Nicetas of Serres

is preserved. And these things have been said concerning those who either accept or do not accept that fast, or rather who disagree every year, etc. ^A honoring the one day, and again they hold the fast until the very feast of the all-holy and all-undefiled Theotokos; but others, after celebrating the feast of the Transfiguration, hold this and simply each one, as has been said before, fasts on this day. And these things have been said concerning those who accept and those who do not accept this fast, and more to the point, those who differ every year, etc.

ANNO DOMINI MXC

NICETAS SERRONIUS. NOTITIA.

Nicetas Seron is mistakenly divided into two by Possevinus in his *Apparatus*, namely into Nicetas, bishop of Heraclea, and Nicetas Seron. But he is most poorly treated by the Gesnerian Epitomators as Nicetas Heradius, Nicetas Serronius, Nicetas of Serres [τοῦ Σερρῶν], and Nicetas, metropolitan of Heraclea. For he is one and the same author who composed all that is ascribed to the aforementioned. In my diatribe on Psellus, when I was debating against heretics regarding the age of Michael Psellus, in order to refute them, I brought forward many things from manuscripts about Nicetas David and Nicetas Seron, which even they had to concede, and subsequently I concluded that Nicetas Seron and Nicetas David were distinct individuals; and I held the opinion that he flourished in the age of Theophylact, archbishop of Bulgaria, to whom the ninth letter of Theophylact among those published by Meursius is addressed. Regarding the diversity of the Nicetas, I have with me the most learned Vossius in his new edition on Greek writers: yet it is the opinion of Leo Allatius, in his diatribe on Psellus, that these Nicetas are distinct persons, and I subscribe rather to him in this part. He was first a deacon and master or doctor of the Great Church, then metropolitan of Serres, then translated to Heraclea. He was a man most learned and pious. He wrote many and various things. But his primary and not inglorious efforts were in explaining the Bible according to the mind of the holy Fathers.

What has reached our hands are: his grammatical canons chanted according to musical mode. Grammatical rules which are harmonized to musical chant, as well as troparia. The title prefixed to the work: "This is the labor of Nicetas of Serres." ^B P. "The epithets of Zeus: Dodonaeus, Idaeus, Hercius, Cenaeus, Meilichius." By the same, "Canon on grammatical rules." P. "On the oxytone endings in *os*." By the same, "Another canon on various grammatical matters." P. "The *alpha* at the beginning *aspazetai*." And other things in the libraries: Vatican, Vallicellian, Royal at Paris, Altempsian. Iambic poems on the same work. P. "A beloved locust, a tender floor." Ibid. Other iambic poems. P. "It is the time for sleep, and it was proper to sleep." Royal [Library] at Paris.

Others add: "On the heretical and Christian emperors of Constantinople by the same." I have not yet seen what this is.

On the sixteen orations of Gregory Nazianzen are Enarrations and Commentaries, namely: on the holy Pascha, and on Tardiness [the second oration]. On another oration on the holy Pascha. On New Sunday. On Pentecost. On the Nativity of Christ. On the Epitaph of the divine Basil. On the Holy Lights. On the holy Baptism. On the love of the poor. On the father who was silent because of the hail storm. On the Maccabees. On St. Cyprian the martyr. On Julian the tax collector. On the presence of many bishops. On Gregory Nyssen, brother of the Great Basil. On St. Athanasius: which were printed in Latin by the interpreter Joannes Leunclavius together with the works of Gregory Nazianzen at Basel in 1571. From these Commentaries, Jacobus Billius collected some [materials] into certain Nazianzen orations, and others into others, and published them in his own edition. Greek manuscripts are found here and there in Italian libraries, and the Royal at Paris, cod. 429 and 1353.

Commentaries by the same on Nyssen, an Ambrosian manuscript index. It is without a doubt Nicetas who also labored on Nazianzen. I wish, however, that the index or title does not mislead! And I suspect these are the things which Nicetas himself had written on the oration of Nazianzen, which he delivered on Gregory Nyssen, the brother of Basil.

He also applied his industry to explaining the books of sacred Scripture; not from his own [thoughts], but culling from the holy and other most excellent men, and indeed even from heretics, provided they are not separated from the understanding and sense of the catholics, setting them in order and arranging them most fittingly, so that they do not appear disconnected and separate, patched together from scraps of superior cloth, but woven in one continuous text by one author. The Greeks called these *seirae*, the Latins *catenae*: for just as diverse and disconnected

^A rings, when linked to one another, are drawn together into one and form a continuous whole, so too those opinions scattered throughout the writings of the Fathers, having been collected and gathered in due order, are continued as if in a single series. Thus, under his name, there lie hidden in various libraries collected explanations of the Hexaemeron of Moses. Regarding the Psalter of David, Possevinus writes that one existed in the emperor's library in Vienna. In the Altemps library, one reads: *Nicetas Serronius, exposition on the psalms, and an anthology up to the 45th psalm; and previously up to the 70th, of Agamenus*. Nicetas Serronius's exposition on the psalms and anthology up to that point. But those which follow up to the 70th are Agamenus's. Franciscus Patritius also, in notes to the first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, reports that there exists in his possession a catena on the psalms, with Nicetas as collector, which he often calls his own, and from it he brings forward the testimonies of the Fathers in more than one place. From this exposition of the Fathers, some pious person—I know not whom—concocted various forms of prayer of various arguments, which I myself read under this title: *Various prayers to our Lord Jesus Christ, hymns of praise, confessions, and thanksgivings, and also narrative and supplicatory prayers, fashioned by way of paraphrase after the manner of the psalms of David, from those most divine Fathers of ours and holy and wise teachers who have explained his psalter; and they were compiled from the book of Heraclea.* P. *Master Lord God of all, those who have caught me in snares, and have humbled my soul.* They are 39 in number. And also this: *Another collection of psalms from the interpretation of Zygabenus on the whole psalter, by way of paraphrase, in a supplicatory, doxological, thanksgiving, and narrative manner, as it has been done and written beforehand, and from the anthology of Heraclea on the whole psalter.* P. *Lord God, many of my adversaries are emboldened against one another.* The prayers are 146 in number. Possevinus adds: *On Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, on the twelve prophets, on the four Gospels, on the Acts of the Apostles, on the Epistles of Paul, John, James, and Peter.* But since an exposition of his on Job also exists, I fear that it may be falsely attributed to him, as perhaps others are. For even in ten Greek manuscript codices, which our Paulus Comitolus sought out from various libraries for the sake of the *Catena of the Greek Fathers on Job* translated by him, Nicetas ^B does not appear in them, except in the codex that belonged to Joannes a S. Andrea, a canon of Paris. Furthermore, when it had been attributed to him in Gaul by someone, the same Comitolus, in the disputation which he prefixed to his translation concerning the author of his *Catena*, proves with solid arguments that it is not his, but is to be attributed to Olympiodorus, who wove it together from the explanations of twenty-four doctors of Greece. In the catalog of the library of the Duke of Bavaria, codices 12 and 13 are noted: *Catena of Nicetas, Bishop of Serron, on Matthew; Catena of the same Nicetas on the Gospel of St. John.* And in the Augustan library are held: *Enarrationes of various Fathers on the Gospel of St. Luke, Nicetas being the collector.* ^C There is to be seen in the Vatican library a codex written on parchment, in a minute and elegant hand, with this inscription: *A collection of explanations on the holy Gospel according to Luke from various interpreters, by Nicetas, deacon of the Great Church of God, in four books* (a). *A collection of explanations on the holy Gospel according to Luke, from various interpreters by Nicetas, deacon of the Great Church of God, in four books.* P. *From the beginning, God spoke to men by Himself.* In this anthology, that which is unique is observed: whereas in other catenae the opinions of the Fathers are shortened in their wording and presented in summary, here they are arranged in the text's very own words, without one part being diminished, so that it is not fragments of interpretations that are described, but the whole interpretations themselves, and all but speech itself. The interpreters are, so that you might not be ignorant of this: Africanus, Alexander the monk, Ambrose, Amphilochius, Anastasius, Antipater of Bostra, Apollinaris, Asterius, Athanasius, Basil, Clement, Cosmas the monk, Cyprian, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Dionysius of Alexandria, Dionysius the Areopagite, Dorotheus, Ephrem, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Eusebius, Eutychius the patriarch, Evagrius, Flavian, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory the Theologian, Hippolytus, Hypatius, Ignatius, Joannes Cassianus, Joannes Chrysostom, Joannes Climacus, Joannes Damascenus, Joannes Geometra, Josephus, Irenæus, Isaac the monk, Isidore of Pelusium, Justin, Macarius, Marcus the monk, Maximus, Methodius of Patara, Nicetas who is also David, Nilus, Origen, Paul of Emesa, Philo, Photius the patriarch, Proclus, Severus of Antioch, Silvester, Simeon Metaphrastes, Synesius, Theodoret, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophanes, Titus of Bostra, Victor presbyter (b). From these very lengthy expositions were collected more succinct expositions on the same Gospel by some studious person, so that readers might not be deterred by such long reading, which are found in Italian libraries. It has also been reported to me that there exists under the name of the same author, from various Fathers as well, an exposition on the Gospel according to Matthew, and that the Fathers are: Apollinaris, Athanasius, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Joannes Chrysostom, Irenæus, Isidore of Pelusium, Origen, Photius, Severus of Antioch, Theodoret, Theodore of Heraclea, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophilus, Titus. Comitolus contends that the *Catena on Job* is not by Nicetas, but by Olympiodorus, and Possevinus reports that he proves it with solid arguments. However, we are considering the solid reasonings of Comitolus himself. He says in writing:

^A being reminded that he who believed this catena was authored not by Olympiodorus, deacon of the Church of Alexandria, but by Nicetas, bishop of Heraclea, had been deceived by a specious probability, and therefore, having sent letters once and twice, had begged pardon for his error, and had conceded the point entirely, and had confessed his mistake. For although, as he asserted, he had learned from Joannes, a canon of the Parisian Church, that in his own copies, as well as those of the King of the Gauls (and the Caesar, and at Ottobonus’s) and in not a few that are seen at Constantinople, the name of Nicetas is prefixed with the highest consensus, and the style clearly agrees with the remaining works of Nicetas, yet Comitolus, in his own judgment and that of other distinguished men, considers that there are different authors for these diverse copies, and rejects the antiquity of the name of Nicetas affixed to books of this kind: since, in the end, because it was solemn for the Greek nation, especially at the time when it separated from the Roman Church, to sprinkle books with adulterated marks: and various authors are suggested by the fact that either the number of commentators is not the same in all books, or the disposition and order of the authors of the explanations is not the same, or the explanations of the same doctors are not applied to the same places of Holy Scripture, or the explanations of the same doctors are concise in some books and more diffuse in others, or that no mark of the prefixed name of Nicetas is seen in more ancient codices. Add that the inscription itself, which presents Nicetas, retains nothing pure, nothing that resonates as native to the ancient Greek language. 'Eξήγησις εἰς τὸν μακάριον Ἰώβ, συγγραφεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ ἱερωτάτου μητροπολίτου Ἡρακλείας, κυρίου Νικήτα. For if he had wished to insist on the rules of grammarians, Nικήτα should have been said. That the Greeks were wont to prefix to their books not their own names but those of others, is proved by the Commentaries on John, which bore the name of Cyril ^B when they were by Chrysostom; and the Commentaries of Origen on Job, which are not by Origen at all. Nor can it be hidden that many things have been ascribed to Jerome that are not Jerome’s, and to Augustine many that are not Augustine’s. Regarding the style of Nicetas, it seems also to be beside the point, since not one word of Nicetas is found in this whole Commentary, but everything is set forth in the words of others, and although all other catenae which are joined with the name of Nicetas may be Nicetas’s, the one which Comitolus interpreted is in no way to be attributed to Nicetas. And these indeed are the arguments of Comitolus against those who believe that Nicetas is the author of this catena on Job.

That Olympiodorus the deacon is the author of this work is proven necessarily by the fact that the author of the catena, in the final preface, when connecting his own work with the oration of Chrysostom, says: "Now one must come to the very interpretation of the words; but whatever things are congruent to history, and allegory, etc." And indeed, after these words, the name of Olympiodorus follows, as does his ^C protheoria. If the prior oration belongs to the author of the catena, promising both history and theory—as the subject matter provides—in individual chapters, and since Olympiodorus has been very diligently engaged in the investigation of both historical and theoretical senses, and since all those protheoriae are his, who would call into doubt that he is the same person who is the interpreter? The interpretation of Olympiodorus coheres with the explanations of the remaining doctors in such a way that it does not appear to be the exposition of many, but the continuation of one only. His thoughts flourish out of the thoughts of others, and most of his commentaries often consist in the joining of others' words, and the words and thoughts of others are tightened by the comprehensions of Olympiodorus: the broken parts of other interpreters are healed by Olympiodorus, and all faulty parts are completed: which Comitolus confirms with various examples adduced from the same catena. And finally, he cites the opinions of Cardinal Gulielmus Sirletus, Franciscus Turrianus, and Petrus Galesinus, the apostolic protonotary, as his allies, and the very ancient codex of Vincentius Pinellus, on the first pages of which the name of Olympiodorus, as the legitimate author, is inscribed in Latin letters. ^D And finally, he appends the patronage of the Parisian Fathers and his associates, who, having thoroughly examined the libraries of the king and queen for his cause with sharp study, and having inspected individual books and their indices most diligently, answered: "There is no reason, however, why the reverend father Comitolus should repent of his conjecture in attributing this catena to Olympiodorus. For in the *Epitome* of the library of Gesner, and in the *Catalogus librorum* edited by Simler in the year 1586, a certain catena on Job is attributed to Olympiodorus, which is said to be kept in the Sambucus library: and likewise the hypotheses on Job of the same Olympiodorus the deacon." From these he concludes that it is truly most likely that the writer of this catena was Olympiodorus, deacon of the Alexandrian Church. You might see the immense efforts and the stirred-up ardor of mind of Comitolus for the defense of this opinion. Possevinus also agrees with the opinion of Comitolus in his *Apparatus*, under "Olympiodorus": "For I willingly accede to the opinion of Paulus Comitolus, who, as we have said elsewhere, elegantly translated that same catena from Greek into Latin." He who also, by solid reasoning in the Venetian edition, which was produced by the Ioliti in the year 1587, proves that it is not by Nicetas, bishop of Heraclea, but by Olympiodorus himself.

^A What shall we do in the meantime? Should we acquiesce in such a store of conjectures and the consensus of distinguished men? Even if the argument brought forth were as far as possible from the truth, such a wealth of discourse having been constructed, it would have drawn us to itself even against our will. But the love of truth, with which we have always burned incessantly, compels us to submit these stated conjectures—after weighing them against other conjectures (for what demonstration has there ever been in matters of this kind?)—to the examination of wiser men. Whoever once felt the contrary, once persuaded by the arguments of Comitolus, came over to the opinion of Comitolus. Well done; I praise his ingenuity, and being persuaded of it, I shall do the same; and if it be a fault in such matters to think differently from others, I shall beg forgiveness; and I shall proceed with the matter. The codex of Jean of Paris, a canon, preferred Nicetas as the author of this catena, as did the exemplar of the king of France, and not a few others which are seen at Constantinople, although Comitolus asserts that no such catena exists in the royal library; but a grammarian reports that it existed in Constantinople in a catalogue exhibited in the library of the patriarch of Constantinople, as I gather from the supplement of Antoine Verderius; in England there are two Bodleian codices, from which Patricius Junius extracted and published his own. One only, which belonged to Sambucus, was of Olympiodorus. To which should faith be given? To the one of Sambucus alone, as reported by the epitomizers of Gesner, or to the many others who place Nicetas before us? And if the words of the epitomizers are considered more attentively, they do not give us Olympiodorus as the author of the catena, but one from among those from whom those interpretations were collected. Here are the words: "A most pious catena on Job by Olympiodorus and others, in the library of Sambucus." Unless we wish to substitute other authors as authors of the catena. And since Comitolus says that the authors of different "exemplars" are different, from where did he get the catena that he translated from that Sambucian codex, which he claims for Olympiodorus himself, and that it contains no other and different one? Therefore, in a conjecture of this kind, many codices provide greater assurance for a doubtful matter, and many witnesses are reckoned as having firmer authority. What if no other witness, no other product of this commentary, points to Olympiodorus, whereas these and very many collections on other books of holy Scripture accuse Nicetas? ^B But the style of Nicetas does not agree with the other works of Nicetas. If none is discerned here, it is true; for the opinions of other writers are set forth in their own words, or sometimes even shortened, in which case no certain account of style can be formed. Although in his other writings, in which he follows a highly eloquent style, he is not inelegant, but grave, eloquent, and full of sententious thoughts. But here, in the inscription, he retains nothing pure, nothing that sounds indigenous to the Greek language. Who says this? The thing itself, if we believe Comitolus, a man most versed in Greek letters. For that *Nikēta* instead of *Nikētou* does not seem to come from the school of the grammarians. And yet it sounds like pure Hellenism. For that name is pronounced in this way in almost all, even more ancient, texts. Hence we read: *Collection of interpretations according to Luke by Nicetas the deacon.* *Nicetas of Serres on Gregory the Theologian.* *Nicetas the monk of Stethatos on the book of divine hymns.* *Nicetas of Byzantium.* *Nicetas the philosopher.* And in the published Roman councils, concerning the Life of Saint Ignatius: *Written by Nicetas, a servant of Jesus Christ.* So also it is common usage: *Nicetas of Chonae.* And in the Greek exposition of the poems of Gregory Nazianzen: *Interpretation of Nicetas the philosopher, also called David.* I could also cite infinite others from historians who express the name "Nicetas" in the second case in this way, and no one has accused them for that reason of having spoken outside the purity of the Greek language. Are so many authors, therefore, to be stripped of their Commentaries because one syllable in the title itself is written incorrectly? To decide that this is solely the case regarding Nicetas of Heraclea and this catena, and not likewise of others, would be clearly absurd and devoid of any truth. But if Nicetas must be cast out from this catena for the reason that a mistake was made in the declension while writing it, perhaps Olympiodorus should also be ejected from this same work, whose name in the most emended exemplar, which Patricius Junius asserts, is found written constantly and through everything in this way, as the law of composition seems to demand, expressed with an omega in the antepenult: *Olympiodōrou*. But I myself am excessive in citing similar things.

^C Let the rest of Comitolus be seen. It was habitual for the Greek nation to sprinkle books with forged notes. Let this be certain and undoubted, for I am not now arguing the cause of the Greek nation. What, therefore, follows from that? Therefore, they prefixed this name also to the catena, having erased the true author. But this must be proven, as it is proven in the examples brought forward concerning Cyril and Origen. Nor for that reason will it be permitted to Comitolus, having driven out Nicetas, to substitute another. For then it would be allowed in Latin books also to do so at the whim of anyone; since, as he says, it cannot be hidden that many things are ascribed to Jerome that are not Jerome's, and many to Augustine that are not Augustine's. From this, someone or other will conclude with a clearly not dissimilar argument: Therefore, the catena which is on sale under the name of Saint Thomas Aquinas is not Saint Thomas's, since the Latins have been accustomed to affix the names and titles of others, not their own authors, to some books and volumes. Indeed, very many things in the books of his own Society, if we follow this same mode of reasoning, could be condemned. Let Comitolus be heard: "We stick to our own." In this very catena, which was printed last year at Lyons, does not an Epistle to the most ample Cardinal Antonius Carafa exist? When the pressure of time and the prayers of those who were urging the edition were wringing it more sharply from the moderator of our whole order, and he saw that their desire could not be satisfied if the Epistle were to be awaited from me at Rome, the task of writing it was given to a learned companion: nor does the Epistle lie in that matter, because it did not find Paul as its author; for it came forth itself as a rich witness of my own will, and I acknowledged it, as it were, as my own offspring. As if the most upright and most holy Fathers, and especially the moderator of so great an order, would distribute writings composed by this or that companion at his own command, by his own nod, to others of his own, and substitute the labors of others to whomever it pleases him. But let us examine the force of the argument. Greeks likewise, and Latins, bestow many things upon an author not their own through false subscriptions, and sometimes

it pleases him. But let us examine the force of the argument. Greeks likewise, and Latins, bestow many things upon an author not their own through false subscriptions, and sometimes ^A they publish a work written by another, just as if Paulus Comitolus had written it. Therefore, the Catena on Job, translated by Comitolus, although it bears the name of Nicetas, is not Nicetas’. Would he not have concluded more soundly that the Catena itself, which was cast under the name of Comitolus, is not Comitolus’? And with what certainty shall we in the future claim treatises and books for their authors, if this argument contains any weight? Certainly none. For one and the same judgment will be for all.

Furthermore, what does he argue for his own Olympiodorus? ^B The things we expressed briefly above. And perhaps he would say something if those were the words of Olympiodorus. But since they belong to the author of the Catena, he gathers so many examples in vain. For the authors of such treatises are indeed accustomed, lest the quoted opinions—limp and loose—appear to break the sequence of the discourse, to add something of their own, as if by an attached link, to connect the preceding with the following. Anyone who examines ancient catenae, and especially those of this Nicetas, will easily perceive this. For, by way of example, when two or three reasons for some exposition are given not by the same author, but by different ones, he is accustomed to add his own: "There is a twofold exposition of this passage; for it either says this," and afterwards he appends the name of the author; and that opinion finished, he places those words: "Or he rather wished to signify this," and then he adds the name of another. "The opinion underlying these words is manifold; for it either says this," then the opinion from some author is brought forward. Afterwards it is subjoined, "Or indeed this other," and the like. And since that connection of opinions changes nothing regarding the substance of the matters, there was no need for the author of the Catena to append his own name to these little phrases. "Whence do I have this?" Comitolus will say. From the very nature of catenae. Does it not please? Let him hear; "It could have happened thus." Will Comitolus despise these things? Then let him also despise those of his own, so often inculcated while he attacks Nicetas: "Olympiodorus could have applied full and absolute interpretations to individual parts of sacred history from the beginning, etc. He could have used a separate Commentary, etc. He could have used a selection of his own opinions and words, etc." If he did it because he could, why not also Nicetas, who could do so no less than Olympiodorus?

But in order that something more exact may be had concerning the formulas used by Olympiodorus, we say that this Olympiodorus, a deacon of Alexandria, promoted by John, Archbishop of Alexandria, surnamed Niciota, elucidated various books of Holy Scripture with his expositions in such a way that he would write his own protheories before individual chapters, in which he would succinctly and briefly propose the argument and the meanings, and afterwards subjoin his own expositions, and those of the briefest kind, as anyone will be able to see in the Expositions compiled by the same person on the Prophecies of Jeremiah, the Lamentations, and the Epistles, as well as in the Prophecies of Baruch, which are preserved in the most ancient, excellent, and truly golden codex of the Barberini library. But in order to connect his protheories and explanations, he uses those formulas which Comitolus collects: "And the first chapter is placed among these: now it is to be approached to the protheory of the second chapter. But let us treat of the second chapter. Therefore, instituting the protheory of the third chapter, we say." And of this kind is the meaning of the preceding verses; it is worthwhile, however, to expound the individual verses separately. "And we must understand from the previous interpretation," or, "you will adapt this opinion to those very words." ^C And this is the opinion underlying the words of Job; next let us see them individually. "Now, therefore, let us proceed to the remaining interpretation." And what seems most valid to him: "Therefore, the first and last of the history of Job are of this kind." And so the explanation of this very book is brought to an end by us. But if we have interpreted it led by some conjecture rather than by certain comprehension, certainly this was not done by us first, nor by us alone. But this very thing was common to us with all those who were interpreters and explainers of this book. Therefore, the author of the Catena, when he deemed those formulas which Olympiodorus, if they are indeed Olympiodorus’, had used in his interpretation of Job, to be most apt for binding together the opinions of the expositors, in order not to add anything less suitable of his own, he mixed them into the context of the Catena, so as to demonstrate that he had most ingeniously compared the connection even from others' work, just as he did with the other remaining things. ^D And anyone who compares these brought forward by Comitolus with the rest of Olympiodorus’ Expositions on Jeremiah and Baruch, which we remembered above, will clearly understand that the matter is thus. And those conjectures of ours are against Olympiodorus. Let, therefore, conjectures be committed with conjectures, and let attention be paid to those that are more probable. For I do not arrogate to myself the task of placing the certain parent of this Catena, pulled from the shadows of antiquity, before the eyes of the curious, and bringing the hidden into the open. And, to confess frankly, a most effective argument in favor of Olympiodorus would be that the Fathers lauded in this Catena all wrote before the year six hundred, around which times it is very probable that Olympiodorus also flourished, and no one is brought forward who flourished after that time. Which, in any case, Nicetas does not do, who, since he is much more recent than that time, borrows much in his catenae from Simeon Metaphrastes, Nicetas David, John Damascene, John the Geometer, Cosmas the monk, and others who lived after those times. If that is of no importance, I do not know what else could be: yet it does not prove that Olympiodorus was the author of this Catena: since perhaps he either did not find what would serve the purpose from these or other more recent writers, or, having found it, he neglected it, fleeing prolixity, content only with the principal Fathers in this Exposition. For we are not all forced to note everything; but everyone follows his own genius.

Before I finish, I will also add this: that on the sermons of Gregory Nazianzen there exist the Commentaries both of Nicetas of Heraclea and of Elias of Crete, with the distinction that those of Nicetas are on the sermons that are read, while those of Elias are on the sermons that are not read. They count sixteen of the first and twenty-five of the second. It is asked by some what these words are? The answer is at hand: they are those which are to be read in the Churches, just as the writings of other Fathers.

they were accustomed to be at the divine offices; they were silent in the churches, although they were worn down by the individual daily thoughts of the learned, and by their reading conveyed all the best things into the minds of the readers. This is what John Zonaras had also indicated before me in his commentary on Canon 4 of the I Constantinople Council: “The Theologian likewise makes mention of him (Maximus the Cynic) in one of those discourses of his which are not read in the churches.” Indeed, it was done unworthily that discourses so worthy of the light should be branded with such a term. John, Bishop of Euchaita, was also indignant at this, and inveighed sharply in iambic verse against those who prefaced the discourses with such a name. And so that I myself may show that I bear such things with difficulty, I shall bring that poem against them, hidden and obscure as it is, into the public light.

^A Who was the first so bold as to affirm that these discourses should by no means be read? Who hides the light shining over the whole world in a corner? Who covers the shining stars with a cloud? Who buries clear pearls beneath the earth? Alas for the envious and false naming; if it were put into practice, it would bring detriment to the whole world. But in truth it is in no way put into practice, but the rumor is merely empty. Let the light be seen shining in the candlestick, let it be placed before all, let it exhibit its light to all in common, and especially to those who see more than others. Would that all possessed these things! Would that all turned their minds to these discourses! For then salvation would be at hand for all from this single volume. For I omit how it alone makes men wise, since it is itself sufficient for men to acquire all branches of learning. It is, indeed, full of recondite dogmas: full of divine and learned mysteries: full of the best moral precepts: full of elegant artificial doctrines. A Museum truly inspiring knowledge. Having prepared its blameless text, I have set forth for many a food that never fails.

There are also read the responses to the inquiries of a certain bishop, whether by the same author or another (but they are certainly by Nicetas, Metropolitan of Heraclea). The epitomators of Gesner and Possevin make mention of them; and they say they exist in Zonaras in the canons of the councils. John Leunclavius published them in Greek and Latin in the *Jus Græco-Romanum*, p. 310.

EDITOR’S NOTICE ON THE PATROLOGIA

It does not escape the studious reader that the fragments taken from the catenae listed here have been restored to their own respective authors in the course of the *Patrologia*, or omitted if, after accurate collation, they occurred among other published writings. For he would err not a little who believed all these interpretations were taken from a special commentary; for it is the custom of those who compile catenae to adapt passages to their own purpose, culled from writings of various arguments, and to link them into the rings of a catena. Since, therefore, the materials which Nicetas had derived have returned to their proper place, who would blame us for not wishing—without any benefit—to burden our collection, already so weighty from such dense works, once again? It remains for us to speak something about the commentary of John Geometra and Symeon Metaphrastes on Luke, so that we may fulfill the promise we made here to edit it. For we later discovered that all the fragments issued under the name of Geometra are read in his homily on the Presentation of the Blessed Mary, which was published by Antonio Ballerini, S.J., in the *Sylloge Monumentorum* on the mystery of the immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God.