Other Writings of Zonaras

as we have touched upon, he might have thought it called by the singular name, against the reclamations of those writers, however much they are praised by him and by us, as one who from the beginning has deviated from the straight path, wandering everywhere as he proceeded; the more strongly he thought he was running, the more necessary it was that he should err (Pope Pelagius, *Contra Pelagianos*). But in that Dissertation, in which he first published what was hitherto unknown to the republic of letters, he had raised in us a hope, by a certain excellent promise—not to say ostentation—that he would say something new about the Palace of the Secundianae, beyond what we had touched upon in our Constantinople, and that he would reveal a light which had not shone for us, which I had desired in the first place; but it is fair to assume that he reserved it for another time, or that, at the very least, having forgotten his promise, it slipped his mind.

XXV. Furthermore, I easily persuade myself that these observations made by us concerning the site of the Hebdomon will not be unwelcome to readers, and especially to those who apply themselves to investigating the History of Constantinople; indeed, I have thought it worthwhile to describe them here, not so much to refute the opinion of the author of the dissertation (whose learning and keenness of intellect I have always respected) regarding this controversy, as to propose our own to learned men once more: yet not with such ^A confidence that I might wish it to be taken as indubitable, lest if by chance the reader judges me to be wandering from the purpose, he should immediately say what the aforementioned Henry Valesius said of Casaubon (in his notes to the *Excerpta* of Dio), who he claims saw nothing in explaining a certain passage of Suetonius, and that at the time when he seemed to himself to have seen more than others: so much so that a treatise which relies on conjectures should be composed without stubbornness, as Xenophanes used to say according to Varro. Indeed, the same Valesius, easily the prince of the scholars of our age, when discussing this difficulty proposed in this Disquisition with us, thought it arduous and obstructed, so much so that he would voluntarily confess he did not know to which side to incline, since the places which are said to be situated in the Hebdomon were far removed from the City; having not ^B sufficiently pondered the authorities of the writers, he scarcely judged it, contenting himself with having touched upon this with a few lines and a light hand in his annotations to Ammianus and the *Ecclesiastical History*. Truly, if the things we have brought forward in this Disquisition to strengthen our opinion concerning the site of that same Hebdomon do not please the learned man at all, let us both say with Augustine (lib. *contra Epist. fundam.*), "Let no one of us say that he has already found the truth; let us seek it as if it were unknown to both of us."

OF JOHN, MONK AND FIRST SECRETARY, ZONARAS: CANON TO THE MOST HOLY THEOTOKOS

JOANNIS ZONARAE, MONK AND FIRST SECRETARY, IN SANCTISSIMAM DEIPARAM CANON

Tone IV. Plagal. Aurigam Pharaonis. Arius.

Most Holy, who didst bear God, of the same nature as the Father, the only-begotten Word, co-eternal, of equal honor; even though the senseless Arius thought Him a creature, alien to the essence of the Father; entreat Him that we may be saved.

^A **Sabellius.** You received in your womb, O Queen of all, the Son, who is truly one of one divinity having three hypostases; even though Sabellius, by a wickedly devised confusion, has basely contracted the divine Trinity into one person of three names.

**Macedonius.** We glorify the uncreated Spirit of God, who overshadowed you, O Immaculate one, consubstantial with the Word and the Father, and proceeding from Him; we bid all to deem Macedonius a madman, for he says that He is a creature and a work.

**Apollinarius.** The Lord, descending from heaven into your womb, O chaste Virgin, and assuming flesh endowed with mind and soul, saved our nature. But let him who says that the Lord was created with a soul lacking a mind lament and suffer punishment, for he is a madman, namely Apollinarius.

Ode 3. The roof of the celestial vault.

**Nestorius.** May he who does not call you truly Theotokos be part of the portion of Nestorius, O Queen of all; he who declared Christ to be a mere man, and called you, who are the Mother of God, only the mother of Christ.

**Marcion.** May God, who from your blood assumed flesh, O Lady, not in appearance alone—as the impious Marcion supposed, who foolishly introduced two [or three] principles—strengthen your flock with his own faith.

^B **Eunomius.** By your supplications, O Virgin, deliver your flock from eternal punishments, which Eunomius, most impious and most wretched, foolishly raved were written only as a threat to frighten us.

Ode 4. You are my strength, O Lord, and my

**Eutyches.** The heresy of the childishly-minded Eutyches spoke of one nature in Christ after the union; he does not think, O Virgin, that the body which the Lord assumed is of the same substance as us, along with Severus; whose opinion we reject.

**Manes.** The hand of your Son, O Immaculate one, fashioned me, who also constituted the whole world; even though the raving Manes introduced two principles, and taught two gods, the one indeed good and the other evil, and divided the creatures between them.

^C **The same.** This wretched man, O pure one, also affirmed the incarnation of your Son to be in appearance, not thinking it true, and impiety taught that He suffered only in appearance, introducing one nature, that of the divinity alone. May we, therefore, be delivered from his madness.

**Apollinarius.** Apollinarius affirmed the body of Christ to be soulless. ^D

^A Arius, since the divinity sufficed for him in place of a soul, hastening deceitfully to attribute to the divinity whatever words the Word spoke in a human manner, in order to show the Son to be lesser than the Father, O Queen of all.

Ode 5. Why hast thou cast me away from thy face? **Origenes.** I am subject to eternal punishment, O Virgin, help me; for I do not accept the opinion of Origen, who teaches that the terrible punishments of hell are temporary, for the purification of sins.

**Didymus. Evagrius.** With Didymus, Evagrius again teaches the pre-existence of souls, having received this strange opinion from Origen. But may the pious dogma be preserved for us unharmed, by thy intercessions, O Queen of all.

**The Same.** It is the opinion of the same, again, that even the demons are to receive restoration, and that men who have done lawless things will, with the angels, complete the nine orders (1), which they fabulize with a corrupt mind.

Ode 6. Be merciful to me, O Savior. **Marcion.** Marcion impiously denied the resurrection of the dead; and he gave a triple baptism to those who fall. But we, O Mother of God, have been taught one baptism, and also resurrection.

**Novatus.** Direct my paths, O venerable one, toward repentance, which Novatus denied to us who fall even after baptism, having thought this unworthy of the goodness of God. ^B

**Encratites.** Those who are called Encratites forbid marriage; and they loathe the eating of animals. But do thou strengthen us all in the decrees of thy Son, O Mother-Virgin.

Ode 7. God’s condescension. **Massalians.** The Massalians say that Satan impiously rules the minds of men, and that in them the spirits of wickedness dwell personally, O Mistress. But by thy supplications, O Virgin, may God dwell in us.

**The Same.** The power and operation of evil spirits, ^{C D}

Various readings and notes

^A and at the same time to dwell within man, they teach these things, and the good Spirit, mixing things which cannot be mixed through folly; from their blasphemy deliver us, O good Lady.

The same.

The atheists prattle that worse things by nature accompany mortals, and therefore that they possess two souls; one common to men, and the other heavenly again, O Immaculate One. But do you grant my soul to choose the good.

The same.

They spurn, O Lady, the labor of the hands, as not at all fitting for the faithful, although Paul lays down the rule that those who do not wish to work should not even eat bread. Furthermore, they say that the person of the Holy Spirit can be grasped, as they say, as if by sense, and the Hypostasis.

Ode 8. Sevenfold the furnace.

Aerius.

Thinking wrongly, Aerius used to say that one should not offer sacrifice for the dead. For he claimed that they reap no benefit from this. Insanely, he also said that one should not fast on the fourth and sixth days of the week. He was also of the same mind as Arius regarding the faith. O Queen of all, rescue me from his impiety.

Paul of Samosata.

From the impious dogmas of Paul of Samosata, O Bride of God, deliver your flock. For when he said the Son, who is without beginning, was a ^B prolative word, and that God is the Creator, he wrongly claimed that He used the Spirit as an instrument, and that He received a beginning from your womb.

Sergius [and] Pyrrhus.

Following the decrees of the most sacred doctors, we acknowledge two wills and a double operation in Christ; and we leave Sergius, Pyrrhus, and the rest of the same opinion to rave, O Theotokos, since they foolishly say that the flesh of the Lord is devoid of will and has no operation.

Apelles.

Apelles indeed proclaims one principle, O Queen of all, and confesses one supreme God; but he says that that one created another, whom he posits to have become the evil creator of the world; since he himself is evil, and an ungrateful creature, worthy of fire alone. ^C

Ode 9. Heaven was astonished at this, and the bounds of the earth were struck with fear.

Leo the Isaurian.

Leo the Isaurian forbade the veneration of the venerable icons. For he became the source of the Iconoclasts, ^D and...

having been made, thy character worthy of all honor, and that of thy Son in the flesh, and of all the saints, O Theotokos, he has torn asunder. From which impiety may we be delivered.

Bogomili. ^B Defend, O Virgin, the people whom thy Son has redeemed, from the execrable and newly-risen heresy of the Bogomili, who teach that the body of man is the work of the evil one alone, but that his soul originates from the celestial God; yet they do not acknowledge one God as common to both.

The same. They teach that neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit existed from the beginning, but that the Son was later begotten of the Father, and again that the all-holy Spirit was begotten of the Son—a false opinion. But we, O Bride of God, acknowledge and worship the three as equally without beginning.

Italians. ^C Protect, O Virgin, thy flock, and avert the grievous heresy of the Italians, who, within a single nature, decree two principles, and—absurdly and as a novelty—assert two processions of the Spirit, the Maker of all; from whose error deliver us.

EXPOSITION BY JOANNES ZONARAS, FORMERLY MAGNUS DRUNGARIUS OF THE VIGLA AND PROTOASECRETIS, ON THE ANASTASIMARIAN CANONS OF DAMASCENUS

Concerning the canon, and the hirmos, and the troparion, and the ode. It is stated first more concisely, and then more amply.

Since it is the object of the present work to interpret the canons, we must philosophize concerning the name of the "canon" itself, and the designation of the "hirmos" and the "ode," and furthermore of the "troparion"—for from these the canon is composed; and these names, being, so to speak, technical

^A in their application, are received. The "hirmos," then, is a certain harmony of a canticle in composition, consisting of articulated and signifying voice, found according to a certain meter and quantity of magnitude, to which the so-called troparia are referred; it is, as it were, the beginning of the troparia and canons. Since the troparia are regulated by the hirmos and are rhythmically adapted to it as to a model, being composed, harmonized, and set to melody, it is called "hirmos" because it proceeds by a certain order and composition and melody, being strung together and woven and harmonized, and not as it might happen by chance.

The "tropary" is so called because it has turned and inclined toward that one, and has the hirmos as an exemplary and perfecting cause, having the same relationship that the canon in each case has toward the various things being regulated; for just as the canon acts differently in different cases, so too ^B the hirmos acts toward the troparia.

An "ode" and a "canon of odes" is that which contains more than one; for it proceeds up to nine odes, because the number nine is the greatest measure in numbers. The next ones—tens, hundreds, thousands, and ten-thousands—proceed likewise as the units up to nine, namely: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, ^C and up to 10, 20, and 1, 2, up to 9; all others are formed from the composition and combination of these, such as 11 up to 99, and similarly for the rest. These things have been said as in a summary; but the name of the "canon" is found used more broadly in many things; for there are canons for those pursuing the art of grammar, and for philosophers, and physicians, and civil laws; but those of grammar and of law have nothing stable.

"Canons" are also called the pious decrees of the holy Fathers. In all these, the name is taken from the wood that exists for the use of craftsmen for measuring and joining together wood, stones, or other things, and it has the name of "rule" ^D because it fits together and levels the dissected parts among themselves. Therefore, what the rule accomplishes for the coordination of these things, the canons also accomplish in every science and logical art, so as to order and define; for "canon" is also called a definition. Canons, therefore, are those which separate from others and lead in such a way that the separated thing conforms and is joined to what is defined. Wherefore, the decrees sanctioned by the holy Fathers are justly and deservedly called canons; for they direct those who obey them toward the right and immutable faith, and toward a life which is virtuous and pleasing to God. For this reason, the name of "canon" is also accepted in these hymns, because this established and invariable meter is completed in nine odes and does not exceed this number; whence it is called a canon because the meter is accurately defined in these hymns. Similarly, the great Apostle used the name of "canon," writing to the Corinthians: "But we will not boast beyond measure, but according to the measure of the canon which God has apportioned to us as a measure to reach even unto you, having hope that, as your faith grows, we will be enlarged in you according to our canon to abundance."

^A The sense, however, is this: Some were vaunting themselves, preaching the Gospel everywhere; to whom he says: "I do not glory beyond measure, I who have sown the preaching everywhere, but according to the measure of the rule which God has meted out to us apostles, the measure, namely, of reaching even unto you." Then, blaming those who boasted immeasurably and hyperbolically, he says: "But we do not do likewise, but [we boast] as far as you, preaching until our word reaches you; we hope, however, to enjoy more abundant honor." Furthermore: "The praise of the teacher is the progress of the disciple." Thus, therefore, the Apostle uses the name of "canon," and for this reason this canon and hymn is henceforth so called.

^B Odes are certain musical songs; for sounds, harmonies, and rhythms are musical, from which melodies are derived. Some of these induce a more pathetic and vehement passion in the listeners and excite them to tears; others provoke to anger, bring to mind fortitude, and incite the one being celebrated to any war. Thus it is said to have happened in the case of the Macedonian Alexander: for when the musician Timon was modulating a bellicose hymn before him and had duly excited the listener to anger, he, as if struck by a divine influence, arose and girded himself with arms for war. Musical sounds and odes, therefore, are produced only harmonically by the mouth; for in this the ode is perfected. Among the Hebrews, however, hymns were sung to God not only by the mouth but also with instruments, as David often testifies. And Amos says in the person of God to Israel: "Take away from me the tumult of your songs, and I will not hear the music of your lyres." With us, however, no instrument is employed for the divine hymn, but we sing to God only with a living and harmonic voice; for almost all the odes of which the canon consists are hymns and songs of thanksgiving to be sung to God.

^C Rightly, therefore, was the first [ode] composed by the prophet Moses, since the Hebrews had departed from Egypt by the command of God, and with the Egyptians pursuing them, they had crossed the Red Sea, which had been struck by the rod of Moses and dried up, whereas the Egyptians were submerged in the same [sea] when they attempted to cross by the division of the waters; but the rod of Moses, extended again over the waters, joined them together. Because of the excellence of the miracle, he composed a hymn in the Hebrew tongue, in senary meter, as Josephus says in the *Archaeology*, to be sung by both men and women. Moses presided over the singing of the men, and his sister Miriam over that of the women, beating the timbrel. That this ode is both a hymn and a song is evident from the fact that it begins with these words: "Let us sing to the Lord," it says.

^D But this interpretation can be accepted in a higher sense regarding all things that pertain to human nature; for just as God chose Abraham from the race of the

^A Chaldeans and led him into Palestine, into a land flowing with milk and honey, which He was about to give to his seed according to His promise; so He separated the first man from all creation and set him in a place of pleasure, I mean in paradise, which he was always to possess had he not transgressed the commandment. And just as the descendants of Abraham migrated into Egypt for the sake of food: so the protoplasts, conquered by food, were—alas!—expelled from paradise and led into a figurative Egypt, namely into the darkness of the passions and wickedness; for the name Egypt signifies "darkness" and "wickedness" in the Greek tongue. And just as the Egyptians held the descendants of Abraham in slavery for the making of bricks, vexing them through a lack of rations and killing the males born to them: so the figurative Egyptians, having become darkness and abusing divine light, used men as slaves, treating them evilly, or rather leading them into evil; for they wallowed them in every malice and, while they themselves remained at leisure, forced them to the labor that is earthy and straw-like and destined for burning, according to the Gospel ^B; for indeed, the work of crafting a brick mixes straw with clay. They also killed the males. For when any virile thought was born in someone, they did not permit it to reach maturity but slew it, so that they might never perceive what is right nor avoid wickedness.

And just as God, having taken pity on the descendants of Abraham, sent Moses, who led them out of Egypt and liberated them from grievous servitude: so, having taken pity on the whole human race and wishing to liberate them from the servitude of the figurative Egyptians, He did not send an angel, nor even a man, but His own only-begotten Son. For the whole human race stood in need of greater assistance than the Hebrew people, which was but a tiny part of the ^C whole human race. Since the demons who had subjugated it were more terrible than the Egyptians, a power stronger than they was needed to overcome them. And just as Moses, dividing the sea, led the Israelites through it on dry land, but submerged the Egyptians who were pursuing them after they had escaped from their hands: so our Savior leads those who trust in Him and flee the snares of the demons across the ocean of the passions, the bitterness of which they do not taste; but He submerges and suffocates the demons. For seeing the men whom they previously dominated now freed from their servitude and even commanding them, and walking as if upon asps and basilisks, upon those who appear as lions and breathe forth strength, they are ^D greatly irritated and suffocated. The same may also be called "tertiary," because they occupy the three parts of the soul and thus lead those who are more negligent wherever they wish. The odes, moreover, are composed for certain times; for which reason this one has been set before all the others. For it is written in the book of Exodus by Moses, etc.

OF JOHN THE MONK ZONARAS, IN THE PERSON OF THE HIGH PRIESTS, THAT TWO SECOND COUSINS OUGHT NOT TO TAKE THE SAME WOMAN IN MARRIAGE.

(Apud Coteserium, ibid.)

^A 1. To those entrusted with the care of the people, God says through the prophet: "If you do not admonish, nor speak, the wicked man shall die in his iniquity, and his blood shall be required from your hand" (Ezekiel 3:18). What, then, does this divine decree suggest to those who hear it, or to those who preside over the people? That it imposes on them the necessity of being vigilant, of observing the deeds of each individual, and of announcing the law of God to them; and if they should not walk according to it, of admonishing, declaring, and forbidding ungodly acts. But if, even when not moved by their own initiative, the leaders of the faithful are thus duty-bound, what should one say of how they ought to be disposed when they are questioned about certain matters? Surely, they should respond with great alacrity, so that through the questioners, the pursuit of wicked acts may be suppressed and prevented for all. And in the question now proposed to us, this is what must be done; and we must respond with what appears right to us, without any evasion.

^B 2. The question is short and of few syllables, yet it introduces a long discussion, which arises from opposing views. Someone asked if two second cousins could take the same woman as their wife. Some, therefore, dogmatize that the marriage is unhindered; but others say that it is not permitted, but is forbidden by both laws, that of the state and that of grace. Each side’s argument must be examined. The former say that the legislators, when decreeing regarding forbidden marriages, and counting those persons who are collaterally related and whom they have forbidden from mutual union, have stopped their enumeration at the sixth degree, in which are the second cousins, and have not proceeded further, nor barred those who are more remote from wedding one another. But since in the present controversy second cousins are not being joined in marriage to one another, but rather some other

^A And the person who was joined to one of those, upon the death of that one, may be joined to the survivor of the second cousins; they consider such a marriage to be lawful. For they say they do not wish to be more upright than the rule, and they admit that what the law has forbidden is also forbidden by them, but that what it has not enumerated among the forbidden things is permitted by them as well. This, then, is the response of one party to the question, and in this way the issue is resolved for them.

^B 3. But those of the other party, believing and asserting that the marriage is forbidden and unlawful, establish their opinion on this basis, saying: that the legislators, in ordaining laws regarding unlawful and forbidden marriages, define marriage as forbidden to infinity among those of ascending and descending line. But regarding those who are joined by side-cognation, after they enumerated certain persons and set them down as examples of prohibited marriages—since it was impossible to encompass each forbidden degree of side-cognation in speech—they added generally: "In marriages, we seek not only what is permitted, but also what is decent and honorable and by nature just." For they did not mention second cousins ^C as if they were stopping the prohibition at those, but having set the discourse as an example, they afterwards added what was more universal. And they are found to have done this not only regarding those who are on the side, but also in natural lineage. For having spoken first about adoptive relations, they added these things too: "For even a natural father does not take his daughter born of fornication." Then, they looked toward the universal law and brought in the general prohibition by saying: "For in marriages, nature considers what is equitable and what is decent."

4. And no one could say that because they mentioned only the daughter born of fornication, they excluded the granddaughters and those following, and did not prohibit marriage with them. Moreover, the canon of the holy apostles says: "He who has taken two sisters, or his brother’s or sister’s daughter, cannot be a cleric." Shall someone who has taken a cousin, or the granddaughter of a cousin, therefore be a cleric? No one, in truth, would say this. ^D You see, adversary, that the canon does not end its prohibition with those it mentions, but proceeds further because of what is decent and what is by nature equitable? We shall also find some things which, even if they are not referred to any degree at all, are nevertheless forbidden on account of honesty and decency. Indeed, the law has prohibited a man from taking his stepmother who was the wife of his step-father, even though in this case we shall not be able to calculate any degree [of kinship]. If, therefore, it is a decent or honorable thing for the same woman to be married to two second cousins, then let the marriage be permitted to them. But if these are truly kin, as is evident from the fact that second cousins are forbidden to be joined together in marriage, how could anyone say that men of such close kinship can be joined to one woman?

5. ^A But in what manner shall he, who has taken her in this second marriage, address her? As daughter-in-law, because she was the wife of a cousin, just as he addressed her before; or as wife, because he is cohabiting with her? And where shall we place the canon of the great Basil, which states: "In those cases where the names of kinship are confused, in those cases the marriage is illicit"? But they try, so they say, to prove the same thing from elsewhere, in a manner more forceful, or rather, more truly. For if, according to the divine oracle declaring concerning those who are joined in the communion of marriage, "They shall be two into one flesh," those who are joined are believed to become one flesh, then he who has intercourse with the wife of his own cousin seems to enter into a relative of his own race, and thereby strikes against that divine law which ordains: "You shall not approach any relative of your flesh to uncover her nakedness." ^B

6. But they also abolish the law which they of the other party use for the establishment of their own opinion, [the law] that says the prohibition stops at second cousins. For if the former husband of the woman was a second cousin of the present one who is now her husband, and the woman became one flesh with the deceased, it is altogether clear and beyond doubt that he who cohabits with the wife of a second cousin enters into a relative of his own flesh. If, then, the law was promulgated to the Israelites: "You shall not approach any relative of your flesh"—to those hard-hearted and uncircumcised in heart, to whom the old law in many things accommodated itself on account of their coarseness—how could anyone think that it was not imposed upon us much more than upon them? And if it was forbidden to them to approach freely any relative of the flesh, who will think it permitted to us to take the wife of a second cousin, who was called our daughter-in-law, and became one flesh with him through the mingling? ^C For if, according to the law, the appellation of son-in-law and daughter-in-law also indicates the betrothed, much more so does it apply to those among whom the arrangement has proceeded to marriage.

7. Then is it not absurd that, while it is not permitted for us to take in marriage the betrothed of a father or a brother, because the one holds the place of a stepmother and the other of a daughter-in-law, yet it is allowed that a second cousin lead to marriage that woman who was properly called daughter-in-law, inasmuch as she was coupled with a second cousin? And [is it not absurd] that an adopted son (who has no natural affinity with the adopting father, but possesses the status of son only improperly by the authority of the laws, and becomes an alien to him through emancipation, so that the adopted son has nothing further towards him by reason of kinship, ^D for the kinship which arose through adoption perishes by the law of emancipation) should be prohibited from taking his father's wife for the sake of decency; and conversely, that the adopting father should be forbidden to take the wife of such a son, when nevertheless he does not pertain to the family of the adopted son in any way after he has released him from his hand; [and yet] it should be permitted for us with impunity to take in marriage...

a woman who has been joined to our family ^A through a cousin, such that when others are lacking, she is even called to the inheritance of her husband; and that such marriages should be considered as legitimate?

8. And these things are indeed said in response to the proposition of those who permit this marriage, saying that the law extends the prohibition in marriages as far as the sixth degree. But since the law knows that kinship extends even further among those who are on the side, so that some from the seventh degree are also called to inheritances, according to the law which says: "The right of succession of kin comprises six degrees of kinship, and from the seventh, two persons, the offspring of the male cousin and the female cousin," and according to the law that follows these: "In natural kinship, we do not go beyond the seventh degree," and what follows; one might rightly say that those who are of the seventh degree in relation to one another are also prohibited from joining together in the union of marriage. And one might add that the high priests who determine that such marriages must be prevented before they take place, but not dissolved after they have been contracted, though they must be subjected to a penal censure, by no means adhere to strict law when they decree this, but rather to an accommodating one.

9. For it is altogether unbecoming and not honorable, nor by nature just, that a woman who is called to a legitimate inheritance by ^B right of kinship should be corrupted together with the heir, and that from her should be born children having an ambiguous and questionable name. For by what name would he who has been joined with the daughter of his own cousin call him who was born to him from her? Son, or cousin’s grandson? For if he calls him son, as one born from his own loins, he will name him son; but if [he considers him] as born from the daughter of a cousin, he will call him a great-grandson. But if the woman has children from a previous marriage, and others are born to her from the second, by what name of kinship will they call one another? Brothers, as having been born from one mother, or cousins, as having been sown from two cousins? But if all those of a closer degree to her husband have failed, and there are others still surviving from the seventh degree, will she too be called with them to the succession, as sharing the same degree with them? Or will she be rejected as a wife taken from the relatives? For both can be viewed in her case. Do you see the absurdity and the base nature of the matter? For this reason, it has often been said by the legislators in the case of marriages: ^D "One should look not only at what is permitted, but also at what is seemly, by nature just, and honorable."

10. Therefore, it is not held inopportunely that the high priests did not speak with precision, but rather acted with more accommodation, when they proclaimed that before a marriage is contracted in the seventh degree it is forbidden, but after it has been contracted it should by no means be torn apart. If, then, this pertains to condescension and accommodation, what is one to say about the sixth? That the sixth is strictly the [degree] in question is not ambiguous. For if a cousin is of the sixth degree, and the woman married to him became his flesh through that union, and is indeed the bride of the surviving cousin, yet