the present time fail, the good works which we acquired from the life in iniquity—since the world lies in wickedness—will receive the souls, so, when this fleeting life is dissolved, the souls shall have a dwelling before the resurrection with God, until we receive back the house that has been renewed for us and shall never fall. 46 Whence also we groan, not wanting to put off the body, but to put on our remaining life over it. 47 For the dwelling that is from heaven, which we desire to put on, is immortality; 48 which if we put on, all that is inherently weak and mortal in it shall be swallowed up by the timeless life.

For we walk by faith, not by sight; ^B that is, through faith we still advance, contemplating the things there by a most unclear reasoning, and not clearly, so as to be able to see and enjoy and be in them.

But I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 49 By "flesh," he says, he did not mean the flesh itself, but the irrational impulse against the lascivious pleasures of the soul. Since he says, therefore, 51 that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," he declared at the same time that "neither does corruption inherit incorruption." Corruption, however, is not what is corrupted, but what corrupts. For with death predominating, ^C the body is inclined toward corruption; but since life remains in it in turn, it stands uncorrupted. Wherefore, 52 since the flesh was born as a boundary between incorruption and corruption, being neither corruption itself nor incorruption, and was mastered through pleasure by corruption—though it was a work of incorruption and an existing possession—on account of this it has been brought into corruption. And since it was joined by corruption and handed over to death for the sake of discipline, he did not leave it to corruption for a victory as an inheritance; ^D but having again conquered death through the resurrection, he gave it back to incorruption, so that corruption might not inherit incorruption, but rather incorruption [might inherit] the corruptible. He answers, therefore: "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal, immortality." 53 But what else could it be for the corruptible and mortal to put on immortality and incorruption, than to be "sown in corruption, and raised in incorruption," that "as we have borne the image of the earthly, we may also bear the image of the heavenly"? 54 For the image of the earthly, which we have borne, is the [word]: "Earth you are, and to earth you shall return"; but the image of the heavenly is the resurrection from the dead and incorruption.

Justin, the Neapolitan, a man not far removed from the times and virtues of the apostles, says that what is mortal is received by inheritance, but that life is taken as an inheritance. He says that the flesh dies, but that the kingdom of heaven lives. When ^A Paul says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, he does not say this, he argues, to despise the regeneration of the flesh, but to teach that the kingdom of God—which is eternal life—is not inherited by the body, but the body by life. For if the kingdom of God, which is life, were inherited by the body, it would result in life being swallowed up by corruption. But now, what is dead is inherited by life, so that death may be swallowed up by life in victory, and the corruptible may appear as a possession of incorruption, ^B made free from death and sin, but a servant and minister to immortality, so that the body might be an incorruption, not an incorruption the body. Regarding the statement that the dead in Christ shall rise first, then we who are alive, St. Methodius thinks in this way: This is, he says, our very bodies. For we who are alive are souls, who take up the dead bodies raised from the earth, so that, caught up together with them to meet the Lord, we may gloriously celebrate to Him the feast of the resurrection, for which we have received eternal tabernacles, not to be destroyed or dissolved, and our tents no longer dead or to be dissolved.

I saw, he says, on Mount Olympus in Lycia, a fire of its own accord arising ^C from the depths of the earth at the summit of the mountain, next to which a plant, by name pyragus (78), exists, so flourishing, green, and shady that it appears to have been born from a fountain rather than anything else. For what reason then, since the natures of bodies are corruptible and are consumed by fire, does this plant alone not only not burn, but even flourishes the more, although its nature could easily be consumed, especially with the fire erupting at its very roots? Therefore, I threw branches from the surrounding woods into the fire erupting there, which were suddenly seized by the flames and reduced to ashes. What then does this miracle mean? God set this as a sign and indication of the coming day, so that we might know that ^D when all things are consumed by fire, bodies that have spent their lives in purity and justice will pass through the fire no differently than through cold water.

See, he says, whether the blessed John, when he says: "The sea gave up its dead which were in it: and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them," did not show the parts restored by the elements for the reparation of each one? The sea indeed

[BIBLIOTHECA. - COD. CCXXXIV.]

of each part, as he showed; for he claimed the sea is the moist substance, and Hades the air, deriving the name from its obscurity ^A in that it is not seen, just as Origenes explains; and that death is the earth, because a dead man is placed in it. Whence death is called "dust" in the Psalms, with Christ saying that he was brought into the dust of death.

He says: For every compound formed from pure air and pure fire, and existing as consubstantial with the angelic natures, cannot have the quality of earth and water, since it would necessarily be terrestrial. And Origenes imagines that the body of man, which is destined to rise again, is such a thing from these elements [air and fire], which he also called spiritual.

He says: What then will be the form of the one rising, if this human shape, as something useless to him according to him, is altogether extinguished? It is the most lovely of all the forms that fall to the lot of living creatures, and the one that the Divine Being itself uses, as the most wise Paul declares: "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God," ^B to which the rational bodies of the angels also are adorned. Will it be, therefore [the form of the rising body], circular, or angular, or cubic, or pyramidal? For the varieties of shapes are most numerous. But this is impossible. What then is the fate, that the godlike shape (for he himself acknowledges that the soul is similar to the body) should be rejected as less glorious, and that it should rise without feet and hands?

He says: Transformation is a transmuting toward immortality and glory. For now the body is in desire and humiliation (whence Daniel was called a man of desires), but then it will be transfigured into an impassible body, not by a change for the worse in the arrangement of the members, but by the extinction of the concupiscence of bodily pleasures.

Then, refuting Origenes, he says: Origenes therefore wishes that not the same flesh be joined with the soul, but that the form which each has now, according to the species that now characterizes flesh, will rise impressed in another spiritual body, so that each person may again appear the same in form, and that this is the promised resurrection. For since, he says, the material body is in flux and never persists in itself, but fails and grows according to the shape which expresses the form, under which [species] the shape is contained, it is necessary that the resurrection take place in the species alone. Then after a few words he says: If therefore, O Origenes, you contend that the resurrection is not to be expected except in the species alone, changed into a spiritual body, and you offer us the vision ^D of Elias and Moses as the most certain demonstration: just as they, you say, appeared after death in no other shape than that which they had once held while living,

^A so too shall the resurrection of all be. But Moses and Elias stood up and appeared in this very shape which you mention even before Christ had suffered and risen. How then is Christ still heralded by the prophets and apostles as the "firstborn of the dead"? For if it is believed that Christ is the firstborn of the dead, and the firstborn is he who has risen from the dead before all others, while Moses appeared to the apostles in this shape even before Christ had suffered—the very shape, you say, through which you claim the resurrection is fulfilled—then the resurrection does not consist of the shape apart from the flesh. For if the resurrection consists of the shape alone, as you ^B guarantee, then Christ can no longer be the firstborn of the dead, since souls before him who possessed this shape appeared after death. Or, if he is truly the firstborn, as he is, it is absolutely impossible for any to have been deemed worthy of that resurrection before him which entails not dying again. But if no one rose before him, and those around Moses and Elias appeared to the apostles not in the flesh but only in shape, then the resurrection is clearly demonstrated to be in the flesh. For it is most absurd to define the resurrection by the shape alone, since souls after their departure from their bodies are never seen laying aside the shape which you claim is what rises. But if this shape is perpetually with them, just as it was with the soul of Moses and Elias, and it is neither corrupted nor destroyed according to your view, being always present with them, then it is not the shape that rises, which has never fallen. ^C But if someone, being troubled, should reply: "How then, if no one rose before Christ descended into Hades, are some recorded as having risen before him, among whom are the son of the widow of Zarephath, the son of the Shunammite, and Lazarus?" one must answer that these rose in order to die again, whereas we are speaking of those who, after the resurrection, are never to die again.

But if one should raise a doubt concerning the soul of Elias, arguing that whereas the Scriptures affirm he was assumed in the flesh, we claim he appeared to the apostles without flesh, we must reply that even if we were to say he appeared to the apostles in the flesh, that would make our case even stronger. For it would thereby be shown that our body is also capable of immortality, just as was shown in the case of Enoch who was translated. ^D For if it were not capable of incorruption, it could not have remained for so long a time without the stain of corruption. Therefore, when he appeared with his body, he was indeed going to die, but he had not yet risen from the dead. And these things we say even if we were to concede to Origen, who says that the shape, separated from the body after death, is restored to the soul according to the same lineaments—a thing which is absolutely impossible in every way, since the shape of the flesh is corrupted beforehand in the alterations, just as is the figure of a cast statue.

^A For the shape of a statue undergoing smelting is separated before the dissolution of the whole, since the quality cannot be separated from the matter according to hypostasis. For the form about the bronze is indeed separated from the statue when it is smelted, being effaced, yet it no longer subsists according to essence. But since it is said that at death the form is separated from the flesh, come let us examine in how many ways it is said to be separated. It is said, therefore, that something is separated from something else either by operation and hypostasis, or by conception, or by operation indeed, yet not also by hypostasis. As if someone were to separate wheat and barley mixed together; for insofar as it is separated according to motion, it is called an operation; but insofar as the separated things subsist by themselves, they are said to be separated in hypostasis. By conception, however, when we separate matter from qualities and qualities from matter. By operation, but not by hypostasis, when something separated from something else no longer exists, having no hypostasis of substance. One might know ^B how it is in the crafts, too, by looking at a bronze statue or horse. For one contemplating these will see the natural form changing in them, and transformed into another figure, by which the connatural form is effaced. For if someone should melt down works that are fashioned into the form of a human or a horse, he will find the form of the shape effaced, but the matter itself remaining. So it is inconsistent to say that the form rises again, being in no way darkened, while the body in which the form was impressed is corrupted. But he says: “For it will be changed into a spiritual body.” Therefore, it is necessary to confess that the form itself—the original one—does not rise again, since it has been corrupted together with the flesh as it wasted away. For even if it should be transformed into a spiritual body, that first underlying thing will not be the same, but a certain likeness of it, transformed into a subtle body. But if neither the same form nor the same body rises again, but another in place of the former (for one similar thing is different from its own similar), it cannot be that very same first one, for the sake of which it came to be.

He says that “form” is that which displays the identity of the limbs in the character of the shape of each one.

^D The saying of the prophet Ezekiel concerning the resurrection of the dead, which Origen interpreted allegorically and forcibly twisted to refer to the return of the Israelites led captive to Babylon—refuting this after much discussion, the holy man says: For neither did they themselves attain to pure liberty, nor, having overcome their enemies, did they dwell in Jerusalem with greater authority. For they were hindered by the gentiles whenever they wished to build the temple; whence, in fact, they were barely able to complete it in forty-six years, whereas Solomon had raised it from the very foundations in seven years—

^A And what need is there of words? From Nebuchadnezzar and his successors in Babylon down to the expedition of the Persians against the Assyrians, and the empire of Alexander, and the war which finally broke out with the Romans, Jerusalem was destroyed six times by the enemy. And Josephus, who says, "In the second year of the emperor Vespasian, having already been captured five times before, Jerusalem was cut off again," bears witness to this. For Asochaeus, the king of the Egyptians, and his successor Antiochus, then Pompey, and after them Sosius with Herod, burned the city once it was captured. Before these, however, the king of the Babylonians had laid it waste after capturing it.

^B Furthermore, Origen says these things: Concerning Lazarus and the rich man, there is room for doubt; some, indeed, simplifying the matter, think these things were said as if both of them, having assumed their bodies, received the rewards worthy of their deeds in life; others, more subtly, since no one is left in the life of this world after the resurrection, do not think these things happened at the resurrection. For the rich man says: "I have five brothers, that they may not come to this place of torment; send Lazarus, that he may announce to them the things here." And they seek, therefore, through these words, the tongue and the finger and the bosom of Abraham, and the voice of appeal, and perhaps that figure or form immediately upon the departure of the soul, similar to the dense and earthy body. The matter can be understood thus: if ever anyone is reported to have appeared from the dead, he is seen in the similar form which he possessed in the flesh. Then Samuel, appearing, as is manifest, proves himself to be viewable, as if he were clothed in a body. ^C If we are strictly urged by demonstrations to confess that the nature of the soul is incorporeal, such a demonstration is seen. But both the punished rich man and the pauper resting in the bosom of Abraham before the advent of the Savior, and before the consummation of the age, and therefore before the resurrection, while they are spoken of—the one as being punished in Hades, the other as resting in the bosom of Abraham—teach that even now, after the departure from life, the soul uses a body. To this, the holy man responds that the soul, after its emigration from this life, possesses another configuration, visual and similar to this sensible one; he defines the soul, having professed it to be incorporeal, according to a nearly Platonic method. For while he says that after the departure from this life it is in need of a vehicle and garment, because when naked it cannot be grasped or held, how, therefore, would it not be of itself incorporeal? ^D But since it is incorporeal, how will it not be free from passions or pains? For it follows that if it is incorporeal, it should be impassible and undisturbed. If, therefore, [it was not touched] by any irrational concupiscence by any reason, nor [was it the patient] of a suffering body...

(for an incorporeal thing could never suffer with a body, nor a body with an incorporeal thing), it would consistently ^A follow from what has been said that it ought to be considered incorporeal. But if it suffers with the body, just as is proven by the corroboration of phenomena, it cannot be incorporeal. The nature of God alone, then, is proclaimed as unbegotten, needing nothing, and tireless; because He is incorporeal, He is therefore invisible; for no one has seen God. But the souls, created by the Creator and Father of all as rational bodies, have been adorned into limbs perceivable by reason, having taken on this configuration. Whence even in Hades, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man, they are reported to have a tongue and a finger and other limbs, not because another formless body coexists with them, but because the souls themselves, stripped of every covering, ^B are by their own nature such according to their substance.

The holy man adds at the end that the saying, "To this end Christ died, that He might have dominion both over the living and the dead," (Rom. XIV, 9) must be understood of souls and bodies—of souls, indeed, as living, insofar as they are immortal, but of bodies, as dead.

If the human body is nobler than the bodies of all other animals, because it is said to have been fashioned by the very hands of God and has obtained a more excellent vehicle for the rational soul, how is this so short-lived, while the bodies of certain irrational animals are much longer-lived? It is clear, therefore, that its long-lived existence will be after the resurrection. ^C

CCXXXV. Excerpts from the book of Saint Methodius on those things which have been created.

I read in the summarized excerpts from the martyr and bishop Saint Methodius concerning those things which have been created.

"That the saying, 'Do not throw what is holy to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine' (Matt. VII, 6), designates as pearls the things in the Church which catch the more sacred mysteries of the divine religion; but [it designates as] swine those who are still wallowing in every kind of impiety and pleasure, like pigs in the mud (for he said it was said by Christ not to cast the divine teachings before them, because they are unable to bear them, being already occupied ^D by impiety and wild pleasures)."

^A Methodius the Great says: If one must interpret the "pearls" ^B as the venerable and divine teachings, and the "swine" as those who live in impiety and pleasures, to whom the apostolic proclamations that stir one toward piety and faith in Christ are neither comparable nor to be hidden, see how you say that no Christian was converted from his former impiety by the apostles' proclamations; for in no way would they have cast the mysteries concerning Christ to those who, because of their unbelief, resemble swine. If, then, these things were cast and proclaimed to all the Greeks and other unbelievers by Christ’s disciples, and converted them from impiety to faith in Christ (as we who believe confess), then it can no longer be understood that "Do not cast your pearls before swine," as it was said, implies that it is necessary for us to declare that not one of those unbelievers—whom we compare to swine—has received faith in Christ and freedom from impiety through the apostolic teachings that enlighten souls like pearls. But this is blasphemous to say. Therefore, "pearls" must not be interpreted in this passage as the more mystical teachings, nor "swine" as the impious; nor is the saying, "Do not cast your pearls before swine," to be explained as "Do not cast the divine and faith-perfecting teachings of the Christian faith before the impious and the unbelieving." But "pearls" must be understood as the virtues, by which the soul is adorned as with precious gems; and they are not to be cast before the swine—that is, those virtues, such as chastity, temperance, justice, and truth, are not to be cast before impure pleasures (for these are what resemble swine), lest these pleasures devour the virtues and cause the soul to live a swinish and passion-filled life.

^C Origen, whom he calls a Centaur, asserted that the entire universe [that which is created] is coeternal ^D with the only wise and self-sufficient God. For he said, "If there is no craftsman without craft, or poet without poems, nor a ruler without subjects (for it is necessary that the craftsman be named from the craft, the poet from the poems, and the ruler from those being ruled), it is necessary that created things were made by God from the beginning, and that there is no time when they did not exist." For if there was a time when the things created were not, since when the things created do not exist, neither is there a creator, see what an impious consequence follows! But it would also follow that the immutable and unchangeable God is altered and changed. For if He created everything later, it is evident that He changed from not creating to creating.

^A This is absurd, given what has been said before. It cannot, therefore, be said that the universe is not without beginning and coeternal with God.

To this, another person answers by way of questioning, through a conversation or dialogue: "Do you not consider God to be the beginning and fount of wisdom, glory, and simultaneously all virtue, essentially and not accidentally?" "Indeed," he says, "but what does this have to do with the matter?" "Is He not absolutely perfect through Himself and needing nothing?" "That is so." "For it is impossible for that which needs ^B nothing to be in need of anything for the sake of something else; it is, I say, impossible. For whatever is perfect for the sake of something else must be called imperfect. Only that which is its own perfection for its own sake, and remains in itself, is to be judged perfect, is it not?" "You judge very truly. But as for that which is neither perfect through itself nor by itself in its own perfection, would you call it 'needing nothing'?" "By no means. Therefore God will not be thought perfect because of something else." "For is it not necessary that what is perfect because of something else be, in itself, imperfect?" "It is necessary." "Therefore is God Himself not to be judged perfect because of Himself and not because of another?" "Most correctly." "Is God then one thing, and the world of God another?" "Entirely." "God is not, therefore, to be called perfect as creator and omnipotent ^C because of the world?" "By no means, neither because of the world, especially a mutable one, nor because of anything else [rather, let Him be called perfect according to Himself], and rightly so. Wherefore, is not a rich man called rich because of his riches?" "Correct." "And is one who is wise by participation in essential wisdom, who is not wisdom itself, to be called wise?" "Indeed." "What then? Is God, being other than the world, to be called rich, benefactor, and creator on account of the world in this way?" "By no means, away with the thought. Therefore, is He not Himself His own wealth, and is He not rich and powerful through Himself?" "It seems so." "Was He then, even before the crafting of the world, generally in need of nothing, being indeed Father and omnipotent and creator, in such a way that He is all these things because of Himself and not because of another?" "It is necessary." "For if He were understood to be omnipotent and creator on account of the world, and not because of Himself, being other than the world (I beg your pardon, O God, for I am forced to speak this way), He would be imperfect in Himself and in need of those things for the sake of which He is omnipotent and creator—and this is supernatural. Therefore we must reject the pernicious error of those who say of God that He is not omnipotent and creator because of Himself, but because of ^D the subject and created things, which are mutable."

Consider also this: "If," you said, "the world was created later, and was not previously in existence, it is necessary that the impassible and unchangeable God be changed; for it is necessary that He who previously did nothing, later changed from not-creating to creating." For they said: "Has God ceased from creating the world, or not?" "He has ceased. Otherwise, He would not yet be perfect." "True. If, therefore, to create from not creating is to be called change...

^A, does not also not to create from not creating? It is necessary. And would you say that He is changed by not creating today compared to when He was creating? By no means. Therefore, it is not necessary that He was changed when He was creating the world compared to when He was not creating; and one must not say that the universe co-exists with Him by necessity, for one is not compelled to say that He is changed, nor that it is co-eternal with Him for this very reason.

And tell me also this: "Would you say that something generated has no beginning of generation?" Certainly not; for if it does not fall under a beginning of generation, it is by necessity ungenerated. But if it has been generated, you concede that it has come to be by some cause; for is it absolutely impossible for generation to exist without a cause? Impossible. Shall we say, therefore, that the world, and all that is in it, came to be later by another than God creating it, while previously it was not? It is clear that it was by God. For is it impossible for that which is circumscribed by a beginning of generation to be co-infinite with the infinite? Impossible.

Therefore again, O Centaur, let us discourse from the beginning. Do you affirm that existing things came to exist by divine knowledge, or not? "They will say, ^B by no means, but from the elements, or matter, or foundations, or whatever words you wish to name these, for it makes no difference. With these pre-existing ungeneratedly and wandering about haphazardly, God, separating them, fashioned all things, just as an excellent painter expresses one idea or image from many colors." Nor will they say this. For they will utterly flee from testifying this against themselves, lest, by granting that matter had a beginning of separation and transformation, they be forced by logic to confess that God began to thoroughly digest and polish the matter, which was previously undigested or formless.

Come then, since by God’s help we have arrived at this point in the argument, suppose there were a statue placed upon its base, beautiful, whose well-proportioned symmetry the viewers admire, but who disagree among themselves and attempt to prove that it is partly generated ^C [made], and partly ingenite [not made]; I would ask you for what cause you say it is ingenite, whether on account of the craftsman, so that he may not be thought to be ever idle from his work, or on account of the thing itself? For if on account of the craftsman, how will it be ingenite when it is shaped by an artisan? For if, being utterly devoid of all art and crude, it is fashioned into whatever form or figure the artisan wishes, how will it be ingenite, having suffered and been handled by [a hand]? But if, on the other hand, it is perfect and ingenite on account of itself ^D

it must be said, according to your pernicious opinion, that it stands in no need of art, and it is necessary to confess that the statue was made by itself [as if by nature]. But perhaps, not wishing to accept this line of reasoning, they will answer more bitingly, saying that the statue is not ingenite, but that it is generate, yet always lacking a beginning of generation, so that the artisan might be spoken of as existing without beginning, superior to the artifact. Come then, O you men, we shall say to them, if neither time nor age can be found backward, when the statue was not perfect, what did the artisan provide for it, or what did he perform upon it? Tell us. For if it happens to be, of itself, in need of nothing and possesses no beginning of generation, then, according to you, the Creator will be found to have never created nor to be a creator. And again, the argument seems to have run back to the same point: to be compelled to confess automatism. For if the Creator is said to have set the ^B even the most instantaneous statue in motion, he will fall under a principle, according to which he formerly began to move and adorn it while it was yet unadorned and motionless [497 H.]. Therefore, the same world both was and will be perpetually the same; for the artisan must be compared to God, and the statue to the world. How then, O most stupid ones, do you think that the creation, being co-extensive with the Creator, stands in no need of the Creator? For that which is co-extensive, having no beginning of generation whatsoever, must necessarily be both co-ingenite and equal in power. But that which is ingenite, having manifested itself as self-sufficient and immutable, will also be in need of nothing and incorruptible. And if this is how things stand, the world, according to you, will no longer be mutable.

That the Church is so named from the calling away of pleasures (that is, the uprooting of them)

The holy man says: We affirmed in what was said above that there are two creative powers: one which, out of things that do not exist, by mere will, without delay or division of parts, produces whatever it wishes as soon as it wills; and this is the Father. The other, which perfects, varies, and adorns according to the idea of the former power what has already been made; and this is the Son, the omnipotent and mighty hand of the Father, in which, after creating the matter out of nothing, he adorns it.

That the book of Job is, according to the holy man, by Moses.

He teaches further concerning the words, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1, 1). He says that one would not be wrong to call this beginning Wisdom. For it is said by one of the divine choir that she speaks of herself in this way: "The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works; before the age he established me" (Prov. 8, 22). For it was consistent and more becoming that all things that came into generation should be newer than this, since they were also made through her. Consider, moreover, if the statement, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," according to the evangelist, and "the Word ^D was God; this was in the beginning with God" (John 1, 1-2), does not follow this?

^A For one must confess the beginning from which the most upright Word sprouted forth to be the Father and Creator of all, in whom it was; and the fact that "This was in the beginning with God" seems to signify the authoritative power of the Word, which He possessed with the Father even before the world came into being, calling the power a beginning. Therefore, after the Father, who is His own unoriginate beginning, the Word himself becomes the beginning of other things, through whom all things are created.

That Origen, after having invented many myths about the eternity of the universe, also adds this: "Therefore, neither did man, as some affirm—as if he were not before—come into the world only then, when he was first formed; nor, again, did the world begin to be created before the six days preceding the creation of Adam." If anyone desires to look into these matters, let him first consider whether, according to Moses, a day is not easy to count for those who interpret Moses in this way, with the prophetic voice also proclaiming here: "From everlasting and to everlasting thou art, for a thousand years in thy sight are as yesterday, which is passed, and as a watch in the night" (Ps. LXXXIX, 2, 4). For a thousand years being confined to a single day in the eyes of God, from the creation of the world down to our rest ^B (86), the best masters of calculation affirm that six days have passed. They say, moreover, that the six-thousandth year extends from Adam to us. Therefore, from us back to the beginning in which God created the heaven and the earth, thirteen days are counted (for they say the judgment will take place in the seventh millennium of the world), during which God—to use your own mad language—did nothing at all, nor created anything, and was deprived of the name of Father and Creator. But if there are thirteen days in the eyes of God from the creation of the world, how does Wisdom in Jesus Sirach say: "The sand of the sea, and the drops of rain, and the days of the world, who can number?" (Eccles. 1, 2) These things Origen says while being serious, and see how he trifles.

CCXXXVI. Of the same, On Free Will.

^C I read some things of the same author from the book *On Free Will*, and likewise (having myself obtained a compendium of this kind) [investigating] whence evils are, and who is their author. For God is not their author; since He does not delight in evils, but even abominates those who do them. Wherefore, I judged that something exists with God which they call matter, out of which He created all things, and out of which it seems to me that evils exist (87-88). For since matter was formless and without any figure, and moreover was wandering at random, He did not allow it to be entirely carried about by chance in that way, but ^D

^A A began to perfect it, and willed to separate the best from the worst. Therefore, He labored at those things which were suitable for God to create. But whatever matters were, so to speak, dregs, these, being inept for creation, He left as they were; from which it seems to me that evils have flowed.

So much for him; but he [the author] argues against him [Methodius]: "That it is impossible for two things to be uncreated at the same time, I do not suppose even you are ignorant. For it must be said that they are either united or separated. If one were to say they are united, there would be one uncreated thing; for each part of these would be similar to the other, for parts equal to one another are one uncreated thing, and they will not be 'uncreated things,' nor do we divide a man, consisting of many parts, into many created things. ^B But if one should say they are divided or separated, there must be something in between both, which demonstrates their separation. But if this [middle] is the same as one of the two, it is united with it, and again it will be necessary to seek either a conjunction or a separation of the one from the other. For it is impossible to see a union if one is the same as the other and is conceded to be united. For thus, even that which was conceded to have been from the beginning the same as it would be united. But if reason teaches that they were separated, again it must be sought through what it was separated, until a supply of an infinite number of uncreated things occurs to us.

"But if anyone should also hold a third opinion, that is, that God was neither separated from matter, nor again united as if in a part, but that God is in matter as if in a place, ^C and matter is in God, let him understand that if we say that matter is the place of God, it will of necessity also be circumscribed by matter, as if included in a place, and will be carried around at random together with matter. For by that being moved at random in which it is, it is necessary that what is in it is also moved together with it. Did God occupy the whole of matter, or only a part of it? If only a part, then He was smaller than it, inasmuch as He was wholly circumscribed by only a part of it; if the whole, how did He create it? For it is necessary for us to say that God was in some way retracted into Himself, so that by a contraction having been made, He might create that part from which He retracted Himself; or that He created it together with matter, when He had no place into which He might meanwhile withdraw. ^D But if anyone asserts that matter was in God, it must be asked whether God was divided from Himself in place, and as animals are in the air, with it being divided, a place was made for those things that are formed in it? Or as water in earth? For if it is as in the air, we are compelled to assert that God is divisible; but if as water in the earth, since matter was formless and disorganized, and moreover contained evils, it is necessary to say that God is the author of these disorganized and evil things. And observe how, by positing matter so that you might not say that God is the maker of evils, you make Him the receptacle of evils."

^A Speak also in this way: "Do you therefore assert that unformed matter co-existed with God, from which He created the generation of the world?" "So it seems to me." "If, then, the matter was unformed, but the world was created by God, and qualities are in the world, did God become the creator of the qualities?" "It is so." Since it also seems to you that it is impossible for anything to come into being from nothing, answer the question: "Does it seem to you that the qualities of the world were not made from underlying qualities?" "It seems so." "And that they exist as something else distinct from the substances?" "It is so." "If, then, God created the qualities neither from underlying qualities, nor do they exist from substances—since they are not themselves substances—it is necessary to say that they were brought into being by God from things that do not exist. It is therefore superfluous to maintain that nothing is made by God from nothing.

But let the argument regarding this be as follows. For even among ourselves we see things being made by men from nothing; let us take the example of architects, for instance. ^B For they build cities not from cities, and temples not from temples. But if, because substances are underlying them, you think that these things are made by them from existing materials, you are deceived in your reasoning. For it is not the substance that builds the city or the temples, but the art which is concerned with the substance; and this art is not produced from some underlying art that exists within the substances, but comes into existence from that which does not exist in them. But I think you will counter this argument by saying that the craftsman produces the work through the art that is in the substance. To this I reply that not even in the human being does it come into existence from any underlying art. For it is not possible for the substance of itself to provide the art; for the art is one of the accidents, and it has its being only when it comes to be in some substance. For the human being will exist even without the architectural art, but the art will not exist unless the human being ^C first exists. Whence it is necessary to say that the arts are naturally destined to come into existence in human beings from what does not exist. If, therefore, we have shown that this is the case with human beings, how is it not fitting to say that God is able to create not only qualities from what does not exist, but also substances? For since it appears possible that something comes to be from nothing, it is shown that substances also can come to be from nothing.

Again, one must debate the matter of evils. Do evils seem to you to be substances, or qualities of substances? "Qualities." Was matter without qualities, and unformed? "It is so." Then these names are linked to the substance from things that happen to it. For murder is not a substance, nor is any other of the evils, but they are named from their operations. For the human being is not murder, but by having performed this, he is termed a murderer, though he is not himself murder; ^D nor, to speak concisely, is the substance of anything else among the evils [an evil], but it is able to be called evil by the doing of some evil. Similarly, conceive if you happen to imagine anything else in your mind that is a cause of evils for men: just as that evil is, [it is so] in the performing and the providing by these men of the doing of evil.

^A For he himself is also called evil ^B from the things he does; for this reason he is said to be evil, because he is the creator of evils. But what anyone does is not he himself, but his operation, from which he receives the name of being called evil. For if we were to say that he is what he does, and he does murders and adulteries and things of that sort, he would be these things; but if he is these things, he possesses his existence when they happen. And when they do not happen, he ceases to be. These things happen through men. Therefore, men will be the creators of these things, and the causes of their existence and their no longer existing. [945] ^B But if by the things from which each one acts he exists as evil, and the things that he acts upon receive a beginning of existence, he too began to be evil, and these evils also began. If it is so, no one is evil without beginning, nor are evils unbegotten. But it seems to me, my friend, that you have done well to conduct the present argument against the other person. For from where he previously assumed the foundations of the discourse, from those you have well concluded. In truth, for if matter happened to be without quality, and God was the creator of qualities, and evils are qualities, then God is the creator of evils. But it seems false to me to say that matter is without quality; for it is not possible to speak of any substance as being without quality. ^C Moreover, in the very fact that he calls it "without quality," he indicates its quality, by describing what kind of matter it is, which is a species of quality. Hence, if it pleases you, begin the discourse from above. For to me, matter seems to have qualities without beginning; for thus I also say that evils are from its outflow. My friend, if matter were without quality from the beginning, of what would God be the creator? For whether we say of substances, we claim they pre-existed; or again of quality, we say they also existed. Therefore, it seems superfluous to me to call God the creator of both substances and qualities. But answer me when asked: in what way do you say God is the creator, whether because those substances which were once [something], he turned into non-existence, ^D or because he preserved the substances, but changed their qualities? To me it seems that no change of substances has occurred, but only of qualities, for which reason we assert that God is the creator; and just as if one were to say that a house has been made from stones, concerning which it is not possible to say that the stones no longer remain in their substance (for by the quality of the composition I say the house has been made), so also it seems to me that God, while the substance remains, has made a certain change of its qualities, according to which I say that the generation of this world has been brought about by God. Do you also believe that evils are qualities of substances? I do. Were those qualities from eternity,

^A in the matter, or did they have a beginning of existence? I believe these qualities have been with matter from eternity. But do you not say that God has made some change in the qualities? I say so. For the better? It seems so. Therefore, if the qualities of matter are numbered among evils, and God turned its qualities for the better, it is necessary to seek whence evils arise. For either all of them, being evil, were turned for the better; or some were evil and others were not, and the evil ones were not turned for the better, while the rest, whatever they were, being advantageous, were turned by God for the sake of ornamentation. Thus I have held from the beginning. Why, then, do you say that they left the qualities of wicked things as they were? Are you saying He was able to remove them but did not wish to, or He wished to but was unable? For if you say He was able but did not wish to, you make Him the cause of these evils, because, being able to cause them not to be evil, He permitted them to remain as they were, and especially ^B when He began to fashion the matter. For if He did not care at all for the matter, He would not be the cause of what He permitted to remain; but since He fashions one part of it and leaves another part, being able to turn that also for the better, He seems to me the cause of the evils, having left a part of the matter evil to the destruction of the part He fashioned. Moreover, it seems to me that the greatest injury has been done to this part by this action, which He prepared as a part of the matter receiving [effects] from evils. For before it was fashioned [948 R.], being altogether insensitive to evils, they were present to it; but now each of its parts receives a sense of evils. And take the example of man for me. For before he becomes a living being, he is insensitive to evils; but from the moment he is fashioned by God as a human being, he then also receives the sensation of the encroaching evil. And this, which you say happened for the benefit of the matter by God, is found rather to have come upon it for the worse. But if you say that God could not remove the evils [502 H.], and this inability is either ^C because He is weak by nature or because He is enslaved by being overcome by fear of someone stronger, see which of these you would wish to attribute to the omnipotent and good God.

But again, answer concerning matter: is matter something simple or composite? For if matter was something simple and uniform, but the world is composite and consists of diverse substances, it is impossible to say that this was made from matter, in that composite things cannot have their constitution from a single formless substance; for a composite thing indicates a mixing of certain simple things. But if, again, you say that matter is something composite, it must have been composed from simple things, and formerly these simple things were separate, from which ^D when put together matter was made; and composite things have their constitution from simple things. Is there a time when matter did not exist,

that is, before the simple things were brought together? But if there was ever a time when matter did not exist, and there was never a time when the unbegotten did not exist, then matter will not be unbegotten; and from that it will follow that there are many unbegotten things. For if God was unbegotten, and the simple things ^A from which matter was composed were also unbegotten, then there will not be two, and only two, unbegotten things—to say nothing of the need to inquire what the simple things themselves are, whether matter or form; for many absurdities would follow in this way as well.

Does it seem to you that nothing of the things that exist is contrary to itself? It does. But is water contrary to fire, and darkness to light, and the hot to the cold, and the moist to the dry? So it seems to me. If, therefore, nothing that exists is contrary to itself, but these things are contrary to one another ^B, they will not be one matter, nor will they exist from one matter.

Again, I wish to ask: does it seem to you that parts are not destructive of one another? It does. And do you consider fire and water, and likewise the rest, to be parts of matter? I do. What then? Does it not seem to you that water is destructive of fire, and light of darkness, and all the rest that are similar to these? It does. If, then, the parts are not destructive of one another, but these things happen to be destructive, they will not, therefore, be parts of one another; and if they are not parts of one another, they will not be of one matter. Indeed, they will not even be matter, since nothing that exists is destructive of its own self. Thus, given that the contraries behave in this way, it is proven that matter does not exist.

As for matter, this suffices; ^C but we must proceed to the examination of evils, and necessarily inquire into the evils among men. Are the evils among men species of evil, or are they parts? For if they are species, then evil itself, outside of these, will not exist, because genera are searched for and exist in the species. If this is so, then evil will be generated; for species are proven to be generated, such as murder, adultery, and things similar to these. But if you wish these to be parts of some evil, and these are generated, then it must necessarily be that the whole is also generated. For if the parts of things are generated, these things of necessity are likewise generated; for the whole consists of parts. And the whole will not exist if the parts do not exist, ^D but some of the parts will exist, even if the whole is not present. And in no existing thing is one part generated and another part unbegotten. But if I were to concede this to the argument—that evil existed at one time, when it was not complete, that is, before God created matter—then it became complete when man was created by God; for man is the author of the parts of evil. Hence

he will be the author, ^A seeing that God created it, which is impious. If, however, you say that neither of these is evil, but you assert that it is the work of some evil, then you teach that it itself is generated. For any work whatsoever possesses a beginning of its existence. In addition to these things, you can assign no other evil besides these; for what other evil work, besides that which is among men, can you point out? For it has already been shown that the one who performs [an act] is not evil according to the principle of essence, but according to the very operation of evil.

Methodiue says that by nature nothing is evil, but that things become evil by use.

Methodius says, I say that man was made with free will, not as if some evil already existed beforehand, for the choice of which he might have had the power, if he so wished; but the only cause was that of obeying God or not obeying. For this was then in his own power: man, created by God, receives a commandment, and from this moment evil begins. ^B For he does not obey the divine command. And this, and this alone, was evil, disobedience, which began to exist there.

CCXXXVII.

Excerpta from the book of Saint Methodius On Chastity.

I have read similarly certain things from the same book On Chastity, as they are published in a similar summary. First, he says, Abraham, when he received the law of circumcision in the testament, seems to insinuate nothing else by circumcising the member of his own flesh than this: that the procreation of children is no longer to be established in flesh created from the same blood; teaching each one, after the example of his sister, in what way the pleasure of the flesh in intercourse is to be cut off.

I seem to myself, he says moreover, to have clearly observed from the Sacred Scriptures, that by the institution of virginity, the generation of children has not been entirely removed by the Word. For just because the moon is greater than the stars ^C does not mean that the light of the other heavenly bodies is extinguished; nor, because honey is sweeter and more pleasant than other foods, should the others be considered bitter or unpleasant.

That [saying]: *Children of adulterers are imperfect* [Wis. III, 16], he says is spoken regarding those who adulterate the truth, who are false-wise, corrupting the Scriptures, and producing an immature wisdom, and who, under the appearance of piety, teach errors. Otherwise [this saying] cannot be understood; for it cannot be accepted regarding children not being born from adultery and brought forth into this sensible light: because not only were many born [of adultery], but they also, being born from adultery, have brought forth others. ^D

spiritually and divinely fulfilled; for the children of many adulterers were made full ^A of the Holy Spirit.

He poses a question, saying: "If souls are given by God, and not by the father to those who are born, how does He give them even to those born of adultery? For if He gives them, He would seem to cooperate with those committing adultery; for if He did not grant the soul, they would not be born." He solves the difficulty through many and clear examples.

That the things brought forward from Genesis—such as, "This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of her man; for this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they shall be two into one flesh"—ought not, he says, be understood only according to the letter, but also spiritually, regarding Christ and the Church. And he says that also the divine Paul, after the exposition of these words, says, "This mystery ^B is great; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church." And he says that "Increase and multiply" was not spoken only of humans procreated from the mingling of seed and growing by food, but also of those being perfected and born according to the Spirit, just as Paul cries out, calling those who were thus born through him his children: "My little children," he says, "of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you," and again, "For in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel."

That the text ^C in the Gospels spoken parabolically—"What man is there of you, who has a hundred sheep, and has lost one of them," and what follows—one ought to understand the ninety-nine sheep as the heavenly powers or angels; but the one that was lost signifies man, or human nature, for whose sake the Word of the Father also descended from heaven.

That the phrase, "By the rivers of Babylon," and what follows, the souls, he says, speak; for they call their bodies "instruments," which they hung up after they had detached them from the cords of chastity, so that they might not be able, being snatched away, to be dragged along again by the current of incontinence. For Babylon, being interpreted as disturbance or confusion, signifies this life tossed by waves, in the midst of which we are seated, being flooded by the rushing rivers of iniquity. Wherefore we cry aloud with tears and groaning to God, that our instruments, having been torn away by the waves of pleasure, might not perish from the plant of chastity. For throughout the Scriptures, they adopt the willow as a figure of virginity; because if the flower of the willows is boiled in water and taken, it extinguishes whatever arouses and excites towards coitus and lust.

until it makes the genital seed completely sterile, just as Homer also declared, who on this account called the willows "frugiperdas" (fruit-destroying). ^A

On the passage of Jeremiah: That a bride should be solicitous, lest she forget her ornament, and a virgin her breast-band

"Take for me a heifer of three years, and a goat of three years, and a ram of three years, and a turtledove, and a pigeon," it says, signifies this: Bring to me your soul, free from the yoke and innocent, like a heifer; and the body and the reason: the body indeed like a goat, because it walks through high rocks and precipices; but the reason like a ram, so that, in no way leaping aside, it may slip away from the truth. For thus you will be blameless, as was Abraham, if you consecrate to me the soul and the senses and the mind, which it figuratively calls a heifer and a goat and a ram of three years, as if raising up the best knowledge of the Trinity. ^C Perhaps also it insinuates the first, the middle, and the last age of our life, as He wishes us to offer to Him, with equal piety, the years of childhood, and of virile age, and of old age. In which manner also the Lord commands us in the Gospels: "Wherefore also you are like unto men who wait for their lord, when he shall return from the weddings, that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open to him immediately. Blessed are you, because he shall make you sit down, and passing will minister unto you. And if in the second, and in the third, you are blessed."

Consider indeed that by positing three watches, the evening, and the second, and the third, He also signified the three changes of age: youth, virile age, and old age; because He wishes that, when He comes to take up the world [in judgment], we should be found ready and pure, even if we are still lingering in childhood; similarly He indicates the second and the third watch. For the evening watch is the state of the flourishing human age, in which the command of reason begins to be agitated by perturbations of the passions; the second, however, is when the mind, proceeding thereafter into the perfect man, begins to be occupied by the perpetual tumults of affairs. But the third is when the infinite images of the passions, with the body now wasting away and verging into old age, gradually fail. Wherefore the eternal lamp of faith in the heart ^D

^A must be nurtured, and the loins must be girded with temperance, and one must be watchful, and our Lord must always be expected.

"Strong drink," he says, is whatever, apart from wine pressed from the vine, produces drunkenness.

He says that two kinds of vines are set forth in Scripture: the one very good, the other very bad. For the Lord says, "I am the true vine, you are the branches." And the bad and wild one is the devil, distilling madness, just as Moses, writing concerning him, says: "For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and their vine-shoot is of Gomorrah," and what follows.

He teaches that gold is not liable to rust.

He says that the expression, "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto ten virgins," ^B wishes to signify that all have taken up the same manner of life or pursuit, on account of the significance and power of the elementary letter Iota, which stands for ten. For they adorned themselves with a similar guise, so that all might profess the same manner of life, yet they did not all go out in the same way to meet the Bridegroom. For the former provided abundant sustenance for their lamps to be nurtured with oil, but the latter became slothful. Hence they are divided into equal numbers of five, because there are five senses, which the former kept pure—which most have called the gates of wisdom—but the latter, on the contrary, deformed through malice. For while they cultivated temperance and were sanctified, they abounded ^C more in vices than in righteousness or virtues, whence it came to pass that they were condemned; for whether we act rightly or commit sin, it is through these [senses] that both well-doing and evil deeds are reinforced. And just as the virgin says that there is a continence of the eyes, and of the ears, and of the tongue, and of the remaining senses in succession, so those who here guard the unassailable faith of the five paths of virtue—namely, sight, taste, smell, touch, and hearing—are called the five virgins, because they present to Christ the images of the five senses pure, (each one [of the images of the senses] acting like a lamp, shining clearly with holiness). For our body is truly a five-lighted lamp, which the soul carries about like a torch and presents to Christ the ^D Bridegroom, appearing on the day of the resurrection, and diffusing the most brilliant rays of faith through all the senses, just as Christ Himself taught when He said: "I came to cast fire upon the earth, and what do I wish if it has already been kindled?"—describing our earth as the tabernacles, into which...

^A He desired for the quick-moving and fervent operation of His teaching to be kindled—(for oil is to be compared to righteousness and wisdom). He calls the interval of time before the coming of Christ the delay, and the departure from this life the sleep and slumber of the Virgin; and the kingdom of the Antichrist the midnight, during which night the destroying angel enters the houses. But the clamor that says: "Behold, the bridegroom is coming; go out to meet him" [d] signifies the voice from heaven and the trumpet, when all, as their own bodies rise again, will be caught up on the clouds to meet the Lord [e].

Since He had said many things about the virgins and chaste souls, He adds this also. ^B Truly, the Word calls only these souls His elect Bride, while He calls the others concubines, young women, and daughters, saying thus: "There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and young women without number. One is my dove, my perfect one; she is the only one to her mother, she is the choice one to her that bore her" [f]. "The daughters saw her, and they will call her blessed, the queens and the concubines will praise her." For while it is evident that the daughters of the Church are many, yet one alone is the elect and most precious in His eyes above all, namely, the order of virgins. But the prophecy wishes to intimate queens, because these queens were not brought to one king, but each was as a mistress and queen in her own right, and authors and leaders of others after them. By those royal ones, He means the souls that lived before the flood and were pleasing to God, that is, those around Abel, Seth, and Enoch. ^C But by the concubines who were after the flood, He means the souls of the prophets, with whom, before the Church was betrothed to God, He consorted as with concubines, submitting oracles in copious and sincere doctrine of wisdom, so that they might grasp the faith of salvation. The Word named the souls of the prophets concubines because He did not unite them to Himself openly as the Church, sacrificing for her the fatted calf. From this, I think, He called those from Adam the first-formed until Noah who were pleasing to God by succession the sixty queens, because these stood in no need of the precepts of others to acquire salvation, in that the construction of the world in six days was still recent to them. For they remembered that the world was completed by God in six days, and what things happened in ^D paradise. Hence, therefore, He called these souls, which from the creation of the world desired to please God by succession—and, if it is permitted so to speak, the granddaughters of the first age and neighbors to that great work of the six days—the sixty queens, because, as I said, they lived after the works of the six days. For those [saints] were affected with great honor, being deemed worthy of the conversation of angels and looking upon God, not through a dream, but through an open vision. Consider, therefore, how great

a confidence Seth had toward God, how great Abel had, how great Enoch had, how great Mathusala had, how great Noah had, being the first lovers of justice. And concerning these, enough has been said; we must speak again of the concubines.

To those who lived after the flood, the knowledge of God had receded somewhat further, and they were in need of another instruction, as idolatry was already creeping in. God, therefore, in order that the human race might not be wholly blotted out by an oblivion of what is good, commanded his own Son to instruct through the prophets ^A the future coming of himself into the world in the flesh, by which the joy and knowledge of the spiritual octave would be proclaimed, being productive of the remission of sins and of resurrection—for by it man was to be circumcised of his passions and his corruption. And for this reason he called those in the list of the prophets from Abraham onward "concubines," because of the embassy of circumcision which contains the number eight, upon which the law also depends; for before the bride, the Church, was betrothed to the Word, they, having received the divine seeds, announced beforehand the circumcision of the intelligible octave.

But the young women, again, who make up an innumerable throng, he calls the multitudes ^B who act righteously under their betters and strive youthfully and nobly against sin. But neither the queens nor the concubines are to be compared with the Church; for she is the perfect and chosen one, named above all others, which is composed and joined together from all, that of the apostles, the bride who surpasses all in the flower of her beauty and her virginity. And for this reason she is called blessed by the others, because she openly saw and heard those things ^C which they desired to see and hear and did not see or hear. "For blessed," says the Lord to the disciples, "are the eyes that see what you see. For I say to you that many prophets desired to see what you see, and did not see, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear." ^D Therefore, for this reason the prophets call her blessed, because the Church has attained to and been deemed worthy of that which they themselves could not attain.

One might also explain "the bride" in another way, and say that she is the undefiled flesh of the Lord, for whose sake he left the Father and descended hither, and was joined to it by becoming man. For this reason he also figuratively called her a dove, because it is a tame animal, dwelling under roofs, and delighting in human company. And in the forty-fourth Psalm: "Standing a queen on the right hand" (God taking the left to himself) "adorned with the golden vesture of virtue"; whose beauty the King desired, is that flesh, as I said, that undefiled and blessed one, which the Word carried with him into heaven and placed at the right hand of the Father, adorned in raiment of wrought gold,

^A which is, symbolically, the practices of incorruptibility.

(He says) that *parthenia* [virginity] is so called from the change of a single letter, as being the only thing that likens to God the one who contains its undefiled mysteries, than which no greater good can be found.

He says virtue received this appellation either for its own sake or because it lifts and raises souls to heaven.

He says that this also seems to accord with what has been said, namely, the oracle given from heaven by the Father to Christ in the Jordan: *You are my Son, today I have begotten you.* We must note that it declares him to be his Son indefinitely and timelessly. For he said "you are [my] Son," and did not say "[you have] become," declaring that he neither acquired this sonship newly or recently, nor that he who existed before had some end, but that he is always the same. But as for "Today I have begotten you," he says: I willed to generate in the world him who had existed already from before the ages in heaven—that is, to make known him who was previously unknown. Truly, to those who do not yet understand the multiform wisdom of God, Christ has not yet been born—that is, he has not yet been known, he has not yet been revealed.

^B He refers most of the sayings from the Apocalypse of Saint John to the Church and to virginal souls. Indeed, he interprets almost all that is said from elsewhere, and expounds them in this dialogue not according to the letter, but allegorically.

He refutes those who posit fate, with these words: If the stars contrive calamities and evil minds for mortals, being occupied with luxury and the inconstancy of life, then they are more miserable than men, because not only do they themselves desire evils, but they also compel men to do these things. Furthermore, if no action occurs without desire, and every desire is lacking the object of desire, and the Divine is in need of nothing, then it is incapable of wickedness. But the nature of the stars is placed closer to God, being better than the virtue of good men; therefore, the stars are free from wickedness and in need of nothing. To these arguments, to refute that genesis [astrological fate] produces anything, he says: This the law forbids; it punishes impostors and by threat proscribes the doctrine of the genethliacs: therefore, the law is contrary to genesis. For whatever the law prohibits, genesis defines; and whatever genesis compels to be done, the law forbids; therefore, the law is an enemy to genesis. And if it is an enemy, then the legislators are not legislators according to genesis. That is, they are not [governed by] genesis. ^D

For by decreeing things contrary to genesis, they destroy genesis. Either, therefore, genesis exists and there is no need for laws, or laws exist and they do not accord with genesis. But they say it is impossible for anyone to be born, or for anything to be done by anyone, without genesis; for they say it is not even possible to move a finger without fate. Therefore, were Minos, Rhadamanthus, Draco, Lycurgus, Solon, and Seleucus born according to genesis and as lawgivers they established laws which condemned thefts, murders, and things of that ^A kind, which they [the fatalists] decree occur according to genesis? This is impossible; for genesis itself would be destroyed by itself, invalidating itself; here it would be setting down laws forbidding adultery and other things, but there it would be committing the laws and the adulteries; for nothing is so strange as that it should be fighting against itself and hastening to destroy itself. Therefore, there is no genesis.

That he says, the virtue of temperance is better than the vice of intemperance, it is possible to learn from kings, from magistrates, from generals, from sons, from citizens, from servants, and from tutors. For each of these becomes useful to himself and to the common good when he is temperate, but when he is intemperate, he is harmful to himself and to the common good.

That he says, the Law is a pattern and a shadow of the image, that is, of the Gospel; ^B but the Gospel is the image of the truth itself, which will be in the second coming of the Lord.

That the statement in Leviticus regarding the Feast of Tabernacles relates to the future resurrection of men at the second coming of the Lord; for it interprets the tabernacle of each one as his body, and the seven days as a pattern of the seven ages, and explains other things analogically.

That he anagogically interprets what is stated in the Book of Judges: "The trees went forth to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, ‘Reign over us.’ And the olive tree said to them, ‘Shall I leave my fatness, which God and men have honored, and go to rule over the trees?’ And the trees said to ^C the fig tree, ‘Come, you, reign over us.’ And the fig tree said to them, ‘Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit and go to rule over the trees?’ And the trees said to the vine,” and they said to the bramble, and so on. For he says, it is clear that these things were not spoken about trees; but these things are recounted about souls which, having wallowed in sins before the incarnation of Christ, approach to ask that they might obtain mercy from God, and that now mercy and the bowels of compassion—which the Scripture expressed by the figure of the olive—might reign over them. And observe whether from the ^D protoplast until Chri-

Christ ^A the Scripture discloses the following series of legislation, by means of which the devil, through counter-mimicry, deceived the human race. And so, it likens the fig tree to the commandment given to man in paradise, since he, having been deceived, covered his nakedness with fig leaves; the vine to that which was given to Noah after the flood, because he was mocked while he slept through wine; the olive to that under Moses in the desert, because the prophetic gift—that holy oil—had failed them from their inheritance on account of their transgression; and the rhamnus to that given for the salvation of the world to the apostles, since through them we were taught chastity, a likeness to which the devil could not devise, however much he might deceive. ^B And for this reason, four Gospels were delivered, God having announced his incarnation four times and having instructed [humanity] with four laws, whose times are clearly indicated by the differences in their fruits. For the fig, on account of its sweetness and nourishment, represents the law given before the transgression of man; for there are times when the fruit of the fig is understood in Scripture in a better sense. The vine, on account of the cheerfulness from wine and the joy of those who were saved from the wrath and the flood, hints at their transformation from fear and anxiety into joy. The olive, on account of the fruit of the oil, signifies the inward mercy of God, in that God, after the flood, again bore with men who had turned to impiety, and deigned to give a law and appear to some. The rhamnus signifies chastity; for the same tree is both *rhamnus* and *agnos*, and perhaps it was called by these names because of the affinity of this plant to virginity—*rhamnus* from its firmness and endurance against pleasures, and *agnos* from [the habit of] remaining pure throughout. ^C Whence also they say that Elijah, fleeing from the face of the woman Jezebel, came first to the rhamnus and was heard and received food; for it is that to those fleeing the sting of the flesh, and the woman, and pleasure, the tree of chastity sprouted as a refuge and a covering, which, from the coming of Christ, the prince of virgins, held sway over men. For this single kingdom of chastity, of which they would never repent, men seized after the coming of Christ, whereas they had quickly shaken off from themselves the reins of the other individual kingdoms, to which laws had been given before the coming of Christ, and had preferred to obey and submit themselves to the contrary and false one. Although, often repenting, they sought again the royal empire of God's law and the restoration of their souls, which had been corrupted by vices. For, having been handed over to the hands of enemies and to shameful passions, they wished again to be ruled by the empire and commandments of God, so that they might be snatched from their infinite miseries and evils. But these kingdoms of laws, on account of the foul and incurable ^D wounds of their souls, could not...

rule them, until God, having for the fourth time felt compassion for man, sent chastity to rule—which the Scripture fittingly called the "bramble"—which, having consumed their pleasures, threatened that in the future, if all did not obey it and approach in truth, it would consume all by fire; for after this, there was to follow no other law or teaching, but only judgment and fire. ^B Henceforth, therefore, man began to practice righteousness, to hold fast to God through faith, and to separate himself from the devil.

On the dialogue entitled Symposium or On Chastity

What is meant by "in the image"

those who lead a solitary life, and for this reason seem to keep that "in the image," after they have perfected themselves above every human artifice and craftsmanship, would appear wretched if, by this very fact, they lost that "in the likeness." What, then, is this "in the likeness"? It is the store of virtues acquired through diligence. For although the angels possess virtue, they are not said to possess it through labor and industry, because they are not tempted by wickedness. But even if this were granted, that an effortless acquisition of virtues is allotted to the angels, either they also have this "in the image" to a greater degree by possessing it without labor and thus being more similar to God—or, if they do not, then the human being is far less able, since he obtains this, either with or before the possession of that image, after enduring many hardships and labors. ^B

CCXXXVIII. Flavii Josephi Antiquitatum Judaicarum libri [The Books of Flavius Josephus's Jewish Antiquities]

I read the Antiquities of Josephus, the Excerpts from which—those that narrate concerning Herod—describe the restoration of the temple, how he occupied the dominion over the Jews, how his line obtained the rule, how finally it turned into an aristocracy, with the high priests usurping the leadership, and other matters woven together with these. ^C

Josephus, toward the end of the fifteenth book of the Antiquities, reports that in the eighteenth year of Herod’s reign, the temple in Jerusalem was completed: the one which King Solomon had built, and which, having been destroyed, the captives returned from Babylon under the assistance of the Persian king Darius had again raised in forty-six years. He reports that this Herod, removing the ancient foundations and laying others in their place, made it twice as large as the former. For the temple that the captives had raised *surpassed in height the temple of Solomon* by certain measures. The temple of Herod contained one hundred cubits in length; its height was more than twenty, which measures even exceeded those, when, in the course of time, the foundations subsided—a matter which the Jews had also considered raising up again during the days of Nero. ^D Josephus reports that the temple was built by Herod in one year and six months, and the houses and monuments which were around it in eight whole years. The stones with which the temple was built were white and firm, each of them being twenty-five cubits in length, eight in height, and twelve in breadth; the work was completed through this industry. In this work, great diligence on Herod’s part shone forth: he first transported all the materials, and there were one thousand wagons accustomed to carrying the stones for him; there were ten thousand workmen, and one thousand priests who ministered in the inner sanctuaries. For he instructed them to build and to cut the wood, purchasing for all of them sacred vestments and equipment, willing...

^A to bring his purpose to completion more quickly than expected, and this won him great favor among the multitude who were, in all other respects, burdened by Herod. Once the temple was completed, Herod sacrificed three hundred oxen; as for how many the Jews sacrificed, it is impossible to estimate.

This Herod is the son of Antipater the Idumean and an Arabian woman (her name was Cypris), in whose reign Christ our God was born of a virgin womb for the salvation of our race. Against Him Herod raged and sinned; by slaughtering so many infants, it is said that he surpassed all tyrants before him in cruelty and murder. The beauty of his wife, Mariamne (she was the daughter of Alexandra, the child of the high priest Hyrcanus), was such that no ^B woman had ever been seen to equal her in her time. From this union were born two sons, Aristobulus and Alexander, who were on everyone's lips for their beauty, their grace in speech, and their physical prowess—possessing everything that befitted the sons of a king. Enraged by the slanders of Antipater, Herod became the executioner of them all: first of his wife, then of his sons, and finally of Antipater himself, a son from a previous marriage. Seized by a bitter disease (for the wretch was afflicted with intestinal ulceration, constant labored breathing, swelling of the feet from watery phlegm, severe colon pain, and the rotting of his genitals, which bred worms, and a myriad of other ailments), five days after the slaughter of his son Antipater, ^C he too ended his life, having lived in all seventy years, and having reigned for thirty-six of them. He reigned unlawfully and against his own expectation, through the zeal of Antony, the Roman general, who was corrupted by money, and by the recommendation of Augustus, with the decree for confirmation by the Roman senate.

Concerning this Herod, the first of the foreigners who reigned over the Jews against the law: his father was an Idumean by birth from the city of Ascalon, named Antipas, who was also called first Antipas, and then Antipater. This man, abounding in many riches, being in disposition factious and seditious, held enmity toward Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews, because he favored Aristobulus, the brother of Hyrcanus. Therefore, after many disturbances, he persuaded Hyrcanus by frequent harassment to seek again by all means the kingdom which his brother Aristobulus, with the other’s consent, had taken and held. ^D This discord between the brothers became the cause of great evils for them, for their kinsmen, and for the Jewish nation, and for the passing of the kingdom to foreigners. In this discord, Antipater appears to have done many things on behalf of Hyrcanus against Aristobulus. Finally, Aristobulus was led away captive with his children. Having escaped, he turned himself again to the affairs of the Jews; and being besieged again by the Romans with

his son Antigonus (for he happened to have fled with his father from Rome), he was captured and sent back to Rome, where he was kept in bonds, having reigned and served as high priest for three years and four months, having been an illustrious and magnanimous man during his rule. The high priesthood was given to ^A Hyrcanus, but no longer the kingship; rather, the nation was self-governing, though the ethnarch—a title he held in place of king—still possessed the authority given to him. Under the high priesthood of Hyrcanus, the power of Antipater increased significantly; for he fought alongside the Roman generals against those who resisted, and he handled the affairs of the Jews due to the tranquility and leniency of Hyrcanus. Julius Caesar, having released Aristobulus from his bonds, had decided to send him into Syria against the forces of Pompey. But those who favored the side of Pompey forestalled him and destroyed him with poison. And Scipio, at the instruction of Pompey regarding Alexander, the son of Aristobulus—accusing him of previous offenses against the Romans—put him to death by the axe.

After his victory over Pompey, Antipater was appointed by Julius Caesar as procurator of Judea. Having arrived there, he gave to his son Phasael the governorship of Jerusalem and its surroundings, and he appointed Herod, who was still very young—being only fifteen years old from his birth—as governor of Galilee, with his youth in no way hindering him from performing great and manly deeds. Doing these things, Antipater was honored by the nation no less than if he were king, yet he was in no way estranged in his loyalty and benevolence toward the high priest Hyrcanus. ^B Antipater ended a life that was altogether splendid and illustrious, being killed by secret poison when Malichus, the cupbearer, was bribed with money to drop the poison into his drink. This Malichus was a Jew, skilled in weaving plots, and when suspicion arose, he allayed it with oaths and a pretense of friendship. But nevertheless, having chanced upon Herod—who, it seems, was born with a temperament for such machinations, or perhaps was even more formidable—he was slain, pierced through with daggers, as a penalty exacted for the murder of his father.

Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, having bribed Fabius and Ptolemy son of Mennaeus on account of their kinship (for his sister had married him), and assisted by certain others, attempted to descend into Judea. But Herod engaged him in battle, defeated him, and drove him from the land of the Jews; and he was received in Jerusalem by Hyrcanus himself with ^C great honor for the victory he had achieved. Antonius, the Roman general, blinded by money, gave the tetrarchies of the Jews to Herod and his brother Phasael, with Hyrcanus not being at all indignant at this; but as the Herodians accused the people, there was nothing left for them but punishment

instead of receiving the things for which they accused them, as Antony had been corrupted by gold and Hyrcanus sided with the Herodians; for already Herod had betrothed Mariamne, the daughter’s daughter of Hyrcanus. ^A When Ptolemy son of Mennaeus had departed this life, his son Lysanias received the rule. And Pacorus, the king's son, and Bazapharmanes, the Parthian satrap, occupied Syria. Lysanias, having the satrap with him, entered into friendship with Antigonus son of Aristobulus; and Antigonus promised the Parthians he would give them a thousand talents and five hundred women, if they would restore his paternal rule, removing Hyrcanus and doing away with the Herodians. Therefore, Pacorus and Bazapharmanes brought back Antigonus, ^B and a war having been stirred up against them by the Herodians, many were slain on both sides, with Herod being especially renowned for his labors. Finally, Hyrcanus and Phasael were captured by treachery by the Parthians; and Phasael, having anticipated the slaughter of his enemies, put an end to his life by dashing his head against a rock, while Hyrcanus was held prisoner. And the Parthians, having finally taken Jerusalem—though Herod, with his excellence of mind, swiftness of judgment, and strength of hand, had scarcely escaped with his family—plundered the wealth of the Jerusalemites, except for that of Hyrcanus (which was eighty talents), and thus they installed Antigonus in the paternal rule. But Antigonus, so that Hyrcanus his uncle would not again take up the priesthood (for those who are mutilated in any part of their body are not fit for the priesthood among the Jews), cut off his ears and committed him to the Parthians to lead away with them.

Herod, however, was by no means quiet; but first he went to Malichus, the king of the Arabians, hoping to find assistance according to their paternal friendship; ^C but having been disappointed, he went to Brundisium to Antony, the Roman general, and thence was brought with him to Rome, lamenting what had occurred and the death of his brother. He had been planning to hand over the kingdom to the brother of his wife—the son of the daughter of Hyrcanus—if by any means he could; for it was altogether hopeless for it to come to him, being of foreign race. But Antony and Augustus, having taken the vote of the senate, proclaimed him King of the Jews, and having fought alongside him many times against Antigonus, after many slaughters and wars, they led Antigonus away a prisoner, Sosius, the Roman general, finally putting an end to this war, and they confirmed him all the more in his rule. ^D Antony the general, having taken the prisoner Antigonus, decided to keep him bound for the triumph; but having learned that the Jewish nation was hatching new plots out of their hatred for Herod, he had him beheaded at Antioch. But Hyrcanus, when he heard that Herod was reigning, implored King Phraates, and with Herod also requesting it, he was released to his homeland, hoping to obtain many things from Herod. But Herod showed him the appearance of benevolence and of the highest honor, but afterwards, accusing him of bribery and of treachery among the Arabians, he killed the man.

^A even though he had lived past his eightieth year with great and unspeakable mildness and lack of involvement in affairs. And he also caused Aristobulus—the grandson of Hyrcanus and brother of his wife Mariamne, at the insistence of Alexandra, the mother of the children, and Mariamne—to be created high priest at the age of seventeen. And then he ordered him to be suffocated in the swimming pool at Jericho. But Herod was such as he has already been described.

^B When Herod was dying, he appointed his son Archelaus to be the successor to the kingdom, with Caesar giving his consent. Caesar (who was Augustus) declared Archelaus lord of half the kingdom, and said that he would honor him with the title of king if he learned that he was governing his realm mildly and justly. The other part he divided, and appointed Philip and Antipas, who were also sons of Herod, as tetrarchs. But since Archelaus oppressed the Jews violently after the manner of his father, the people petitioned Caesar, and because of his tyranny, he fell from his kingdom in the tenth year, and was condemned to live in the city of Vienne in Gaul, and from that time Judea passed from a kingdom into a prefecture.

^C Herod the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, the son of Herod the Great, fell in love, as Josephus writes, with Herodias, the wife of his brother Herod; she herself was descended from Herod the Great, being born of his son Aristobulus, whom he had killed. She had a brother, Agrippa. This woman Herod took away from her husband and married. This is he who killed the great John the Forerunner, as Josephus says, for fear that he might stir up the people to sedition; for everyone, on account of the excellence of his virtue, followed the sayings of John. Under him the Savior also suffered.

^D Agrippa, the grandson of Herod the First and the son of Aristobulus who was killed, and the brother of Herodias, though he was subject to six hundred chances and changes, nevertheless obtained release from the custody and chains in which the dying Tiberius Caesar had left him bound; and by the providence of Gaius Caesar, he was named king of the tetrarchy of Philip (for he was this man's brother, the brother of the first Herod), and he also received the tetrarchy of Lysanius, and sailed to Judea, to the astonishment and wonder of all at the suddenness of the change. Among them, Herodias was also struck, receiving a mortal wound from envy, and she did not cease to trouble her husband until she compelled him to go to Rome and strive to add the kingdom to himself. But he accompanied her, and Agrippa followed, and caught them just as they were setting sail. He accused Herod before Gaius Caesar of having always been hostile to the Romans; for while Tiberius was still alive, he had entered into friendship with Sejanus, the enemy of the Romans, and even now, before Artabanus, the king of the Parthians, was plotting the same things against the Romans. He obtained that, in place of the kingdom which...

he had dreamed of, he should fall from his own tetrarchy and, condemned to perpetual exile, be sent off to Lugdunum. Herodias, however, hearing this, went into exile voluntarily with her husband. Caius bestowed his tetrarchy upon Agrippa. This Agrippa—whom, in order to distinguish him from his son, they also call Agrippa the Great—Josephus says was pleasing to the Jews. ^A This man, as it seemed, desiring to ingratiate himself with them, killed James, the brother of John, with the sword, and sought to kill the chief of the apostles, Peter, although he failed. Having put on a robe made of silver and addressed the populace, when he heard their shouts (which, after having exceeded the bounds of flattery, reached the height of impiety) and did not rebuke them, he immediately paid the penalty. For a violent pain in his stomach having seized him, he ended his life after five days, being in his fifty-fourth year of age and the seventh of his reign. Among these, he reigned four years while Caius was ruling in Rome; for three of these he held the tetrarchy of Philip, and in the fourth year he received the tetrarchy of Herod. The remaining three years he passed under Claudius, during which, with the permission of Caesar, he possessed Judea, Samaria, and Caesarea. Thus Agrippa died, after a ^B bubo (this is a species of bird, as it is called among the Romans) appeared over his head five days before his death, which Josephus thinks gave him notice of his kingdom. He died leaving four children: a son, Agrippa, who was in his seventeenth year, and three daughters, Berenice, Mariamne, and Drusilla. The first of these, being in her sixteenth year, had been married to Herod, her father’s brother; Mariamne was in her tenth year, and Drusilla in her seventh. These women, the Sebasteni, for no other reason than their own madness, seized violently and placed in brothels, displaying every shameful and unspeakable outrage upon them. Claudius, though angered by this, nevertheless exacted nothing worthy of such lawlessness.

That Agrippa, the son of Agrippa, set sail for Rome upon the death of his father. Claudius had decided to grant him his father’s sovereignty, but being deterred by the opinions of some who ^C complained of Agrippa’s youth, he sent Fadus as procurator of Judea, and appointed Agrippa king of Chalcis, over which Herod, now dead, had previously ruled. After four years, he also bestowed upon him the tetrarchy of Philip, and Batanaea, adding to it Trachonitis, which had formerly belonged to the tetrarchy of Lysanias. And having given him these, he took Chalcis away from him. Agrippa gave his sister Drusilla in marriage to Azizus, the king of Emesa, who had been circumcised; for Epiphanes, son of Antiochus, although he had promised, would not undergo circumcision, ^D and thus their betrothal was dissolved. Drusilla was also released from Azizus, and married Felix, the procurator of Judea, who was plotting against her because of her beauty. Mariamne, however...

he gives to Archelaus, son of Helcias, to whom the father had betrothed her even while he was living; born of them is Berenice. ^A On the death of Claudius, Nero, having become his successor, grants to Agrippa a certain portion of Galilee, Tiberias and Tarichaea, commanding them to obey him. He also adds the city of Julias in Peraea and the ten villages surrounding it. This is the Agrippa before whom the divine Paul, with Festus presiding, made his defense.

After Fadus, procurator of Judea, Cumanus is sent; after him Felix was sent, having been summoned to Rome on account of charges; after him Festus, then Albinus, and lastly Florus. In the second year of this latter, on account of the evils that were being done by him to excess, the Jewish war against the Romans took its beginning, in the twelfth year of the impious Nero. Ananus, the son of Ananus, having received the high priesthood—from which Josephus had been removed—was bold and daring to an excessive degree; for he followed the sect of the Sadducees, who are cruel in their judgments, and inclined toward every kind of arrogance. This Ananus, therefore, when Festus had died in Judea and Albinus had not yet taken office, acted with authority to convene a council, and condemning James, the brother of the Lord, with others, as violators of the law, he ordered them to be stoned to death. For this, the mildest of the Jews were indignant, and King Agrippa himself; they removed him after he had ruled for three months, and in his place installed Jesus, son of Damnaeus. ^B

On the death of Aaron, brother of Moses, his sons succeed to the priesthood, and thereafter all those of his lineage. For a law of the fathers had gained strength, that no one but one of the blood of Aaron should receive the priesthood. There were, therefore, from Aaron ^C down to Phanasus, who during the time of the war received the high priesthood from the hands of the insurgents, eight hundred and three years. From the time of the departure from the desert, where the tabernacle was also erected, down to the temple which Solomon built, thirteen held the high priesthood; they held it for their whole lives, each one of them. Their rule was first an aristocracy, then a monarchy, and thirdly that of kings. From the exodus out of Egypt until the building of the temple in Jerusalem, there are six hundred and twelve years. After these thirteen high priests, and after the building of the temple, eighteen held the high priesthood from the time of King Solomon, serving in the temple, ^D until Nabuchodonosor, king of Babylon, burned the temple and led the Jewish nation captive into Babylon, with Amæas as high priest. The time of these high priesthoods is three hundred and sixty-six years, six months, and ten days. After the captivity, when seventy years had passed, Cyrus, king of the Persians, permitted the captives to return to their own homeland. One, therefore, of the returned captives receives the high priesthood, and thence...

and from thence his descendants up to Antiochus Eupator, the people being under a democratic government. And the time of these is four hundred and fourteen years. ^A This Antiochus and his general Lysias first depose Onias, nicknamed Menelaus, from the high priesthood, putting him to death in Beroea, and replace him with Jacimus, who was indeed of the lineage of Aaron, but not of the same house. For this reason Ananias, a cousin of the deceased Onias, having gone to Egypt and entered into friendship with Ptolemy Philometor and his wife Cleopatra, persuades them, by building a temple for God in Heliopolis similar to the one in Jerusalem, to appoint him high priest. Now Jacimus dies having held the high priesthood for three years; no successor is appointed for him for seven years. ^B Then again the descendants of the sons of Asamonaeus, having been entrusted with the protection of the nation and having fought against the Macedonians, appoint John as high priest, who dies after having ruled for seven years, his death being plotted by the machinations of Tryphon; his brother Simon is established as his successor. And him too, having been killed by treachery at a banquet by his son-in-law, his son, Hyrcanus by name, succeeds; who, when dying, leaves the rule to Judas, also called Aristobulus. Him his brother Alexander succeeds, who had died of a disease, having held ^C the priesthood along with the kingdom (for Judas was the first to put on the diadem) for one year. King Alexander, after reigning and serving as priest for twenty-seven years, ends his life, having entrusted his wife Alexandra to appoint his successor in the priesthood. She gives the high priesthood to Hyrcanus, the elder of her sons, and she herself, having governed the kingdom for nine years, dies; Hyrcanus holds the priesthood for the same amount of time. For after her death, the younger son (Aristobulus by name), having made war against his brother and having taken away the high priesthood, takes for himself both this and the kingdom of his mother. In the third year of his rule, and ^D by the same number of months, Pompey comes and, having taken the city by storm, binds him and sends him to Rome with his children, while restoring the high priesthood to Hyrcanus, granting him the protection of the nation but forbidding him to wear a diadem. He ruled for twenty-four years in addition to the initial nine. Bazapharnes and Pacorus, the dynasts of Parthia, having made war on Hyrcanus, capture him alive, and appoint Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, as king. Sosius and Herod laid siege to him as he was ruling for three years and three months, and Antony, after he was led to Antioch, beheaded him. Herod, having received the kingdom from the Romans, no longer appoints high priests from the Asamonaean line, but some obscure persons who were merely of the priestly order, except for one; this was Aristobulus, a grandson of Hyrcanus who had been captured by the Parthians, and whose sister lived with Mariamne. Fearing this Aristobulus as one of noble birth and conspicuous on his own account, lest the people lean toward him, he ordered him to be suffocated in a pool at Jericho. Regarding the appointment of the priests, his son Archelaus attempted similar things, and after him the Romans, who invaded the empire. There are, therefore, from...

the times of Herod ^A until the day when he took and burned the temple and the city, twenty-eight years; their time in total is one hundred and seven years. And some governed under the reign of Herod, clearly, and Archelaus; but after this, the government was an aristocracy, and the chief priests were entrusted with the protection of the nation.

CCXXXIX.

Proclus' Chrestomathia or Excerpts on Poetics.

The Excerpts from Proclus’ *Chrestomathia* ^B were read. This book is divided into four parts. In the first, he says [(981 R.)] that the virtues of speech and poetry are the same, but that they differ in degree (in the more and the less). And that of style, one is thin, another is full, and a third is intermediate. The full style is the most striking, most elaborate, and displays the most poetic beauty. The thin style pursues figurative and refined composition, but is composed of more relaxed elements, whence it is best applied, in most cases, to mournful themes. The intermediate style, as the name itself signifies, is placed between the two. The florid style is not of itself a figure of speech, but is mixed with the aforementioned and brought forth along with them; it is suitable for the descriptions of places, meadows, or groves. Those who have strayed from the aforementioned ideas ^C have turned from the full style to one that is harsh and inflated, from the thin style to one that is low, and from the intermediate style to one that is idle and loose. He also teaches concerning the evaluation of poetry, where he also conveys the difference between character and passion, and that poetic art is partly narrative and partly imitative. The narrative part is furthermore divided into epic, elegiac, iambic, and lyric. The imitative part into tragedy, satyrs, and comedy.

Phemonoe, the priestess of Apollo, first discovered the epic, being accustomed to deliver oracles in hexameter. And since events followed the oracles and were in harmony with them, that which consists of meters was called "epos." Others say that because of the meticulous construction and the exceeding excellence ^D that is observed in hexameters, the common name for the entire discourse was appropriated by the hexameter and it was called "epos," just as Homer also...

^A appropriated the title of "poet" for himself, and Demosthenes that of "orator," since they also called the trimeters "epē." Among epic poets, the most excellent are Homer, Hesiod, Pisander, Panyasis, and Antimachus. He reviews their birth, as far as possible, and their homeland, and some of their particular deeds. He also discusses the so-called Epic Cycle, which begins from the mythologized union of ^B Heaven and Earth, from which they say three hundred-handed children were born to them, and three Cyclopes; he also goes through the other things mythologized among the Greeks regarding the gods, and if anything there is also spoken truly in accordance with history. The epic cycle concludes, being completed by various poets, up to the landing of Odysseus in Ithaca, in which he is also killed by his son Telegonus, who did not know him. He says that the poems of the epic cycle are preserved and are studied by many, not so much for their excellence as for the sequence of the events contained within them. He also mentions the names and homelands of those who composed the Epic Cycle. He speaks also of certain Cyprian ^C poems, and how some refer these to Stasinus the Cyprian, others to Hegesias the Salaminian, and others to Homer; [saying] that he gave them to Stasinus as a dowry for his daughter, and that the work was called "Cypria" because of his homeland. But the author does not agree with this reasoning; for the poems should not, he says, be inscribed "Cypria" with the accent on the antepenult.

He says that the elegy consists of a hexameter and a pentameter verse, and is suited for the departed. Whence it also received its name; for the ancients called a lament "elegos," and by means of it they celebrated those who had finished their lives. Later writers, however, have employed the elegiacs for ^D various subjects. He says that Callinus the Ephesian and Mimnermus the Colophonian excelled in this meter, but also Philetas the Coan, son of Telephus, and Callimachus, son of Battus. This last was a Cyrenaean.

Also concerning the iamb, he says that it was used in ancient times for railing; for "iambizein" meant, according to a certain idiom of the language, to speak insultingly. Others derive it from Iambe, a handmaid, Thracian by race; they say that she, when Demeter was afflicted with grief over the abduction of her daughter, came to Eleusis and sat upon the stone which is called "Agelastos" (Joyless) to this day, and by certain gibes led the goddess to laughter.

^A It appears that the iambic was anciently accustomed to be written equally for blame and for praise; but since some abused the meter for invective, from that time the practice of "iambizing" became synonymous with reviling, just as "to be satirized" came from the comic poets. The foremost among iambic poets is Archilochus of Paros, and Simonides of Amorgos—or, as some would have it, of Samos—and Hipponax of Ephesus; of whom the first flourished in the time of Gyges, the second in that of Ananias the Macedonian, and Hipponax in the time of Darius.

Melic poetry, he says, is of many parts and holds diverse divisions ^B. For some of it is allotted to the gods, some to men, and some to the fortuitous circumstances that befall us. To the gods are referred the hymn, the prosodion, the paean, the dithyramb, the nomos, the Adonidia, the Iobacchus, and the hyporchemata. To mortals pertain the encomia, epinikia, scolia, erotic songs, epithalamia, hymenaei, silli, dirges, and funeral songs. To both gods and men belong the parthenia, daphnephorica, oschophorica, and prayers; for these, composed in praise of the gods, also encompass the praises of men. As for those related to the circumstances that befall us, they are not strictly species of melic poetry, yet have been attempted by the poets themselves; of these are the pragmatic, emporic, apostolic, gnomological, georgic, and epistolary.

He says the hymn ^C is so called because it is a sort of "upomnesis" (remembrance), as if it "leads into memory" and serves as a reminder of the deeds of those who are celebrated by hymns; or else from "udein" (to sing) them, which is to recount them. They used to call all things written for the sacred ministers indiscriminately "hymns"; hence, both the prosodion and the other aforementioned types appear distinct from the hymn as species to a genus. For one may even hear people writing "hymn of the prosodion," "hymn of the encomion," "hymn of the paean," and the like. The prosodion was spoken of when they approached altars or temples, and it was sung to the flute during the approach; but the hymn strictly so-called was sung to the cithara ^D while standing.

The paean is a type of song now written to all the gods; but of old it was assigned specifically to Apollo and Artemis, and was sung for the cessation of pestilences and diseases. By an abuse of terms, some refer to the prosodia also by the name of paean.

The dithyramb is written for Dionysus and is named from him, either because he was raised in a "dithyron" (two-doored) cave at Nyssa, or because he was found after the bursting of the seams of Zeus—that is, the "apertis suturis" of Zeus—or because he seems to be twice-born, once from Semele.

^A Pindar reports that the dithyramb was discovered at Corinth; but Aristotle reports that Arion was the first to compose it, who first led the cyclic chorus.

The *nomos*, however, is written for Apollo, and takes its name from him (for Apollo was called *Nomios*), because when the ancients were organizing choruses and singing the *nomos* to the flute or lyre, Chrysothemis the Cretan was the first who, donning a distinctive robe and taking up the cithara in imitation of Apollo, sang the *nomos* alone; and since he was highly successful in this genre, this mode of competition endured. It appears that Terpander first perfected the *nomos* by utilizing heroic meter; then Arion of Methymna, who was himself both a poet and a citharode, augmented it not a little. Phrynis of Mitylene innovated upon it; for he joined the hexameter with free verse, and made use of more than seven strings. Timotheus later brought it to the order it currently holds.

^B The dithyramb, then, is animated and exhibits much enthusiasm while accompanied by dancing, being fashioned for the passions most suitable to the god; it is stirred in its rhythms and employs simpler language. The *nomos*, on the contrary, is relaxed and majestic through the gods, and is relaxed in its rhythms and employs extended language. ^C Furthermore, each uses musical harmonies appropriate to it: the former employs the Phrygian and Hypophrygian, while the *nomos* is tempered by the system of the citharodes, namely the Lydian. It seems that the dithyramb was discovered during the play and merriment of the countryside and amidst drinking bouts, whereas the *nomos* appears to have flowed from the paean; for the one is more common and written for the averting of evils, while the other is specifically for the praise of Apollo. Hence, it does not possess the enthusiasm of the dithyramb: in that there is drunkenness and play, while here there are supplications and great order; for the god himself moves through the melody in order ^D and in a settled system.

"Adonidia" is the name given to songs referred to Adonis. The Iobacchus was sung during the festivals and sacrifices of Bacchus, steeped in much unbridled clamor. The *hyporchema* was the name given to the song sung with dancing; for the ancients often used *hypo* for *meta*. They say that the inventors of these were, on the one hand, the Curetes, and on the other, Pyrrhus the son of Achilles, whence they also call a certain type of dance the "Pyrrhiche." The *epinikios* is the song after a victory in ho-

honor of those who had attained victory; it was written down.

The *skolion* was a melody sung during ^A drinking bouts; hence it is sometimes also called a "paroinion" (drinking song). It is relaxed in its structure and, for the most part, very simple. It is called a *skolion*, ^B not, as it has seemed to some, by antiphrasis (for things spoken by antiphrasis usually aim at a euphemism and do not convert into a bad reputation that which is euphemistic), but because at that time, when the senses of the listeners were already preoccupied and relaxed by wine, the *barbiton* was brought into the feasts, and each of the revelers, while drunk, would stumble in the articulation of the song. What, therefore, they themselves suffered on account of the drunkenness, this they transferred to the song, calling the most simple thing a *skolion*, that is, "bent" or "tortuous."

*Erotika*, or love songs, obviously recount the love affairs of women, boys, and virgins. And *epithalamia* were chanted by young men and virgins standing together at the bed for those who had just entered the bridal chamber. They say that the *Hymenaios* is sung at weddings because of the longing and the search for Hymenaeus, the son of Terpsichore, who they say vanished after taking a wife. Others say it is in honor of an Attic Hymenaeus, who, they recount, pursued robbers and liberated the Attic virgins they had abducted. As for me, I think it is an acclamation of a happy life, and a prayer for those entering into the communion of marriage to have a trustworthy partnership with mutual love, weaving the prayer into the Aeolic dialect, as if they were wishing for them to dwell together and to think the same things, living in concord.

The *sillos* contains sparingly the reproaches and mockings of men. The *threnos* and the *epicedium* differ in this: the latter is recited for a funeral while the body is already laid out, whereas the *threnos* is not restricted to any particular time.

The things called *parthenia* were adapted for choirs of virgins, under which the *daphnephorika* also fall, as if under a genus. For the priests, bringing laurels to the sacred rites of Apollo every ninth year, would celebrate him through choirs of virgins. And the reason for this is rendered as follows: as many of the Aeolians as dwelt in Arne and the places thereabouts, having departed from there according to an oracle and besieged Thebes, were devastating it, which the Pelasgians were also besieging. While a festival of Apollo was at hand for both, they agreed to a truce, and having cut laurels, some from Helicon and others near the river Melas, they brought them to Apollo. Polematas, however, the leader of the Boeotians, saw in a dream a certain young man offering him a full suit of armor and ordering that oaths be made to Apollo, by the *daphnephoroi* (laurel-bearers), every ninth year. ^C After the third day, joining battle, he defeated the enemy, and he himself fulfilled the vow by the carrying of the laurel; hence the custom has been preserved from that time. ^D

^A The Daphnephoria consists of an olive branch, which they crown with laurels and various flowers; at the top, a bronze sphere is fitted, and from this they hang smaller ones. In the middle of the wood, they place a sphere smaller than the one at the top, and they attach purple ribbons; they wrap the lowest end of the wood in saffron-colored cloth. They intend for the uppermost sphere to represent the sun, to which they refer Apollo, and the one below it to represent the moon; the smaller spheres attached represent the stars and constellations, and the ribbons signify the annual course, for they make them three hundred and sixty-five in number. The Daphnephoria is presided over by a boy whose parents are both still living, and his closest companion carries the crowned wood, which they call *kōpō*. The Daphnephorus himself follows, touching the laurel; he has his hair hanging loose and flowing, wears a golden crown, is dressed in splendid robes reaching to the feet, and wears boots called *Iphikratides*. ^B A chorus of maidens follows him, holding out branches as a supplication, which was celebrated with hymns. They used to conduct the laurel-bearing procession to the temple of Apollo Ismenius and Galaxius.

The Tripodophoric song was sung among the Boeotians, with a tripod being carried in the lead. This, too, had such an origin: some Pelasgians were ravaging Panactum, a city of Boeotia, and the Thebans were defending it and sent envoys to Dodona to consult regarding victory in the war. The oracle gave a response to the Thebans that if they should commit a most impious crime, they would be victorious. It seemed to them, therefore, that the greatest of impious crimes would be to kill the prophetess who had delivered the oracle to them; and they killed her. ^C The priestesses who were in charge of the sanctuary demanded that the Thebans pay the penalty for the murder. The Thebans, however, would not allow women alone to pass judgment on them; and since a common trial was held of both men and women, and the men cast white pebbles in their favor, the Thebans escaped. Later, realizing that what had been ordered by the oracle concerned them, they took one of the tripods that were sacred among the Boeotians and, covering it as if they were temple-robbers, they sent it back to Dodona. Since this resulted successfully, they turned the practice into a solemn festival from then on.

The Oschophorica songs were sung among the Athenians; two youths from the chorus, dressed in women’s clothing ^D and carrying vine branches laden with ripe grapes (which they called *oschē*, from which the song takes its name), led the festival. They say that Theseus was the first to begin this practice; for after he had voluntarily undertaken the voyage to Crete and freed his country from the harassment of the tribute, he performed this in gratitude to Athena and Dionysus, who had appeared to him on the island of Dia. He was doing this

^A by using two young men, ^B educated in the shadows, as ministers for the sacred rite. The procession was conducted by the Athenians from the temple of Dionysus to the temple of Athena Sciras. A chorus followed the youths, and they sang songs of this kind. Youths from each tribe competed against one another in a race; and the one who arrived first drank from the so-called five-fold bowl, which was mixed with oil, wine, honey, cheese, and barley flour.

Precatory poems were written for those requesting something to happen from God. Pragmatic poems are those that contain the deeds of certain people. Emporic poems, as it were, those that demonstrate journeys and commerce, were written by some. And apostolic poems, those which they composed while being sent to someone. It is clear that the gnomological poems contain moral exhortations, and the georgic poems contain the seasons and care for lands and plants. And the epistolary poems were those which they composed and sent off according to instructions to certain people.

So far have we excerpted these things from the two books of Proclus's Chrestomathia, which he himself had selected as laudable from the grammarians.

CCXL. Joannes Philoponus in Hexaemeron.

^C I read the work of John Philoponus on the Hexaemeron. He dedicates the book to Sergius of Constantinople, stating in the preface that it was at his urging that he undertook this labor, and that he directed his attention to this end, in order to show that the account of the creation of the world by divine Moses corresponds to the observed phenomena. ^D

^A Moses did not intend to act as a physicist or an astronomer, but attempted to draw and invite men to the knowledge of God, even through the creation of the world. He affirms that this great and splendid work of the world had God as its maker, and that it had neither its existence automatically, nor was it unbegotten in its substance, nor coeternal with God. And he shows that Plato, who was considered the wisest among the Greeks—even though he lived many generations later and did not write his books for the common people, but for those who had made great progress in philosophy beyond others—imitated Moses in his narrative of the creation of the world. Yet he maintains that Moses relates the matter much more magnificently. He says that there is nothing at all in the creation of the world by the prophet that is inconsistent with the order of the universe; on the contrary, many of the causes later investigated by natural philosophers have taken their beginning from what Moses wrote. ^B He deservedly extols the great Basil and Theodore of Mopsuestia in many things, although he does not agree with everything that he criticizes, yet he does find fault justly in not a few things.

993 ^C Since the term "beginning" is said in many ways, he reports this: "In the beginning," meaning now the temporal beginning. He speaks, he says, not of a temporal beginning preceded by time, as is the case for each of us, but of the first "now" of time, in which God brought forth heaven and earth, without any temporal interval. For he says that every beginning is necessarily something other than that of which it is said to be the beginning, and he substantiates this by examples. So it is that God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning of time and not *in* time. But this signifies the one beginning in which the heaven and the earth were created. ^D Secondly [it means] the first part of a construction, as the keel is the beginning of a ship, and foundations are of a house. It is clear that in this sense also of the term "beginning," it is possible to understand the heaven and the earth as having been brought to be in the beginning; for just as a foundation and beginning of things created, God first laid down the heaven and the earth. But [it is] not [so] in the other meanings of beginning.

He says that Aquila, in rendering "In the beginning" as "In a head," gives one to understand that "In the beginning" signifies that the heaven and the earth were brought to be together and at once; for neither was one of them first and the other later. For we are accustomed to call a "head" the bringing together of many things at once into one; and the usage is frequent. He showed also that the addition of [*sun*], as it commonly signifies, [denotes] a conjunction. For even in saying, "In a head He created *sun* heaven, *sun* earth," in the beginning he provided the indication that the two were brought to be at once. Some [do] not [understand] the phrase "In a head" in this way, but, imagining it to be formed from the beginning of the body, which is the head, they have transferred it to such a beginning.

In saying, Heaven and earth, by the extremes he holds the middle, as they say also in all things. But it is reasonable that these extremes...

because the earth, holding the center of the whole, is the beginning of all things from below, while the heaven, which encompasses all, is the limit. Again, from above, the heaven is the beginning, and the earth is the limit. The middle are water, air, and fire. Therefore he continues: And darkness was upon the face of the deep; calling the water the deep, and the darkness the lightless air; for darkness is properly the absence of light. And common usage also calls lightless air "darkness," whether it is the nocturnal state of the air or else something happening in another way.

That the darkness which could be felt by the Egyptians is called "palpable darkness" for two reasons: either because no ray of the celestial bodies was mixed into the air on account of its great density, so that it could be felt and provided a sense of resistance to those touching it ^B, or because, due to the palpability, they progressed like blind men touching harder bodies, and in this way knew what they touched.

The "deep" is called by all a great body of water, and one that recedes into a depth beyond our reach, because it reveals nothing of what is within it; for this reason Moses calls that water "the deep." Yet he also names it "water": And the Spirit of God moved upon the waters; for the air floats upon the waters. But the name "air" Moses did not use: either because the Hebrews had not yet given a certain name to the air, or because it sufficed for Moses to denote both with the term "water." For air and water have a great communion, and he ^C uses this name quite often in what follows for both, for he makes much use of the term "water" for both.

Moses makes no mention of the angels and their creation, as one who was writing the history of the world. But it must not be said that they existed at the same time or were made after the heaven, but rather before; and this he attempts to demonstrate from the nature of things and from the sacred Scriptures: struggling, indeed, against Theodore and his arguments, by which he asserts that the angels were made together with the heavens, and adducing the great Basil for the same opinion, for whom he also appears to be contending. Reviewing, therefore, in summary the demonstrations by which he proves that the angels were not created simultaneously with the world, he adds: See at last from what the celestial origin of them consists. First, that neither Moses nor any other sacred Scripture says they were made with the heaven. Second, that they are not bodies, nor bound later to organic bodies like the soul. Third, from their celestial power. Fourth, because they see God assiduously; things which all mundane creatures lack. Fifth, that irrational souls were not created with ^D bodies, even though they cannot exist without bodies. Finally, that the mind of men, not even with its own body...

shares in a diviner generation from God.

Codex CCXLI. The Life of Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus.

I have read the *Life of Apollonius* by Philostratus. He says ^A that the walls of Babylon encompass a circuit of four hundred and eighty stadia; the wall itself rises to a height of three half-plethra, while its width is slightly less than one plethron. The Euphrates river intersects the city, matching its shape, and an imperceptible bridge passes underneath it, secretly joining the palace located on both banks. It is said that a woman, Medea, who once ruled there, yoked the river in a manner that no river had been yoked before. For having piled up by the banks of the river stones, bronze, ^B bitumen, and whatever else had been discovered by men for underwater binding, she diverted the current into marshes and, having already dug the riverbed dry, she worked a hollow tunnel two fathoms deep, so that there might be a passage to the palaces on the banks as if through dry land, and she roofed it, perhaps, with the riverbed floor. The foundations and walls of the tunnel were built; and since the bitumen required water to harden and set, the Euphrates was let loose upon the damp roof of the vault, and in this way the bridge was established. The palace is roofed with bronze and flashes from its own light; the bedchambers, the men's quarters, and the porticoes are adorned some with silver, some with golden ^C hangings, and some with gold itself, as in paintings. He says that Apollonius came upon a men's chamber where the ceiling was raised into the shape of a dome, fashioned to resemble the sky; it was roofed with a sapphire stone, a stone most deep blue and heavenly to look upon. The statues of the gods whom they worship are set up above and appear golden, as if from the ether. The king holds court here, and four golden ^D *iynges* (aviculae or "little birds") hang from the ceiling, suggesting Adrastia to him and that he should not exalt himself above mankind. The magi themselves, as they frequent the palace, say that these were fitted there; they call them the "tongues of the gods."

He says that Apollonius and those with him, as they left the Persian realm and approached the Caucasus, perceived a pleasant scent from the earth. We take this mountain to be the beginning of the Taurus, which runs through Armenia and Cilicia to Pamphylia and Mycale, which ends in the sea where the Carians dwell; it should be considered the end of the Caucasus, not the beginning, as some claim. For the height of Mycale is not yet great, whereas the peaks of the Caucasus are said to rise to such a height that the sun is split around them. It encompasses the Taurus with...

^A all the Scythia bordering on India, along the Palus Maeotis and the left side of the Pontus, for a length of about twenty thousand stades; for so great a measure of the earth does the arc of the Caucasus encompass. That which is called Taurus in our parts, and which is said to stretch above Armenia—a fact long disbelieved—is now confirmed by the panthers which, as I know, have been caught in that part of Pamphylia which produces aromatics. For such beasts delight in aromatics, and drawing the scent from afar, they journey from Armenia through the mountains toward the tears of the storax, whenever the winds blow from that quarter and the trees drip with that gum. They say that once in Pamphylia a panther was caught that possessed a gold collar around its neck, on which was written in Armenian letters: “King Arsaces to the Nysaean god.” Arsaces was indeed king of Armenia at that time, and he himself, I believe, having seen the panther, dedicated it to Dionysus because of the size of the beast; for Dionysus is called Nysaean from Nysa, which is in India, not only by the Indians, but by all the tribes looking toward the East. The beast, however, was for a time tamed by man, and would hold out its hand to be touched and stroked; but when spring ^B excited it, it leaped away to the mountains with a desire for a mate, keeping its ornament, and was captured near the lower Taurus, having been drawn by the scent of the aromatics. ^C The Caucasus defines India and Media, and it descends to the Red Sea with another arc. He says that those who had crossed the Caucasus saw men who were four cubits tall, who were already becoming black, and others five cubits tall, after they had crossed over the river Indus. He says that having crossed over the mountain the Caucasus, they encountered men riding upon elephants. These are they who dwell between the Caucasus mountain and the river Cophen, a wild people and the riders of this herd. They also led some camels, which the Indians use for speed; they travel a thousand stades through the day, without ever bending a knee. Apollonius and his company crossed the river Indus, which is some forty stades where it is navigable; for its navigable part is of such a size. ^D They say it takes its rise from the Caucasus and is greater from its source than all the rivers of Asia, and as it proceeds, it produces many navigable rivers from itself.

Travels beyond the river Indus

and it does not differ much, and it is built in the Greek manner. It was, moreover, the royal city of Porus, who held the kingdom. ^A

The sources of the river Hyphasis, which they say Apollonius approached after crossing the Hydraotes and traversing many nations—the sources of this river, I say, bubble up from the ground and the river is navigable from its very beginning, but after proceeding a little distance, it becomes impassable for ships. For jagged rocks protruding from the water lie hidden beneath the surface, and the current is forced to twist around them, rendering the river unnavigable. In its breadth, it is equal to the Ister, which is considered the greatest of the rivers that flow through Europe. On its banks grow trees similar to those that grow at the Ister, from which an unguent distills, with which the Indians are accustomed to anoint themselves at weddings. ^B This river alone, moreover, produces the fish called 'peacocks'; they are given the same name as the bird, because they have blue crests, and their scales are multicolored, and their tail is golden, and it is flexible in whatever direction they wish. There is, furthermore, in the same river a beast similar to a white worm, from which, when captured, an oil is made that is suitable for the uses of fire, which cannot be kept in anything except glass. Only the king, however, captures this beast, for the purpose of tearing down walls; for when its fat touches the battlements of walls, a fire is ignited that is more powerful than any extinguishing agent that men have devised against fire-bearing substances. They also say that wild asses are caught in these marshes. They say that these beasts have a horn on their forehead, with which they fight in the manner of bulls, and with great spirit. ^C The Indians claim that this horn is medicinal; for they assert that the man who drinks from a cup made of it is not afflicted by any disease on that day, and if he had been wounded, he would not suffer pain, and he could pass through fire, and he would not be harmed by any poisons that might be given in a drink for the purpose of doing harm. Therefore, these cups belong to the kings, and the hunting of such a beast is permitted only to the king. But the diseases and deaths of the kings in India show these things to be a fable. The beast itself, as described, is seen as such.

Thence, they crossed that part of the Caucasus which extends toward the Red Sea; this region is planted with diverse kinds of aromatics. ^D For the mountain peaks produce cinnamon, which resembles fresh vine-shoots; but the test of its quality is the goat. For if anyone holds out cinnamon to a goat, it gladly allows itself to be petted by hand, like a puppy, and follows the person as they depart, moving its nostrils toward it as much as it can; but if the shepherd takes it away, it laments no differently than if it were being deprived of a lotus blossom. Also, on the crags of the mountain, tall frankincense trees grow, along with many other species, and among them are pepper trees—which pepper, as if they were farmers, a certain kind of

^A shrub, which the Greeks call *agnos* (that is, chaste), resembles, both in its other parts and especially in the clusters of its fruit. It grows, however, in extreme and precipitous places, inaccessible to the human race, where the population of apes we mentioned inhabits the caves of the mountain and every crevice. The Indians prize the apes highly, since they are, so to speak, the harvesters of the pepper; for this reason, they protect them from lions and other wild beasts using weapons and dogs. A sick lion, however, will attack an ape for the sake of medicine—for their meat cures the diseases of lions—and an aged lion attacks them for food; for when, on account of their old age, lions are unable to hunt deer or boars, they devour apes, exerting what strength they have left upon them. These are the things regarding the pepper. ^B Approaching the trees which grow in the lower part of the mountain, the Indians pluck their fruit and make small threshing-floors near the trees, and gather the pepper around them, throwing it down as if it were a worthless thing and of no account to men. But the apes, hiding in the inaccessible heights and watching from above, when night comes, imitate the work of the Indians, and pulling off the twigs of the trees, throw them down and bring them to the threshing-floors; and the Indians collect them without labor.

Having crossed the mountain, Apollonius and his companions caught sight of the plain below, which they observed to be intersected by ditches overflowing with water. ^C Some of these ditches were straight, others oblique, drawing water from the river Ganges. They said that these ditches served partly for marking borders, and partly for irrigating the fields when they are thirsty. These fields are said to be the most fertile of all those cultivated among the Indians, and the inheritance there is the richest of all. For it extends in length for fifteen days’ journey for those traveling along the Ganges, and eighteen from the sea to the mountain of the apes, over which the plain stretches evenly. The earth is black in color and fertile in all fruits, where it is said that ears of grain can be seen like reeds. They also say that beans grow there three times the size of those produced in Egypt, that it produces sesame, and millet of extraordinary size. Moreover, they claim that nuts grow in the same places. The vines, however, are very small, such as those that grow among the Maeonians and Lydians there. But the wine expressed from them, they say, is most pleasant to the taste and smell. He says furthermore that another tree is found there similar to the laurel, which brings forth a follicle the size of a pomegranate. Inside this follicle is a fruit, blue in color, and just like the finest hyacinth; it is the sweetest of all things that grow throughout the year.

When they descended from the mountain, they encountered the hunting of ^D dragons. For every region of India abounds with dragons, wondrous in both multitude and size. Thus the marshes are full, the mountains are full, and no hill is found vacant of them. But those in the marshes are sluggish and slow, and are thirty cubits in length, and can scarcely lift their heads; they are similar to female dragons, having dark backs and being less scaly than the others. Those in the fields exceed the swampy ones in everything; for in every

respect they are both faster than the swiftest rivers, and nothing can escape them. A crest grows on them, which is moderately prominent in the young, but becomes larger and rises quite high in the full-grown, at which point they also become fiery and serrated. They also grow beards and raise their necks high, and their scales glisten like silver; the pupils of their eyes are made of a fiery stone. It is said that their strength is beyond ^B counting for many of the secret things. The field-dwelling one is discovered by the hunters when it has dragged down an elephant, for this destroys both beasts. And it is a profit to those who catch the dragons to obtain their eyes, skin, and teeth; these are, in other respects, like those of the largest boars, but thinner, twisted, and unbreakable at the point, just like those of the great fish. The mountain dragons, however, appear golden in their scales, and in length they exceed the field-dwelling ones; they have curly beards, which are also golden. And they are more beetling-browed than the field-dwelling ones, ^C and their eyes are set deep beneath the brow, looking fierce and shameless. They emit a bronze-like sound when they undulate along the ground. From their fiery crests, a fire darts out, more than the light of a torch. These, too, capture elephants. They are caught by the Indians in the following way: they spread a cloak of scarlet, woven with golden letters, before the den, having conjured sleep into the letters, by which the dragon—though its eyes are unyielding—is overcome. They also recite many words from their secret wisdom over it, by which the dragon is drawn out and, placing its neck ^D beneath the cloak, falls asleep upon the letters. Then the Indians, rushing upon it as it lies there, strike it with axes and, cutting off its head, plunder the stones inside it. These stones are stored, being flower-like in appearance and flashing with every color, and the secret power they possess is said to be like that which they say the ring of Gyges had. Often, however, the dragon would grab a man, together with his axe and his very skill, and carry him off into its den, nearly shaking the mountain itself. Such dragons are said to inhabit the mountains that border the Red Sea. But to know or to state the age of these beasts is impossible and incredible. Proceeding further, they say they heard the sound of a flute, as they imagined, of some shepherd organizing his flock—but in fact, it was white deer being herded; and the Indians milk them, considering the milk from them to be very nourishing. From there, traveling for four days through a fertile and productive land, they say they approached the tower of the wise men, or the so-called Brahmans, and conversed with them for a sufficient time; concerning whom he says they have both spoken, and seen, and heard what no one...

regarding them would believe. And they said that the impious dogma of the transmigration of souls emanated from there, through the Egyptians, to Pythagoras. ^A These Indians wear their hair long, just as the Lacedaemonians and Thurians did of old; they also wear a white headband, and walk barefoot. Their clothing is fashioned after the style of an *exomis*. The material of their clothing is a down that grows naturally in those regions; it is as white as that which grows in Pamphylia, but softer; from this they fashion a sacred garment, and it is plucked from the earth only by them. They also carry a ring and a staff.

He says that a stone called "pantarbes" exists, of the size of a thumbnail; it is generated in the hollows of the earth at a depth of four cubits. So much spirit is inside it that it causes the earth to swell, and for the most part the earth is rent where such a stone is formed. No one is permitted to extract it except one who has been initiated into its rites; at night it shows daylight just like fire (for it is fiery and radiant), but if seen after daybreak, it strikes the eyes with countless ^B glimmers. The light that shines within it is a spirit of hidden power; for he throws stones scattered about and casts them into the sea, and having lowered this stone to them, he collects all of them by the diffusion of its spirit; the stones will lie subordinate to it in a cluster, like a swarm of bees. This myth-monger Philostratus adds that Iarchas told these things to Apollonius, and showed him the stone itself and all its capabilities.

He says the Pygmies who live underground dwell in regions situated above the Ganges, living in the manner that has been reported by all. As for the Sciapodes [that is, those who provide themselves with shade with their feet] and the macrocephali, and whatever monsters the histories of Scylax recount, I do not believe that such beings live among the Indians or anywhere else on earth. Regarding the gold which the griffins are said to dig up, ^C he says they are rocks sprinkled with minute golden drops, which this beast tears open with the strength of its beak. For these beasts exist in India, and in size and strength they are comparable to lions, and by the protection of their wings they fly upon lions, elephants, and dragons, and prove themselves superior. They do not fly great distances, but only as much as small birds; for they are not feathered, but have their wing-ribs connected by a red membrane. ^D They say, however, that the tiger is the only animal they cannot overcome, because it is said to equal the winds in the swiftness of its flight. Regarding the bird phoenix, he writes the same as all the others. He reports that Apollonius spent four months among the Indians; from there, having the Ganges on his right and the Hyphas on his left...

...ten days' journey having been completed from the sacred bank, in descending they saw many other things: a species of ape far different from those they had found near the pepper trees. For these were black, shaggy, and resembled small human beings. ^A They arrived at the Red Sea. He says that this sea is deep blue, ^B and that it received its name from King Erythras.

From there, having boarded a ship, they were carried along by a smooth and favorable wind, admiring the mouth of the Hyphasis, how terribly it pours forth through it; for it finishes into rocky, narrow, and precipitous places, through which it rushes down into the sea in a single mouth, appearing dangerous to those keeping too close to the shore. Moreover, they say they saw the mouth of the Indus; and that a city named Patala lies upon it, washed by the Indus, to which they say the fleet of Alexander once gathered, which Nearchus commanded. ^C But what has been said by Orthagoras regarding the Red Sea—that neither the Bear appears in it, nor can those navigating discern the south, and that the visible stars depart from their own order—these things seem so to them as well. He says that there is a small island, named Byblon, in which the size of the shellfish, and the mussels, and the oysters, and such things, is ten times that of the Greek ones, and they are attached to the rocks. A pearl-stone is also caught there in a white shell, having the appearance of a heart within the oyster. They also say that they occupied Pegada in the land of the Oritae. ^D As for the Oritae, their rocks are bronze, their sand is bronze, and the rivers carry bronze dust; and they consider the earth to be auriferous because of the nobility of the bronze. They say also that they encountered the Ichthyophagi, to whom the city of Stobera belongs; and these people use the membranes of huge fish for cordage. And the sheep there are fish-like (for they are nourished by them) and taste strange. But the Carmanian Indians, a gentle race, so easily inhabit the sea that they do not even store up fish to preserve them, nor do they salt them; for the fish are always at their hands, as many as they wish.

He says that they also sailed up to Valara; this is an emporium full of myrtles, palms, laurels, and gardens bearing all sorts of produce. Lying before this place is a sacred island, which is called Selira. The part of this island that faces the open sea has an immense depth of water, and it bears an oyster in a white shell full of fat; for it produces no stone at all. Having observed the calm, and the sea itself...

smoothed by an infusion of oil, ^A a person dives to hunt the oyster. They are as well prepared and equipped for this as those who harvest sponges; he also has with him a small iron brick and an alabaster vessel of ointment. The Indian, having positioned himself near the oyster, uses the ointment as a lure to deceive it; the oyster opens and becomes intoxicated by it, and, being pierced through by an iron needle, it spits out the fluid. The hunter receives this into the iron brick, which is hollowed out into various complicated shapes. This fluid subsequently turns into stone, in the manner of a natural pearl, which is the white blood from the Red Sea. The rest of this sea is said to be wild and entirely untamed. Whales are also reported to congregate there. For this reason, for their protection, ships carry certain bells both at the prow and at the stern, the sound of which frightens the beasts so that they do not approach the ships. After this, they say, they entered the mouths of the Euphrates and sailed up it to Babylon.

Concerning the Fourth Book

Concerning the Promontories

Concerning the Tides of the Ocean

^A again succeeds the day; however, among the Celts, light or darkness departs gradually, just as occurs among us. Around Gades, however, they say that the columns, as it were, strike the eyes suddenly, like lightning. They also say that the Isles of the Blessed, which reach up to the uninhabitable promontory, are bounded by the African limit.

Gades is situated at the edge of Europe, and they are superstitious regarding sacrifice. They have built an altar to Old Age, and they alone among men praise death with festive songs. Altars are also established there to Poverty and to Art, and likewise to the Egyptian Hercules, and another to the Theban. For they say that the one traveled as far as nearby Erytheia when he seized Geryon and his cattle; the other, excelling in wisdom, measured the whole earth as far as its limits. Moreover, they say those at Gades are Greeks and are educated in our customs. They also say there are trees there of a kind found nowhere else in the world; these are called Geryonean, and there are only two of them. They grow ^B near the tomb which they set up for Geryon, having a form mixed from pine and fir, and it is said that they shed blood as the Heliades shed amber. The island in which the temple is located is equal in size to the temple itself; no part of it is rocky, but it resembles a polished threshing floor. They say both Herculeses are honored in the temple, but there are no statues of them; there are two bronze altars to the Egyptian, without a statue, and one to the Theban. The hydras, the horses of Diomedes, and the twelve labors of Hercules are depicted on them, being made of stone. Furthermore, the golden olive tree of Pygmalion (which is also dedicated in the Heracleum) is noteworthy, as they say, for the branch it resembles, but it is to be wondered at even more for its fruit, for it is fashioned of ^C emerald stone. They say the golden belt of Teucer, son of Telamon, is also shown in the same place; but how or for what reason it reached the Ocean, they say they do not know. He narrates that the columns in the temple are made of gold and silver melted into one color. They are, he says, square in shape, like anvils, and their tops are inscribed with letters that are neither Egyptian nor Indian, nor intelligible to anyone. Apollonius, however, when the priests would say nothing about this matter, said, "The Egyptian Hercules does not permit me to remain silent about what I know. These columns are the binding of the earth and the Ocean; and he himself inscribed them in the house of the Fates, that no strife might arise among the elements, and that they might not insult the affection ^D which they hold for one another."

They also say that they navigated the river Baetis, which declares the nature of the Ocean most clearly; for when the sea surges, the river flows backward toward its springs, pushed by some spirit from the sea.

^A They say that the continent—of which this river of the same name is—is the best of all continents; for it is well supplied with cities and laws, and the river is led through all the settlements, and it is full of total agriculture, and has seasons such as those of autumn in Attica and the days of the mysteries.

That he says Apollonius rejects the accounts of the poets about Aetna as fables, speaking in this way. For the fable, which we reject, is not like the apologues of Aesop, but like those which the poets ^B invent and repeat. For they say that a certain Typhoeus or Enceldus is bound under the mountain, and that while struggling with death, he breathes out this fire. But I say that giants did exist, and that such bodies are revealed in many parts of the earth when tombs are broken open—not, however, that they came into conflict with the gods, but perhaps they outraged their temples and shrines; but to say that they attacked heaven and did not allow the gods to remain there is a kind of madness to say, and madness even to believe. Nor indeed is this account, however more common it may be, approved by us. That Vulcan exercises his blacksmith's art in Aetna, and that an anvil clangs there under him—for many other mountains ^C in different parts of the earth are fiery, and yet no one says that there are giants or Vulcans there; so, therefore, if the mountains burn, what is said to be the cause of this? Earth mixed with bitumen and sulfur swells by its own nature, and does not yet produce fire. But if it happens that the earth is cavernous, so that some spirit enters beneath it, then it raises a flame, which, having increased more and more, flows down from the mountains like water and is poured out onto the plains; and sometimes, when it is carried to the sea, it makes a rush like some kind of river.

Ethiopia occupies the western horn of all the land that is under the sun, just as the Indians occupy that which looks toward the East; ^D and it is joined to Egypt near Meroe, and extends to the desert part of Libya, and is terminated by the sea, which the poets call Ocean, naming the whole sea that surrounds the land by one and the same name. And they assign the river Nile to Egypt, which, having its beginning from the Catadupi, which it floods, brings all of Egypt from the Ethiopians. Ethiopia is not indeed comparable in size to India, nor is any other part of the continent that is known to men. But if we should also add all of Egypt to Ethiopia—for we judge that the river does this—they would not, both joined together, equal the magnitude of India. In both, however, the rivers are similar to one another, the Indus and the Nile. Both leave silt upon the continent at the appointed time, when the earth most desires it, and they alone of rivers raise crocodiles and hippopotami. Moreover, the aromatics growing in both testify to the similarity of the lands, and besides, the lions and the elephant, which in both are captured and forced to serve. Both, furthermore, provide...

beasts the likes of which are found nowhere else, ^A and black men, which no other part of the continent produces; and in them are nations of Pygmies. The griffins of the Indians and the ants of the Ethiopians, even if they are unlike in form, yet by intent, so they say, are similar; for they are reported to be guardians of gold in both lands, being fond of earth that bears gold.

When Apollonius had arrived where Egypt and Ethiopia terminate (they call it Sycaminum), he reports that he found unminted gold, and linen, and ivory, and various roots: moreover, ointment and aromatics of different kinds, all lying about without a watchman on the crossroads. The cause is this: the Ethiopians bring in merchandise ^B which is produced in Ethiopia; and when the Egyptians have taken all of it up, they bring and deposit in the same place Egyptian merchandise of equal value, purchasing with what they have the things they lack. Those who dwell at the borders of the continents are not yet black, but are of one race in color; for they grow black, some less than the Ethiopians, and some more than the Egyptians.

From then on, he says that Apollonius traveled to the palace of Memnon, and an Egyptian youth was leading them, Timasius by name. He says that Apollonius was badly treated upon arriving ^C among the naked philosophers [Gymnosophists] of the Ethiopians, and not with the same honor as he had been accorded by the Brahmans of the Indians; and for this reason: a certain Euphrates, a man practicing philosophy who had come into a dispute with Apollonius, had forestalled the ears of the naked men with slanders cast against Apollonius, and had caused them to be ill-disposed toward him. He declares the Brahmans among the Indians to be far superior to the naked men among the Ethiopians in wisdom and in other respects. He says that those naked men live in the open air, and beneath the sky itself, upon a ridge of moderate size, a little way from the banks of the Nile. Apollonius ^D made his journey to them from the sea and by way of the Nile.

Having spent a short time with the naked men and having addressed those with him, they journeyed toward the mountains, trending to the left of the Nile, and observed things worth mentioning. The Catadupa are earthy mountains, similar to Tmolus, which is in Lydia, but from them the Nile flows down, bringing the earth that it washes away to fertilize Egypt. The sound of the stream as it breaks from the mountains and falls with a roar into the Nile appears as something dreadful and unbearable to hear; and many who have approached too close have returned having lost their hearing.

As Apollonius and his companions proceeded, mounds appeared bearing trees, the leaves, bark, and tears of which the Ethiopians count as fruit. They also saw lions near the

road, and leopards, and other beasts of this ^A kind; but they did nothing to them, but rather leaped away from them, as if struck with fear at the sight of men. Stags, deer, ostriches, and wild asses were also seen in great numbers, and at the most there were the *boagroi* and *boutragoι*. These beasts are composed of different animals, taking their names from them, the one from a stag and a goat, the other from which it has derived its name. They also found the bones of such beasts and their half-eaten carcasses; for lions, when they have sated themselves with a freshly killed prey, disdain to touch the remains any further, confident, I suppose, that they will be able to hunt new prey again.

There dwell the Nomadic Ethiopians, who have their cities pitched upon wagons. Nearest to them are those who hunt elephants and sell them in pieces, hence they have received the ^B surname of Elephant-eaters. The Nasamones and the Anthropophagi, as well as the Pygmies and the Sciapodes, are indeed all tribes of Ethiopia, and they reach as far as the Ethiopian Ocean, into which they only sail when carried off by a storm against their will.

While they were talking about the wild beasts they had seen and were admiring the nature that feeds such varied and diverse kinds of animals, a sound struck their ears like that of thunder, not yet strong, but still hollow and muffled within a cloud. ^C Then Timasion said: “It is near, O men, the cataract, which is the first to those ascending, but the last to those descending; for there are four cataracts.” Having advanced perhaps ten *stadia*, they say they saw a river flowing down from the mountain, no larger than the Marsyas and the Maeander where they first flow together into one. They proceeded further, but saw no more wild beasts, for since they are by nature timid, they dwell by quiet waters rather than by turbulent and noisy ones. ^D Then, after about fifteen *stadia*, they heard another cataract, truly difficult and unbearable to the ear, and one which was nearly double the former in size. When Damis saw it plunging from a place much higher than the former, he reports that he and some other companions were so stunned in their ears that they moved away from Apollonius and begged him to go no further. But he firmly, with only Timasion and another by the name of Nile to accompany him, approached the third cataract, and then returned to his companions, reporting that the peaks of the Nile hung there at a height of nearly eight *stadia*; and that the bank which lies opposite the mountains has a brow of indescribable stone-hewing, and the springs hanging from the mountains fall into the rocky bank, and from there stream into the Nile, foaming and boiling. The accidents that arise from this are many, and more various than those that occur at other cataracts, and those who [stay] there...

say it is difficult to fathom, for they sing many things about the demons there, just as Pindar, in his wisdom, has celebrated in his hymns concerning the demon whom he places over these springs, saying that he moderates the Nile for the sake of equilibrium.

^B That the emperor Domitian, he says, legislated that men should not be castrated, and that vines should not be planted, and indeed that even those already planted should be cut down. Apollonius said to this: "As for me, perhaps I have need of neither private parts nor wine," with the admirable man failing to realize that while he was sparing men, he was castrating the earth.

[1017 R.] That in the seventh and eighth book Philostratus celebrates the freedom of speech displayed by Apollonius toward the tyrants, and especially toward Domitian; he tells how it was written, how he came to the trial on his own initiative, how he was held in an unbonded imprisonment, how he was later put in chains and released, how he offered his defense and left the court. Having said these things, and asserting that Apollonius had not the slightest part in magical arts—indeed, that he abhorred them as much as anyone else—Philostratus, although he writes many monstrous things concerning him, records that his death became obscure and of much talk, a thing which he himself, even while yet alive, practiced and studied. For he says that he was always accustomed to say: "Live in obscurity; if not, die in obscurity." He says that the man lived according to the virtues, and throughout his life emulated the wisdom of Pythagoras.

^C This Philostratus employs an elocution that is sweet and most varied, and a phrasing with words that are becoming, yet with arrangements such as no other person assigned to writing would use; for they seem in a way to resemble lack of connection rather than to partake of any syntactic order whatever. We know, however, that this man was most learned, and that he would not, through error of what is right, have been carried away into this peculiar innovation of syntax, but that he used to the point of satiety certain things that had perhaps been rarely uttered by the ancients, demonstrating that their use was permissible, and not in vain, but for the sake of sweetness; for such words possess a certain attractiveness and charm.

^D From the same Life, the passages that were overlooked, which excel in the beauty of their words and composition.

"Pythagoras himself and Democritus, having conversed with the magi and spoken of many demons, were not yet drawn into the art. And who does not know that Anaxagoras at Olympia, when there was no suspicion of rain, went forth into the stadium wearing a sheepskin to announce a downpour, and not long after, a great rain followed, from which he was thought..."

^A to be divine and heavenly, and this by magical art; and to me also, who have been concerned with the same, for he himself praised and loved all rhetorical orations, from which it is possible to learn how divine a philosopher he was. Swans which were feeding in a meadow, having arranged themselves in a chorus around the sleeping mother of Apollonius, and having raised their wings (as is their custom), filled all the surrounding places with a great clamor, as Zephyrus breathed gently through the meadows. Leaping up from their song, the woman brought forth the boy. For any sudden shock is enough to induce labor even before the time. He had also turned the eyes of all upon himself, even of his adversaries, who were accustomed to cast insults and inflict injury. And all gave way to the linen, and rather to the doctrine of the Athenians, the suburb in which there were elegant gardens. It was a Cilician speech: "Whither do you run? Is it to the beardless one?" which they used to say of Apollonius, so that it was celebrated as a common proverb. He possessed rich wealth equal to his brother's, and there was much fame concerning his philosophy. When Euxenus once asked Apollonius why he did not commit anything to writing, since he had acquired an upright and spirited style of writing: "Because," he said, "I have not yet learned to be silent." Famine had oppressed the city, vetches were for sale, and all things necessary for sustenance were lacking to them; the springs did not flow, the earth offered cypress just as if it were vegetation. He used a kind of speaking not dithyrambic, or swelling with poetic names, nor again too jejune, nor exceeding the Attic custom; for he thought that speech which departed from the Attic moderation was unpleasant. His sentences were brief ^C and as hard as adamant: he used names that were proper and adapted to the things themselves; and the things which were brought forth by him resounded like lightning. He set out for ancient Ninus, where a statue is set up in a barbarian fashion. It is, in fact, Io, the daughter of Inachus, and small horns protrude from her temples, as if she were soon to go forth. Furthermore, Damis regarded Apollonius just like a god, employing him as a master of wisdom, and he used to store up in memory what he learned. His voice was adapted to the Assyrian measure, and was not overly talkative. The Eretrians live in the region of the Medes, not further from Babylon than a courier might ^D travel in a day's journey.

When the Eretrians had sown the mound, the neighboring barbarians, running about around the time of the harvest, used to plunder the already ripe crops. They say that he also happened upon a hall, the roof of which had been raised into the shape of a vault, imitating the appearance of the heavens, covered with a sapphire stone; and the stone is most blue and celestial to behold. Then, pausing a little: "You will learn," he said, "O Damis, to love eunuchs, and that the desire which is introduced through the eyes is not extinguished in them, but remains in them warm and vigorous."

But if some human art were mistress and powerful enough to drive away such desires from the soul, they would live with the eyes of virtue: but now I have found him [the king] engaging in a contest and acting also as a man [in his conduct] toward his wife. But you shall shoot the bird which Prometheus was feeding with his own entrails. ^A Men encounter those who are riding on elephants; these are they who dwell in the region between the Caucasus mountain and the river Cophen, people altogether unrefined and riders of elephants. They conversed with one another, and they received them with a feast; and they say that Nyssa was planted by Dionysus himself, who brought the vine shoot [the knee of the vine] from Thebes. And Alexander was both ambitious and too great a lover of antiquity. That elephants live beyond three hundred and fifty years, as experience shows. ^B For if lions catch lionesses having conceived by leopards, they tear the cubs and rend the brood as if it were illegitimate, so that the lioness abstains from food for three days, although she is the most voracious of beasts. And the smaller elephants go in front, so that the road of the greater ones may not be obstructed by the ground being too deeply ditched [by the smaller ones]. That Apollonius does not accept the report which says that the young of vipers come forth by consuming the maternal womb. For this is not at all possible to be seen in any creature; both nature requires [otherwise], and experience agrees. That India nurtures serpents [seventy] cubits long. And that he wondered at their adornment more than at the pride of Babylon. Nor did he find a praiser like Homer, by whom many wicked men were celebrated in an outstanding way. I have now prepared to speak, so as to leave nothing for others. ^C From this, Apollonius understood that that king was inferior in no small part—indeed, in all of philosophy—to Phraotes. That Apollonius, having practiced philosophy with Iarchas, wrote from there concerning divination, and wrote concerning sacrifices, being most learned and a lover of learning. And Iarchas said that divination had done many good things for men, but the greatest is the gift of medicine; for the wise Asclepiads would never have advanced to the knowledge of this, had not Asclepius, because he was the son of Apollo, composed useful remedies for diseases according to the prescriptions and prophesying of his father, which he then taught to his sons and associates, [instructing them] what herbs it is proper to apply to moist ulcers, and what kind to dry and inflamed ones: and further, to mix medicinal potions, by which those suffering from dropsy are healed, ^D the flow of blood is stanched, and many other things which have the power of healing. He reports that the Indian griffins are equal in size and strength to lions, and by the protection of their wings they fly upon and overcome lions, elephants, and dragons: they do not, however, fly far, but only as much as small birds. For they are not feathered like other birds, but the membranes of their wings are a red skin.

^A They fly, therefore, and fight from on high. They say that the tiger alone is unconquerable by them, and that in speed it equals the winds. But he is reported to have been most agreeable and highly skilled in nautical matters; not like the Socratics, who abandon all other things and study philosophy alone, etc., even if it be the most beautiful of cities, and possesses its own sea and fountains of Zephyrs, but it is more beautiful for it to be adorned by such men.

^B 333a He said that a city being rightly established needs concord in its discord. But what I mean is something like this: Sedition, which leads citizens to swords and mutual stone-throwing, must be utterly driven from cities. For a city needs the rearing of children, and laws, and men, from whom words and actions proceed. But mutual emulation among citizens for the common good of the city—whether one speaks an opinion better than another, or holds office more correctly, or performs an embassy more nobly: such, I say, contention and emulation contribute much to the state. But if any of these should fail in performing his own work, he handles nautical affairs as if unskillfully; the ship will fare ill, and he himself, as if some storm, will damage the ship. But if they labor contending among themselves with a certain emulation, that no one be found worse than another in his own work, the ship will be rightly and properly fastened in the harbor, and the whole voyage will be carried out prosperously and with joy; the uprightness of their consulting will benefit them as much as if Neptune promised them guardianship and security. ^C For he supplicated, and spoke many words concerning mercy. He had heaped a pile of stones upon him. They interpret dreams correctly. Now it was the autumn season, and the sea was less secure. When Orpheus had recently been brought from Thrace, he stood over him, and standing over him: "Apollo," he said, "cease occupying what is mine; for I have endured your singing long enough." Apollonius understood. But Damis wished to introduce another topic. "Show us your image, O Achilles. For you will be greatly pleased by my eyes if you use them for your own presence. Concerning the tears of the Muses and Nereids, which men claim were shed for my sake: the Muses do not come here, but the Nereids still frequent the place."

^D Furthermore, Achilles said that not even the Barbarians were much inferior to us; to such a degree did virtue flourish on the earth during that time. For even the singing of the Gauls was already audible; but the youth, as if awakened from a heavy sleep, rubbed his eyes frequently, and turning his face to the rays of the sun, and being also suffused with modesty, [1024 R.] as all were turned towards him, he no longer appeared wanton. Having changed his cloaks and the rest of his Sybaritic attire, he came to love austerity and the rough cloak, and stripped himself of his former habits to adopt those of Apollonius.

If the dance is Spartan, I will dance too; but if it is soft and effeminate, I will no longer wear the mask, according to Euripides, nor will I use such language. ^A Goblets were placed upon the table, and the thirsty drank from them. "When are the nuptials?" he asked. "They are intense," he said, "and perhaps tomorrow." He feigned wisdom, and his tongue was indeed glib, but he was too soft to endure hardships, and was anxious about the young men.

Regarding wild beasts, one could not easily say that they had torn their mothers to pieces; but Nero was gorged with this food, more insane than Orestes and Alcmaeon. Yet for those men, their fathers provided the pretext for the deed; the one was dead, the other sold in the port. But this man, even after being adopted by his mother to the aged emperor and having inherited the right to rule, fell into debauchery ^B, a drunken man, though not unpleasantly voiced. He was exposed to the eyes of all who gaze upon a prince. "What of Aesop's," he said, "frogs and asses, trifles to be handled by old women and children?" For having been familiar with these stories from childhood, and having been infantilized by them, we take up opinions about each of the animals, some as if they were kingly, others as if they were foolish. And the ears of the Egyptians were upright toward Apollonius. For Claudius, being such as he was, suffered many childish things, and surrendered the rule to women, by whom men are governed. For the gold was counterfeit, and black, coming from tears. He was fawning ^C, and reported conversations about his stepmother in a hushed tone, and did not touch on matters of lust, nor did anyone else show lewdness toward him. But he was of a somewhat boorish and hard-hearted disposition. He also appeared to have handled gymnastics skillfully. It is expedient for a wise man to be pure from the food that breathes lust, which comes through the eyes, and envy, which is the mistress of unjust conflicts and dissensions. Truth has no need of incantations and violent art. Vice, adorned with gold and necklaces and purple clothing, with the redness of cheeks and curls of hair and the coloring of the eyes, and even with golden sandals, is depicted insolently; ^D but virtue, hardworking, is joined to a rough appearance, studying to be adorned by squalor, and does not wear the wool which is plucked from living things. And it seemed to me to be the way of superstitious men, who have a pure mind, whose immortality and origins are the fountains of generation, lacking any beginning. Apollonius says: "These things led me to contemplate the Indians, because such people are subtler in intellect, occupied with purer thoughts, truer in their opinions about the gods and nature, as if dwelling near the gods and at the sources of the life-giving and hot substance of the sun." But also the number of the sand

^A he says Apollonius claims to know, and how many it would take to count it, and to have grasped all the measurements of the sea. [1025 K.] It appeared to some even around the others that there was astonishment at those things which they heard Apollonius discussing with strength and ease. Thespesion, however, mollified him. For it is said that he also brought back the elegancies of Phraates’ words from the Indians. For at this time the Indians even gather at sacred places. You seem to me to be a good eater and terribly fond of food. For if we were to examine strictly the ancient laws, and those older than knowing them, many strange arguments would arise. Iselikōn.

^B When Titus had captured Jerusalem, and all the surrounding places were full of corpses, they wished to crown him, but he thought himself unworthy of this; for he said he was not the author of such deeds, but that he had merely lent his own hands to God, who had shown His wrath against the Jews. Such accusers as these ridicule such men, brandishing the stings of their tongues against them. He betook himself to his teachers, by whom both his mind and his tongue had been strengthened. "I see a great money-changer," he said. And he said of a certain unhappy man, who had nothing except a few things which were not enough to support his household: "He persuades the man to give him twenty thousand, suggesting that he will deposit five." But the man, loving his treasure, never refused to give at all, but thought he had an equal share, though it was in reality as much smaller as the two myriads were in his own hands, whereas he would have to lie out in the frost and hail for the field, and with other inconveniences that ruin the crops.

^C Philosophy moves some in this way, so that casting off their habits, some have run off to the West to the Celts, others into the deserts of Libya and Scythia, and some have fallen into discourses which incite to shameful acts. While others were sitting under a plane tree, cicadas were singing, as the spring spurred them to sing. Damis, overcome by the words of Demetrius, said: "You, indeed, by being present here as a friend to the man, now certainly seem to bring him a great good. For what small account would be held if I were to persuade him not to run into swords already drawn, nor to rush into tyranny, than which nothing is more cruel? What is to be decided about you I do not know; the judge is affected like those who begin to judge, fearing lest they do not judge the truth, and he makes you the defendant of their own destruction. For he desires what is not fitting; but he directs what must be done toward a judgment of law." He argued with Damis in a way that made him appear not to be listening, concerning the Delta, where they say the Nile divides. Nevertheless, this man is indeed guarding his wealth strongly and surrounding it as carefully as if with a wall; we are now in danger at home, the cakes have been baked. For the Istri and the Danaid rivers terminate them, which are not easy to cross. All Apol-

Apollonius; for they gazed at the very figure of the man, and a divine astonishment seemed to surround his appearance. "I have come," he said, "O King, to have my hair cut, being in danger on account of my locks." While Apollonius was in bonds, someone arrived at the prison, claiming to have bought access to the jail to see him, and saying he had come as an advisor regarding his salvation. This man was a Syracusan, the mind and tongue of Domitian. Python, a rhetorician of Byzantium, was adept at persuading others to commit evils. Or perhaps his hair was something other than it appeared; it was, I think, blooming [1028 R.] and bright. "I," he said, "not only did not approach you for money, but I pushed those people away as if they were not in their right minds. I was set against money even when I was still a youth. In any case, I saw my patrimony (and this was a brilliant estate) for only a single day, and then I left it to my brothers, and to my friends, and to the poor among my kinsmen. A wise man’s hair should be spared by the iron; for it is not right to apply it to where all the fountains of the senses, all vows and oracles, are seen, and where speech appears as the interpreter of wisdom." He considers Nerva worthy of every kind of authority and of the good wishes of every discourse, but Apollonius says he is not a good worker of concerns. For as for Euphrates, because he curries favor with the powerful—why do I even mention money? — they are sources of wealth; and he already discourses at tables, a tavern-keeper, a petty merchant, a tax collector, a money-lender, making himself all things that are sold and that sell. He is always pressed against the doors of the powerful, and stands by them more than the gatekeepers themselves. He builds up his own wealth for others, feeding this Egyptian with money, and sharpening against me a tongue that deserves to be cut out. The youth were worthy of admiration for their number and for their impulse toward philosophy. And being unpleasant in no city, he was even worthy of being loved. ^C

CCXLII. THE LIFE OF ISIDORE THE PHILOSOPHER BY DAMASCIUS

[546 H.] I read the Life of the philosopher Isidore. [(98)]

Therefore, that the Egyptians are the oldest of men, we know by report; there is hardly anyone at all so slow to learn who has not heard many people speak and write of it. But this wisdom, being hidden within the sanctuary of that mythological truth, is revealed so slowly, because that divine splendor of the soul can be turned toward God only by degrees. The Egyptians, he says, worship Osiris and Isis above other gods; the former as the one who brings all [things] to completion...

adorning matter with forms and numbers, and the latter as the one who irrigates and fattens this handiwork of his with immeasurable streams of eternal life. From this arises the Theocrasia, that is, a divine tempering, or rather a perfect union, a return of our own souls, which have turned back to the Divine and been gathered together from a state of much distraction—and why should I not call it clearly a state of being torn apart?—into which they have been scattered and rendered divided from themselves when they flowed down here and took on an earthly body, being dispersed throughout the world by those ^B Typhon-like and otherwise earth-born passions which are, I think, not only to be compared to Typhon, but are even more complex still. But it is time to bring back to the point the discourse we have raised for this purpose, and at the same time to reclaim the narrative that has strayed from its subject, for it is joined to this earthly life as it flies off toward that heavenly vault. But someone might immediately suppose that what has been said signifies blessedness. It is easy to ask: "Whence, my friend," one might say, "is it clear that your philosopher originated from this crowd of souls?" I, however, will answer those points not by contending, in the manner of courts, but more ^C mildly, and not by striving, as in a disputation where there is the sharpest of contests, but as the laws of those who write Lives require, setting forth only those things which I believe to be true and have heard from my teacher. Severus was a Roman emperor and father of the Romans according to the prescription of the law. He said that he had seen a stone in which was contained the figure of the moon, transformed in various ways from one state to another, and increased or diminished relative to the sun, and that the sun itself was also in the stone. Isidorus, therefore, seemed to know the answer to the question, but he did not wish to speak, and he endeavored to learn this as accurately as possible ^D through a certain wondrous dream. For the great Isidorus was possessed of such a ready genius and skill for dreaming that I often marvel, having tested the works that turn out as he predicted, at such a prophecy of his. It is true that almost all Alexandrians are by nature apt and fortunate in dreaming, and for this reason they even now call dreams oracles. When he was awake, however, he did not see that inexplicable vision. For it did not cast forth a luster so clear or deep that, even when covered by things of sense that shine back upon it, it could nevertheless be kindled and shine within. But when the soul stands apart from these things, with the sense no longer operating, while the strength of sleep is more relaxed, then the interior light of God, which is always present to the soul left to itself and now free from obstacles, is kindled more intensely, and very often it pours forth to the exterior, until at last it illuminates the imagination itself. He spoke of a twofold manner of divine visions: this one, the sensible vision of the waking, and the other, the imaginary vision of the sleepers; yet both require true continence. The wise and mature Isidorus seemed, indeed, to have a steady gravity of character, his face almost square, a kind of sacred image of the eloquent Hermes.

^A His eyes, how shall I describe the truly graceful Aphrodite established within them? Or how shall I report the presence of the most wise Athena? I could not immediately say that they were harmonized from opposites into one inexplicable appearance; they were at once standing firm and moving rapidly, so as to appear to turn about the same object, and to represent anything within that same object: they displayed both gravity and grace, and at the same time, when they wished, they were more deeply hidden or more forward—to speak in a word, those eyes were perfect images of the soul, not only of the soul, but of the divine influence dwelling within it. ^B His senses were moderately affected, serving only necessity; and not the senses only, but also that waxen mold, the imagination—it neither excelled in remembering many things, nor was it entirely free from forgetfulness. For God wished, as it seems, to show him as a soul rather than as a union of soul and body, and not to deposit philosophy in this composite, but to fix it in the soul alone. For I have already met some who profess philosophy brilliantly on the outside, using a memory capable of many opinions, and able easily to weave inexplicable syllogisms, and possessing much faculty for divine perceptions, but who are needy in their inner soul and destitute of true knowledge. If ever he was seen to be angry and indignant, his reason ruled, and his anger followed behind. For he was unable to be mild, nor could he cast off his irascibility when rebuking the vices of men. ^C He was most prompt in doing good to others, but still more prompt in plucking out wickedness; and therefore he often offended the spirits of many, not enduring to gloss over their sins with flattering words, nor admitting detestable adulation in place of true friendship. He was so affected towards all that he neither loved contentions nor engaged in enmities of his own accord, all of which were worthy of his form. Such was our philosopher in his zeal to correct the morals of men, and in the enmities and hatred with which he pursued the wicked deeds of men. ^D He was clever and industrious, and showed himself to be easy and manageable. For one might easily count him among the gentle, as if he did not investigate these things accurately, because through his gentleness he was less suspicious; but if anything had been worthy of a pre-emptive suspicion, if there were any guile or ambush, it would have escaped him not at all. Since there are three parts or species of the soul, or whatever one may choose to call them, he said that a triple manner of life is formed, which

^A includes all three in each case, but takes its shape from the one that prevails. The first, he thought, proceeds most in accordance with reason—that which I imagine one might call the life under Cronus, or the Golden Age, or that race near to the gods, just as poets sitting on the Muse’s tripod celebrate it under the veil of myth. Furthermore, he so loved sincerity and truthfulness that he was deemed, even beyond what was necessary, to be plain-spoken and to have no pretense within himself. How far he was from having to experience this! He was not, in fact, a lover of money, but was by nature skilled in managing domestic affairs; for he was also, in all other respects, a sage manager of a household, and spent a great part of the day on these matters, partly by doing them himself, and partly by directing them.

^B When dawn arose, he also arose, with his soul still intent on the oracles, and he would recount his dream. For my part, I did not explain it as a dream instead of a vision, or as truth instead of truth, but I portrayed the waking man instead of the sleeping one, just as I heard it written: When he had fallen into that calamity where his goods were being confiscated, the man who had previously defrauded him of a deposit—having anticipated it—deposited that deposit, along with as much of his own property as he could, with a citizen most worthy of trust. But when the Epidaurian had accepted it along with the other things, and recognized the deposit that had been withheld from him, there were those who advised him to seize his own property and not to return it to the man who had originally defrauded him. But he, in those things that had been entrusted to him, did not deem it proper to be unfaithful, nor to stain trust, the most useful of all virtues, by a seemingly reasonable injustice. ^C He did not wish to appear just, but to be so in reality, gathering a rich fruit of wisdom from truth itself; and the survey of each detail of the account will show how much he knew.

He spoke very little, but listened much to the discourses of his elders. The great man would not enter into a petty struggle, but where other fugitives flee through cowardice, there he descends, daring the struggle, according to the Poet: ^D *Where the virtue of men is seen clear.*

And truly, he seemed to criticize those who weighed things carefully; yet by his familiarity and humanity, he seemed to surpass the world. And for this reason, those whom he accused wondered at him, and were ill-disposed toward him as if he were a lover of litigation. But he, bearing the true example of harmony within himself, judged others by it.

All agree that there are three primary and greatest principles of his knowledge, which is accustomed to contemplate the nature of things: Love, [...]

an expert seeker of the noble and the good; a sharp and shrewd faculty of the mind, capable of being borne toward many things in a short time, and most ready to understand and recognize the traces of the things sought, what is true and what is false for the purpose of attainment. ^B From these three arises an indefatigable love of labor, not permitting the soul to rest until it arrives at the end of the hunt, which is the discovery of truth.

Isidorus, he says, called shrewdness and sharpness not a volatile imagination, nor a knack for easily fabricating opinions, nor, as some might think, solely a nimble intelligence capable of generating truth. For he held that these are not the causes, but rather serve the cause for the sake of understanding. He considered it, rather, a divine possession, which quietly opens and cleanses the eyes of the soul and illuminates them with intellectual light, for the vision and recognition of truth and falsehood. This he called a "good disposition," and he maintained that without such a disposition there would be no benefit, just as eyesight provides no advantage without heavenly light.

His mind was sublime and efficacious, not turning toward lower things, ^C but immediately springing, even from a small occasion, toward the most venerable spectacles; he applied himself to the pristine notions of Plato, not according to the common efforts of most philosophers, and after Plato, to the wondrous contemplations of Iamblichus. We see and hear of many who philosophize—some thinking Iamblichus is inaccessible, others that he is a man puffed up by the proud grandiloquence of his words more than by the truth of things. He touched little upon rhetorical and poetic learning, but set out instead for the holier philosophy of Aristotle. Seeing, however, that it relied more on necessary reasoning than on his own inner sense, and that while it was industrious enough in technical matters, it did not set forth anything divine or intellectual, Isidorus paid little heed to it. But when he tasted the thoughts of Plato, he no longer deigned to "look further," as Pindar said, but hoped to reach the end if he could penetrate into the inner sanctuaries of Plato's thought; and toward this, his whole course of study was directed.

He revered ^D the most ancient philosophers, Pythagoras and Plato, as gods, and thought their winged souls—those which are carried off to the supercelestial place, into the field of truth, and into the meadow of divine forms—were fed by divine ideas. Of those closer to his own time, he says that Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus, Proclus, and others of that middle period, gathered a great treasure of divine science. Those, however, who labor only at mortal and human studies, or who merely wish to understand things acutely or to be lovers of learning, he does not...

^A aspiration, and that which is ineffable. For he deemed those who wish to reach toward the sublime and divine wisdom to accomplish nothing of great significance. ^B Indeed, he used to say that although the ancients, Aristotle and Chrysippus, were men of the most natural talent, most eager for learning, and even industrious, they nevertheless did not ascend the entire path. As for the more recent ones, such as Hierocles and whoever else might be similar, he said that while they were inferior to none in human disciplines, they were in many respects quite lacking in divine conceptions. He also rejected the mass of books, as they are a cause of much opinion rather than of much knowledge. Resting content with one master alone, he modeled himself upon that one man alone, transcribing what was said by him. Clearly, he did not love the images that were present, nor did he wish to worship statues, but rather he already approached the gods themselves who lie hidden within—not in shrines, but in that very mystery (whatever it may be) of total ignorance. How then did he approach them, being such as they were? By a violent love, and one that is also hidden. And what other love is there, if not one that is unknown? And who this is, those who have experienced it know; to speak of it is impossible, and to conceive of it is no easier. One might say that he was not uttering words, but the very substances of things. ^C He was also the most ready discoverer of those matters about which he himself was in doubt among others, and about which others were in dispute among themselves, not by overwhelming the truth with a wide knowledge of many things and an acquaintance with foreign doctrines, and not by refuting those who were in doubt, but by the power of an excellent and clearly divine intellect; and by an immense desire to track down the truth, once discovered, he was like one prophesying. He was able to discern what hidden meaning a discourse covered and what was sound within it. Marinus, who was the successor of Proclus and, along with others, a teacher of the Aristotelian discourses to Isidore, having written a multi-verse commentary on Plato’s *Philebus*, bade Isidore read it and deliver a judgment as to whether it should be published. Having read the book, he freely revealed his opinion, yet he did not utter a single discordant word, merely saying this: that it seemed worthy of the master. Marinus, understanding this, consigned the book to the fire. ^D Isidore also differed from other philosophers in this: he did not wish to compel himself or his companions to adhere to the truth solely by the force of syllogisms. Since truth is not seen by one path alone, he did not wish to drive them by reason, as if by a blind guide urging them onto the right path, as though they were being led like blind men; rather, he always strove to persuade and to instill vision into the soul, or rather, to purge the vision already present within it. He fulfilled a service by which he was ordered to write with speed the things commanded by the rulers. Concerning this, I shall speak when the discourse reaches its proper place: I do not mean just as if I should not have even heard it. Nor did Leontius, who thought he had looked out for his own best interests

->ing, he returned home with unhappy and unfortunate freedom of speech, neither having become rich, nor saved, as he thought, but deprived of divine piety, he was of a most corrupt and lost mind. Thus indeed he spent his whole life in misfortunes. ^A No one was of such an inhuman and barbarous mind who was not persuaded and mitigated by the words flowing from the sacred mouth of Isidore; such persuasion sat on the lips of the man, not a human work, but divine, he was worthy of admiration by his very nature. Indeed, of huge body and remarkable stature, beautiful and easy to look upon, when he had reached mature age, he was courteous and sweet, accommodating, and useful to those conversing: he used moderate and not delicate food, neither harmful because of poverty, nor sumptuous because of wealth: but he also employed music that was tempered, and truly accommodated to the Dorian (6) mode. He alone among men whom we have heard of, refuted the ancient proverb (7) by the thing itself, he delighted not in the young, but in the old and in the gathering of the old. ^B You would say, and he alone among men whom he heard, or knew, or even so, who came to fame, or whose fame became known, or whom we know by fame, whom memory has preserved, or whom oblivion has not erased, and other similar things.

The Alexandrians called the rags of feminine filth Phylacea. There were no legitimate marriages, unless a priest of God had marked the marriages with his own hand. ^C Hierocles, who established schools at Alexandria, constant and magnificent with excellent talent and eloquence of the most beautiful names, and with the ease and abundance of words, carried his listeners into admiration of himself, always contending with the charming and learned speech of Plato. He was once explaining Plato's Gorgias to his associates. One of the listeners, Theosebius, wrote down the explanation. Again, however, as is likely, he wrote down in the same way the second explanation of Hierocles explaining the Gorgias after some time, and with the former compared with the latter, he found nothing, if I may say so, of the same. Both, however, which is certainly new to hear, contained the plan of Plato, as far as it could be done. From this is gathered how great was the abundance of that man in his opinions. He also takes a wife from whom he might have children, ^D whose demon, after it refused to depart with milder words, Theosebius, although he was neither skilled in magic nor had performed miracles, compelled it to leave with oaths. He swore by the rays of the sun, holding them out, by the God of the Hebrews (8). The demon was expelled, crying out that he

Theosebius

Ammonius loved the art occupied with the narration of poets and the correction of Greek words. This was the Ammonius who had a donkey, which they say often neglected its fodder while listening to poetic studies, even though it was placed before it, and was forced to go hungry: thus the donkey seemed to be captivated by poetic study.

Because, he said, Isidorus touched upon poetic matters, being little concerned with them because they do not instruct the mind but remain only in imagination and on the tongue, and they conflict with all explored concepts, ^C therefore he was weaker in these, whence one might see that the hymns he wrote contain something sublime and divine, yet do not have the form of verse.

Theon was not very talented or sharp, but he was studious and laborious, if anyone was. And therefore he was skilled in poets and orators, and held them in his memory, and seemed to himself to arrive at the most accurate understanding of the art of both, yet he was unable to write verses and orations, although he loved them very much.

When the battle was joined against the Scythians before the sight of the city of Rome, whom Attila led against Valentinian, who was ruling in Rome after Honorius, such slaughter was made on both sides that no one of the combatants on either side was saved, except for the leaders and a few ^D of their attendants. This, however, is the most incredible of all accounts: when the combatants had fallen, exhausted in body but still upright in spirit, three were fighting.

^A whole days and nights, in no way inferior to the living in their fighting, neither in hand nor in spirit. Thus were often seen and heard the phantom shapes of souls fighting, and clashing with arms, and they say that ancient and similar scenes of war are seen even to this day, except that in doing all those things which living men are accustomed to do in battle, they cannot utter even a small sound. And as for their appearing, he says [they appear] in the plain, which was once a lake, near Suda, and the phantom is seen towards dawn, when the light is already illuminating the earth; second, in a certain place of the Carians in the region of the Kurds. For in this place they are not seen every day, but sometimes after skipping a few days, nor are these days fixed; round about daybreak until the sun’s bright rising, shadowy phantoms of souls are seen in the air roaming and fighting one another. And in our own times, many men of good faith have related that in Sicily, in the plain called Tetrapyrgius, and in not a few other parts of it, there are seen phantoms of knights fighting, especially in the summer season, when the midday [sun] stands fixed.

^B That Severus’ horse—for this was a Roman, and Anthemius having held out hopes that Rome, having fallen, would rise again through him—having departed from Rome, he returned and obtained the consulship: now the horse of this man, which he used for the most part, when groomed, emitted many and great sparks from its body, until this portent for him was fulfilled in the consulship at Rome. But also for Tiberius, as Plutarch of Chaeronea says, an ass, while he was still a youth and was staying in Rhodes for lectures on rhetoric, portended the empire by this same token. But also Balemerin, one of the aulic courtiers of Attila, [is said] to have cast sparks from his own body; and this Balemeris was the father of Theodoric, who now holds the highest power over all Italy. ^C The author himself also says concerning his own person: “Even for me, when I am being dressed and undressed—though this happens quite rarely—it happens, however, that huge sparks leap forth, sometimes with a noise, and sometimes even whole flames light up my garment, yet they do not burn anything,” and [he adds that] he does not know where this portent tends. He says he also saw a certain man emitting sparks from his head, and [even] igniting a flame, when he wished, by the rubbing of his head against a rough garment. ^D He spurred his horse as fast as he could; he also needed other things. Deprived of the administration of public affairs, he betook himself to a quiet and leisurely life, out of hatred for those who were troublesome in the republic. The Brahmans came to Severus near Alexandria, and he received them with his own hospitality and the honor that was their due. These, according to the custom of their race...

lived with great gravity in his house, requiring neither public baths nor seeking any urban spectacle, but shunning all that is external. They ate dates and rice, and their drink was water. These were neither of the Brahmans who dwell in the mountains, nor of those Indians who inhabit the cities, but lived an intermediate life, transacting the business of the Brahmans among the people when there was need, and representing the people among the Brahmans. They told of the mountain Brahmans all that writers report about them: that they bring down rain and drought by their prayers, and avert famine, pestilence, and other evils that cannot be cured by other means. They said that there are among them men with one foot, serpents of huge size with seven heads, and other things containing much that is irrational. ^B

Severus said that he had seen the Gorgoniad herb, whose root is entirely like a maiden having her head covered with serpentine tresses. He reports that a certain woman, Anthusa, in the days of Leo, the Roman Emperor, discovered divination from clouds, a practice not known by report even to the ancients. This woman was said to have been born in Aegae of Cilicia, but her origin originally traced back to those inhabiting Mt. Comanus of the Orestiadae in Cappadocia, and she attributed her lineage to Pelops. Concerned for her husband, to whom a military office had been entrusted and who had been sent with others to the Sicilian war, she prayed in sleep that she might learn future events. She prayed turning toward the rising sun, but her father appeared to her in a dream and bade her pray also toward the setting sun. As she prayed, a cloud suddenly arose in the clear sky ^C around the sun, and from it grew and was formed into the likeness of a man; another cloud arose, growing to an equal size, and was changed into a fierce lion. The lion, with a huge gaping of its mouth, swallowed the man. That species of man formed from the cloud was like a Goth. For a little while later, King Leo treacherously murdered Asper, the leader of the Goths, and his sons. From that time to the present day, Anthusa has assiduously practiced how she might divine from clouds. The Egyptians claim that Sothis is Isis, while the Greeks refer this star to Sirius, and they depict Sirius as the dog, the companion of the hunter Orion, or rather, they show it depicted in the heavens. ^D Some, through impudence, broke and destroyed statues, and the citizens, deprived of sacred aid, Egyptian-like, scarcely preserve for themselves through human work and art their harbor. They—I speak of the wife’s servants—pursued the dog fleeing from Africa, tearing apart [the ostrich's flesh...]]

And as they were] digging, the gable of a very ancient temple appeared and came to light. ^A

Hermias, by nationality an Alexandrian, was the father of Ammonius and Heliodorus. He was by nature good and simple in character, and he had been a listener to Syrianus along with Proclus. In diligence he was inferior to no one, but he was not exceptionally quick-witted, nor was he a discoverer of demonstrative arguments, nor a bold seeker of the truth. Therefore, he was unable to contend vigorously against those who doubted, although he was strong in memory, such that he could recite everything he had heard from his teacher while he was explaining, and everything that had been inscribed in books. But the spontaneous movement of the mind did not attend his polymathy. He was so well trained in the direction of virtue that not even Momus himself could have found fault with him or besmirched him with envy. Once, when an ignorant man was selling him a book and asking less than it was worth, he corrected the man’s error and bought it for more. And not once did he display this justice, for which others possess no regard, ^B but often, as often as it happened that the seller was ignorant of the due price, he showed it; not like others, loving the profit, nor thinking that he was doing nothing wrong if he willfully bought anything at all from one who was willing. For he believed that there was a certain deceit and fraud in such a transaction, in not indicating the error but concealing the truth—and that, while it was an injury that was not violent but fortuitous, it escaped the notice of the majority, not being a violent theft but a surreptitious one, and not something that brought the thief into danger, but something permitted by the law, yet overturning justice.

His brother, Gregory, was the exact opposite, being sharp to the point of excess and agile in research and learning; but otherwise he was not calm, nor did he carry any serenity in his character, but was somewhat deranged. ^C Later, he was even more seized by disease, so that his faculty of reason was of little use and the instrument [of his mind] was greatly altered.

To Hermias, from Aedesia, was born a child who surpassed the other sons of the philosophers. Aedesia, as mothers are wont to do, played with her son when he was seven months old, calling him "Babios" and with the diminutive "little boy" (paidion). The father heard this, was indignant, and scolded this childish endearment, uttering a clear and articulate rebuke. Many other wonderful things are told about this child—namely, that he did not endure life in the body but passed away in his seventh year, and that his soul did not occupy any earthly place. The Syrians, and especially those in Damascus, call newborn children "Babia." ^D Now, indeed, they even call adolescents by this name, from the goddess Babia, who is thought to exist among them. For already some of them, who have broken ears and a depraved sense, [turn this] into comedy and laughter.

^A That Hierax the Alexandrian, who traveled with Ammonius from Ethiopia to Byzantium, says he saw a certain Panic animal being carried, which looked exactly like those that are drawn and depicted; and that he heard the voice of this animal near Alexandria, as if it were chirping. That Ammonius was most industrious and benefited many more than any of the commentators who had ever lived; or rather, he was well-versed in the works of Aristotle. Furthermore, he excelled not only his contemporaries but was superior even to the associates of Proclus who were older, and I would almost say superior to any who had ever lived, in geometry and astronomy. And Proclus admired the face of Isidorus, as it was divine and full of ^B interior philosophical life; for his eyes manifested the fleetness of his mind, and at the same time, a pleasant gravity and sincere modesty shone forth and turned the philosopher toward him.

That Eunoius the orator was slow-minded, yet filled with youthful arrogance and pompous in his speeches. That Syrianus began his rhetoric at the age of thirty, and although he was naturally slower, yet through excessive industry he was finally proclaimed a sophist in the famous and celebrated city of Athens, not much inferior to the renown of Lachares. That Lachares flourished as an orator more through diligence than natural talent; the slowness of his intellect is sufficiently proven by his writings, which show he was a holy man and burned with a sacred love for divine things. That Metrophanes the sophist was the offspring of Lachares. That the author relates he saw a statue of Venus, which the sophist Herodes had dedicated in a temple. Having gazed upon this, he says, I perspired from amazement and wonder; and I was so deeply affected by joy that I was unable to return home, and often, when I was departing, I would return again to look at the spectacle. So much beauty had the artist infused into it, not anything charming or soft, but severe and masculine, armed, yet as one returning joyfully from victory, and manifesting gladness. That he says he saw Hierus, son of Plutarch, who was studying philosophy under Proclus, in what is called the house of Quirinus, a small human head that was exactly equal to a chickpea in size and shape, ^C whence it was also called "Chickpea": but that otherwise it was a human head, having eyes, a face, hair on top, and a complete mouth, and from its mouth it emitted a voice as great as that of a thousand men. Having narrated this prodigious account about the chickpea and the head, the author adds ten thousand other things about it that are worthy of the impious Damascius both to write and to believe.

That Salustius the Cynic did not walk the beaten path of philosophy ^D

but held fast to the one marked out for refutation and reproach, and especially to the labor for the sake of virtue. He was accustomed to wearing shoes infrequently, being bound either with the Attic Iphicratidae or the usual sandals. ^A He appeared never to be for a long time either physically infirm or mentally distressed, but, as the saying goes, he underwent discipline with a "stiff neck." Good and praiseworthy

[557 H.]

^A The cat distinguishes the twelve hours, urinating by night and by day at every hour, always acting like some instrument indicating the time. And, he says, it also numbers the lights of the moon by its own offspring. For the cat, he says, brings forth seven in its first litter, six in the second, five in the third, four in the fourth, three in the fifth, two in the sixth, and one in the seventh, in the end; and there are as many offspring of the cat as there are lights of the moon. The cebus (which is a species of monkey) emits semen at the conjunction of the sun and moon. The oryx, an animal [(17)] that sneezes, indicates that Sothis is rising. Lest their leaders be distracted by ruinous civil strife, he would foretell by means of a secret vision. Upon the wall, a dense light appears, which is transformed as if solidified into a face—a face truly divine and supernatural, fashioned not with sweet grace, but with a stern appearance, most beautiful to behold, yet ^B nonetheless showing gentleness within that sternness. This, the Alexandrians honored as Osiris and Adonis in the mysteries of the gods.

There was in the nature of the philosopher Heraiscus something that abolished the defilements of generation. If he heard an unclean woman speaking of any matter whatsoever, his head would immediately ache. Thus, while he lived, a certain divinity was always with him. But when he died, and Asclepiades was preparing to hand him over to the priests according to the customary law, along with the other things, the vestments of Osiris with which his body was to be covered; immediately, secrets patterns shone forth everywhere from the linens with light, and around these appeared certain forms of divine images. His very first birth was also sacred ^C and mystical. It is said that he came forth from his mother's womb with his finger sticking to his lips as a sign of silence, just as the Egyptians fable that Horus was born, and the sun before Horus. And since the finger was grown to his lips, it needed an incision, and the lip remained always slightly scarred, a sign conspicuous to all of that ineffable birth. It is said that Proclus confessed Heraiscus to be better than himself; for what he [Proclus] knew, Heraiscus also knew, but what Heraiscus knew, Proclus did not.

He says that this Anthemius, who reigned as emperor of Rome, was of a pagan mind and shared the sentiments of Severus, who worshipped idols, whom he himself appointed as consul, and that they had secret counsel between them to renew the execrable ^D worship of idols. He says also that Illus and Leontius, whom he himself had chosen with the Emperor Zeno, held the same views and had the same intentions toward impiety, with Pamprepius leading them to it.

He asserts that Pamprepius was a monster of deceit and most faithless to his friends, and he records his violent death just as others have; he was by birth an Egyptian and a grammarian by profession. I am not eager to narrate a matter whose truth is uncertain and which is apt to stir up enmity. Leaving ^A Pythius, therefore, I wish to return to the Euboean Heraiscus, whose long hair falls down to his shoulders.

The Phoenicians and Syrians name Cronus by the terms El, Bel, and Bolathen. He and Asclepiodotus, who was once his teacher, had gone down into the channel of the river Maeander to swim. The Maeander, hauling both of them into its midst among the whirlpools, drew them under the water until Asclepiodotus, after rising a little so as to be able to see the sun, said, “We are dying,” and was able to ^B add something unspeakable. Then suddenly, without any manifest aid, they were lying on the bank of the river half-dead; then, having recovered their spirits, they departed, having been freed from the currents of Hades itself. In such a way did Asclepiodotus acquire divine power, even while he was still inhabiting this body. The Carians called that region the Halls of Apollo. Asclepiodotus, therefore, returning ^C from the halls to the city of Aphrodisias, found that the sun had already set, but he immediately saw the moon rising, as if it were at the full. And yet he was not in the zodiacal sign diametrically opposite the sun. But in truth even this image was abolished by Necessity, which abolishes all ancient things. He was Alexandrian by birth, born to parents who were obscure insofar as fortune was concerned, but otherwise honest and pious.

Regarding Jacob the physician, ^D who was by birth a closer Alexandrian, but more distantly Damascene, the son of a physician who had spent forty years in practice and had nearly traversed the civilized world in the exercise and judgment of his art, and who taught his son Jacob the medical art for as many years; regarding this Jacob, then, he tells many miraculous things, just as others do—for instance, that upon hearing of a woman who had sneezed more frequently and lost all her teeth, from this single incident he proclaimed everything pertaining to the woman: her appearance, the color of her body, her stature, and whatever traits of soul were more in accordance with her nature. He says that Jacob’s father, after many wanderings throughout the world, came to Byzantium and found the physicians there knowing nothing of their art with any accuracy or personal experience, but rather knowing it from the doctrines of others—not curing, but babbling. (Both of them, the son and the father, were impious.) These men used many purgatives and baths against diseases. They were not very prompt in employing iron and fire for surgery. But and

^A they were not at all ready for iron and fire, but they would overcome even the most wretched ulcers by diet; nor did they admit venesection. Jacob used to urge the wealthy, while he served them, to provide assistance to the sick poor, and he himself healed them for free, content only with the public grain ration. The author says: I saw a portrait of Jacob at Athens, and to me the man did not seem altogether gifted by nature, but serious and grave. This Jacob, while treating Proclus, who was sick at Athens and being admired there, ordered him to abstain from cabbage, but to eat many other vegetables; but he, according to the Pythagorean rule, would not bring himself to eat mallow.

^A Asclepiodotus was not possessed of entirely perfect natural talent, as it seemed to most men, but he was most acute in handling doubts, though not very quick-witted in understanding, nor indeed consistent with himself; furthermore, regarding the more divine matters, those things which are unseen and intelligible and are the special objects of Plato’s intellect, he was far inferior to that higher, Orphic and Chaldaic wisdom, which surpassed the common understanding of philosophers. In the study of nature, however, he was the most robust of all those of his own age; likewise in the mathematical sciences, from which he brought away the great glory of natural talent along with his other achievements. In the study of ethics and the virtues, if he attempted to devise anything new, he would endeavor to draw his contemplation down to the lower and visible things, preserving nothing (as the saying goes) of the ancient insights, but compressing and gathering everything into the nature of the world. ^B Asclepiodotus, being naturally most gifted in music, was nonetheless unable to recover the lost enharmonic genus, although he had dissected and played the other two genera, the one called chromatic and the other diatonic. But he did not discover the enharmonic, although he had changed and transposed the magades exactly twenty-two times. The cause of his failure to discover it is this: he had lost from our sense perception the smallest measure of the harmonic intervals, which they call the diesis (that is, the first sound perceived in songs), and through this he also corrupted the other, the enharmonic, genus.

Asclepiodotus, learning medicine from Jacob, followed in his footsteps, and in many things even surpassed him. For he himself restored the use of white hellebore, which had long been lost and which not even Jacob had observed, and by means of it he healed incurable diseases in a marvelous way. ^C Asclepiodotus approved of no one among the modern physicians except Jacob, and among the ancients, after Hippocrates, Soranus the Cilician, the Maleote. Furthermore, Asclepiodotus made his wife Damianē—who was most chaste and, what is rare, magnanimous and of a masculine mind in the administration of the household—just as modest and firm in their life together. At Hierapolis in Phrygia there was a temple of Apollo; beneath the spi-

temple lay a subterranean cavern, which provided deadly emanations. This pit, even from above, is not safe for birds to fly over, but whatever flies near it, dies. ^A To those, however, who were initiated, he says, it was possible to descend and abide in the very innermost part unharmed. The author says that he himself and Doro the philosopher, overcome by curiosity, descended and ascended unharmed by any evils. The author also says that at that time, having spent the night in Hierapolis, I thought in a dream that I had become Attis, and that the festival of the mother of the gods, which is called the Hilaria, was being celebrated by me—which signified our salvation occurring from Hades. Returning to Aphrodisias, I related ^B the vision of the dream to Asclepiodotus. He marveled at what had occurred, and narrated not a dream in return for a dream, but a greater wonder in return for a lesser. He said that, while still a young man, he had come to this region and tested the nature of the place. Doubling his garment two or three times over his nostrils, so that, even if he breathed repeatedly, he would not inhale the corrupted and harmful air, but rather the good and wholesome air which he had brought in from elsewhere and trapped within the garment, having acted thus he entered the subterranean descent, following the flow of the hot springs, for the most part into the inaccessible interior; ^C yet he did not reach the very end of the descent, for the passage was broken off toward the depths by a great quantity of water and, to a human, it was impenetrable; but the one who descended was carried to the end, possessed by a prophetic frenzy. Asclepiodotus, however, escaped from there unharmed by his own wisdom. And later, he even devised a way to mix a breath similar to the deadly one from various substances, neglecting both the arguments of the philosophers and those of the priests, [acting] no differently than the traditions of the Mysians and Phrygians. Nevertheless, Patricius dared, against the law of philosophy, to stray into such things. She said, "I am a rustic and ^D unrefined woman." But waking from sleep and leaning on the stool, he spoke. He was charming and personable, not only in serious conversation but also at times in playful talk, so that he was most delightful to those around him, as well as being useful. He invoked God in a grave danger, that He might remove the cataracts of water that were still remaining. He brought along his wife, who was near childbirth. While still lying on the couch, it happened that he saw Dike [Justice]—a graceful girl, nimble, wearing a sleeveless tunic of a saffron color, ornamented with protruding purple clavi; her head bound with a headband, without a cloak, with a somewhat stern countenance and knitted brow. She did not look at him, but toward the entrance. Asclepiodotus, the disciple of Proclus, read in total darkness without a light, and recognized the people standing by. At one time, in Caria, he says that he saw the head of a dragon falling into the field of Phytheas of Caria, and having been brought by Phytheas himself, it was the size of a very large bull's head. He also reports that Asclepiodotus saw a live dragon, high in the air, solidified [or "formed"] by the wind.

and intertwined with the air, standing motionless in the denseness of the clouds, as large as a great pole extended. He saw this and pointed it out to those present, but as the clouds thickened further, the beast vanished. ^A That the successor of Proclus, Marinus, he says, was by birth from Neapolis in Palestine, which is settled near a mountain called Argarizus. ^B Then, blaspheming, the impious writer says that on that mountain is the most holy temple of Highest Zeus, to whom Abraham, the father of the ancient Hebrews, was consecrated, as Marinus himself used to say. Marinus, therefore, having been a Samaritan from the beginning, rejected their opinion—as if it had degenerated into a new belief from the sacrifices of Abraham—and embraced Greek ways. Nevertheless, by toil and tireless labors, Marinus obscured the glory of many keen-minded and ancient men with his own name. Isidorus, however, did not wish to question him while he was suffering from physical weakness, fearing that the man might be distressed. Yet from his spoken and written words—and these are not very many—it was easy to gather that Marinus was not a fertile and well-tilled field of concepts, one which might bring forth the harvest of true contemplation of the nature of existing things. ^C Ptolemy, the prince of astronomical science, wrote down, as Plato says, the teachings of the interpreters for the forgetfulness of old age, leaving behind and storing up monuments for himself. [346a] Proclus, seeing this bodily decline, felt fear for the youth. This man, therefore, having died—though now he is blessed—the soul, I say, and the image of the soul, stood visibly before me as I was sitting on this bench. It is right to trust in the account, which the vision of the leading philosopher confirms, as well as the recent report of another who was truly second after him and, moreover, a third subject, ^D and he who wrote these things, for the sake of the display of truth that I have announced, to those who are lovers of it. Proclus, in the hope he had inspired, could neither scorn the dignity of Plato, nor challenge the judgment of Iamblichus or Plutarch, nor claim wisdom above what was commonly useful; but to the extent that the magnitude of his mandate in speaking grew, by that much more did Isidorus allow himself to be persuaded that it was a burden greater than he could bear. Proclus was truly anxious about the golden chain of Plato 22, lest he leave the city of Athens to us. He was anxious also about Marinus, on account of his bodily infirmity.

^A A true love of philosophy is implanted ^B and, having broken through every earthly bond, and having trampled underfoot both all hopes together and riches, one arrives at Athens. Such a man, it is reported, was the philosopher Zenodotus, who alone was deemed worthy to be called the darling of Proclus, and in whom he placed his greatest hopes. And he was not, therefore, arrogant toward him, nor churlish, nor haughty in conversation. ^C This was due to his innate nobility, the greatness of his manners, and his manifest zeal and diligence concerning discourse. For, among others who were called to the great council, Theogenes was not only a man who excelled in other things, but was also a philosopher. The wealth of the successors was not, as many suppose, Plato's from the beginning; for Plato was poor, and possessed only the garden in the Academy, the revenue of which was three coins, whereas the revenue of the entire property under Proclus was one thousand coins or even more, because many, when dying, left their possessions to the school. Now, therefore, we turn the stern of our narrative toward what we left off. Asclepiodotus was adorned with all the splendors of life, while the others were adorned with none of these, nor did they put forward any marriageable overture, but were in very truth only philosophers, each coming to the peak—the one of sound nature, the other, the son-in-law of the great Asclepiodotus through his daughter, Asclepiodotus, whom he was already betrothing, [a man] of careful precision, [the one known as] Isidorus. A fountain gives forth water both sacred and potable. So that a poetical man might say that his mouth and the rest of his face were a dwelling-place of the Graces themselves. For if ever they were in need of anything, all went to him as friends to a friend. ^D Isidorus far excelled Hypatia, not only as a man excels a woman, but as a philosopher in essence excels one dedicated to geometry. Severianus was constant in spirit, and whatever he might conceive, he was eager to perform; in deed, he anticipated counsel, and for this reason his life was often checked. For it was not easy to advance, nor to grow by a cubit, as Theodore the Asinaeian grew under Porphyry, who from the very beginning offered only what was necessary to the body, and lived his whole life in chastity. Pamprepius, in a short time, appeared most eloquent and most learned; so did he apply himself to the first rudiments of doctrine, which grammar and poetry teach. He was an Egyptian by birth, and having practiced poetry in his homeland, he then came to Athens. The Athenians made him a grammarian and established him as a teacher for the young. Zeno was timid by nature, and seeing him dear to the judges and of the greatest authority...

^A about him, and because of his distrust, he was unable to be at peace; rather, he went through all avenues and wove all sorts of intrigues in order that Zeno might remove Illus from his path. The one who held the leadership of the state among those in power at that time, whose lot it was to oversee public opinion, was named Peter, a man impudent and exceedingly wicked. But perhaps even here the oracles of Pamprepius were prevailing, always lagging and delaying the war for long periods of time.

Pamprepius, having arrived in Egypt, gave Isidore to understand by his words that he did not favor Illus; but he already seemed like one plotting treason and coveting the Roman Empire. This rock is spread out widely at the top, while it is narrower below, yet it is such as to support the suspended breadth, which is very lofty—surpassing that which is below it and supporting the mountain’s edge ^B. You might call it like a great neck supporting a huge head, worthy to be seen. Let us turn our discourse back to Isidore. Isidore was not puffed up, nor difficult in conversation, nor was he ignorant of what is called Stoic affectation. And it was possible at that time to see him cheerful and joyful, his body flourishing and his soul still raised on high, even though thoughts of death were left behind. But a wicked man and one defamed in his life, adhering to a stronger opinion against Athanasius. They cast these things into the baggage of Julian. Isidore arranged the little chest and the other items to be ready and at hand, as if he were about to send them to the marketplace, and a crowd of men gathered for the departure. He even ordered the servants to prepare the scrapers at once, and he cast the philosophers into prison again, because they had been convicted for a second time. ^C Julian received it in silence and endured on his back many blows inflicted by the drums; for he was struck with many rods, having spoken nothing at all. Seeing the items being bundled for the voyage, he said, "What is this you are doing, man? You will be caught by the port guards." He departed, therefore, not long after, and stayed at my house. He traveled then to Athens, intending to bring funeral offerings of incense to Proclus. Extreme and incurable wickedness deserves immediate punishment, but that which has gradually swerved away is immediately worthy of pardon. For the many who commit sins, justice often delays the remedies for their evils: either because they have assistance from virtue [and may] escape the deeper incisions and cauterizations, or because, being unworthy of a remedy at that time due to the magnitude of their wickedness, they are owed by some ^D before their sins are punished, payment for the good they have done. The arrogance of the philosophers in giving counsel is sufficient to exasperate a barbarian man; yet, nevertheless, the philosophers...

philosophers ^A thought one ought to endure and bear what happens with equanimity. He encountered a holy woman who possessed a most extraordinary god-given nature. For having poured pure water into a glass cup, she saw reflections of future events within the water in the cup, and from that vision she would predict the things that were absolutely going to come to pass. We ourselves have had experience of this matter. Anatolius, having scourged John and stripped him of his possessions, immediately brought his life to an end. Necessity compelled me to visit Emesa, for I would never have willingly endured his stupidity; but my embassy compelled me to go. ^B The Stygian water of Arabia flows underground and discharges itself at Bostra in Arabia, which was reduced to a city under the Emperor Severus, whereas it had formerly been a garrison, fortified with walls by the Arab kings for the sake of the neighboring Dionysians. Having heard of Io, so celebrated in story, and that the name of the city was derived from the goad of the ox, he became fond of the connection with the myth concerning the wanderings of Io. He also learned that it inspired the soul with a life chaste and free from female weakness.

It is said that this water is indeed Stygian. The place where it is found is a plain in Arabia, extending from the sunrise as far as the desert city of Dia. Then, suddenly, an aperture opens into an immense chasm, craggy on all sides with overhanging rocks and shaded by certain wild plants that grow from the stones. The descent for one entering from the left is narrow and rough (for it is overgrown with rocky, wild, and uncultivated plants), and long, for as much as fifteen stadia, yet not only men but also the more agile women descend it. ^C Upon descending, one finds many gardens and fields in the valley that follows. Its highest and narrowest point has a receptacle into which the Stygian waters from all sides flow, and because of their fall from a great height, they are scattered into the air, and then again condensed below. This spectacle and work of nature is one full of religion and dread; there is no person who, having seen it, would not be filled with holy fear. Of the offerings thrown into the water, some sink into the abyss—even if they are light—provided the deity is propitious to them; but to those to whom he is not, these offerings, even if they are very heavy, float on the surface and are cast out in a wonderful manner. The inhabitants, having been instructed by experience, dread to swear by that place and those waters, and for this reason, they rarely swear. If anyone ever perjures himself, within a year ^D his body is infected with dropsy.

^A they say, and no one has escaped the penalty.

It is said that Bacchus subdued Lycurgus and the Arabs following him with wine, having sprinkled the hostile army from a goatskin; from which he named the city Damascus. Others, however, give the city its name from a certain giant named Ascus, whom Jupiter subdued there; others offer different reasons for this name. The author traced his origin from this city. "How terrible is the preoccupation with rhetoric, turning all my zeal toward the mouth and tongue, and diverting it from the soul and from the blessed and God-beloved hearings that cleanse it!" Reflecting on these things, ^B says the author, at times I was interrupted in my rhetorical explanations. Nine years thus passed for me. We lived together, both days and nights, for eight months. I have seen, he says, the baetylus moving through the air, sometimes covered in clothes, and at other times carried in the hands of the physician. The name of the physician who carried the baetylus was Eusebius, who also said that there once came upon him unexpectedly and suddenly a desire to wander from the city of Emesa, almost at midnight, as far as possible toward that mountain on which the ancient and magnificent temple of Athena is founded; and that he went most rapidly to the foothills ^C of the mountain, and sat down there to rest as if from a journey; and that he suddenly saw a globe of fire falling from above, and in the globe a great lion standing; that it immediately vanished, and he himself ran to the globe as the fire was now being extinguished, and took it as the baetylus, and asked whose god it might be, and that it answered that it was Gennaeus (the Heliopolitans worship Gennaeus, having set up in the temple of Zeus a certain form of a lion). He carried it home that same night, he said, continuously for no less than two hundred and ten stadia. Eusebius was not the master of the baetylus's movement, as others ^D were of theirs, but this man requested and prayed, while the other gave way to the oracles.

Having babbled these and many such things, this man, truly worthy of baetylian stones, even describes its form. The globe, he says, was remarkably white in color, a palm in diameter, but sometimes it appeared larger, sometimes smaller, and at other times purple. And he showed us letters written on the stone, colored with the paint they call cinnabar, and he fixed them on the wall. From these, he provided the requested oracle to the one inquiring, and it emitted a voice of a thin hiss, which Eusebius interpreted. That man of vain mind tells many other marvelous things about the baetylus. I, for my part, had thought the oracle of the baetylus was more divine, but Isidorus said it was rather a demon; for it is some demon that moves it—not one of those who are altogether evil, nor entirely immaterial, nor altogether pure. He claims that different daemons preside over different baetyli—Saturn, Jupiter, the Sun, and others.

^A Maximinus, he says (and this man was a Gentile in his worship),cast forth such fierce and harmful glances that those who looked upon him were forced to turn their eyes away; being conscious of this, he looked mostly at the ground and not at the people he encountered. He was, moreover, a spectator of many phantasms not seen by others. He was capable of both sending down destructive daemons and warding off those sent by others. Nevertheless, though he was impious, he did not escape the punishment of the sword in Byzantium. He had no understanding of the philosophical life; if someone from the crowd insulted him, he was ignorant of civil and serious matters, having no experience of such stinging and incurable troubles. His delay in traveling to Caria and Athens grew longer than the hope that urged him on.

I come to his prayers, which he offered to God, and because Cyllenius [Hermes] was slow and delayed the business, Isidore accomplished nothing, sparing that most precious thing—time—in accordance with the saying of the wise man. Seeing myself illuminated by divine light, how great an exertion of heart do you think I made? Having become demented, I snatched up an axe and cut off my own procreative nature. And I reported this to Isidore, who always attends to sacred discourses with wisdom and godliness, for he thought I was in danger regarding my body. But this was truly a proof of my own uneducated intention, rendering back a few things for many. ^B We were sailing to Samos. My body began to swell, starting from my feet up to my groin and private parts; I was overcome with sleep on the ship, and then in my dreams I was defiled, [seeing] a headband, a sacred garment, a stole, a face-mask, and a sash. We have heard philosophy disparaged at Athens, but never as much as we have seen it vituperated by Hegias.

Archiadas ^C surpassed his father and many others in virtue in no small degree. He cared less for philosophical matters, being, as it were, so inept and doting upon his patrimony, though he was as pious in his life as any could be. Eupitheus was more gifted by nature, yet in his character he was a simpleton; indeed, even more of a simpleton and quite artless. His frame was weak and not far removed from death. He indeed took it ill at once when he heard the defense, as if that person’s specious counsel did not satisfy him. Saying such things and speaking thus, Marinus persuaded Isidore ^D to accept the decree of succession, and he was created successor—more in name than in the reality of Platonist doctrine. "If then it is a more divine thing, as you say, Hegias," Isidore said to him, "the administration of the priesthood, I affirm the same; but

^A first, it is necessary that those who are to become gods be men. For this reason Plato also said that no greater good has come to mankind than philosophy. But this has now come to the point of standing not on a razor,(30) but in the true extremity of old age. He was unaware that he was attempting to correct incurable and most wicked matters, and he accomplished nothing more. When spring began, and Marinus had died, Isidore wished to leave Athens; but Isidore advised Syrianus and Hegias how necessary it is to restore philosophy, which is slipping away.^B

What has been omitted in words must be joined with the excerpts.

By a certain dubious art, and one established beyond human hope, seeking in secret the mysteries for their own sake with divine hope, and for the sake of other Egyptians, of the whole order. But from here, somewhere from the third and circumcosmic generation, to bind the cables of an uplifting salvation. Moreover, Severus, a Roman patrician, narrated many other things while staying in Alexandria, and that he had seen a stone in which there were shapes of the moon, changing in various ways according to the sun, at times waxing, at other times waning; and the sun itself was also in the stone. Whence it is said that these stones are called synoditae. And he said he had also seen a solar stone, not such as many of us have seen, pouring forth golden rays from itself, but that there was a disc in the form of the sun in the middle of the stone, and thence a globe of fire appeared, and from it rays leaped forth as far as the circumference: ^C for the stone was globular and whole. He said he had also seen a lunar stone, not one soaked in water—which then displays a crescent and is for that reason called an aqualunaris—but one turning by its own nature according to the motions of the moon. This work of nature is a wonderful thing, but many obscure and unintelligible things are told about it. Many say that the Egyptian has perished. However, a report of his safety was being spread, and perhaps the matter may be involuntary, and the same thing perhaps happens even to immortal things: advising what is best, and with speech urging on those who were sluggish in their work.

When there are three species of the soul, there is also a triple ratio of ^D politics, of which each possesses those three, but one is the primary form, by which it is named. And the first is led by reason, such as was the life and commonwealth under Saturn, which is called the golden age, or the race next to the gods, as poets in the manner of fable extol [it].

^A [it]. Another life is that which is inflamed by anger and rushes into wars and battles, and, to speak summarily, which boils with a desire for rule and glory; such as we have heard that life to be, concerning which the tales of historians are frequent. Another life is one governed by appetite, flowing away in luxury and pleasures, corrupt, given over to an abject and womanish spirit of sloth, tossed by uncertain fortune, greedy, vile, servile, such as human life is at present. ^B He used to incline toward travel—not vain or luxurious [travel], gaping after the sight of men’s buildings or great and beautiful cities, but if he heard of anything wonderful or holy, whether hidden or manifest, he desired to become an eyewitness of the wonder. He said that the soul itself in sacred prayers becomes an entire ocean of divinity: first, gathered into itself from the body; then, departing from its own customary ways and turning away from rational notions toward things that are akin to the mind; and third, divinely carried away and changed into a strange serenity, not human, but fitting for God. Praising this [man], Isidore the philosopher had him in his mouth. For persuasion and exhortation ^C are more convenient and more effective for the common people when drawn from history—and especially from more recent rather than more ancient history—since it brings something better known to the hearers. But they also took Isidore as a companion and partner in the Egyptian disciplines, for investigating the sacred truth which lay hidden in the deep, and he often kindled the light of ancient wisdom for them in their inquiries. All his skill was not provided for him through memory from books and foreign disciplines, but he had from the beginning a certain firm and most fertile habit which grasped all things of this truth. And he will set for men, as they are unable to bear his divine rising: he was compelled to undertake the care of children, so that they might be well instructed. He was more sparing in words when explaining than was sufficient to clarify his own thoughts; for neither nature nor training failed him in this, but he himself turned his endeavor toward clarity. Leaving elegance and ostentation of names to others, he pursued the thing itself; he did not speak more words than there were thoughts in his mind, nor [did he produce] more thoughts than the nature of things allowed, bringing into the light the justice which venerates God. Isidore rejoiced seeing Proclus, thinking that in him he saw the venerable and grave countenance of philosophy truly and divinely admired, and [a man] full of the life of philosophy within. Salustius directed his attention no longer to the forensic, but to the oratorical art. He also committed to memory all the published orations of Demosthenes. Furthermore, he was sufficiently eloquent, not imitating the more recent sophists, ^D but vying with the ancient splendor of writing, and he wrote orations not much inferior to theirs. Barefoot, it is said, he traveled around the world. He chooses [this] for the shrines themselves.

^A It is also applied to statues; and *hedos* is even used for the floor of a temple. He saw the vision in dreams a thousand times, one might say, but once it appeared to him even when he was awake. He regarded the man not as one who sees clearly, but as one who investigates, contrary to the common practice. These remained unhindered by the obstacles that usually beset humans. There is no one so cut off from the divine that he does not perceive its power in everything, and not least in its chastisement of those who sin. One would not miss the true Muse, nor would one miss sacred truth. Those who were companions and fellow-partisans of a different dogma were also strengthened in philosophy, although at first they did not attain to the skill of the philosopher. Having used prayer, he returned from those strange visions to the accustomed human perception. ^B And indeed he gave her away at the appropriate time for marriage. But even wearing the philosopher’s cloak, as a philosophical bride, she practiced religion in divine matters, both how much may be spoken and how much must remain secret. He did not go away to Aphrodisias. He lived with his wife without children.

Hilarius the philosopher, loving venereal pleasures, did not have Proclus as his teacher. He said he was persuaded that life in the body would be longer for him because of his wife’s skill. He said this not, as it might seem to some, confessing it as a thing pleasing to him, but rather as one who bears ill the sojourn in the body and refers to his wife, as much as is permitted to a man, the delaying of death; he praised his wife’s agility and rejoiced with her. God, having taken pity on the first hopes of the marriage, gave him a sign of future offspring, and the husband finally saw his wife pregnant. Darkness was no impediment to Asclepiodotus to keep him from reading. He related other things he had heard, and indeed many things worthy of admiration concerning his own vision. ^C The unknown voice commanded him to stop the ship. This belongs to one who sees and hears at the same time. And he lived until death untainted by any body. Nor is there anyone, even among his enemies, who censured him for such defamatory accusations. ^D Marinus, owing to the feebleness of his nature, could not bear even his teacher’s transcendent exposition of Parmenides, but lowered his contemplation from supernatural unities to the Forms, being drawn more by the notions of Firmus and Galen than by the pure insights of those blessed men. He cultivated what was just and fitting for a philosopher, but not the fawning and vulgar manner. Because of the sedition, Marinus withdrew from Athens to Epidaurus, having caught scent of plots laid against his life. Marinus and Proclus himself both embraced Isidorus not with one hand, but with both. Proclus, seeing his soul’s

^A unflagging zeal and insatiable love of learning, and pouring sources of sacred and philosophical teachings into his soul, continued to rejoice in him as he offered a wide and open receptivity of mind. He withdrew, fearing the reproach of both, and at the same time, an indignant grief. He shook a certain supernatural earthquake, not born of nature. For there was a certain Attic woman who knew many devices for persuasion, as he himself had shown, gifting not with one hand, as they say, but with both. He was such in body and soul that he would strike those conversing with him with dread by his concentration, when the time was for gravity and for more profound character and words; yet he was also charming toward those who were charming. For instead of philosophy and blessed tranquility, he thrust himself into political life and magistracies. By nature he was contentious and unconquerable in whatever he turned his mind to; and, ambitious for glory as no other, he brought his virtue out from his soul in honorable works and words, and was always quarrelsome and competitive toward those who were ^B superior. He wished only to be deemed worthy of the interview that pays homage to the ruler. Most men, however, were held upright by their hopes for the ancients. Pamprepius was a suitable instrument of the necessity that blows against what is seemly. In the course of time, he said, for "that which is impending."

^C [572 D] Seeing that Damascius, in enumerating those who insanely attacked our sacred and indissoluble faith, writes these things, as it appears, unwillingly and compelled by the force of evident truth: Julian the Emperor attempted it, but did not advance beyond four years. Lucius, the commander of the military at Byzantium under Theodosius, also thought upon the same; who, attempting to kill the emperor, came into the palace, and thrice trying to draw his sword, departed terrified; for he saw suddenly a woman of unusual size and terrible to behold, embracing Theodosius from behind. After these, the great commander of the East attempted it, but was prevented by a violent death; for he fell from his horse, broke his leg, and expired. Then, he says, our fellow-citizen Severianus, in our own times, along with many others, was very nearly punished with death due to the treachery of his accomplices, and perhaps others, and Armorichus, son of Aspar, who revealed the conspiracy to Zeno. Besides these, Marsus and Illus; of whom Marsus died of disease in the very rebellion, while Illus, having been captured, ended his life by the sword. He hurls his ^D head into the enemy's camp, having slung it from the rock above. Ammonius, a lover of base gain, and referring everything to whatever utility there might be, strikes a bargain with him who had come to inspect what opinion was likely to prevail. His equipment consisted of books of every kind, with liberal works...

^B of political subject matter. "I was displaying speeches," says the author, "previously, putting on the oratorical cloak, so that I was both a rhetorical cloak-wearer, as also a philosopher." People are by nature accustomed to attribute virtue to a life of leisure, which in my judgment is not the case. For virtue, being occupied in the midst of the state with civil duties and discourses, exercises the mind toward fortitude, and is confirmed more by experience as to what is sound and upright, and what hidden pretense and adulteration lurks in the lives of men. All this is rebuked and more readily becomes subject to correction. And how great is the goodness and utility in public affairs! How great the confidence and fortitude! Wherefore those who hold discourses in private, and philosophize many things excellently and gravely concerning justice and temperance, when they are compelled to descend to actual affairs, behave very ineptly. Proclus [1073 R.] to go to Athens while still existing in the body.

Agapius, grave at once and easy, having imitated the ancient language beyond the common, turned all the Byzantines toward himself. He was an object of admiration at Alexandria to learned men: for he was instructed in all arts. He wished to examine and judge grammarians and rhetoricians, and, to speak concisely, he seemed to be a "square" in wisdom, and indeed was. Gesius attained to great honor, not only because he was strong in the medical art, both in teaching and in practice; but also because of all other erudition, instructing himself in dialectics. Isidore marrying Domna as his wife, a son was born, whom he named Proclus. ^C Domna dying on the fifth day after giving birth, liberated her husband, the philosopher, from a wild beast and a bitter marriage. Asculapius of Berytus is not a Greek, nor an Egyptian, but some indigenous Phoenician. For there were born to Saduk sons, whom they interpret as the Dioscuri and Cabiri. An eighth was born after these, Esmunus, whom they interpret as Asculapius. This one, most beautiful to look upon and a youth who would excite admiration at the sight, became, as the myth says, the beloved of Astronoe, a Phoenician goddess, the mother of gods. And being accustomed to hunt in the woods, when he saw the goddess lying in wait for him, and as he fled her who was pursuing, and being on the point of being caught, he amputated his own virile nature with an axe. She, grieving at this misfortune, and calling the youth Paean, restored him with vital heat and transferred him to the gods, named Esmunus by the Phoenicians on account of the heat of life. Others deem it proper to interpret Esmunus as the eighth. He was the eighth son of Saduk, who kindled a great light in the dense darkness. The Marinians received this speech of the youth and greatly admired it. ^D

^A How could he not, being so deeply impressed by Proclus? Yet the difficult aspects of the topic were not yet resolved. I was drawn by the momentum of the discourse to the subsequent events that had transpired, so as to carry out the digression, following the life of the successors whom Proclus had chosen. And truly, he appeared to those present as a man of noble and firm dignity, pleasant to hear, and even surprising; for the most part he occupied himself with what was for the common benefit of his listeners, but he would sometimes temper the seriousness with playfulness and cleverly mock those who were in error, so as to shroud his rebuke in humor. It was a wonderful height and breadth, such that events of old, even those that had reached the realm of myth, no longer seemed incredible. And to me, he offered a hidden reception.

^B Theosebius, having prepared the ring of temperance—which some lowly personage had brought and handed over as he arrived—approached his wife and said: "Long ago I gave you a ring for the fitting begetting of children; but now I give you this one as a guardian of temperance, which will be an aid to you for the chaste preservation of the home." ^C She received it gladly, and lived with her husband for the remainder of her life without physical union. He was accustomed to bear witness that this protective charm applied not only to his wife but also to himself; for he confessed that when he was younger, he himself had struggled in the contest of discipline against the enemies who beget, those attacking from without and those plotting betrayal from within. But he cried out against all the senses, and most of all against the sense of touch. For he declared it to be truly earthly and rebellious, dragging the soul down into the eternal stream of generation.

CCXLIII. Himerius the Sophist Declamations.

I read certain *Declamations* of Himerius the Sophist. The selection gathering the finest of his speeches stores away their publication.

From the oration of Hyperides for Demosthenes. From the Theoria.

This deliberation is suspicious and dangerous to any people, and holds no small difficulty before it persuades the hearer. For both are popular, and both are considered to be for the better. Nor do they use terms in their bare sense, but rather employ those that signify their intent through emphasis. ^D

From the theory of the proemium itself.

"You thought, O Athenians, that by this one decree Philip would not only take away Demosthenes, but also all of your demagogues, as many as had given themselves with him to the state, and that he would thereby make Attica inaccessible to Philip and keep it whole for the city..."

^A For until now we have preserved our freedom. For we shall seem to have wished to be oppressed by calamities and to have been subjected to Philip of our own free will, and not against it. But he first turned toward the barbarians, and having emptied that continent, he thereafter bore down upon the critical parts of the city and of the Greeks, surrounding us from every quarter like the most cunning of hunters, who spare their prey only as long as they are still preparing. Yet nothing moved us, nor forced us to take hold of our affairs: neither the piercing of the Peloponnese, nor the ruin of the Phocians, nor Euboea oppressed by tyranny along with the trophies of the Medes, nor Arcadia enslaved, nor the misfortunes of the Eleans. Nay, we even looked on at the Chersonese being tempted, and we delayed even while seeing the Hellespont being alienated. For what plague or earthquake has ever emptied so many cities or destroyed and overwhelmed as many races of men as Philip and the time of Philip? For he knows precisely the things that he does not yet possess—of which he is being deprived because of this—and that he would have gained nothing of what he now possesses, if anyone had hearkened to Demosthenes who was counseling ^B against it. Nor does Philip bribe only against the cities, uplifted by the schemes of traitors, nor does he propose prizes for their fatherlands, nor does he arm the wicked against the people; but he has transferred his machinery of war to the orators and the demagogues. Yet all have decreed that this very action was a festival and a public assembly. At that time he began to violate the law not by words, but by his very nature. For he imposed land upon the sea, and sailed through the midst of mountains, and used the sea in place of land, and the land in place of the sea, and the city, migrating into triremes instead of Attica, performed everything in the palace upon the sea. Do not the Macedonians ^C prevail over affairs, they who were formerly content to be preserved with their tributes? But having thrust aside our city from its rule, they themselves shifted into that order which our ancestors left us. What law drew Philip down to the sea and compelled him to touch an element to which he is not much dissimilar? For when both the law and the occasion of events demand the same things, I yield to both for the sake of utility; but when necessity suggests one thing and the laws another, I disregard the syllables and follow utility. And who among you does not know how they, having long ago bidden farewell to our legislators, and having told Solon and Draco and all the others to rejoice, deem the Macedonian gold and the friendship of Philip to be law and fatherland and constitution and all the most precious things? ^D Being marked with infamy by God [in column for "triumphant"] because of the things he dared. I hold Aeschines in suspicion. For the Phocian comedy troubles me—which that preeminent actor, having drawn the third parts, exhibited to us not in a stage shadow but in reality. But yet, when these things are so...

they treat the man with irony, and they frequently bring up Pisistratus, and are not ashamed while mocking him now for cowardice and weakness, and now fearing that he might tyrannize the city; things which are most apart from one another. He who is carried off from the Piraeus to the tyrants with entire fleets. These things corrupt the republic and pave the way for Philip. ^B Ex oratione in qua Demosthenem inducit de revocando Aeschine consultantem, vulgato rumore Alexandrum exsules revocaturum. [From the speech in which he introduces Demosthenes deliberating about recalling Aeschines, when the rumor had spread that Alexander was about to recall the exiles.]

Since both are bitter, both to repeal a decree of one’s own accord and to undergo these things against one’s will by command, I have considered it a lesser evil to repeal it of one’s own accord than to endure it against one’s will. For it is indeed possible that this might at some time obtain the glory of humanity, but those who obey others procure infamy for themselves, while procuring honor for those who command. ^C Aeschines holds conversations with kings from the platform, and after his exile on account of Ctesiphon, he further solicits the kings. A man who has leaped over the entirety of his property with arms, and by nature is so contentious that he no longer has any with whom to contend. It is through these alone that Philip was raised, through whom the spirits of the Greeks fell: from whom were given fellow-soldiers, opportunities of place, and every occasion for conducting affairs bravely. The calamity of the Thebans indeed called out to the Greeks, but Alexander respected this city even after Thebes, although he even then had something which he might object against this city. For we did not exclude the sacred rites of the victorious Thebans, lest we should invoke Bacchus with hymns ^D amidst the Theban laments. For just as a city, if a sincere man appears who is able to return the favor, is destined to be a participant in glory, so also, if an evil man brings back favor, it is marked by infamy. Nor, if another were writing and acting against the laws, would I have been silent, but having mounted the rostrum, invoking Solon and calling upon the republic, I would have said: I do not abrogate the laws, nor do I receive exiles by command, nor do I enter into a treaty on the orders of the slayer of the Phocians; but as long as I have harbors, as long as I have a robust age, as long as I can number the trophies, as long as even one trireme is still brought out from the Piraeus, I will not desert the laws, nor will I abandon the republic, nor will I make a destruction of the reputation of this city itself, nor, fearing the uncertain turns of fortune, will I myself become my own executioner before I see servitude. Let Aeschines return, therefore, at the bidding of Demosthenes, but not of Alexander; at the bidding of an orator acting against the law, but not of a king commanding; as an exile having obtained mercy, not as one to be feared by us on command. These are the voices of the Athenians, through which I recognize the city; for you are those who, every land, every

sea, have filled with trophies on behalf of the laws and of liberty. Xerxes campaigned, transposing earth and sea, because he accepted those who asked for the earth and the cup into the pit instead of the assembly. But the city remained more unmoved than the elements. For even among others, so to speak, each of the things done, even if it seems to be the same by nature, is distinguished by the pretext. For example, one strikes his neighbor. If it is in the games, he possesses the crown, having conquered; but if outside the contest, he pays the price. We once lamented the city being ravaged by tyrants; yet we ourselves handed it over to be burned by the Medes, instead of [defending it] for [the sake of] virtue. He who did not make a pact with Philip, nor even after the disaster at Chaeronea, full of evil ^B fortune, [did he do so]. It was once our custom to lead Greece and to fight against tyrants for liberty. This law began from Miltiades earlier, flourished under Themistocles, descended to Cimon, was guarded under Pericles, and was admired under Alcibiades; but in my time, while it was kept in judgment, it has been corrupted by fortune and by the flattery of those who betrayed [us]. We stripped others of the empire—you did not contradict; we departed from the ancestral custom—you did not complain. Our city did not yield to the Lacedaemonian city at Sicily; but the island passed its whole age outside the fatherland, while the city remained impregnable in its resolution even after the evening. But Aeschines is wicked. Add, if you will, the destruction of the Phocians, the betrayal of Thrace, the slaughter of Cersobleptes, and all the other names by which, insultingly ^C treating the people, he has been called. For a disease, O Athenians, has grown up with the Athenians against the Greeks in the excess of their conduct. For the city has indeed often saved wicked men, not approving their purpose, but pitying their misfortune; it has not yielded to anyone against the laws, when it was keeping its resolution. Why then do I not already proclaim it? Why do I not depart from life before seeing the city enslaved? I myself, at any rate, believe that I have the report, but not that it is as those who tell tall tales [falsely claim], examining first, O Athenians, the manner of Alexander. Who is this? He simultaneously undertakes and accomplishes, or rather, he outruns the reports with his deeds, and the messengers with those things he undertakes. ^D For even these many and great deeds, which the flatterers contrive, he accomplished with speed rather than strength, overcoming those against whom he moved, appearing before it was said he was present, being seen before he was heard, like lightning or thunder, which often arrives before it is expected to lead the way. Thus he took Sardis, thus he ravaged Caria, thus he swept away Lycia, thus he invaded Pamphylia, thus he appeared to the Cilicians, thus he swooped down upon the Persians, thus he terrified Darius; alas for the near calamities! Thus he also tore apart Thebes. Thus fell that city in the navel

of Greece, before the report of its downfall had even arrived. And I indeed was unaware of the disaster, but the city had already become a tomb. This, in the first place, is why it is not fitting for me to pay heed; and secondly, because Alexander knows, even if someone might consider him greatly intoxicated by his good fortune, and so on. Why, therefore, do I not tear down the trophies? Why do I not overturn the columns? Why do I not erase the inscriptions? For I consider all these things to be memorials of virtue, which, just as they are an ornament to the good, are a reproach to those who bring shame upon them.

^B Well did the Salaminians, having run the risk, wonder at the Stoa Poikile. For they were spending upon the sea the remnant of the mainland. Parnassus hurled its peaks into the sea, and fought against the elements for the sake of its own race in place of weapons. The Greeks divide the battles among themselves, and distribute the accomplishments along with the elements: the Lacedaemonians on land, we upon the sea. They blocked the gates of Greece with three hundred bodies, we with a like number of triremes. Yet there is no one who can stand against that young Macedonian who is reveling over all the sun-lit world, and who makes even Fortune herself grieve at the insults he offers with his successes. Is there anyone who stays upright? When he performed his promises to the king, he did not return having persuaded [him], but having gained the fact that he was saved because he had not persuaded. You, however, always make yourselves easily handled by those who play the tyrant, so that they may grow rich, while the city is stripped of its own wealth. Fear is indeed necessary, but at long last and very belatedly you preserve the habit of Aeschines. He will burn the triremes of the city—no longer through Antiphon or other hidden agents, as before—but acting out his injustice in his own person. The people of the Athenians vote for the return of Aeschines, the very man who fears the rumors from the Indians as if they were weapons and battles. They were eager to recall Aristides, and this not for a failing, but having virtue as the pretext for his exile. For in order that they might be persuaded by Solon, they were not even fleeing from seeming to wrong him in the name of justice. Babylon lies fallen, Darius is gone, he has destroyed the Indians, he has subjugated the Persians; only the Athenians remain by their own virtue, the strength of which the Persians have experienced as often as they have contended in battle.

^C From the declamation the title of which is, "Epicurus, saying that there is no Providence, avoids an indictment for impiety."

From the theory. Rhetoric knew how to prepare philosophy as material for itself; for the power of speaking is from above, like a tyrant. ^D

Exordium of the oration.

Epicurus, if he did not know it before, shall now clearly know that Providence governs the nature of the universe; not through his own teaching, but by being brought to judgment. For the fact that the wicked are judged, punished, and pay the penalty is a manifest proof—not of a nature rushing blindly and in vain, but of order, law, and administration—and, what is most important, it is a bright proof of Providence itself. ^A Some good results have already come from this writing, men of Athens. Epicurus has come to his trial looking gloomy, and with this grim countenance has corrupted his own doctrine of pleasure. He is deserving of hatred for two reasons: both for what he teaches in private and for the person he puts on in public. For in the former he brags of pleasure, that he may reap enjoyment from all things; but here he feigns gravity, so that he may wheedle the jury. ^B Indeed, it is a strange trial: a man is being judged for the nature of the world, and a perverse sophist is on trial because of Providence. All virtue perishes through the teachings and dogmas of Epicurus; and gone are the courts and judgments, the rewards for virtue, and the punishment for wickedness; nay, wickedness even ascends above the heavens, and there is no place exempt from the impudence and audacity of Epicurus. And for this reason, he felt ashamed to adhere to the ancient footprints of philosophy, and he neglected to walk the same path as those who philosophized before him. Or rather, condemning the small-mindedness of all those among us who have been punished for their impious dogmas, he decided to surpass them all at once in his own acts of wickedness. How is he not worthy of censure, attempting to falsely claim such a great and illustrious name? ^C For where are these things in agreement? Where does it happen that pleasure is mixed with labors, or fortitude with delights? Or the Academy with brothels, philosophy with drinking, the life of the temperate with profligate youths? And what has he planned, and what has he dared? He declares war and battle against the laws of the whole of nature. Epicurus has raved with a madness that spans every age, and he has conceived impious loves for all who are admired for their youth above others.

But let us consider his defense first. Do you demand penalties for his doctrine? By no means, but for his impiety. For it is permitted to teach whatever one will, but it is not permitted to be impious. ^D If you can prove that there is no impiety in your words, I do not condemn the words; but if impiety is present in the words, you will not pay the penalty because of the words themselves, but you will be punished all the more because you have used these words to confirm impiety. For a man will not be penalized in court if, although he is permitted to use words for what is appropriate, he chooses to use them for what is not—but rather, if he has defiled an honest matter with dishonest words, he shall pay the penalty for his words. We summon here to the judgment seat the orators; and if anyone hesitates, often...

^A the common voice of the city rouses even those who have no wish to speak. Some youth, male or female, enters the venerable lecture-hall of Epicurus—for it is for this age that this brilliant assembly is designed. The man surpasses Ixion in impudence, Salmoneus in insolence, and Tantalus in daring. But those are myths, and we barely believe such things even on the stage; ^B Epicurus, however, is found to overcome them not in myths, but in dogmas and deeds. And those others, it is said, dared to speak these things elsewhere—some in the mountains, others in the glens, and others in certain barbarous and remote regions, so that the nature of the place itself seems to grant some kind of pardon to their offenses. But Epicurus teaches these things at Athens. And when I say Athens, I mean the very fountainhead of piety. Does Socrates not seem to you, whom you emulate, worthy? "And what," he says, "have I committed worthy of being held accountable?" Is this what you say to me, Epicurus? It is now a greater crime, not only because you are impious, but because you now add new impiety. From this you have been rendered guilty on two counts. Have you not overturned altars? But you have shown them to be in vain, since you remove Providence from the nature of things, for the sake of which we erected altars. Have you not introduced new sacrifices? But you have destroyed them all. Let not Epicurus be acquitted on the grounds that he did not behave as insolently toward the gods as those before him. For it is impossible for one citizen in the city to be impious in every way; but if each person, in exchange for what he has actually done, sets forth what he has not done to escape punishment, who will pay the penalty for his impiety, since none are impious at all, and it is permitted for the accused to offer good deeds in place of their crimes? Such evasions are not to be admitted by the wise. For the defense should not be applied to matters of which one is not accused, but to those of which one is accused before judges, and concerning which the arbitrators sit. But they, omitting the most just course, slip into the easiest; for while the most just course is to refute the actual charge, the easiest is to make a defense concerning those things for which one is not standing trial. ^C If, therefore, you deny Providence because you have not yet paid the penalty, you have judged correctly; but if you do so on account of the nature of the universe, you are foolish. But from where, after that much-bruised theory of atoms and the void, did you invent such an opinion? A certain disorderly rolling and motion disturbs this universe, and it is the ancient chaos, older than your words, and it does not obey the defined laws of nature. Furthermore, all things proceed in order, which I consider to be the greatest proof of Providence, namely, that all things are preserved; for disorder produces corruption, while order induces preservation. ^D Why do you strip from Delphi, just as from heaven, Providence? And yet Parnassus was moved and shaken against the Persians, and summits were hurled instead of javelins, and the Persians fell, buried by the rocks. But while Epicurus dares to say these things against the

^A mountains are not shaken, nor is Hymettus caused to vibrate; neither lightning nor thunderbolts snatch him together with the Academy from the eyes of men. I understand the cunning contrivance of the gods; they have reserved him for your judgments, so that the Athenian senate might decree the same things as the Pythian prophet, Apollo. If indeed he had dared to write only so much as would suffice to remove the signs of Providence, he would have had to pay the penalty as an impious man. But if he is impious against that very Providence, of which heaven and earth and the nature of the elements are images, shall we spare him as if he had committed a minor crime? For he says, it goes well with the wicked. But what greater misfortune is there than wickedness? For the wise are unfortunate. ^B Then do you consider some other happiness better than virtue? Indeed; the life-plan of each man is not one from nature and will, but the intentions of men are divided: they assign to each person an end proper to himself. No wise man covets the sovereignty over all things, which most people declare makes its possessors blessed, nor, if he does not attain it, does he think it a loss. What then is the end for him, and to what does he look, and for what does he toil and watch by night and study by day? The acquisition of virtue, my friend. And how does he choose this, and through what manner does he become master of that divine prey? Virtue is not to be acquired by wealth and riches, nor by the strength of the body. For it surpasses every olive crown. By warlike valor? And what trophies are more precious than those which are set up over vice? Therefore, do not reproach the wise man who is poor with poverty (for money was not his goal), nor reproach the sick man with his infirmity, if his better part is whole, nor reproach him if he is overcome by those ruling in the city, since he is superior even to his stronger counterparts. For it is so far from being the case that the wise man pursues the possession of these things, or considers himself unhappy if he lacks them, that some, especially those who have shone in wisdom and virtue, have even voluntarily deprived themselves of them, so that, having freed themselves from all external preoccupation, they might exchange them for the immortal riches of virtue. Anaxagoras resigned all his ancestral pasture lands, declaring in deed what kind of agriculture is fitting for the wise. Democritus voluntarily induced illness in his body, so that his better part might be healthy. ^C Why then do you accuse Providence as if it were not distributing what is just according to merit? For if they despise all external things, how would they be distressed if they do not have them, or how would they toil to attain them? For what rich man does not consider wealth to be a very great encumbrance? But the knowledge of divine and human things, and the greatness of such and so much wisdom, does it seem to you to be a secondary matter to the merchant, and a piece of extra luggage for one who is otherwise busy, and an accompanying burden for one who pursues honors and magistracies in the city? Do not therefore, wretched one…

those who have enjoyed the greatest happiness, nor unhappy those who are likened to their betters, nor poor those whose treasure is immortal, nor ignoble and abject those whom we admire as gods. For many are often evil in their intent, yet are frequently praised by some, as utility rather than truth determines the praise. ^B Yet I would gladly have asked those who wish to reproach the wise for their misfortune: whether they were such before they became wise, or after this they were deprived of what are called goods? If before, it is not the fault of virtue; but if from the time they gained it, they have been deprived not of what they desired, but of what they did not desire. But he actually mocks [this] misfortune, and bypasses the manner of the judgment. For as for those to whom he has reproached nothing at all, I think, of the usual things, he assumes he can show that he has not wronged [them] at all, as if he were not on this account worthy of greater anger and accusation, that he has done such things and so great things for which it is not [H. 1322] possible to find examples. ^C But if those who have dared the greater things, because they have committed greater, will not pay the penalty, what reason is there for anyone to wish to punish those who have committed lesser things? Or what? If we let go those who have done nothing beyond the usual, how will there not be complete license for those who wish to commit transgressions which are not habitual, when those who first dared these things might escape as not having committed injustice? But it is necessary that the excesses of crimes should not lead to the remission of judgments, but rather the opposite, insofar as with the deeds, the frame of mind is also hated. For that one should wish to introduce a new nature of crimes for which one committed wrong, would be a sign of wickedness on two counts: both in trespassing that which one ought not, and in wishing to do what no one had dared before. You say to me, no one of the usual things has been dared by you. By this you speak to me of the excess of the misfortunes we have experienced. For those who have been wronged in ways they know others have been wronged as well, bear their misfortunes more easily, considering the misfortune of their neighbor to be a consolation for what they have suffered; but those who [have suffered] newer crimes have no means—not finding any equals—to bear what they have encountered. They consider the misfortune ^D to be unbearable.

*From the Declamation on the case of a father who killed his son.*

Has someone suffered injury at the hands of a son? Has not his wife also been violated? Has not the harm been inflicted upon both? Is not murder also added to the offenses? Who was the author of the slaughter? The ignorance [of the deed] mitigates the grief. He dares to commit adultery, and with secret machinations he overthrows a virtuous household. And yet does he not make the evil greater by an even greater evil, by imposing a son upon a mother, and making the charge of adultery itself seem light by the conduct of those committing adultery? He has possessed an incorrupt soul, but not also a...

^A house preserved from us by my efforts. You did not speak falsely in your threats, O rich man; we have been captured, we have been defeated, we are silent, we have forgotten the state. You have cut off our voice by these murders, and you have stopped the mouth that was speaking with these tragic tokens. With difficulty do I speak and utter the necessary things; I am no longer an orator of the city, but already only of this calamity. Whose are these great defilements? Are they not all yours? Were not all destroyed, not indeed by my right hand, but by your counsel? Not yet have I mentioned the head of the evils, the tokens from your brilliant stage that appeared at the proper time. You have brought a comic end to tragic catastrophes, and with these you have increased the calamity by which grievances are usually resolved in comedies.

Thus, therefore, while going about having performed all things against us, ^B he says: "What could you say about the poor man?" He is willing to accuse and to lodge a complaint regarding whatever no law prohibits. Then he asks me: "Is it not permitted, therefore, to pick up a child? Is it not permitted, therefore, to do no wrong while taking one up?" But if you have added to the one thing that the law permits, both that which is allowed and that which is not allowed, you will not be acquitted by the one more than you will pay the penalty for those things which you append to it and which are not allowed. "It is permitted to me," he says. Words of a rich man, a response of tyrannical pride. I, however, respond to you thus, mildly and in the manner of a citizen: for you will pay the penalties while these men act as judges. Have you known something to do without liability? You have the authority. But if you have moved that authority toward ^C lawlessness, I punish it, because through the pretext it has taken on the nature of that which is no longer permitted. It is good to share, but only when the kindness is beyond suspicion. But if a man breaks through houses, and plots against marriages, and defiles families, and corrupts homes, and feigns a kindness that is full of every inhumanity, which things, having no justice joined to them in the meantime, occur by a certain permission. Because these things have taken on that which makes them appear less reprehensible, by that much are they more unjust. But if you were perchance seeking a son for the sake of adoption, why did you not declare your will before the birth? Or why did you not demand the child after the birth? Or perhaps you wanted neither of these? But because of a lack of an heir, did you not declare him when he was taken? Did you not perform the adoption according to the laws? Who will answer us whether this was done against the laws? ^D An impudent harlot has dared this through fraud, and an unhappy boy has been miserably intoxicated by his wretched mother with an execrable cup of love, and a father’s right hand, through evil arts, has been armed for the murder of his own dearest ones. I therefore mourn those whom I killed not as enemies, and I sit weeping by the victims, whom I thought were made lawfully, and the one whom I considered an adulterer before the murder, him I recognized as my son after the murder. Now you are truly wounded, now you also receive burial shrouds, my son. I will call you by a final name, not those which you obtained through an adulterer, but those which through generation—

^A are not, for you are not the cause of my misfortunes to me, but another. I would gladly ask this of the rich man first: Did the young man seem to him to be of good character, or on the contrary, lawless? For if he were good, it is not obscure whose machinations these were; but if he were wicked, it was fitting that he be returned to his parent. Furthermore, did you not know that he was accustomed to perpetrate these things? Or, knowing it, did you prudently refrain from stopping him? For if you were ignorant, do you claim that his custody belonged to his father? But if you did know, as is likely, you ought to have prevented what was about to happen and had not yet taken place. For the former is proof of concern, the latter of malice; the one shows a benevolent person, the other a pretender. The young man is the cause of everything. For if he were able to let out a voice, if some god (such as we often hear of in the poets) had left him there for so long as he was being presented for judgment, would he not have cried out from the midst of his wounds and blows: "I, an adulterer? I, lawless? O hostile rich man! For you have taught me late ^B the names that befit you." "But," he says, "having felt pity for the disaster, I showed the tokens, wishing for the young man to be deemed worthy of his paternal burial by you." In good time (for is it not so?) you preserved the reconciliations, and only then did you remember to connect the kinship, when you had created an implacable war with sword and adultery.

If he speaks and writes, and the paternal order of life is found, I shall not ask for more tokens; I will recognize his nature from the footstep. Allow me to take away one who has been consumed by disease and plague. I will mourn even then the coincidence of the disclosure, that you have kept for me the name of the father in the tomb alone. But it will console me that I am sending the boy to the gods below having been destroyed by disease, not by a drama. But now (O truly tragic, O premature and heartless announcement ^C of the tokens!) I am now forced to recognize the boy, when it would have been better to be ignorant; and only then do I lay claim to the title of father, when I am found to be a child-slayer. Leave me to mourn the adultery alone; grant me space for my misfortunes in one drama. Why do you parcel me out to the poets? Why do you set up a stage and theater for each one of my disasters? But now you have kept count by numbering my misfortunes. And only then do you wish to fill my tomb, when you have exhausted my family. You wish to bury my son! It is honorable, indeed: for you have not yielded to me in the contentions. Allow me to mourn my own fortune; do you, if you wish, commit the slain one to the earth, and give him the swaddling clothes ^D instead of burial shrouds. Your hands are the ones worthy of such a burial. From where, however, shall I perform the funeral? From the hearth? And what tomb is more dreadful than that wretched house? There the wretched bodies lie, and sacred blood has been poured forth from every part, and much slaughter (a sad spectacle!) lies in the midst; a cohort of curses, demons, and furies surrounds this house. Now indeed (alas for the vast heap of evils!) against my son, weapons...

are readied; the mother has been forced into an act of illicit union with her child. ^A

But oh you, who are more grievous than war, pestilence, and tyranny; oh you, who are more of an enemy to our fatherland than to our politeia, what kind of return of this sort do you make to the city for what kind of benefits? Instead of the highest office, instead of honors, instead of that by which it deemed you worthy—even though you were so often and so greatly unworthy—you have brought it out onto the stage, and have made our city a subject for tragedy; and while my misadventure will be circumscribed by the end of my life, your shameful acts and your ways will be extended as long as the life of the city itself. ^B

But do you speak, and do you write, and do you judge, and do you preside. And first, if you please, bring forward this law: "Let the pauper speak no more in court; let punishment be inflicted upon him who speaks; let him be cast among the common plebeians." Truly, the law written for you (for what need have you of further words and syllables?) concerning that calamity is manifest; a platform has been splendidly built for you, and by this example, every tongue is cut away from the poor. Speak alone, command alone; no one will contradict. Perhaps you will not even be petty hereafter, nor limit your power to the platform. You will perhaps have need of a stage more elevated than these, for dramas displaying an unspeakable tragedy. ^C But so that you may strike terror into all the more, imitate and display my disaster in a painting. It is difficult to find an art capable of portraying a nature of affairs so monstrous. Nevertheless, there is nothing that the rich man does not dare. Let there be pigments and colors from some meadow of pestilential Furies; let the panel be laid out upon a dark and profane material; let the painting be served by fire, such as the demons who avenge such murders usually kindle. And seek out a painter who is tragic in hand, but even more so in spirit. Command him that he make the order of my misfortunes the arrangement of the painting, and that he paint nothing prior to that exposition—neither one speaking, nor one haranguing, nor one wearing a crown, nor anything of those things that usually happen to the fortunate. Let the whole table be full of my calamities. ^D Let the unhappy father be painted first, carrying the infant into the wilderness with his own hands, lamenting his fortune, bewailing his misery, departing, returning, setting him down, picking him up, yielding to nature, and again being overcome by necessity. Let the painter imitate, as much as can be done, the discourse through a mournful countenance, so that all may understand the words through the painting. Then paint those infamous acts of "love": but especially, in painting the son, do not fashion him brazenly; make him hesitant, presently approaching the matter, then rejecting it, disturbed in spirit, yet compelled by fear, fleeing from the adultery, not yet understanding that he is being forced by his mother. Let the unhappy old woman also stand elsewhere, and her, if you please, describe as having been seized by love, already wrinkled and gray-haired, so that the novelty of the thing

^A may astonish you the more. Come then to the head of the passage: arm the wretched pauper against his dearest ones, and imitate as many deeds as will fill your inhumanity with fabrications. Add now, at last, the climax of the drama, showing yourself amidst the murders with recognized signs, smiling, cheerful, rejoicing in successes achieved. By the gods, reserve some part of the picture for me as well, so that no one may ask: Where is the unhappy pauper? How did he live? By what means did he pass his life after such misfortunes? But this will not be a perpetual happiness for you, O rich man, and you too must be a part of the drama. No one has ever watched a high tragedy in which tyrants did not fall from their former fortune.

From the declamation with the following inscription: The Athenians, after the Median war, decreed war against the Barbarians. Upon learning this, the King promised to make amends for the damages sustained if they would break off the war. While the Athenians were consenting, Themistocles spoke against it. — The Prooemium.

Never shall I be brought to believe, Athenians, that the King will make an end of tempting us, even if he has found our citizens ^B to be superior in the art of war. Indeed, I do not think it is anything to be wondered at if the King attempts the same things again. For what is surprising if those who are set in need and fears have recourse to arts by which they might remedy their calamities? So this is by no means absurd. But one would more justly admire our orators, if they still thought there was an occasion for us to betray ourselves, when not even the King himself denies that we are stronger than his own power. It is fitting, however, that we should not consider ourselves inferior to the estimation that man has of us. For it is absurd that we should overcome the Barbarians with arms, but in counsel be inferior to those same people. Nay, he has even signified these voices concerning all of us to the gods, and has consulted the Pythian Apollo about his triremes. Why do you trouble the straits on my account? Why do you cut the mountains so that they serve like the sea? Why do you cover the waves with land? Let Athos stand, and do not send the fleet ^C through the mountains, but through the sea. But even if I have made little mention of these things, keep away from the heavenly things, and spare the realm above. Do not make day into night for me with your javelins, nor let a dense cloud of arrows from your army cover the sun. But you leave nothing unattempted, so that the city of the Athenians may obtain some part of the Median histories. You appeared more terrible than fame itself, because we have learned by experience that you transfer those wonderful deeds now to the mainland, now into the sea, ^D and now indeed you move your attempts at great matters into the rivers.

^A O bold words! Rufinus lies dead, and you yet play the youth. O unhappy tongue, O you who were once the instrument of the Muses, but now [the instrument] of an unlearned spirit! O you who shone brighter than the morning star! O you who showed me a day brighter than all others, when the sun first saw you, but again [a day] darker than all others, from the moment I received that unfortunate and tragic report. What a fate instead of what hopes my demon has condemned me to! I mourn now for him whom I hoped would speak more terribly than Minucianus, [and] more gravely than Nicagoras, more eloquently than Plutarch, more philosophically than Musonius, more steadfastly than Sextus, and more brilliantly and excellently than all my ancestors together. For I myself used to concede the prize of victory to you while you were still a stripling, and I considered your words superior to my own words. I preferred your stammering to my own efforts. But ^B the demon, having despoiled all these things at once, is gone, and has left me, in your place, laments and tears. I will adorn you with funeral contests, and I will hand down your name to time, and I will be, at least in this regard, more contentious than the demon, so that he may possess the body indeed, but heaven [may possess] the soul, and all men the glory.

From the Epithalamium for Severus: from the Preface.

The Prologue of the Epithalamium.

^A For to say that man was a child of the earth, and that the Attic soil, having split in labor, brought forth such a shoot, is a myth, a sport of Attic grace. This same story even shows Aphrodite herself, hidden beneath the sea, revealed to the sun, shining through the waves of her birth. And if I were to wish to speak of the loves of the rivers, a myriad host of rivers would flow into my speech. For they all seem to me to be in love with the sea, and for this reason to hasten toward it from their springs with great speed, as if one would wish to greet the beloved before another. And the sea billows and delights in its purple [hues], curving toward the bridal chamber, as if (I believe) it prides itself over the other rivers, because it alone has been entrusted with the desires of Poseidon. In this way, too, these pair, perhaps born and reared in a similar manner, fell in love with all aspects of partnership equally. It is said, too, that Olympias, blessed for the children of Alexander, while celebrating the mysteries of the Cabeiri in Samothrace, saw Philip (who was still beardless) during the rites, and upon seeing him, fell in love with the youth and agreed to the marriage, having made the mysteries the preliminary offerings of the nuptial fire. The lineage of the bride was, first of all, Thracian, indigenous, I believe, and tracing their roots upward to royal fortunes. For they flourish equally, like spring buds of one meadow or grape clusters, which at one and the same time both sprout and divide. Both are temperate, skillful in character, differing only in the works according to their nature. For she has harvested the art of Athena in wool-work, while he, through his labors, has gained the grace of Hermes; she is concerned with the shuttle, he with the word. He was still beardless, having sprouted down earlier than his age; she is in her prime for marriage. Loves, weaving wreaths of roses, which they pluck from the gardens of Aphrodite when they wish, adorn the entire bridal chamber. Persuasion and Longings and Desire distributed your entire beauty among them; one sitting upon your eyes, flashing forth an irresistible light from thence; others flushing your cheeks with modesty more than the nature of rosebuds does, when in the spring seasons, opening under the force of their prime, they redden at their tips with petals. And Persuasion, having taken up residence upon your lips, distills its own grace into your words. And a thick cascade of hair blooms upon your head, purple-hued, and parting across your forehead.

^A And in addition to this, you have the audacity, in the city of Athens, to suggest that we should forget the very things in which we were born, and to do so with this intent. For those who from the beginning have little care for virtue, there is no great loss if they perish; but for those to whom such great and noble examples of virtue have been set, if they are proven to have repudiated their former glory by their subsequent actions, what pardon is there ^B among foreigners, if they are exposed as having extinguished their previous honor in their final deeds? For every gift from Xerxes to me is closer to a bribe and a favor. Furthermore, if he were offering the gift gratuitously, there might perhaps be some just cause for those who plead the king’s case—although even this would not be worthy of the Athenians. But if he demands a return of favor from the city, it is obvious that, by the things he strives to obtain from us in exchange, he demonstrates that he is bestowing nothing of his own. If it is not reasonable to accept gifts from one who gives them simply, how much less is it appropriate when he does not give them gratuitously, but for the sake of such a return, by which he sufficiently testifies that he wishes his own benefit to be repaid? Come then, let us look at these promises. "I shall restore," he says, "what I destroyed in the war." Do you call this a pretext for peace, and do you offer me a sign of battle rather than of alliance? Do you not see that by the words with which ^C you strive to reconcile the city to the king, you stir us up all the more toward war? O how contradictory these words are! You address the same man as both a destroyer and a friend, a killer and an ally; you read the same letter, full of injuries and bribes, intermingling the unmixable: passions, [dona], favors, disasters, barbarians, and Greeks. You strive to appear to be seeking the city’s advantage, but in truth, you are making the downfall of our city the subject of the king’s pride. Why then do we not head for our triremes, instead of enduring a king who brings ruin to our fatherland? Yet Xerxes has scrutinized our history, as if he were to undertake a war with the praises of our city. Wherefore, if we had received an injury from one person and a benefit from another, it would have been appropriate to treat the one as an enemy and to repay the other as a benefactor. But if one and the same person has done both, what is more appropriate: to be grateful for the things he promises, or to demand punishment for the injuries ^D of which he is accused? And what, pray, does he call the ruined things? For he also seeks to exempt himself from blame through his letters regarding the favor. He promises to rebuild the very Athens itself; for this is what he hints at, even if he does not dare to name it openly. "I shall restore Athens," he says. You, the city of Pallas? You, the city of Theseus and Cecrops? And thereafter will Erichthonius, Cecrops, and even Theseus and Codrus be forgotten? And will all these things be owed to the city of Xerxes? Is he to be the founder, the leader of our praises, the subject matter of our tributes? Woe is me for these evils! Xerxes, having been conquered, captures my city. And what indeed does he command us to fight against the Greeks? For it is not just to refuse to aid him—he who has performed such wondrous feats around our city—and rightly so; for we shall not then draw up a battle line worthy of the trophies we have erected. With Xerxes as our leader, bringing war upon our neighbors—because of whom he appeared to the Persians not as a victor, but as an exile and a fugitive—will he desire to build a city for them and to show them favor? If he were to think that

he could immediately repair the defeat with arms, he would have campaigned; he would not have sent ambassadors. But since he despairs of his forces, he has for the time being chosen deception instead of weapons. ^B Furthermore, he has been eager to slander the Greeks to the city, to make us destitute of their alliance so that he might later wage war against us alone. And indeed, from his very words, it is clear that he is discharging his duty with a gift for the sake of appearances. For if he truly wanted to rebuild our city, it would have been his task to write this clearly in his letters. But since he did not say this, and merely asserted that he would restore what had been ravaged in the war, he has—by the ambiguity of the expression—maliciously revealed the evil he has wrought through his letters. For what was the mark or distinction of our city? The dignity of its buildings, the monuments of ancient virtue everywhere, and the beauty provided by nature, which adds greater ornament to the city than human craft. What kind of citadel is seen here, ^C what other dwelling-place of the gods is there after heaven? What kind of temple of Polias Athena, and the neighboring shrine of Poseidon! For we have joined the gods together through the temples after the contest. I do not receive from a man a formula of sacred rites, such as we are accustomed to prohibit through a herald. Who will restore the men whom he has destroyed? Who will restore the bodies of the fallen, which he has mutilated in the wars? For, as the saying goes, men are the city, not the buildings themselves. And if he promises to restore what has been ravaged, since some things he cannot restore at all, and others cannot be made equal to what they were before, how is his promise regarding these things not proven impossible by all? Those thousands did not withstand the three hundred Lacedaemonians at Pylae, ^D but before the eyes of the king, so many myriads fell against one single troop, as if ordered by lashes. The king himself calls us to Asia, showing that now that the battles are removed, the war against him will be safe. One battle-line drawn up against the whole of Asia, and three hundred Spartans blocking the Pylae, first with arms and later with their death—you have raised a more noble monument than a mere trophy. I myself also thought that punishment should be exacted from the Thebans. They were accused of betraying their own race to the Persians, and my city took up the Persian army against the Greeks. When the Persians were defeated, not only the Athenians, but all the Greeks reaped the benefit. Would that we had also run to the Pylae, that the Lacedaemonians might show a trophy instead of a grave. I say this against Xerxes, I say against Xerxes, even Apollo, who has waged war up to your very altars and attempted to bring fire to your sacred tripod, through which you utter oracles. I wish for names to be imposed on regions from my own deeds, and for seas and rivers to be named after my trophies rather than ancient names. Someone will object: when and whence will we rebuild the city? What larger city do you seek, when you have triremes for a new city, and Apollo as your guide? He objects also...

^A that instead of walls, the sea stands before her; instead of towers, the islands; and instead of ornament, the trophies. And if you seek to learn her boundaries, go around the whole inhabited world in your mind, both as much land as is passable, and as much sea as is navigable: these are the boundaries of Athens in the time of Themistocles. I will demand from Xerxes the plane tree in place of the olive branch of Athena, so that two trophies of the goddess may be seen by the acropolis: the olive branch against Poseidon, and the plane tree against the barbarians.

From the Military Oration. — The Proem.

Of those who are accustomed to speak about the law regarding those in the monument, I shall not agree with the detractors, but rather with those who praise it. For it is absurd when orators seek the help of memory for their speech, to speak against that same agency. For the legislator, by taking away the fear of death through the dignity of the speech, implants a vigorous boldness in all for the sake of dangers. ^B Now, the beginning of the eulogies seems common to all ^C, but in truth, it is exceptional for these men. For some, when they endeavor to praise others, in order to proclaim their race and lineage, turn their speech to the encomia of ancestors, or to the fatherland whence these ancestors emerged. For all who are praised were for the most part foreigners. But against these men, this law has not held sway, but at once it has named them Athenians, and by this designation you show them to be autochthonous. Life was unarmed; it provided no weapons for those who risked their lives. It did not know the use of horses; it was the first to distribute the breed of horses for contests and for the necessity of war. When the contest was judged by the olive branch and the wave, they cast their vote for the olive branch. ^D And when I say "with the olive branch," I mean "with the goddess"—for Athena, I think, is the token. But indeed, although it is not difficult to find what one might say of this kind, yet [I say] that one should not, by following these things, be far from the deeds which the ancestors of those lying here performed on behalf of the city, and which their sons performed on behalf of all Greece, imitating their fathers and, through every age and succession of the race, carrying forward their courage. Having received the Heraclidae, they stopped the one who practiced lawlessness, and changing their fortune, made them kings of all the Peloponnese instead of exiles. Envy, however, at that time stirred up against the city three wars at once: the Dorian, the Boeotian, and moreover, the Chalcidian from Euboea. By what reason, therefore, did the city withstand all these? The Boeotians fell, the Dorians were preserved and kept quiet, and the Chalcidians were all carried away. And then she set up three trophies, but more illustrious is that than

the speed with which these trophies were erected; for the achievement regarding both Euboea and the Boeotians took place within a single day. But indeed, I appear to wish to assign a portion of glory to all those who in those former times held the first rank in fighting for their fatherland and for the entire race, yet I seem to have assigned them nothing worthy, diminishing the magnitude of their deeds by the poverty of my words, and failing to reach those things whose praise the listeners, long expecting, seem to be indignant that they are not being satisfied in their desire. These things, therefore, are now to be treated in discourse. That being unequal to the task when speaking is a fault not peculiar to some one person, but common to all, would be true.

^B The Persians, wishing to show the whole world under the sun as a single kingdom, were frustrated in their hope, since they could not fulfill their desire with even one small part, that toward the West. For the fleet, having sailed from Ionia and once again covering the sea with a multitude of ships, was scattered around the islands in the Aegean; [1108 R.] it immediately falls upon the city of the Naxians by the sea, where they razed that city to the ground, together with its name, and put the people onto triremes. They did not think it worth the effort to contend in arms with the Eretrians, judging their fortune to be inferior to the Persian war; but, all joining hands with one another, they showed the fall of the Eretrians as an image of a fishing net. ^C When they reached Marathon, their hope was shaken. For they had learned well by experience and had come to know how great was the interval between the Eretrians and our own city. At that time, a certain naval soldier even dared to face an entire trireme; for, pursuing those fleeing to the sea, he laid hands upon a Phoenician ship, thinking his right hand to be stronger than the whole trireme. But the barbarians, fearing that the ship might fall as booty to an Attic hand, cut off his arm with an axe. He, though wounded, lay there bereft of his hand, yet still holding onto the trireme with a grip of iron. ^D O you first who put the fortune of the Persians to the test! O you who win victories greater than what human nature allows! O you who fall together with that history of deeds which time has brought forth neither before you nor after you! O you who have acquired a burial more august than a trophy! O you who extend the name of Marathon along the courses of the sun! Marathon holds your bodies, the gods who fought alongside you hold your souls, and the earth and the sea hold your glory.

When Xerxes was enraged against the city, nothing at all was quiet; rather, everything was being agitated and shaken by him, just as if Poseidon himself were shaking the whole earth and sea together. [593 H.] Earth and sea were exchanging their own natures. He imposed land upon the straits, and he sent the Phoenician ships through the mainland. Miracles greater than all hope were seen then: cavalry of the Medes across the Hellespont, and a fleet of triremes sent through the middle of Athos. And Xerxes did not keep his distance even from heaven in his

^A daring exploits, but went from the sea to the land, and from the land to the heaven, and from thence even to the sun; for by shooting his arrows he hid its light, by sailing he changed the nature of the sea, and by marching on foot he put its necessity to the test. And I pass over the seas covered by triremes, the armies exceeding the number of nature, the nations unable to provide for their own food, and the king inspiring fear everywhere, yet being unknown, because of the size of his army, as to where he might be on land. Since such a great tumult resounded throughout all the earth, and the fate of Greece was being decided, all the others thought they gained as much in these hardships as the Persians were distant from their cities. But our city did not yield to the king who was shaking all things, nor through fear of report did it decide on any shameful thing before it had learned by experience; rather, immediately after the first embassy it was superior to the king. He indeed demanded conditions of servitude; they sent back those of liberty; for the price of the embassy was death. But nothing at all terrified them, nor did anything cause them to forget their virtue. Neither the Lacedaemonians who were already defeated—who were of such great service to the Greeks that they fought bravely until they fell—nor the scourged waves and punished winds, nor the Barbarous softness that went against nature, terrified them. ^B O you who dared things greater than Xerxes! O you who showed souls firmer than the elements! O you who were not covered by the arrows of the Persians in your resolve! O you who with two trophies mocked a ten-year fleet! You compelled him who traveled through the entire world and sea to seek his survival by stealth and clemency: you who alone showed to all men that every force can be restrained by virtue.

Sed ^C indeed, let us pass over these things in silence, and let us remember the peace made with the king, which renders this city more illustrious than any trophy, and deservedly so. For this often happens by fortune, but that—that the king willingly ceded to the city a distance of a day’s journey for a horse, abstained from the upper sea, and did not send a ship within the Chelidonian and Cyanean rocks—how does this not procure for the city a glory untarnished from every side?

For truly, it is not easy for me to recount the various trophies of the Athenians, their naval and land battles, and the manner in which they resisted every tyranny and every power, accepting various ^D struggles for this cause at different times, nor is it easy if anyone has attempted it before. Therefore, I believe it is necessary that one and the same monument be joined, just as those who announce the victors in the stadium, so too must this be consecrated according to the law. O you who filled the whole earth and sea—wherever it is passable—with victory and trophies, and wherever it is impassable, with glory and splendor, who alone by your most magnificent deeds have overcome time and envy, who have covered the entire earth

^A not with columns, but with trophies. I may perhaps have said less than the case required, but not less than most others. It remains that, after all have acclaimed his memory, all should depart.

From the Areopagitic, or the speech in which he asserts his son Rufinus to be free by law. — Prooemium.

^B O men, you who formerly contended with the gods for victory, and now contend with the Athenians for freedom. Therefore, obeying the law, I shall speak only those things which are necessary. I was a sophist among you, and a father. Whether I have been a clever sophist, you yourselves know—for I am always speaking, and the theaters speak of my teaching; whether I am an Attic father, this present case declares. For I do not endure not to call the child of the Athenians free. I entrust his freedom to the child even before puberty. He is mine, he is an Athenian, a gift to the city which honors public old age more than others. He is from Plutarch, whom you all use as a teacher; he is from Minucianus, who by his own voice has very often made many men free. I bring to you him who is from Nicagoras, him who is from myself. I recount for you a lineage of sophists and philosophers, truly an Attic nobility. I have often omitted the names of the sophists, now I omit those of the father. You gave the son to me; since he is an Athenian, receive him now, returned free by your decree. Therefore, release the child to me by your vote, and join in shouting that free-making voice, or the vindication of his freedom, so that as an Athenian ^C (for it is the same to say free) he may both speak and write among you, and, if the gods will, even attain honors in the Republic.

From the funeral oration which he delivered for the same son, Rufinus. — Prooemium.

I do wrong indeed in speaking now that Rufinus is dead, unless I have been reserved by some divine power for the monody of this drama. Yet I shall speak; for it is not right for me not to mourn with words the offspring of these very words. But did I, wretch that I am, unknowingly set up for you not baths but a tomb, not houses but burial mounds and graves, not wealth and pleasure but funerary gifts—the saddest of all things for men? You said, first recently in addressing the people: "I shall fill all the earth under the sun with my unspeakable words." Pericles once persuaded the people, but only after he became an orator through Anaxagoras; ^D but you were an orator from your very swaddling clothes. Alcibiades occupied the whole platform, but in the flower of youth and the age of adolescence; but you, still clinging to the breast and to milk.

O the suffering, worthy of the tragic buskin of Aeschylus! It behoved Hercules to traverse the earth and, I think, to undergo his twelve labors so that he might possess the whole world under the sun as a witness to his virtue; but you, remaining within your own borders,

^A you have surpassed for us the Pillars of Hercules with your wonders. What demon sheared the golden lock of my hearth? Who extinguished the radiance of my glory? Which of the Furies stole away the flush of your cheeks and the gentle, sweet smile of your countenance? Alas, Dionysus! How did you endure to have the sacred youth snatched from your temple? The Furies have set up a common trophy against you and my hearth. And why did I not prepare for him the bridal chamber below, since the Fates begrudged him the one above? Oh, in what sad and mournful speeches I have been kept! ^B Having dared to treat all themes of rhetoric, I have always avoided the one theme of lamentation; for I did not know that I was being kept for my own laments. Long ago you were planning your departure from here; long ago you left it for others, who were able, to infer that you were better than this lot. O you who had already crossed the boundaries of youth with the gifts of virtue, you have now exchanged them in death! O you who by brotherly love have even surpassed the Dioscuri! For they indeed went to war for Helen, yet they did not prevent her abduction; but you, the guardian of your own brother, were stronger than any wall. You always stood against all diseases with the sole fortitude of your soul. Perhaps for this reason the wicked and savage demon contended with you, and, being defeated in many battles, at late length he struck you down with a clandestine and treacherous stratagem. Yet, as one can hear, you did not yield to the demon even to the very end; although you yielded in body, you did not yield in spirit. But that one throttled you, and by force he took you away; yet you, in the very noose, were breathing forth your soul, calling out with your voice to the nurse dear to you, until, having deprived you of all help, he thus closed the noose around you. For he knew that, having been defeated many times, he had departed when your father was present and assisting. You had conquered even the stern and unyielding minds of the judges: and then, for the first time, that severe assembly was seen to smile. By the longing for you, you bent those minds which the gods themselves, adjudicating in trial, were unable to bend. ^C You have now closed against me the gates of the city with your death; you have closed Eleusis to me. How shall I sacrifice to Athena, who did not rouse the Fury against that demon on your behalf, child? How shall I worship the ancestral god, a father grieving for his son? O audacious words! Rufinus lies dead, and do you still bloom? O unhappy tongue, once an instrument of the Muses, but now of a discordant demon! O you who shone more brightly ^D than the morning star! O you who showed me a day more radiant than all others when the sun first beheld you! But now, indeed, you are the most sorrowful again, from which I have received that bitter and tragic news! O what a fate you have destined for me, demon, in place of this hope! I lament him now, [one whom I hoped would be] more vehement than Minucianus, more grave than Nicagoras, more eloquent than Plutarch, more wise than Musonius, more stouthearted than Sextus, and, in short, more brilliant than all my ancestors together...

^B. For I used to yield the victories to you while you were still a youth, and I considered your speeches to be far more brilliant than my own; I preferred your stammering to my own studies. But the demon has stolen all these away, and has departed, leaving behind for me, in your stead, lamentations and tears. I shall adorn you with funeral rites and contests, and I shall hand down your name to time, and in this regard, at least, I shall be more contentious against the demon, so that while he has the body, heaven may have the soul, and all mankind may have the fame. ^C

*From the Epithalamium for Severus. From the Preface.*

It might perhaps seem to some an act of supererogation to discourse on technique before an epithalamium; for where Hymenæus and choirs and the license of poetic autonomy prevail, what place is there for art? Yet since it behooves a man of learning to do nothing without art even in such matters, it is worth saying a few words on these topics. Let the excellent standard for epithalamia, then, be to look to the diction with the eye of a poet, to the subject matter according to necessity, and to the meter according to the theme. If the discourse sets its mark on all these, the composition will demonstrate it all the more clearly.

*Epithalamium Proemium.*

They say that Apollo, after the great victories which he won while striking his lyre, sang a wedding song near the chambers. He leads Venus also, in a chariot, with a choir of Graces and Loves playing together. ^D And having bound her hair with a hyacinth flower, save for those locks that are parted at the forehead, he allowed the rest to ripple in the breezes, in case they should strike the lyre; and, clothing their wings and locks with gold, he sends them before the chariot as ministers, brandishing their torches aloft. When the longings for Hippodamia had persuaded Pelops to serve Love and Venus, then Apollo also, having gathered the choir of the Nereids, set up for him a bridal chamber on the highest shore; and the chamber, I think, was a wave, purple-hued and raised aloft, arched over the bed so as to mimic a bridal chamber. There were God and Nature: he indeed in need of offspring, and she waiting to bring forth. In order that these things might begin, everything became everything for the sake of the bridal chamber. And from these nuptials is generated heaven and the sun, and furthermore the dance of the stars, the splendor of the moon, and the twofold poles, around which the first generation of the first of God's marriages revolves. 367a Following these, Nature demonstrated the marriage of Oceanus and Tethys, from which arise rivers and lakes, and furthermore springs and fountains and wells and the sea, the mother of all waters; and there are born also plants and animals, and the earth is inhabited, and the sea receives those that swim; and the air becomes penetrable by wings. Finally, indeed, the marriage itself

for a man to be born a son of the earth, and for Attica, as if seized by labor pains, to bring forth such a sprout—is a myth, a playful jest of Attic charm. ^A This marriage also revealed Venus herself, hidden in the sea, when the waves broke at her birth, shining forth to the sun. If I were to wish to speak of the loves of the rivers, a vast field of discourse would offer itself; for all seem to love the sea, and for this reason they are carried into it from the springs with great speed, as if one after another longing to embrace their beloved.

It surges and delights after the manner of a bed-chamber’s sinuosity, as if exulting against other rivers, because it alone is held by the love of Neptune. So, too, do these—the rivers—equally rising and equally drawn from a similar origin, love communion. It is said that once Olympias, happy in the birth of Alexander, while celebrating the mysteries of the Cabiri in Samothrace, saw Philip, who was performing the divine rite (he was still then ^B downy-cheeked), and upon seeing him was captivated by love, and as it were made her marriage vows within the sacred rites. The bride, however, traced her lineage to the indigenes of Thrace, yet to those who drew their origin from kings. They bloom in the same way as spring calyxes, or as the grapes of any field, which at one time both bloom and are plucked; both moderate, easy in their manners, separated from each other only by natural works. She has attained the weaving craft of Minerva, he the elegance of Mercury’s labors; she is solicitous of the rod ^C and spinning, he of the Word. He, indeed, still an adolescent, produces the first down of his age, while she is rendered marriageable. Cupids, weaving garlands from roses which they pluck from the gardens of Venus, hang them where they please upon the bridal chamber. Suada, Desire, and Cupid have added every ornament to you. Cupid sits upon your eyes, shining forth miraculously from there. Desire makes your cheeks redder than the calyxes of roses, when in the springtime, at their beginning, they redden as they open at the tips of their leaves. Suada, dwelling upon your lips, distills her grace along with your ^D words. Upon your head blossoms forth a golden abundance of hair, parted upon the forehead. And if I were born a poet, so as to speak freely of the bride while standing near the bridal chamber, I would offer prayers to Fortune, and to the Cupids, and to the gods in general: to the former, that they might vibrate their arrows even to the end, to the one, that she might grant life; and to the thirdly, that they might bestow the generation of legitimate offspring, so that along with the bridal cup we might also add the care for the festivities of birth.

FROM THE DIALOGUE ENTITLED "DIOGENES" OR "THE PROEMIAL" — FROM THE PREFACE

^AIt is necessary to make a beginning once for all in a new type of argument; for even though the preceding orations are new, they cannot put on the mask of antiquity by art alone, as we have now done. For composing this argument in the manner of a dialogue, we have corrupted neither the custom nor the gravity befitting dialogues. In the manner of Plato, we attempt this, although the discourse be moral, yet we mingle physical and theological theories with moral ideas, and it must be seen whether we have attained that type of discourse of Plato which involves divine matters in fables, as well as the other virtues of dialogues—I mean inspirations, orders, and episodes; then also the witticisms, and whether the action shows a better composition in its kind, if it has succeeded aright. But since the beginnings of dialogues are humble, that the character of the speech itself may add simplicity, while in the following parts it carries the matter along as well; whether we have achieved this, let it be the judgment of others, to whom it may happen to hear these things.

^BCD

PROEMIUM OF THIS DIALOGUE

Silentium is now the time, not for speaking, when a discourse dismisses its own pupils from its flock and laments. Nevertheless (for in every event one must speak), come, if the worry that has befallen you has engendered a discourse, and if it is pleasing to you, I shall also relate to you. Each of you, standing apart from one another by as many intervals of virtue as the middle of Europe is divided from the furthest regions of Asia, hastened together into a desire for this man, each of you wishing to snatch up the first throes of this man's tongue. Not having imitated the mystic law, which assigns a time to the inspector and to the initiate, but declaring in this thy discourse that one and the same person is simultaneously both priest and inspector of the sacred offering, thou hast granted them to be filled without satiety from the waters thereof. Or hast thou not heard how those men of old were cicadas; then, because of their love for the Muses, melted into a song because of their perpetual singing, transformed from men into birds, and from one song into another? Hear then the fable: When Jupiter had created men, all other things were adorned as they are now. But Cupid did not yet reside in the souls of men; rather, that god, still having his wings, dwelt in the heavens, and shot his arrows at the gods alone. Fearing, however, that the most beautiful of all creations should perish, he sent Cupid to be the guardian of the human race. And he, having received this commission from Zeus, desired to reside in all minds, or to dwell in all things—heavenly and profane alike—as in a temple. But many and common minds were wounded by love.

^A He did not deem it fitting, however, to entrust the many and herd-like souls to be shepherded by the common Loves, those children of the Nymphs; rather, he himself took up residence in divine and heavenly souls, and by exciting them to an erotic frenzy, he bestowed countless good things upon the human race. [1120 R.] When, therefore, you see someone sluggish in nature and not easily stirred to friendship, realize that he has in no way been deemed worthy of the gifts of that Eros. But when you see someone sharp and ardent in his mind, rushing toward erotic friendship like a flame, realize that he is a guest of that Eros. "For you tell me, my friend Socrates, best of lovers, that this is a portion of Clinias’s virtue—namely, courage in the face of dangers, which practice often bestows, and which does not wait for a teacher to explain it in words." ^B It grants him the same boldness of speech that it once granted to Pericles when he was commanding the city. This is the artless way. But if you see such a man excluded from the judicial benches, lament the law, for it has been overcome by gold. For having grown up together with the royal city, around which vast seas are divided, and laying the foundations of his own glory with it, as long as the body of the city was still being fashioned in its swaddling clothes, he ordained other authorities from the royal power. But when it needed diligent work, like a perfect statue—which they had seen previously only in outline—he assumed the same power, so that he might be both the beginning and the end for all the city’s adornment. Cities raised up, peoples flourishing, ^C the life of Tartessus, the horn of Amalthea, every pinnacle of happiness. But what is the reason for this zeal regarding the young man? Every soul, having recently broken away from its lofty dwelling, still carries a lingering vision of those images that it saw when it danced a joyful dance with the chariots of the gods. When, therefore, it sees beauty here—which it previously beheld truly, hidden within the divine mind—it longs for and rejoices in this spectacle, and lifting itself up by means of glory and knowledge, it hastens to unite itself with that place. Something similar happens to me regarding the youth. For just as if seeing in a mirror the image of my own mind apparent in his soul, I was delighted by it, and for this reason I loved him and sought his soul as a second self. ^D He can well preserve in his memory everything that a philosopher might achieve under a leader, not only through these speeches, but through all those things that blossom from the meadows of the Muses and Apollo; from these, culling the lotus of all learning, he has adorned his own soul like a spring garland. For if it should be necessary to speak, you need no longer ask whose son he is and to whom he belongs; so much more accurately has he expressed the image of his guide than any painter. A good companion, if it is necessary to fight alongside a leader, and good also of his own accord. Justly, therefore, do the poets (47), and together with them painters and sculptors, strip old age from Cupid, portraying this god as a youth, and one who is reaching puberty.

manifesting the signs of his infidelity in the freshness of his age. ^A Oh, you who have achieved as much power through your words as I hear Cineas the Thessalian did, who, traveling over every land and sea with King Pyrrhus, conquered cities by his words before [employing] his engines of war. For he is not the teacher of this, nor, upon my word, of your yearnings, oh words, for the sake of which I cast away my paternal wealth and have made my dwelling along the mystic banks of the Ilissus. Alexander, he who used the trophies of his victories as the boundaries for the whole [world]. For then the summer heat flows together from the south, the dawn tempers the sun, ^B and [he bids] Zephyrus to cleave the waves purple about the prow.

From the address to his companions, when he was going to Corinth. — The Prooemium.

The ancients who fashioned the lyre, if at any time they were hastening to another land, did not make their journey empty of significance, but with song and melody they would keep their chorus together.

From the remaining orations, being of various kinds and having various subjects.

^C Oh royal court and winged golden fortune! For you were not driven out of the kingdom by force, but you departed willingly, just as if someone, arrogant in his youth, wished to indulge in pleasure, having exchanged his golden hair for a wreath of roses. But what grace is repaid for these things? Flight and running away and the renunciation of such friendship. I conquered the cicada under your judgment during the summer time, and I threatened the Attic nightingales too, that if ever you were to set for me an Attic theater, I would by this voice altogether cause their tongues to become, in comparison with yours, mere fables. Oh, brightest light of your lineage, and you have often shown yourself to be that which your ancestor, the Sun, is to your race. ^D For of this beautiful pair, the one, rising up like some morning Lucifer, illuminates the high thrones, imitating his [the Sun's] rays with his own beams; but the other, shining forth among the herd of youth like some haughty, spirited bull of the herd, frolicked in the meadows of the Muses like a colt with head held high and full of divine inspiration, and he imitated the Homeric youth, the son of Thetis (Achilles), having become a good orator of words and a doer of deeds. If only the license of poets were granted to me, I would have shown you this Ilissus also weeping, and I would have dyed the beautiful waters of Callirrhoe with a mournful color. May Pan of the ways send you forth, sounding a sweet, guiding melody on his pipe; and may Venus and her sons, the Cupids, having mixed a potion of desire, escort you on your way.

From the propemptic oration. — The Prooemium.

Alexander, the son of Zeus (for he connects him with heaven and with Zeus by [the measure of] his great glory among the Greeks), since...

he had filled Europe with the fame of his name, turned himself toward Asia, endeavoring to unite the continent with his own deeds. He summoned the flute of Timotheus (for he played so greatly and so worthily of such a king) that, with his playing, he might loose the moorings of the ships. ^A Come now, let me depict the painting with words—for speech, I believe, has colors not unsuitable for imitation. There was in the painting a ship and the sea; and, as I suppose, it was the Aegean. For there were many islands scattered here and there in the sea, so that the sea was clearly shown to be the Aegean. It was not painted as stormy or wild, nor was it raising waves toward the clouds, as the Aegean is often wont—beyond its true nature—to act boldly against those who sail upon it; but rather the waves were laid out in tranquility, and the ^B water was rolling entirely toward the shores, the wave slightly altered into a yellowish color. The Phrygians were the first to discover how to swell the flute and to bring cymbals into their sacrifices. This, indeed, against both sides of the ship toward the prow, already worn, rendered it as if it were a golden material. Here, then, it is right to admire the art; for the seawater, divided around the prow, glistened with the reflections of gold and seemed to have changed the sea into a similar color. Therefore, give me the craft of Zeuxis and the skill of Parrhasius. Delphi, then—the sacred city of Apollo—is ever worshipping this god and dancing around the tripod with paeans. ^C Furthermore, the Eleans also weep, accompanying the river Alpheus, the Pisan [river], as far as the Sicilian spring, as if fearing, I suppose, that the river might contemplate a departure and bestow its waters upon other men. Soon, too, the nightingales and the swans and all the songs will fly away together. For our own Muses already dare to assemble a small ship and threaten flight and the sea, even if it rages with waves. Casting the lyre from his hands, he urges silence upon his songs. A flagship in the ports, holding a sail aloft, such as is wont to be spread with clear rays and sea breezes. Small, for the sake of the Hesperides, were the meadows; small in magnitude were the Egyptian pyramids, and whatever the hands of the Persians and Assyrians, in building, left for posterity to behold. Yet toward beloved Athens this fleet [is bound], ^D which so inflamed you with its love that you forever carry about the love for this tongue. But why do you deny the answer of the common statue of all, though it is destined to change its residence among others? A story deprived the Cimmerian peoples—an occidental folk—of the sun, and then, fearing to be refuted, it strove to hide the rumor with ambiguous words; yet no poet shall think that we lie, desiring to take away the sun after your departure, O friendly fatherland. Now I feel that I have done you an injury, by slighting your loves while I desire to lavish everything upon an inner lover. But, following the law of these things too little, I turned my speech to indecency, though the gods have fulfilled my longing. For again there are scepters, again there are seats of judgment.

^A This, Ephyra provided, a city not only adorned with myths to be admired, as are most of those of the Greeks, but also presenting happiness to the discerning eye. Thus, this lineage of his also prides itself in countless speeches, countless deeds, and the like. Mention must now be made of the lineage itself, though not the whole of it—for a history concerned with such a great multitude would, I imagine, be a burden to me. Those who blossomed from those marriages bore a likeness of his wisdom in the images of their souls. The Ionian Gulf, washing against it, smoothens the shore with its wave. ^B Along this gulf, a chorus of Nereids danced—all white, like milk curdled by the art of shepherds, blue-eyed, adorned with seaweed, and still dripping white foam from the sea from the tips of their tresses. She corresponded in love to the bridegroom and confirmed the marriage with a gift; for she brought forth a spring from the midst of the sea. And he, knowing that this benefit was preserved by the bride, snatched the wave away from other sailors, but reserved the lovely drink only for those who were of the bride—which also occurred in opposition to virtue. His mind is quick to learn, swift in understanding, naturally endowed with memory, ready to speak, suitable for reading, and better prepared for staying hidden. This is wiser and, at the same time, more pleasing to the gods, ^C and more formidable in detecting whoever he encounters; stronger than pleasure, weaker than friendship. Supreme in wisdom, skilled in speech, impregnable in friendship, noble in fears, a lofty private citizen, a mild ruler, honoring the private citizen with his intellect while softening the severity of power with his speech. Moreover, you could also see how fortune, as if following the tailwind for his life, accompanied him. He was an elder, venerable to behold, ancient in his life, and similar in his speech. Wise in speaking, better in listening, noble in all things. Being already full of renown and turning all of Greece toward himself, he transitions into a king with the wonder [he inspires], before he had even grown a beard, before the first down had crept [over his face]. It was the task of a poet here, then, to weave the crown with roses and lead the Muses from Helicon ^D around that city which, extending from Gades, Europe separates from Asia by a narrow strait of the sea. He forged on even towards the Ister, and did not fear the barbarian river, which mimicked the plains with its ice. But when God wished to test all that virtue of his, and sometimes set the wind of fortune against him, so that—such as he was—he might be shown in his true character to all, even in the rolling surf of affairs and the storm of life, and might be celebrated in this part as well, what poet or master of oratory could explain in a voice worthy of what he did? He did not lay low some Scylla and Charybdis of Sicily, but even those more cruel than that Sicilian shepherd Cyclops—a thousand armies moved against him—he subdued everywhere in the world, not with joined hands, nor with weapons or spears, but with prudence and speech. He, indeed, called the leader of the Telchines and Coryphaeus, having received a lethal wound, groaning, laments the war. The whole of Asia—not as we call it now—

^A assigning the name of the entire continent to this part alone—begins from the upper reaches of the Indians, towards the east and north with the Red Sea and the Phasis, and towards the south and the setting sun by Egypt and the Ionian Sea, where it is divided and bounded by the other continents; but it extends its side from the Propontis to Pamphylia, which the Aegean, rising from one beginning, also washes in its entirety along this side. [604 H.] And the men inhabiting the cities do not demonstrate their ancestors, as if they were from cicadas or ants, but clearly show them by virtue and wisdom; whence, I think, they also became ancient. For this Meles (for it is not right to pass over in silence the author of such a tongue) arises from the suburbs of Smyrna; and many springs, budding forth near one another, produce him, from which the river flows, surges, and immediately ^B becomes navigable for both merchant vessels and oars. Passing along both banks, verdant with cypress and reeds, it shares its current with the nearby sea—if it is right to call it a current. For you would not hear it sounding, nor would you think the water is being carried along; but just as some lover wishing to hide his intercourse with his beloved, it stealthily mingles with the sea, smoothing the wave with its flow. For now, wishing to call the wind poetically, and then having no poetic voice to let forth, I wish to name the wind from my own Muse: "Tenderly pouring over the waves, it cleaves the billows around the prow." For, not seeking wanton loves, it hastens to sail your sea, but wishing to initiate all the Ionians into the sacred mysteries of temperance. It is said that at one time it rained gold upon the Rhodians, Zeus opening a golden cloud over them; but your fortune, which you will reap through this man, ^C no ambiguous myth will tell, but the deeds themselves will be manifest before your eyes. Thus, the beautiful spring was not about to bring us nightingales, nor some swans or cicadas, but the sun itself, which is to illuminate Ionia with its golden rays. But above all others, the leader of my colts, that sacred and proud foal—such as the Nisaeans offer to the god Helios—this foal I, adorning with the bridles of the Muses and encircling entirely with the headbands of the Graces, offered as if a first-fruit of my flock to some god. May azure stars rise, shining with a joyful light. This speech of mine cares little to anticipate the future, but strives to join the hastening address to the song as it gradually proceeds. Then, I think, those who understand will see him returning, and will again applaud him with the songs of the Muses.

^A

Prooemium of another hortatory discourse.

From an oration against the cruel Egyptian.

From a propemptikos [farewell speech].

drugs the springs with wine, and having bound the Satyr in sleep and stupor, he made him his prey. ^A

From an extemporaneous oration upon the discord near the games. — Exordium.

Is there, friends, any remedy in our orations suitable for calming discord? And why does our art desire to flourish as much as that which Homer feigns concerning the mixing bowl of Helen, which the daughter of Jove was offering to her guests as Menelaus was in tears? Or was Helen’s cup not some herb, nor some Egyptian art instructed in preparing a merry drink, but rather a certain sweet and wise discourse, capable, like medicine, of extinguishing anger boiling in the midst of the breast? ^B Poetry draws the fable into Egypt so that it may insinuate it to be the mother of clever reasonings. Did a king at some time think less wisely? Timotheus did not permit this, but even led the mind of the king up to heaven with his melodies. Was his spirit boiling over with excess? He, being present, tamed the haughty spirit by striking the cithara. Was he sorrowful? He would immediately show him smiling. Was he possessed by pleasures? After the song you would immediately see Alexander most chaste, and, to say everything, it was possible to see him such as Timotheus had rendered him to you. ^C Zephyrus mitigates the waves with his breezes; and shall an Attic orator and Greek speech not remove discord if he but declaim? For even Xenophon served as a soldier; for indeed, even after the discipline of Socrates, Xenophon carried a spear. For a talented nature is adaptable. Alcibiades was delicate when he lived in Athens, but sober in Lacedaemon; he alone censured the Persians for their delicacies. But if at any time it was necessary for him to apply himself to eloquence and to be exercised in philosophical matters, he would summon the whole Lyceum and Academy for his interviews. Those who labor at history weave this regarding them. ^D

From an oration on the arrival of the Cypriots. — Exordium.

Poets assign Cyprus to the goddess Venus, just as Delos to Apollo. For Cyprus is a vast city; the citizens speak Greek accurately. The sea brought forth Venus from Heaven. But sacred words command us to touch upon these births, such as they sometimes are. For it was necessary that Venus be conceived at last. The sea is then stayed, and immediately it induces serenity, exulting with soft waves on account of that birth. The common Venus has nothing in common with that heavenly one. That one produces impure and by nature shameless loves; this one has golden sons, and their arrows are golden. And their targets are youths and immortal souls.

From an oration delivered on a certain Cappadocian.

The Scythian did not come carried by a weapon over the Ister or the Tanais, but over all the earth and sea. Eloquence

^A is the shaft of Apollo. And the river there possesses a tale worthy of the hearing of the Greeks. Dionysus came to the Indians, to a people that denies the benefit of Dionysus. The army of Bacchus and the Satyr was there, and their weapons were fawn-skins and thyrsi. But they, as soon as they saw the god, received him, and casting away their arms, they began to dance, having formerly fought against Dionysus. When they were led into the borders of the Cappadocians, they pitched their tents on the bank of the river to which they were about to give a name; for it was necessary for them to be washed in the waters. The river changes, and the silver water, having mingled with the Indians, becomes black; and they cause the river to be, and to be called, just what they themselves are. Thus did fame lead the young man. Our wealth, however, is not some Gygean or Lydian gold, but certain youths, flourishing in their ^B bloom and prime, proud to behold and lofty of neck, as if born from the very middle of the breast of Zeus.

From an oration, when, having been asked for a specimen, he deferred and afterward spoke. — Exordium.

The Persians cherish the study of archery, and their whole life is in the quiver and the darts. I approve of the law, a great proof of a laborious soul. For it is fitting that prizes be rare. Before the Persians, nature herself knew this law; for no one would have thought to see the Ocean, unless, having abandoned the middle of the earth, he had wandered about its furthest ends. What account could there be of the pyramids, if this spectacle were not seen from afar? Or of the stone of Memnon among the Ethiopians, if his mother had not placed him outside everyone’s sight? These things we believe to be true, and not spoken in fables, because the stone speaks with a voice like that of a human being. Scarcely does nature grant the rose ^C to mankind. And not even this does she bring forth at once and unfold into the air, but keeping the greater part of its vigor inside the calyx, it bursts forth and opens late. Nor is it permitted to pluck autumnal fruits when men desire; but even if you wish to pluck figs, you wait for the time named for the autumn. Because the bronze vessel at Dodona always rang, time, having grown to hate it, dissolved the artifice into a fable. For habit is mighty in producing satiety, and power in being corrupted by insolence. Dwelling on land, we seek the sea, and sailing, we turn our minds back to the crops. The sailor calls the farmer blessed, and the plowman in turn considers the sailor fortunate. All these are the toys of satiety. Habit breeds satiety. Let us flee from satiety, O boys! This often pierces like an arrow, even into the loves themselves. For I once learned this from a proverb.

From the oration to Musonius, proconsul of Greece. — Exordium.

You have compelled me, while I was ^D neglecting the theaters and striving to turn my speech away from public assemblies, to read...

^A the law. The swan, too, breaks its silence when it hears Apollo striking the lyre, and Zephyrus, sounding a lyric strain, draws the nightingale from the caves toward the sun. The sailor dares the waves, and the Bacchic man, emboldened, rouses his revelry—the former when spring calms the sea, the latter when he feels the Bacchic thyrsus shaking. I do not think a bold poet would hesitate to compare even you to Apollo himself. Your arrows and darts are pleasing only in so far as they imitate the nature of Apollo, for they remain forever bloodless. It is not permitted for your point to kill a man, but if someone has escaped your judgment, he knows that you hold the public sword drawn against slaughter. ^B Thus a colt is well tamed and a puppy cleverly trained, when the horse-breaker wishes to rear the horse without a spur, and the dog-trainer the dog by stroking it with his hand without a whip. What made Cyrus great among the Persians? A gentle and mild manner. For the city was always fortunate against the barbarians. Once, one of the nobles announced a victory to the people; they admired his zeal so much that, as among the Athenians, a bronze statue was erected because of those words.

From the oration to Severus the newcomer. — Exordium.

From the oration composed to curry favor. — Exordium.

From the oration to Count Ursicius.

^A Triptolemus is said to have been taken up by Demeter, so that he might exchange the nomadic table for the fruits of wheat. Abaris came to Athens equipped with arrows, carrying a quiver on his shoulder, and bound by a chlamys. There was a golden belt about his loins, and breeches extending from the tips of his feet up to his buttocks. We find this everywhere, just as in the harmony of a lyre, the word being consonant with the mind. He was pleasant in meeting, capable of performing some great deed quietly, sharp to see the present, cautious to guard against the future, submissive to wisdom, a lover of friendship, trusting little to fortune, but entrusting all things to judgment.

From the oration to the colleague Severus.

Who, indeed, followed the nature of justice with more speed than he, or having followed it, published it with more rectitude? Who was so sharp to act, and who so slow to punish one in danger? Who was so superior to gold, and who so submissive to philanthropy ^B and to showing mercy to the unfortunate? Mature in words, but more mature in deeds and actions.

From the oration to the proconsul of Greece, Cylaceum.

The shield flashes with gold, and reveals the hand of Hephaestus in its wonders, because it alone knew how to imitate nature via the art of wisdom. The Meander, a river of Caria, by as much as it falls behind the Nile in volume, by so much does it surpass it in the nature of the land which it bestows upon the Egyptians; it escapes this [mythical] fable. For that river, taking away the sea from sailors, gave it to farmers to furrow with plows instead of water. You might see a plain where there was once sea, and see fawns leaping instead of dolphins; and instead of a sailor giving commands, you might hear the shepherd’s pipe sounding. ^C

From the oration to the newcomers the Ephesians. — The Exordium.

When Apollo, having set up the divinatory tripod, gave oracles to those coming from everywhere, all nations and all cities were drawn to the god, being led by reports.

From the oration to his own fellow countrymen. — The Exordium.

But indeed it is now time, O youths, to attune our lyre also for the citizens. What shall we say about the city that brought us forth? But since we are not riding on chariots, nor do we prioritize the studies of the poets, come, let us fortify the city with men and arguments. What was it that drove the great echo of Homer upon all? Was it not the glory of men? But I seek virtue, and for this reason I wish to praise men. ^D There are double proofs of sovereign virtue: the decrees of the king and the longings of the subjects. It is right to consider the nature along with the works; and one will find the actions and the nature from which they are accomplished to be equal. What then are the signs of the nature of such a one? To be of the keenest judgment,

^A lofty in sentiment, prompt in well-doing, popular in manners; if one must speak of eloquence, to surpass Pericles, and if there is any action to be performed, to imitate Alcibiades—or rather, to be a lover of his city and a despiser of riches, just as we said Pericles was; in action to be far more fervent than the son of Clinias, and to be more suited for any kind of endeavor than any lyre is for the playing of music. That there is such a Proteus, Egyptian myths declare, when they transform him now into water, now into a tree and flame; for by this they wish to signify the readiness of his nature.

From the Oration against the Roman Privatus. — The Proemium.

From the Oration when he returned from Corinth.

From the Propemptic Oration to Ampelius. — Exordium.

^A seeking some other history, but not enduring the current law of discourse. Shall one speak of your actions or your judgments? Your diligence in detail or your concern for the whole? Your providence for poverty or the restraint of the powerful combined with gentleness? But because of you, Sparta also lives in luxury, having exchanged its filthy hair for a beautiful coiffure. And who could worthily describe the infinite throng of buildings? For Pericles, the Propylaea and the Parthenon sufficed for fame, and for Darius, the royal house, and for Artaxerxes, the golden vine, the work of Theodorus of Samos—useless works which that Mede, in opposition to nature, held in luxury. But you, beginning from the Pylae even to the furthest recess of the Peloponnese, have declared every place in between to be cities. There was a certain alley called Colyttus, in the center of the city, having the name of a deme, but celebrated for the usage of the marketplace, and ancient in glory; he came there, led by reputation. But upon seeing it, he admired the nature of the place; he was, however, embarrassed for the sake of the city by its construction, yet he did not let the city blush any further over the matter. You have also shown myths to be credible, since even a stone sighs when loving, and sheds tears like a lover stolen from his beloved; as I fear that a desire for you might effect some such passion, and some might change their nature and then give birth to a strange myth, becoming a flower or a tree.

From the Oration on Anatolius the Prefect. Exordium.

Jupiter, sending a token from heaven through Mercury, according to Homer, commanded Achilles—who was lamenting the fall of his companion—to take up arms. Come, then, let us also, as if by some celestial impulse, dissolving our grief in the festival, sing to Apollo. We have captured that great prince with our arts. These are not trifles, nor Attic pleasantries—Dionysus the stranger from Thebes, or Neptune the lover of the waves, such as the Lacedaemonians play at in the city—but true discourse, but institution and sanction, ^C the root of good things and the beginning. And he himself plants his own soul with this germ, watering it with Attic streams. But all beautiful things are always rare, and procure immortal glory for those who devise them. The wise Anacharsis was the first to come from Scythia to the Greeks, and Pelops the first of the Lydians [613 II], riding in serenity upon immortal horses, and he receives the reward of the innovation, to give his own name to the region. And that praise is still on the shores, but the discourse fluctuates, not seeing a port appear. Therefore, it might perhaps be best, having hunted down his nature by an image, to imitate Phidias. Phidias was not ignorant of who and in what matters Zeus was, being wiser in soul than in right hand. Desiring, therefore, to express the nature of Zeus in one ^D statue, mixing ivory with gold, he fashioned the Olympian for the Eleans, and for other men such a Zeus in one image. I desire to paint a tablet for you using divine colors; for earthly colors are quickly washed away by time. But if it should please anyone to call the tablet "conviction and opinion," I shall not contend. Since, when this great cor-

- ^A ruption of the disease sets in—which we consider to be the center of that divine world—then the spindle of Lachesis, piercing the heaven with its threads, brings down from the hearth of Zeus a pure soul, conveying to us the substance of divine visions. This soul brings forth justice, this soul brings forth fortitude from itself; such a soul is purely self-knowing. And there follows it a myriad chorus of kindred virtues: loftiness of spirit, excellence of mind, free speech, hands not enticed by bribes, a zeal for friendship, a love of truth, an unwavering judgment. It does not judge virtue by friendship, but rather weighs friendship by virtue.

From the oration to Phoebus, son of the proconsul. — The Introduction.

To those about to respond with a humbler tongue to the beginnings of wisdom, I think it probable that they will encounter sophistic arguments and ^B narratives. Isocrates the sophist (a name known, I think, to all along with his orations, because on his account the sophists, neglecting poetry, embraced their own rule) always opened up the royal chambers of his own schools to the lovers of eloquence through his oratory.

From the oration on Arcadius the physician and count.

He described the boys playing around the bedchamber, and he makes them provide a specimen with their own pipes. But now there is another contest, another stadium, and a shrine of the Muses open to the sacred priests, and not to the most intimate gamblers. They say that Democedes the Crotoniate was the first to bring Greek [medicine] to the Barbarians.

From the propempticon on the arriving companions.

The high-spirited man in his soul, having tempered his passion with reason, was called brave; he who sets a measure to life according to nature gained temperance. The sea changes its nature into many forms. It grows purple indeed when the ^C waves are calmed into stillness, but it has a dark appearance when it is stirred up and made turbulent by the waves.

From the propempticon to Flavianus. — The Introduction.

You have cast me, O friend, who was preparing a better lyre, so that I might greet you after Africa, suddenly fleeing into a gloomy Muse. The spring has not yet been seen, and the Hellespontian storm, breaking in, stifles the soul. We have not yet seen the sun, and, turning away its rays, it has changed and threatens to bring night upon the Greeks. We groan before we have laughed; we offer vows to the gods who preside over the roads before we have made sacrifices for your safe return; our speech is put to the shame as being more timid than our right hand, neglecting to perform what wax and iron venture. For glory has always proceeded from Africa to the Greeks. It made the wind indeed as though joking and playing, such as painters on their tablets...

^A with their skill make drunken Lydian women. We shall therefore draw our speech from the middle; and then we shall allow it to flow freely concerning Africa. There is no one who triumphs, for everyone admires all things; but the speech, having followed desire as if it were some violent current, was carried aside, deviating a little toward another path. We must therefore bring the speech back to Africa. Pericles was accused as being second to no one in eloquence; Themistocles was accused as being slower and duller in judgment; Plato, on account of his genius; Solon, for his laws; and everyone knows that each one rejoices as though those qualities belonged to them alone or to all alike. What shall I do? What counsel shall I take? Shall I send a leader to the Romans? But a luxurious people knows no sober charioteer. Perhaps it is displeased with me. Carthage, a city once esteemed for virtue in rivalry with Rome, a city feeding all Italy on its own beauties, a city not first only because it fears Rome—a great city is in danger, and the whole continent is governed by wicked helmsmen. Let us send to them the great charioteer of victory. The king knew these things, and golden tablets immediately anticipated the decision. Having arrived at this point in my speech, what shall I first relate, what shall I add, and ^B what shall I narrate last? For transactions are set in motion from every side, yet all things are equal, and it is equally difficult to speak and not to speak, because the one is hindered by the multitude, the other by the magnitude. One ought not, therefore, to say what is the case, but what is permitted. Seeing him equipping the fleet as though upon the sea in a calm, and disporting himself among the waves as though in a harbor, some desired him as a passionate lover, while others trembled at him as one invincible amidst all terrors. He led a procession more excellent than that of Hephaestus. The people echoed with the waves, and a roar from the city resounded with the billows; and the outcry of Carthage overwhelmed the noise of the sea. May everyone, both old and young, grant me pardon if I utter these things; for love knows, it knows how to make the speech its own. He suffered from a disease greater than his own fortune could endure, and from an iniquity no less. And indeed, let no one wonder that he dared these things against such a man. Good men, who were before us, were accused by evil men. Cleon accused Pericles, Nicias fled from Hyperbolus, Demades brought charges against Demosthenes, Cleophon proscribed Alcibiades, and a man of Seriphos ^C reviled Themistocles. For those who envy the excellent fortune of others try by their audacity to reduce it to a state of equality with their own. He set a lower value upon virtue and cunning. ^D

CCXLIV. Excerpts from Diodorus Siculus

thirty-first, second, fourth, sixth, seventh, and eighth; and our present edition contains a selection from these.

[H] ^A Many different writers have reported that many who were thought to be women have transformed into both the sex and nature of men. Diodorus, in the thirty-second book of his history, records things of this kind regarding this transformation, while narrating the affairs of Alexander, who reigned over Coele-Syria and Antioch. He says: "Alexander, after having fled from the battle with five hundred men into the region of Arabia to the city called Abae, to the dynast Diocles, with whom he had previously deposited his son Antiochus, who was still an infant, fled thither. Then the commanders around Heliades, who had joined themselves to Alexander, secretly sent an embassy on their own behalf, promising that they would murder Alexander. Demetrios having consented to their demands, they not only became traitors to their king, but also his murderers. It is not right to pass over the prodigy that preceded the death of Alexander, although perhaps it may seem to exceed belief on account of its strangeness.

^B For a few days before the present time, when King Alexander was seeking an oracle near Cilicia, where they say there is a temple of Sarpedonian Apollo, it is reported that the god responded to him to be on guard against the place that had brought forth the 'two-formed' one. At that time, the oracle was thought to be enigmatic, but after the death of the king, the prophecy was understood to refer to the following causes: In the city in Arabia called Abae lived a man of Macedonian descent named Diophantus. Having married a local Arabian woman, he fathered a son named after himself, Diophantus, and a daughter named Herais. The son died before reaching adulthood, but he gave his daughter, when she was of marriageable age, to a certain Samiades, having provided a dowry. This man, after having lived with his wife for a year, departed on a long journey abroad. Herais, it is said, meanwhile fell into a completely new and truly incredible illness. A huge tumor had developed around her abdomen, and as it grew day by day and the place within condensed, physicians were consulted. They asserted that it was an ulcer around the os uteri, and for this reason, they applied medicines by which they might be able to suppress this tumor. ^C On the seventh day, the surface skin broke, and a male member with attached testicles emerged from the pudenda; this rupture and this incident occurred with neither a physician nor any outsider present, except for her mother and two maidservants. Consequently, struck by the strangeness of the event, they took every care for Herais and concealed what had happened. But the woman, having been freed from the disease, assumed female clothing and performed domestic and wifely exercises. ^D Those who learned of this prodigy judged her to be a hermaphrodite, and that she had therefore borne a male organ because, when having intercourse with a man, she had done so in a manner contrary to nature. This remained hidden from outsiders. But Samiades, having returned...

The one who had been freed from the disease continued to wear female attire and preserve her other conduct, as one domestic and subject to a husband ^A. But those who knew of this change began to suspect her of being a hermaphrodite, and because of her living with a man, and the natural act being blocked, she seemed to have become accustomed to masculine behavior. While she was hiding this condition from outsiders, Samiades returned and, as was fitting, sought the one he had married. Because she dared not appear before him out of shame, they say Samiades took it heavily. As he pressed the matter more frequently and demanded back his spouse, and the father, though not consenting, was ashamed to state the cause, the dispute grew to a great magnitude. On this account, he brought a lawsuit against the father regarding his own wife, fortune, as in a drama ^B, leading the paradox of the reversal into a criminal charge. When the judges had taken their seats and the arguments had been stated, the body in dispute was required to be present, and the judges were in doubt whether it was fitting to adjudge the woman to the husband or the daughter to the father. Finally, the judges thinking that the married woman ought to accompany the husband, she, in order to reveal the truth, gathered the masculine force of nature and, emboldened by anger, tore off the clothing she was acting in to show everyone, and raised a voice of suffering, asking why they were compelling a man to cohabit with a man. ^C When all were astonished and, with a voice of wonder, were signaling the paradox, they say that Herais, having had her shame revealed, changed her female adornment into the disposition of a young man, while the doctors, once the manifest signs were shown to them, knew that the nature of a male had been hidden in a place resembling the female nature, and that, since the skin had folded over according to custom, a perforation had been formed, through which the waste products were excreted; for this reason, they were compelled to excise and heal the fistula-like area, and after restoring the male nature neatly, they used the applicable treatment. Herais, having been renamed Diophantus, was enrolled among the cavalry and served in the military alongside King Abas. Then indeed the oracle, which before was hidden, appeared to have been true; for when King Abas had fled, the biform Diophantus was also there. But Samiades, because he had served his love and his first marriage, and was afflicted by shame and the marriage entered into against nature, wrote Diophantus as the heir of his property and took his own life. See how a woman takes on a masculine spirit and boldness, and a man becomes weaker than a woman's soul.

^D A reversal similar to this one took place thirty years later in the city of the Epidaurians. For there was a certain Epidaurian girl, who seemed to be a maiden, but was orphaned of parents; her name was Kallo. She had those things which nature conceded to women, but the passage was not open according to this place, and it secreted natural excrements by another path from birth. Having arrived at the prime of her youth, she was wed to one of the citizens. She lived with her husband for two years, having in a female way—

^A even if she was not accepting it, was compelled to endure an unnatural intercourse. After this, a swelling having occurred in her near the pubic region, and severe pains supervening, a multitude of doctors was gathered. And among the rest, no one promised to cure her, but a certain apothecary, claiming he would heal her, cut into the swollen place, from which fell out a man's genitals, testicles, and an impervious member. While all were struck with amazement at the paradox, the apothecary rendered aid to the remaining parts of the mutilation. For first, by cutting the extreme tip of the genitals, he pierced through to the urethra, and having inserted a silver tube, he removed the excess fluids through this, and healed and closed the place that had been fistulated. Therefore, when this place was healed, he demanded double payment; for he said that he had taken up a woman who was sick, but had produced a man who was healthy. And Kallo, having put aside the weaving-shuttles and the rest of the women's handicraft, and having exchanged them for a man's garment and the rest of his habit, was renamed Kallon, with one letter added ^B at the end of the name. It is said by some that before changing into a man's form, she had seen the sacred rites of Demeter, which are not to be approached by men themselves, and for this reason she was accused of impiety.

Likewise, in Naples and in many other places, such incidents are recorded as having occurred ^C not as if the male and female nature were shaped into a dual-formed body (for this is impossible), but as nature falsely describes certain members of the body to the amazement and deception of men. Wherefore we also have deemed these incidents worthy of being recorded, not for the amusement of those who read, but for their benefit. For many, believing such things to be prodigies, are superstitious, not merely common people, but even nations and cities. In fact, at the beginning of the Marsic War, they say an Italian man living near Rome, who had married an androgyne not unlike those mentioned, was accused before the senate, which, being over-superstitious and persuaded by the Etruscan soothsayers, ordered him to be burned alive. But the senate, being ignorant of the illness, unjustly condemned this man, who indeed participated ^D in a similar nature, but was not in truth a monster. Not long after, they say that the Athenians, because of the same ignorance of the disease, also burned such a person alive. For some tell myths that the so-called hyenas are both male and female, and that they consort with one another every other year, the truth not being so. For each of the sexes has its own nature simple and unmixed, and those who observed carelessly have reported ill. For adjacent to the female sex is something by nature similar to a male member, and in the male, in the opposite way, an appearance of the female nature. The same account is likewise to be held for all animals; for although many and various prodigies truly occur, these things have been said for the sake of removing superstition.

^A Diodorus, near the end of the thirty-second book of his Historical treatise, pursues these matters, although others, and indeed a great many, have written concerning prodigies.

From the thirty-fourth book.

Antiochus the king, he says, was besieging Jerusalem, and the Jews resisted for a time, but when all their supplies were exhausted, they were forced to send an embassy to discuss terms of surrender. Most of his friends advised the king to take the city by main force and to utterly destroy the race of the Jews; for they were the only people of all nations who were unsociable and regarded all others as enemies. They pointed out that their ancestors had been driven out of all Egypt as impious and hated by the gods. For those who had suffered from leucoderma or leprosy on their bodies were, for the sake of purification, gathered together as polluted persons and cast beyond the borders; those who were exiled had seized the places around Jerusalem, established the Jewish nation, and made their hatred for mankind a tradition. ^B And for this reason, they had introduced customs completely different from others, refusing to share their table with any other nation or to show them any goodwill at all. They also reminded him of the ancient hatred their ancestors had felt toward this nation. For Antiochus, called Epiphanes, having defeated the Jews, entered the sanctuary of God, where it is lawful only for the priest to enter; and finding therein a stone statue of a man with a long beard, sitting on an ass and holding a book in his hands, he supposed this to be Moses, who had founded Jerusalem, established the nation, and enacted those laws hateful to all nations. And he, strongly disliking the misanthropy of all nations, was ambitious to abolish such laws; therefore he sacrificed a great sow upon the statue of the founder and upon the open-air altar of God, and ^C sprinkled them with the blood, and having prepared the meat, he ordered their sacred books, which contained their misanthropic laws, to be sprinkled therewith, that they might be corrupted and blotted out; and he extinguished the lamp, called by them the immortal lamp, which was always burning in the temple, and compelled the high priest and the rest of the Jews to eat of the swine's flesh. As his friends related these things, they vehemently incited Antiochus to destroy the whole nation, or at least to abolish their laws and compel them to change their way of life. But the king, being magnanimous and gentle in character, instead of destroying them, ^D took hostages and released the Jews from the charges, after exacting the tributes owed to him, and having pulled down the walls of Jerusalem.

These things Diodorus writes concerning the Mosaic institutions and laws,

^A but also concerning the founder of Jerusalem, he lies. And in the censure of the Jews, persevering in the lie—perhaps so as not to appear to contradict himself—he introduces others as telling the story, to whom he attaches friendship for Antiochus. He writes these things also in the 40th book of the same *Bibliotheca*.

From the 40th book, near the middle.

^B I considered that, intending to write of the war against the Jews, it was appropriate first to set forth in chapters both the origin of this nation and the customs among them. In Egypt in ancient times, a plague having occurred, the many attributed the cause of the evils to the divine; for as many and various foreigners were dwelling there, employing varied rites of sacrifice, it happened that the ancestral worship of the gods among them failed; which the inhabitants suspected would be an indication of evils unless they dismissed the aliens. Therefore, immediately upon the expulsion of the fugitives, the most excellent and effective (as some prattle) were cast away into Greece and neighboring places, having excellent leaders, of whom Danaus and Cadmus were the most prominent. ^C The rest of the mob fell into what is now called Judaea, which is not far distant from Egypt, and was entirely desert in those times. This colony was led by Moses, who excelled the others in prudence and strength. Having occupied the land, he founded other cities and one which is now the most famous, named Jerusalem. He also established that which is most highly honored among them, the sanctuary, and he showed them the honors and rites of the divine, and legislated and ordained the matters regarding the constitution. He divided the multitude into twelve tribes, for the reason that this number is considered most perfect and corresponds to the number of the months that complete the year. He did not construct an image of the gods at all, because he did not think that God was of human form, but that the heaven encompassing the earth alone is God and master of all. He established sacrifices and ways of life entirely different from other nations. For because they would banish foreigners from their city, he introduced a life that was hateful and odious to others. ^D Moreover, he ordered that those who were to preside over the nation should be acceptable to the people, and those most powerful in authority, whom he wished to be priests, he instructed to exercise their duties around the altars and the worship and sacrifices of God; and from among these, by his own judgment, he appointed men as judges, to whom he also entrusted the guardianship of the laws and the institution. He did not appoint a king for the Jews, but judged that the power of the people should be entrusted to him who appeared to excel the other priests in prudence and virtue; this man they call high priest, whom they consider to be, as it were, a messenger to them of divine precepts, and he, he says, brings forth these edicts in the congregations and councils of the people, to whom the Jews so obey that immediately

^A falling to the ground, they reverence the high priest who interprets these things to them. It is also added to the laws at the end that Moses, having heard God, says these things to the Jews. The lawgiver also took great care of military affairs, and compelled the youth to practice courage and endurance, and in total, the patience of every hardship. He also conducted campaigns against the neighboring nations, and having conquered much territory, he distributed it by lot, having made equal shares for the common people, but greater ones for the priests, so that, receiving more significant revenues, they might be free from distraction and constantly attend to the honors of God. It was not permitted for the commoners to sell their own allotments, so that some, through greed, might not buy up the allotments, oppress the poorer people, and create a scarcity of men. He also compelled those in the country to rear their children; and because the infants were reared with little expense, the nation of the Jews was always populous. They were also different from others in marriages and the burials of the dead, as he made ordinances far removed from those of other men. But according to the later-occurring dominations from the intermingling with foreigners—under the fourth sovereignty of the Persians and the Macedonians who overturned it—many of the ancestral customs of the Jews were disturbed.

Thus indeed, even here, he speaks concerning the customs and laws among the Jews, and those very points about the departure from Egypt, and the divine Moses, lying in most matters, and passing on again to the refutations of what he falsely said against the truth, having devised a retreat for himself, he now refers the history of the things mentioned to another; for he adds: "Concerning the Jews, Hecataeus of Miletus has recorded these things." ^B

From the forty-eighth book

That it is said by some to have been the cause of death for the Emperor Jovian, that he was sleeping in a house freshly whitewashed, and being warmed by fire because of the cold, and emitting vapors from the damp lime—this experience ^C Diodorus Catulus records as having befallen him voluntarily in times long past; for in the forty-eighth book, at the beginning, he has this: ^D They took council with the Cinnae and Mariani, along with the most illustrious leaders, so that they might live in firm peace; and finally they concluded that they should kill the most illustrious of their enemies and those capable of contending for the empire, so that, with a clear

conscience, their own faction and party could henceforth be free from fear, and might manage the affairs of the government with their friends as they wished. ^A Thus, they immediately neglected the agreements and pledges they had made, and the slaughter of those who had been condemned by them took place with impunity everywhere. Quintus Lutatius Catulus, who had celebrated a most illustrious triumph over the Cimbri and had previously been greatly beloved by the people, was made a defendant in a capital charge before the people by a certain tribune of the plebs. Fearing the danger from this malicious prosecution, he went to Marius, hoping to receive some assistance. But he (who had previously been his friend), now elated by pride, felt differently toward him and gave no other answer than this: "He must die." Catulus, having despaired of his safety and hastening to end his life without disgrace, deprived himself of breath, and that in a new and unusual manner: for, shutting himself in a freshly plastered house, and raising a vapor from lime with fire and smoke, he was suffocated and perished, being hindered in his ability to breathe. ^B *From the thirty-first [book].*

While these things were being done, ambassadors of the Rhodians came to Rome to clear themselves of the crimes with which they had been charged. For they appeared, during the war which had been waged against Perseus, to have inclined their favor toward the king and to have betrayed the friendship which they had with the Romans. As they were achieving nothing by their embassy, they were losing heart, and they conducted their parley with tears. When one of the tribunes, named Antonius, had introduced them into the senate, Philophron first made a speech regarding the embassy, and after him, Astymedes. Having spoken much in supplication and deprecation, and at the last (as the saying goes) having sung their swan song, they with difficulty received answers, by which they were indeed delivered from their extreme fear, but were bitterly rebuked concerning the charges. ^C Wherefore, one may see among the Romans the most illustrious men contending for glory, through whom almost all the greatest things are accomplished for the people. For in other states they envy one another, but the Romans praise one another; whence it comes to pass that they perform the noblest works, striving to increase the common interest, while others, harboring unjust sentiments and plotting against one another, ruin their own country.

That Perseus, the last king of Macedonia, after having often entered into friendship with the Romans and often having waged war with a not insignificant army, was finally ^D defeated and captured by Aemilius, who celebrated a brilliant triumph for the victory. Perseus, however, having been agitated by such great calamities that his misfortunes seemed to resemble fables of events that never occurred, did not wish to depart from life. For before the senate had pronounced what should be done regarding him by the city's commanders, one threw

him into prison at Alba ^A with his children. And this prison is a deep subterranean vault, in size roughly that of a nine-bedded room, and it is full of darkness and stench because of the number of men condemned for capital crimes who are delivered into this place, the greater part of whom were shut up there at that time. For with so many men confined in such a cramped space, the bodies of the wretches would putrefy, and as all things pertaining to food or any other necessity were thrown together, such a stench arose that none of those who approached could easily endure it. Therefore, for seven days he endured misery in this place, such that he even needed the help of those of the lowest station who were receiving rations. For they, becoming sympathetic because of the greatness of the misfortunes they themselves were receiving, would kindly share these with him, weeping. ^B And a sword was thrown to him for slaughter, and a rope for strangling, the option being given to use whichever he wished. But nothing seems so sweet to those in misery as living, even if they suffer misery worthy of death. And in the end he would have finished his life in these straits, had not Marcus Aemilius, the presiding officer of the senate, mindful of his own dignity and the fairness of the fatherland, admonished the senate with a severe rebuke so that, if they were not moved by human fear, they would at least fear the avenging Nemesis, who is accustomed to visit those who use their powers arrogantly. Therefore, having been placed in milder custody and clinging to empty hopes, he met an end to his life similar to the previous cases. For after surviving for two years with a desire for life, having offended the barbarian guards, he was prevented by them from enjoying sleep, and thus finished his life. ^C

That they say, he says, that the kings of Cappadocia trace their lineage back to Cyrus the Persian, and they also affirm that they are descendants of one of the seven Persians who slew the Magian. And they count their kinship from Cyrus in this way. Cambyses, the father of Cyrus, had a true sister, Atossa. From her and Pharnaces, King of Cappadocia, Gallus was born, and from him Smerdis, and from him Artamnes; and from him Anaphas, who is said to have excelled in bravery and daring, and to have been one of the seven Persians. They thus genealogize their kinship to Cyrus and to Anaphas, to whom they say that on account of his virtue the principality of Cappadocia was granted, so that it would not pay tribute to the Persians. Upon his death, his son of the same name ruled. After whose passing, there being two surviving

^A sons, Datamas and Arimnaeus, Datamas succeeded to the rule, a man praised both for war and for other parts of the administration of the realm, who, having engaged the Persians in battle and fought strenuously, fell therein. His son Ariamnes received the kingdom, whose sons were Ariarathes and Olophernes. This Ariamnes, having ruled for fifty years and having performed no deed worthy of memory, died. The elder of his sons, Ariarathes, succeeded to the rule; it is said he loved his brother beyond measure and raised him to the most distinguished ranks, and that he was sent by the Persians to fight against the Egyptians and returned with great honors, which Ochus, king of the Persians, bestowed upon him for his bravery; he departed this life in his homeland, leaving behind sons, Ariarathes and Arysas. The brother, holding the rule of Cappadocia (for he had no legitimate ^B offspring of his own), adopted his brother's eldest son, Ariarathes. During these times, Alexander the Macedonian conquered the Persians and then died. But Perdiccas, who was then the regent of all affairs, sent Eumenes as governor of Cappadocia; and Ariarathes having been defeated and slain in battle, both Cappadocia itself and its neighboring regions came under the power of the Macedonians. But Ariarathes, the son of the king who had previously reigned, despairing for the present, withdrew with a few men into Armenia. Not long after, when those around Eumenes and Perdiccas had died, and Antigonus and Seleucus followed, he, having received troops from Ardoates, the king of the Armenians, slew the Macedonian general Amyntas, quickly cast the Macedonians out of his borders, and recovered his native rule. ^C He had three sons, of whom the eldest, Ariamnes, received the kingdom, who contracted an alliance by marriage with Antiochus, surnamed Theos, and gave his daughter Stratonice to the eldest of his own sons, Ariarathes. And being beyond measure fond of his children, he placed the diadem upon the boy and made him his equal partner in all the authority and jurisdiction of the kingdom. Upon the death of his father, Ariarathes reigned alone, and departing this life, left the kingdom to his son, who was still a mere child. He took to wife the daughter of Antiochus the Great, named Antiochide, a very cunning woman. ^D They say that she, not bearing children, substituted two boys for herself without her husband's knowledge, namely Ariarathes and Olophernes. Sometime later, having conceived, she gave birth, beyond her hope, to two daughters and one son, named Mithridates. But then she consulted a man from among her subjects and arranged for the elder to be sent to Rome with modest means, and the younger to Ionia, that they might not contend for the kingdom with her own true-born son. They say this adult Ariarathes was nicknamed [---] and was imbued with Greek letters and praised for his other virtues. And the father indeed strove to show himself loving in return to the son who loved his father; and their mutual benevolence proceeded so far that the father was prepared to yield the entire empire to his son

^B, while the son demonstrated that it was impossible to accept such a favor from parents while they were still alive. After the fates had called his parent, he received the kingdom, proving himself excellent in the rest of his lifestyle and devoting himself to philosophy; it was because of this that Cappadocia, which had formerly been unknown to the Greeks, became at that time a sanctuary for the learned. He also renewed his friendship and alliance with the Romans. But this concludes the account concerning the reports of those who ruled Cappadocia up to this point.

From the same.

^C Regarding Lucius Aemilius, who defeated Perses, he describes his burial, and by saying that it was most magnificent, he adds: For the Romans, those who excel in nobility and the glory of their ancestors, after their death are honored with images according to the likeness of their character and the outline of their whole body, having imitators who have observed throughout their whole life both their gait and the particular characteristics of their expression. Similarly, each of the ancestors precedes them, having such equipment and finery, so that those who see them, through the expression of these, know to what extent each was advanced in honor and participated in the goods of the state.

He mentions the Iberians and the Lusitanians. For he says that Memmius, the praetor, was sent with an army into Iberia, and the Lusitanians, having gathered against him and taken him by surprise while unprepared after landing, defeated him in battle and destroyed the greater part of his army. When the victory of the Iberians became famous, the Arevaci, thinking themselves much superior to the Iberians, despised the enemy, and the multitude in the assembly, for this very reason, chose to go to war against the Romans.

From the thirty-second [book].

^D He says that the wall of the city of the Carthaginians was forty cubits in height and exceeded twenty-two in width; nevertheless, the engines of the Romans and their bravery in war proved stronger than the wall, so that they captured the city and leveled it to the ground.

Masinissa, the king of the Libyans, who maintained friendship with the Romans, lived for ninety years in vigor.

^A He left behind ten sons at the time of his passing, whom he entrusted to the Romans for guardianship. He was distinguished by his physical stamina and was accustomed to hardship and labor from childhood. For he would stand in his tracks the whole day motionless, and when sitting he would not rise until night, spending the whole day pondering his labors; and riding on horseback, he would not grow weary even after sitting day and night and practicing horsemanship. ^B The greatest proof of his health and vigor was that when he was almost ninety years old, he had a four-year-old son who was gifted with great physical strength. In the cultivation of fields he excelled so greatly that he left to each of his sons a farm of ten thousand jugera, equipped with every facility. He reigned gloriously for sixty years.

That Nicomedes, pursuing his own father Prusias and slaying him while he was taking refuge at the altar of Zeus, seized the kingdom of Bithynia, having obtained the throne by a most impious murder.

That the Lusitanians, he says, at first, not having a capable leader, were easily overcome while warring against the Romans, but later, having secured Viriathus, they caused great harm to the Romans. ^C This man was of that people of the Lusitanians who dwell by the Ocean. He was a shepherd from his youth, accustomed to life in the mountains, aided also by his natural constitution; for in strength, speed, and the agility of the rest of his limbs, he far surpassed the Iberians. Having accustomed himself to little food and much exercise, and only as much sleep as was necessary, and being constantly under arms and engaging in struggles both with wild beasts and with brigands, he became famous among the masses, was chosen as their leader, and quickly gathered a band of brigands around himself. And as he thrived in wars, he was ^D not only an object of admiration for his physical strength, but he also appeared to be an excellent general. He was also just in the distribution of spoils, and according to their merit, he honored those who had fought bravely with gifts. Advancing further, he no longer showed himself as a brigand but as a dynast, waged war against the Romans, and prevailed in many battles, so that he even defeated the Roman general Vitellius with his own army, took him prisoner, and slew him with the sword; and he carried out many other successful feats in war, until Fabius was appointed general of the war against him. From that point he began to be diminished not a little. Then, having recovered and having gained the advantage over Fabius, he forced him to agree to terms unworthy of the Romans. But Scipio, having been chosen general against Viriathus, rendered those acts void, and having often overcome Viriathus, finally drove him to extreme defeat, so that he looked toward peace, and killed him by treachery through his own people and struck down his successor in power, Tautamus, and his associates, and so that peace might be arbi

arbitrarily concluded as he wished, he gave them land and a city for their habitation.

From the thirty-fourth book.

When, after the destruction of the Carthaginians, the affairs of the Sicilians had flourished in the greatest prosperity for sixty years, a servile war at length arose among them for the following reason. Having greatly increased in the comforts of life and acquired vast wealth, they had been accustomed to purchase a multitude of slaves; and these, as soon as they had brought them in droves from the slave-markets, they would immediately mark with brands and tattoos upon their bodies. ^B Of these they employed the younger ones as shepherds, and the others as the need of each task required. But they treated them harshly in their service, and deemed them worthy of scarcely any care, either in regard to their nourishment or their clothing. Consequently, the greater part of them supplied their living by robbery, and everything was filled with murders, as if by bandit armies scattered about. The governors indeed attempted to prevent this, but not daring to punish them because of the power and influence of the masters who owned the robbers, they were forced to overlook the province being plundered; for most of the landowners were of the Roman equestrian order, and, being judges of the governors accused by the provinces, they were formidable to the authorities. But the slaves, being oppressed by hardships and frequently beaten without reason, could no longer endure it. Therefore, meeting together when they had the opportunity, they discussed among themselves about a revolt, until they finally brought their plans to execution.

There was a certain slave, a Syrian, born in the city of Apamea, whose master was named Antigenes and who originated from Enna—a man who was a sorcerer and a trickster by nature. ^C This man would pretend that he was foretelling future events through the commands of deities in his sleep, and he deceived many because of his ingenuity in this regard. From this point, advancing further, he not only prophesied from dreams, but also pretended to see the gods while awake and to hear future things from them. Since many of his predictions were fabricated by him, some would happen by chance to turn out true; and because the ones that did not happen were not exposed by anyone, while those that did happen received attention, the opinion concerning him grew in estimation. Finally, by some mechanism, he would emit fire and flame from his mouth with a certain display of enthusiasm, and in this way he would declare the future. For into a nut or something of the kind, perforated on both sides, he would insert sulfur and the material capable of sustaining it; then, putting it into his mouth and breathing upon it, he would ignite sparks and sometimes flame. Even before the revolt, he kept saying that the Syrian goddess, appearing to him, was telling him that he would be king; and this he was constantly saying not only to others but also to his own master. And when the matter was turned into a joke, Antigenes, being entertained by the trickery

^A of this conjurer, would bring Eunus (for this was the name of the charlatan) to his banquets and question him about his kingdom, and how he would deal with each of those present. When he answered everything with unshakeable conviction, and claimed that he would deal moderately with the masters, making all kinds of miraculous prognostications in general, it became a source of laughter for the guests. Some of them would take generous portions from the table and present them to him, saying that when he became king he should remember the favor. Yet this fraudulent performance did not end in a mere fantasy of a kingdom; he made good on his repayment to those who had entertained him at the banquet, though it was not without serious intent that he demonstrated his favor.

The beginning of the entire revolt was of this kind. There was a man from Enna named Damophilus, a man of an arrogant disposition, who treated his slaves in ways more unworthy than can be believed. His wife, Megallis, vied with her husband in subjecting them to various torments, stripping away all sense of humanity toward them. Driven by this to a beastly state, the abused slaves conspired together for revolt and the slaughter of their masters. Coming to Eunus, they asked if what they had planned was granted by the gods. ^B He, as was his custom, agreed with his usual tricks that the gods consented, and immediately persuaded them to undertake the attempt. They quickly gathered a band of four hundred fellow slaves, and arming themselves in whatever manner the time afforded, they burst into the city of Enna, with Eunus serving as their leader, employing his trickery of emitting flame from his mouth.

Breaking into the houses, they committed a great slaughter, sparing not even suckling infants; they snatched them from their mothers' breasts and dashed them against the ground. ^C As for the women, it is impossible to express in words the kinds of insults and wantonness they practiced upon them (and this in the presence of their own husbands). A great multitude of slaves from the city had joined them, and having already displayed the ultimate outrages upon their masters, they turned to the slaughter of others. When Eunus heard that Damophilus was rusticating in the suburban gardens with his wife, he sent some of his own men to that place, who dragged them both back into the city in chains, having subjected them to many insults along the way. Only their daughter did the servants completely spare, not even the slightest

indignity or insult did they offer her, out of respect for her humane character, and her compassionate mind, which was always inclined to help the servants to the best of her ability. This was proof that the servants were not committing these deeds out of an inherent cruelty of nature, but rather as retaliation for the injustices previously inflicted upon them.

When those who had been sent on this mission had dragged Damophilus and Megallis into the city, as we said, they brought them into the theater, where the entire ^A multitude of the rebels had gathered. And when Damophilus attempted to contrive some means for his own safety and was swaying many of the crowd with his words, Hermeas and Zeuxis, who were bitterly disposed toward him, called him an impostor; and not waiting for the formal judgment of the people, one thrust a sword through his sides, while the other severed his neck with an axe.

From that point, Eunus was chosen as king—not due to bravery or military skill, but for his reputation for sorcery alone, and because he had been the instigator of the rebellion, ^B and at the same time his name seemed to hold a kind of good omen for the goodwill of those he would rule. Having been established as lord over all the rebels, and having gathered an assembly, he put to death the Ennaeans who had been taken alive, in so far as they were not skilled in the forging of arms, while those who were he bound and set to work. He also gave Megallis over to the maidservants to treat as they wished; they tortured her and then threw her down a precipice. He himself also killed his own masters, Antigenes and Python.

He placed a diadem upon his head, adorned everything about him with royal splendor, declared his own wife—who was also a Syrian and his fellow citizen—queen, and appointed as his councilors those among the rebels who seemed to excel in prudence. Among these was Achaeus, both by name and by race an Achaean, a man excelling in both counsel ^C and strength of hand. Within three days, he provided the means of armament for more than six thousand men, and taking along others equipped with axes, hatchets, slings, scythes, fire-hardened poles, or even cooks' spits, he went about plundering the entire countryside. At the same time, he took in an infinite multitude of domestic servants and became bold enough to fight against the Roman generals; having engaged with them in battle, he was often victorious, being stronger in the number of his troops, as he was leading more than ten thousand men.

In the meantime, a certain Cilician named Cleon began a rebellion of other servants. And though all were buoyed by the hope that the rebel groups would fight against each other, and that in destroying themselves, the rebels would liberate Sicily from the uprising, contrary to everyone's ^D expectation they entered into an agreement with each other, with Cleon submitting himself to the simple command of Eunus and fulfilling the duties of a general (as befitted a king), having at his own disposal a body of five thousand soldiers.

^A Thirty days had nearly passed since the defection. Shortly hereafter, when the commander Lucius Hypsaeus arrived from Rome with eight thousand Sicilian troops, the insurgents, having engaged in battle, were victorious, being a multitude of twenty thousand. Not long after, their organization grew to two hundred thousand, and having distinguished themselves in many battles against the Romans, they were rarely defeated. When news of this was bruited about, a conspiracy of one hundred and fifty slaves in Rome was ignited into defection, and more than a thousand in Attica, and likewise at Delos and in many other places; but the overseers of public affairs in each of these localities, acting swiftly to assist as matters were brought to a crisis, and inflicting severe punishments upon them, restrained the rest—who already had hopes of defecting—through fear, and brought them back to a saner mind.

In Sicily, however, the evil grew worse day by day, and cities were captured together with their inhabitants, and many armies were cut to pieces by the insurgents, until the Roman commander Rutilius ^B recovered Tauromenium for the Romans. He besieged it most vigorously, and reduced the insurgents within to such extreme straits and famine that, having first begun to feed upon the bodies of their children, and then proceeding to those of their wives, in the end they did not even spare each other, but devoured one another. At the same time, he captured Comanus, the brother of Cleon, as he was fleeing the city while it was being besieged; and finally, when the citadel was betrayed by Sarapion the Syrian, the commander took power over all the fugitives in the city, whom he punished with torture before casting them down to their deaths.

From there he proceeded to Enna and undertook a similar siege, binding the hopes of the insurgents to the final extremity. And when Cleon the commander had gone out from the city and fought heroically with a few men, ^C he was shown dead from his wounds, and the city was taken by treachery, since it was not otherwise capturable by force of arms due to its natural fortification. But Eunus, taking his bodyguards—who numbered one thousand—fled cowardly to some precipitous places. Yet those who were with him, knowing that the disaster surrounding them was inescapable (for the commander Rutilius was already marching against them), slaughtered one another with their swords, cutting off their own necks. But the monster Eunus, both a prestidigitator and a king, having fled through cowardice into some caverns, was drawn out along with four of his own men: a cook, a baker, the person whose hand rubbed him in the bath, and a fourth who was accustomed to entertain him during his meals. He was led out, cast into prison, and, his body having dissolved into a mass of lice, he ended his life in ^D Morgantina, in a manner worthy of the depravity that governed him. From there Rutilius ran over the whole of Sicily with a few chosen men, and faster than anyone had hoped, he liberated it entirely from the brigandage. That the king of the insurgents, Eunus, named himself Antiochus, and named the multitude of the insurgents Syrians.

^A *From Book XXXVII.* At the same time that Marius had defeated the African kings Bocchus and Jugurtha in a great battle, and had slaughtered nearly infinite thousands of Africans, and had subsequently led Jugurtha himself away captive (having been captured by Bocchus, who wished to be pardoned for the war he had waged against them), at a time when the Romans had received with great grief heavy losses in the Cimbrian war in Gaul—at that very time, some arrived from Sicily reporting that many thousands of slaves had revolted. Upon the receipt of this news, the entire Roman populace began to be in the greatest straits, inasmuch as 60,000 picked soldiers had fallen in the war against the Cimbri in Gaul, and they were unable to raise an equivalent army for an expedition.

^B Furthermore, before this tumult of rebelling slaves in Sicily, such events had been aroused in Italy, though they were minor and of very short duration, as if by divine power, signifying how atrocious the future rebellion in Sicily would be. The first had arisen at Nuceria, when thirty slaves had made a conspiracy and upon being caught had immediately paid the penalty. The second was at Capua, when two hundred slaves had rebelled and were destroyed without delay. The third, however, arose in a wondrous way. There was a certain Titus Minutius, a Roman knight, born of a very wealthy father, who, having been captured by love for another’s very beautiful maidservant, brought about his union with her. ^C Eventually, however, he began to pine for her so much that he bought her from her master for seven Attic talents, since the insanity of love drove him to this purchase, which he otherwise would have obtained from her master with difficulty. But when she arrived, and he was unable to pay, he obtained a thirty-day extension to pay the debt. Once this period also had passed, and the man demanded the agreed-upon price, and he could find no way of fulfilling the payment—meanwhile his love was growing stronger—he attempted a most irrational act. For he plotted against those who were demanding the debt, and he took upon himself a sort of monarchical power. ^D For, having purchased five hundred sets of armor and having set a time for the payment of the price, and having obtained it on credit, he secretly arranged for them to be carried to a certain field. Then, having incited his own slaves to revolt—they were four hundred in number—and having put on a diadem and a purple cloak, and taking lictors and other royal insignia, and having proclaimed himself king through the aid of the slaves, he first scourged and then beheaded those who were demanding the price of the girl. After arming his slaves, it pleased him to wander through the neighboring farming estates, in which

^A he gathered more than seven hundred men, and having organized them into companies, he established a camp, and began to receive those who were defecting. When news of this revolt was brought to Rome, the senate prudently deliberated on the matter and achieved its goal; for out of the commanders in the city, they chose one for the capture of the fugitives: Lucius Lucullus. He, selecting six hundred chosen soldiers on that very same day in Rome, arrived at Capua, having mustered four thousand infantry and four hundred cavalry. Vettius, when he learned of the approach of Lucullus, seized a hill fortified by the nature of the place, having a total force of more than three thousand five hundred men. ^B And in the first engagement that took place, the fugitives had the advantage, as they were fighting from higher ground. But after this, Lucullus, having corrupted Apollonius, the commander of Vettius's army, with bribes and having confirmed by public guarantee that he would be exempted from punishment, persuaded him to become a traitor to his fellow insurgents. Therefore, with him also cooperating with the Romans and laying hands upon Vettius himself, the latter, fearing the punishment that awaited him once captured, took his own life; and those who had participated in the revolt were at once slain, except for Apollonius who had betrayed them. And these events preceded the great revolt which occurred in Sicily, as though they were a kind of prelude to it. Its origin, however, was as follows:

In the expedition of Marius against the Cimbri, ^C the senate had given Marius the authority to summon auxiliary forces from the nations across the sea. Marius therefore wrote to Nicomedes, the king of Bithynia, concerning auxiliary troops. He gave as his reply that the greater part of the Bithynians had been carried off by the tax-farmers and were serving in slavery throughout the provinces. And since there was a decree of the senate that no ally of the Roman people who was indeed free should be in servitude in any province, and that commanders should take care to have them manumitted, it happened that the praetor Licinius Nerva, who was then by chance in Sicily, observing the decree of the senate, manumitted many of the slaves through established legal proceedings, ^D so that within a few days more than eight hundred attained their freedom. And the spirits of all the slaves on that island were high with the hope of liberty. But men of influence, coming to the praetor, urged him to desist from this initiative. He, whether won over by money or having sought favors, desisted from the zeal of these adjudications, and ordered those who were approaching him to obtain freedom to return to their own masters. Thereupon the slaves, having formed a gathering, left Syracuse and fled to the sanctuary of the Palici, and there began to confer among themselves concerning a revolt. And since the audacity of the servants was becoming evident in many places from there,

the news of that audacious crime by the servants throughout the region of Ancyra having spread, the first to claim their freedom were thirty servants of two very wealthy brothers, led by a man named Oarius. ^A They first slaughtered their own masters while they slept at night, then, going on to the neighboring estates, they urged the servants there to seek freedom; and in that very night, more than one hundred and twenty gathered to them. Having occupied a naturally strong position, they fortified it even more, receiving also another eighty armed servants. The governor of the province, Licinius Nerva, coming upon them quickly and besieging them, found his efforts fruitless. But when he saw that the fortress was impregnable by force, he turned his mind to treachery, and by promises of safety he persuaded Gaius Titinius, nicknamed Gadaeus (who two years before had been condemned to death but had escaped punishment and used to kill many free men in the countryside through brigandage, though he never harmed any of the servants), to serve his purpose. ^B Having with him sufficient trusted servants, he went to the fortress of the rebels, as if he intended to share in the war against the Romans; and having been received with kindness and friendliness, he was even chosen as their leader on account of his valor, whereupon he betrayed the fortress. Of the rebels, some were cut down in the fighting, while others, fearing the punishment they knew awaited them if captured, cast themselves down headlong. Thus, the first uprising of the fugitives was suppressed in the manner described.

The soldiers having been dismissed to their own homes, a report is brought by some that servants, having entered into a conspiracy, had slaughtered Publius Clonius, who was of the equestrian order, and were gathering a large band for themselves. ^C The governor, too, being deceived by the counsel of others, now that the greater part of the soldiers had been dismissed, provided the rebels with time to better secure themselves through this delay. But he marched out with the soldiers who were available and, crossing the river Alba, passed by the rebels who were stationed on the mountain called Caprianus and arrived at the city of Heraclea. For, by spreading a rumor of the governor’s cowardice because he did not attack them, they incited many of the servants. ^D And with many flocking to them and preparing for battle in the best way they could, within the first seven days more than eight hundred were armed, and subsequently they numbered no less than two thousand. Upon learning in Heraclea of their increase, the governor appointed Marcus Titinius as leader, giving him the six hundred guardsmen who were with him from Enna. He, having engaged the rebels in battle, since they had the advantage both in numbers and in the difficult terrain, was routed along with his men, many—

^A of whom were killed, while the rest threw away their weapons and scarcely saved themselves by flight. The rebels, having thus suddenly acquired such a quantity of arms and a victory, acted with greater boldness in their undertakings, and the spirits of all the slaves were buoyed up toward revolt. As many deserted daily, their number increased in a short time more than could have been believed; for within a few days they numbered more than six thousand.

Then, having called a council and deliberated on the state of affairs, they first of all chose as king a certain Salvius, who was considered skilled in divination and was accustomed to playing the flute to the point of madness for the women’s dances. Having attained the throne, he decided to avoid the cities, believing they encouraged idleness and effeminacy. Therefore, he divided the rebels into three parts and, having appointed an equal number of leaders to each part, ordered them to scour the whole region with widespread plundering, and for all to return to one place at a set time. By their raids, they acquired a great number of other animals as well as horses, and in a short time they mustered more than two thousand cavalry ^B and no fewer than twenty thousand infantry, who were already distinguishing themselves in military exercises.

Suddenly, therefore, they fell upon the fortified city of Morgantina and began to conduct vigorous and continuous assaults against it. The general, having come to the city’s aid using a night march, and having with him about ten thousand soldiers, partly Italians and partly from Sicily, found the rebels occupied with the siege. ^C When he made an irruption into their camp and found there only a small garrison, but a great multitude of captives and a great quantity of spoil of every kind, he cleared out their camp with no trouble. After plundering it, he turned his march toward Morgantina. But the rebels, suddenly attacking in turn, and having the advantage of the higher ground, by a violent onslaught began to experience a change of fortune, and the forces of the Roman general began to turn their backs. However, since the king of the rebels had commanded by edict that all who threw down their arms should be spared, a good portion of them, having cast them down, took to flight. By this stratagem Salvius, having used it against the enemy, both recovered his camp and ^D at the same time gained the victory and a great multitude of weapons. There died in this battle of the Italians and Sicilians no more than six hundred, on account of the clemency of that edict, but about four thousand were captured. Salvius, with many flocking to him after his success, having doubled his own force, held the open country and undertook to besiege Morgantina again, having proclaimed to the slaves within it the promise of freedom. But when their masters offered them the same [freedom] if they would fight alongside them, they chose the offer of their masters instead, and having fought zealously, they beat off the siege. The general, after these things

^A denied them the liberty he had promised, and this was the reason why very many deserted to the rebels (70).

Now, among the Egestaeans and Lilybaeans, and the peoples neighboring them, the same desire for revolt spread like a certain disease through the herds of slaves. Their leader was appointed as one Athenio, a man outstanding in courage, born in Cilicia. Since he served as the steward of two very wealthy brothers, and was highly experienced in the science of the stars, he drew the slaves to his own way of thinking: first those whom he had under his authority, numbering about two hundred; then the neighbors, so that within five days more than a thousand were gathered. ^B Being chosen king by these men, and donning a diadem, he formulated his plans in a way different from all the other rebels. For he did not accept all those who defected, but, choosing the most capable as soldiers, he forced the others to remain at their previous tasks, taking care of each one's own domestic duties and roles, from which he also provided abundant provisions for the soldiers. He pretended that the gods were signifying to him by the stars that he would be king of all Sicily; and for this reason, he claimed, they ought to spare both the land itself and the living things and crops within it as if they were his own. At last, having gathered more than ten thousand men, he dared to besiege the city of Lilybaeum, which is impregnable. But seeing no success, he withdrew ^C from it, saying that the gods ordered him to do so, for if they persisted in the siege, they would suffer some misfortune. While he was preparing his departure from the city, some ships arrived carrying picked Moorish men, who had been sent to the aid of the Lilybaeans, led by one named Gomon. This man, falling upon Athenio and his troops by night and unexpectedly as they were marching, struck down many and wounded not a few before returning to the city. For this reason, the rebels marveled at the prediction made from astrology.

Now all of Sicily was possessed by confusion and an Iliad of woes. For not only the slaves, but also the poorest of the free, engaged in every kind of theft and lawlessness, and they ruthlessly murdered whoever they encountered, ^D both slave and free, so that no one might report their abandon. Because of this, everyone in the cities believed that their possessions inside the walls were barely their own, and those outside were alien and subject to the

lawless power that had seized them. And many other monstrous things were dared by many throughout Sicily.

Salvius, who was besieging Morgantina, having raided the territory as far as the Leontine plain, gathered his entire army there, no fewer than thirty thousand picked men. And having sacrificed to the Italian heroes, he dedicated one of his purple robes as a thank-offering for the victory they had granted him. Having subsequently proclaimed himself king, he began to be called Tryphon by the rebels. Intending to occupy Triocala and establish his royal seat there, he also sent for Athenion, summoning him as general for the king. Now though everyone supposed that Athenion would claim the highest rank and that, due to the friction between the rebel leaders, the war would be easily brought to an end, ^B fortune, as if deliberately increasing the forces of the runaways, compelled their leaders to be of one mind. For Tryphon quickly arrived at Triocala with his entire army, and Athenion also arrived with three thousand men, obeying Tryphon as king in his capacity as general, having sent off the rest of his troops to raid the countryside and incite the servants to revolt. After this, Tryphon, suspecting that Athenion would turn against him at the first opportunity, threw him into prison.

He kept fortifying that stronghold, which was already highly defensible, more and more each day and adorning it with magnificent structures. They say that Triocala was so named ^C because it possessed three beauties: first, a multitude of fountain waters of remarkable sweetness; second, that the surrounding countryside was filled with vines and olive trees and was wonderfully suited for cultivation; third, that it possessed such surpassing strength, being a large and impregnable rock. Having enclosed it with a city wall of eight stades and dug a deep trench, he used it as a royal residence, filled with an abundance of all things that human life requires. He also constructed a palace and a forum capable of holding a multitude of people. He also selected men who were preeminent in wisdom, those who were capable, and having appointed them as counselors, he used them as a senate. ^D He put on a purple-bordered toga and wore a broad-striped tunic for official business, and had lictors with axes walking before him; and he strove to practice all the other things that compose and adorn a kingship.

Meanwhile, the Roman senate chose Lucius Licinius Lucullus to lead against the rebels, having fourteen thousand Roman and Italian soldiers, as well as Bithynians, Thessalians, [390a] and eight hundred Acarnanians.

and six hundred from Lucania, commanded by Cleptius, a man skilled in military affairs and famous for his courage; and also another six hundred, so that the total number was seventeen thousand, with which he occupied Sicily. Tryphon, having pardoned Athenio for the accusation, took him into consultation regarding the war against the Romans. It was Tryphon’s opinion that they should remain at Triocala and begin the battle from there, but Athenio advised that they should not shut themselves up in a siege, but rather fight in the open field. This latter piece of advice having prevailed, ^B they encamped near Scirthaea, being in number no fewer than forty thousand; the Roman camp was twelve stadium-lengths away from them. At first, there were continuous skirmishes; then, both sides having drawn up their lines, and the battle swaying this way and that, with many falling on both sides, Athenio—having with him two hundred chosen horsemen as auxiliaries—covered the whole area around him with corpses. But, having been wounded in both knees and receiving a third wound in another part of his body, he became useless for the battle, and thereupon the slaves, losing heart, turned to flight. Athenio, however, being taken for dead, escaped notice, and having feigned death, he saved himself when night fell. The Romans gained a brilliant victory, for those with Tryphon and Tryphon himself turned to flight, and ^C many having been cut down during the rout, in the end they found that no fewer than twenty thousand had been slain. The rest, taking advantage of the night, escaped to Triocala, although it would have been possible for the general, had he pursued them, to finish them off as well. The slaves were so dispirited that they even deliberated about returning to their masters and surrendering themselves; however, the opinion of those who held that they should fight to the last breath and not betray themselves into the hands of the enemy prevailed. Nine days later, the general ^D arrived to besiege Triocala. And having killed some, but being killed by others, he came away having accomplished nothing, and the rebels grew confident again. The general achieved nothing of what was required, whether through laziness or through bribery; for which reason he was later brought to trial and underwent punishment from the Romans. Caius Servilius was sent as general to succeed Lucullus, but he too did nothing worthy of memory; for which reason he was later condemned to exile, just as Lucullus had been. After Tryphon died, Athenio succeeded to the command, and he set about besieging cities and fearlessly overrunning the whole region with raids, and he took much booty, with Servilius doing nothing to stop him. When the annual period had expired, Caius Marius was elected consul at Rome for the fifth time, along with Caius Acilius; Acilius was sent by them against the rebels.

^A He behaved with such courage that he overcame the rebels in a famous battle. Furthermore, he joined hand-to-hand combat with their king, Athenion, and fought a heroic struggle; he killed him, though he himself was wounded in the head, from which he recovered some time later. He then marched against the remaining ten thousand rebels. When they could not withstand his assault but fled to strongholds, Acilius did not cease to try everything until he had besieged and conquered them. There were still a thousand remaining, under the leadership of Satyrus; he first attempted to overcome them by arms, but after they sent envoys and surrendered themselves, he remitted their immediate punishment, but led them off to Rome and set them to fight with beasts, where it was reported by some that they ended their lives with the greatest distinction; for [they say] they refused to fight the beasts, but slaughtered one another on the public altars, and the last man, Satyrus, having killed them all, with great and truly heroic strength of spirit, laid hands upon himself. ^B Thus, the Servile War in Sicily, having lasted for almost four years, had a tragic end.

Concerning Battaces

There came, he says, a certain priest from Pessinus in Phrygia, of the Great Mother of the gods, by the name of Battaces, who claimed to have come by the order of the goddess; he appeared before the magistrates and the Senate, saying that the sacred rites of the goddess had been polluted, and therefore they ought to be publicly expiated at Rome. For this purpose, he wore clothing and other bodily ornaments novel and never seen by the Romans, including a golden crown of unusual size and a flower-embroidered, gilded stole, possessing a truly royal splendor. ^C Having spoken to the people from the Rostra and having plunged the multitude into superstition, he was honored with public hospitality and lodgings, but was forbidden from wearing the crown by one of the tribunes of the plebs, Aulus Pompeius. Being led, however, to the Rostra by another tribune, and questioned about the purification of the temple, he gave a truly superstitious response. Having been treated seditiously by Pompeius and led back to his lodging with insult, he did not come forth again, saying that not only had he himself been shamefully abused, but the goddess as well. ^D Pompeius for his part was immediately seized by a violent fever, and soon after became speechless, vexed beyond measure by pains of the throat, and on the third day he breathed his last. Many suspected that because he had offended the priest and the goddess herself, he had been destroyed by a certain divine providence; for the Romans are devoted to superstitions in a marvelous way. Wherefore Battaces, being clothed in the ornament of his sacred stole and received with lavish hospitality by many men and women, was sent away from Rome with a procession. Roman soldiers are accustomed, when [fighting] against enemies in battle alongside them, to exceed six thousand men-

of the enemies, to proclaim and call him *imperator*, which means king.

From book XXXVII and VIII and the following.

Diodorus states that the war called the Marsic War was greater than all those that had preceded it in his own time, and he says it was named the Marsic War after the authors of the revolt, since all the Italians indeed waged this war against the Romans. The primary cause of the war was that the Romans, having fallen away from the orderly, simple, and temperate conduct through which they had grown so greatly, turned toward a ruinous passion for luxury and profligacy. For out of this corruption, when sedition arose among the common people against the senate, ^C and the senate subsequently implored the help of the Italians and promised them that desirable Roman right of citizenship, and promised to sanction it by law, when none of the things promised was provided to the Italians, the war broke out among them against the Romans, while Lucius Marcius Philippus and Sextus Julius were holding the consulship in Rome, and the one hundred and seventy-second Olympiad was being held. ^D In this war, various and manifold calamities and the capture of cities befell both parties of the combatants, with victory wavering as if by design toward either side and remaining stable for neither. Nevertheless, after an immense multitude of men had fallen on both sides, late and with difficulty the Romans gained the victory and secured their power. The Samnites, Asculani, Lucani, Picentini, Nolani, and other cities and nations were waging war against the Romans; among these, the most illustrious and greatest and common city, recently completed by the Italians, was Corfinium, in which, along with the other things that confirm a great city and empire, they established a very large forum, and a senate-house, and all other things necessary for war in abundance, as well as a multitude of money and a plentiful supply of food.

They also established a general senate of five hundred men, from whom those who were deemed worthy to rule the fatherland were to be brought forward, and those who could deliberate about the common safety. And they entrusted to these the management of matters concerning the war, having made the councilors supreme commanders. These men enacted laws that two consuls were to be elected annually, and twelve generals. Consuls were created: Quintus Pompadius Silo, a Marsian by birth and the foremost of his own nation, and the second from the race of the Samnites, Gaius Aponius Motulus, himself also distinguished by the glory and deeds of his nation. And having divided the whole of Italy into two parts, they established these as consular prefectures and divisions.

^A They assigned to Pompaedius the region from the place called Cercola up to the Adriatic Sea, including the parts facing west and north, and they appointed six generals under him. The remainder of Italy, which faces east and south, they assigned to Gaius Motulus, similarly joining six generals to him. Having thus managed their command skillfully and—to sum it up—in imitation of the Roman and ancient order, they subsequently applied themselves more vehemently to the war that followed, having named the common city "Italy."

And they waged war against the Romans, for the most part gaining the upper hand, until Gnaeus Pompeius, having been elected consul and general of the war, together with Sulla, who was general under the other consul, Cato, by winning the most celebrated ^B battles against the Italians not once but often, brought their affairs to the point of being crushed. They therefore did not fight as much, yet when Gaius Cosconius was sent as general into Iapygia, they were often defeated. Then, being diminished and few remaining from many, they abandoned by common agreement their common city, Corfinium, because the Marsi and all the neighboring tribes had defected to the Romans. They settled instead in Isernia among the Samnites, having appointed five generals for themselves, to the most prominent of whom, Quintus Pompaedius Silo, they entrusted the command over all because of his virtue and glory in generalship. ^C He, with the common agreement of the generals, prepared a great army, so that in total, along with those who were already there, it amounted to about thirty thousand. Besides these, he even gathered slaves to whom he had granted their freedom, and as time permitted, armed them, numbering not much fewer than twenty thousand, and a thousand cavalry. Upon engaging the Romans, whose general was Mamercus, he killed few Romans, but lost over six thousand of his own. At the same time, Metellus in Apulia besieged Venusia, which was a significant city, containing many soldiers, and took more than three thousand prisoners.

And as the Romans grew stronger day by day, ^D the Italians sent to Mithridates, the King of Pontus, who was then flourishing in military might and equipment, requesting that he lead his forces into Italy against the Romans, for in that way, with joined forces, the power of the Romans could easily be overthrown. Mithridates gave his answer that he would lead his forces into Italy after he had subdued Asia, for he was in the process of doing just that. On account of this, the rebels, utterly rejected, were losing heart. For there remained only a few of the Samnites and the Sabelli living in Nola, and in addition to these, the forces around Lamponius and Cleptius, holding the remnants of the Lucanians. And so, with the Marsic war now almost fading away, [392b] civil seditions of the previous time were stirring up new tumults in Rome, with many illustrious men seeking the command of the war against Mithridates on account of the magnitude of the rewards. For both Gaius Julius, and Gaius Marius, he who had held the consulship six times, at...

[1433] ^A variance with one another, sought the command, and the multitude was divided in their opinions between them. Other disturbances also occurred. However, Sulla, being consul, having separated himself from Rome, arrived at the forces gathered near Nola, and having terrified many of the neighboring peoples, he compelled them to surrender themselves and their cities.

But when Sulla had set out for Asia against Mithridates, and Rome was being distracted by great disturbances and civil slaughters, Marcus Aponius and Tiberius Cleptius, and furthermore Pompey, the commanders of the remaining Italians, dwelling in Bruttium, having besieged the strong city of Isias for a long time, were unable to take it; but having left a portion of the army at the siege, they were vigorously besieging Rhegium with the rest, hoping that if they gained possession of it, they would easily transport their forces into Sicily and become masters of the most blessed of all islands under the sun. But its commander, Gaius Orbanus, having employed great force, preparation, and zeal, [1434] ^B and having terrified the Italians with the magnitude of his preparations, rescued the Rhegians. Then, the civil strife concerning Sulla and Marius having been fanned into flame again among the Romans, some fought for Sulla, others for Marius. And the greater part of them fell in the wars, and the remainder surrendered to the victorious Sulla. And thus the greatest war, also called the Marsic War, was finally extinguished along with the civil strife.

That a great civil strife occurred when the Marsic War was already dissolving, led by Sulla and Gaius Marius the younger, the son of the Marius who had been consul many times (for he was seven times consul). In this strife, many myriads of men were slain. And Sulla prevailed, and having become dictator, and having named himself Epaphroditus (the Favorite of Venus), he was not deceived by the arrogance: for while prevailing in the wars, he departed by his own death. But Marius, having fought nobly in the battle against Sulla, yet having been defeated, fled to Praeneste along with fifteen hundred soldiers. Having been shut up inside and besieged for no short time, he was compelled—all having abandoned him, and seeing no way of salvation—to call upon the hand of one of his faithful servants to end his miseries. And he, having obeyed, and having deprived his master of life with one blow, slaughtered himself besides. And this strife indeed ceased, yet the remnants of the war of the Marian faction that were left behind struggled against Sulla for a time, until they themselves also perished along with the others. However, after the removal of these men, a quarrel, having been kindled between Pompey (who was surnamed Magnus on account of the deeds which he accomplished, acting partly by helping Sulla and partly by his own means) and Julius Caesar, compelled the Romans to turn against one another again for civil slaughters. The Pom-

Pompey ^A having been magnificently defeated in all respects and killed at Alexandria, the power of the consuls was diminished and reduced under the single dominion of Julius Caesar, and finally the sedition was settled. After he was then killed, a civil war was set in motion against Brutus and Cassius, his slayers, led by Lepidus, Antony, and Octavian Augustus, who were holding the consulship. When that war had not long after received an end by arms, and Cassius and Brutus had been defeated and killed, not much later there broke out into the open the hidden contention between Antony and Augustus over the primacy. And after a great deal of kindred blood had been shed on both sides, the power was firmly established for Augustus, and the authority over all things remained with him for his entire life, once the consular office had henceforth lost its own rank and sovereignty.

He says that the dignity of the Illustrious holds the third rank from the patricians.

Before the monarchy of Augustus, the Romans had these names for magistracies: patricians, who were also called the council and senate; tribunes of the plebs, who oversee the people; censors; consuls, whose power exceeded that of all others; the dictator, who held power—and greater power at that, for which he was not compelled to render an account; ^B military commanders, tribunes, military emperors, proconsuls, and other similar things. The insignia of the proconsul [perhaps 'consul'] are these: twelve axes, a purple-bordered toga. Of the dictator, however, axes and so forth.

CCXLV. Excerpts from Plutarch’s Parallels.

We read various books of Plutarch’s Parallels, whose concise description, being selected, contains great utility for those who are learning.

From the Life of Dion.

Timaeus, seizing upon an occasion not unjustly to reproach Philistus’s zeal and fidelity toward the tyrants, tears the man to pieces with insults to the point of satiety. Indeed, it might have been possible to forgive those who had been injured by him while he was still alive, because they were overcome by anger. But as for those who wrote histories in later times, who were not at all harmed by his deeds and were even assisted by his oratory, the common judgment of mankind ^C ought to have dissuaded them from reproaching his calamities contumeliously or scurrilously, for there is nothing to prevent even the best of men—a fate from which no one is immune—from being struck by the injury of fortune. Nor is Ephorus truly "sane," who is praising Philistus, although he was most clever, yet he ^D covers over wicked deeds and corrupt habits with decorous pretexts and

excuses ^A, though he could not with all his endeavor and effort wash away the crime, since the man was most devoted to tyrants and, of all men, most admired and envied the luxury, power, wealth, and marriage alliances of tyrants. It is most safe neither to praise the deeds of Philistus nor to reproach his fortunes.

From [the Life of] Brutus.

^BSuch was Brutus in his early letters. But when some were now departing to Caesar and others to Antony, and the armies were being sold, as it were, under a crier’s hammer to the highest bidder, he, having utterly despaired of the situation, determined to leave Italy, and traveling on foot through Lucania, he came to Elea by the sea. From there, when Porcia was about to return to Rome, she attempted to conceal the great grief she felt in her heart because of her husband's departure; yet she was overcome by the sight of a certain painting, though she was otherwise a noble and brave woman. Now the subject of the painting was Greek: Andromache accompanying Hector and receiving her child from him, while she looked back at her husband. As Porcia gazed upon this painting, the depiction of her own feelings drew tears from her, and she frequently went to see it during the day and wept.

From [the Life of] Aemilius.

^CIn which, among various passions and internal maladies, greed held the first place. (Plutarch speaks concerning Perseus, the king of the Macedonians.)

From [the Life of] Demosthenes.

That when the ambassadors came from Athens to Philip, Philip heard all the others, but responded to the speech of Demosthenes with the greatest care. Yet he did not show him the same honor and kindness as he did to the others, but instead drew closer to Aeschines and Philocrates. Wherefore, when these men were praising Philip, saying that he was most eloquent, most handsome, and, by Zeus, most capable of drinking, Demosthenes, succumbing to envy, was constrained to mock them, saying that none of these was an encomium of a king, but the first was that of a sophist, the second of a woman, and the third of a sponge.

^DThat when the daughter of Demosthenes had died, he, having secretly learned of the death of Philip, went forth into the Council with a cheerful countenance, encouraging the Athenians toward the future, and saying that he had seen a dream from which he expected some great good for the Athenians. And not long after, those who announced the death of Philip arrived; and Demosthenes came forward garlanded, wearing also a bright

^A garment, on the seventh day after his daughter’s death, as Aeschines says, reproaching him for this and accusing him of misanthropy—Aeschines himself being ignoble and soft, if he considered the humility and lamentations of a gentle and affectionate soul to be signs of weakness, and condemned anyone who bore such things without pain and calmly. But I, indeed, would not say that it was right to wear garlands and even offer sacrifice at the death of a king, even one who had shown himself so merciful to the vanquished—for in addition to the fact that this is invidious, it was also unworthy of free men to exult with joy at the death of one whom they had honored while living and had made a citizen, and to insult the dead. ^B However, I do praise the fact that Demosthenes left the domestic misfortune of tears and lamentations to the women, while he himself undertook the things he believed were to be done on behalf of the commonwealth; and I set this down to a civic and courageous soul, which is always intent upon the common good, and which allows domestic affairs and personal sufferings to be secondary to public concerns, and which holds fast to its dignity far more than the actors who play the roles of kings or tyrants on the stage—whom we see not laughing or weeping as they themselves might wish, but as the argument of the play requires. Moreover, should it be contrary to duty to overlook someone who is struck by misfortune and to allow him, being devoid of all consolation, to be consumed by his own grief? Rather, his pain must be lightened by words, and his mind must be led away to more cheerful thoughts, just as we bid those suffering from sore eyes to turn their gaze away from bright and reflective objects that strike them with their brilliance, to green and soft colors. How, then, could anyone apply a better consolation than by tempering the griefs of a mourning fatherland with private sufferings, and by hiding the worse with the better?

^C Demosthenes, he says, having been overcome by the gift of Harpalus, and being struck as if a garrison had been placed upon him, joined his party. And when the assembly had been gathered, which was to deliberate about the affairs of Harpalus—for he had spoken against those who wished to keep and receive him before he had filled his hand with gold—he came forward into the assembly with his neck carefully wrapped in wool and bandages, appearing to be in good and proper order; and when they ordered him to stand up and speak, he signaled that his voice had been cut off. The wittier men, however, mocked him, saying that it was not from angina, but that the orator had been seized ^D by a silver-angina during the night.

That after he was driven into exile on account of the gifts accepted from Harpalus, Demosthenes would deter the young men who were coming to him and associating with him from public life, saying that if he had only two paths before him...

from the beginning, one leading to the rostrum and the assembly, and the other leading straight to certain ruin, and he had known the evils that beset those in public life—the fears, the envies, the calumnies, and the struggles—he would have rushed into the one leading straight to death.

395a From Cicero

He says that the act of delivery contributed no small weight to persuasion for Cicero; and he would ridicule the orators who used loud shouting, saying that because of their weakness they resorted to clamor, just as lame men resort to horses. He says that the use of sharp taunts against enemies or adversaries seems to be oratorical, but the striking out at whoever one happened to encounter for the sake of a laugh brought much hatred upon Cicero, and because of this he became burdensome to many, and those who joined with Clodius against him took such a beginning. He says that the smallest bronze coin is called a *quadrans* by the Romans. He says it is reported that Caesar, having struggled for the first few days for the safety of Cicero, yielded on the third day and allowed his friend to be proscribed. The arrangement of the exchange was as follows: Caesar had to give up Cicero, Lepidus his brother Paulus, and Antony his uncle Lucius Caesar—who was his mother’s brother. Thus, under the influence of anger and madness, were they struck down from all human reason; or rather, they demonstrated that no beast is more savage than man, when he has acquired the power to execute what he has decreed in a perturbed and armed state of mind.

From Phocion

He says that Phocion was harsh and somber; for this reason, when the sycophant Aristogiton, who was accustomed to incite the people to war in the assemblies, came forward during the levy leaning on a staff with his leg bandaged, Phocion saw him from afar from the rostrum and shouted: "Write down also that Aristogiton is lame and a scoundrel." So one might wonder how and from whence so harsh and grim a man acquired the title of "the Good." But I believe that it is difficult, yet not impossible, for the same man, just like wine, to be both sweet and austere at the same time, just as others, conversely, appearing sweet, are most unpleasant and harmful to those dealing with them. Yet they say that Hyperides once said to the people: "Men of Athens, do not consider only whether I am harsh, but whether I am harsh gratuitously." Phocion, therefore, did no harm to any of the citizens out of enmity, nor did he regard anyone as an enemy; but in as much as it was necessary to stand against one who opposed what he was doing for the sake of his country, he showed himself harsh and intractable and inexorable; in his other life, however, he showed himself favorable, accessible, and humane to all, so that he even helped those who had stumbled and stood by those in danger, even his opponents.

He says that Antipater, the general of the Macedonians, is reported to have said that of his two friends whom he had in Athens...

Phocion and Demades, he had succeeded in persuading the former to accept, but he had not been able to satisfy the latter with gifts.

From Cato.

From Alexander.

When Bucephalus, being sold for thirteen talents, had been brought by Philonicus the Thessalian, Philip dismissed him because he would admit no rider and would not heed the voice of any of those who were with Philip. ^C Alexander, taking the dismissal of the horse ill, asked his father to let him take the horse; and taking the animal which was judged by all to be wild and untamable towards everyone who approached it, Alexander ran to the horse and, taking the bridle, turned it towards the sun—having, it seems, perceived that the shadow falling and moving before it [646 H.] was what disturbed it. After galloping a little and stroking it, as he saw that it was filled with rage and spirit, he quietly threw off his cloak and, leaping up, mounted it safely, and rode the horse with might. Terror and anxiety seized some, lest the boy might suffer some harm, while others clapped their hands and were pleased, but all were equally struck with astonishment. ^D And when, having turned, he returned upright, proud and rejoicing, all shouted for joy; and it is said that his father, even weeping for joy, when he [Alexander] had dismounted, kissed his head and said, "My son, seek for thyself a kingdom equal to thee, for Macedonia does not contain thee." ^D He says that Alexander, thinking that to conquer oneself was more kingly than to conquer enemies, touched neither any of the daughters of Darius, though they were most distinguished in beauty, nor any other woman before his marriage, with the exception of Barsine, who was a widow. When, however, a sheep had given birth to a lamb which, on its head, had the shape and color of a tiara, and from either side of it...

^A testicles, he abhorred this prodigy and was purified by the Babylonians, whom he was accustomed to take with him for such things. He spoke to his friends, saying that he was not disquieted on his own account, but on theirs, lest, if he should die, fate might entrust the supreme authority to some ignoble and unwarlike man. But another, more auspicious omen removed this sadness of his. For Proxenus, who was set over the royal pages, while digging a place for the king’s tent beside the river Oxus, uncovered a spring of fatty and unctuous liquid. When the top had been skimmed off, pure and clear oil immediately gushed forth, differing in no way from oil in smell or taste, and also identical in brightness and fatness; and this, too, in a region where there are not even any olive trees. It is said, moreover, that the Oxus itself has very soft water, so that it leaves an unctuous quality on the skin of those bathing in it. Alexander was wondrously pleased by this ^B prodigy.

That Aridaeus was born to Philip from an ignoble and common woman, Philinna, and was deficient in intelligence because he suffered from a bodily malady. But this disease was not a defect of nature; rather, it is said that while he was a boy, a sufficiently good and noble character appeared in him, but that later, being corrupted by poisons from Olympias, he suffered the loss of his sanity.

From the Life of Caesar

From the Life of Eumenes

That finding that those under his command despised one another, but feared him, and were watching for an opportunity to slay him, he feigned that he was in need of money, and borrowed many talents from those who hated him most, so that they might have ^D confidence in him and refrain from designs against him, being anxious about their loan. Thus it happened that he possessed the wealth of others as a guard for his own body, and while others were giving their own money for the sake of their safety, he alone, by receiving, rendered himself secure.

That he is a lover of war, he says,

^A preferring gain to safety, but warlike is he who acquires safety through war.

From the Life of Sertorius.

It is said, he says, ^C that Sertorius was not susceptible either to pleasure or to fear; by nature he was dauntless in the face of dangers and moderate in enduring good fortune. Yet no commander of his time was more cautious of open battles; but he was a most shrewd strategist in secret operations of war, in seizing places fortified by nature, in crossing rivers, and in other matters of that kind which are accomplished by speed, craft, and deception; he was most generous in bestowing rewards for virtues, and moderate in punishments. Although, at the end of his life, his decision concerning the hostages seems to have shown that his mind was not truly gentle, but that his cruelty had been concealed by a certain art for the sake of necessity. But to me, as true virtue is established by right reason, it does not seem that the force of fortune can ever turn it to the opposite; yet I do not think it absurd to believe that intentions and good natures, when ^D afflicted by great and undeserved calamities, can be altered by the deity in their behavior. This I believe happened to Sertorius; for as fortune was already abandoning him, and being exasperated by the circumstances themselves, I judge that he exacted vengeance for the injuries of his misfortunes more cruelly.

From the Life of Demetrius.

^A Demetrius was shorter in stature than his father, though still a large man; but in figure and the beauty of his face, he was so extraordinary and remarkable that no one who attempted to depict or paint him could capture his likeness. For along with charm and elegance, there was a gravity and awesomeness in his countenance; there was mingled with his youthful vivacity an inimitable heroic appearance and royal majesty. And such, too, was the nature of his character, fitted both to strike men with terror and to win their favor. ^B

It is said that the most outrageous invention of Stratocles—for he was the inventor of these subtle and extraordinary sycophancies—was his enacting a law that those sent by public decree to Antigonus or Demetrius should not be called envoys, but *theori* (sacred ambassadors), just like those who brought the ancestral sacrifices to the Pythian games and to Olympia during the Hellenic festivals. By such flatteries, they corrupted Demetrius, who was otherwise of a sound mind.

It is said that the Athenians, when besieged by Philip, intercepted his letter-carriers, and while they read the other letters, they did not break the seal of the one from Olympias, but sent it to him while it was still sealed just as it was.

^C It is said that nothing is as becoming to a king as the exercise of justice. For Mars is a tyrant, as Timotheus says, but law is king of all, according to Pindar.

It is said that before Demetrius, the son of Antigonus—who was also called the Besieger—no one among men had seen either a fifteen-banker or a sixteen-banker ship. Later, however, Ptolemy Philopator built a forty-banker ship, two hundred and eighty cubits long, and fifty cubits high from the lowest bottom to the top of the stern, equipped with four hundred sailors apart from the rowers, four thousand rowers, and in addition to these, it received on its gangways and deck nearly three thousand marines (but the sailors were 400, the rowers 4000, and the soldiers 3000; the total was 7400). But this ship served more as a spectacle and for show than for use, because it could be moved only with difficulty and danger, and differed little from fixed ^D buildings.

From the Life of Antony.

It is said that Antony was ignorant of many things done under his authority, not so much from sloth as from a simplicity that led him to trust easily those around him. For there was simplicity in his character, and his perception was slow; but when he realized he had erred, he was moved to deep repentance and made confession to the very people he had offended. He would inflict both great punishments and rewards; yet he was more negligent in being moderate in showing favor than in punishing. The remedy for his indulgence and excessive jocularity was that he would allow himself in turn to be mocked, and he took no less pleasure in being laughed at than...

^A in laughing. And this caused damage to many things; for he would not suspect those who spoke with frankness while at play of being in earnest to flatter him, and he was easily deceived by praise, not knowing that some, by mixing frankness as a slightly astringent seasoning into their flattery, would remove the cloying quality, and by means of the boldness and chatter over their cups would contrive to bring about the remission and acquiescence of affairs, so that they appeared not to be speaking for favor, but to be inferior in judgment.

From the Life of Pyrrhus

From the Life of Marius

^D Marius, having been brought back from Libya with his army, took up the consulship and celebrated a triumph, displaying to the Romans an incredible spectacle—Jugurtha in chains, whom, while he was alive, not even one would have hoped to conquer as an enemy. So versatile was the man in dealing with fortunes, and he possessed a spirited nature mixed with great cunning. In the triumph, moreover, they report that there were brought 3,700 pounds of gold, 5,775 of bullion silver, and 287,000 denarii of coined money.

Soldiers who are industrious and who perform what is commanded promptly and in silence (for Marius was tireless, and would do many things himself, and taught the soldiers to imitate him and to become like him) are accustomed to be called "Marian mules." Some say this is because Marius, while once serving under Scipio, was inquisitive

^A regarding the weapons and pack animals, and brought the soldier a horse very well reared, and a mule far excelling the others in condition, gentleness, and strength. The commander, being pleased with Marius’s wards and often mentioning them, it so happened that those who mocked [the soldier] in praise began to call the persistent, enduring, and hardworking Marian a "Marian mule."

That after Marius defeated the Teutons, to the number of one hundred thousand, it is said that the Massalians enclosed their vineyards with their bones; and that the land, having consumed the corpses in it and having been rained upon by winter showers, became so enriched and permeated to a depth with the putrefaction that, in the proper season, it brought forth a superabundance of produce, and that what Archilochus said—that fields grow fat in such a way—was confirmed on that occasion. ^B Nor is it irrelevant that after great battles immoderate rains are said to pour down; whether some divine power is cleansing and washing the earth with pure and celestial waters, or whether, as the corpses and the fat send forth a moist and heavy exhalation, the air coagulates, being otherwise easily susceptible to change from the slightest causes.

That the servants of Cornutus are worthy of admiration. For while many were being condemned to death without cause during the civil strife in the city, and ten thousand slaughters and various outrages were taking place, they hid their master, and having hauled away a certain corpse from the pile of the dead, they hung it by the neck and, placing a gold ring on its finger, they showed it to the Marian guards ^C and, having decked it out, they buried it as if it were their master. No one suspected anything, and in that way Cornutus, unnoticed, escaped into Gaul with the help of his servants.

From the Life of Aratus

That Aratus, he says, having fought brilliantly against the tyrant Aristippus and those with him, and the tyrant himself having been slain by a certain Cretan named Tragiscus, and with more than 1500 of their [the tyrants'] men dead, while losing none of his own, still did not take Argos nor free those in it from Agis and the younger Aristomachus, who had broken in with a royal force and seized control of affairs. ^D He refuted, therefore, much of the calumny and the scoffs and buffoonery by which the flatterers of the tyrants maligned him; for to curry favor with their masters, they were accustomed to say that the stomach of the general of the Achaeans would be upset during battles, and that vertigo and a deep sleep would come upon him as soon as he heard the sound of the trumpet. And that as soon as he had drawn up the battle line and given the countersign, he was accustomed to inquire of the centurions what need there was of his presence, now that the die was cast, and so would withdraw as far as possible to await the outcome of the battle. This opinion obtained such currency that even philosophers in their schools debate whether it is a trembling of the heart

and a change of color, and a loosening of the bowels in the presence of danger, that characterizes the fearful, or rather certain intemperance and coldness of the body; for they always considered Aratus to be a good general, yet he always suffered these things during his battles. ^A That (he says) since an ancient law existed that no one should be buried within the walls, and a strong sense of superstition was attached to this law, they sent to Delphi to consult the Pythian priestess about these matters, and she gave permission. And all the Achaeans rejoiced, and the Sicyonians especially, having changed their mourning into a festival, immediately brought the body of Aratus from Aegium into the city, wearing crowns and white garments, accompanied by paeans and dances; and having chosen an elevated site, they buried him as the founder and savior of the city; and it is called to this day the Arateum. His death, however, occurred under the guise of friendship, by poison and treachery, with Taurion the general serving as the perpetrator of the murder, and Philip, the Peloponnesian tyrant, commanding that he be granted immunity for what he had done.

From the Life of Artaxerxes

From the Life of Agis

^D That when Cleomenes had fled to Egypt after his defeat by Antigonus, at first the king of Egypt treated the man with honor and hospitality, but not long after, though he had done no wrong, having been unsettled in his attitude toward him by groundless suspicions and the slander of evil men, he held him in non-custodial detention, plotting against his life. He, however, with sixteen of his companions, having escaped from the house with swords...

ran through the marketplace, calling the citizens and the others to liberty. They praised his intention and admired his nobility, yet because of the fear of the tyranny, no one dared to join him. After killing those who came to hand ^A and two of his most bitter enemies, as a great multitude gathered against them, they killed many, but were themselves cut down, and then crucified. A few days later, those who were guarding the crucified body of Cleomenes saw a giant serpent coiled around his head, concealing his face so that no flesh-eating bird dared to approach. This cast superstition and fear upon the king, as it seemed that a man beloved of the gods and of a nature superior to humanity had been put to death. The Alexandrians also flocked frequently to that place, calling Cleomenes a hero and a son of the gods, until the more learned among them ended the error, providing the explanation that bees are produced from the putrefying carcass of an ox, wasps from that of a horse, and beetles from that of an ass; but that in a human body, when the humors ^B surrounding the marrow form a confluence and coalesce, they give rise to snakes—a fact the ancients observed, leading them to dedicate the serpent, above all other animals, to heroes [(77)].

From Titus Flamininus

^C That [note: the text begins here with Or, "that"] when the Isthmian Games were being celebrated, a multitude of people were sitting in the stadium watching the gymnastic contest, all the more because at that time Greece was exempt from wars and, seeing the hope of liberty set before it, was celebrating the festival in manifest peace. When a trumpet signal for silence had gone out to everyone side-by-side, the herald came forward into the midst and proclaimed that the Roman Senate and Titus Quinctius, the consul in command, having defeated King Philip and the Macedonians, commanded that the Greeks be free, ungarrisoned, and untaxed, living by their ancestral laws—namely the Corinthians, Locrians, Euboeans, Phocians, Achaeans, Phthiotians, Magnetes, Thessalians, and Perrhaebians. At first, not everyone heard clearly, nor did they understand, but there was an uneven and tumultuous stir in the stadium as they wondered, asked one another, and asked for it to be announced again. But once silence had been secured, the herald, raising his voice more eagerly, shouted it out to everyone and delivered the proclamation. A shout of such great, unbelievable size for joy traveled all the way to the sea, and the theater stood upright. No one was concerned with the contestants; all were eager ^D to leap up, to greet, and to speak with the savior and champion of Greece. And at that time, that which is commonly said regarding an immense and immoderate shout appeared in reality. For ravens that happened to be flying past

when a great and loud voice is carried forth, the air, being rent asunder by it, does not provide resistance to those flying through it, but causes a kind of slipping, as happens to those walking on empty air—unless, by Jupiter, it falls more like something pierced by an arrow by some sudden stroke, and dies. It is possible also for a vortex or storm of air to be brought about, like a swirling in the sea, and again for it to acquire impetus by reason of its magnitude. Titus, therefore, had he not most quickly, upon the games being dissolved, perceived the onrush of the crowd and turned aside his course, would not have seemed likely to escape, with so many pouring around him. ^B

That Plutarch, as he himself says both in the present *Parallel* and elsewhere, was in the time of Nero.

CCXLVI. Aristides’ *Panathenaicus*

I read Aristides’ *Panathenaicus*, which contains an explanation of words, names, and periods, and is also prepared with the power of meaning and embellishment. For the earth was indeed fashioned for every kind of produce. But when they had received these benefits from the gods, they began so to imitate the authors of them that they themselves stood in the place of the gods for other men; and by this first principle they proved themselves worthy of such gifts, in that they had used them rightly. ^C For they did not judge that they should be buried even under the earth, nor did they fear that others would turn out to be their equals; but they thought that they could show thereby how much they surpassed the rest, if they showed themselves beneficent toward all.

But my discourse, like a wave, has snatched me sideways, and so I return to that from which I had digressed. Therefore, they send forth a divine procession [as if it were] a supply to all regions, like theatrical money. But the greatest benefit is that they have received and cherished all those who were afflicted from every quarter. For there is no race of Greece, so to speak, that has not made use of this city. It is difficult to remember all of these at once, and to adapt words equal to the memory of them; I shall explain those which are the first and most ancient. When Hercules had departed from the living, the city first consecrated temples and altars to him.

^D [The passage set forth is by ellipsis, having something persuasive, which he often uses.]

And now, even the Messenians exist by the favor of the city. For the city alone, so to speak, has continued to contend against the fortune of all, and has attempted to turn the disasters of all into better things, and has changed the old proverb. For it has shown that it in no way flees from friends who are unfortunate, since it has received into friendship, after they had suffered disasters, many who were even formerly at variance with it. C in Latin column: Nor did they believe those who were fortunate... as many together from all sides to them...

It does not regulate its philanthropy by fortune, but rather turns the occasions of misfortune into opportunities for doing good, bestowing upon the many the benefits from itself, and making them partakers of things for which, when they were at their best, there was not even hope for them. And now, at both ends of the earth, the children of our children dwell, ^A some having advanced as far as Gades from Massalia, others being dispersed along the Tanais and the marsh. There follows now that part of the discourse, expected, I believe, by many, which embraces the deeds performed at the highest moments of the war's peril; things which, I fear, will present greater difficulty to the speaker in recounting them than to the city in performing them of old: not that it is necessary to touch upon them already. Yet, this very first point—that all who are placed in necessity take refuge ^B at the city, as they say, with both feet, and look to no other of the cities—is a great and manifest sign, and better than a pillar, of its having been from the very beginning the leader of Greece, and not merely not ignoble, and it bears witness to it regarding two most beautiful things, courage and philanthropy (or, if you prefer, I mean justice instead of philanthropy). For all these are as heralds concerning it, and have made their proclamation from the deeds themselves: that it is not the concern of anyone to be more just than the Athenians, nor to prevent those who are better from doing what lies beyond the noble; ^C but rather that the other cities, being in need of the Athenians, while fulfilling the number of Greece for themselves even on their own account, yet this city truly stands out like a city amidst villages, being equipped with equal apparatus and prudence, so that it is stronger than the just, and fairer to the powerful, or rather more exactly just than the just, and mightier than the violent, so that it surpasses both in both respects. And these, then, are common examples.

On the schema of the discourse

^D For when the Amazons, whose deeds went beyond nature, had joined in equestrian battle, they were utterly destroyed, with none of those who were as far as Attica resisting them; but they had already leveled the continents, as if having set out from the Thermodon as from a center.

^A From that point, as if a cable had snapped, they retreated; and the Amazonian rule, the campaign, and the city were dissolved, and it—the city—here aided the common nature, and now it has come even to the point of being unbelievable that they ever existed. But now, since it is an equal labor to discern what must be omitted and to set forth in an explanation those things which seem most glorious, and since no one has yet encompassed everything even in a naked narrative, although others have said very much about this one city, and indeed more than about all the rest, it is not possible for us to treat each detail accurately, but it is necessary to omit most things so that we may employ the most significant. For who would not gladly have brought these things into view? For when the situation was being judged for the Greeks and barbarians, and battle was being joined with a small part of the earth against a great one, and the contest was for salvation at once and for virtue, at that time the city vanquished both races more beautifully than one could pray, so that the one was shown to be a small appendage of it, while the other was shown to be worse by as much as it seemed greater. But then deeds surpassed words—deeds, that is, foreign to our own—in that the plebiscite, in every way more excellent, surpassed ^B them in words and equally in deed; for it was immediately proven by hand, not only with those men removed—as is the custom—but also by destroying the heralds. But as for him who had been the interpreter of the letters, they sent the people to a vote so that he might have a form of judgment beyond the others, since he was a Greek; nevertheless, they killed even him, as if one should not serve the barbarians even with one's voice alone. And so that in which he most relied deceived him, since they judged that a man of the city ought not to perform the office of interpreter against the city and the Greeks in favor of the enemy. And so they were thrown into the pit, so that others might carry the answers to the king. [The interpreter who was taken away was a Samian by birth, by name Mys.] ^C The city, moreover, seemed rather to be leading a procession than preparing itself for a contest. For it had opened all the temples, and having summoned the orders of priests, it performed supplications to the gods in the ancient manner. And first of all, they far surpassed all those races which are accustomed to be undertaken for the sake of the prize of a crown, showing an eagerness equal to the excellence of the prizes; but in the end they surpassed even themselves. So great, indeed, was the pride of this preparation and of what was done, that the barbarians thought that if they were only seen, they would achieve so much that everyone, as if in the games, would soon yield and surrender themselves without a struggle. And this was the first public contest among men of virtue against wealth, and of Greek prudence against the multitude and preparation of the barbarians, which was resolved not by the eloquence of speech, but by the demonstration of deeds and the opportuneness of the ^D time. For not

^A into fear did they turn the sight, nor were they struck by the strangeness of what they saw, but they were pleased to see how many they would prove superior to, and thinking they had seized, as it were, a starting point from fortune by which to surpass all men in manly excellence—and that this was more than that great army, to have an abundance of wealth to use—they considered that they were about to be feasted brilliantly by the barbarians, and in a manner worthy of their own virtue. For indeed, horses and weapons and ships and armlets and necklaces and dogs and all wealth are gifts of fortune laid out for the victors. Having spoken these things to themselves as leaders, and having conversed with themselves as individual soldiers, starting from the gods and the dear Paean ^B they proceeded with a run, as if racing across a cleared plain, and they did not give the barbarians opportunity to see what was happening; but at once ranks were broken, and men were stretched out, and horses were seized, [1217 R.] and ships were dragged, and wealth was carried off, and the things that were being done were a choral dance of Pan. Already, too, someone who had died and was standing upright, having been pierced through with arrows by the barbarians, terrified the rest as if he were immortal. ^C But then, in truth, they realized that they were a crowd, and an impediment to themselves, and that they were fewer than the many to whom one might have trusted from the start to offer resistance. So that [657 H.] it is fitting to say that, whereas it is proper for the city to honor Zeus the Liberator for the deeds done, the other Greeks ought to regard the city and the people of the Athenians as a liberator. So that if an inequality of those inferior is the case, they have taken victory from all. For the son of Darius, Xerxes, who surpassed the thoughts of all kings and attempted nothing that was not marvelous, when he believed that his father’s attempts had been hindered by lack of resources, and despised the city and the Greeks as those who would nowhere appear, he joined a double contest: one, to surpass him, and the other, to punish the city with much greater might. It seems to me, moreover, that Xerxes vied even with the divine signs at that time, and with every sight and sound unexpected to men, as if wishing to demonstrate that the earth was firmly his.

[That Isocrates expressed it more ornately, having declared the action thus: "Just as if dividing what exists with Zeus, and ceding the heaven to Zeus, while distributing the earth to himself."]

^D What terrestrial or maritime fears did he not strike into his own men? Whose threats, first of all, it was impossible for listening ears to hear, as they progressed to the ends of the earth, proclaiming things which could proceed from no one’s mind but his own. Finally, he threatened to render the colonies of the Atlantic sea vile, and to found a land outside the inhabited world, which he would compel them, mutilated as they were, to pile into the sea, while they were bailing out the water and—

^A dredging it, possessing only as much of their limbs as sufficed for the work. And he did not threaten things so unnatural, and beyond the bounds, and greater than fear, and then end there; but he hid his threats with deeds, without being able to say that he had actually used the city. And Athos is left as a monument to the work. Camels of gold and silver shone, occupying as long a space as they could possibly cover. If one desired shade, a golden tree was at hand to provide it. Thus, by night he made day with gold and silver, and by day he brought on night, wherever he ordered them to shoot their arrows. But he also called the Greeks to the ^B common struggle, because he was ashamed, I think, that the Greek race should appear alone against the barbarian, as it had formerly done at Marathon. For it was not that she [Greece] placed her hopes of salvation in others, but that all placed their hopes for themselves in her. Yet what zeal was more brilliant, what courage more manifest in any group of Greeks, or to speak simply, in any men, will appear to one who examines it? They departed from the land, that they might not serve either on land or sea, considering the preservation of their existing possessions to be the beginning of slavery, and making the loss of their current goods an occasion for future benefits, and they saved the possessions of others by sacrificing their own. ^C [To these things, choose whichever]—or if they did not use words in accordance with justice, or such as it was fitting to overlook in the present necessity, if they had used them? But if all things had been common, and no one excelled another, and all had contributed equally, and the leaders were equal, so that—as in a common contribution—they were to have been established as leaders according to the quality of the things at hand, would they not have shone among all as stars? And not, as it was with the decrees and the front of the battle line, so too in their deeds did they yield the leadership to others; for where would that come from? But some provided the name of leaders, while others provided the deeds. And by so much the more beautifully did their structure stand, in that they held the leadership over their own leaders. For since it did not seem right ^D that everything should depend upon one Athenian—so that the Lacedaemonian admiral commanded the commanders of each, and the Athenian commanded the commanders of those who were in command. But indeed, the eagerness for demonstrations and a discourse drawn further on by the discourse has led us too far. I return again to the deeds themselves, since I have digressed into such things as I wished to discuss. Who, then, could one find as more beautiful practitioners or demonstrators of virtue? Who, among all those who have ever lived, gave a more lasting proof of it? For they remained unconquered by gold, and silver, and iron, and in short by all things, and rendered everything equally useless to the king, just as if it were still hidden under the earth, choosing poverty over riches, dangers over security, and the righteousness of these men over the great humanity of the king.

^A But so that I do not, by avoiding the necessary points, extend my speech further, I shall now turn to what follows and address the matters in hand. Yet I fell into this digression almost against my will, led more by the sequence of the narrative than by my own intention, since I had no thought of aiming in this direction.

[By “the sequence of the narrative” or “pro dignitate” he refers, just as the road is straight, to being in the process of a journey; for one who wanders from the path often travels another way, led by a friend.]

Together ^B and while they were hazarding all against the entire Persian empire on land, they were destroying and seizing whole nations in place of individual men. And soon two trophies were won in a single day, and the naval battle was made equal to the land battle. For they alone of those who practiced a common political life considered their own country as if it were foreign, and what was foreign, they held not as foreign to themselves, but as belonging to those who were dwelling there in wickedness; finally, they lived the life of guards—not of those who are stationed in garrison or visit one particular place, but as one would have to call those who were roundsmen for all the Greeks throughout the entire land. Until at last the king recognized that he had undertaken a war against the city in the same way as if one were to pour oil on a great, spreading fire. For there was no harm he did not suffer, so that he was consumed by his own efforts, and he realized that he possessed the space of his own region as a bulwark against his own safety.

[“His own region against himself.” For from it the Athenians, that is, from Asia, as if from a fortress, were driving him out.]

He had held ^C as far as the Peneus, or rather—and I am subtracting a great deal, though I seem to be saying much—as far as Attica, until he encountered the men from Attica on the sea. By so great a distance had he passed the navel of the earth and of Greece, the city of Delphi. But from the conflicts and expeditions of the city he was reduced to such a point that he agreed no longer to sail inside two boundaries, having established the Chelidonian islands to the south and the Cyanean rocks to the north, and to keep his shipping five hundred stades distant in every direction; so that this circle was for the Greeks instead of some other crown upon their heads, ^D and for the king, the garrison was placed from out of his own territory.

Yet what head or conclusion to peace or war, whether against Greeks or barbarians, could one find more beautiful than that with which the city brought these affairs to a close? And yet, these things, as many and as great as they are, she accomplished not without many obstacles on the part of the Greeks, with all of them, as it were, pulling in the opposite direction. For that which in war and in the rivalry between

^A the Greeks set over against her, meant that she did not in the least relax her providence for the Greeks; rather, for the common interests, she waged war against the King throughout the entire land and sea. To what degree of greatness of soul should one add, beyond the fact that she was divided into so many parts, and yet took care of all things exactly as she did of each one individually, and at the same time showed herself to be a thing of wonder both in the fortitude of her spirit and in the magnitude of her preparation? For she so conducted herself against the barbarians, as if she were free from all other business, and did not in the meantime afford to the Greeks, if any were hostile, the opportunity to act as they wished; nay, she even met these so effectively, that one could enumerate five or even more such things done by her simultaneously, as if counting other miscellaneous matters. For they were victorious in a naval battle against the Peloponnesians at Cecryphalea, and were victorious against the Aeginetans at Aegina, and against the Peloponnesians again. Furthermore, they extended the walls of the Megarians down to the sea, preserving at once their liberty and their territory. Moreover, they defeated the Corinthians before the Megarians; and before twelve days had passed, they were victorious again in another encounter, when they had unjustly snatched away the trophy. And these things are not yet great; but it shall be said, ^B even if I hasten, for the addition will show the whole. For the forces were away from the city—some in aid of the Egyptians, ships more numerous than all that were then in the whole of Greece—and others were blockading Aegina. Which very thing incited the enemies all the more to invade Megara; for they imagined that the leisure of the Athenians would yield an opportunity for business for themselves. Even if the second attempt failed, they thought that at least they would break the blockade of Aegina; for they supposed that from elsewhere no help could come to them. But the Athenians laughed at this device to such an extent that those at Aegina moved from their position no more than those in Egypt, who were entirely unaware of the matter.

Indeed, she alone, at the risk of her own private safety, provided a benefit for the entire race, and she alone among all achieved the hegemony through common benefactions, and changed the custom. For she did not obtain her rule from the fact that she had subjugated cities, but from the fact that she had made them free; so that it came to pass that at one and the same time the Greeks received the benefit of liberty, and the city that of rule. For they alone ruled over those who were willing, ^C and this people alone, as if a single elected ruler from among all, prevailed, having subdued the barbarians with arms, but not having persuaded their own kinsmen; rather, persuaded by them to rule, having rule as a symbol of justice, and not of injustice. If one must divide it and speak, she is the only city that obtained rule while the barbarians were unwilling, but while the Greeks were entreating it. Who could ever worthily weigh or admire this? Now, when that famous disaster was received (for why should I keep silent about this, when it also pertains to the showing of the city's greatness?)—which proceeded in such a way toward the remaining affairs, as if it had captured the whole of Sicily, and [did] not [lack] forces

but rather had just acquired them. And one could not adequately express, as befits the subject, the ease of manners, the self-control, and the orderliness of life which they chose for themselves in order to allow nothing disgraceful to happen. But when all the Greeks stood around them, and their existing enemies first gained hope then, emboldened by fortune, and those from Sicily approached, and the alliance having shifted, one might say almost entirely, and islands, the mainland, and all [others] having in a word become enemies, and surrounded on all sides ^A, and further an unexpected bad opinion having occurred so that the king [of Persia] was even called [by them] against the city by those saved by the city's actions, and he also having approached most gladly, and aiding them with soldiers, ships, and money, and leaving no place on land or sea as a source of war; there was no one who would not have expected, viewing it so from the outside, that the city would be snatched away then and there, being so contained by a common war of barbarians and Greeks. But they changed the situation so that it was as if all these things were taking place for them and not against them, or [as if] the enemies were acting as their own generals. They marked the Hellespont with trophies, pursuing some to one place and others to another, performing skirmishes rather than battles with those they happened to encounter, as has been said both by us and by others before. Finally, having clashed at Cyzicus ^B with the Lacedaemonians together with those from Greece and the barbarians from Asia and Pharnabazus, they captured all the ships, except those they had sunk. So, the city which had labored under such sedition did not at that time even make mention of any peace, whereas those to whom they had at first supplied so many benefits, having suffered a defeat, soon fled to peace.

^C And whereas the city itself was compelled to fight at the same time against all who were attacking or provoking it, most of the enemies only harassed a part of it, and no one, or hardly anyone, attempted [to attack] the whole force. Thus, the city of the Athenians has conquered many times, and it is itself equal and unconquered. But the greatest thing of all is that no one has ever mastered it (for no one has subdued its resolve; all such misfortunes were of the army), while it has enslaved the resolve of its enemies along with their deeds, having caused Xerxes to flee from his affairs—which [one would count] in the category of a prayer—and having restrained the Lacedaemonians, not less those who were listening than those who were present in the battles and those of them who had stumbled. [To what did it incline? Was it to the desire for peace?] ^D For the Lacedaemonians deemed it unworthy to make peace with the Thebans, thinking it a respectable misfortune to yield only to the city of the Athenians, and having joined [with others] from the Peloponnese...

^A they were no more able to save others than they were in need of others to save them. For the first ones, being more than fifty in number, having deliberated these things together against the Lacedaemonian rule, which was of land and sea, they stood ready to face danger against those who were in that very city, thinking it necessary either to live in freedom or not to behold the sun as a witness to their own cowardice. For although it fell ill according to the nature common to all men, it was cured by its own [nature], so that this brought it even greater zeal than misfortune. Having conquered their enemies by their stout-heartedness, they defeated their own kin by their reasonableness. And having employed both—both their courage during the struggles and their ability to deliberate after the deeds—they in this way recovered the city. ^B So that if one wished not to recount everything, it is possible to conceal the misfortune that occurred in the conflict; in such a way did they choose and succeed in the following actions, which correspond to those that preceded in the war.

[By what measure of superiority should one believe this city surpasses?]

And this, no less than the former things, we must recount and admire: that when the Lacedaemonians demanded what they had lent to the Thirty against the people, once they reached an agreement, the people paid part of it, that greater firmness might come to the treaties. For the people, having gathered there, offered to others an example of hoping for good in desperate circumstances, and at the same time came to close quarters and nearly to words, as if they were going to fight for one another rather than for themselves; so that it is impossible to distinguish whether it was more appropriate for the partisans to curse the sedition, or for those who were well-disposed to pray for the city for the way in which it was resolved. Since I have made mention of peace, I wish to return here for a brief moment.

^C So that it was the first to conquer the barbarians and the only one; and even when joined with others, it excelled the allies no less than the enemies. Just as those who do not know how to hunt, if they capture something unexpectedly, do not let it go, nor would they deign to sell it unless at a very high price, measuring the value of the object by their own weakness. But the city, I think, aware that it was superior in all things, was never petty, hoping for absent things just as much as for those present. Therefore, it restored everything to the enemies more readily than they asked for their own.

I myself perhaps appear to some to act absurdly, finding fault with those who compare the Lacedaemonians to the Athenians, while I have myself fallen into similar ways of speaking ^D and for these very reasons have spoken about them, for which I say one ought not to speak. However, from these very things one may see most especially that they merit no great gratitude from the city...

nor ought such things to be contested on purpose, but as a secondary matter, just as I do now. So if anyone deems that these things should remain unsaid by us as well, this has been said almost for this reason.

^A And the Lacedaemonians, who take the lead among the Greeks and are accustomed to face danger first in times of need, appear to be putting themselves in the place of children to the city. So I would have wished that the trophies which I am about to mention had been erected having been won by others for the city, and that it were not necessary to add to the multitude that they were won by the Lacedaemonians; but now the state of affairs brings it to this, so that it shall not be spoken of for the sake of setting them up as a standard of comparison, but in order not to pass over the deeds entirely; for there are some I have omitted. It is necessary, as it seems, not to follow a casual path. And it is not that they did not show one kind of beneficence, but they left no kind of beneficence undone. ^B Many things from the same times present themselves to me as if in a history, which I am so unable to explain all at once that I could not suffice for even one leader. Which of those that I have omitted shall I recount? Yet that which especially deserves the greatest admiration, and which surpasses human nature: when they could have used the Lacedaemonians by land and sea as servants, or left them to their own disaster, since allies, neighbors, and all their servants alike had risen up against them—nevertheless they received them with equal rights, and when the Theban force was sweeping like a flame upon the city of the Lacedaemonians and the rest of the Peloponnese, they alone of Greeks and barbarians withstood them and checked them. From which they were so viewed by all that the city was established as the council for the entire alliance. ^C Furthermore, do they censure the city or the events that befell it? If they censure the city, they seem to know nothing of the greatest matters by which the city is renowned; but if they find fault with the events, they judge them differently than the others, as it seems, which the city chose; so that from the very things they use to vilify the city, they praise it. For the vice of a city and of an individual is demonstrated as such only when either evil things alone belong to it, or when someone proves the bad things to be more or greater than the good—let it be added. But when one, while examining through all things, takes only one or two, he unnoticed praises the things he leaves out. Besides, if one does not make the judgment about an individual, but about a city, and that city the most ancient of the Hellenic ones, and the one to which the most necessary events happen to belong. ^D For every rule is, I suppose, of the stronger, and contrary to the very law of equality. Otherwise, how is it equal or just for someone to impose tribute upon foreign land, or to enact laws beyond necessity, or to give rights to them or commands, or to wage war, or to possess things that do not belong to them; for in general none of these things is from equality.

^A If, however, someone is pedantic about rights and prefers to be a sophist rather than to yield to the nature of things, he will not refrain from simply writing off all authorities and powers as if all these things were essentially of the law of the stronger. Then, out of wisdom, he ascends even to the testing of the gods, saying that not even they associate with humans on an equal basis, but have chosen to be superior. But, I think, these are things for people of narrow minds, who have not even seen the sun, which deprives the other stars of shining. ^B If it is necessary that such things should accompany every power and every abundance, and this is the law of sovereignty, that it should not be judged from a position of equality with the subjects, then let someone depart victorious when he can show that any of the others, whether Greek powers or barbarian kingdoms, has used less than this, or can find a more moderate one than the Athenian people. For it will be seen that, in things which they deliberated upon differently, they employed the character of the very best man; and as to those things for which some blame them, they did not err against the common nature of humans, but followed the necessity of rule, ^C and having been established as a ruler from the beginning in terms of power, they relinquished it willingly out of philanthropy, and in a way became the authors of accusations against themselves. For having used the greatest familiarity and moderation toward all, and having in a certain way made them partners in the republic rather than holding them by the law of sovereignty, they suffered almost the same thing that usually happens to kind masters: for they did not receive favor from some on account of their other gentleness, but if they compelled them in any matter, they were thought to be acting explicitly with force. And indeed, if they appeared to have done these things while having the form of subjects, let us give this to those who wish to slander; but if they were on one hand the ones who had revolted and had insulted them beyond what was fitting, and on the other hand those who were manifest enemies, which of the two is it right to blame? I think indeed those who provided the necessity. For they also seem to me to have been emboldened as if holding this very thing as a pledge, and having trusted most in this that they would sin, not because they believed they would always possess the city, but because they trusted that they would suffer nothing serious even if defeated, as the Athenians were by nature inclined to save [humans]. For as to the fact that they revoked the decree concerning the Mitylenaeans, what city can surpass their initial decisions? For as the things they had decided the previous day were of judgment and of received injury, so the things they changed on the following day were of the city alone, when indeed the trireme had caught up to the trireme. ^D Now, since everyone accepts the defense of any person as joined to the deed, I wonder that they do not consider the whole of the city's deeds, by which it clears itself. For shall we not accuse the sun and the moon on account of the damages they cause us, but will we admire them on account of the benefits that come from them; and shall we judge the city not from its whole nature and its custom and familiarity with all, but from a few offenses? I do not think so: unless someone also wishes to include in this the lightning of the gods, and the thunder, and earthquakes,

...calumniari, neglecting general and universal benefits. Although many wars of later times, conducted with unprecedented and unheard-of constancy, remain for my narrative, time fails me. Therefore, if I add one thing, I shall conclude the entire discourse on this subject. ^A Natura, as if knowing in advance that the city would far surpass others in achievements, bestowed upon her speeches and letters in proportion to her dignity, so that she might both rejoice in her own ornaments and, if there were need, be able to share them with the rest. Since, therefore, you formerly protected the Greeks who fled to you, now you most beautifully receive all men and every race, offering yourselves to all as guides of wisdom and all learning, and purifying all. Now, since five kingdoms are recalled (and may no more arise), the first deeds of the city, and the things that were done while they were favorable, fell into the most ancient of these, the Assyrian; in the second, the city grew; in the third, she herself was victorious; in the fourth, when she alone resisted, she liberated [others] in the best way of all. But in this, the best and greatest of all, she holds the primacy of all Greece, so that no one should desire their ancient state in place of the present one. How great the excellence of the city has been from all time, we might very easily discern if we were to distribute her ornaments—not all indeed (for that is entirely impossible), but some—into various cities and regions, and then institute a comparison of them, as if of poets or choirs; for it does not seem easy to me to find the one that wins. For if some city were to pride itself on being the first to bring forth the race of men, another on being the first to reveal fruits, another on having shared them with the most, another on having enacted laws, another on festivals, another on being situated in the most beautiful place of earth and sea, another on rejoicing in the goods of wisdom, another on reciting deeds done in wars, another on how many of the Greeks it has received, another on the colonies it has sent out, and if one were to give to it whatever else belongs to the city, I say for my part that it would most clearly become apparent by how many superior qualities our city has surpassed others. For the things which suffice when distributed throughout Greece, these she alone possesses together. And indeed, concerning the gifts likewise, it is not easy to find the greatest, but let city vie with city concerning these too; let one bring the fruits of Demeter, ^D another those of Dionysus—and these not only those from the vine, but also...

of other days. But let the third speak of the gift of Athena, and that a double one. Does it not suffice that it is divided among many cities, for each to pride itself on having the most beautiful? ^A Well then. But these matters are of such a kind. ^B And as for the magnitude and the remaining construction, who would not declare them worthy of its entire fortune and of the great name of the Athenians? To begin with, the circuit of the city itself is the greatest of Greek ones, and the most beautiful of all everywhere. And I pass over in silence the walls reaching once to the sea, a full day’s journey at their total length, ^C and the other circles near the sea, opposed to those around the city. But it is possible, surely, to observe the *demoi*, some of which are constructed more splendidly than the cities of others, and indeed the entire decoration, both that from nature and that from art, is to be found in the city as well as in the region. Among the natural gifts, this air of theirs is exceptional compared to most, and the harbors are numerous, each one of which is worth many others, and furthermore the site of the Acropolis itself, and that which breathes upon everything like a gentle breeze. But that which is worthy of note in these very things is this: for it has happened that other cities, however they may fare concerning the heavens, are generally inferior [in that regard] to their own territory; but since the air of all Attica is thus, that which overhangs the city is the best and purest. One might recognize this from afar, as if by the very air above its head. And these things from nature are such, having taken away many of those that exist; ^D but of those from art, what should one mention first or place as the greatest? For here the very temples are the largest and most beautiful of all everywhere, and the statues—apart from the heavenly ones—are the primary works of the primary art, both old and new. In addition to these, there are repositories of books such as are manifest nowhere else on earth, and they are truly a decoration proper to the Athenians, and such as befit the present authority and manner of life, baths that surpass in dignity and luxury, and running tracks and gymnasia. So that if one were to take away from the city the Erichthonii, the Cecropes, the myths, the fruits, the trophies on land and at sea, the discourses, the men, and everything through which it has passed its age, and were to consider it in the same way as the remaining states that now sell themselves off, it would nonetheless easily carry off the victory with those things that are still visible in it. [666 H.]

Verum sola inter omnes urbes, et vetera veteribus, et nova novis, aut potius et vetera novis, et nova veteribus superat. Quibus addo et alia ejusdem. 1233 But alone of all cities, it surpasses the old with the old, and the new with the new; or rather, the old with the new, and the new with the old—by these, I mean its own [old and new] compared with those of others. [Because he speaks often figuratively. You too shall illustrate this passage, by disposing it thus: *The old indeed it conquers with the old, and the new with the old.* Or rather, if you prefer: *it still surpasses the old with the old, and the new with the new.* Then, how does it say: *But also the old with the new, and the new with the old?* But one might speak better, or explain more properly, or not err, as in many other places.]

To speak briefly, all things either exist among you alone, or have originated from you: and of the three, one thing has happened; of which

^A you have obtained in part, and in part either the best or the most numerous are seen among you. Many, indeed, when they can produce nothing of their own whereof they might rightfully boast, flee to the Trojan times and contend about glory, although not even so do they bring forward anything that they possess in common, since they hang upon the fame of one single man, like farmers who, in the manner of the needy, ^B betake themselves to some wealthier man. And the city, although it has no need of such a refuge, is by no means lacking in that seasoning. For the common poet of the Greeks, in the catalogue of ships and cities, says that the Athenian leader was most skilled: in marshaling armored men and bodies of horses (79). He refers to Menestheus, Alexander, and Paris.

For if we must leave aside others and speak only for the sake of democracy, ^C all those who have shared in this system will appear, in their desires and impulses, much more rash and arrogant; yet in dignity and splendor, they have fallen far short of the Athenians. Nay, this city was the first to demonstrate not to set store by or to admire wealth. For it never puffed up those who excelled in possessions, but thought it just only that they should be exempted from injury on that account, and that nothing more was owed to them by the city; nor did it ever value those who excelled in virtue, but were overcome in wealth, any the less. For it judged it to be disgraceful if, while not the wealthiest of servants but ^D the most faithful and those deemed best are chosen, the dignity of free men should be estimated by wealth and not by the quality of each individual. If there were need of strength, no one was to be compared with those who brought back a victory more complete than any pentathlon.

[He speaks of "things" instead of "persons": for it was necessary to say, "those who win the pentathlon," but he said "the pentathlon," being those having five contests, wrestling, running, javelin, discus, and pancratium, or rather, the five who contest, or those who win in the five contests. Not that pentathletes win everything; for three of the five are sufficient for them for victory. It is said that Peleus, when he was with the Argonauts, was the first to institute this contest. The five contests were those mentioned above. But some count the jump in place of the pancratium.]

Which people could be found more acute and more gentle, or which orators more celebrated? What? Because God calls it an eagle in the clouds in comparison with other cities. For to this city alone have two contrary things happened. For although men have said very many and most excellent things about it, it has nevertheless obtained the least praise of all. For just as it was an object of admiration above others, so it heard nothing remarkable regarding itself.

^A Previously, indeed, I used to admire what was called the council-chamber of wisdom 73 and the hearth and pillar of Greece, and whatever similar things were sung about the city; now, however, all these things seem to me to fall short. But if one must name a city as belonging to the gods, or as their kin, or as an image and boundary of human nature, this city would justly obtain such a title. For which reasons, O Greeks, it is not fitting for you to begrudge the city, nor to give way with shame, but rather to increase it through your own resources and to be ambitious for it. For if the Athenians prevail, the victory is yours 76. Since it is impossible for all men to be the best in everything, just as a city shares in the glory when its leader excels, so if the leading city obtains the honor befitting it, that adornment pertains to all. Just as, therefore, the Athenians themselves would not take it amiss if one were to celebrate their citadel, ^B [in place of saying that the citadel is the most beautiful and honorable of all Attica 78,] so you too, regarding the city as a kind of citadel or pinnacle of Greece and of your kin, must adorn it in word and deed, and thus share in its praise, not thinking yourselves deprived of it. Let this speech of ours, therefore, be completed as a peplos for the adornment of the Panathenaic procession, which the very goddess, to whom both the speech and the city are consecrated, will cause to be worthy of favor. ^C

CCXLVII. Excerpts from the same Aristides' Four Orations in Defense of Rhetoric against Plato's Gorgias.

Read were four orations by the same author in defense of rhetoric against Plato, demonstrating the necessity of the same.

I think, indeed, that whoever is about to speak what is fitting, or to cast a just vote, should not look to this, nor begrudge it, if it happens that someone of the earlier and celebrated men has spoken differently about the same matters; but rather, he should seek out that to which the most reason pertains everywhere, and on whichever side the truth stands, and grant the victory to that. For it would be absurd if, in assemblies and tribunals, faith were not placed in the one who spoke first—and indeed all know well that if these matters were debated in this way, none of the defendants would escape, since everyone, ^D of course, speaks after the prosecutor—but that in writings themselves, and in the judgment exercised concerning them, those who were earlier in time should prevail, and not those who demonstrate the truth of the matters for which they are contending. And yet, how is it not a great absurdity that those who exercise and cultivate the things pertaining to the good fortune of the body should have such a great and prior appearance of honor and justice, while the beautiful and just things of speech have been honored [namely, on account of good order, since everything that is well ordered comes to be according to reason, while that which is poorly ordered comes to be contrary to reason 89].

^A Indeed, those who excel in literature, and who think that life itself is not worth living without the study of it, he called lazy—explaining “lazy” as referring to those who do not contradict; and “unjust” as referring to those who rebuke those who contradict—or rather, that they are unjust in that they use one argument for everything: if someone has appeared earlier, they admire the names rather than the truth, as if they think that nothing better could possibly be found, and that, while it is right to change the laws themselves if it is useful, one should not accept any arguments regarding those things whose nature is eternal that come after the first ones, but rather one should venerate those who held them first as if they were boundaries or pillars; and that these ought not to be dissolved in the same way as earlier laws are abrogated by contrary ones, but rather that one should deem others worthy of standing in the same place alongside them. And while it is permitted in public oaths to add or remove whatever may later seem right to those consulting, yet those arguments which should always be examined with the same freedom everywhere are attributed only to those of earlier times, just as if one were to say that only the first men were healthy, without noticing that such a judgment and such a line of reasoning is disadvantageous to the very ones they honor. ^B For if all things are to be attributed to time, and dignity measured by this alone, the honor which is currently held by all for them will no longer have a place. For by this logic, Jasus and Criasus, and Crotopus and Phoroneus, and anyone else in myths, such as Argus and Deucalion, who are celebrated even now, would carry off the palm. And if we judge in this way, not even Codrus would have anything to boast of, since he, when compared to those I mentioned, would be like a child, and not ancient—and thus, little by little, we would go searching to see if anyone existed before the moon. And as for Homer and Hesiod, and those who have excelled up to our time—Plato, if you please, and Demosthenes, and those who lived a little before them—there is no hope that a similar glory could be engendered for them even in the longest reach of time, since the quantity of those who preceded them is always increasing. But if it is manifest to everyone that these men, having surpassed their predecessors through ^C nature and industry, remained in the background, it is not reasonable to restrict or reject all of those who come after them in every way, if someone at this present time is also able to offer an opinion regarding the subject proposed; rather, we must recognize that among those whom we honor, it is one thing to have preceded, and another to be superior. We ought indeed to venerate all the ancients, but not to stand in awe of them, unless perhaps we decide that those who are distinguished in literature should be honored with a greater honor than the literature itself. As for whether we ought to be affected in this way toward anyone else, certainly toward Plato, I do not seek any other witness, since he himself suffices—not only because he cries out and declares everywhere that nothing is to be preferred over truth, but even by a not insignificant example. For if he, when he brought accusations for many reasons against Homer, who flourished so long before him, was not lacking in the reason ^D by which...

he might speak against him, then it is ^A possible, as it seems, for Plato, and for those who praise him and absolve him from every charge, even if someone else appears to them to say something contrary, to listen, not yet making this a crime, but only if he should be found wanting in the arguments regarding the matters. For it would be ^B truly terrible if he, having undertaken to accuse openly, did not deprive the subject in some way of its own arguments, but granted two or three to speak in reply, as indeed in the form of dialogues, while we, who are able and have chosen to defend the whole matter, should not dare, as though it were not necessary to answer Plato anymore, in whatever way he himself should wish toward it. [1240 R.] ^C It seems absurd to me, if Plato was not ashamed to criticize rhetoric, of which perhaps he himself possessed some part, that we should be ashamed to speak on behalf of rhetoric, lest someone be offended by him. Furthermore, if it were necessary to make no reply, but for it to be condemned, as if by default in a court of law, and that too when it is an art of discourse, this would be a different sort of mandate. If, however, there is anyone who must do so, it would be almost appropriate ^D for us, so that we may immediately display the justice in this very first point, which we have undertaken: that it is not safeguarding its own discourse to lack the very thing from which it is possible to plead for others, but rather to be deprived of its own, or to be forced to seem either such as Plato has wished, or such as he has sought to make it appear. For it is not the case everywhere that silence confirms charges; but at the same time it will neither obtain what is just, and its dignity will be refuted in its own eyes. For it will appear not to know how to safeguard what is just.

In these there is not at all any demonstration, nor a necessary argument, but they are taken as conceded, things about which it was necessary to argue first, as if he had requested them from the listeners to be granted to him. But if it is ridiculous to set forth as conceded those things about which there is inquiry, how is it not ridiculous to set forth at the beginning that which is the subject of inquiry: or is it not ridiculous to inquire whether the art of speaking and the art of cooking are of the same nature? Yet he has assumed this much as conceded. But it will be permitted to recognize this, if one, having removed the name of rhetoric, should substitute in its place the name of philosophy, and should use all the same things for this. And let no one think this discourse to be either rustic or cold. For first, since we are going to say that those who follow one of two arts or faculties do nothing inelegant if they say something otherwise about the others, we will deservedly grant the same method of defense to the others. Then, it will be brought forward not for the sake of offense, but for the sake of demonstration, which nowhere appears in these.

^A We will see this much more clearly if we abandon the method. So it happens that almost all the gods, by their own vote, testify that the kind of speech which either seeks after art, or finds fault with that which is not conjoined with it, is worthy of nothing. If, then, someone composes a poem without art, this is not considered difficult, but often divine (just as the rhetoricians are); so if someone speaks the best things ^B without art, is it a great thing? For my part, I do not see the necessity. For how is it not absurd, if a poet, composing without art, rightly imitates the rhetorician and will speak the best things, but the rhetorician himself will not speak the best things unless he has art? If, therefore, O Zeus and gods, some madness is better than soundness of mind and occurs to men from the gods, how is it worthy to blame everything ^C that happens without art, or how is it reasonable to consider rhetoric simply shameful? But there is a place where it is even more bright and dear to the gods not to be a slave to art. For Plato clearly defines this, that one ought not to seek art in the greatest matters. And yet, if Plato is trustworthy, he himself is the one who does not grant the prize to art; but if not even this is conceded by anyone, how is rhetoric shameful because of his words? ^D I, for my part, consider him to be no less trustworthy than those of the Greeks in all things, yet I would gladly ask those who are with him whether it is worthier to trust him in these matters or those. And yet, if he is a most solemn man, he appears to be bearing witness to us, since he is solemn on our behalf. For when we say the same things both to ourselves and to him, and he does not say them even to himself or to us, he is not contradicting us so much as he is testifying by this very fact that he is not speaking the truth. But on this part of the matter, I shall no longer struggle in discourse against Plato, to the effect that many were saved by divine lot. Nor will anyone, I suppose, neither Aeschines the son of Lysanias nor anyone else, find fault with me if I claim that I myself have the witness of the things said, rather than needing the testimony that comes from him concerning these matters. But in very truth, just as the divine seers who are initiated into the names of things, I have learned this from the gods themselves; by whose works, which not one of the doctors knew how to name, let alone how to heal, nor had they even known that they existed in human nature, I have escaped through various divine consolations and counsels, living ^D beyond all expectation. And although no one has any art in these things, and rather a contempt for art compels them to flee to the gods, yet not even the gods—if I may say so by their leave—reject this opinion of ours, nor have many of those who preferred divine help to art regretted it. And nothing prevents the doctors themselves from being horrified,

when they hear many of the deeds ^A. Is it, then, that dreams cause human affairs to be dedicated to the gods? Or is it that the gods care for men, and cause men to be saved through dreams? I, for my part, believe the latter.

What, then, of the "greatest tongue of the Greeks," ^B as Cratinus says? Indeed, these things were judged so very appropriate and fitting for the character of Socrates, that a place was found even for this opinion. And I think that Socrates himself, even though no writing of his survives, bears witness to us no less than the grave Plato or the witty Aeschines—nay, even more beautifully and truly in the open. For it is certainly agreed that he said he knew nothing, and all who associated with him profess this. It is also agreed that the Pythia judged Socrates to be the wisest of men. How, then, can these things stand? For it is not holy to believe that God judged the one who was totally deluded to be the wisest of men. But he did not claim to possess an art, as it seems, and he spoke the truth in this; at any rate, whoever associated with Anaxagoras does not appear to have valued his art. Therefore, it is impossible that he knew nothing of the things that were necessary to be known, since the divine ^C sign attended him. But that he knew nothing, he himself said. And in saying this, he was not lying, if in fact God did not call him the wisest without cause. What, then, does it mean for him to claim that he does not know? I think it means that he did not know anything by [technical] art. But surely, if he were not wise in either way—neither by lying about himself, since lying is shameful, nor by speaking the truth, if not using art were one of the things strictly shameful—Socrates would at once bear witness to the argument through both means, both what he denied and what he admitted. And through Socrates, God has borne witness to both, having used the testimony of Socrates as another authoritative ^D confirmation of it, so that he confirms [his own testimony] twofold by the testimony from him.

[The present argument is a dilemma, and its meaning is as follows: Socrates says, he claims, that he knows nothing. If we grant that he speaks the truth, Socrates is not wise; but if he speaks falsely, again he is not wise, for it is shameful to lie. If, therefore, in both cases you are not wise, yet you are wise in both cases: both by that through which he denies knowing anything (for he did not know by art, and he spoke the truth that he knew nothing) and by that through which he confesses that the divine sign speaks to him. For he testifies in a twofold way: first, because he says that the divine sign instructs him, and second, because he affirms that he knows nothing. And Apollo confirms each testimony, declaring him to be the wisest, which is to say that it is neither false nor shameful to know nothing by art.]

^A

But if it is necessary to produce the testimony of poets as well, although to collect the sayings of all, or even of the most eminent, might be difficult, nevertheless—since one might select and cite those who are most celebrated—it would be a mark of sloth to omit them. Now, in common, all poets offer testimony by their very deeds, insofar as by that principle which surpasses craft they are made poets. But I do not require this testimony now, since it has already been mentioned above, but rather the one that consists in words.

^B Nor does he add this as a secondary matter, nor in vain, nor as an appendix to what has come before, but as demonstrating and pointing—with respect to this, that this splendor and adornment within the world comes not so much from craft as it does from the inspiration of the gods. Hesiod, therefore—O Plato—judges invention better than learning, and craft secondary to nature; and he does so with good reason in his thinking and speaking, not forgetting the laurel, which, as soon as he had received it, had immediately transformed him from a shepherd into a poet. For indeed, men who were naturally superior—those who pioneered and first brought forward the arts and occupations—discovered them in the beginning. ^C For the arts did not create the natures, but the most excellent natures discovered the best of the arts. Thus, both in order and in power, preeminence belongs to nature. But if we do not attribute the invention of the arts to humans at all, but say that the gods showed them to them, one must surely refer them to someone excelling. Now if this is manifest to all—that men did not receive the arts from humans, but humans from the gods; and that those were teachers and we hold the rank of disciples—then to that extent, it seems, invention will be considered superior to learning, by as much as God is better than man. For they discovered all things at once, whereas we, I think, receive them and use them. Rightly, therefore, and justly did the dweller of Helicon—and as it was likely for one who had received speech from the inspiration of the gods to speak—set the one who himself discovered all things as first and most excellent, like a god or near to the gods, and the one who listens and learns as second.

^D For if learning were best and first, then even the first learning would not be first. For it would have been necessary, presumably, to learn from another; thus the teacher would not be first, if learning were better and prior. For from whom—he who also adorned the Stoa Poikile with your testimony—would you hear, or by whom would you be persuaded, if the learner were better than the one who discovered it first, and not necessarily second, should he intend to learn anything? For every learner, presumably, confesses himself to be inferior by the very fact that he needs to learn. For if he did not first persuade himself that he is in need, how could he learn, or how could he be persuaded by someone else saying [anything]? Therefore it is absurd for him who has himself

^A confessed to be inferior, to call this person superior, and yet to be praised for this very reason, that he confessed himself to be inferior to those from whom he sought to learn. And it is absurd, ^B too, not to perceive this: that not only did natures constitute the arts in the beginning, but those who have surpassed [others] by nature have also excelled in the arts themselves. For because of the art, it would be necessary for all who have learned the same things to be alike, and, I think, for those who come after to be always inferior to those who preceded them, until it reached the point of the art being dissolved—for it would not be possible for one to receive everything accurately while receiving it from another, but [something] must always escape him. But it is by the strength ^C of nature and its abundance, I think, that those who have excelled have gained their reputation. And no one admires Daedalus or those of earlier times more than Phidias; rather, to the contrary, the arts have been rendered from small and base beginnings into something greater and more perfect. ^D [673 H.] These things, therefore, it seems, make it appear that it is not profitable for art to be honored before nature. Hence, it would not have been possible for them to progress, nor to attain to their current form, nor to be glorified.

But I think that it is not the arts that have made men great, but those who were first in power have made the arts honorable, not remaining where they received them, but by examining the nature of words—and others the nature of things—they made those before them appear as children compared to themselves. But all the arts, as I said, are an invention of nature. For if the arts were to produce the arts, there would be no starting point. For when the arts did not yet exist, they could not have been discovered, since what does not exist cannot discover anything. Therefore, nature carries away the victory both by the account of inventions and by those who follow. For this reason, too, it appears that nature holds the place of a master, but art, constant in discipline, holds the place of a servant and an inferior parent. And these things, which could be said on behalf of rhetoric, even if we were to assume it is not an art, all things considered, are much like this. But with these things thus demonstrated, someone might perhaps think that we are subsequently pursuing the worse part if we also wish to teach that it is an art. I, however, neither change anything of what has been said, nor do I grant to Plato that rhetoric has nothing of art in it, but as much as there is of art in it (I will use the words of Plato himself), that much I will pursue. But are they not contrary, if you say that it intends something like a target, and for the same reason, that it lacks reason? For all those who aim reach their mark by using reason; for it is not possible for one not using reason to aim with precision, since it is reason that accomplishes the shooting. For to aim is to hit the object, as those who miss do not aim well. Therefore, not he who

aimeth goes astray, but he who hath missed did not aim. And logically so; for no one goes astray while using reason, but rather, as soon as he fails, he has not preserved his reason. [[Choosing for each person what will be advantageous.]] And these things, O Plato, are demonstrated by your adamant necessities. [[1248] Why do you wonder about rhetoric, if it aims? For rhetoric appears to be situated similarly to divination, except that while divination ceases once it has aimed, rhetoric not only aims, but also carries out those things which it has judged to be best through its agents. Therefore, it occupies the place of divination and of the art of strategy, which Plato will not say has nothing to do with political science. How then is rhetoric an image of a part of political science, if not in this way? Yet, of course, in this way it would not be an image. [By irony, "in this way" signifies: unless it mimics the art of strategy, and so on, by discrimination, because it could not be an image according to these criteria.]

Since, then, it is altogether a sophism to claim that orators advise the things that seem good to the multitudes, and that they aim only at this, not even a child would refute it—yet whoever is prudent certainly would. For to me, the opposite seems entirely true: that there is nothing more essential to the nature of rhetoric than not to permit what seems good to the multitudes to come about immediately, and that orators look to nothing more than to what is best, and that the peoples themselves do not escape this, seeing as the orators are superior to them in calculating the affairs of life and the general circumstances and fortune, and this is evident from the very honors which they bestow upon them. If you say that they yield to the multitudes and do what is commanded, but do not command, you have taken the handmaid instead of the mistress, and while thinking to blame the public servants, you seem rather to blame the orators. But neither do public servants think highly of themselves because they serve the will of the city; and for the orators, the very cause of their thinking is indeed the fact that they do not speak the things that seem best to the populace, but the things that they themselves judge to be best. But if they were servants of the desire of the many and harangued the things that seemed good to those sitting in the assembly, they would never have been permitted to speak freely, let alone to excel others. But I believe they know that they do not serve their pleasures, but chasten the desires of the populace; nor do they look to the many, but the many look to them; nor, being ruled by private citizens, do they yield to them, but they rule the many themselves. And for this reason they have received from them the title, in place of another symbol of their power, namely to be called demagogues, not because they are led by the people, O you who turn all things upside down, but because they lead them, just as, I presume, we call pedagogues not those who serve children but those who lead them. For whatever of these you may call them—prince, prefect, teacher—that for an orator

^A is the appropriate title. All these are, in fact, names for the orator. For all rulers in every action are by nature superior to those under them; ^B but if one with authority also gratifies by persuading, not compelling, and while maintaining his own station also has regard for the desires of those under him, he is that truly political man mentioned by Homer.

Do not then call it an insult against orators if they gratify, but rather if they do so while also aiming at the best and at grace. Accordingly, in this way, attribute to rhetoric the appropriate praise, so that you may appear to be responding with similar fairness. But how could anyone satisfy the myriad and mutually conflicting desires of the populace? For when it is necessary to serve many, and these [men] as not thinking alike, and since it is impossible for such as these on all counts to be gratified in the same things, ^C how then will the orator heal their desires? For at the same time he will gratify some and offend others, so that he will speak not so much to [produce] pleasure as to [produce] aversion. Therefore, if rhetoric is a creator of persuasion, and the business of orators is to persuade, orators do not flatter; for they do not serve the many, but persuade them. But if orators say what seems [right] to the many, then rhetoric is not a creator of persuasion; for it renders them as being persuaded by the many, not as persuading them. To these points, choose on which side the falsehood lies. For Plato refutes Plato for us, and the finest part [is that he does so], not from afar, but from their very own discourses commingled. Nor should it be numbered among the other arts ^D I was just mentioning, but rather it should possess the greatest amount of reason, or rather should consist entirely of reason, and be the greatest, first, and most perfect [thing] in human affairs, and the end, so to speak, of every wish. I believe, therefore, that everyone who is able would agree that men are not born with the same nature, but of two parts: the one which is accustomed to use force and invade the property of others, which one might call superior—not indeed in virtue, but in strength—and the other which is accustomed to being overcome and, when it cannot prevent [it], to yield against its will, which we recognize as being of the weaker sort. This, then, is the cause that led men, or perhaps the gods for the sake of men, to discover something that would both restrain force and be a pledge of equity and justice for all, and which would benefit the masses as much as those who are accustomed to exercise force. For not even they were going to escape the retribution for their own injustices, since with the weaker ones first gradually being destroyed by one another, and thus with the rest always being removed, they were finally going to invade each other, just as is read concerning the Sparti, unless perhaps the fable signifies this also.

^A There had to be found some common remedy for the whole human race, the same thing useful to all, to the strong, to the weak, and to the just; so that the former might either be restrained before their acts of injustice or punished when they occurred, while the latter might live in security, and the last, whosoever willingly honored justice, might obtain the appropriate reward. Rhetoric was therefore found, and it came forth as a guardian of justice and a bond of human life, so that affairs might not be decided by hands, or by weapons, or by anticipation, or by number and magnitude, or by any other unequal thing whatsoever, but that reason might distribute to each their own with tranquility. This, then, is the origin and nature of rhetoric, and this is its purpose: to save all people and to repel force through persuasion.

It appears, therefore, that rhetoric has a share of the same nature as legislation, if indeed one must observe the exactness in both; or rather, that legislation is a part of rhetoric and is in all respects secondary to it. How so? First, because even the laws themselves stood in need of ^B persuasive speech. For if it is clear that the laws were intended to be established so that all might have what is suitable, but those who were stronger in might were about to reject them, how was it not necessary for persuasive speech to be employed already? For it was not possible for me to use force against those naturally suited for this very thing, nor was this the origin of laws; for it was necessary for laws to be established for the very sake of not using force. Therefore, it was not possible to establish them through force, but this would be the first thing contrary to the laws. It appears, therefore, that rhetoric even here wishes for the same things as the judicial branch, but it surpasses it in that it alone encompasses both the legislative and the judicial. For when judicial ^C rhetoric wished to assist the legislative branch, as if in battle, the same thing happened to it that happened to the legislative branch. For the latter, too, had first stood in need of rhetoric, so that through it the laws might have a path, and the judicial branch, having taken on the guise of a helper to the laws, itself first stood in need of aid from rhetoric. For it needed to be able to assist, and this was not possible without rhetoric.

Is rhetoric, therefore, an image of a part of political science, or are the parts of political science, which you mention, contained under rhetoric? For to me, truly, it does not seem that he is disparaging rhetoric in these things, nor showing it to be an image of a part of political science, but as if he had taken some image of rhetoric, he places all his effort in that, and does not even touch ^D the thing itself, just as the Trojans of Stesichorus, who... holding images of Helen as if they were she herself. There would be such a difference, that the image bears no resemblance to rhetoric. Therefore, since there is neither committing injustice...

^A nor being subjected to it that it says one wishes for, it is clear that ^B considering it an evil to be subjected to injustice, it does not say that one wishes for this, but that to be subjected to injustice is better than committing it, yet not better than that which is neither ^C committing nor being subjected to it, and in this it thinks and speaks rightly. If then rhetoric prohibited being subjected to injustice, but forced one to commit it, not even in that way would it perhaps be altogether evil; for if it inhibits being subjected to evil, even if it is an evil thing, it would be worse than the better, 53 seeing that it is better to be subjected to injustice than to commit it. But if it neither forces one to do that nor prevents this, then in that respect it is neither good nor evil (let us grant this for the present), but in this respect it is strictly good. Moreover, he who has determined not to commit injustice does not immediately also refrain from doing evil himself and escape being subjected to injustice; for to do this is to commit injustice, to do what one ought not. So that as long as there is any wickedness among men, one will be subjected to injustice. But he who possesses the safeguard against being subjected to injustice, at the same time also prevents committing injustice. ^D For just as the other is at once harmed and harms, so he who has the power to not be subjected to injustice has the same power to permit no one to commit it. So that if one attributes to rhetoric the non-subjection to injustice, and to philosophy the non-commission of it, rhetoric is as much worse than philosophy as committing injustice 57 is worse than being subjected to it. But whenever one puts before this the state of neither committing nor being subjected to injustice, by this, rhetoric becomes better than philosophy again, since it removes both being subjected to injustice and committing it, 60 for laws too, while forbidding being subjected to injustice, strictly forbid committing it as well. [677 H.] Aristides says these things more persuasively than necessarily. For in what he prattles about non-subjection to injustice and rhetoric, while striving to demonstrate that rhetoric is superior to philosophy, one might demonstrate that philosophy is better than rhetoric by applying the same arguments regarding not committing injustice and philosophy.

But if we demonstrate that rhetoric was invented entirely for the sake of helping justice, and that it holds the same position [1253 R.] among laws, as has been shown, the orator will not merely, as it appears, escape the experience of injustice and confirm faction, but will prevent nothing more than faction. For he will not only look out for his own interests, but will prevent others from causing harm, if it is established that rhetoric was invented for the same reason as the laws. Now, he who compels others to act rightly has surely long since 67 prepared himself for it. For one cannot bring help to justice while being the first to violate it yourself. But 69 although Plato insists on this, that rhetoric offers no great gain or worth of care or discourse, because being subjected to injustice is not so great a concern that it is...

^A a great evil, what prevents the laws themselves from prescribing all things in these same words? But when the partnership is condemned, it will be driven out along with the laws that advise these things. And then we shall dismiss and insult rhetoric, when we also think it right to cast the laws themselves out of the city and out of our life. But, my dear friend, you who find everything to be marvelous, if being treated unjustly is a matter of ^B no importance, and the power that prevents it is not worthy of any mention, and if none of the things that exist and happen, and in which there is nothing noble, are—but rather it is so dishonorable and servile that it is a mere fraction of adulation and shadow—why then, in establishing this city in your book, do you constitute for it a constitution, from which it will suffer no wrong whatsoever; and why do you command the military branch to be encamped separately from the others, giving it first honor, so that it may suffer nothing and not be ^C wronged by any enemies? For if it sufficed not to commit injustice, why do you fear, if you have prepared it for this? And if indeed it is even worse for those who commit injustice when they do not pay the penalty, and if, according to your opinion, one really ought to be one’s own accuser when one has committed an injustice, as well as an accuser of one's children and father, while leaving one’s enemies alone—why do you not then pray that the enemies approach and capture the city, and, by Zeus, slaughter all those of military age, and that too by the altars, and sell children and women into slavery beyond Gades, if you like, and, having plundered the temples, tear everything down, and not even leave the ^D graves free from their own greed, so that, having committed the greatest injustices, they may be in the greatest evils while they do not pay the penalty? Yet you are so far from wishing to cooperate in these things that you forbid and prevent them, and you have established a military life so that no such thing may occur; and if some traitor should arise, you do not order him to be crowned or proclaimed, but you determine the same thing concerning him as do other lawgivers. Tell me, by wondrous Zeus, what we ought to think about these things? Come now, my noble friend, why do you bring us laws in such great number? For if, my good man, exacting justice and not allowing injustice to occur were not one of the important things, why do you busy yourself with these matters, and take care that no one in the city shall be wronged?

And yet, what we are saying is held in common by others and is agreeable to Plato; but what he says here is refuted not only by the facts, but by Plato’s own words and intentions. While it is granted that those things are correct, the opinion and vote of others also bears witness. But if we grant that these things hold sway, the agreement of others is absent. It is stronger that which is held by all and by Plato than that which is held by no one, not even by Plato, as this man says elsewhere. Therefore, we shall not [seek] the testimony from him...

^A but I shall add to the testimony of others the testimony of this man. I believe, therefore, that in these matters also the testimony of deeds is provided; for he who is engaged in a struggle of words against words, by demonstrating that the opponent bears witness through other noble words, is presenting a testimony of deeds. Yet I wish to proceed even further, so that, since he values the assessment of the one with whom the discourse is held, I may show that he himself is in agreement with me by both word and deed. You, ^B for the sake of a Syracusan guest, and a common enemy of the fatherland, sailed the sea, old man, not once, but twice and thrice, and you did not flee the company of the tyrant, as if the manner of living might console you, namely, that Dio should remain at home and enjoy his property. But if someone, in his own fatherland, might take care that his fellow citizens, parents, and brothers do not suffer injury, and might save both them and himself, and, by God, if he were indeed able to restrain someone destined to be a tyrant and similar to Dionysius, and to curb deeds with words, and to confirm for all a security established by law, shall we say that he does nothing of great importance, and that such a man, whether he exists or not, ought not to be praised, and that his skill ought not to be called a skill? Because, by God, this was one great evil, to do injustice, but to suffer injustice is nothing. For I myself neither consider this a reproach against Plato, if he somehow thought he ought to go to Sicily for any reason whatsoever, nor do I think that anyone else who brings forward something of the sort is thinking correctly, nor do I examine anything at all outside of what pertains to the argument; let there be no victory prize worth so much toil. But the things he did himself, and the reason for which he did them, he has clearly stated, and I claim that these result in favor of rhetoric. ^C Nay, as much as prudence excels courage, so much does rhetoric excel military readiness. For to speak concisely, rhetoric is nothing other than prudence combined with the faculty of speech, so that one is able not only to do the best things oneself, but also to persuade others. And these points, I think, have been sufficiently confirmed, or perhaps even too much so. Now, however, I press on to the very colophon, as one might say, of Plato’s words. For I shall demonstrate that he himself provides testimony not only from the points by which he is refuted, but as if he were giving testimony in person with his own voice. Wherefore, since he compels one neither to cause harm nor to allow harm to be suffered—and as it resulted from the preceding argument, he allows neither causing harm nor suffering it—if this same definition also belongs to philosophy, then rhetoric will be a certain species of philosophy; but if philosophy is sufficient merely not to cause harm, then rhetoric is more perfect. ^D For who does not know that rhetoric and tyranny are as far apart as persuasion is from force? But, indeed, there is no one who would be ashamed to say that these have an opposite nature. How

...for are the orators, at the same time, sycophants, and at the same time among the powerful? But the tyrants, on the other hand, are so far removed from sycophancy that they push everyone by force, and it is impossible to obtain anything from them, even of the moderate sort, ^A not to mention care beyond what is appropriate. So that the tyrant comes close to exceeding even the measure of a master. For there is nothing, of course, more lowly than a sycophant, nor more inclined to servitude; but you could call nothing more savage than a tyrant, nor more desirous of command. Wherefore if rhetoric were sycophancy, the crimes of tyrants would not pertain to it; but if, together with tyranny, it has exceeded the bounds of sycophancy by great measure, then it is manifest that the claims in the other case are false. For rhetoric is as far removed from tyranny as Plato is from Dionysius, if this must also be said. For it will appear that where rhetoric survives, a tyrant does not emerge—as long as it prevails—nor, again, where tyranny rules, does rhetoric survive. Rather, the orator does everything so that no tyrant may arise, providing for himself as well as for the commonwealth, so that no person, having intercepted matters with the persuasion of words, may himself administer affairs. And the tyrants care for nothing, nor do they fear anything more, than that someone skilled in speaking and persuading should arise, who, having gathered the multitudes and having become a counselor and messenger of what is appropriate, might render them void of both rule and power at once. Wherefore they necessarily hold enmity toward one another; for the salvation and power of the former is that the others should not ^B be in command. How, then, it is asked, do the orators say contradictory things to each other? This is no longer among those things said by Plato; nonetheless, in order that we may thoroughly clarify the argument, let not this be left unexamined by us. And this is, indeed, the strongest of all—almost as if amid falsehoods—which he has said: that, I think, even we ourselves encounter in an argument; and I myself have now done just this. But the argument from the beginning is not destroyed any the more for that, since even those who are said to philosophize do not, of course, all use the same arguments, but even the most contradictory ones to one another. But nothing prevents philosophy, according to those who attain the truth, from being a noble thing, and not double-minded, nor contrary to itself. What then shall we say? That both philosophize when they say contradictory things, or that philosophy is, as I said, a noble thing? Nay, you might see even ship-captains ^C contending against each other from their ships, while, nevertheless, the art of navigation preserves the ship. Similarly, also, when orators contradict one another, as someone might say, the ultimate foundation of rhetoric is not taken away; but we must look at what is consistent with reason, and remember for the sake of what each thing was discovered. [It was discovered for the sake of speaking on behalf of what is just.] This, then, is the argument in favor of rhetoric.

^A [The first oration was on behalf of rhetoric alone; this one is on behalf of both rhetoric and the rhetors.] From Aristides’ *Against Plato in Defense of Rhetoric* (84). — The proemium of the second oration.

Since he also touched upon Miltiades, Themistocles, Cimon, and Pericles, asserting that they did not manage the affairs of the state in the best possible way, there is perhaps no urgent need to dispute these points now. For those men—if Plato has justly accused them—might deservedly be judged base, yet rhetoric, even if we were to consider them the most wicked of all, is not refuted thereby in the slightest. While we concede this, the argument in defense of rhetoric remains. But if he is shown to have spoken concerning these men in a manner not entirely fair, having employed the argument in a combative spirit throughout, then it will be worth our while to speak on these matters as well.

They themselves, ^B becoming an example to others of how one must endure, and in those very dangers and at the height of those crises, demonstrating—if you allow me to say—our own excellence. Why then do you cast in our face flattery and servitude? And why, when you are about to judge as wicked those who did not pay back their private nurturers, do you yourself not render great thanks for the common salvation and nourishment of the Greeks, which you and others, through our efforts, have obtained in freedom? If the men were to say these things, through what labyrinths of wisdom, or saying what, could anyone possibly refute them? There is, therefore, an argument for these things that takes precedence over Plato’s. Why? Because in those very things which he wrote to the friends of Dion, and in which Dion, though dead, is introduced by him as speaking as though he were alive, these points are contained.

But it is most absurd of all that he uses these men ^C in his refutation claiming that rhetoric is flattery, as though they were rhetors; yet, on the other hand, he himself acquits them of flattery, saying that they did not employ it when he speaks of their calamities. Therefore, in this case as well, falsehood is perceived on one side or the other. For if rhetoric is flattery, these men were necessarily flatterers, since they were rhetors, as he says; but if these men possess nothing of flattery, how can rhetoric be called flattery because of them, or what need was there for these examples?

Furthermore, it does not seem equitable to omit their intentions and instead use the calamities into which they fell as a pretext. For they did not become wicked if things did not succeed according to their will, but only if they failed to employ the best counsels ^D for the situation. For the former is to accuse fortune, but the latter is to refute the character.

How, indeed, can this be endured, when he mentions Alcibiades and Critias (85), companions of Socrates, who have been charged with so many and such great crimes, both before the people and before...

the nobility, that it would not be easy even to imagine anyone more wicked than Critias, who was first among the thirty most villainous of the Greeks? They say that these are not to be taken as proof that Socrates corrupted the youth, nor that their sins have anything to do with Socrates, who himself did not deny that he conversed with young men. But if the Athenian people, in the course of the many and great affairs which it managed for itself and for the Greeks, decided some things rightly and becomingly, while in other things it indeed sinned against those set in authority, do they demand that these things be attributed to the leaders themselves? Just as if someone were to accuse the Deity ^B using these same arguments, saying that His providence ought to be such as to remove injustice and perversity entirely from among men, so that no man should sin in any way. But then, if we should think that they take thought for us, how is it that, when those whom they rule do not cease to commit offenses, they are not rightly despised by some? And the charioteer, if he has recalcitrant horses, makes them tame and gentle, and in the end travels safely and comfortably wherever he wishes; yet the gods have not even now removed injustice from among men, although they have presided over the administration of affairs for all time, and have even known that some of them sin against them.

Since, however, no sane person would say these things seriously, except in order to refute them, as we are doing, the calumny of Plato is clearly seen. For if Plato requires of Themistocles and Pericles ^C things which even the gods have never done, and which not even Minerva herself, the patroness of the city, could justly demand, how could he escape the charge of calumny? But I think they could neither change nor abolish the nature of the people—which is such that it can never be wholly honest and without sin—but when they had to take thought in the midst of dangers, and when at the same time they had to be benefactors both of the commoners and of the nobles, or by their authority to turn them away from the most difficult situations and always to turn them toward achieving the least possible flaws of nature, in these things they were certainly never lacking to themselves or to the people. ^D On these matters, beyond our own disputation and confirmation, Plato himself provides support, and here too he bears witness for us with the same dexterity as in the preceding parts, whenever there has been need. For it is absurd to praise the deeds of these men while disparaging their governance, and when he sets forth the signs of virtue in those who obeyed, not to attribute them primarily to those who persuaded them. For these things are inserted somewhere within the fable, and not unthinkingly, as I suppose, nor rashly, but so that they might at once be hidden as much as possible, and yet, if someone were to find them later, they would not seem to have been overlooked by him. Thus he finds a certain middle way, and also [attains] the end of the whole

discourse, which, having set down at the beginning, he was not, I think, going to use for the things that follow. For the question proposed was not whether it is easy or not for a true orator to exist—for we ourselves, if you like, bear witness to this, and even if we had the voice of Stentor we would proclaim that it is not easy, and if the Nile, my good fellow, were to receive a voice in its seven mouths, just as the Scamander did in Homer. But the question was whether it is possible by nature or not, and this is what had to be investigated from the discourse. For it will appear not simply, nor as we are showing now, that he has contradicted himself, but also from the arguments ^B by which he blames those others, that he is unable to praise this Aristides whom he praised, or if he rightly praises him, that he is unable to blame the others for that same reason. How so? Because he makes it, I think, a sign of their bad administration that they were treated badly by the Athenians, as if those who had been made the best men by them ought not to have sinned against them, through whom they had even learned to abstain from harming others. Having posited these things in this way, and having brought in charioteers and such things to this place, he has not only not blamed Aristides, but has clearly made him exceptional above the others. And yet, if being punished badly by the Athenians was a sign of their poor leadership, then Aristides did not rule them well either; for he too did not, I suppose, escape unscathed, but was cast out. ^C I will add that this man did not suffer any misfortune in court like Miltiades and Pericles, nor by those whom he offended on behalf of the multitude, but was ousted by the ballot of the people themselves. But it is for a ship-captain, and indeed for everyone, to perceive that a ship-captain who saves the greatest number of men together, more than a thousand, does not save his full complement in an Egyptian ship—nor is it [1264] measured at all by a fleet—but even the very ports and cities are not only counted by the ten-thousand-man capacity, but are also difficult to measure, and they fall under the fortune and stewardship of rhetoric. And the ship-captain ^D indeed no longer has anything for which he might use his skill once he has moored; but for the orator there is no vacant place. But that one discourse may not be followed by another, since those things that are of greater importance are sufficient, I will omit for the present a longer disputation on this matter.

That rhetoric permeates through all parts of virtue, being discovered by prudence, and being preserved for the sake of justice, temperance, and fortitude.

^A For it is, I suppose, the part of rhetoric to discover what is necessary, and to arrange it, and to render what is fitting with grace and power. Discovery, indeed, appears to have its place in prudence, since it is impossible for one who lacks prudence to discover any of the useful things; while temperance belongs to the management and the harmony of the things that are leading and probable; but instead of it, justice assigns what is fitting. And this is that which relates to such things, and to as many as it is necessary for each thing to realize. But indeed, it does not even thus share in fortitude as strictly as reason might desire; for reason banishes and holds in contempt that which is lowly and ignoble more than anything else; so be it. This ^B is what counsel accomplishes. This is what brings belief to the accuser. And indeed, whoever knows what it is necessary to say, knows also what it is necessary to do; for there is no one who knows how to say what it is necessary to do, who is ignorant of what is necessary to do, nor is there anyone who, being ignorant of what it is necessary to do, is able to express it. For as much as it is better to command than to serve, by so much is it better to say the necessary things than to do them. For the one, I think, becomes a counselor to many, while the other becomes but a deputy for one person. Just as, therefore, it is necessary for the architects to excel the builders, although they are occupied about the same works as those in which the builders have experience, so also did the poet ^C set those who excel in the marketplace and in discourse above those who serve them, and properly spoke of them as "distinguished" — and he spoke very rightly. But if it is necessary also to tell a myth, I am afraid however that some comic poet, mocking us, might say that we must be held liable for an action of trespass by old women; yet I will tell not a myth that ends uselessly in itself, but one that will have support from the facts of the matter. For whereas Prometheus had fashioned, on an equal basis for all, the senses and the limbs of the body, as was formerly the case, Zeus did not command Hermes to distribute, as if they were theatrical funds, the gift of rhetoric—so that all in turn might possess it, like eyes, hands, and feet—but ^D to select the best, the most noble, and those endowed with the most vigorous natures, and to entrust the gift to them, so that they might be able to save both themselves and others at the same time. When rhetoric had thus arrived from the gods to men, the humans were able to escape the difficult life they had among the beasts, and they ceased being enemies to one another in every respect, and found the beginning of social life. Descending from the mountains, some approached one another in different parts of the inhabited world, and first they dwelt under the open sky, but after this, when speech had already prevailed, they constructed a city and instituted their division, not as before, by chance, but into the form and dignity of societies, gradually brought about. And let this be the end of the myth, endowed also, if I am not mistaken, with a not inept head. However, that this is not a myth, nor a fictitious thing, but a true one, and the logic of the things themselves, is manifest from the facts themselves. Wherefore, if I should bring the discourse even closer, it would be a wonder if we did not seem to be making a display in our demonstrations, nor could any argument be more powerful than this be expected from anyone, much less found. For not only does Plato himself, as I said before, but even in these very discourses, it is, by a wonderful work, openly confessed that rhetoric accomplishes the best things. These are the things concerning the pleasure and the utility, as is often...

^A said. And let this tale of ours have its end, having, I think, incurred no dishonor in its head. But that these things are not myths, nor are they a dream, but are real and are the very account of the things themselves, is clear from the things themselves. If, therefore, I were to bring the argument still closer to this, perhaps there would be some excess in the demonstration, and no one would any longer be able to seize upon any concept or hope for stronger refutations. For not only does Plato himself, as we have shown many times before, but even in these very discourses, in that paradoxical treatise, explicitly confess to rhetoric that it performs the best things. Now, while other things have, for the most part, either entertainment or utility, rhetoric alone most especially fulfills both, and with the utilities it possesses a wonderful grace, so that even when men come to war with one another, they receive and send back the ambassadors who arrive from the perpetrators, thinking on the tribe of orators, and holding the nature of speech in regard, revering that it entered from the beginning for the salvation and common utility of the human race. And if ^B anyone should surmise to us regarding Plato that he has not spoken ill of this rhetoric, for which we are now making these speeches, but that, there being two, he is vilifying the other, first of all, it is no more the case that what we have said is proven to be bad; rather, he bears witness that all these things have been done well and appropriately by this very fact. For just as he rightly censures the bad, what prevents us from rightly praising the contrary? Then, this excuse does not annihilate the proofs from us, but even so he would appear to have spoken contrary to himself, if he deems rhetoric to be twofold, and then makes his accusation as if it were some one and simple thing. For it is clear that if this is true, it behooved him to make a distinction, censuring the one and praising the other, ^C just as he appears to have done in the discourses on Love, and having deemed the good one worthy of far greater praise than the blasphemies of which he deemed the other worthy. But in any case, the argument can be applied also to the whole of philosophy and concerning the parts of virtue, if one wished to divide them: first, to characterize two wisdoms, the one by which we understand the best things, and the other by which men act cleverly; then a twofold temperance, the one enviable and civic, the other of the slothful and stupid; then, again, a right justice and another that is base; and a twofold courage: the one joined with wisdom and understanding, and the other being recklessness and madness. But I think all these are the names of those who confound things, and wisdom and craftiness are distinct, temperance and stupidity, justice and simplicity, courage and audacity. ^D Neither, however, is either honorable or difficult, nor is it right to flatter vices with the title of virtue, nor to slander virtues by adding to each its own vices. For to such an extent are these distinguished from one another. For if Plato truly thinks this way—as indeed I would not wish to deny, and has excepted true rhetoric—it is fair to be cautious, lest the majority be deceived and ignore this very fact, and decide on such great matters more quickly than it is profitable, as if by a pure vote.

Indeed, the votes escape us everywhere and through everything. ^A Plato himself casts the first vote, and the middle one, they say, and the last. And I am in danger of seeming, while contradicting Plato, to be agreeing with him all the more. And if I must also play a little, it seems to me that I might drag the comic poets to the orators, since, having learned, he boasts.

The third oration of Aristides, inscribed "Platonic to Capito." — Prooemion.

Now we love you even more, since you are so passionately devoted to Plato, whom I would say I honor, according to Homer, ^B as my own head. For even if all men are base in comparison to him, still, as they say, each man is most dear to himself. But what am I saying? For I do not know if you will believe it, but I will speak the truth. If you had not said that he was near to us, I would not have been so gladdened as I am that you have shown yourself to have anticipated this; so much is the man a friend to me, and even more than a friend.

A similar thing happened to me also regarding Demosthenes, and I will tell it to you as well. A man from the Roman Senate, ^C Libyan by ancient origin, Maximus by name, a man of gravitas, and the first among the Romans as an orator—as they say, those to whom these matters are a concern—he was marvelously addicted to the orations of Demosthenes, and I do not know how, but he was also captivated by these works of mine. For it happened that I had written a certain oration, the third against Leptines, from such a starting point: I had in my hands the oration of Demosthenes, and when I came to the headings of what Leptines was about to say, he anticipated it, and having set aside the work of Demosthenes, I considered certain things for myself. And when I had found two or three of the useful points, I proceeded again to something else. And as I attempted this, the same thing always happened. And so, from the hem the garment, or if you prefer, ^D I completed the lion from its claw.

I undertook to show him this oration; and intending to show it, I declared beforehand that the one who had invented [points] against Leptines would find them along with the oration against Leptines. "Am I doing you an injury?" I said. And he, by Zeus, nobly and as any philologist would have acted, "Do you not know," he said, "that I take my stand with Demosthenes?" And I said, "Then you are cultivating the same one as I, so that if he should win, the one being crowned is not an enemy, but the one to whom you and I both make our offerings." But as he ordered the books to be read in turn, and the serious business began, I said something much like this: "Indeed, if I am not mistaken, I think the same as you about Demosthenes—that it is difficult for him to be surpassed." Having heard this, he was gladdened, just as…

I was gladdened upon hearing his decision to associate with Demosthenes, and he gave ^A me permission to show him the discourse. How the discourse was revealed, and how he was already disposed toward these matters, he himself would know. It is permitted for you to understand that, in our view, something of Plato belongs to us, even if not to the same extent as it does to the philosophers, yet at least to the extent that we know how to rejoice in that man. ^B Come then, let us see more clearly what it was that you felt offended by in those things which some claimed were set forth by me against him. For I was endeavoring to show that he is everywhere in agreement with me. For if we have spoken foolishly, there is no need for Stesichorus's palinode; a sponge will provide the cure. Or if we have said something better, as to deserve such a reward, you should nonetheless not offer praise if you do not wish to, but at least deign to forgive. You were saying, as I hear, that you endure with difficulty that I should have made mention of his Sicilian journey, and that I thus seemed to carp at the life of Plato, ^C when this ought to have been placed quite apart from the disputation, and that this is an accusation not of one who loves him, but rather of one who is moderate in speaking. But see that you do not blame me for a fault I have not committed. For I was not speaking ill of Plato as if in a court of law, nor was I accusing his travels so that he might be held in lower esteem. But I was asserting that, by these things, he also provides testimony for me and for rhetoric [[sed nondum de his]]. But what, I beseech you, was I to do? Ought I to have omitted the Sicilian journey entirely, as if it were a secret thing? ^D I was not aware of any decree that forbade it; rather, the cause demanded it, and it was the truth (for he sailed not once, but to ensure that Dion might obtain his rights). Or does this truly pain the friends of Plato? This is a different discourse, one not addressed to me, but to anyone else whatsoever. Or am I doing wrong in this too, that I wrote down certain things from his own laws? Look, then, since they are indignant, let them also show that he does not contradict himself when he says something: "For those who live happily, the first thing that must be present is that they neither inflict injustice on others, nor are they themselves treated unjustly by others," and so forth. Or are we doing wrong and being meddlesome because we brought these things into the open, and do not worship them as if it were a chest full of mysteries? I did not think that bringing forward such things was "revealing secrets" [and other things of that sort]. For this reason, I was asking that anyone who intends to witness the entire struggle, and to cast a correct and just vote, should listen through to the end.

[That Aristides calls the recapitulation of what has been said a "return." You could also say a collection, epilogue, compendium, commemoration, or a summing up of what has been spoken.]

^A We have rendered him every reverence and honor in such a way that, if he were to speak against us himself, I do not believe he could have spared himself more. Yet, [687 H.] my excellent Capito, I also considered this in the midst of my discourse: that everything is but an image to the man; and this is why poets are imitators of the images of virtue, and why rhetoric is an image of the civil part. "The hall abounds in images" [(90)], as Homer would say to him. Are these things more bold and rash than our own? In these I say that Plato journeyed abroad for their sake, and I say this not to disparage the journey, but to confirm our argument by the journey. But no, we have deprived him of the reputation of philosophy, just as he counts the tragic poets as nothing at all, and has called Homer a writer of tragedy—not to honor him with this title, but to mutilate those by using this man, and to disparage this man even while honoring him. It would be disgraceful, therefore, if he himself constructs for himself tragic and comic poets, and a city, and a constitution, and laws, while we are not even permitted to argue with him about a certain statement, and that, too, not by smearing him with ointments, but with the highest praises, than which he himself would not have deigned to hear greater ones on his own behalf. [1171 R.] There were read orations of the same [author] in defense of the common cause, woven in a similar fashion through the election [of topics].

CCXLVIII.

From the Work of Aristides to Plato in Defense of the Four. — On Pericles. — The Proemium.

^C To ask for the same things repeatedly, I do not know why it is necessary, especially when we are not about to speak to just any men, but on behalf of men who were noble and good, and these, too, not a few, nor less ancient than Plato—unless they are even older than him, if one should judge this also worthy of reverence. Wherefore, ^D when that to which the discourse was tending had been granted, what harm could there have been in leaving the men untouched? But now, as if in labor, and surrounding with a circle the path to them, he appears to approach the arguments against them so insidiously. And yet the difference is not small: for the one was a struggle on behalf of truth itself, while this other—I would never say so, but another might say—is not far removed from malice through calumny. Pericles, then, lived so severely that he was never even seen to laugh. Moreover, regarding the care of the republic and the love of equality, he yielded to no one in magnanimity, because...

he was as common a man as any, while yet, in the dignity of his judgment and by not being bested by the many, he allowed few to get near him. And what they say of Socrates, that he was more than others a master among the sophists, this was Pericles' gift in leading the people. For when the people were puffed up and deemed themselves too great—a condition most terrible—he would restrain and cast them down; but when they were despondent and humbled, he would raise them up again with his words and fill them with hope, just as that man ^B was accustomed to do with the young. In a word, Pericles was the standard of the city: he did not serve the desires of the many, but ruled over the many himself; he did not deem it necessary to say what seemed good to them, but compelled them to do what seemed good to him. Nor did he perform the office of a flatterer; rather, he blocked all access to flatterers as much as lay within him. Insofar as he was upright and equitable, he took the place of a father to the people; but insofar as he restrained everyone and held everything in his own power, he was more than a tyrant. Hence, it is ^C possible to see clearly that, if any man ever was, Pericles was willingly just. For he never preferred injustice over justice, nor did he strive to gain a higher position, though he could have done so more easily than any Pisistratus; rather, he conducted himself as if he had occupied—not an acropolis—but the watchtower for preserving the laws and benefiting everyone in the community. As if, perhaps: for that which is held in the middle is equal to all, as it is carried in a circle; or because the acropolis lies in the middle of the city. But after he died, they fell to dreaming of Sicily, and reached out for Italy, and coveted Carthage and Libya; they peered at all men, and nothing sufficed them, and they made the war a longer ^D episode. Yet this, O Plato and Socrates, was urged not by your associate, but by your companion—as you might say, or rather, as you have already said. Why, then, would anyone justly charge these things to Pericles, or why would they not necessarily charge them to Alcibiades, who took a city that had learned to obey its counselors, and then drove it into such madness? Therefore, since he was not devoted to any profit, he gave clear proof of his justice, as also of his temperance, while he preferred a modest life over pleasure; and of his fortitude, since he did not act toward the people for the sake of favor nor in a submissive manner, but as freely as possible. Finally, since he alone was able both to foresee what would happen and to make use of the present, he deservedly achieves the praise of prudence, if one considers human affairs. Therefore, how could he, whom one is permitted to call brave, just, prudent, and temperate in all parts of virtue, be placed by Plato among the flatterers? "For," he says, "he made the Athenians talkative, idle, cowardly, and avaricious, by instituting pay for service." But as for the talkative, idle, and cowardly, O Plato, set that aside at once.

^A *“Lest perhaps some other god might rouse the Trojans.”* Throw it down, put it away, cease, be silent. But you, while you know how to praise your Mantinean and Milesian guest, and whoever else you please, and commend them very easily, you unjustly disparage the leaders of the Greeks, who are celebrated everywhere. The cause of this is not that you are ignorant of their worth, but—how shall I put it decorously?—you are quite too much given to talk. [That is to say, you are given to garrulity, and not to the truth of the matter.]

How could he have corrupted the Athenians or made them talkative, he who even in your own books appears to have taken care that nothing should come forth rashly or in vain? On the contrary, to me he seems to have accustomed them neither to speak just as it happened, nor to act from the first impulse. Moreover, ^B if one were to cite the testimony of a comedian in some other matter, it might perhaps not be strong; but in a judgment of eloquence, may I never be so arrogant as to despise these men as having no worth. Cratinus once called his tongue the greatest of the Greeks (90), saying the same thing that he felt; but although he sprinkled some of the bitterness of his art against those who speak the truth, nevertheless he could not help awarding him the first place, and declaring his excellence in speaking. Aristophanes says that he used to flash and thunder and stir up [the people] while orating. For I do not care at all if he reproaches him in any matter; but as far as pertains to the present argument, I use his testimony. But these things are not yet all; however, he confessed that he had become a perfect orator. Why, then, is it believed that he who achieved so much, and alone carried off the votes of all, incited the Athenians to inept garrulity? For my part, I think the contrary, that he was the cause of more silence than rashness. We see that in other faculties, certainly, where many are similar to one another, there are many affairs and a greater struggle; ^C but after someone one among them has excelled, the others give way. Similarly in speaking, when someone stands out as a leader, the majority acquiesce, and do not make trouble for themselves, but speak as cautiously and modestly as they can. For one man’s excellence does not render others worse, especially in those things in which he excels. But if I wished to demonstrate that the very power of speaking is not dishonorable, nor brings reproach, nor is worthy of accusation or pardon, but rather of some greater reward, I would be ashamed before the eloquent gods. Nevertheless, I will at least say this (and if anyone takes this amiss, let him turn it all on me, and I shall not complain of fortune): I would rather have the power of speaking joined with an upright and modest life—such as could be the greatest to befall a man—than to become ten thousand times Darius the son of Hystaspes, and in respect of him now ^D

^A everything seems truly trivial to me. I know also the matters of Plato, if we are not deluded, are almost nothing other than words, and I congratulate him on his diction; and even if by jesting in this way he persuades me not to care much about this, I shall not be easily persuaded; but I shall know that he is deeply in earnest, and most especially when he says things as if in jest. So we would be slandering our own home-grown treasure, if we were to carp at these things.

Proverb concerning those who slander their own people.

But it is not even worth speaking about these things, and so much the less, by how much more capable one is of speaking. Be it so. Then, am I to be persuaded that a man so sharp and vigilant and, I would most gladly say, winged, was himself idle or made others so? I would seem to know nothing of the matter; since he allowed neither the Athenians, nor even the enemy, to be idle, but made even them change their ways, bringing so many necessities upon them to be in motion. And what he did was just, said Demosthenes. Nevertheless, Plato accused him of having made them idle and cowardly. "The Cretan, they say, [is ignorant of] the sea," one might say.

Proverb concerning those who pretend to be ignorant. For the Cretans are experienced sailors. And it is said that even the islander is ignorant of the sea, and the Sicilian of the sea.

^B So, while the rest were dejected by these present circumstances, he also had taken on something greater, seeing the citizens so disposed that they were useless for conducting affairs, and not only yielding to the enemy, but even becoming enraged at him as though he were the author of the present circumstances. Seeing that, in addition to the two evils of fortune (war and disease), they had burdened themselves with two further things—grief and indignation against him—and standing in the midst of dangers, forsaken on all sides, ^C as it were, he nevertheless did not fear, nor weaken, nor change his mind like a color/complexion; while engaging in struggle equally with citizens and enemies, but as if teaching them some art, he used the same tenor as before, nor did he abolish his decrees for the sake of dangers, nor did he philosophize only in times of security; but just as if he had been asked regarding numbers and measures, he would have answered the same thing both before and after, ^D so even then he uttered the same convictions regarding the total state of affairs, neither deigning to yield to dangers nor to reproach himself, nor to feel shame on their behalf while others were changed by the times. Let us not, therefore, say this, as if he did not lead the forces out; but let us consider if he overlooked the fact that it was necessary to lead them out and to fight, since we hear that the Lacedaemonians too, when the Thebans were at one time pressing them, and urging them to go out and to fight...

not at the enemy's opportunity nor when they ordered, but ^A whenever they themselves thought best, refused to use the Thebans as advisors on this matter. Now I, for my part, as I say regarding these things, am also delighted by the magnificence [of this reply], as I persuade myself. But I see that many of the cities are like appendices ^B [it calls sins], which it is necessary to permit as if in a body. For bodies, even the most beautiful and the most ugly, I hear are composed of the same elements; and yet, the worse and the better are judged by whether each possesses more or less of these. In this way, also, it is necessary for cities to partake of human nature, even if they seem to be governed in the best possible way. For in this universe, too, which has partaken of so many good things and such great good fortune, and which has left nothing of good outside itself, you might find many things that you would least enjoy. Yet you do not, because of these things, accuse the universe itself, nor its author, nor do you believe that any other better Creator of all things could ever exist; but you allow these things to be drawn along by nature, and do not busy yourself with them. ^C What is so surprising, then, if even in Athens something of the sort existed, as it perhaps existed elsewhere, and the leaders allowed it, at once remedying the poverty and need of the masses, from which no small number of the crimes arise—which they thought it better to curb in this way—and at the same time fearing that they might commit something even worse if they suppressed them entirely? For what was not to be expected from so many people, and so keen-minded, and possessing such great wealth, if no one shared moderate resources with them? Would they not have attempted to take everything? These things are not so, O Plato; but one of two things: either the Athenians were not such as you accused ^D them of being, or someone else rather than Pericles was the cause of this matter, if he did not show the contests poorly, nor provide any imprecise, spurious, or crooked lines.

From those things concerning Cimon

[That Cimon was the son of Miltiades, and though he seemed dull-witted at first, he was later commended in many military affairs. He went into exile by ostracism but returned, and as a general he was victorious at the Eurymedon river both by land and by sea. He died while besieging Citium in Cyprus.]

I would have wished that my contest were with someone else and not with Plato, both concerning this and the rest, so that I might have used all the arguments I could with boldness, and not, as one sailing, when it was possible to be carried by a following wind, then through cowardice reef my sails; or as if competing in an equestrian race, when it was possible to proceed as quickly and as far as I wish, then deliberately hold back, so as to spare one who is ahead. So much more diligently do I observe

^A that I say nothing harsh regarding Plato, nor do I appear to act with unbridled audacity, or to praise each of them—which is appropriate, for to me, matters concerning him are no less worthy of favor. But both things will come to pass: it will be possible both to release the charges against them and to preserve for Plato all the respect and honor that is due, and fairness will be present for both. Justice would be moderately upheld in every respect. [1280 R.] [E] If we define contraries by contraries, how will each thing still hold onto its own nature for us? For if rule is defined as servitude, there is hardly anything else that would escape being servitude. And if we posit that rule is servitude, what prevents us, by that same reasoning, from positing that servitude is rule? And thus the matter revolves, and never remains in the same place; but rule, having first been reduced to servitude, would through it become rule again, and servitude, having first been reduced to rule, would through that very thing emerge as servitude again. And so these names, which belong to contrary things—or rather, which are contrary to the things themselves—wander and transform. [He speaks gravely about the matter, since he has cunningly proven that rule and servitude are one and the same.] Such were the allies, O Plato, that Greece provided, so that as long as Cimon lived, the Barbarians perished from fear of the Greeks. [This is a Demosthenic figure; for he said, "They perished by the fear of the ambassadors." And "by the fear of the Greeks" instead of "by the fear held by the Greeks," or because they had so terrified the Greeks that they were near to perishing.] ^C But, by Zeus, they ostracized him, so that they might not hear his voice for ten years. Indeed; but they recalled him before the ten years were finished, so that they might hear his voice. So much did they long for him. You, however, speak of those who condemned him, but you do not consider how they changed their opinion; and you reproach them for the things they decreed—even if not rightly—but for those things they decided rightly, you do not think it proper to grant them forgiveness, nor to offer to the man himself the greatest testimony of virtue. And since those who condemned him changed their own opinion themselves and did not stick to the ancient decree, you object to it as if it had always been fixed, and you do not wish to imitate the Athenians in this matter, so as to absolve the man of the crime. Truly, if they did something too harsh, you imitate that, but you omit the rest. What follows? Is it not much greater and more glorious for an exile to return than not to be exiled at all? For as the latter event might happen to anyone, the former was not for everyone. And as one could have attributed the latter to fortune, the former would not have happened to him had he not been considered more outstanding than the rest. For as to being cast out and exiled, envy is the cause—and perhaps something else of that sort might appear—but the return before the time...

^A of call and exhortation is nothing other than to assign the cause to virtue, for which they were ashamed even when he was absent, and supposed it was advantageous to them that he be present; and, greatest of all, they preferred to condemn themselves rather than him. So if one ought to consider him by himself, what is there to say if someone had sinned against him? But if one must view him in relation to others, he appears to have been singularly honored. But not yet these things; for they will perhaps be more fitting by and by.

[Scilicet in communi defensione.]

On Miltiades. The Proemium.

^B Our discourse now returns to Miltiades himself, whom I would be more ashamed to praise than to blame; so it seems to me that I would say everything as less than I desire. Miltiades had long ago persuaded the Athenians to acknowledge no master except the laws, and to consider no fear stronger than the honorable and the just, nor to hold any necessity so powerful that one should become worse because of it. Through the just and the unjust he was able to make use of them. But just as farmers receive the harvest many months after the seed, and not at the same time as the sowing, so Miltiades, having taken them in hand with ancient agreements, had them ready in season, not giving them training during the time of need (for the chorus would have behaved shamefully here), but having prepared them through leisure for the necessity. Wherefore also under Miltiades, some partook of his capacity to the maximum degree, others moderately; and in this average he placed the variation. For even among a people, someone has rather dull ears. What? Why, the sun itself cannot warm everyone, and someone has sometimes shivered at midday under a clear sky at the onset of a fever. Yet this circumstance, like a herald, summoned the bravest of the Greeks, and those who had long since been conversant with the best reasoning, and who knew how one should save and be saved. If, starting from these very heralds and the response, they enjoined upon the Athenians that they must meditate upon the contest for the freedom of the Greeks, and not cast away their glory, nor yield to fears by throwing away their arms, but rather, having taken up arms and having become stronger than their fears—or rather, having deemed this one fear alone terrible and intolerable: to yield to men who are worse and to depart from the ancestral way of life—if, I say, speaking such things and being thus prepared, they thought it worthy to meet the judgment concerning everything and to accept what would come to pass as if they were equally to profit in either outcome, I do not see what therein is of ignoble service, or how it does not resemble the reasonings of a pilot. ^C You see by how much he has surpassed the pilot. For indeed, as many as were persuaded by him lie in dignity, having most beautifully ended their life of all the Greeks, ^D and having obtained a tomb for a monument of virtue; and while they lie beneath the earth, they preserve the earth itself, nor are they preserved by it, coming close to the utterance of Hesiod.

which he fashioned for the ending of the golden race, saying:

Divi sub terris sacrique bonique vocantur, Custodes hominum, depulsoresque malorum. ^A

If you were to distinguish them, not as gods but as divine beings, you might confidently call them certain subterranean guardians and saviors of the Greeks, averters of evil and in every way excellent; they provide security to the land no less than Oedipus, resting in Colonus, or any other figure believed in some other part of the country to benefit the living in his time. Moreover, the voice of Plato says that Pan, son of Hermes, is an artificer in matters of speech. ^B Consider also this as a proof of that man’s modesty, and that if he had happened to possess a golden soul, he could not have assayed it more diligently. What of the fact that I believe Miltiades, even if he were to stand judgment before the gods, would be acquitted by the votes of all, and not, as they say happened to Orestes, obtain only half the votes—nor would this be unjust. For as Orestes killed his mother justly, so did this man justly save Greece and repay the most beautiful rewards of nourishment, not only to his fatherland but to the common nature of the Greek race, better than any other man. And since individual cities have their own founders, ^C one might justly call this man the common founder of the Greek race. Furthermore, I consider the accusation he subsequently suffered—if anything must be said of that—to be now the greatest sign of his excellence. For they considered that everyone was surpassed by his courage, and that where Miltiades was present, nothing could be conquered or captured. And am I to believe that a man who was so brave, so prudent, so modest, and who cultivated virtue throughout his entire life, participated in any flattery? Or that when he was being tried, he did not show his wounds to the judges—though he had Cimon—nor did he bring forward his children—though ^D he had Cimon—that I should call this man a flatterer and say that flattery was the scope of his demonstration and his life? In truth, one would more justly say that those who act in such a way are flattering themselves and performing the work of slaves, not of free men, if, while we hunt for the favor of another, we willingly oppress the truth.

Miltiades for Themistocles. — The Exordium.

Themistocles therefore remains, who was least of all deserving of secondary rank, even if this outcome fell to him alone of all men. Indeed, who is second to him is, I believe, difficult to find. For by such an interval did he surpass that Marathonian man, or by whatever name you wish to call him, in all affairs that fell to him, as much as Xerxes [1544, D (implicit)] surpassed Darius with all the might...

as well as I could say, inasmuch ^A as Xerxes is clearly surpassed by this man in all his preparations. And indeed, while the one defeated the satraps of the king, the other defeated the king himself. And after the battle at Marathon he advanced again, but after the sea-battle at Salamis he took flight and went away. For he was provoked by that former defeat, but by the latter he lost heart, to such a degree that he considered it a sufficient gain if he were saved; for he knew that then he had come with a fractional part of his entire force, while now he had been defeated by almost all mankind. To Miltiades, then, one single achievement served as proof of his courage, even if he made use of it in his service to the state for the most part. But for Themistocles, ever greater events awaited him after the preceding ones, and the proverb was fulfilled in his case: for one wave left him [and] another seized him, until he escaped victorious through the great swells. What then prevents us from showing in brief in what kind of affairs and what sort of man Themistocles was? Although this perhaps contributes nothing to the matter. For what one cannot recount in words, how could one discern him from those things? Unless by reflecting upon this very fact, that he handled as he desired those things which it is not even permitted for one to speak of as he desires. For ten years ^B in succession the whole continent was in labor, as all men were striving to take vengeance for the battle at Marathon; and everything from every land and sea was being prepared. And as Egypt had revolted in the meantime, the king, having taken no great pains, was back in the same situation as before; so easily did he subdue it. In the tenth year all the borderlands and all the races gathered together, just as if the inhabited world were migrating elsewhere, and the king was setting out, fearing lest Greece might not contain the multitude, just as if he were becoming the ruler of the whole earth, according to his own desire, always. And not by so much would an eclipse of the sun have amazed them, as the eclipse of earth and sea occurring for the king—in my opinion, rather to his desire than to his need. In addition to these things, walls were being built, so that he might be counted by the tens of thousands, and the sun was covered by the flights of arrows, and the sea was full of ships, the land of infantry, and the air of missiles. And to be present and to wait was one and the same thing, so that all were held, and all things were shaken as if Poseidon were descending. Themistocles, having taken all these things upon himself, and having set his own judgment as a bulwark in place of any other, and standing alone with steady eyes against all the events, both those present and those to come, and not having turned away like those who look at the sun—which, indeed, nearly happened to all of those at that time—I would not say that he did not deceive the hope of the Greeks, but rather that he changed their expectation for them by a great deal. For whereas most people believed they would suffer nothing but the ultimate ends, and were resorting to shameful schemes and difficult refuges, he caused such a change in affairs that if one had asked them about the departure of the Barbarians, whether they would wish that they had not brought war, or that they themselves had not performed those deeds and undergone those dangers, they would all have chosen death for themselves rather than that those things should not have been brought to pass.

^A [(1547)] [It wanted little, it was well-nigh, nearly, it came close, not far off, not far off, to say so, as it were to say, as the saying goes, as the saying goes, it wanted little, I lack little of saying, all but not.]

It exceeded not only hope, even for those who had hoped for the greatest things, but even the prayers of most. For tell me, by the gods—or let another take up the argument—what was Themistocles to do at that point, in such a state of affairs? Was he to summon the Athenians, to discourse to them about "Forms," and to teach what "justice itself" is, and "honesty itself," and what things are always and have no origin? But surely, origin and nature and all things would have quickly failed them. Or was he to inquire whence fortitude is first called such, and whence cowardice, and whether all things are in flux or not? They would surely have perceived that all things were flowing badly for them. But what, then, was to be said or done at all? For this third question now makes its rounds like a password. Whence shall we examine Themistocles? When was he truly a counselor and a president and a leader, or what other fitting name does he deserve? Surely there is a necessity for one of two things: either one must find fault with the deeds performed by him, or show what he omitted that ought to have been done, having preferred pleasure and ease to the honorable course. And although they say that wisdom which follows after events, and reproaches made at leisure, are not of great moment, nevertheless, I will grant even this; and if anyone shows that a deed might have been performed better, or that speeches might have been more excellent, or that a more just counsel could have been employed, or one more useful to all than that which he himself instituted, I myself will accept the blame. ^B [Or you may say this: They say it is of no great moment. For many things which appear well-prepared through study and meditation have been seen in their own time to be the causes of evils. Or even thus: For many things in councils have been judged to be correct, but in the execution have brought about losses; and there are many such things, though not many like these, and those are manifest misdeeds, and not being those usually accused, they do not provide great license for speaking. Or thus: The accused seem not to act sufficiently according to custom if they make their defense here. For how will they be in agreement with deeds not rightly preceding as if they were done rightly? For in these there was a necessity from which the enthymeme proceeded, but in those there was no necessity, and it constituted the substance of the epicheirema.]

^C [1288 R.] He who knew that in the future, if they sought the highest justice and contended for leadership, all things would go to ruin and they would not know what to do—he, I say, persuaded the Athenians to submit themselves, and to concede the leadership to the Lacedaemonians for the time being, ^D promising that he himself, from the willing Greeks...

would recover it; and he did not lie. He promised, in a way, even the name of the leadership, but he did not persuade them to surrender the leadership itself; for, to speak the truth, they yielded the name to others, while they themselves kept the power, and it resulted for them—without the saving of the common good, and by overcoming their enemies with bravery and their allies with gentleness—a form of rule much more beautiful and noble; for they became rulers of the rulers. ^A This decree was not a flatterer’s—in my opinion—nor one who looks downward, or crouches before his hearers, but someone from the gods spoke through the tongue of Themistocles. So, seeing them weeping, and hearing the children and women lamenting, and others who of necessity were being left behind, in a situation most similar to that which would occur if the city had been captured by force, he rightly—for the future was for all a mystery, resting on a thin and untrustworthy hope, and the present state of things involved the loss of their city, their property, and their entire previous way of life—taking them up as if they were children, he led them forth, having fixed them with his soul and by his reasoning, not merely by his eyes.

Is it not therefore shameful, O earth and gods and leaders of words and deeds!—for I cannot restrain myself—to praise Socrates, even in his flight, and to say that he departed more honorably than Laches, while Themistocles, who manifested his pious courage not in fleeing but in putting the enemies to flight, and whose virtue all of Greece enjoyed, is so easily presented as a man of sloth and cowardice? ^B He who as a victor was withdrawing from Euboea performed such things in the midst of it all as no one else among those who were in a hurry to flee had ever done. And you say that their salvation was not of very great value. What then prevents us from saying the same of the savior gods, who both save us individually and were the authors for the Greeks of those things accomplished at that time? But I will put aside this blasphemy; yet one might suspect what follows from such a statement. You would surely seem to be saying something truly extreme.

[1289 R.] The expression "I suppose" ["ē pou"] is not at all used in its usual sense; here, Aristides uses it in place of "by much more." He said "by much more" ironically, as if to say "not at all." He often uses "I suppose" in this way instead of "by much more," or rather, almost always.

^C Furthermore, it is not the same to discourse about nautical affairs in the middle of the sea and to demonstrate one’s own courage, as it is to sit outside the storm against a wall—a fact which Plato knows better than anyone, yet he ignores it willfully, and accuses Themistocles of having compelled the Athenians to board their triremes.

Proverb: It is applied to those who do or permit one thing instead of another. It is derived from Priam and Helen, who, looking down from the wall, saw the Greeks discoursing about them.

^A I, for my part, if it were possible to conquer or even to be saved in another way at first, would perhaps think these arguments had some merit. But when the choice was either to win by a naval battle or to perish on land, what sort of philosophy would it be to die in vain, when it is possible to be saved with the greatest glory? For my part, I do not see where it has been decided that victory on land is noble, but on the sea is shameful, or that a helmet and a leather cuirass are of great value, while ships’ ropes and oars are of no account. ^B If indeed the whole land was occupied, and the army was flooding over it like a tidal wave of the sea, and everything was being plundered and destroyed entirely, and it was impossible even to look back, but they were trapped not only in the straits of the Peloponnese but also in the straits of their own hopes, and it was believed that there was nowhere left anywhere on land or sea, why do we judge the Achaeans for this from the tower? ^C It seems to me, however, that Themistocles is the only one of all men, or among a very few indeed, who proved this saying to be true, which the poet Alcaeus had spoken long ago, and which many later took up and used: namely, that neither stones nor wood nor the craft of builders make cities, but wherever there are men who know how to save themselves, there follow also walls and cities. If, therefore, Themistocles had used only his own judgment in these matters, one might say that the accusation was directed at him; but since God himself appears to have decreed these things, I hesitate to speak—yet anyone might understand the rest. In any case, Themistocles is clearly acquitted of the charge. For this one point—let the solvers of the dilemma stand by the tripod at Delphi: "Until they shall render the same honors to Apollo" which the Greeks set up from the spoils of the Barbarians; "Until" from the point of having overcome the Barbarians and taken their possessions. ^D The god then called Salamis "divine," as being the place where works greater than all human power were destined to be performed. But Plato says that the one who accomplished this and brought them to Salamis harmed the situation, and that he proved no better than those who served the, pleasures of the populace. For indeed, after the naval battle, when all had gathered at the Isthmus and were casting their vote at the altar of Poseidon concerning the prize of valor, it is possible to accuse the Greeks of some ingratitude here, but it is also possible for the rest to praise their fairness and to accept on behalf of Themistocles...

^A any momentum he had, nor was the pardon undeserved: but the fact that they gave him the second place was a brilliant testimony to the truth, and showed that they could not have judged otherwise. Therefore, if it had been stated at the beginning that no one should vote for himself, but for another, everyone would have been prepared to vote for Themistocles, whom every single person preferred to all others; nor would he have been first in any other way than he was then second. And so, even now, by voting him second, they acted in a manner identical to how they would have acted had they voted him first. Yet he did not come away with less, but rather he conquered on both counts. For he had the first places, obtained from the truth and from himself (for he alone of the others had acted rightly, just as he did for the others), and the second places had already been conceded to him, so that he was first of all. ^B Having many things to say also about his later misfortunes, and how the whole affair was contrived, and what kind of person he showed himself to be even in these circumstances, I would have wished that there were a need for the speaker to set these forth as well; for I think that the things to be said about him would be neither less important nor less significant than those already related. But since they are both beyond the subject and introduce length into the discourse, I will pass over these, having uttered this much also on this part, that when he had to campaign against Greece, he chose death, by which deed he both dissolved every charge and demonstrated clearly how much he valued his former deeds and the administration of the state, and that he would never knowingly value anything above virtue and duty—not wealth, not children, not hope, not even salvation itself. ^C And I believe, indeed, that the priests and priestesses, and whoever else offered public prayers in Athens, would justly have prayed for this every year among all the other things—at least in those times, and as long as they were able—that the land might produce for them a man similar to Themistocles, and that, along with all other produce, it might bring forth this good as well. For it seems to me that they would not have received less fruit than if the land had brought forth everything with a hundredfold or even greater interest to the king. And I would almost be ashamed, when I have said so many and such things, to bring in witnesses besides, were it not that there is some weight in the testimony of one, which I think should be brought forward. Let us see, therefore, what Aeschines, a companion of Socrates and a fellow student of Plato, has said: "Since, therefore, you have dared to attack the life of Themistocles, ^D consider what kind of man you have dared to rebuke; for consider where the sun rises and where it sets." "It is not, he says, difficult, Socrates, to know such things." After many other praises he adds also this:

^A His intellect so far surpassed his own. Wherefore, when he was once expelled as an exile from the city, he returned thanks to him as if to his preserver, and among many other gifts, he bestowed upon him the governorship of the whole of Magnesia, so that even in his exile his circumstances were greater than those of many Athenians, and of those who seemed to be men of nobility and worth, remaining at home. Who, then, in that time could rightly be said to have been more powerful than Themistocles, who, after leading the Greeks, defeated the king who ruled from the rising of the sun to its setting? "Reflect, therefore," I said, "O Alcibiades, that for a man such as he was, such great knowledge was not sufficient to ensure that he would not be cast out and branded with ignominy by the city; rather, it fell short." And indeed, I would by no means rank Aeschines with Plato, nor would I ever contend that point, but let this judgment be left to the inept sophists; and yet, the greater and more learned Plato is, the more I say those things concern the defense of Themistocles should be believed. For the former is likely to report what he heard, or what is as close as possible to it, while the latter employs his own genius, just as he treats many other things under the name of Socrates, concerning which he admits Socrates never discoursed at all. And he does this indeed correctly and justly, while he is eager to honor his preceptor, except that he ought not to have wished to disgrace others besides who did not merit it. ^B

From the Common Defense. — Exordium.

And these are, for the most part, the things that needed to be said about these men, in such a way that while we do not omit what ought to be said, neither do we think that everything should be related in detail, lest we appear to anyone to be talking nonsense. But he leans upon the grievances of the populace, as if, because some have judged them less than correctly, they must be considered worse, or because some others have sinned against them, we too should not refrain from insults. Furthermore, when pardon is deservedly granted even to those who have sinned themselves, will it not be strange if it is denied to those who had led them toward all that is best, and whom, when they did sin, they had failed to obey? Now Plato 431b permits nothing of what they achieved correctly by their counsel to be considered; but as for the faults they committed against those very men, they departed so far from their will that these faults are blamed, and the fruits which they had received from their instruction he ignores: but those things which had proceeded not so much from instruction, but had remained from human nature, these he attributes to those very men who—to ensure that they would commit no sin—had moved every stone: just as if someone were to say that the masters who teach children their letters, and show them how to write as best they can, were to blame if the children should afterwards write something less than correctly by themselves. But if he does not teach all [the rest... continues on next page]

^A, nor as accurately as possible, nor even as much as they wished, what fault can one possibly find with that which escaped their management? For they did not profit from their association in this, nor on the other hand did they fail to profit from them further in this. Therefore, it was not from what they heeded in them that they sinned, but rather from those things they did not heed that they transgressed. Thus, whatever they were clearly persuaded in, the persuaders persuaded them well. But if Themistocles, Pericles, Miltiades, and Cimon did not teach all the Athenians political science, nor make all of them in succession better, tribe by tribe and man by man, as if distributing knowledge like theatrical money, shall we for that reason claim to have discovered something prodigious against them, as if they themselves were no better than anyone else in these matters? ^B And are you not satisfied with the saying of your Protagoras, that if they advanced the majority even in some part toward the better, but because the people did not manage all things blamelessly and as one man, this you now lay to the charge of the leaders? What is strange, then, if they also, having counseled the Athenians in many good things and prevented many of the difficult ones, were unable to restrain them to the end, nor did they heal them of immortal ills, but were defeated by the nature of the people—or rather, one should say, by the common nature of humanity—and were unable to root out injustice from the city entirely, just as farmers every year cut away the things that harm the land but do not reach through to all the, ^C seed? If in this way, even while they wished to cleanse the city, the necessary seed of injustice and ingratitude escaped them and remained, and not everything obeyed them—but there were some things which the people decided upon by themselves—what baseness does this hold for those men? Or why should one reckon their affairs to others, just as if—while there were sedition in the city and one of these sides held sway, that of the upright—one were to add to these same people the sins of others and of those who transgressed against them? And what nature does it have, if they neither performed these deeds nor thought fit to prevent them? But indeed, if one will think it right, even when spoken against, to use the same handles, and not for the sake of contradicting wickedly, but to absolve one’s own self through the other’s failures, how will he bid one to consider it clever that he spoke wickedly of him first, ^D which no one compelled him to do, and through which he thought to render them worse? You were unaware, then, that you are caught by all these proverbs: "combing fire," "boiling a stone," and "sowing rocks." For what did they enjoy of your admonitions and words? What did Dionysius or Dio manage better, in divine or human affairs, after that day when they lent you their ears? We make our own followers much better, Plato, than you do yours. And if you say their character was better, in this too you reveal our prudence, who placed some hope in these men, while you wandered the whole heaven away when you believed you would usefully dispute with them. Then, just as you attribute to character the things in which they surpassed others, so also if they seem to you to have acted somewhat rashly, lay this to the same character; and do not, when...

we have hopes in these, ^A deprive those of us who advised or cooperated with you to seem to advise the best things—and as for the things in which they personally sinned against us, do not say that we are the ones who committed injustice. For we are not at all the causes of those things, nor are we even in the slightest degree causes of these.

And Pollis, too, ^B once again, having taken charge of Plato, felt shame for Dionysius even when he was absent and remembered what he had enjoined; but seeing you and being in your company, he held you of no account. Yet, your wondrous power and persuasion—according to your arguments—were defeated by the commands of Dionysius; and Pollis was contributing to that man, even though he had ordered such things, but to you he contributed nothing. Let us add, moreover, that being a Spartan, and reared in laws and a constitution that you judge to be second to all others—or rather, the first of existing ones—it is in vain, it seems, that you praised that Lacedaemonian city so much. ^C For a commander of the Lacedaemonian fleet once fell short of your worth as much as not even a man of the Persians or Scythians would have, who could not understand your voice at all. And yet, if you were wishing that he—the commander of the Peloponnesians, Pollis—should hold a better opinion of you than Dionysius did, and he did not pay you any heed, but was entirely with the absent one who had ordered the most shameful things, how were you not overwhelmingly inferior to the tyrant? And with what right do you reproach anyone if he fails in an attempt to persuade someone? If you were indeed content to be satisfied with your circumstances, but he did not respect your silence, nor did he consider any words to be more effective than those which would present to him reasonable thoughts regarding you, how did you attain what was likely, or how did you receive what was fitting for your own nature? By Zeus, but you were no worse, even if Pollis and Dionysius were foolish! Nor, blessed one, are we any worse if some Athenian behaved wickedly toward us. And while Pollis was selling you, not one of the Greeks ransomed your sacred head (to such a degree were they all held fast by your words), but a Libyan man, Anniceris by name—whom no one among men would even have known ^D if he had not availed himself of your misfortunes. Now, however, he has acquired for himself, not Plato, but fame and renown. Do not, however, think that we are ignorant of your arguments or that we do not admit they are true, as it is not right for a better man to be either insulted or harmed by a worse one. We know these things, and we bear witness that you speak truly. Nevertheless, that wonderful lover of yours left uncommitted not even...

^A any sort of outrage or debauchery. And you, perhaps, were not personally insulted; but he whom you intended to insult was performing more of these acts than he knew would win him honor. But, O most wonderful of all men, Plato, do not judge through both, and that not through one friend and one foe, but through yourself and these people whom it would have been more reasonable to consider friends. If not, consider not what you will reproach me for, but rather what you must first defend; for your own faults are equally numerous. If the intention must be examined in and of itself, your own is naturally blameless, and our own is blameless for the same reasons. And there is also the fact that we have mastered circumstances, and that these achievements are greater than those about which you were so zealous and in which we ourselves stumbled. You, therefore, in demanding that I refute us, are also speaking against yourself; however, we, in speaking for our own defense, are also tending to yours. ^B Indeed, we have shared in this defense, whereas you do not have as much as we do. So if someone spares us, it is uncertain if they will spare you; but if someone condemns you, perhaps they might grant us pardon. If they do not spare even us, there is nothing there to be hoped for: to that extent our victory yields to your benefit. Therefore, examine your own affairs, not mine. Teucer said to someone (93-95).

To Agamemnon, who reproached his family as being spurious,

And do not wish to examine everything in minute detail, nor, when there are three things that one might look at—the mind, deeds, and fortune—omit the two and take hold of the third, the largest part of which is on our side. For if it were necessary for us, having foreseen these things from the beginning, to sacrifice ourselves on behalf of Greece, we would not have hesitated, nor would we have yielded so much to Codrus; and I believe you would have advised the same. ^C Come now, by the gods, which would you have preferred: that nothing through our agency had been done for the city, and that none of the citizens had sinned against us—and thus others would have been about to sin both against us and against them, or for their sake to be done, if it were necessary for these things to happen? I think you would prefer the latter. So, when you say that you would prefer either to neither, you admit that all things which were fitting were possessed by us who managed affairs, and that there are more things for the city to boast about than those for which it might be reproached. How, then, would it not be more just to praise rather than to blame? To speak simply, where is it just to demand an accounting only from those who were not the sole causes of events? We do not blame the charioteers if someone else, having taken over the same horses, makes them worse. But rather, both charioteers and horse-trainers and teachers are held in higher regard ^D when others, after becoming masters of the same, prove to be not worthy of the same, and, by Zeus, even in the same times. Come now, let us also look at what happened to these men, and...

^A let us pass through it. For the people did not vote in this way against everyone, nor did they suffer these things from a common decree; for in the first place, not everyone suffered these things—how could they? Rather, Themistocles and Cimon ^B were ostracized. This was not due to hatred nor to any alienation of the people from them, but there was a law among them regarding these matters, which had—how shall I put it? (for I shall pass over it, unless someone might wish to praise the law greatly)—the offense was not inexcusable, but rather, as such matters go, it possessed a certain propriety; for, as I said, it was done according to law. And this is what the law was: they used to prune those who excelled by removing them for ten years; and there was no other accusation attached to it, nor was there any anger as if the matter had been proven. ^C And yet, how is it not terrible if we should accuse those men, whom even they who cast them out could not accuse, on account of those who removed them? It is just as when people who know nothing for certain, yet accuse someone based on some rumor, and that, too, not even a clear rumor. But I shall return to that point: that they did not consider this form of exile to be for the purpose of checking [their] spirits. Therefore, it is manifest from this how far these men were from sycophancy, whom they removed only for this reason, so that they might be relieved of that spirit ^D and for no other reason of any kind. So this that you have said is not against them, but on their behalf, as you are clever at observing what is said and refuting others. For it seems to me that, remembering the calamities that had occurred to them in the time of the Peisistratidae, they did not wish for anyone to be thought greater than the many, but for all to be on an equal level in power. Was it right, then, that they drove out Cimon and Themistocles? I do not say so, but it was not entirely shameless either, but instead it contained an excuse for them, and for those men, an injury that was not dishonorable. As for Pericles, as long as the city flourished in peace, no accusation, either great or small, was brought against him, but he was honored like the gods. And even [1301 R.] before this, having led many Athenian armies against those who were unwilling to abide by what was just, he was not merely blameless, but he was by far the first. But when he was compelled to be deprived of the land, and the plague was pressing upon them, destroying everything, and there was no respite from their evils, only then, overcome by their calamities, did they grow embittered against him. And here, remind me of the example of the charioteers; for you might perhaps find [it] on the chariots, [and not] on wings. But Nestor, too, could not use [his horses], not to mention him who had received the wound, but not even the others, as they were disturbed by the affliction. And he could not easily release the rein in the tumult; but he stood there as if on a bronze chariot, remaining fixed, save that he could move himself. At home they were faring poorly. They threw out the charioteer. Just as they had thrown him out, they had formerly been so well and rightly guided by him, that they recognized what they had done, and they changed their minds, and submitting from the beginning, they let...

^A them draw them where they wished. But indeed, if for many years prior he was held in high esteem, and after his condemnation he was again the greatest of the citizens, how is he not to be admired for both, his beginning and his end? For offending those previously did not cast a shadow over him, but being honored afterward wiped away the entire misfortune. For the intervening time does not determine either, but the two together prevail over the center. For if one must cast a vote for the first period, he was honored from the beginning; but if for the latter, they did not persevere in the things for which they had condemned him, but returned to regard him as their superior. And surely, not only is it a case of two in place of one, but the multitude of each period is neither equal nor even close. And surely one ^B ought not think that everyone who cast a vote necessarily condemned his writing, but that there were some who even acted rightly toward Pericles. Therefore, he had made these people better, and indeed the best. But what shall we say to this, O best of the Greeks? Whether they were right to act in this way toward you then, or whether you are guilty of their madness? For my part, I would say neither. Yet one might, in defending your words, turn them twofold against you and Socrates, as if, even if these things happened to you quite unjustly, you did in some way deserve what was coming to you, since such were the students you produced. Wherefore, if the sins of the followers contain the fault of those who hold authority, you have accused yourself and your companion rather, or at least no less than you have accused Pericles and those you wished. ^C But if you are innocent, then they also ought to be the same, if indeed you remember equality and do not voluntarily transgress geometry. Therefore, do you accuse of the same crime the man whom you yourself would have acquitted? Moreover, what is more absurd than not to believe one who says it, yet to accuse the man himself? For what reasons would you hold the speaker to be worse, while for those same reasons you wish Pericles to appear depraved? And when you condemn those who condemned him, [why] exhort us to a similar condemnation, as if we were to be participants in some illustrious deed, and not in one which did not even teach them well? Yet they themselves did not excuse their own condemnation, but again held him in their eyes as a man of integrity and justice; shall we then despise him—he to whom we can attribute no other crime—on account of the condemnation? And shall we rely on the sins of those ^D same men, and pay no heed to their rightly done deeds? Especially when we confess, or rather accuse, the sins of those men. What semblance of reason, I ask, does this have? I, for one, do not understand. But Plato censures the disaster as an injustice, while considering the circumstances of the decree, and attributing to these the offenses of others. If, indeed, he compares those who were condemned to kicking horses, he believes he is saying something graver against them. But if those who condemned them could compare them to the twelve gods (96),

he would have refrained from saying anything ill of those who were condemned. ^A But if Plato is going to accuse the men in both respects, as if he had grasped some wise point, what prevents someone, in turn, by rendering like for like, from resolving the argument on both sides with contention? Namely, that if the Athenians condemned them correctly and justly, they were not corrupted by them; for they were acting justly. Therefore, neither were they corrupted; so if they were justly convicted, they were in no way the worse for it. But if the others condemned them unjustly, it is the men who have suffered injustice, not committed it; and those who have suffered injustice are to be helped, not accused; or if they cannot be helped, at least they ought not to be accused. But I leave these things to the more refined; as for me, what do I say and how do I receive the argument? ^B It is not right to accuse both at once, both the people and those men, unless we clearly wish to slander the others. For if those convictions were right, then those men were indeed wicked (as it seems), but the people did what was fitting, so that it is surely not just to accuse the people of this. How, then, shall we say it is right to compare it to the most savage of beasts? But if the people sinned, then at the same time the sin of the people and the disgrace of the men are both wiped away. For we say that the Athenians sinned in this very point, that they punished them with exile, or fines, or whatever else. But what does this line of reasoning bring forward? That they deserved none of these things. ^C And yet if they had done evil, they would have deserved them; since, however, they did not deserve them, it is clearly deduced that they did nothing evil. Now, those who speak ill of good men and cast slanders upon them do not do so uprightly. We, therefore, instead of accusing both, offer in their defense a just plea for both, saying that the cause does not entirely rest with the people, nor is it appropriate that those who stumbled should be considered worse. And it does not happen in this way as it does with athletes—though victory is always awarded to the superior ones in the arts—but even here Pindar’s words prevail; for he sang that truth most truly: “In the contest, fortune wins, not strength.” Therefore, Achilles, seeing Eumelus thrown from the chariot, pitied him and said: ^D “The best man drives his single-hoofed horses last.” Is it not strange to place in succession and call the same man both “last” and “best”? But, he says, such are human affairs (for this seems to me to be the meaning of the words); the same man is both best and last. Just as they say Orontes the Persian once told of the finger, that in one position it signifies ten thousand, and in another no more than one. Wherefore, in the example of Plato, it seems to me that Eumelus in the race...

^A extends himself, both in other respects and not in the small measure in which he was deprived of victory. But he also had his elbows and mouth and nose torn ^B by the best horses, and ones by which he had never before been thrown. [Orontes the Persian, when he fell from power: The finger, he said, signifies at one time one, at another ten thousand.]

Therefore, whether you are strong in friends, or in wealth, or possess glory in the city, do not be puffed up by any of these things, nor think more highly than your authority allows. Even if you prevail in all things, you will be defeated by fortune. This is what this contest is; this is what Homer says. Nothing in human affairs is secure, or stable, or self-sufficient; but the strong will be defeated by the weak when the time for this arrives, and Babylon will be captured, walls and all, and in turn others will plunder the Persians. All these things go around in a cycle ^B. But if all pilots kept all passengers safe, and all physicians saved all the sick, and the greater and more powerful always won, and all these things were always present for them, and no one of those who had begun to act rightly ever erred, and prayer and capacity differed in no way from one another, then all human affairs would be immortal, and perhaps there would be no need for prayer, nor would one of the jars have poured out upon us as it does now. Do not be surprised, therefore, if Pericles, while he had knowledge and art, was defeated by God and fortune, and do not forget the times—to which you yourself attribute no small power—which he, as it seems, did not use in the best way at that time. Many and wondrous things have happened and will happen among men, and among these are the things which befell those men, as no one denies. But these things do not yet prove that they neither knew any good thing, nor were able to make others better; for it was surely permitted them to possess the art and to be good, even if they were deprived of greater assistances at that time. I would gladly ask whomever wishes to plead the case for Plato, since Plato himself did not administer the state, will anyone allege any reason other than that which Socrates states in his work? For what else is there? Therefore, if any of those men fell into a situation the public hazards of which you yourself feared, do you maintain that he did not give the best counsel? Yet if there was no danger, why did you do nothing to benefit your country? But if it was prepared for destruction, why are you surprised that any of them fell into disaster? And since you yourself couple the best counsel with dangers, do you deny that those men were of the best counsel after they had met with disaster? Since, therefore, those men did not use justice as a pretext to avoid any following misfortune, but generously and simply devoted themselves to the common good; Socrates’ ^D

counsel they have used. So you must either show that the things they chose and undertook were neither just nor the actions of good men, or grant that these men were upright, even if disaster befell them; and this all the more and more strongly, in that they did not fear the difficulty of the matter. For, ^A by Socrates’ argument, they would be base. Next, so far were they from attempting to strip away those men’s existing reputation, in order that he himself might appear greater, that he has even attributed his own policy to them. ^B Furthermore, your opponents were not ordinary, but you were arraying yourselves against sharp and formidable men, who were well-organized, neighbors and near-dwellers to the Athenians, and who used both the herald’s staff and the sword to steal away most things from the shadows. [For by means of traitors, Philip prevailed in much, as if bringing in some good addition, and he reminded them of Pericles and others.] [1308 R.] Which one is more humane and more skillful in speech in this place, taking the whole intent into account? Which one: he who, when no necessity compelled him, chose to speak evil of the men, or he who, although there was someone to incite him, was not led on, nor thought it worthy of himself to vaunt himself in matters where he was about to speak evil of others? Come now, by the gods, can anyone be caught being more contrary to himself? He who contends that they were sycophants, and even struggles for this point, then he himself says that they did not use sycophancy; yet again, he reproaches them for the very things from which he acquitted them. ^C And he was forced to acquit them by the very arguments with which he strove to convict them; yet by the very things through which he acquitted those he accused of sycophancy, he claims to convict rhetoric of being sycophancy. Moreover, to come to the strongest points, if he had somehow purposed to make them out to be sycophants by means of the charges, and thus to conclude his argument—even if he had brought forward false charges—he would at least have seemed to have said something relevant. But when, after having said everything he thought he had against them, he then, as if a judge who had heard the other speaker, acquitted them of the charge, what is the need of the speeches? Or how have all things not been said at once falsely and in vain? Come now, what does he say here? “For a magistrate of the city could never unjustly perish at the hand of the city he governs.” By the immortal gods, how can one say these things are of the same mind or tend to the same end? At once that one who defends justice must necessarily perish by the city he governs, and yet, if he perishes, he could never suffer this unjustly at the hand of the city he governs. Where is there any resemblance in these words, or how do they tend to the same end? ^D And consider this as well, if rhetoric is sycophancy, then all of them have practiced this sycophancy, since they were orators. Why, therefore, does he acquit them, or...

has he called some rhetoric true? If, on the other hand, rhetoric is something wholesome or serious, it is necessary that they also seem to care for the best interests; how, then, does he accuse them of not speaking for the best, or call rhetoric sycophancy? If, again, the nature of rhetoric is twofold—its one part being sycophancy and base demagoguery, and the other part the guardianship of justice—it is ^A necessary that they possess the latter, clearly in this way. How, then, do you deprive them of both? And yet, if you justly deprive them of both, there must be a third kind of rhetoric, besides these two. Therefore, the nature of rhetoric is no longer twofold in this argument; nor did Plato anywhere demonstrate what that third kind is. For if these things are merely words for the sake of favor and pleasure, why does he complain of these things in rhetoric? And why does he become one of the sycophants themselves, stating things that are more pleasant rather than things that are, and that, too, when there is no constraint present? But if they are spoken regarding all just matters and in accordance with the truth, what greater solution is required to absolve the charges? Or who could one produce as a better witness than Plato himself, when here he appears to acquit them of the charge immediately, while elsewhere he praises them altogether, imitating the palinode of Stesichorus? ^B But, in truth, whoever does not wish to call Plato the best of the Greeks would himself be the worst of both Greeks and Barbarians. [1309 R.] He seems also to enjoy a certain freedom of nature, just as kings enjoy their power; as it is also on the level of diction itself that he will appear to be acting, using a greater license of speech, and indeed regarding his very subject matters. That he creates names, [and that he brings in the deceased as if they were present], conversing with those who know how to listen. Nor, indeed, shall we say that the iambic line is Euripides': "Wise is the prince in the company of the wise." ^C Nor if someone else of the wise has said it; for it is from the *Ajax* of Sophocles, the *Ajax of Locris*. But these things are spurred on by the license and habit of the dialogues. For since they are all, as it were, fabrications, and it is possible to weave them in whatever way one wishes, it is within the words themselves not to strictly preserve the truth; and at the same time, it seems to me, he is drawn along by a certain freedom and magnificence, and he does not entirely scrutinize everything, but, as I said, he yields to nature. Shall we then simply accept these things thus? We will not, therefore, seem to know his thoughts. [The term "indeed" (ἀμέλει) Aristides often takes as redundant.] Certainly no one who admires only the Academy of Attica, while judging all the rest as hostile and inimical, can be called a lover of Athens. For it is not laughable to have ^D declared all others as nothing, so that one must also wait to admire Plato. For this would not be an honor for Plato, but rather of all others [one's own disregard].

^A a dishonor, or almost something of that sort. Since to think that if someone else is judged to be good, he is not worthy of more glory than this—how is that not something of this nature? One ought not to think that antagonism toward others is to be the provocation for one's allegiance to others. For if, in refraining from saying anything wicked about Plato, we have rendered to those men what is appropriate, we do not act unjustly, I think; for these things are both political and human, and pleasing to the gods from all time. ^B But if tragedy is an evil thing and a work of evil men, how shall we say that you are composing tragedy? For that which is in any way shameful cannot in any wise be done well. And you say, indeed, that one ought not to imitate the base nor to make oneself like those who are worse; yet you yourself do not keep to this throughout, but you imitate sophists, you imitate sycophants, you imitate Thrasymachus—who they say was quite shameless, because he never blushed—gatekeepers, boys, and countless others. But I think that the Hellenic quality of your nature, which is facile, graceful, varied, and divine, and which leads you to all these things, compels you to admit that each of these also has its own use, joined with proper timing and charm. Furthermore, you affirm that all these poets study pleasure. Shall we then say that you are stating too little, or too much, than is proper? For it is believed that poets also study pleasure; therefore, when you take away that which ought to have been added, you speak less than is proper in that regard. ^C But when you imputed flattery to them on that account, your discourse certainly said more than was required. For you could, O noble sir, both encourage the young to justice and render to the elders what is appropriate. For even if they could not have been praised, they could nevertheless have been passed over in silence, and you would not have had to answer for the reason they were not mentioned. But what should provoke the greatest indignation in a person is not that Plato—easily the prince of the Greeks, and who rightly attributes much to himself—wished to accuse some people with a certain magnitude and freedom of nature; but that some men of no value, having taken this occasion, make it a habit, and dare to speak ^D whatever comes into their heads even about Demosthenes (whom I would say descended upon earth as the likeness of some eloquent Hermes). Yet who would endure these men while they are alive? They commit solecisms more often than they speak; they despise others as much as they themselves are worthy of being despised; they scrutinize their neighbors, but never themselves; they extol virtue but do not practice it; they wander around aimlessly, mere phantoms of life: drones of Hesiod, apes of Archilochus, possessing two forms for the three of tragedy. And though they claim they would not yield to Jove, they are so greatly overcome by money, and cast reproaches at others—not because the matter is

BIBLIOTHECA. — COD. CCXLVIII.

^A images of mortal men, drones of Hesiod, apes of Archilochus, having two forms instead of the three of the tragic cow. They say they are no worse than those of Zeus, but to the obol they are so much the inferior; and they reproach others, not because they have judged the facts, but envying that they themselves cannot do these things. But if anyone should stand opposite them as they discourse about temperance, holding honey-cakes and twisted breads, they put out their tongue just as Menelaus does his sword. For if they see Helen even—Helen, I say!—or a maidservant such as Menander made the Phrygian woman, they truly declare the satyrs of Sophocles to be mere child’s play. ^B Those men call the deprivation of others “communion,” envy “philosophy,” and poverty “contempt for money.” Yet, while professing philanthropy, they have never helped anyone, and those who wished to make use of them, they harass. And others they scarcely even look at when they meet them, but for the sake of the rich they run to the ends of the region, just like the Phrygians for the gathering of olives, who even scent them as they approach. For these are they who think impudence is freedom, and to be hateful is to speak frankly, and to take is to show philanthropy. They have reached such a pitch of wisdom that they do not demand money, but they know how to accept what is worth money, and they persist in this principle; but if a money-bag should appear to them more swollen, Perseus has captured the Gorgon. Their ways are similar to the impious people in Palestine. ^C For even to those, this is the sign of impiety, that they do not think the superior exist; and these people also in a way stand apart from the Greeks, or rather from all superior men, being in other matters more mute than their own shadows; but when some one must be maligned and calumniated, they are not to be compared to a Dodonean bronze—for Heaven forbid!—but rather to gnats buzzing in the darkness. To accomplish any of the necessary things, they are most useless, but to dig through a house and disturb it, and to set those within against one another, and to claim they will settle everything, they are the most terrible of all. Having dived into their hidden corners, they there devise wonderful things, “with a certain shadow dragging up words,” as Sophocles says, “reaping the asphodel, weaving a rope from sand, unravelling I know not what web.” ^D For as much as they advance in wisdom, by so much do they lose, being greatly pleased with themselves when they have spoken rhetorically in a bad way, just as servants often, and especially those of the mistress, curse their masters between their teeth. And even a certain stage-satyr once invoked curses upon Hercules, at whose coming he straightway succumbed. And not undeservedly do they seem to me to speak ill of all, since they are most capable in this matter, those who, though they make no mention of any human being, yet speak ill of all things, such that they bring forth into the midst what they have. And they even attribute the most beautiful name of philosophy to themselves, as though they had occupied a place in the theater. And for my part, I have both paid the debt of honor to Plato, and I have not sluggishly brought aid to the dignity of these men.

If, however, anyone has a reply to these things, while preserving toward me the same good will that I have accorded to Plato, I shall regard him both now and hereafter as a friend, not as an enemy. ^A

CCXLIX. Excerpts from the Life of Pythagoras.

We have read the *Life of Pythagoras*. The author says that Plato was the ninth successor from Pythagoras, having become a disciple of Archytas the elder, and that Aristotle was the tenth. Now, of the disciples of Pythagoras, those who were devoted to contemplation were called *Sebastici* [that is, pious]; those who were concerned with human affairs were called *Politici*; those who loved mathematics, geometry, and astronomy were called *Mathematici*. Those who were intimate with Pythagoras himself were called Pythagoreans, while their disciples were called Pythagoreans, and those who imitated him in other ways from the outside were called Pythagorists. All of these abstained from living creatures, and only at certain times did they taste of sacrificial victims. ^B It is said that Pythagoras lived for one hundred and four years, and that Mnesarchus, one of his sons, died while still a young man; Telauges, his other son, succeeded him, along with his daughters Sara and Myia, and it is recorded that Theano was not only his disciple but also his daughter. The Pythagoreans, they say, distinguish between "unity" and "one." For among them, unity is considered to be that which is in the realm of the objects of thought, while "one" is that which is in the realm of numbers; and in the same way, "two" is that which is in the realm of the numerable, while they assert that the duality is infinite. ^C Unity is taken according to equality and the mean: duality, however, according to excess and that which is less. Therefore, the mean and the measure cannot become more or less, but excess and defect, since they proceed to infinity, for this reason they called the duality infinite. And because they reduced all things to numbers, deriving them from the monad and the duality, and called all existing things numbers, and the number is completed at ten, and ten is the composition of the four as we count in order, for this reason they called the entire number the tetractys. They also used to say that a man becomes better than himself in three ways: first, by conversing with the gods—for it is necessary for those approaching them at that time to abstain from every wrong, and to become similar to God as much as is possible; ^D second, by doing good to others—for this is a property of God, and in it he imitates God; third, by dying: for if the soul, which in this life is the cause of life,