CIRCA ANNUM DOMINI MCCCLIII.
MAXIMUS PLANUDES CPOLITANUS MONACHUS
NOTITIA
(Fabric. Bibliotheca Græca ed. Harles., t. XI, p. 682.)
Maximus Planudes, a Constantinopolitan monk, one of the most learned men of his age, in favor with Andronicus Palaeologus the Elder, was sent by him to the Venetians in the year 1327 with Leo Orphanotrophus, as Allatius noted in *De consensu*, p. 841, from book IX of Pachymeres' *History*. He was still alive in the year 1353 (a). These writings of his have come to my attention:
*Translated into the Greek tongue.*
A 1. Cicero’s *Dream of Scipio*. See Lambecius V, p. 155, as well as Macrobius' *Commentaries* on the same dream. A manuscript in the library of the most Christian King, in the Séguier or Coislin collection. Labbe, p. 280, *Bibl. novæ Mss.*, and Montfaucon, p. 520, *Bibl. Coislinianæ*. (Fabr.) In the Coislin codex 355, the *Dream of Scipio*, written by Cicero and explained by Macrobius Ambrosius, is translated into Greek by Max. Planudes; it begins: 'Ηνίκα ἐπὶ τὴν Ἀφρικὴν ἀφικόμην.' There follows Macrobius Ambrosius' *Explanation of the Dream of Scipio*, translated into Greek by Max. Planudes; it begins: Μεταξὺ τὴν τοῦ Πλάτωνος καὶ Κικέρωνος. Paris, in the public library, six codices. See the Index to Vol. II of the *Catalogue of Mss. in the public library*. - Florence, in the Laurentian library, codex 33, n. 5, plut. 57, Cicero’s *Dream of Scipio*, translated into Greek by Planudes; see Bandini, *Cat. codd. Gr. Laur.* II, p. 587; in the same place, n. 11, there exists Cicero’s *De memoria artificiali*, in a Greek translation, perhaps by Maximus Planudes, as Bandini suspects, *loc. cit.* Ibid., codex 14, n. 1, plut. 80, Planudes’ Greek version of Macrobius' commentary on the same *Dream*. See Bandini, *book cit.*, vol. III, p. 213, sqq. At Venice, in the Marcian library, codex 508, Cicero’s *Dream of Scipio* with the *Exposition of Macrobius*; all with a Greek version by Max. Planudes. See *Cat. codd. Gr. Marc.*, p. 275. A fragment, or part of the third and fourth chapters, of Macrobius' commentary on the *Dream of Scipio*, translated into Greek by Planudes, is in Vienna in the Imperial codex 87, n. 18, as Kollar demonstrated at greater length in *Supplem. ad Lambecii comment.*, vol. I, p. 559 sqq. - Ibid., in codex 33, there are certain excerpts from the philosophical works of Planudes, not of great importance, according to the judgment of Kollar, *ad Lambec.* VII, p. 156. (Harl.)
2. Caesar’s *Commentaries on the Gallic War*. This version was first published in 1606, from a codex of Paul Petau, by Godofredus Ingermanus. Regarding this, the illustrious Huet, in his book *De claris Interpretibus*, p. 219, says: "I indeed doubt whether I should ascribe the Greek translation of the *Commentaries on the Gallic War*, which is held in the Petavian library, to Gaza or to Planudes, or to some other person of the same age. That translation sometimes deserts Caesar as leader, and attempts brief digressions, though rarely and modestly; for the rest, it is not impure, nor ungraceful." David Hoeschelius, in a letter to Ingermanus, 4th of the Kalends of April, 1606: "I would rather believe it to be translation of Planudes, who also translated the Ovidian works not unsuccessfully, than that of Gaza, which I might easily conjecture from the similarity of the phrasing." Petrus Scriverius, in a letter to the same Ingermanus: "That Greek interpreter of the Gallic War is not indeed to be despised, but yet he is read with so little profit to letters that, whatever he may be, he could be obliterated without any injury to scholars."
(a) Regarding Maximus Planudes, confer Vossius, *De poetis Græcis*, ch. 9, p. 80 sqq., and *De scient. mathemat.*, ch. 9, p. 311; Montfaucon, in *Palæogr. Græca*, p. 38, who says that Planudes flourished at the beginning of the fourteenth century, and notes that Possevin affirms he wrote in the fifteenth century. A. G. 1302, that it was written by his own hand in Constantinople in the monastery known as *tou Akataleptou* [of the Incomprehensible], the *paraphrasis* of the Gospel of St. John, in codex 481 of the Marcian library at Venice, he himself professes at the end. See *Cat. codd. gr. Marc.*, p. 285. Oudin, *Comm. de SS. eccl.*, vol. III, p. 760 sqq., to the year 1320, where he enumerates many manuscript codices in which the works of Planudes are preserved: Henr. Wharton, in *append. ad Cavei Hist. litter. SS. eccl.*, vol. II, p. 53, to the year 1340. Hamberger, in *Zuverlässigen Nachricht.*, part IV, p. 566 sqq.; Saxius, in *Onomast. lit.*, part I, p. 554 sqq. to the year 1327; who professes that he is not certain when Planudes paid his debt to nature, and, if Dorville writes in *Obss. miscell.* vol. II, tom. I, p. 429, that Maximus Planudes is traditionally said to have died in 1353, he requires a richer author for his fame, and notes that Jo. Jac. Reiske, in the preface to the *Anthol. Gr.*, p. xvii, thought Planudes a man of the thirteenth century; Schrockh, in *Histor. Christ. eccl.*, vol. III, p. 500. Add, if you please, what I wrote in *Introd. in histor. L. G.*, vol. II, part I, p. 530 sqq., and in *supplement.* vol. II, p. [rest of page missing in source]
XVII. *Commentar. urbanor.* Some passages from this were brought forward by Nicolaus Heinsius in his notes on Ovid. He also mentions the *Heroides* of Ovid translated into Greek by Planudes, after Simferus. Huetius, *De claris interpretibus* (Fabr.) p. 217 sq., ed. Stadæ 1680, 8, where he discusses the Greek versions of Max. Planudes. The version of the *Metamorphoses* is in the Vatican Library at Rome, and in the Library of St. Mark at Venice. See Montfauc. *Bibl. biblioth. mss.* p. 12 and 476. The version of the *Epistolae* and *Metamorphoses* is in Rome, in the same library, ibid. p. 34, ibid. p. 501. In the Ambrosian Library at Milan, there are several works of Max. Planudes, namely: *On the Construction of Verbs*, twice; *On Meters*; Ovid's *Metamorphoses*; *On Indissoluble Contradictions*; *On the Feet of Orators*; *Dialogues*; *Epistles*;—an *Anthology of Epigrams* and *Cato's Sentences*: and on p. 502 in the same library, Ovid's *Metamorphoses* and *Heroides*, translated into Greek by Max. Planudes, with scholia, twice. P. 622 in the Escorial Library of the King of Spain, Ovid's *Epistles*, translated into Greek by Planudes. Ibid. p. 632, in the Library of the King of England, Ovid's *Metamorphoses*, translated into Greek by Planudes. Paris, in the Public Library, cod. 2849, the first eight books of Ovid's *Metam.*, translated from the Latin language into Greek by Max. Planudes; and in cod. 848, a metaphrasis of the same fifteen books, and of Ovid's *Heroides*, by Max. Planudes. (Harl.)
4. *Cato's Moral Distichs*, which are in the Imperial Library, Lambec. V, p. 215, are not published. (Fabr.) Lamb. V, p. 442 sqq., ed. Kollar, n. 34, cod. 267.—In the same volume p. 617, A Greek marginal and interlinear annotations, which are in manuscript. Paris, in the Public Library, eleven codices (V. *Ind. ad Cat. Mss. Paris. bibl. Reg.* vol. II, under the word *Maximus Planudes*).—Oxford, in cod. Barocc. 64.—Venice, in the Library of St. Mark, cod. 83, fol. V. *Cat. codd. Gr. Marc.* p. 60.—Florence, in the Laurentian Library, cod. 12, n. 2, plut. 32; cod. 7, n. 16, plut. 55; cod. 23, n. 8, plut. 56, with interlinear glosses and marginal scholia; cod. 15, plut. 59; cod. 16, n. 6, plut. 60, with very many interlinear glosses like a continuous paraphrase and scholia added below; in cod. 13, n. 12, plut. 80; in cod. 26, n. 1, plut. 80, with extensive interlinear glosses; and in cod. 23, n. 2, plut. 81. V. Bandin. *Cat. codd. Gr. Laurent.* II, p. 135, 259, 327, 575, 606; and vol. III, p. 203, 215, and 236.—Leiden, in the Public Library, among the Vossian codices, in two codices. V. *Catal. bibl. Leidens.* p. 396, n. 23, and p. 398, n. 52.—Moscow, in cod. B synod. 247, n. 2, with scholia added in the margin, and cod. 248, n. 1. See Matthaei's *Notitia* cited, p. 160.—Rome, in the Vatican Library, among the codices of Queen Christina, n. 653, *Cato's Sentences*, and Boethius, *De consolatione philosophiae*, translated into Greek by Planudes, and the same author's *Epitaph*, by a certain Gregory; ibid. n. 651, *Diophantus's Arithmetic*, at the end of which certain things from Maximus Planudes are added. V. Montfauc. *Bibl. biblioth. mss.* p. 28 D. Ibid. p. 593 E, *Cato* of Planudes, in cod. August. Vindel. LXV. (Harl.)
5. *Boethius De consolatione philosophiae*, whose Greek version in manuscript is in the King's Library, used by Renatus Vallinus in his edition of Boethius. From the Imperial manuscript, Lambecius produces some things, VII, p. 145 sq. [p. 310 sqq. ed. Kollar]. Another most beautiful Greco-Latin codex, ann. 1478, was given by Petrus Montaguana to the Monastery of St. Justina; it exists in the Seguierian or Coislinian Library. See Montfaucon, p. 140. In the Imperial codex are read also Greek prolegomena and marginal annotations. (Fabr.) Paris, in the Public Library, codices of *De consolatione philosophiae*, with scholia, 1992, then 2094, and the three following, in the last of which is an epilogue at the end, where it is said that certain less obvious points occur concerning Boethius, and 2571, n. 3. Ibid. *Boethius De dialectica*, interpreted by Planudes in cod. 2094, 2, where, however, only one page remains: add also scholia; in cod. 2103, n. 2, and 2830, n. 6, with scholia, added in the margin. Conf. Montfauc. *Palaeogr. Gr.* p. 83.—Moscow, in codd. synod. 247, n. 3, with scholia, and 313, 1, C Planudes' *Interpretation of the books of Boethius De consolatione philosophiae*; see Matthaei's *Notit.* cited p. 160 and 205. The same, according to Montfauc. in *Bibl. biblioth. mss.* p. 7 B, C. In the same place are Planudes' *Dialogues De grammatica; De syntaxi*, and many works, Rome, in the Vatican Library, p. 494 A, *De consol. philos.* with scholia, translated into Greek by Planudes, likewise *De Trinitate*, twice, Milan in the Ambrosian Library. In the Escorial Library, v. *Pueri Itiner. per Hispan.*, p. 160. *Boethius* etc. in Latin, and with the Greek version of Planudes, and Latin commentaries, in cod. Coislin. 84. V. Montfauc. l. cit. p. 140. (Harl.)
6. *S. Augustine De Trinitate*, books XV, mss. in the Imperial Library. See Lambec. IV, p. 159, 160 (1).
(e) P. 259, vol. III, ed. Ernesti: but I dealt with this in *Breviore notit. litteraturae Rom.* page 698 sq., giving *Cato* edited by Matthias Garbitius (who corrected and supplemented Planudes' distichs from Cato), Tübingen, 1545, 8. Of the edition of Antwerp 1568 with Planudes' Greek version; of the edition of Amsterdam 1759, 8, to whose volume II is prefixed Planudes' Greek metaphrasis with castigations by Jos. Scaliger; then in *Breviore notitia in usum scholarum* p. 208, concerning *Cato's Sentences* in Greek by Planudes in the volume inscribed: *Εἰσαγωγὴ γραμματικῆς ἐγχειρίδιον*; Florence 1513 and 1516. (Harl.)
(f) Or p. 356, ed. Kollar, whose note you compare, n. 1, cod. 161, and p. 360; in cod. 162, N. 1, in cod. Bavar. 54. D See more in the distinguished Hardt's *Aretini Beyträgen*, etc., year 1804, part 1, p. 22. Florence, in the Library of the Dominicans of S. Marco. V. Franc. Anton. Zacharia's *iter litterar. per Italiam*, Venice 1762, 4, p. 54.—Paris, in the Public Library, codices 828, n. 1, and 829. Rome, in the Vatican Library, another version of the same work added, made by Demetrius Cydones, according to Montfauc. *In Bibl. biblioth. mss.* p. 7.
A That work, too, in which the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is treated, he translated faithfully, notes Bessarion in Allatius, *De consensu*, p. 842. Wharton notes [ad Cavei *Hist. litter.* cit. II, p. 58] that the passage from that version was edited in Greek at Rome in the year 1650. It appeared in Greek and Latin, with the version of Jo. Leunclavius, at the end of Leontius, *De sectis* (Basil. 1578, p. 584-599), and in the *Auctarium bibl. Patrum Ducæone* (Paris 1624, tom. I).
[Volaterranus, lib. xvii. *Commentar. urbanor.*, writes that the *Saturnalia* of Macrobius were turned into Greek by Planudes; this I find difficult to believe, and I suspect that his commentaries on the *Somnium* are what are meant. (Fabr.) In the inscription of cod. 34, no. 1, shelf 80, in the Laurentian Library in Florence, *Scipionis somnium*—written indeed by M. T. Cicero, but explained by Macrobius Ambrosius—is said to have been translated into the Greek language by Maximus Planudes, the most wise among monks. See Bandini, *Cat. codd. Gr. Laurent.* III, col. 213 sq. Add. Lambec. IV, p. 125 seq., and regarding the Coislin codices and others above, at no. 1. (Harl.)]
[Questions 49 of the first part of the *Summa* of Thomas Aquinas. The former were translated by Maximus Planudes. Oxford in cod. Barocc. 65, to which the *Catalogus mss. Angliæ* etc. vol. I, p. 7, refers. «The book itself,» he says, «is anonymous; yet it is attributed to Planudes in the printed catalog, I do not know by whose authority. For Possevinus testifies that Demetrius Cydones translated the book of Aquinas.» In Florence, in cod. Laurent. 18, no. 4, shelf 4, the anonymous prologue to the Greek version of some work of St. Thomas Aquinas, which—Bandini in *Cat. codd. Gr. Laur.* I, p. 515, says—is perhaps by Maximus Planudes, or another Greek man hostile to the Latins; for he criticizes them severely in this prologue. Consult Echard in *Historia scriptorum ordinis Prædicatorum*, tom. I, p. 346. — But Montfaucon, in *Bibl. biblioth. mss.* p. 505 E, states simply that in the codex of the Ambrosian Library at Milan there is St. Thomas Aquinas's *Expositio orthodoxæ fidei*, in Greek, translated by Maximus Planudes. (Harl.)]
[The version of the *Gnomæ* of Plato is attributed to Maximus Planudes by Montfaucon, *l. c.* p. 645 C, Oxford in the Bodleian Library, cod. Barocc. n. 124; but I do not know if that be the fault of Montfaucon, or if it was written incorrectly by another; for in the *Cat. mss. Angliæ* etc. vol. I, p. 27, it is reported that the version of the *Gnomæ* of Cato by Maximus Planudes is contained in that Baroccian codex. So also Oudin erred, *l. c.* col. 762, when he wrote that the *Disticha* of Plato by Planudes existed in the Norfolk codex 529, s. u. 5488 *Cat. mss. Angliæ* etc. tom. I; for in the said *Cat.* p. 84, it is explicitly and more correctly edited: *Catonis disticha per Planudem*. (Harl.)]
B Grace scripta. Volaterranus reports that Planudes (g) favored the Roman faith at the beginning, and for that reason suffered much from the Emperor of Constantinople, was finally thrown into custody, and was forced to think the opposite, having published three arguments against the Roman Church. 10. His three chapters on the procession of the Holy Spirit, with the responses of Bessarion and George Metochites, were edited in Greek and Latin by Petrus Arcudius in his *Opuscula aurea* (Rome, 1630, 1671, 4). Nesselius I, p. 22, also mentions a fourth chapter of Planudes, which begins: C *Οτι καὶ ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς οὖσιν ἡ Τριάς θεωρεῖται*, and p. 345: *Λόγον περὶ πίστεως* divided into twenty chapters. It begins: *Πάσης ἀγαθῆς πράξεως*. (Fabr.) According to Lambeck, *Commentar.* I, p. 359, ed. Kollar, in the Imperial Codex 167, no. 4, there are three arguments regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit against the Latins: *Ἐρωτητέον, πότερον ἡ ἐκ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐκπόρευσις ἄλλη καὶ ἄλλη ἐστίν*, and no. 6, an argument (which is the fourth) against the Latins *De process. Spir.*
(g) Planudes was a man of most elegant wisdom and infinite erudition, whom the Photians claim for themselves in vain, as I have shown elsewhere (in the *Testimonio Græciæ*). He is surely to be equated with any of the wisest of the Latins, since with wonderful felicity and elegance, proposing the most difficult problems and resolving the arduous ones, he enriched Greece—nay, the entire literary republic—with infinite works. Thus Nic. Comnenus, p. 190 *Prænot. mystag.* — We append a notable testimony and judgment regarding this same Planudes, not only from Raphael Volaterranus, in book xvii of his *Commentarii urbani*, but also from Cardinal Bessarion: "Maximus Planudes, a Constantinopolitan monk, a man clearly most learned and of vehement genius, about one hundred and fifty years ago favored the Roman faith from the beginning, for which cause he suffered much from the Constantinopolitan emperor, and having been finally thrown into custody, he was forced to think the opposite, having published three arguments against the Roman Church." These, Cardinal Bessarion of Nice, when reading in our age, used to wonder at: that a man so excellent in his other writings, and a supreme philosopher, should have produced such learned and weak syllogisms; he thought the cause was no other than that he disapproved in his heart of what he had written out of fear, and that they were easily refutable by anyone. Of him there exist many other monuments of genius. For he turned Ovid’s *Metamorphoses* and Macrobius’ *Saturnalia* into the Greek language, both in prose. He composed a volume of *Problems*, wrote *Rhetorical Commentaries* on Hermogenes, and collected the *Epigrams of the Ancient Greeks*—with the lascivious ones removed—into one volume, now published. These are the words of Raphael Volaterranus concerning Maximus Planudes. Bessarion, however, in his *Responsio ad quatuor argumenta Maximi Planudis de processione Spiritus sancti*, speaks of him thus: "For I would not, O best and wisest of men, pass judgment on one so thoroughly trained in all learning, and one who has advanced so far in philosophy and contemplation, and who has traveled through all branches of knowledge and distinguished himself in all, and who, besides his training in Greek, has also mastered the Latin language to the highest degree." For I would not think ill of you, O most excellent and wise man; as you who have been versed in the exercise of all disciplines, and have passed through philosophy and contemplation, and have traversed all the sciences, and have received the approval of all, adding the Latin language most perfectly to the Greek. By these words of Bessarion, the erudition of Maximus Planudes is elegantly proven. Oudin.
A 11. A collection of canons, as yet unpublished, which Nicetas Choniates calls most eloquent, p. 4; he cites the Nomocanon p. 363. The title *On Ordination*, p. 70, 71, 190, 220, 274.
12. Two orations, *On the power of prayers*, of which the latter is expressed as a *locus* by Suarius, the name being concealed, notes the same, p. 6.
13. He praises the oration *On Truth*, the same, p. 345.
14. An oration *To the princes of the apostles Peter and Paul*, published under the name of Gregory of Nyssa at Ingolstadt, 1620, in 4°, by Gretser, by Allatius p. 87, *On Simeon*, and pp. 294 and 295 *On Consent*, and by Lambecius IV, p. 57 (p. 119 sqq. Koll. n. 12, cod. 109) and Villi. p. 70 sq. B Planudes is vindicated. It begins: *It seemed good to me to say something concerning the apostles.*
15. An oration *On the burial of Christ and the funereal lament of the Virgin*. It begins: *What anyone might conjecture as evidence*, etc. It appeared in Greek at Paris, 1557, by Andreas Wechel: in Latin, from the version of Joachim Axonius Gravianus, it exists in the *Supplement to the Cologne Library of the Fathers*, year 1622, and the Morellian edition, Paris 1659, tom. 1, p. 856, and in the *Library of the Fathers*, Lugd. edition, tom. XXVII. (Fabr.) And Paris, 1644, fol. p. 836. See at n. 14. The same, Paris, loc. cit., codd. 1187, n. 1; 1220, n. 10; 1248, n. 8; and 3010, n. 20. — Florence, in the Laurentian library, cod. 35, n. 24, plut. 59. See Bandini, loc. cit. II, p. 566. (Harl.)
16. A eulogy of the martyr St. Diomedes is cited by Allatius, p. 202, against Hottinger. (Fabr.) Ms. Paris, in the public library, cod. 1211, n. 5, and 3010, n. 22. — Moscow, in the synodal codex 302, n. 80. See Matthaei, loc. cit. p. 198. — Lambecius IV, p. 124. — p. 327. (Harl.) — Florence, in the Laurentian codex 22, n. 4, plut. 56. See Bandini, loc. cit. II, p. 333. (Harl.)
(h) In the Imperial Library of Vienna, in the Greek theological manuscript codex 189, number 12, as Lambecius has it in the books of the *Commentaries of this library*, page 54, there exists—and indeed from folio 158, page 1, up to folio 170, the final page—the oration of Maximus Planudes, *acephalous* or missing its beginning, *On the holy apostles Peter and Paul*, which now begins with these words: *And how he bore everything with a stout heart*, etc. C But Jacob Gretser published this oration, thus mutilated, under the name of St. Gregory of Nyssa, from this Imperial manuscript codex, at Ingolstadt in 1620, in Greek and Latin, by the Ederian press, in 8°; and in the preface to the reader there, where he indicates his judgment concerning that same oration, he makes express and even nominal mention of this Imperial manuscript codex from which he drew this oration. Although he inscribed this oration to St. Gregory of Nyssa from the belief and title of this manuscript codex, he nevertheless admits that its style differs not insignificantly from the style of St. Gregory of Nyssa. Thus, in truth, St. Gregory of Nyssa is not the author of this oration, but the monk Maximus of Constantinople, surnamed Planudes, who is roughly 958 years junior to St. Gregory of Nyssa. For St. Gregory of Nyssa died in the year 395 or 396. But Maximus Planudes flourished around the year of Christ 1350, as one may clearly see not only from his own letters, which exist in the Imperial Library at Vienna, but also from the testimony of Raphael of Volterra, which was exhibited earlier. Moreover, the same oration *On the holy apostles Peter and Paul*, which Gretser published mutilated under the name of St. Gregory of Nyssa, has been found twice already by Lambecius in its complete form under the name of Maximus Planudes, in two Greek manuscript codices of the Imperial Library, one of which holds its place in order X among the Greek historical manuscript codices, the other among the Greek philological manuscript codices. In the former of these two codices, there exist, besides various panegyrical orations of Nicephorus Gregoras and Gregory the Cyprian, Patriarch of Constantinople, also two orations of Maximus Planudes: the other number 4, the other number 5; the first of which is inscribed, *On the burial of Christ and the funereal lament of the most blessed Virgin Mother of God*, and it begins with these words: *Of the monk Maximus Planudes, on the burial of our Lord Jesus Christ, and on the funereal lament of the Theotokos. What someone might conjecture as evidence, having the present condition*, etc. Leo Allatius also makes mention of this oration in his *Diatribe on the writings of the Symeons*, page 82. The second, however, *On the holy apostles Peter and Paul*, in this manner: *By the same, on the holy, glorious, all-praised and chief of the apostles of Christ, Peter and Paul. It seemed good to me to say something concerning the apostles, being eager, that there is no great labor, nor difficult task*, etc. This, indeed, is that very oration which Gretser published mutilated under the name of St. Gregory of Nyssa, beginning with these words: *And how he bore everything with a stout heart*, etc. For before these words, thirteen full pages in 4° are missing, written with many letters compressed. In the same way, the same oration can also be supplied from that other Imperial manuscript codex, which was formerly the sixty-first among the Greek philosophical and philological manuscript codices. For in it, besides the one hundred and twenty-two letters of Maximus Planudes, the *Comparison of Spring and Winter* and the *Oration on the holy martyr Diomedes*, there also exists the aforementioned *Oration on the holy apostles Peter and Paul* by the same Planudes, which is inscribed and begins in this way: *Of the most wise lord Maximus Planudes, a eulogy on the holy, glorious and all-praised chief of the apostles Peter and Paul. It seemed good to me to say something concerning the apostles, being eager, that there is no great labor*, etc. The same exists among the manuscript D codices of the Bodleian Library, manuscript number 44, number 3, p. 304.
λον. Ἐδόκει μοι λέγειν τι περὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων προθυμουμένω, μηδὲν εἶναι πόνου πολλοῦ πρᾶγμα", etc. Eadem exstat inter mss. codices Bodleianae Bibliothecae codice 44, num. 3, p. 304.
A 17. Life of Arsenius, Patriarch of Constantinople, at Nicaea. See page 74.
18. Three historical epigrams for the paintings in the church of Saint Andrew the Confessor, restored by the Augusta Theodora, which Du Cange published in Greek with Zonaras, p. 35 seq., and J. Boivin corrected with notes on Nicephorus Gregoras, p. 854. Regarding that church, the same Du Cange, book iv of *Christian Constantinople*, p. 112.
19. Another for the church of Saints Marcian and the Martyr. Du Cange with Zonaras, p. 44. (Fabricius) Various verses and a short prayer, Paris, in the public library, codex 1211, n. 6. — Munich, in the Bavarian codex 49. Verses containing a hymn of the Second Coming: To Christ; to punishment, and to all the Saints; then 21 verses on a certain noble human being, elegiacs; then verses on the cross, which he bore, and on the refixion and on Saint Mary; furthermore, heroico-elegiac verses on the gate of the monastery; other verses; finally, six verses on the angelic Annunciation, the same number on the Resurrection, and four on Saint Constantine. Most of those short Greek poems were published by the celebrated Hardt in *Aretini Beyträgen*, etc., year 1803, part vi, p. 38, 45 seq. — At Madrid in the royal codex 72, the Praise of Ptolemy the geographer, 47 heroic verses, which with the following hexameter tristich in the same [codex] were published in Greek by Iriarte in the *Catalogue of Greek Codices of Madrid*, p. 265; ibid. a poem on a nobleman, etc. At Florence in the Laurentian codex 7, n. 43, shelf 55. Sentences and epigrams of the ancient sages, from those which were collected by Maximus Planudes, with interlinear scholia and glosses, concerning which Bandini speaks at length, l.c. II, p. 256. — Ibid. p. 368 seq. Two moral epigrams, n. 7, codex 24, shelf 57; n. 14, an elegiac tetrastich on a stepmother; n. 15, the Life of Saint Mary of Egypt, composed in 20 heroic verses; n. 16 and 17, two anepigraph iambic epigrams, perhaps by the same Planudes, one of 12 verses, the other of 13. Heroic verses on the Geography of Ptolemy, in the Coislin codex 355. See Montfaucon, *Bibliotheca Coisliniana*, p. 520. The same and others in the Munich Bavarian codex. C. V. Hardt l.c. year 1804, part 6, p. 29, where he notes that those verses are falsely attributed to Manuel Moschopoulos, and appeared in Greek in Iriarte’s *Catalogue* (l.c.); the last three, however, also in the Basle edition. (Harles)
20. Enarratio on the Dominical themes of Jerusalem. Gesner mentions this in his library.
21. 122 letters in manuscript in the Caesarean [imperial] library, together with his homilies mentioned above on the apostles Peter and Paul and the martyr Diomedes. See Lambecius IV, p. 56; Nessel IV, p. 138. (Fabricius) Lambecius IV, p. 122, 124, Kollar edition, where he praises a certain codex which is kept in the Vienna library, and in a note: "The first," he says, "of those one hundred twenty-two letters was written to the Emperor John Palaeologus, son of the Emperor Andronicus the Younger, who began to reign in the year 1347 and died in the year 1384; the second, however, to Manuel, the younger brother of the aforementioned John." — Idem in vol. VII, p. 524, n. 3, codex 123, in which exists a letter of Planudes, the beginning of which is: *Ephμην ποτὲ καταδικασθείς*. (See n. 35) Eleuchus [Index], he notes, on the authors, etc., vol. II, tom. III, Amsterdam 1733, 8 [vo], p. 448 seq., and p. 446 seq. from that codex published the eighty-fifth letter of Planudes to Manuel Philes, in Greek with a Latin version. At Munich, in Bavarian codex 50, there are 118 letters to various people: but if the verses or poems inserted, and referred by me to n. 49, are added, 122 letters can be counted. The beginning and end of each individual letter, and the names of those to whom they were written, unless the name is worn away, were more fully set forth by Hardt in *Aretini Beyträgen*, etc., year 1803, part vi, p. 27-45. At Madrid in the royal codex 72, 114 seq., eleven letters of Planudes, which Iriarte reviews in the *Catalogue of Greek Codices of Madrid*, p. 260. At Turin in the royal library, codex 354, twenty letters of Planudes. See *Cat. codd. Gr. Taur.*, p. 482. — Florentine, in the codex of the Laurentian library 16, n. 16, shelf 32, excerpts from the letters of Planudes; in codex 3, n. 22, shelf 56, letters 23, n. from the ninth to the thirty-first; in codex 22, n. 1, shelf 56, in which there are 121 letters. See Bandini, *Catalogue of Greek Codices of the Laurentian Library* II, p. 142, 299, especially p. 320 seq., where he first presented the beginnings of each, maintaining the order in which they were placed in that codex, then the beginnings arranged alphabetically. Ibid. in codex 30, n. 6, shelf 59, a letter of Planudes to Philanthropenus, which in the series of letters in the aforementioned codex is number 48 and without a title. See Bandini l.c. p. 551. (Harles)
22. Comparison of winter and spring in the same Caesarean codex. (Fabricius) Munich, in the Bavarian codex 50. V. Hardt, l.c. a. 1803, part vi, p. 47. — Florence in the Laurentian codex 22, n. 5, shelf 56, Praise of winter. It begins: *Oἶμαι καὶ πρὸς μόνην τὴν ἀκοήν*. See Bandini l.c. II, p. 327. Comparison of winter and spring, Paris, in the public library codices 1187, n. 3; 1638, n. 7; 5010, n. 23, and according to Montfaucon *Bibliotheca biblioth. mss.*, p. 925 E, in the Colbert codex. (Harles)
23. Regarding the Grammar of Planudes, the dialogue on grammatical questions, which is titled *Neophron and Palaetimus*, and also concerning syntax, I have spoken in volume VI, p. 348 [and in the note there]. His *Epimerismata* are mentioned in Gesner’s library. (Fabricius) Add in the note the aforementioned cited codices: at Madrid in the royal codex 99, Planudes’s Dialogue on Grammar, which is titled *Neophron and Palaetimus*. By the same, on the syntax of the eight parts of speech, and on the syntax of transitive and intransitive verbs. Ibid. in codex 95, Planudes on the syntax of verbs, on transitives and intransitives, in alphabetical order; then on the species of syntax, which syntax as a whole is mixed, or Grammar (which also exists in Florence in the library of the monastery of the Benedictine Mary, witnesses Montfaucon in *Bibliotheca biblioth. mss.* p. 416 B and *Palaeographia graeca* p. 70), seems to be excerpts: which codices Iriarte reviews more fully in the *Catalogue of Greek Codices of Madrid* p. 387 seq. (where he also praises other codices kept in other libraries), p. 391 and p. 371 seq. At Venice in the Nanian codex 504, on the syntax of verbs, on transitives and intransitives, etc. See *Catalogue of Greek Codices of the Nanian Library* p. 509 seq., n. 5, 6, 7. According to Montfaucon.
A In the Coislin codex 192, there are certain things taken from Maximus Planudes, and his own *Grammatical Questions*, or the dialogue of Neophron and Palaetimus. See Montfaucon, *Bibliotheca Coisliniana*, p. 245. In Florence, in the Laurentian Library, codex 24, n. 12, plut. 57, are the *Epimerismi* ($\text{ἐπιμερισμοὶ}$) of Planudes, a very long work, the inscription of which is written in secret characters: it begins, "Phoenix is Syria, and Phoenix is the Syrian, and phoenix is a tree, and phoenix is a solitary bird"; see Bandini, *Catalogue of Greek Codices of the Laurentian Library*, II, p. 368. (Harl.)
24. Regarding the life of Aesop and the Aesopic fables, digested in the style of Maximus Planudes, I have spoken in Book II, chap. 9, § 2 and 5. (Fabr.) (Vol. I, p. 619 seq. and 624 sqq.) (a) The life and fables of Aesop by Maximus Planudes, in Milan in the Ambrosian Library. See Montfaucon, *Diarium Italicum*, p. 16. Paris, in the public library, codices 1773, n. 23; 2899, n. 1; 2899, 2900 et seq., *Life of Aesop*. (Harl.)
25. *Anthology of Greek Epigrams* revised by Planudes. For no one can persuade Jo. Harduin, who on page 495 of his *Selected Works* writes that he was not merely an editor, as is commonly held, but more truly the author of the anthology. Nevertheless, he is considered the author of the lemmata which are prefixed to the epigrams, as noted by Huetius, p. 34, and Fabricius, who even cites concerning the title *Anthology* the dissertation of Benedictus Averanius, Vol. I, Part I of his *Works*, and in his praise, dissertation 21. He imported a new form into the anthology of Cephalas, such that he distributed it, following the example of Agathias, into seven books, and yet he did not include the same things that Agathias had in each volume. For he omitted many poems, and he either cut out or interpolated very many obscene ones. And in the Greek scholia prefixed to Book VI: "In this seventh section are contained certain*hetaeric* [courtesan] apophthegms. Some as encomia, some as letters, some just as each happened to occur, those which do not incline toward the more unseemly and shameful. For Planudes says that he left out many such things that were in his copy." However, Fulvius Ursinus noted in his own codex: "But even these exist in the old copy by Angelus Colleotius" (a). But as for Planudes cutting out the obscene things, he did that well and prudently, nor was it fitting to repeat them and, as it were, endorse the character of a monk. Indeed, since he was neither a historian nor a good poet, he ought not to have interpolated, much less, while proscribing numerous obscene passages of Meleager and Philippus, to have received from the more recent age of Silentiarius, Macedonius, and others, things no less chaste than those. He did this, therefore, so that he might leave many things and cut others out, led not so much by considerations of modesty as by the need for brevity, and by the intention of reducing the volume of Cephalas to a smaller bulk. Otherwise, he would not have omitted the very numerous and decent dedicatory epigrams. Vavassor indeed strenuously defended the cause of the monks in this same matter; yet he did not absolve him. Cf. Brunck, *Preface*, p. 4 sq. But the question and its examination, whether and to what extent it is permissible to publish in print the shameful poems of the ancients, does not pertain to our study; and many have entered this arena. See what Reiske and Klotz have argued in their prefaces, and the judgments they have brought from others. This *Anthology* compiled by Planudes was the only one published in print for several centuries.
(a) That Maximus Planudes stitched together the life of Aesop partly from lies which he himself invented, and partly from the fabulous traditions of the Arabs, is judged by La Croze in the *Lacrozian Epistolary Treasury*, Vol. III, p. 155, in a certain letter to Jablonski, who in his response (Vol. I of the *Treasury*, p. 170 sqq.) not only approves of Croze’s opinion, but also adds that he has often discovered that Planudes, when he had read things in the lives of the philosophers reported about others, transferred them to his own hero, in the manner of those who weave romantic fables. The apophthegms, therefore, which Planudes attached to Aesop, as well as the stories about the poverty of speech of Aesop and others, teach more fully that they do not differ much from those things which the ancients recorded about Demosthenes, Bias, and others, and that Planudes drew much from the *Symposium of the Seven Sages* of Plutarch, because Aesop is introduced there as one speaking. HARL. Vol. I, *Bibliotheca*.
(b) Diophantus of Alexandria, although reported by some to have lived before the birth of Christ (a), and by others to have reached the times of Nero or the Antonines, left it uncertain when he lived; for no writer, no matter which one, mentions him from whom you could gather the time which he illustrated by his own genius. That he was 84 years old when he died is known from this riddle of his epitaph, which Bachetus produces in his *Notes to Book V*, p. 270:
This tomb holds Diophantus, oh great wonder, And the tomb tells the measures of his life by its art. God granted that to spend a sixth part of his life, And added a twelfth, he gave the cheeks downy fuzz. And after a seventh, he kindled the marriage light. And in the fifth year after the marriage, he gave a child. Alas, the late-born, wretched child, half of the father, At the measure of his life, cold fate took him away. Grief again, for four years he consoled himself, And at that point he reached the end of life’s measure.
This Diophantus has a tomb, which Marks for you the times of his life with wondrous art. He spent the sixth part (b) as a youth, with down he began to clothe his cheeks From then on for a twelfth part (c). At the seventh (d) he is joined to his wife, and in the fifth year Thereafter a handsome boy is born. After he reached half (f) of his father's age, The unfortunate one dies, taken by sudden death. For four (g) summers the father is forced to mourn, From this, calculate the years of his life.
This same Diophantus seems to have been the one in whose *Astro-...*
*Arithmetic* (as Suidas testifies) Hypatia, daughter of Theon of Alexandria, once wrote a commentary. He is connected with Pythagoras and Euclid by John of Jerusalem in his *Life of John of Damascus*, chap. 41, where he states that Damascus and Cosmas had progressed so far in arithmetic as Pythagoras and Diophantus, and in geometry as Euclid; "Having practiced arithmetic analogies so skillfully, as Pythagoras and Diophantus." (Fabricius.) Fabricius seems to have followed Bachet. Hamberger, in *Zuverläss. Nachricht.*, vol. II, p. 335, places his age along with others around the year of Christ 160, under the Antonine emperors. But Saxius, in his *Onomasticon*, vol. I, p. 417, assigns him to a much later age, around the year of Christ 362 of the Emperor Julian, where he says that he flourished in the age of Themistius, and thus under the Emperor Julian. The most illustrious Gerard Meermann, in the Preface to his *Specimen calculi fluxionalis* (Lugd. Batav. 1742, 4 [X, 3 sq.]), and the learned Montucla in his *Histoire des mathématiques* (Paris 1758, c. 9), have demonstrated this to be probable, a view which Heilbronner also transcribed in his *Historia matheseos universae*, p. 338 sqq. Add Scheibel’s *Einleitung zur mathematischen Bücher-Kenntniss*, part xi, p. 326. (Harl.)
Thirteen books were published from those which he had written to Dionysius—I know not who he was (Diophantus calls him "most honorable")—and which John Regiomontanus, Pref. to *Albuguanum*, long ago testified were preserved in the Vatican manuscripts, along with six books of *Arithmetical Problems* and one book *On Polygonal or Multangular Numbers* (a). With marvelous subtlety, he resolves questions designed even more subtly by a new analytical method, which he himself acknowledges was unknown before his time; modern writers call it Algebra, borrowed from the Arab Gebir, and falsely attribute it to the Arabs as inventors, even though they certainly received it from the Greeks, as they did most other things (b). In the sixth book, he even begins to apply his arithmetical speculations to geometry, following the example of Euclid, whom learned men have criticized in this regard for no good reason (c). The 23rd question of the fifth book is contained in a metrical, or eight-line epigram, whence Bachet took the opportunity at that place, from an unedited Anthology XLV, to produce and interpret arithmetical riddles of this kind, as I have noted above, lib. I, cap. 32, § 6, vol. IV, p. 4521. Where I also made mention of LXI Greek epigrams containing pleasant arithmetical enigmas, which John Laurenbergius composed, B published with his own translation and explanation, and issued under the title *Otii Sorani* (Hafniae 1640, 4). Bachet, in his notes to Diophantus, p. 196, also illustrates an arithmetical riddle of a Latin epigram, found in the Pithoean collection of ancient poems, which begins: *Ut tot emantur aves, bis denis utere nummis*, etc. See also the *Anthology of Greek Epigrams*, lib. I, cap. 46, f. 97 sq., and the Greek scholia of Maximus the Monk (Planudes), printed before H. Stephanus’s Annotations in the Wechel edition.
Diophantus’s six books, with the Greek scholia of Maximus Planudes on the first two books, and Diophantus’s book *On Polygonal Numbers*, were collated with the Vatican manuscripts and translated into Latin by Joseph Auria, and were in the library of Charles de Montehall, as Labbe testifies in his *Bibliotheca nova mss.*, p. 191. After Auria, whose version still lies hidden and unpublished, William Xylander translated the same seven books of Diophantus—which he had received from Andreas Dudith—and *On Multangular Numbers* into Latin, and published them first in that language, adding Planudes’s scholia and his own very learned commentaries (Basel 1575, fol.) (d). Then the chief praise is due to Claude-Gaspar Bachet (e) of Méziriac, who published Diophantus in Greek and Latin (with his three books of *Porisms* prefixed and an appendix on polygonal numbers added) at Paris, 1621, fol. (f). Xylander’s observations are mostly C mentioned on p. 195. In *Les œuvres mathématiques de Simon Stevin*, by Albert Girard (Leiden 1634, fol.), one can find on p. 102 sqq. that the six books of Diophantus consist of the first four by Stevin, and the last two translated into the Franco-Gallic language by Girard from the version of Xylander. (Harl.)
B not despising it, but observing that the scholiast, truly a Greek C of no account, utters nothing but trifles entirely alien to the sense of Diophantus. It should not be passed over that he notes, regarding book II, question 29, that it seems to him that some sciolist, gathering together into one the questions which seemed best to him from the thirteen books of Diophantus, cobbled together the six books of arithmetic that we possess. But this conjecture seems to me to have little probability. Moreover, the observations and the version of Bachet are preserved in the Graeco-Latin edition which appeared at Toulouse, 1670, fol., having joined to it certain brief, subtle, and ingenious notes by D. Paul de Fermat, a senator of Toulouse, with the addition of his new invention of the analytic doctrine, which James de Billy, S.I., collected from letters of his written to himself, whose *Redivivus Diophantus* appeared at Lyons, 1670, 8, after the Paris edition of 1660, 4; a book in which he undertook to solve geometric problems through Euclidean reasonings, which Diophantus had resolved by algebraic ones. Vossius vehemently praises D the commentaries, unpublished by the Briton John Pell, a professor of mathematics at the Breda gymnasium. *De scientiis math.*, p. 57. It will also be helpful to compare the book of Bachet, of which I have already spoken, published in French, under the title *Problèmes plaisans et delectables qui se font par les nombres*. Lyons, 1612, 8. The old Diophantine algebra, or numerical [algebra], by Carlo Renaldini, a nobleman of Ancona, Ancona, 1644, 4. Raphael Bombelli’s (a) algebra, published in the Italian language at Bologna, 1567, 4, who inserted his own problems into those of Diophantus (b); and William Oughtred’s, a fellow of the royal college of Eton, *Opuscula mathematica*, Oxford, 1677, 8, in which the first three books of Diophantus are solved in the algebraic manner. Concerning the most ingenious Ozanam’s Diophantus, see the Opera of John Wallis, vol. III, p. 681 sq. That Diophantus was edited by Ism. Bullialdus, I read in König’s (c) *Bibliotheca* and in the *Pandectae* of Hendreich of Brandenburg. But I have never seen it, nor has anyone else, I think. Although there exists a most subtle work by Bullialdus, not far removed from the subject of Diophantus, *de arithmetica infinitorum libris VI*, Paris, 1682, fol. As for the *Harmonica* of Diophantus, which Gesner and others mention, understand this as referring to harmonic numbers, not to some writing on a musical subject.
(k) According to the catalog of the Paris Royal mss., vol. II, in codd. 2381, n. 1, 2382, and 2309, n. 6, the *Calculatoria* of Max. Planudes is called *Magna* according to the Indians; in cod. 2428, n. 6, the *Opusculum commune arithmeticum* of Max. Planudes and Nicholas of Smyrna, Artabasdus Rhabdas, on the method of counting used among the Indians, or on the use of Arabic numerals; an unpublished work. Planudes’ *Calculatoria*, etc., Munich in cod. Bavar. 104, end. See V. Hardt, in *Aretini Beyträgen*, etc., a. 1804, part. vii, p. 10; and part. vi, p. 28 sq. in cod. 100, Plan. 1) *Calculatoria*; inc. *Oi τῶν ἀστρονόμων φιλοσοφώτεροι* • 2) *De subtractione aut ejectione numerorum*; another method of proof, from the addition of Nicholas Rhabdas and on multiplication. And that three more things are contained in his *Calculatoria*, he gathers from the fact that at the end of these all is read: *Τέλος ψηφοφορίας τοῦ Πλανούδη* • and he professes that he himself perceived from these very things that Planudes used Indian zifrs in counting, thus: *Λέγω 10 et 1*. *ἀφαιρῶν ἀπὸ τῶν 11*, etc. — Plan. and Nic. Rhabdas’ phrase for the great art of calculating according to the Indians, in cod. Escor., testifies Plüer. in *Itiner. per Hisp.*, p. 181. Rome, in the Vatican library, cod. Ottobon., an anonymous *Ψηφοφορία κατ' Ἰνδούς, ἡ λεγομένη μεγάλη*. init. *Εἴπωμεν δὲ καὶ περὶ τὴν ψῆφον τῆς ἀστρονομίας*, etc. More in Montfaucon, *Bibl. biblioth. mss.*, p. 187 C. But that the author of that work is Planudes is evident from cod. Marc. Venet. 303, which has the same inscription and the same opening: regarding which and another codex, Marc. 325, the celebrated Morell discusses more carefully than the compiler of the catalog of Greek Marcian codices had done, p. 143 and 148, in *Bibl. mss. Gr. et Lat.*, vol. I, who says of the former, col. p. 185: "It is," he says, "a fuller treatise than the other inscribed with the name of Planudes, written in codex 325, and it contains besides not a few things useful especially for astronomical calculations, although the same doctrines and occasionally the same words are used. Villoison did not notice the difference, who wrote about both codices as if one and the same work were contained in them; and he gave the figures of the numbers imprinted in bronze from both in the *Anecdota*, vol. II, p. 153." — Regarding the latter codex, which begins, *Οἱ τῶν ἀστρονόμων φιλοσοφώτεροι, ἐπεὶ ὁ μὲν ἀριθμὸς ἔχει τὸ ἄπειρον*, p. 204: "The title and beginning of the work," he says, "were given after Kircher with corrupt words by Steph. le Moyne (already cited by Fabricius) and Papebrochius, vol. II, p. LIX, *Maii Bolland.* ed. Venet. Both are exhibited most accurately from this codex by Villoison, *Anecd.* vol. II, p. 153, with the figures of the numbers themselves, differing very little from those which Heilbronner has in *Histor. matheseos*, p. 739. To this work of Planudes in this very codex, inspected by him in 1788, Juan Andres appeals in his letters, vol. II, p. 63, in order to maintain that the numerical signs which we use were derived from the Arabs to our own people, a matter about which much has been disputed even in these times." Thus far the celebrated Morell. But the aforementioned Andres discusses somewhat more fully concerning that codex and numerical signs in letter 3, in which he narrates many things worthy of note concerning the Marcian library to his brother, in the learned book: *Don Juan Andres Reise durch verschiedene Städte Italiens, in den Jahren 1785 bis 1788, in vertrauten Briefen an seinen Bruder Don Carlos Andres. Aus dem Spanischen übersetzt von E. A. Schmidt*, vol. II, Weimar 1792, 8, p. 42 sq. (Harl.)
A ancient cursive minuscule character, which is commonly called Longobardic. But a more abundant investigation of that question remains far from our present design: and it is better, in order that the one desirous of obtaining more on this subject might have wherewith to draw from, to commemorate certain books in only a few words. Not uselessly, therefore, can there be compared the works of Christian Gottlieb Büttner, formerly professor at Göttingen, *Vergleichungs-Tafeln der Schriftarten verschiederer Völker, etc.*, part 1, Göttingen and Gotha, 1771, 4, table 11, and his *Brevis expositio alphabetorum omnium populorum et affinitatum, quibus illa inter se conjuncta sunt*, § 2, in *Nov. Commentar. Societatis Regiæ scientiarum Gottingensis*, vol. VII, Göttingen, 1777, 4, p. 109; and Heilbronner, already praised by Morelli, who on p. 741 reports more abundantly on the common opinion that Europeans received the Indian characters from the Spaniards, these from the Moors, and these from the Arabs, but that the latter were not the authors themselves, but rather that the Indians devised the numerical method, as well as holding other views brought forward by Wallis, and the contrary opinions of Wallis and Jo. Frid. Weidler, who in his *Dissert. de charact. numerorum vulgaribus et eorum ætatibus*, Viteberg. 1727, judges that the numerical characters, similar to the Arabic ones, were known already to Boethius, who died in A.D. 524 (and thus before Planudes). But the opinions of these and others are copiously recounted and in part attacked in the work titled: *Neues Lehrgebäude der Diplomatik, welches in Frankreich von einigen Benedictinern verfertiget worden. Aus dem Französischen übersetzt*, vol. V, Erfurt, 1767, 4, lib. 11, cap. 4, sect. 9, article 2, p. 76 sqq. Add Jo. Christoph. Gatterer's *Abriss der Diplomatik*, Göttingen, 1798, 8, p. 29 sqq. (Harl.)
28. He mentions *Problematum Volumen* in the library of Volaterranus. 29. *Commentarios in Rhetoricam Hermogenis*. The same author, Planudes, notes on Hermogenes regarding status in the ms. library of Caesarea, and at the end of Joannes Siculus on Hermogenes, *περὶ ἰδεῶν*. (Fabr.) Planudes' scholia on Hermogenes in the Ambrosian library at Milan. See Montfauc., *Bibl. biblioth. mss.*, p. 501 B. — *Rhetoricæ prolegomena inedita*, Paris, in public library codex 2920, no. 1; in which there are also, no. 3, Hermogenes' *Ars rhetorica*, on the partition of statuses and rhetorical questions, with prolegomena and commentaries appended; no. 4, of the same, *De formis oratoriis* books IV, with prolegomena and commentaries appended. Planudes' *Rhetorices prolegomena* and the books of Hermogenes, at Turin, in the Royal codex 77. See *Cat. codd. Gr. Taur.*, p. 171. Do these also pertain to the grammatical writings? *Planudis Notationes variæ*? Manuscripts exist at Rome in the Vatican library. See Montfauc., *Bibl. biblioth. mss.*, p. 187 C. (Harl.) 30. *In Theophrasti Chara* (concerning which) see Gesner. 31. *Eclogam, quomodo appellantur animalia tum terrestria, tum aquatilia*. The same. 32. *Figuras de sole et luna*. The same. 35. *Διάγνωσιν σελήνων τοῦ οὔρου*. Regarding the knowledge of urine and bloodletting, in a political poem from the Royal manuscript 957, used by Cangius in his *Glossarium Græcum*. It stands also in the Caesarean library. Lambec, V, page 218. (Fabr.) Or page 450, Kollar, no. 9, codex 269. Here: *Τῶν ἀσθενῶν ὔελια μάθε τρισκαίδεκα*. This poem in the Caesarean codices 20, no. 2, 42, no. 2, and 40, no. 5, and elsewhere, is attributed to Nicephorus Blemmydes. See Lambec, VI, part 11, p. 250, 355 and 359, no. 2. Add above to vol. VII, page 672 seq., below vol. XII, no. 779, and index to our *Bibl. Gr.* under the word Nicephorus Blemmydes. Yet it is ascribed to Planudes, and the former poem is called *De urinis omnium morborum humanorum*, at Munich in the Bavarian codices 70 and 72, with the addition on the blood of phlebotomy. It is entitled: *De coloribus urinæ in omnibus hominum morbis*. See Hardt, in *Aretini Beyträgen, etc.*, year 1804, part IV, pages 25 and 35. At Leiden in the public library among the Vossian codices, *Planudis aliquid de urinis*. See *Cat. bibl. Leid.*, p. 402, no. 18; in the *Cat. autem mss. Angl.* II, no. 2301, among the Vossian codices, it is inscribed: *Max. Plan. prognostica de urinis*. *Dijudicatio vitrearun urinarum et de coloribus ac sedimentis earumdem*, in the catalogue of mss. of Zeno of Pistoia. See Lamii *Delicias erudit.*, year 1743, p. 107. At Moscow in the synodal codex 349, no. 57. Planudes, *Περὶ πάντων τῶν αἱμάτων τῆς φλεβοτομίας*. Beginning: *Μάθε καὶ τὰ αἵματα*. See Matthæi *not. cit.*, p. 259. (Harl.) 34. Simler notes that Planudes translated into Greek Aristotle's *De Plantis* from the Punic language or Latin (b), (translated by a Frenchman whose name I do not know). 35. *Enigma* mss. in the Caesarean library, starting *ἐφήμην πότε δικασταῖς*, (Fabr.) in codex 296, no. 5. V. Lambec, V, p. 544, Koll. add. to no. 21. (Harl.) 36. *Adagiorum Centuriæ* three, often cited by Nic. Comnenus. 37. *Additiones ad bibliothecam Photii*; id. p. 16, 21, etc. 38. *Philologia de historia Dictyos et Troico bello*; id. p. 587, note mystagog. B [*Βασιλικός*, in Moscow synodal codex 302, no. 81. Begins: *Πολλάκις μοι λογίσασθαι*. See Matthæi *Notit. cit.*, p. 199. — Ibid, p. 252, in codex 394, no. 14, begins a certain work of Planudes, *Ἐρωτητέον πρότερον*. (Harl.)] [*Τεχνολογίαι μερισμοί*. — *Technologiæ et particulares quædam expositiones in Philostrati imagines*. It begins: *Τὸ ἀσπάζεσθαι καὶ τὸ φιλεῖν*, etc. At Florence in the Laurentian codex 7, no. 6, plut. 55, indeed without the author's name; which however, as Bandini notes in the cited *Cat.* II, p. 246, Fabricius (above, vol. V, p. 550, § 5) seems to attribute to Max. Planudes. — Ibid, in codex no. 8, Philostratus' *Heroica*, translated from the Italian dialect]
(a) And yet Ursinus seems to have regard to the Anthology of Cephalas, and from these words of Ursinus it is permitted to conclude that that very Palatine codex was formerly Angelus Collatius'. (b) See what I have noted in book II, cap. 5, § 19 [vol. III, p. 244].
OF THE MOST WISE AND MOST LEARNED MAXIMUS PLANUDES ON THE GOD-CONTAINING BURIAL OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST AND ON THE LAMENTATION OF THE ALL-HOLY THEOTOKOS AND OUR LADY
A Whatever anyone may conjecture, having as a token the present situation, it does not seem to be without great consequence, and it is capable of persuading the souls of all to mourn; yet, looking toward that for which we are making preparation, these things are the announcement of cheerfulness and of the greatest of all festivals. B What each of these signifies, and whence and to what end it tends, I believe no one of our fold is ignorant. For to whom is it not clear that the one is Christ lying in a grave with the dead, and the other is the hope of the resurrection promised by Him? But as for me, let my discourse concerning the second wait for the present, unless perhaps both are shown through each other, and it is not possible to speak of the one while passing over the other. C But concerning that which the first demands—for this I have come to speak, even if it were better to honor the day in silence than to seem to mutilate it by my own words, falling short of its proper glory. Yesterday, then, it was permitted to see those things that had power enough to turn even those who were completely stone to themselves, and to give those very things, as if uttering a voice, to learn that it was not against a mere man, but against the God-man, that the envy of the Jews was directed. What, indeed, are these things...
that I mention? Darkness poured over the sun, the earth convulsed from its foundations, the rocks split as if from a blow, the veil of the temple torn apart by no force perceptible to the senses—and most horrible of all, the dead leaping forth from their opened tombs and coming into the sight of many. For it was necessary that these things, and things far more miraculous than these, be accomplished, since God was suffering in the flesh and hung suspended on the wood B of condemnation. And when He who holds all things together was being insulted, it was fitting that these things, too, should be in danger of dissolution, and that heaven should be said to be mingled with the earth.
But today another mystery has occurred: the descent of God into Hades, so that He who, while on earth, preached the Gospel to the living, might announce it no less to those who had departed this life many centuries before. For it was not fitting that He, being by nature just, should indeed have lived among those of us who have existed since His sojourn, and that He should act to bring back to the first man everything that will be done as long as day and night succeed one another; yet that He should despise those who had descended to Hades before, those dwelling in darkness and living calamitoulsy and in whatever state they happened to be. For it was fitting that He should be declared not only the God and Savior of the living, but also of the dead, and thus ravage the kingdom of sin, which was Hades and death. For so powerful was the entry of sin into C men that it brought these things with it, and could boast of this, that it had taken possession of the fallen human nature as an irrevocable inheritance.
Moreover, it was also appropriate to the goodness and at the same time the greatness of God that He should not neglect one whom He had endowed with the gift of immortality, one who had been dragged by sin toward death, but that He should reach out a hand to him as he lay and raise him up again from his fall. For how, I ask, would it have been fitting—nay, how could it even be tolerable to hear—that sin should absolutely be exalted and lifted up against the power and goodness of God, after the Good is of such a nature that it exists through itself, and contains all things, while evil is nothing that can be said to have subsistence? For this reason, when God had determined to restore His creature to integrity, He entrusted this restoration neither to angels nor to archangels, since He had not entrusted to them the original power to create us, but He Himself assumed this authority, He who did not suffer that glorious D work of His own hands—I mean man—to be crushed by harm; so that, just as He alone is God, so He might also be the Creator and Savior, and that we might acknowledge Him alone as the one who has done these things, and to Him alone give thanks, and offer reverence, as does all creation.
A For this cause, therefore, He established not merely a journey from heaven to earth, but He descended even into Hades; and having descended, He shattered the brazen gates, and broke the bars, and burst the bonds of those who sat in darkness and the shadow of death, and were bound in poverty and iron. And He led them forth from darkness into light that knows no evening, and from death into eternal life. To whom, even if the Savior came somewhat late, He nonetheless came more desireable, granting them freedom. For He appeared to them at the end of the ages. Yet to them, the fact that He, who alone could save, did not forever ignore their cry, was deemed no less a benefit than if He had not fallen there in the beginning; for if one were not rescued from thence and revived to better things, one would have suffered nothing more grievous.
For many indeed are the mysteries that have advanced in the flesh concerning our Savior’s arrival to us, all of them surpassing any power of language; but one is also the greatest of those accomplished today. And this is the destruction of Hades, the death of death, the liberation of souls, and the way opened to the heavens for those who desire it. To this all other things are also directed, whether they be far removed or close at hand; just as, at times, swords, and shields, and helmets, and spears, and all other armaments, and the throng of infantry, and the weight of cavalry, and the leaders of the ranks, and the companies assigned to them, and the B rearguard—all look to one end: that the enemy may be vanquished as far as possible. But come, if it seems well, let us pause for a little while, and grant quiet to our speech, until the Savior shall have accomplished the things that are to be done in Hades; let us go to the tomb, that we may hear the mournful lamentations of the Virgin and Mother over her Child, and we shall return to the things that follow hereafter. Let us go, however, in silence, not because we are afraid even now that we might have some suspicion in going there, as Peter and John did of old, but so that we might not cause any interruption or disturbance to the lamentations.
C Since, therefore, you have rightly obeyed and stand far from the tomb, listen now, O earth, and sun, and air—if you possess any sense—how many of my lamentations you receive. When I see this one—who was my only Son, who was to me my sole consolation—lying dead in the tomb, and but few who pity his plight, and even those who hold him dear, fearing, perchance, to be exposed for knowing the man! For that they should not be caught mourning for him who lies there, they have taken great care for themselves on all sides. But as for me, how many of the fears of death that hang over me will persuade me to wish to remain hidden? D And how shall I not cry out and lament in a way that is heard, even if no one wishes it, even if all
A forbid it? O most sorrowful of all days, you who dawned upon me then, when I saw my Son suspended from the wood and pierced with nails, and His side opened by a spear, and Him suffering these things, the very thought of which I cannot endure! How did I not break my soul in pieces, when I saw these bitter things happening? Since even now, if I recall them, I am near to losing my life. Woe is me for your slaughter, my child! Woe is me, over and over! How unjustly were you crucified, how iniquitously were you nailed fast, how impiously were you pierced by the spear! You departed from amongst men in the midst of terrible things, but I am surrounded by even more terrible things. For it is better to die than to live in grief. Which of your sufferings shall I lament first, and which last? I would need whole rivers turned into tears if I were to linger over each one individually. You were mocked, and I busied myself with lamentations. You were slapped, and I covered my face, not being able to look upon the sun. You were spat upon, and my suffering commanded me to bathe myself wholly in tears. You were clothed in purple in mockery; if someone had offered me a mourning sack, I would have gladly accepted it 6. Your head was struck with a reed, and I beat my own head with my hands. You were torn with scourges, and I tore myself all over. B You were suspended, and I collapsed from grief. You were nailed to the cross, and I remained stiff and motionless. You were given gall with vinegar to drink; how can I express my own bitterness? You breathed your last, and I all but did the same. You were wounded with a spear, and a sharp sword pierced my heart. And now, at the last, you lie dead in the tomb. And my condition is more wretched than that of the dead, and heavier than many deaths.
Would that I had remained in Egypt with you and for your sake, my beloved Child, having traveled there, and had not returned at all to the Jews! C For perhaps I would not now be sitting beside this mute stone—a stone wet with my tears, adding grief upon grief and sorrow upon sorrow. Well did we, my Son, avoid the rage of Herod at that time. We led a safer life in a foreign land than in the land that bore us. But it seems another Herod was yet to seek your soul for death—Herod, I say, together with Pilate, having conspired against you. And now you have indeed met death, while I, a most miserable mother, pine away with moaning. All your friends have failed you, and so have the disciples, having learned, by your own example, to keep themselves safe; they flee from the impending danger. Woe is me! That you should have been judged worse than robbers, and that Barabbas should have been requested for life, and you for death. To many mothers you have restored their children from death, and they now rejoice and congratulate themselves; D but what has happened to me? Why did you not keep me from having to mourn your death, you, my only-begotten, my first-born? You gave sight to the blind, you made the ears of the deaf to hear, you made the tongue of the stammerer to speak clearly, you made the hands and feet of the crippled to straighten...
you became the author of how many and what kind of miracles; and the greatest of all, you raised the dead as if from sleep. A I used to pride myself in being the mother of such a Son. For wherever mention was made of your miracles, there you were present, receiving praise; and to whatever place reports of your fame had arrived, there they deemed me also, who had given birth to you, to be worthy of being called blessed. But now a brief space of time has sufficed to turn all these things into weeping and tears. The creation also has suffered with you, my Son. But as for the suffering which each of the elements endured individually, it was not difficult to perceive, lest any addition should be made to them through my own soul's review of them; yet I judged that it belonged to me that I should be struck in my heart by every single event. For as the sun was darkened, I was covered in darkness; and as the earth was shaken, my limbs were shaken; though the rocks were rent and the veil was torn, my heart did not spare itself from being torn. Graves were opened, and I fared no better than those who were brought out to their tombs. How often was someone reported to have announced the snares set against you by the Jews, and I feared the danger more gravely than he who was plotting it! For the love I bore for you did not allow my reason to remain moderate, but I suspected concerning you things that no one would suspect even for himself. I heard of stones being taken up against you, and I felt myself to be colder than any stone. And what more? John was dying, and I imagined the axe hanging over your neck. He to whom you had granted sight was cast out of the synagogue, and I pondered in myself your cruel persecution. Now, indeed, Lazarus, having escaped death by your benefit, was sought out again for slaughter, and this fear for you was renewed within me. But those things proceeded only so far as to cause fear; B but as for the things that have now occurred, they have put an end to fear, and have established for me a beginning of weeping and lamentations. And I weep and wail for these things over you, my child, and I do not know what time will be able to check my tears.
Suffer me, you women who have come here to bring me consolation. For if the sea, troubled by the force of the winds, cannot but swell with waves, and rivers falling from on high cannot flow without a sound, then surely it cannot be that I, if I am a mother, should not mourn for my most beloved Son. For I ought to have descended as an inseparable companion together with my Son to the underworld, since nature allows me to enjoy no pleasure. But I will use that consolation which at least I am able to provide for myself; I will not be reproached as a mother devoid of affection toward her Son. C I will not cease to weep for him whom I carried in my womb, whom I brought forth into this light, whom I reared. I will not call together those who would weep, that they might summon tears for me; for they are already summoned from out of my own heart and are stirred up, and they are carried forward to be a burden to my eyes already, because they do not give them an opening. D
Where, I ask, might I procure for myself some solace, as is permitted to many mothers, having left behind some hope of offspring? For, indeed, that is not available to me, so that this lot of mine might be such as lies prostrate beneath all mitigation. A
But how easily would the Son have been exalted to such dignity? For who could have attained such glory as he, had he not rather fled from receiving glory among men than, as others are, be intent upon chasing it? What then? Did he not bear the condemnation, though guilty of no crime? For it cannot be contradicted. Whose murderers did he ever cease to overwhelm with benefits? Would not these things repel and reject consolation? What laments would they not stir up in me? I would prefer to suffer anything whatsoever than to leave the Son thus unwept. For, having become a mother to such a child, I would be doing him an injustice if I did not lament him. And I would also put to shame those mothers who, if it should happen, are more eager to be called parents by this name than by the gestation in the womb, the birth, and the upbringing of the child; for these are things one might attribute to nature, but that other is not of such a kind that it is not also common even to women who are alien to natural affection. For many have often reared infants who were degenerates from themselves, but the latter rightly affects mothers. When I brought forth the Son, it was for me the greatest cause of pleasure; for I thought I was bringing forth for myself, and I did not know that I was bringing forth for men driven by furies, but for myself rather bringing forth wailing, weeping, and tears.
And I do not indeed lament the death of the Son from a report brought to me by others (for perhaps it might have been a more bitter evil that way). I myself saw, with these eyes, his hands and feet pierced with nails; I myself saw him wounded by the spear; I myself, standing by, heard him thirsty, and I saw him drinking vinegar with gall, nor did he yield up his soul while I was present. Beyond this, what vastness of sadness do I pass over? Who would not draw forth blood-stained tears? Come, O dear breast, provide me with profound groans; and you, eyes, pour forth tears like a fountain, for now is there need for me of groans and tears, and these in abundance, so that I may lament and bewail as is fitting. C If there is any cry more novel, if there is any fountain of tears more abundant, now let them all be present to me, and let them increase the weeping as much as possible; for I do not wish to lament the most beloved one and then rest, and then lament again, and again, and often and more often, but to lament perpetually, and never to cease, not even once.
Woe is me! Through envy I have lost the Son; envy has brought forth this mourning for me. For what miseries have I exchanged the most sweet name of mother? My calamity is surely not involved in light matters: the sorrows of all mothers do not touch my sorrow; I pass over the mockeries, the spittings, the slaps, the scourging, and the other terrible things (for great men have often been in conflict with great ones), and I come to the head of all evils, the cross, the nails, the spear. Unless these too are small and unworthy of tears—do they not demand a greatness of lamentation? Envy, it was envy that stirred up these terrible things against us, a death-dealing weapon always cast against the very best, and that, too, from where one would least suspect. D
Envy, I say, like a storm in the midst of the calm in which we trusted, accustomed to bring about shipwreck through those who secretly envy and gnaw at us.
A O Cross, and nails, and lance, and you, O sepulcher, and all the rest of you who have composed for me the present tragedy, were you to enfold me alone, among all mothers since time began, in such great calamities, all rushing upon me at once? Each one of you possessed power enough to submerge a soul in grief, and nothing would have been lacking for me to feel that I was suffering the very worst. But with all of you pressing upon me at once, how can I bear the burden? How can B I lament enough for each one, and provide for all of them the tears that are appropriate? If I do not yet take up the mindset of a mother who has suffered this, to what great mourning do I find myself lowered! If a mother who has accompanied her son to the tomb comes to mind, her suffering teaches me my own calamity. For, setting this misery of mine alongside every other terrible thing, I see that it takes the lead in every respect. O wicked council of the Jews! Abraham was not your ancestor—no, it was some evil spirit from the beginning, then envy, murder, and death, and whatever other evil is wont to circulate upon the earth. For Abraham did not teach you to plot against your own people, C he who considered it one of the unbearable things even if a stranger passed by unnoticed, having received no kindness from him. A fine victim you offered up for the feast! With pure hands you ministered other sacred rites, nor did the shame of the day or reverence have power to call you back from your madness. In what ways would you have attacked a foreigner, if you have set upon your own countryman with such savage fury?
D Alas, this is that very thing, my most beloved Son, which Simeon—that venerable old man—hinted at when, having brought you to the temple according to the law, he took you in his arms while you were yet an infant: your death. Now at last I perceive that sword which he said would pierce my own soul. O elder, even had nothing else ever been prophesied by you about anyone, for this alone I would rank you among the prophets! For the sword has passed, and still passes, through my soul, and wounds my heart, and tears my inward parts. How well I now see clearly what was then obscure! What sorrow, what tears, my dearest Son, have you brought upon me by your death, and what mournings upon mournings! Bitter ones indeed, because you do not allow me to see your sweetest light; but sweet otherwise, because as I pour out these sorrows, which ever follow the preceding ones, I make myself stronger for those that are to follow. May he perish miserably who delivered you to those who conspired against you, he who seemed to fulfill the office of a disciple: but a servile mind, a slave to greed, compelled him, in time, to betray the
A hostile and inimical mind. May such a friend never befall anyone who pines for money! For friendship and the thirst for silver and gold cannot long be joined together; although they may sometimes—treacherously, to be sure—unite, they very quickly dissent and withdraw from each other.
But what shall one inscribe, my only beloved Son, upon Thy sepulcher? This Jesus, whom the envy of the Jews, despite the many benefits He had conferred even upon those unwilling and resistant to Him, repaid with the punishment of the cross. How hateful this inscription was to them, but how glorious for Thee, and for me, a monument of many tears! Many are the things, my Son, that make my weeping heavier and more and more bitter, to which is also added this: that Thou hast been cast into another’s sepulcher. For had not Joseph and Nicodemus existed, whom pity for Thee had overcome, I do not know how Thou wouldst now be lying, unburied, cast aside, and deprived of those things which are accustomed to be paid to all at the last. One thing remains that would dispel my tears: if on the third day, just as Thou didst predict, Thou shouldst arise. May I live to see this! For Thy lips never B defiled themselves with a lie. Thenceforth I am silent, while in the meantime I cherish and prolong my sorrow with tears.
While the Mother of God was lamenting with profuse tears, I sensed, as if from a deep abyss, a different sort of howling; and imposing silence upon myself, and applying my mind, I listened. It was, as could be conjectured from the great howling, the prince of the underworld roaring from below. For already all things were hanging upon his own thread [10]. And the things that he uttered were such as these:
"Ha! What is this? Who is this who has descended to us with so brisk an appearance, reflecting a refulgent sun, full of confidence, not walking with a grim countenance as others are wont to do? What is this? I cannot even look directly at him. And another thing, too: why do all these who until now have been subjected to our C empire surround him, and rejoice with an ineffable joy? I see them all prepared for departure, showing cheerfulness because of their liberation: nor do they any longer fear our power, lest I be offended by these new and unusual things. Ho, my powers, will you not bring aid? It is your duty either to hold him captive, or to persuade this very one to wait here, and not to aim at any such thing in this time. O wretched me! Until now everything had proceeded for us according to my wishes: and my affairs had been such that they could not have been better; but now, those things that were to my advantage are being overturned and perishing, while the contrary things are rushing in; and that I am no longer anything, but have been utterly destroyed, I learn not by words, but I grasp the evil that has been inflicted upon us in act and perception, and we were not more masters of those who D passed their time here until now, than we have finally succumbed to others.
So long as the dead were among us, our affairs were not going entirely badly; but with these being taken away, all evils seem to me to be hanging over us, unless by chance the turn of events should reversed—which is what torments me more than anything else. For first I shall see my kingdom taken away, and then those who have hitherto fled
A from under our yoke. O disaster! I indeed thought that, just as with others who descend hither, I should regard this one as of no account. But he is more exalted than it was possible for any of those who are held in confinement here to appear. And the fact that he was to be enrolled among those who are subject to me afforded me a certain pleasure; but the fact that he has provided a way of escape to all—that is the most extreme of calamities. It would have been more advisable for me to have commanded all the rest without him, rather than, together with him, to vomit out the others as well.
There was swallowed up by us a little while ago another (Lazarus was the name of the dead man). Him, some one of the living (whom I believe to be this very One who now torments us so cruelly), snatched away by force, having tarried with us a fairly long time beyond the duration of his sojourn here. I, indeed, was pained even then, suffering what I am not accustomed to; yet I bore it, thinking that little account was to be taken of the one. But now the danger concerns everyone. B If, in truth, this is he who snatched Lazarus from us, it is necessary to expect the extreme end. For if he, being absent and far from here, by merely uttering a voice, so affected us that we were unable to prevent the liberation of one, what will he not do now that he has openly burst into our region? Woe is me! Is he to devastate everything? Is he to drive away the prey from here? Hitherto, I have been kept in admiration of a certain Elias, and before him Enoch, whom those who descend hither reported to be laughing quite heartily at their own descent; but this Man, not a partaker of such a kind of immortality, but having also attained to glory, surpasses everyone; but, alas! what am I suffering? I am cast out, I am beaten, I am overturned, I am bound in chains.
Thus did I hear the prince of the underworld lamenting, C and from him I understood his own devastation.
Now is the time for human nature to boast against the wicked enemy. For that which was not beloved, has been called beloved (11), and has obtained God as its lover. For if a father loves his son because he has begotten him, God also loves man entirely because He has created him, and—because of the tyrant under whose yoke he was previously held—He has made him more powerful. And having abolished his tyranny, He has condemned both the chains and Tartarus and the fetters. For we, in our miserable affliction, had need of help; and in Him the help was situated. D For if He fills heaven and earth, and He Himself has made all things, it is manifest that He alone can do all things. And if He had not descended to us, the power of all human aid would have been a shadow. For those idols which so great a number of prophets and of the inhabitants of Judea were unable to remove, these Christ, upon arriving, forced to vanish like smoke from the entire earth. For, above the violation of the first commandment and the human defection to idols that followed it, [index: entries preserved]
A the Creator, setting his love for the human race against that impulse, recovered his handiwork and led it back to its former intimacy. This is what the potter Jeremiah saw; this is the lifting up and re-fashioning of the clay of the vessel that had fallen from his hands, and from which glory returned to the craftsman.
But, O miracle! The first creation of us was wonderful, judged worthy of the hands and breath of God (for these are rightly understood as the hands and breath of God); but the re-creation is more wonderful, and by as much as it is more high and more humane to suffer for someone than to make something for them. And, indeed, it is also more secure. For I have seen men who have sense, when they are about to rebuild a fallen house, construct the second one more securely and sturdily than the first, so that the same fear of collapse might not hang over them again. And what a man might do, how much more should one attribute this to God? Certainly, for God to supply good things to men was innate at the beginning of human nature; so much so that one who lives does not so much draw in air by breathing as he uses the benefit of God. But it remained for him to put the finishing touch upon these good things; that was to assimilate himself to us, and us to himself, through the communion of nature, and to lead us back from death, and to bestow as an inheritance the kingdom of heaven. For who, when it was necessary to give his very self, was more ready; or what other thing, however great it might be, would he have spared?
Magna igitur B Great, therefore, are these things, but neither foreign nor of the number of those things which cannot happen: that God should become man for the sake of men, while remaining God, and through the flesh assumed by him, restore the whole of human nature. For in this way did the conflict against the enemy, and the victory brought back by him, appear glorious. For what is so great—if the man who had fallen through the snares of the impostor and was lying wretchedly in the dust were to be so elevated, to the degree that he had fallen from what he seemed to possess at the beginning? And so we believe that the earth, which we were commanded to inhabit on account of the transgression, was assigned to us not so much as a place of exile, C but as a temporary colony. For even today we inhabit paradise in hope, and we enjoy the good things in which it abounded; and—than which there is nothing more just—we possess our nature which sits beside God and the Father, and we have received the power to become children of God and gods. Is there anyone who could say whether it is possible for us to fare more happily, or for God to employ a more humane way? No one, I think. What shall we render to the Lord for all that he has rendered to us? For even if he brings forth heaven and earth and all that is in them, it is possible to see royal palaces constructed for man; or if he fashions the man himself and bestows immortality and clothes him with the excellence of his own image, who would not judge this one to be he who wishes well and acts well toward man? Or even if he plants a paradise D and places the man within it (hail, happiness!), or if he casts him out from there and condemns him to death for the sake of preventing the evil from creeping on longer and longer; and if, being God,
A he becomes man for us and takes on flesh, and suffers all things which he is believed to have suffered, and descends into Hades, and rises from there, and ascends into the heavens, and is granted a kingdom, and honors our nature with a seat at the right hand of the Father; and if, doing all these things, he appears as if he were receiving grace rather than giving it? For my part, I am not able even faintly to conceive of that ocean of kindness, let alone praise it worthily. But I have that which I have borrowed from another to say, and this I shall most certainly say: "How magnificent are your works, O Lord! In wisdom you have made them all; you are the only worthy herald of yourself; for you alone know how many things you have made, and behold, they are very good."
B Come hither, O choir of the forefathers, councils of the patriarchs, assemblies of the prophets; come hither to join us in our festival. For now it is granted to us to see those things which it was our greatest prayer to witness. And behold, all of you, and rejoice, having now attained the object of your hopes. I believe that this matter has even given the angels reason for the greatest gladness; for they are led by love for men, just as the Lord, whom they serve, has embraced men with supreme love. For if they take maximum pleasure whenever one sinner is led by repentance and returns to his senses, by what cheer would they not be affected when they see so many souls, all at once and with great speed, having left the prince of the underworld behind them, as if set free? And now indeed they rejoice together with them, present as they are. For with Hades emptied, heaven is filled with the spirits of the prophets, it is filled with the righteous, it is filled with the patriarchs. C And after them are the apostles in the place they have taken in heaven, and the martyrs, an innumerable addition to those who dwell there. To those who are holy and to those who have otherwise lived righteously for God, a heavenly region has been assigned. For this fills the many mansions which Christ teaches exist in the house of his Father. And mourning is driven away from every side, and joy has been introduced in its stead, by which we wipe away from the soul the misery that had previously followed after the fall. For according to the multitude, he says, of my sorrows in my heart, your consolations have cheered my soul. And all things have been reversed. And we who were humble have been exalted, and have been led up from the pit of misery D and from the mire of the clay. But he who exalted himself and raised his head above the cedars of Lebanon has perished, and is now no more. For his fences have been leveled, and his strongholds have been turned into terror. Such a trophy our king has set up, not bringing an army, not placing his trust in horses, not having taken up weapons, not bringing engines of war against the strongholds of his enemies. But he alone, by himself, has broken the powers of the enemies; for he is almighty. And the matter is not far from an enigma. For the humble one, the poor one, the homeless one, the one who had nowhere to lay his head, the one who suffered so much and finally died, this one, having become among the dead, is...
A stripped of all rule and authority and of the world-ruler of darkness. And previously, perhaps, the enemy used to count how many he ruled; now, however, he could not even accurately calculate the number of those who, serving as soldiers under Christ, are conquering him. And then he might have been troubled if he did not seem to rule over many; now, however, he would suffer the most terrible things if the more moderate of those who contend with him were not withdrawing.
I have also these things to add, and perhaps not irrelevantly. It was night from the first Adam until the new Adam; but from then on, day dawned for all, which the Sun of righteousness knows how to make, who knows no setting. It was winter, and all things were benumbed by the cold of sin; on one side danger stood, on the other sloth had cast a [tranquil] sleep over things. There was gloom, and those who thought they were walking in the day were unable to see; but from then on, a clear serenity broke through for all, the clouds having either been banished or dissolved by the Sun, who allows for no hiding. There was strife and war, and they brought about much slaughter among men; but from then on, deep peace has been confirmed. Such are the wonderful works of God, glorified indeed by angels, worthy to be sung and celebrated by men, dreadful to demons, and praised by all creation. B He restored to us an illustrious salvation, namely the descent of God from heaven to earth, a glorious birth from a Virgin, and a glorious routing of every disease and infirmity by Christ the Physician; among other things, however, it shone most gloriously in Christ’s very descent into Hades, and in the overthrow of the kingdom which the adversary had obtained against us; and by that gift, by which power is given to us to trample and tread upon his head. Add to this that no worthy thanks are required of us, but it is enough to follow our good Leader and to hasten straight toward the kingdom.
Perhaps someone of those who are eager to learn might step into our midst and ask: "Tell me, why did the Savior announce his counsel for a longer time above the earth than under the earth, and why did He define both periods by a triad, the former of years, the latter of days?" But I think that for such a one, before he has even proposed the whole question, the answer will come into his mind, and there will be no need of a teacher. For you are all taught of God. C Let him reflect on these things by himself: how, for those who are still living, the body causes various turmoils and infinite external obstacles befall them; whereas the souls which are in Hades are confined by no enclosure, having been divested of their bodies. Whence they needed longer and more continuous instruction (in order that, just as water by falling often hollows out a stone, so the Word might soften the soul); but for these, since they are like the air, which is most easily yielding, such was their nature that they could immediately grasp in their mind what was announced to them. And a triad is introduced for both periods because its excellence is manifold and various: for the first is [the number of] power according to [God's] activity, and according to it time itself is measured, and the transcendent [nature] of it was made manifest by the triad.
A For if God is also a Trinity, just as He is a Monad, the Savior, by teaching us to honor God in a Trinity even here, or by showing Himself to be one of the Trinity, thus also ordered those things relating to time.
Seeing these things and what preceded them, let the Jews not be offended by His flesh. For if God, being of a generated nature, could not be seen in His naked state, He was made visible in that [flesh], so that to those who rejected the vision of Him, He might demonstrate the power that cannot be perceived by sight. But there is no one among the other prophets who did not denounce them as being wicked, and John even likened them to a brood of vipers. For the nation is truly a brood of vipers, as those who with a venomous bite destroyed Him in whose bosom they were nurtured. B These are they who, through many questionings, laid snares for the Savior; but He dissolved them. They, imitating the hydra in the myths, as soon as the first head was cut off, readily caused another to spring up. And when that was removed, they did not delay in presenting a third, then one after another, until, having presented many and having lost them all, in the end they armed themselves with calumny. And thus, setting upon Him, they seized Him who was willing, and led Him away to the cross.
For the fact that He who commands legions of spirits, and calms the winds, and walked upon the seas, appeared to mortal men as no better—and not even equal to the most worthy—is without doubt not a sign of their power, but a proof of His long-suffering and deeper economy. C Since God, as even those who were crucifying Him might admit, having stripped those who had taken His honor from Him and attributed it to dead idols, did not uproot and destroy them by their very roots, He brings forth the most evident sign of His own forbearance. I, for my part, know that He was able not to suffer, but He was willing; for it was necessary that these men fill up the measure of their fathers. And since those ancestors had colluded in the murder of the prophets, it was necessary that they go forward with one consent to Him who had been foretold by them, a fact which certainly can provide a remarkable excuse for the sins of the fathers. But if this has happened, and ancient crimes are compounded by a new act of daring, D wretched are those who begat them for the murder of the prophets; more wretched are those who were born for the slaughter of Christ. For the mind of that nation is evil, and especially of those who profess to stand at the head of the Law. And it vexed them all the more that they saw the Savior offering Himself as worthy of the things He taught, while they were conscious to themselves that they were straying far from the ordinances of the Law. For to them, to be approved in life and character (for that is otherwise difficult) was considered something to be neglected as useless; but many were overflowing in discourse and doctrine; for indeed they were...
A required to be the first to take their seats, and to knit their brows against others; the law of Moses was immediately on their tongues; but in those instances where they saw the condemnation coming for their transgressing the law, they immediately put forward the traditions of the elders. For the canceling of the law of God by the teachers seemed less significant than indulging their own lust and devouring the goods of others. Indeed, whenever I see the Jews, in the midst of the multitude of miracles which the Savior performed, remaining unmoved by any sense of them, I find nothing with which to compare their savagery, nor have I sufficient imagery to grasp it. And yet they boast that the nation is nurtured by miracles. And they glory that by many B miracles they were freed from the hand of the Egyptians, and that it was a great wonder when Moses performed the manual labor of crossing the Red Sea on foot, and that they found food and drink while journeying through the desert, which did not happen without something extraordinary taking place. Peoples and kings were defeated by them in war, cities were laid waste, the promised land was taken as an inheritance, and these things were full of miracles, and they were accomplished by leading miracles; but I do not see that even their fathers remained faithful and well-disposed toward God in those matters, and since their own mind did not walk the same path as theirs, how could one show that they drew their lineage from those fathers? And indeed, I judge them C to be even more demented than those before them, who plotted against their benefactor and who now station guards at the tomb, because they fear a dead man. For tell me, if he is a dead man, what do you fear? But if you do fear, it is manifest that your conscience does not allow you to be at rest, even if you struggle with yourself to bring down the moon, as the saying goes. For this is He to whom it was not even difficult to be carried upon the Cherubim. Envy (if you will admit the truth) forced you to thirst for the blood of the Savior. O noble teachers of the law! It was not possible to have the same disposition, to desire with all zeal to be called masters, and while teaching others, to make yourselves lawless. Let us leave these things aside. D You deem it wise to cast aside so many miracles, and you think you have brought aid not to God in God, but rather upon your own heads. For whether you have railed against one of your own people, yet one not accommodated to your own customs, as if he were one of the people, or whether he be a stranger and bestows all praise upon you, you do not recognize one who is among those who are genuine. But now you object to me regarding the Sabbaths and their violation, but I, on the contrary, will set before you the miracles. For these everywhere accompanied Christ, no differently than shadows accompany bodies, and it is better always, and even on the Sabbaths themselves, to save a soul than to let it be destroyed, unless perhaps you would also accuse the sun because it knows not how to rest on the Sabbaths, but by rising, it creates the day. And yet, it is by no small interval of forbearance...
that it would have been more reasonable A for the sun not to appear above the earth, than for this One, being God, to refrain even for a little while from doing good. Furthermore, is it not the height of absurdity, if you gladly behold the sun, even when you are at leisure, yet you command that the Master of the sun—who performs such great deeds which the sun could not perform, even if it were able, and for which you would gladly receive the benefit—should differ in no way from a soulless statue? Come now, look at Him, and see if He knows how to observe rest, even when it is the Sabbath. B Indeed, it is the law of nature that the body should rest; but He who is unseen by you, God, does the greatest works of all, destroying the Hades of the dead, destroying death, and releasing from inescapable bonds the souls that have been miserably afflicted there from ages past. For whoever takes away from God the power to act, takes away also His very existence. Do you wish to learn that Christ, having descended into Hades, bound the strong man and plundered his vessels? Consider, I pray, the earthquake for me, the soldiers sleeping like the dead, the seals remaining undisturbed, and Him who was guarded having left the guard-post of the tomb; C and in addition to these, the presence of the angels, and the stone rolled away by them. Let these be for you proofs of the invisible, as visible things are teachers of those not seen. For it is not only with your body that you live, but also with your soul. Or perhaps you do not admit that you even possess a soul, because it escapes your bodily eyes? Let these be yours as the symbols of victory. All are great, all are glorious, spread abroad and believed in everywhere on earth, even if you yourself disbelieve ten thousand times over. Does not Moses seem to you to have prefigured these things of old? But to me he does. For why should he not? He also descended into the darkness of Egypt, he waged war against the tyrant Pharaoh with many and grievous plagues, D he overcame him, he released the people from tyranny, he led them out from there, and he overwhelmed Pharaoh and his entire army in the depths of the sea. It is not obscure that these were types of the things that were to come.
Since who is it that persuades you that God has undertaken such great exertion for your sake alone—you, the murmurer, the ungrateful one, whom He openly saw falling away from Him day by day, and proceeding toward abominations? I, for my part, examining and searching out the matter in many ways, seek to see what I could find worse than your degenerate worthlessness, and I am at a loss on every side. For what, in truth, could be more depraved than this—to refuse to turn your mind to and take full enjoyment of such things as anyone would wish to encounter (especially when it can be done without labor or expense)—tell me, I beseech you, oh you who perpetually refuse and decline to profess the truth? But what better thing would you have desired to happen to you than this, or who could announce greater things to you, or from whence could a more advantageous abundance of God be yours, if you do not attain to this one? What is worse
than for one to be cursed, having swerved from His worship? For the sum of the evils which one could suffer is to fall away from the faith toward the true God. A Learn how all things that have come together for our salvation are in every way worthy of faith. An angel announced to the Virgin the seedless conception, and that the Lord was with her. Angels appeared to her who was bringing forth, singing of glory, peace, and good will to God, both on earth and among men. An angel standing by dispels Joseph’s suspicion regarding the Virgin. And now he brings them down into Egypt with the infant; now he leads them back from there. What need is there to recount the angels who in the meantime ministered to the Word of God while He lived here, or those who appeared to the disciples after the resurrection, when He had been taken up? B And now, too, angels seal our salvation against the Jews, and confirm the resurrection. O the miracle! How much faith do these things draw along with them! For if such a cloud of men had not been present, but one man only had been present just once, should he not have been believed? But not even this helped Zacharias. For if we saw no angel, would the things themselves not have received such a nature, that even with outside testimony absent, it is as though it were present? For these things are of such a kind that no other faith is to be desired. Such arguments, even if they had not created faith in anyone else, were sufficiently efficacious to have aroused even the most stupid. But enough of these things regarding them. As for me, let my discourse end when I have added these things. C Blessed is he who, even as He hung upon the wood, looked upon Christ and confessed Him as God, like that thief! Happy is he who, for the sake of the poor, has clothed Christ, who was naked, just as Joseph did. If, like Nicodemus, you anoint Christ with good works, no small rewards will be laid up for you with Him. If, like Mary and the other Mary, you bring myrrh, performing pious deeds, and anoint Christ, you shall not see Christ from afar, and you shall hear from Him the word "rejoice." Go to the hiding apostles, and if, like Thomas, it happens to you to doubt the resurrection, you will perhaps be angry with someone because you yourself did not behold Christ with the others; D but do not remain so until the end. Rather, being converted, bow your knees and believe, and proclaim Him as God, glorified with the Father and the Spirit, now and unto the ages of ages. Amen.
ENCOMIUM OF MAXIMUS PLANUDES ON THE HOLY, GLORIOUS, ALL-PRAISED, AND CHIEF APOSTLES PETER AND PAUL.
(This most prolix homily, because of a defect in the manuscript, had been published by Gretser, curtailed by half, under the name of Gregory of Nyssen, at Ingolstadt in the year 1620. It now appears complete from the Coislinian manuscript 1187, with our translation added up to the place where Gretser's edition begins. — EDIT. PATR.)
It seemed to me, as I prepared to say something concerning the apostles, that this was no great labor, nor a difficult undertaking; and a certain reasoning persuaded me that it was impossible for one to be in need of matter for speaking about the noble deeds of the apostles or about their grace, just as the occasion for speaking about the splendor of the stars of the night is never lacking; for it is before one's eyes wherever one might gaze at the heavens. Therefore, I willingly began the discourse, trusting that the treatment would succeed very easily for me, because perhaps in such matters one does not expect worse things, but always hopes for better, and from this is inspired with the greatest impulse toward speaking the whole truth. When, therefore, the present occasion arrived whereby I was led to the praising of these great men, and I was already at the point of beginning their praises, that true reasoning—if ever it was present at other times—and a great abundance of things to be discussed, admonished me concerning how one ought to employ praises. But that task did not seem easy; rather, here even more than elsewhere, fitting words were lacking where a frequency of materials dominated; and this seems to me to have happened by a certain necessity. For one and the same power ought not be present to one speaking about two, as when one must speak simply about many, and again about many and great things with a fuller mouth. Just as you would not say that the same expertise and strength must necessarily inhabit both him who simply addresses many and him who speaks words at once to many and to illustrious figures, and who enters into engagements with many and noble opponents A. B
A If, therefore, one must ask for pardon and, acknowledging one's own weakness, approach the task of speaking, I myself do not think otherwise nor do I persuade myself that I am permitted to attempt anything greater than all the others. But I see that a sufficient excuse, clearly applicable to me, is available from those who have previously committed similar deeds. B Whatever, therefore, it fell to any of those to say who have considered it right to praise others, when they entered the struggle on their own behalf, I wish that all these things had been said for me; and let the same be thought by the rest. For if someone, each time he makes a subject for himself out of praises, does not then consider it absurd to confess that he is attacking a subject greater than his own strength, how would this not be the occasion C to say this now as well, and even more so than for others? For it is a pair from the Twelve that is set before us to praise, and the question is which of them we shall praise first. I believe, however, if one must also express our own opinion, that there is no one among all who, upon hearing that Peter and Paul are to be praised, would not plainly see that the panegyrist has girded himself for a work of the greatest magnitude. Yet one might perhaps say that the apostles have inspired someone with their own love, so that what was always celebrated by them about their Master, they might also celebrate about themselves, in that they were, as it were, consorts of those who spoke. But if there did not exist many sources of praise for the apostles, it could certainly have happened that one who excelled in speaking might appear to be speaking so as to acquire glory; but now you have so many sources, and others upon others, that there is a fear that, whatever one may say, one might seem to have said nothing, or to have suffered the same fate as a small fire which, when much wood is piled upon it, is extinguished. Therefore, the struggle is seen to be great and difficult, not only because it is necessary to speak many things about many, but because it is a great cause for great subjects; D and neither could he who used many but not great words here, nor he who used the opposites of these, be seen to have brought forth the apostolic majesty from what has been said. Many, certainly, of those who have decided to praise certain people—whether they have found something worthy of those who are praised, and know how to speak and to admire, do not cease to weave long discourses many times about the same subject; or, if they see nothing praiseworthy, they nevertheless, though it be paradoxical to say so, do not hesitate to praise nothing, doing something like as if someone, having nothing to show, were to set forth poverty itself as a demonstration of wealth and think he was doing something. As for me, there are so many and such things to praise concerning the apostles that I even feel dizzy when I behold the multitude of these praises. And if, when I presume to celebrate their virtue, I were to survey them, that it should suffice to say that they are praised for many things will be seen as the praise of their supreme acts, and a desire remains; this, I believe, will make every pretext appear slight, not immediately to be deemed worthy of pardon if I, not having attained what was fitting, should appear to dare more than to love. Indeed, I myself was holding myself back for these reasons from speaking, and I would have preferred to be silent, but it seemed unjust if someone, having nothing else but words, then, those who wish to speak,
A should pass over the disciples and servants of the Word, and lay some other foundation for his speech before them. But in truth, so great a foundation is provided, and it seems to me, once I have besought the apostles—and this is customary in great matters—that I should proceed to the further parts of my discourse. Be present, therefore, O wise disciples of the Word, and by your inspiration assist and stir up my words, so that what you have done well may not be poorly recounted; and if at any time you see me laboring, reach out your hand and strengthen me, as a trainer does for a struggling wrestler. B It is long since someone, following the laws of encomiums, used to mention the country and lineage of those he praised. Yet I know well that these things seem small to the apostles, even if, when compared with things that are splendid among men, they do not appear worthless; for these are gifts of the disordered and uneven movement of those in generation, and even if they happen to appear bright to someone who wishes to use them and bring them to light, and again, if one wishes to remedy the absence of virtue, such praises, as is fitting, will be acceptable and pleasing. But for those whom their own deeds alone suffice to adorn, ambition in these matters is superfluous—just as if someone who possesses many gold vessels, wishing to show himself wealthy, were to put earthenware ones in the middle, even if he were the son of illustrious parents and sprung from a common country, but known for noble deeds. Indeed, I do not hold to any of those who provide themselves as the actors in such matters at all times; rather, I follow the ways of the apostles. If, however, these things seem too careless to anyone, he shall hear—although he himself, having foreseen it, acknowledges that for both of them the same thing is attributed as to Abraham—which I shall recount, though not to those who are ignorant. C
Into Egypt God led them gloriously, but even more gloriously He led them out, by whom He so often lashed Egypt, as often as transgression occurred, and finally gave a reason by which the lashings could be numbered; by whom He parted the sea, and rained food from above, and bound the link of the victories of peoples and kings, and stayed the sun, and overthrew countless cities, and divided the land of promise by lots, and sent forth a choir of divine prophets; and, most important of all, He appeared among us at the end, having lived according to our nature. One will hear of their native lands: for the one, Bethsaida of Galilee; for Paul, on the other hand, Tarsus in Cilicia; D of which each is more conspicuous than the other: the former, because Christ often visited it and performed miracles there; the latter, because it was the capital of the province and excelled in the marvelous circuit of its walls and in the clear and famous Cydnus, which, as often as I praise it, I seem to fall short of the truth. For it is not even permitted to say as much about it as books claim Alexander did. And indeed, what greater honor could be conferred upon a river than to have been used as a bath for such a great king? These things, then, which I have to say regarding lineage and country, and more besides,
I could have said, had I not thought it in vain to strive to speak more to those who already know. For as perception is of itself, so it would not be intelligent to annoy those who know all things by diverting the flow of speech as if we were redirecting water into a different channel. Therefore, it is altogether necessary not to pass over those [points] that have not been mentioned, even if they must be compared with lesser things. For the greatness of the apostles' virtue is clearer from this: to the one, the sea and nets were of concern, while Paul's trade was tent-making, and these crafts shaped their life in a way that was neither idle nor, if I may say so, the instigators of any evil, but they lived prudently and moderately. This is what happened with the apostles; if anyone among the people has something great to say about them, he will demonstrate it with greater examples, let alone prove lesser things. But if some prudent men remember how much they have been changed, and how much they differ from the multitude in glory, and from those whom wealth and power hinder from walking the path that leads to heaven.
I wished to add this, which does not fall outside the purpose, namely that Paul had been enrolled in the citizenship of the Romans, which indeed is the greatest of all civil honors: when I knew that Peter had not obtained this, I saw myself brought into straits, if it were necessary to speak something speciously about the one which would not immediately be an ornament to the other. When I was turning these things over in my mind, C and knew not whither to turn, Peter, interceding quietly, says: "Speak," he says, "in place of this one thing, many and great things that you have heard, namely that I was a fellow-citizen of Christ, and that I received Him into my own house, and that I received the strength of a panther from the Savior's touch." He says also that to me there is something greatest to boast of, and more sublime than if one were enrolled ten thousand times in the citizenship of the Romans. If you wish also to reign, pay the tribute at the same time to the King of all. I was immediately relieved hearing these things; but a little later I fell again into greater straits than before, and hence what pertained to Paul seemed much less than before. But I was of the mind that both should appear equally notable. Come hither, then, you also who are present, and pray with me that whatever does not ornament the discourse may depart, and show that what belonged to Peter would also have been Paul's, if it had been permitted to him to use Galilee as his country, but that Paul's [privileges] were not at all common to Peter. For he did not possess that inheritance so as to be enrolled among the number of Roman citizens. But if the things that returned to each annually were greater for Peter: in common poverty, Peter would have more easily than Paul repaired what was lacking, which has been demonstrated.
Let equal honor be given here to the apostles; and let the fact that the one surpasses the other in an individual part, and is surpassed, maintain an equal struggle. Nevertheless, it is not obscure that it is an absolute necessity for me, once I have begun the encomium, D
A and to go forward with the discourse; but I perceive that the matter does not proceed as easily for me as in the case of those who have already spoken, nor as easily as I advance; rather, it becomes more difficult for those who come after, and I seem to myself like one who has entered a labyrinth: the further I penetrate into the mechanism, the more difficult an exit I prepare for myself. For I see that this, too, imposes a double dilemma upon me. For since many things flow together from every side which one might praise in the apostles, it is not easy to find what one ought to say, since it is impossible to abstain from the others; nor, when one has found them, is it easy to arrange them worthily for each and appear to those who were first as if filled with the first things. For what is difficult for me to understand in these things is secondary? For, since all things are most beautiful, no one would deign to seek what is more beautiful; nothing from this, as I think, labours to be equitable; but I say that neither in those things which are said by way of superposition B will one justly speak of anything more sublime, and since not all things are as beautiful as has been said, if one wishes to take what is more beautiful, he will not seem to have honoured one of any kind more than to have shown the rest to be below their proper capacity. Concerning these things, indeed, I believe that I am well; for time proves the justice of individuals. To me, indeed, this is certain: that the order of the rest is always in the second place, and that all signs appear in a circle, both the first and the second.
First, therefore, that I may speak of the first things (for it is necessary to begin from somewhere), it would be fitting for the tongue to use discourse concerning the calling of the apostles into grace; and the Saviour is present to us after C his bodily advent to men, and not wishing to obscure his baptism any longer, but to manifest himself. And having decided that he needed witnesses of his own conduct and of the demonstration of his miracles, he took up first of all Peter with his brother; and his taking up occurred as he was passing by the Sea of Galilee, or the Lake of Tiberias, and having seen them there, and called them, and commanded them to follow him, and promised to teach them the fishing of men instead of the fishing of fish; and the obedience of the fisherman, how quickly he abandoned the nets with his art, and how quickly he followed the one calling! Thus Peter obeyed more quickly than D our speech can tell, and he departed from there having become a disciple; thus, while he was fishing, he did not know that he was caught for a much better catch than his own fishing. Thus the Saviour himself fished for him who was to fish the whole world; or rather, as if using a great net, he enclosed the whole world within the nets for Peter; to whom, indeed, even one word sufficed, so that, abandoning what he had in his hands, he would follow the caller; what, then, is it likely that he experienced concerning the Master, having received those many and noble words, and having been a constant sharer of his table and salt, and having been present to the end in all his actions and miracles? It is manifest that he had surpassed every degree of love, and I truly believe that there was so much ardour in the apostle, that if he had foreseen that the Master would call him, he would have anticipated the voice of the Master. And indeed, with no time intervening, he ran when called; and what he had before, he abandoned more willingly than he had acquired it.
And in that he was chosen for discipleship, he did not imagine it to be of his own volition, lest he should at the end remain with the Master; but he set himself to accomplish whatever was needed for His sake, prepared even when deaths were threatened, choosing rather to leave life with Him than to be able to live apart from being with Him. For to one who loves as Peter loved, separation from the beloved is a terrible thing. Therefore, there is no place where Christ did not have him with Him. For even when He was teaching, Peter was more eagerly filled with the admonition than the others; if He showed healings of A bodies and souls together, the restoration came to those who were suffering with Peter as a spectator and witness; if He entered a house to raise someone from the dead, while the others were ordered to remain outside the house, He took Peter as witness to the miracle; when He went up into Thabor to demonstrate His divinity and splendor, a few with Peter, besides the Leader, saw the light that shone around the Master, and heard the voice sent down from the Father. Jesus was going abroad, and Peter, taken hold of to the depths by love for the Master, was going abroad with Him. He walks upon the waters, and you see Peter daring to do the same things as the Master; and if you see him sinking from fear, see him saved by faith in the Master. He foretells that He will suffer at the hands of the chief priests and scribes and the others, and there is immediately Peter’s rebuke and excuse. He said to the twelve when some of the disciples had departed, "Do you also wish to go away?" and Peter, to whom no one had replied, was persuaded to speak a word of love. B See, furthermore, Jesus C wishing to wash Peter’s feet; and see Peter first indeed bashfully refusing, but afterwards, when he heard what he would not have endured to see even in a dream—offering his hands and his head. See Jesus betrayed, and Peter fighting for the Master, and cutting off the ear of one of those who had seized Jesus, and following as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and sitting there, waiting to see what the end would be; and after this he went to the tomb. Such is said to have been the nature of Peter. And indeed, his purpose was consistent in all things, and accommodated to his primacy, and providing us with particular occasions for praise in the course of our speech. But it was necessary not only for Christ to have disciples readily compliant in the manner of men in their way of life, but also to vindicate the magnificence and ardor of the Pharisees. But it is permitted to see a wondrous thing. For how, indeed, would either He be God, or this man be Paul, had He not shown something more miraculous than Himself? He was not commissioned with the apostolate because he was leading a tranquil life, nor was he someone holding a good or false opinion about the teaching of Christ; but He chose a transgressor of his native laws, who was leading not only himself but others D upon an evil path; he taught contempt for the laws and declared war upon God, making light of the thunders and lightnings sent down from heaven—and although changed from Saul to Paul, he would burn with zeal for Christ, and would stimulate others also to the faith and the knowledge of truth; and indeed, since he was the procurator and patron of the Law and had Jerusalem as his principal seat, for which cause especially he seemed to be set to observe them, and because
A he used them as assistants B as he wished: yet all those things did not hinder him from following the calling. Who would not be struck and ashamed to perform such things as Paul? Certainly God alone, for no man would have sung a palinode, or healed contrary things with contrary means, with light from above and a calling from thence. Thus, a river rushing violently could not be driven back even by ten thousand hands. But God is said to have performed that miracle long ago, and is certainly believed to be able to do the same always. He showed Paul, still a young man, to be a new man; for a serpent does not shed its old age together with its skin as easily as Paul shed the old man together with the antiquity of the Law. Therefore, he proceeds to effect reconciliation, not for himself—for this is the way of many—but for all whom the heaven is above their head. And this is certainly a wonder in Paul, that he did not change his zeal with his purpose, but the same zeal flourished in both states. Hence, no place held him twice; nature-made to be swift, he proceeded everywhere on earth, eagle-like, snatching to salvation whomever fortune had offered him; wherefore no one saw a quiet time for him. Hence, if he did not join entire nights to the days, proclaiming and teaching, he had no roof; hence, although he gained nothing from those with whom he consorted, he was content; but not having those whom he had not yet overcome with his words—and let no one say how much he thought it a loss to be stirring—since he was truly an insatiable lover of human souls, not joining them to himself as if in marriage, but to God, to whom he had also betrothed his own soul, so that he no longer lived himself, but had the living God within him. Such are the things concerning the calling of the apostles, as I say according to what follows; and the calling is indeed different in time, but wonderful and equally honorable in both, and providing the ultimate proof of their readiness toward what is good. C But my discourse is next succeeded by their love toward Christ; which, being nothing less—nay, rather greater than the other accomplishments—is why the apostolic primacy is conferred upon them before all others. For such and so great are the signs of benevolence toward the Master given by them, that one who would strive to speak many and great things about them would be convicted of saying too little, even if he spoke much. First, therefore, when the other disciples answered the Savior differently as He questioned them: "Whom do men say that I am?", and when afterwards they asked that they themselves might state their own opinion, Peter, as if happily hitting upon something and outstripping the band of the rest as their leader, used the opportunity he had long been bringing to birth; and without simulating or dissimulating the opinions of men concerning the Savior, he said, "You are Christ the Son of the living God." The reward for which confession was blessedness and the persuasion that the revelation came to Peter from God, and the building of His Church upon the rock, and the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given, and the promise that whatever was bound or loosed by Peter, that D the same...
A should remain in a like state even in the heavens. B And the weight of the rewards declared that Peter not only loved the Master more than other men, but also more than the disciples themselves, and those to whom it was granted to follow Christ. Certainly, as to his seeming to love more, I restrain myself when I approach that subject, lest I speak something too bold. Yet I will dare: for if one were to inquire thoroughly, you will see that the other disciples were not far from the fervor of Peter; so that, beyond the fact that he followed Christ, he had nothing else that could be demonstrated above them, unless one were to say—and this is a common thing—that his consensus with them in this regard, that he agreed, was some favor granted to Peter as a theologian. For when Peter was present, he claimed that there was no one of all men who loved the Master more than he did, nor did he see how anyone else could have appeared to merit more grace, as if it were necessary that, wherever some disciple ought to excel the others, Peter should everywhere have obtained the victory: and that he was not asked first, seems to me to cause him great displeasure. For that he should have brought forth such judgments of his own accord was perhaps too bold for a disciple. But who among those who were then present would not have preferred to hear those words, rather than to have the gold of Croesus, and the army of Xerxes, and all things that have ever been granted to any mortal on earth? C A similar thing also Paul is believed to have said and proclaimed: that nothing—neither tribulation, nor distress, and the things that follow these, nor things present, nor things to come, nor principalities, nor archangels, nor any creature—will separate him from the love of Christ. For having placed these two opposites before him, he showed himself invincible not only in words but in deeds themselves, in the very crisis of events; where the fear of calamities and the hope and promise of better things were present, virtue did not desert him, upon which better condition it always seemed good to him to insist. For since these two things, I mean fear and hope, although they be opposites, are nonetheless placed in the same position; I am persuaded myself that there is nothing more to be feared and hoped for than the doctrine of divine things. For as there is nothing more excellent or more fearful than the Divinity, so the soul ought never to be without a firm persuasion concerning this matter, unless it wishes to succumb to fear. D For just as the soul which, as is fitting, thinks rightly of God, obtains good hope, so to Paul, who burned with the purest love of Christ, this lot befell. For he loved Christ not only in the present time, but with an extension of mind and meditation he sought what he would be in the future, so that he might satisfy his duty, and desired to be worthy as one who would be a witness of things future and things past. This lot, therefore, if the apostles
B—where shall we place them as to their rank, when we consider them also in the intensity of their love, and mingled with greater zeal?
Evidence of this fact I can surely know from this: for while I admire Peter for his former love and confession, I no less admire the zeal which he took up on behalf of the Master who was being betrayed. For that he alone, against a multitude shouting and approaching with swords and clubs, dared to respond with equal arms—and especially in that turmoil of affairs in which it had been predicted that all the disciples would depart, as if no memory of his words remained—is truly the mark of a noble and very loving soul demonstrating in deed what he had previously shown in words. And because it was not in vain that he had previously confessed that he loved, although the matter seemed rather audacious, he did not abstain from his intention on account of the sedition of the Jews; it was a mark of a soul exceedingly loving. For so great was the love of Peter for the dear head of his Master, that not even the love of fathers for their children can be compared to that love.
Invincible, certainly, appears Paul in his zeal for Christ after Peter. And never did he suffer the Gospel to be despised in any crisis. For immediately after his calling, he went about the synagogues of the Jews around Damascus, C stirring up crowds and making conversions among those with whom he conversed, and finally brought his adversaries to such straits that it was difficult for them to know whether they ought rather to marvel at the change of Paul, who before had been emulous for the Law, or at the fact that they had set aside the rational account of his activities due to the necessities of his words; and whether he was feigning his conversion as a game and acting with contrary words, or if those things he now did were sincere, because the past events made the disciples believe his conversion was true, or rather a stage-play to dissimulate his depraved nature. For I, too, was distrustful of that shepherd, as if he were previously a wolf; for from that leader I endured many wounds, and [I bore the memory of] the death of Stephen, who was overwhelmed with stones; and to him I offered the accusations of many penalties.
Evidence of this zeal did he give in what happened at Paphos in Cyprus, where Elymas the magician paid the penalty of blindness, who was known more for being a magician than for anything else. For since he had set himself up as an adversary to the part of Paul, and was trying to turn the proconsul away from the faith, Paul did not deem it sufferable to engage in a contest of words D with him on equal terms; but setting himself higher, he cast the magician to the ground, and rendered his opposition so ruinous to him, that he not only did not draw the proconsul to his own favor, but on the contrary, he caused him to believe, and even caused him to be astonished at the doctrine. For it was right that such things should be endured by one who neither wished to enter the path of truth himself, nor ceased to hinder those who wished to enter. With the same zeal he also smote Ananias, the high priest, the whitewashed wall.
B Indeed, our zealot saw the high priest not only pretending to enact the law but acting in his affairs out-side the law; he thought that he ought [to be smitten]—and, with an oath, I would say it was most excellent, had the apostles not forbidden the taking of oaths. He believed, therefore, that as it is impossible for God to be deceived, so neither should those who are set over men in His stead be accused of falsehood or lawless conduct. Such was the zeal of the apostles for Christ. For whenever they themselves had to suffer, they were the most humble of all; indeed, there is no time when they could be seen seeking help for themselves. But in those instances where they knew their Master was not being worshiped or was not being properly acknowledged, they were the most fervent of all.
And, to dispose my discourse with greater care, we know that they conferred many benefits upon many, and often; but among those who had erred, they never inflicted punishment unless it was certain that they had opposed the doctrine, and even those were few in number—nay, one would hardly find any, even if one searched with anxiety. For they understood well of what spirit they were; they did not wish to root out the people, but the evil, nor did they attempt the opposite of what was due, as if someone promising the art of medicine were then to fight not against the disease but against the sick person, and failing to cut out the affliction, were to attack the sufferers themselves, perhaps falsely denouncing those in good health as infirm, so that he might not have an idle hand even toward them.
For they did not pass by even those who were not ill without some rebuke, C but sometimes they even administered to those who were not sick medicines—not in a way to make them suffer, but with a gentleness intended for good results. So that if some judgment were held as to who of those entrusted with such great authority had done the most good to men, the apostles would surely prevail by all votes. And if a tribunal were again opened to ask who of all those in whose hands great matters had been placed appeared to have caused pain to others the least, I believe that to all, the apostles would seem innocent, or rather, it would be established that they had never in reality harmed anyone, but that all the benefits of everyone else would seem small in comparison to their benefits. But these were the footsteps of those who followed the Master; for He, too, never ceased to do good to those whom faith brought to Him, and I do not believe the world itself could contain the books in which all things that He did were written one by one, nor could anyone, even if he had it in mind to do so, add anything new to His benefits.
And as for the fact that He was deprived of the power to punish, He brought a suit of sterility D against the tree that was fleeing from life, just as a mother might pretend to threaten a child with a stone or some-thing else among the inanimate objects that do not have life, and might pretend to strike it; for that which the Savior used [to this end…]
A to persuade and was clearly inclined to by nature is such a thing. For the good is not by nature at a time when it is not good to be. But for him, having once struck fear into those who saw him, lest through sloth they might carelessly regard his words, such things can one praise in the apostles, and in addition the comeliness of these things, and that which is greater, as being in the zeal of every great mind to see; so that he would be able to soften even an oak and adamant, and that those who were caught by their words might have nothing else that they could call more desirable, except the apostles. For if from fear and ferocity hatred is born and grows in B those who are ruled by those who conduct themselves in such a way, it would be probable that what is decent and mild, having long departed from the straight path, would become the author of love. Therefore, not only did they give this proof of zeal for their teacher, as has been said, but also of sympathy toward men; nor could one say to how many they confirmed the dogmas that were put forth regarding this. For they grieved with those who were suffering, and rejoiced with those who were faring better, because of the same reasoning from both sides; and what no other person except them would have boasted, nor would have dared to undertake for his own sake, they boasted that they had been entrusted by Christ for the brethren. This makes them excel all those who have ever been prominent; this makes them overcome all, when they have provided the final example of piety and virtue, best and inimitable, left to men who are to come. C Regarding this, let no one, looking at it, marvel at a father not fighting in the front for his children, nor at leaders not battling in the front of the rank; for even if it happened that these should fall, at least for those for whom the struggle is, salvation would become more certain. For the measure here is not moderate, but equal to heaven if compared with earth, and to eternal time if with human life, and to the apostles if with other men, that which surpasses. What might anyone think is worth adding to these things? For those who would not even bear the name of being separated from Christ, for whom tribulations and distress and all things that can be thought to be more difficult than these, and life and angels and all things that are D of the uncorrupt lot, seemed small or nothing at all. So that they could draw away, they did not grieve those who were being brought to Christ through them and were drawing them away; for it was surely of the same things for them, both for Christ and for those for whose sake He gave Himself up, to be ready to risk every danger. And this summary for them of those long courses throughout the whole earth and sea confirmed that no one of all should be left behind from the kingdom, even if it were necessary to suffer something while holding onto these things; for to save others they considered to be far greater than to save themselves; so great was the bold intention and so supernatural to conceive, that he who might try to use words would fall into a difficulty, as to how they stuck to the same thing inseparably and did not ask to fall away. This is indeed the greatest thing; for how could it not be? But neither is that other thing small; for it is brother to the former and so nearly the same, because it was not brought forth by the same names; for that which they desired, to be freed from all
A necessity of being dissolved and being with Christ, and to defer that dissolution, they were daily burdened by the yearning for those whom they brought forth into the faith through the Gospel. What greater excess of love toward men could one possibly imagine? I would have considered those much outside the proposed subject, had the disciples of Christ, while claiming to possess his spirit, not endeavored with zeal to demonstrate toward their own kin the very same affection which he had. For it had not escaped those who possessed the mind of Christ, that it was in the Master’s power to remain in his own pure and untouched blessedness. Yet he, although he was above every change, did not disdain to take on a body, and to show himself equal to men, displaying the clearest proof of his love for them and living the same life with them. For it is agreed that just as the apostles gave their names back to Christ, so did they give the name of Christ to men.
B This, then, they were intent on in their hearts, and they offered more demonstrations of his benefits than all who had ever lived before them, and these more beautiful and more numerous; they were the most ready of all to do good, the most indifferent to enduring suffering, and never were they accused of doing evil, but they rejoiced all the more when they suffered evils, in so much as they saw the present sufferings to be unworthy in comparison with the glory laid up for them in heaven. They showed to all that they had used human nature, yet with a mind heavenly and far superior to earthly minds.
If it were possible for one who uses the present style of discourse to present their intentions in these matters satisfyingly to all, I would have arranged my words thus. But since I see many ratiocinations concerning these things falling short, it seems better to me to imitate the painters, who teach their students by patterns and representations rather than by thin words, and to examine what individual benefits they conferred. For the discourse worthy of such subjects is not that which merely proclaims, but that to which deeds added to words do not afford matter for shame to the speaker. And this tested discourse, so far as it is permitted me to divulge, is truly worthy to be compared to the things themselves. And this shall be in this manner. The discourse which knows this mind of the apostles, nevertheless deems it just that, when the miracles of one of them have been announced, it should pause, and C dwell upon the miracles of the other until the end; then, taking itself up, it begins to give [an account] of what remains. But if it were possible to speak everything regarding both at once, this would be its desire; however, as the speaker is divided, it will give itself to one after the other of the pair.
Peter, therefore, not to speak at length, took by the hand him who sat before the gates of the temple of Jerusalem and gave alms, and raised him onto his feet, as if he had never been troubled by any evil, although his mother had brought into the light a man lame in D both feet.
A And if one could teach men how they might mutually benefit one another, neither would have thought the kindness of the other more agreeable than his own; but rather, each would have derived as much pride from the other as their individual manner of healing differed—being at once pleasant and more solemn—in that one was deemed worthy of being touched by apostolic hands, while the other—and this was even more—needed not a hand for his restoration, but a voice alone. And while this was an individual grace for each, in common they enjoyed a cure all the more joyful for the very delay that had preceded it; for they walked upon the earth more pleasantly than all the men of their time. And I believe that for the greatest portion of time they would have disbelieved their own senses, had they not been caught in a dream by the very excess of their joy.
B It is also a solemn thing to contemplate the apostles and the grace of the miracle, which is not second to the first, if indeed it is not the first. For since those who were present at the time saw both of the lame men leaping and walking securely, they no longer treated the healers as men, but as gods. And indeed, for Paul, who was preaching so charitably, they already paid attention as if he were Hermes; and Barnabas, being with him, enjoyed the same honor. The garlands that were brought and the bulls that were to be sacrificed were of the greatest of honors; and reasonably so. For what else do men have to offer to other gods, which it was permitted for gods to have? The vastness of temples, the charm of statues, the beauty and wealth of votive offerings, altars crowded with sacrifices, and all other such retinues as befit tyrants; and they were deemed worthy of these not so much because they were gods, but because they were considered worthy of these things, which they were compelled to assume as a deification. C But they saw that the apostles partook of none of these things, but possessed and performed those things which it befitted God to have and to move toward. Moreover, in addition to these things, the grace in Paul was seen to be such as it was natural for it to be: both from God and divine. And as for the people, if the gods were able to do them some good, they were never able to come to the proof of it; but that it was God who should do what Paul was doing, this they knew and understood perfectly well. What, then, did the apostles need to do in this matter? Another, surely, would not have rejected such honors once offered, and would have prayed for them had they been absent; but they were so far from wanting to accept them, even when present, that they could not even endure what was happening even slightly—where, indeed, one might have most thought them to be gods. Since, even beyond human nature, they managed the D present things. Paul, indeed, with Barnabas, having torn their garments, suddenly presented themselves, and declaring themselves subject to human affections, refused absolutely to be sacrificed unto. Peter, on the contrary, regarding the opinion of the multitude concerning them—as if he had performed it by his own power—with a longer sermon from the ep-
- B isthole, dispels the soul of those [people]. Both, however, proclaim Christ to be God. And if one looks into the matter, it appears to have been ordered in a threefold way, and in its progression to have become more glorious than itself. For the suspicion, as if they were therapeutic gods, was outshone by the magnitude of the miracle, even though it traced its beginning to that; but for them to have rebuffed the deification and the sacrifices—and with such a God-inspired stance—from where does it not derive a greater honor from that point? Again, see how miraculously in all respects in Joppa, when Dorcas had died to the point of receiving both washings, and layings-out, and lamentations, a very brief word sufficed for Peter to show her living. Paul, too, in Troas, while discoursing until midway through the night, restored to life the youth Eutychus, who had fallen from the third story and been lifted up by his kinsfolk as dead, showing what each one, as an apostle and servant of God, is able to accomplish.
Thus, women—not only men—were by no means lacking in the capacity to acknowledge the grace of the apostles. For it was not because they differed from men in nature that they were in their zeal any more sluggish. For in Christ Jesus, there is no female or male. Each, just as much as a boy or a man, is a human being. They knew, in fact, that their Master made no distinction between the two sexes in doing good. For to Him who always acts for the good, neither sexual difference, nor night, nor day, nor the multitude of men, nor solitude, nor anything else of similar things, becomes an obstacle. In the same way, therefore, the apostles, having learned to distinguish neither nature, nor time, nor age, nor fortune, nor place, nor anything else, furthermore, whether they were called upon or not called upon, gave back to their kin those who were sick, healed, and those who were dead, alive. And they were never seen to be less than the hopes of those calling upon them, and for those who had not even asked, they were always greater. What more, then, would not amaze one: Peter in Lydda of Judea finding Aeneas C paralyzed, and binding him so that from then on he served him; or Paul on the island of Melita—Melita which is bathed by the sea of Africa near the Lesser Syrtis—granting that the father of Publius, already inclining toward death by the weight of his illness, should revive, having finally shaken off the affliction? There, for those who had sailed with Paul, it happened that they were steered with misfortune onto the island, or rather, to speak more happily, that they were saved through Paul; but for the father of Publius and those on the island suffering from illnesses, the arrival of Paul there was entirely fortunate—if indeed the flight from death is fortunate.
It has been demonstrated many times, then, that the apostles both willed and were able to bring about works more than human, so that neither diseases nor death itself could endure their presence. And if I should say that everyone would deem these things more wonderful, I believe it is not obscure that faith has been placed in the promise of the Savior. For does it not seem to everyone that the greatest of all wondrous things is the mere shadow of Peter, which recalled the sick to health and expelled demons from the possessed? Or the sudarium of Paul; and those things which, placed next to the sacred body, exercised a power equal to the shadow of the fellow-apostle? For these were D his disciples, wherefore fraud and imitation could scarcely lie hidden. And just as a trembling army and a standard raised up by the enemy, and from afar
the heard sound of a trumpet makes them instantly flee, A even so diseases and demons feared the shadow of Peter and the handkerchief of Paul; and whoever remembered the name of the apostles immediately remembered the running away of demons and diseases. And the air was not filled with cries for the people in the beginning any more than they stole themselves away from there, for those who were praying were either taking to flight or escaping without a scourge; and not to leave without damage, he thought, was no better than to go with gain.
So great was the terror instilled in the demons B that they even resorted to servile flatteries, and using a slave girl as an instrument, they preached the apostles as slaves of the Most High God and proclaimed the way of truth, although the battle of the noble athletes of Christ, raised up against them, was sufficiently manifest and needed no proclamation, so that every ear might remain closed to their flatteries. It came into the minds of the evil ones, therefore, not at all poorly, if they might succeed by flatteries in mollifying those who were against them; but this was poor, that they hoped to overcome those who were sent by Christ, and they did not even understand this, C which would not have escaped the apostles: that he who distributes faith to enemies necessarily leaves the other part—namely, to deprive his friends of it—remaining. And yet, they did not believe that they would lead astray the apostles, nor did the demon, who protected his own gang, have anything, not even if he were permitted to flow out at all; but he was also required to pay the penalty for what he had dared; for the mouth of the slave girl was stopped and she was driven away.
Who, then, seeing these things, will not immediately conceive in his mind that to the apostles of Christ was given both to heal friends and to destroy enemies? And judging what is advantageous for each side, D they were proclaimed worthy of the same crowns in both cases, both doing what was necessary and showing to others the way they ought to walk. These things, therefore, are so great and so bright that neither could others become brighter than them, nor could they be brighter than themselves; nor, if these things alone had been done by the apostles, would it be any less than what we know them all to be. But as to how they also provided themselves ready for those who, after their calling, were wiping away their own stains by repentance, and—who is so far from admiring noble deeds?—as to how one would not admire them with excess? For Peter, indeed, there would be no need of many testimonies over this; for I believe it is enough that he received the command seventy times seven times to forgive the sins of those who were repenting; which, surely, one who loved as he loved him who commanded would never have carried out without every care to guard it. However, what he himself had experienced, how much from this condition [he...]
there is no one to whom he would not have shared such grace. For if, even towards Simon the magician, who presumed to purchase the Spirit with money, he suggested repentance, much more would he be able to send to Him others who stand in need of repentance. But Paul, even now, still proclaims everywhere the love toward mankind that he wrote to the one who had fallen into sin at Corinth, authorizing love B once again, and showing it to be victorious, although he had previously established it and assigned a place for punishment in due season. For this medicine, which has been sent by God to men, is not of minor importance, but one that is able to vie in all its effects with every good work; and therefore grace acts upon bodies from souls, and from both first of all toward God: for the body does not enjoy the soul more than the soul enjoys the body. Yet both are from the munificence of God. And if anyone should say that the apostles are teachers of repentance, he would be saying what is true; and teachers who are girding themselves for the highest of all possible goods. For indeed, they have become wondrous in their apostleship, C wondrous in their life, and wondrous in their miracles; and it was permitted for them to become worthy of admiration from these, and more so than others, because it is more excellent that one be converted from error than that a dead man be raised to life: for the latter, without a doubt, remains fated to return to the tomb again, while the former, perhaps, not so to his error. Nature is so constituted that it is better for parents to have the soul of their children composed than to have the dead recalled to life, over whom they had previously rejoiced. For they loved the former intensely, having longed for them greatly; D while they grieved scarcely at all for the latter, whom they had not yet seen and whom they had not yet suffered over. This also persuades us that the apostles have been set as mediators between God and those to whom, when they repent of their former errors, a beginning of a second life is made. And it is right to give thanks to Him who, after Himself, placed them over us as teachers and saviors, He who, even while bestowing great benefits, regards what is given as small, and although He has received little, He renders thanks as for great things to the apostles who excelled in all things and bring them back mutually among us. Truly, I believe I have said things that are great and truly worthy of the apostles, and I am persuaded that those who have heard me feel the same. For regarding those things that follow, nothing is missing for them to be equally great. For if anyone were to omit these, and speak rather of all the apostles, I do not see how he could speak with their grace. For how would it not be said by someone to be worthy, and with what praises would he not extol this, namely, that now they [the apostles] come rejoicing from the sight of the judges and are exchanging ignominy for Christ into the highest honors; now, however, they are delighted in difficulties, in injuries, in necessities, and in all that one might call a fate worse than this? And now, believing this to be beautiful, they demonstrate themselves to be the last, [having been] from God so that those who were subject to death might be adorned with chains for Christ. And therefore...
ENCOMIUM OF THE HOLY APOSTLES PETER AND PAUL
...as those sentenced to death, but now are adorned by the bonds they bear for the sake of Christ? For neither Greece nor the barbarian lands saw them living abroad without dangers; rather, it happened that they had to struggle everywhere against adverse conditions, whence they were adorned with all the more splendid crowns; and whatever danger came upon them was immediately a source of joy; and the more dangerous it was, the more worthy it was of joy. To suffer misfortune all their life was considered easier by these philosophers than it was for others for a short time; and whereas others could not endure being buffeted by dangers, even for a short time, as if in winter, without great sadness, they, on the contrary, had no joy unless some evil was pressing upon them; indeed, they would perhaps have grown despondent if a greater share of misfortunes had not fallen to them. A For it was plausible to those who had followed the "imposter"—as the madness of the Jews proclaimed—but who truly followed God, as is correctly seen, that every place was opened up to them like an arena full of dangers, and that all dangers were transformed into pleasure, the one by the fame that was spread abroad, the other by faith in the truth. Hence, every prison held them as captives; but they transformed these prisons into the likeness of palaces, and lived more pleasantly than any king, although they were bound in chains and saw death hanging over them.
B For as they looked only to the heaven where they knew the Master had ascended, there was nothing upon earth [that they considered] either delightful or grievous; but that which led them along the way that tended to the Master was delightful, and that which turned them away from it was grievous. Certainly, having been rightly taught this themselves, and teaching others that through many tribulations is the entrance into the kingdom of heaven, they shone more brightly in ignominy than in honors, in bonds than in freedom, in torments than in delights. For since those who are zealous for virtue excel in all things, they excelled even in desiring to suffer more and greater things than all were able to bear. For those in whom such love of Christ has not been deeply rooted, to suffer for Him would not be thought very pleasant. But for these, they took such great delight [in it] that they would have given their lives ten thousand times each day, and if they had to suffer evils ten thousand times each day, it would have been most welcome to them. A field, too, that is incessantly plowed and turned over becomes less fit to bear fruit; for them, on the contrary, the more they were incessantly vexed in troubles, the more fortunate their souls and bodies appeared, D and to face dangers appeared to them more beautiful than living in safety appeared to others. Come then, so that some imitation of them might find a place in us, let us examine after their likeness how they lived, suffering as though they were not suffering, and how, like iron that is tempered by water, they were sharpened as if by a whetstone. And let us bring forth Peter, who, as soon as he had raised up the lame man lying in the temple, then confessed that the miracle had come to pass through the power of Christ, and urged those who were present to assent to this—the priests, I mean, and the captain of the temple, who, together with the Sadducees, had been incited against him. But they laid hands upon him and led him into custody, although [they heard?] the miracle...
But both sides misused the present circumstances: against those to whom it was not permitted to impute even the slightest sin, they did not hesitate to lay hands, and they were not ashamed of those who, because they neglected nothing, bestowed favors upon mankind. But to Peter, his freedom of speech increased all the more from this, and he proclaimed all the more that Christ had risen from the dead; and when those men commanded that no one speak in this name and threatened him, he did not deign to respond to their threats. For he saw that it was much more righteous to obey God than men, and he judged it to be a matter of prudence to hold the threats of no account until he should see that Christ was the living God. So that, while allowing them to rule in other matters, he never departed from his teaching; nay, when he was again cast into prison with the rest who were there (for it was not right to be silent), and was loosed B by an angel, he immediately used the power of the Word, omitting nothing of those things which were wont to lead men to Christ. What need is there for one to recount either the impious boldness and impudence of the Jews, or to wonder at the freedom of speech of the apostles? The Jews, after they had scourged Peter and the others, dismissed them, commanding them no longer to speak the things that should be spoken; but as for them, they, on the contrary, rejoiced in the injury they had received from the magistrate for the sake of Peter, and turned back to their former words and deeds. For there was not a leader so fearful that he could be moved by any other thing from his admiration of Christ. But it is time to recount the king's cruelty towards Peter. It is known that King Herod assailed some of the men of the Church with dire words, C and vexed them as much as he pleased. Therefore, he seized Peter, cast him into chains, and guarded him most diligently. But Peter, caring nothing for the prison, was anxious for the salvation of the disciples; yet the same things were also a care to God Himself. Therefore, he was delivered from his chains by an angel in the night-time, and led out of the prison, with no one perceiving it; for Herod had no good intention for him, but was preparing death for him on the following day. Hence, the disciples who were in Judea despaired of Peter, as if it were possible that he would not have been led to the sword from the prison; since it happened that they were not inexperienced in the king's bloodthirstiness. For what is more pleasant to the Herods than to always be the executioners of men who are guilty of no fault? And it came to pass that Peter, having been delivered from there, came to the house of the mother of Mark, D yet in such a way that those who were gathered together did not see that it was Peter, but perhaps his angel; so sudden was the joy, that despair of it was likely to arise. Yet they even accused the maidservant, who insisted that she knew no man better than Peter, of madness, until, upon his further knocking, they let him in and recognized him, and welcomed him not without the greatest astonishment of mind. Everything comes to my mind to believe rather as true than that Peter, being released, would have thought it a good thing to be silent, if one should say that he was in that prison and...
A that he rejoiced in what he suffered, and from thence was confirmed the more for the Gospel, and was renewed day by day. But Paul, emboldened in spirit by prayer, went about his work contrary to all expectation, nor was it without dangers that he was let down in a basket from the wall by night at Damascus; for a surge of the Jews was kindled against him and a seeking of his death, because they were unable to confront the contradictions of his words, and because he could not bear that they should not listen to the word of life, they fixed death as the penalty for the teacher. But if indeed he suspected no other danger, yet it was necessary to know that it was from men most ignorant and most audacious to fight with their hands against the true and wise words. Nevertheless, although things were such, and it was among these that Antioch of Pisidia, after many cities and peoples added to the faith, stirred up persecution against him—threatening nothing but evils—he, having shaken off the dust from his feet, resolved B even to preach to those in Iconium. There, what terrible or deadly thing can one say was not then plotted against the apostles, both by those who had joined themselves to him and to Barnabas who was with him, and by those who were laboring along with the Jews? Nevertheless, Lystra after Iconium received them, and after the cripple was healed by Paul, and sacrifices and garlands were brought forward—what is this?—a sudden change of everything. For those who had come there from Antioch and Iconium persuaded them that the apostles were lying in all things; and though the previously lame man might not wish to disbelieve the healing that was about him, they exhorted them to consider lest, by betraying themselves, they should lose their ancestral customs.
The evil, therefore, increases and advances toward a greater C end, and Paul is stoned with such a quantity of stones that, as one might expect, having no breath left in him, he was dragged and cast out of the city; but none of these things—neither the terrible ones nor the painful ones—affected Paul, nor did they discipline him toward a greater love of life; nor did the fact that he was nearly dead persuade him to fear death. What then? After that, passing through many cities and villages and fortresses everywhere showing forth how many things he cast out of the Greeks that were unto impiety, and how many things that were not leading the Jews unto Christ, he comes upon Philippi, no obscure city of Macedonia. But when, even there, proclaiming the word and doing damage to the affairs of the demons, he cast out the spirit of the Python from the damsel, teaching it D not to imagine anything great about itself, even if it thought it could foretell the future, nor to know anything greater than Christ and the disciples of Christ—although, especially when it was saying these things, it was speaking the truth, yet he did not at all wish for it to appear to be speaking the truth—then there followed the rending of the apostolic garments and limbs beaten with rods, and the return to the prison, to which he was fastened with shackles. For what was fitting—that Paul should lie there deprived of consolation and perish most miserably, and that there should be nothing by which the wicked differ from those who do good to all? In no way.
Therefore, he was also sufficiently comforted, and he did not perish, and he caused all to learn what those who imprisoned him deemed him worthy of, and what God, whose commandments he did not transgress, deemed him worthy of; and that men were nothing, those who saw such things and were not by nature prone to war against God being not even at all—for suddenly an earthquake was sent forth, and the prison was shaken, and the doors flew open, and the bonds fell off; and the guard, with his whole household, was baptized with the divine baptism, and there followed the setting of a table, and joy overcoming things that once seemed terrible. And after consolation, there was release from that place. But Paul was also honored because he suffered the previously mentioned evils and even worse than these. This was his first crossing toward the opposite shore for the blessed one; this was his first voyage toward Christ, linking the continents. For it was necessary that whatever part of the earth remained should be added to the Church, and that all of it should become Christ's from the sunrise to the sunset. B But indeed, also after a long course of preaching, as he entered the temple, the multitude of the Jews rushed upon him and held him fast; and they were crying out; and so great was the crowd around him that no hope of salvation appeared. But when they had caused sufficient disturbance, the chiliarch snatched him from their hands not without force, saying that the things that appeared to him were just; and the tribunal was opened, and although the high priests were present against the law, again Paul's mouth was struck. Again also, there was the turning and conspiracy of those who had devoted themselves, neither to eat nor to drink, before Paul had atoned for his evil life with an evil death. Then the chiliarch recognized the ambushes, and Paul was sent, brought here and thence to Rome and to Caesar. C But they, when they had learned that Paul's conscience was stronger than their wickedness, and that the high priests had taken the part of the leaders contrary to the laws, were laying ambushes; Paul deemed nothing wiser or more effective than to swear by God, if only they were willing to do so, being led by repentance. For he escaped their hands by using the oath. But the wolves stood with gaping mouths in vain, with Paul unharmed, although they were prepared to swear both justly and unjustly, killing—some the soul, others the body. It seems worth the effort to set forth the dangers of those sailing to Rome. D And as he endured all things with an equal mind, exposing himself for Christ alone to twin dangers, by land and by sea, or rather to say, to manifold dangers, finding everywhere, although not unannounced and reconciled, the safety of the elements. But let us, if it seems good, allow him himself to set forth these and his other dangers, so that we may adorn our discourse somewhat with his own words, just as with his deeds: Minsters—
of Christ are they (I speak as a fool), more am I: A in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths often. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
Does it seem to anyone that another could have recounted the struggles of Paul better than Paul himself? To me, indeed, it does not seem so, nor to anyone else either; for one must not hold the matter of truth as nothing. Some of these things belong purely to Paul, others are common to Peter—or, rather, to speak more correctly, all are common. For just because necessity did not compel him to set forth what he had suffered to the Corinthians or others, I do not therefore command one to believe that he did not undergo such things, since Paul would never have set down these praises of himself B unless the Corinthians had given him the occasion. For come, let me also ask something: if Peter had written [of his sufferings] but Paul had not, would it have been fair to suspect that Paul had not suffered such things? It would not, unless you wish to hide the truth on purpose. Just as, therefore, even if Paul had not written these things, he would not on that account have failed to suffer them, so, because Peter has not written of them, it must not be judged that he did not endure such things; but, as in other matters, so here let all things be common to both. And let it be known that these apostles, having set themselves to great tasks, and having faced C great dangers, and having accomplished great things, were deemed worthy of great rewards.
For they fell into such great dangers that the perils of others, when compared with theirs, can scarcely be weighed, whether you look to their number or their magnitude. Conversely, they obtained such honors that the dangers, when compared with these, seem of little moment; nor can their variety and the abundance of honor, if compared with their afflictions, be grasped by the mind or thought.
For me, beyond all else, I cannot comprehend in my mind how they shall sit upon thrones along with the Judge, what manner of thrones those will be, and what sort of seat one ought to D imagine for each. And when, as princes of the apostles, they preside over their colleagues and sit in judgment with the Judge, I seem to see gods sitting together with God. And this estimation is truly most correct, for to those who have rendered themselves worthy of God the Father, they are known by His name.
And for him who has suffered together with Him in the indignity A of the economy, it is meet that he be glorified together with Him as He enters into His own glory. Wherefore, as I contemplate the apostles now, as if they were already seated upon thrones, it occurs to me to say this to them:
"It was fitting that you, who labored much with the Word, should now receive your reward. Now transparent and clear is the glory of your Master and your own. Now there is no need for coverings nor for the pretext of poverty, which once you practiced in common, so that I cannot say which of you was then more humble and abject, which more needy, which less honored, which cast out from every side, which most wretchedly treated; just as now, I cannot determine which of you is more exalted, which richer, or—if only mention of him should arise—who would not immediately be overwhelmed with honors, applause, and praises. Who is now B more gladly received everywhere? Who now enjoys such blessedness? These are the sheaves of those seeds; these are the prizes of those accomplishments. These are the crowns of the contests; this is the reward for ineffable toils. You are now surrounded by such an abundance of riches, pleasures, and honors as has never fallen to any mortal, nor indeed to all men together. And if anyone names you, he has already named the fountain of all good things."
But where has the discourse moved? For when it had set forth the dangers which the apostles underwent, it added I know not how the honors by which they were crowned on account of the dangers; yet it would have been more fitting to proclaim that boldness through which they shook off dangers, just as a flame is C lifted up as high as possible by a violent wind. For if anyone were to ask by what reason it happened that they passed from dangers into dangers, what else could we answer, straying least from the truth, than by saying that that very boldness brought forth those very dangers? And, indeed, to wish to explain their daily boldness would be a work of its own.
But let us see what boldness they employed toward all men at Pentecost, the day which followed the resurrection. For when the Holy Spirit had descended from heaven with a sound, in the form of fiery tongues, and had rested upon each of the apostles, and had filled the unlearned with His own grace, and they were speaking in foreign tongues, and those who had assembled from every nation under heaven were recognizing and understanding their own native language in the mouths of the apostles, and were accounting this the greatest of all miracles, there were not wanting those D who would call the apostles drunk with new wine—uttering things utterly foolish and truly becoming to the drunken. For if any one were to ask me whether they spoke thus—that the apostles were drunk with new wine—because they did not understand what they were hearing, or because they did understand, I would answer that from either side I would count them as fools. For if they did not understand, it is manifest that, having skipped the investigation of the truth, they were rashly casting out words: for why on earth would I consider them to be babbling on account of others' lack of education?
If, however, those who understand are clearly convicted of having chosen to be wicked by design, I suppose that not even they themselves, if you were to ask them, would deny that this is known to be ignorance. A But Peter, the protagonist and chief of the others, being the first to take up boldness, refuted that suspicion of drunkenness by the comparison of the third hour. He demonstrated what had been spoken long ago by Joel: that the Spirit was about to be poured out upon all flesh that believed, and that they would prophesy. And inasmuch as more than even before he had drawn upon the grace of the Spirit, and more than even before shared in that boldness, to his boldness there was immediately added, as a reward, the conversion of three thousand. B Not long after, followed a "crap-feast" of evils, as they say: threats and blows, and imprisonments and dishonors, and persecutions, and there is nothing of all these which either Peter or the companions of Peter did not endure. And from then until the final day of his life, you will always find the boldness and the dangers connected, and never separated from one another. And Peter, preaching Christ both in the temple and publicly in the streets, if he were dragged off to prison, considered himself being led to royal dignity; if he heard threats, he made no more of them than the clamor of waves; if he were scourged, he considered himself crowned with a royal diadem. C Come then, these same things are found in Paul, who was winged by such great boldness that, even in the synagogues and on the Sabbaths, he did not hesitate to preach Christ as the Son of the living God. And even when he debated with the most wise men in Athens, he did not allow the fact that their wisdom—which was being brought to naught—was considered a sufficient cause for him, who was traduced as an unlearned man and a babbler, to have a bridle placed upon his silence. For what use to Paul was Atticizing, if he were not about to preach Christ? In such a way, D he used boldness even before those who appeared to be powerful in speaking and debating. For he was not unlearned in knowledge, nor did he measure wisdom by their tongue. And Dionysius, who first of the Athenians honored the language of the Athenians, and gathered many others as associates to himself, made it clear to the Athenians that there is something better than Atticizing, and that piety consists not in words, but in mind and affection; and that eloquent speech, if it serves piety, is not to be despised. But he who, being alien and estranged from true religion, thinks he possesses something noble, let him persuade himself that he is very rich in gold, even if he possesses nothing other than a heap of sand. It is truly a wonder if, while we inquire not superficially into how we ought to use clothing, shoes, and things of that kind, we do not use the faculty of reason—by which we are distinguished from the brute animals—in a way befitting that reason, so that the use of reason and the subject matter might at once be...
found consistent, if anyone were to weigh this matter carefully in his mind. For if one were to strip away what is appropriate from corrupt speech, or where and when it is required, he would bring it about that he differs in no way at all from the brutes that are destitute of intelligence.
However, the discourse, having reached this point, does not allow me to proceed any further before I have pursued the wisdom of Paul with worthy admiration. And fixing my eyes upon Athens, I behold Paul, and I am caught and delighted beyond measure by the novelty of the thing: how, taking the opportunity from the "Unknown God," whoever that may have been, he preaches to the Athenians their own true and only God, and takes them with their own feathers, as the saying goes, and leads them from where they were going astray toward the truth. And yet, "what communion has the temple of God with idols?" A says this same Apostle. But it could not be that the sun should rise all of a sudden in the dead of night; for this is not in accordance with the laws of nature, but rather it was necessary for the daybreak and the dawn to shine first, and only then to enjoy the pure light purely. Of such great wisdom as this, one can find neither an example nor a likeness; for Paul’s wisdom was without any guile or deceit, and no one—unless blinded by envy of the truth—has passed over his works after his calling without admiration. And indeed, who is there who would not admire what has just been said? For Paul never did anything that was not admirable. And when he had fallen in with those who had obtained the greatest reputation for human wisdom among all men, he performed the most admirable feat of all; for he used testimony even from the ancient Greeks, who were called poets, for the destruction of the Greek error, applied appropriately to his earlier demonstration and for the sake of causing much astonishment; for if their books are to be believed, then belief must follow from Paul’s explanation. B
In addition to this, he contributes not less to the demonstration of wisdom in the preaching of the truth, if one takes those things that sponsored the lie and transfers them to the defense of the truth, showing, according to the Savior’s dictum, that the very "domestics" of error are its own enemies and adversaries. Nor let anyone sing out thus: "Let not the oil of the sinner anoint my head"; since the dogmas of piety do not depend upon these things, but they are brought forward with the sole purpose of making it manifest, out of superabundance, how error, colliding with itself, overturns itself; and how the seed of the Word, falling into a soul empty of falsehood, receives growth. And it is a most military feat if one, without treachery or ambushes, occupies an enemy fortress in the middle of the enemy’s land and uses this as a bulwark against the enemy, or rather, against their error. C
Solon was not held in such admiration by the Athenians as a legislator as was Paul. Nor did they admire that wisest man of his own age as much as they did this one, shortly after, as a divine man—as indeed he was—and a heavenly
A creature; for even now there are those who hold fast to and contend for the laws of Paul. As for Solon, he is not even known to them by name, and they do not keep watch so much that the city might be well administered and inhabited, as that they themselves might become inhabitants of the heavenly city; nor do they have it as much at heart how they might overcome the Lacedaemonians or their other enemies, as that they might not themselves be made subject to the powers of the air. And it was reasonable that by how much they understood the later legislator to excel the former, by that much they should also be brought over to a more sublime form of life; and if one were to examine them, one would find that they consider ruling over others to be no great thing, but the salvation of each person’s own self to be by no means a small one. But Dionysius, one of the Athenians, also brought in such laws under Paul, unless one should prefer to say that Paul himself, even here, through this man legislated those things which all who call upon Christ use with joy.
These are the achievements of Paul’s freedom of speech B and wisdom combined. By these he drew the Athenians to himself. I wish to admire him worthily for these, but I cannot. These things greatly increased the plots and dangers against him; for as Paul expected to lead them away from the ancestral traditions, they, being over-fond of their fathers to the point of their own ruin, would have preferred to suffer anything rather than to see Paul living untroubled by evils while introducing such novelties. For those who did not even spare their own Socrates, but so readily offered the hemlock to that aged philosopher—as if it were nectar, and they themselves were about to drink the cup which the poets mixed for the gods—what cause had they not to be inexorably angry at a guest who arrived late from Palestine or Cilicia? Although Socrates, having received an indictment as if he considered the commonly accepted gods to be nothing, and was introducing others in their place, neither conceded to those who accused him anywhere, nor betrayed by the slightest indication that they were speaking the truth. But Paul, C if it behooved one to draw this into an accusation, entered as a most vocal accuser of himself, and he had no need of outsiders to argue against him for impiety before the impious. And Socrates, without abandoning the multitude of the gods, was accused as if he asserted some one God. But Paul, rising up, narrowed all worship to one God.
But perhaps there was a God more powerful to defend Paul, the God of Paul, than those whom Socrates was recently said to have fashioned. Certainly, He both ensured that the stranger departed Athens safe, and brought it about that those who were previously called gods were abandoned. For just as when light has risen, darkness vanishes in an instant, so the throng of false gods collapsed at the presence of the true God.
Shall we not, therefore, consider these things as marvelous, and worthy of that apostolic brilliance and freedom of speech, than which no one could speak of anything greater? Or are those things small which arose from the care D which he held for the churches
A even if they are most illustrious, yet not in the measure by which we can express them, but only to the extent that we can gather the magnitude of their actions from the slender thread of our discourse. Indeed, I find that I am casting myself into even greater cares when I begin to speak of that solicitude, since there is nothing at all that it does not befit one to speak of with great preparation. But if even my mere desire for this can avail something, I shall give thanks to the Apostles for it. For they, just as they care for other things, so they care for this as well; for since there are three things, to use a more general division, with which anyone might be anxiously occupied—namely, the soul, the body, and external goods—one could not say that they took up the care of one of these while abandoning another, or that they cared for all of them but afterwards ceased to do so; rather, they exercised diligent care for all of them, and did not allow any time to slip by in which they did not embrace all things with their solicitude. For they cared for souls, B in what manner they might render them worthy of God; and for bodies, that they might be subjected to the souls and not be slack toward virtuous deeds. Regarding external goods, they only concerned themselves with those things which were strictly required by nature for sustaining life, leaving the superfluous to those who wallow in flesh and blood.
And in the first place, one must discuss the care for souls, as being the foremost. That this was carried out by the Apostles without leaving any room for excess would be evident to anyone, both from the speed with which they preached the Gospel everywhere, and from the fact that they allowed no place to remain inaccessible to their teaching—not islands, not continents, nor if nature granted to men some third dwelling place. For all regions to be traversed for the sake of evangelizing seemed not only not burdensome, but actually quite light. C But that the Apostles always did these things, hear Peter, who deems it just, as long as he is in this tabernacle, to stir up the disciples by reminding them. And Paul, who professed himself to be a debtor to Greeks and Barbarians, to the wise and to the foolish. And when he sets forth the solicitude for all the churches, he testifies that he is weak with the weak, and that he is set on fire as often as anyone is scandalized, and conversely, that though he was free from all, he made himself a servant to all. What could be more solicitous than this solicitude, since, when they were able to be under their own jurisdiction, having renounced their power, they delivered themselves to others—and those not a few, but infinite, whom it is not possible to comprehend by number? For they deemed it sufficient to immerse themselves in cares and to suffer miseries, so that they might save all, if it were possible, D rather than to look out for their own private interests.
Moreover, this likewise must be said of the Apostles, if it is just to speak; and it is indeed just, and above all else: for it is a sign of no small care that Pharisees also joined in the faith of Christ through the Apostles. These men believed in the grace of the Gospel, and yet deemed it burdensome to abstain from the Mosaic Law, especially regarding the fact that those coming from the nations were not to be circumcised, which they thought ought not to be...
neglected. Now they were, in fact, ignorant in their judgment, considering the Gospel to have been given superfluously and in vain, if it seems to anyone that it is not sufficient of itself to save, but that unless the law also dictates what one is, one cannot by any means attain to God. And yet, one would find it no difficult task to demonstrate that most of the law—or rather, to say it all except for one, the first of all—appears quite low and base compared to the sublimity of the Gospel.
A When, therefore, the apostles judged it intolerable that the brethren should be troubled, a Church was assembled and many arguments were exchanged among the speakers. And Peter, rising and addressing the assembly, B argued that they ought not to tempt God, nor to advance further than those things which He had decreed, in whose sight there is no distinction between Jew and Greek with regard to the Gospel, nor should a yoke be placed upon the necks of the disciples which they themselves were not able to bear. And Paul, following upon those points which he had set forth, agreed with Peter, and after him James, who both performed this act and introduced the prophets as bearing witness with Peter. And a letter was written to those who had been converted from the nations, by which circumcision was abolished, and Paul was commended as one who had surrendered his soul for the name of Christ. And the bearer was Paul; whom, then, should I call him with fitting praise? Does this appear to some not to be signs of cares, but the very cares themselves? In my judgment, not to some, but to all. There are indeed other apostles also who are participants in these cares; but Peter was the first of all to set forth what needed to be done. Paul, however, was also the first among them to voice his concurrence with those things that had been said by him, and he brought his words into deeds. Now, for another person, this one thing alone accomplished might have sufficed for applause; but for the apostles, so great is the abundance of their accomplishments that, whether you look to that which has been mentioned, or to many other things not mentioned, they always abound in more, so that the one who undertakes their praise can in no way be saddened, as if, with one thing concluded, he would find no further material remaining.
C Furthermore, neither can those things which Peter concerned himself with regarding the number of the disciples established by Christ be passed over in silence without incurring guilt. For it tormented him that wickedness might boast that the number of the twelve apostles, with Judas cut off, had been mutilated; when, however, he knew that the leadership of all things had been entrusted to him, he decided to supply and patch up the defect, having first demonstrated that it was fitting to do so. Then, having selected two from whom one might be substituted in the place that was vacant, he left the whole matter to lots and to God, and Matthias obtained the apostleship. In these two things, my mind is struck with a sense of joy: first, because in place of one who had perished, grace provided two who were worthy of the ministry from which he had fallen, and it manifested the riches of itself, and [second, because it showed] that it was not because D it was unable to keep that one that it allowed him to fall. For how could it not have, when it even calls and assumes outsiders?
A But he is himself the cause of his own destruction, as indeed God, being good, both makes and keeps men good; but let the wicked blame themselves for their wickedness. For as soon as they begin of themselves to become wicked, there is no longer any room left for the good to abide. It remains, then, for those who are left outside of this to depart in a miserable state. This is, then, the first point.
The second is this: what kind of person was Peter, who instituted the election of his co-apostles and raised them to a function equal to his own—something we know is competent to no one else but Christ alone? For this is more eminent than any honor and dignity, and this happiness fell B to Peter alone out of the entire number of mortals, inasmuch as he had been established by Christ as the leader and prince of others in the place of Christ, and held His place toward the others. For which reason no other of the apostles is worthy of such admiration as Peter. For whom we know otherwise to be the most fervent disciple of all the disciples of Christ, now seeing him becoming established in the place and stead of Christ for the apostles, in what rank are we to place him? But the impetus of my speech has swept me away from what was proposed; I must return to what I was saying. I was speaking, therefore, of the cares with which the apostles embraced souls, and of other matters pertaining to this, which it is certain were both many and weighty.
As far as bodies are concerned, we have a sure indicator of how great their care for them was: the miracles themselves, and this fact as well, that the healing of diseases was a greater concern to the apostles than to the sick themselves; for to those who were in need of some help, they proved themselves such as they C could not even have promised themselves. For the preaching having been established by these two things, namely by the doctrine concerning Christ and by the performance of miracles, and having used both everywhere, they do not appear to have devoted themselves more to the doctrine than to the performance of miracles, nor did they attend to one rather than the other; for if anyone wishes to admire them as teachers, he will admire them as sure and faithful teachers of the doctrine; but if it pleases him to admire them as conspicuous for miracles, he will do so rightly; because admiration is akin to miracles and shares their name.
They taught when there was time, or rather at all times; and they performed signs when necessity demanded, or rather always; for in so great a magnitude of the world this was always necessary. And indeed when they taught, they surpassed themselves as performers of miracles; but when they performed miracles, they surpassed themselves as teachers; so that they seemed to be more excellent than themselves in both respects, yet equal and peer on both sides. And further, to chastise the body and bring it into subjection, while on the other hand commanding others to drink wine on account of the weakness of the stomach, D is a sign of the greatest solicitude; I consider it full of admiration, that they direct those things which otherwise seem contrary to the same end; for by the former, one is commanded to curb the flesh, exulting like a colt, so that it may not cause trouble to the spirit; by the latter, he subjects strength to the body for the accomplishment of good deeds.
A Do you wish, then, that I explain with what concern they were occupied even regarding external things? This it was that rendered all things common to those who believed, and that cold word, "mine and thine," it removed from both mouth and mind. This it was that caused the neglect and despising of widows to be considered intolerable; this it was that caused Stephen and the six others to be ordained for the diaconate; the work of this was that aid should be sent by Paul to the brothers in Judea, according to the available means and resources of each of the disciples. Wishing to engrave this also upon the minds of others, Paul used to say: "These hands ministered unto my needs, and to them that were with me." Those, therefore, who were so eager in the care of souls, of bodies, and of external things, so that they left nothing, by which a man exists and subsists, uncared for, and furthermore took into their care nations, cities, villages, fields, or individual territories and all things, and things similar to these—so that what might be said of them a second time seems better than what preceded it—how much anyone praises them, he will be judged to be not far from that which is worthy. Thus far I have endeavored to explain these things, worthy of admiration, for the sake of those who love the truth.
B It is time now to discuss the grace of the Spirit in which the apostles abounded, and of which they liberally imparted to others, and this not so that, if someone passes it by in silence, he should incur blame, but because, unless someone composes praise with all other occupation cut away and with the present abundance of matters, he will, in my judgment, fall into inevitable censure. And it may be that someone, gifted with that heavenly grace, might speak not much less than the subject deserves. But for me, the danger looms, inasmuch as I attempt to speak of things of the Spirit without the Spirit, and cannot satisfy the burning desire of my hearers. But since one is not permitted even to leave this part unexamined, we shall bring forward what the Spirit Himself shall supply: for to be completely silent is not seemly, and to undertake the C province of speaking without reverence is rightly judged a boldness.
We know and believe that Christ, even before ascending into heaven, had given the grace of the Spirit to His apostles, and promised that He would send the Paraclete Himself to them after His return to heaven. For there was no obstacle they interposed, whereby they might be less worthy of it. Rather, they were most apt vessels for receiving the Spirit; for those who had entered upon that way of life with the Word of God—such as none from the foundation of the world had ever led—and who had lived day and night with the same Word, it was D proper that they become the most suitable receptacles of the Spirit, who is of the same nature, honor, and dignity as the Word. Accordingly, after His ascension, He accurately exercised their faith for ten days. But since it is not possible to see the sun without light, nor to understand God without truth, the deadline was at hand and the
A fixed day arrived. The disciples were sitting in the upper room, appropriately, of course, to await the coming of the Paraclete from on high, for which they had ascended to a high place as if to meet Him. Suddenly, the Holy Spirit descended—not without great miracles—and immediately the apostles turned from unlearned men into wise men. This was a wisdom not earthly, but heavenly, and produced not by adopted study and labor as it happens for others, but born from the fact that they were suddenly filled with the most abundant grace. Hence came the accurate knowledge of various languages, the operation of miracles, the abundance of prophecy, the dispensation of doctrine, and the sudden overflow of all goods that anyone could conceive in mind or utter with tongue. All of these things were evidence that the apostles were the teachers of all others but the disciples of Christ alone, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Against these, if anyone was contentiously opposed, he effected nothing else than bringing forward sophistic fallacies against true wisdom, and immediately discerned that he was struggling in vain against those instructed by heavenly doctrine.
B Ancient storytellers invented giants born from dragon's teeth, whom books even to this day expose to ridicule, although it would be more appropriate to laugh at those who composed such things. For if we do not laugh at this, whom indeed shall we laugh at, who, lacking names and lacking the reality of things, had no one to subject to public mockery? But as for our heroes and philosophers, what would you call them, if not exactly what they are: made sudden by the Holy Spirit? You will be angry with this speech because it cannot recount things according to their dignity nor reach the target of truth. Therefore, the things that concern the apostles are so great and so connected with truth that, even if speech asserts them somewhat confidently, it rests upon a secure base and foundation of actual events. And even if every speech were silent about this miracle, the event itself would break through all silence.
Do you not see how, everywhere on earth, you cannot encounter anyone adorned with the Christian name who does not confess himself to be a work of the wisdom C and power in which the apostles were mighty in the Spirit? But what I had set out to say: in this way the Spirit filled the apostles with His grace, that if anyone should ponder what these men were before that third hour, and what they became after it; and that whereas before they were fishermen and illiterate, afterward they proved wiser than any wise men you could name—whereas those ancient Pythagorases and Socrateses could deservedly be condemned for infantile ignorance in comparison to such ingenuity—this very fact will suffice to demonstrate both the ineffable wisdom and power of the Holy Spirit, and the aptitude with which the apostles were endowed for the reception of the Holy Spirit. And the Spirit acted thus. But the apostles showed themselves to others D as such, just as their Master was, by whom they were led and ruled. Having received the Holy Spirit sent from Him, they communicated the grace to others; not, however, in such a way that a lesser portion remained for themselves than the [previous]
grace they possessed. For how could it be anything but absurd to suppose that the grace of the Spirit is of a lower order B than material fire? Since a small lamp, without suffering any loss to its own light, can kindle furnaces much larger than itself, is it possible that this grace, unless we were to claim that the giver becomes poorer thereby, is not naturally able to enrich another?
To my mind, however, it seems that he who communicates this grace always receives more, and anyone familiar with the fact that wells, once drawn from, produce sweeter water than before, will bear witness to this. For the Divine Power is generous, and good, and abundant, and lacking in nothing; and if It possesses the nature to create fire so wonderful, what must we conclude that the Divine Power itself is, which is also called fire and rested upon the apostles in the form of fiery tongues? These are certainly proof that all things are more than merely absent from God, specifically those qualities of fire. For there is nothing in the objects of sense more powerful or effective than fire, nor in this universe of things more so than God, even if we anchor our argument here due to a lack of greater examples. And I, for my part, while not accepting the conflagration of the Stoics, know this one thing for sure: they rightly intuited that neither an evaporation of the universe (if one may coin terms in their fashion), nor a drowning, nor any such thing, was ever to come from their decrees. In my opinion, this was not unwise. And if anything of such a nature is asserted as a marvel, it must be understood only as the restoration of the elements to the best possible state.
C Since, therefore, the grace of the Holy Spirit, like fire, remains undiminished, Peter, coming to those who had been baptized by Philip in Samaria but who had not yet received the Holy Spirit, laid his hands upon them and caused the Holy Spirit to descend upon them. Afterward, he went to the centurion Cornelius, and while he was preaching the Gospel to those present and instructing them, the Holy Spirit fell upon them all and bestowed the gifts of various tongues. Paul, too, when he found the Ephesians who had been baptized with the baptism of John, and asked whether they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed—to which they replied that they did not even know if there were a Holy Spirit—baptized them in the name of Christ D and, by the imposition of hands, immediately made them participants in the grace of the Holy Spirit, so that they spoke in strange tongues and prophesied.
But as my discourse has reached this point, I also recall that ancient event where seventy elders once prophesied by the spirit that was upon Moses. I see, however, that the superiority of the apostles is not small in comparison to that event. For here, the apostles themselves performed the miracle by the laying on of hands, whereas there, we read that the Lord himself removed the spirit from Moses and transferred it to the elders. Indeed, some who had not even come to Moses, but had remained in the camp, prophesied. With good reason; for although Moses
A is said to have spoken with the Lord as a friend is accustomed to speak with a friend, there is no comparison when made with the apostles. For he is recorded to have seen the hindparts of God; but they saw God in the flesh face to face, and handled Him with their hands; and they ate and drank with Him and lived with Him in all things, just as man with man, and they were deemed worthy to be called friends, and kinsmen, and brothers. And they had the advantage in this not only over Moses, but even if you look at Elijah B sending the double grace of the spirit which he had to Elisha, you will see him even in this falling short of the apostles. For when he was still living among men on earth, he did not leave or transmit that grace to his disciple, nor did he rejoice at his disciple having advanced like his master, just as fathers rejoice when they see their children turning out like themselves. But when he was being taken up to a higher state, then he granted the firstfruits to Elisha, just as if someone, putting on new garments, might grant the old ones to his servant. But one can see the apostles, while still surviving and moving among men, distributing the gift of the Holy Spirit.
But if to anyone it appears great that a double grace was provided there, let him not pass over Elisha, as if he were just one. For what will you say C if you count ten thousand Peters and Pauls—I mean those who received the grace of the Spirit from those very men? How much more worthy of wonder is this than that? And yet, even that concedes the prior place to the apostles: for Elijah with difficulty, after many prayers, finally consented to give the grace to his disciple; but these gave it abundantly, even if no one asked. And the testimony of these things becomes a proof dragging in evidence from everywhere, that men have been endowed with a grace far greater than those under the law, surpassing in every way both by the mode of distribution and by the multitude of those who shared in it. For they imparted the grace to those whom they served neither when forced by necessity, nor as if someone were demanding it as a D debt, and they considered it more honorable and more useful to make many like themselves in this regard than that they alone should excel all. And yet they did excel, but not as before; for when they previously had no subjects, now it was permitted to them to glory in a notable multitude of them, and they were shown to be illustrious, not because they ruled over few, but because they ruled over great and marvelous things. I see, therefore, the apostles imparting the Spirit to those who were worthy of the gift.
I see also Simon the magician approaching and offering money to the apostles, so that he might obtain a grace equal to the others, and conducting the matter so shamelessly that no one else would seem to have dared such a thing, if indeed it is to be called by the name of boldness. What then does Peter do? Even here, not forgetting that he is Peter, but as he who alone was always the first among the others, and inflamed with zeal for the glory of God, he sends the magician together with his money into destruction. For as for others, piety and virtue were the causes for receiving the grace of the Spirit;
preparation for receiving the Holy Spirit, such was money to him. Yet if money were naturally suited to attract this grace, one might pray that the toils of virtue and piety be destroyed, since it would be possible, while possessing money, just as one does with a field or a house, to purchase the Spirit. A But the good and zealous man would not even have need of an obol to receive divine gifts; while the wicked and base man, the more he thinks to acquire these things with money, the further removed he becomes from them. Thus he will never possess them; rather, even if he gives money when he thinks he is receiving grace, he has lost the money, yet has not attained the grace. For if it could be purchased, it would not be grace, since one would be paying for it rather than receiving it as a free gift.
And indeed, he who considers the great things received from God as if they were some trivial matters attempts to cast down B God. It is fitting to receive even the small things from there, if any such small thing exists, as great and most precious, yet the sorcerer had no understanding of such things. Simon supposed he would encounter Peter as one easy, soft, and petty in character; but he perceived, upon striking against one unshakable and inviolable, who proved his calling by manifest actions, what a vain man he was—if he did not see that the apostles were above money, and that grace is not in servitude, but is the freest of all things, or whatever more one might find to say.
But let us assume that the apostles loved money: whence could such a thought have dared to enter his mind, that the grace of God could be bought with money? What a fine fellow he was! If the spirit or wind—suppose it be the north or south wind—does not blow of its own accord, it will not blow, even if you were to promise the money of the whole world. Yet he hoped, by paying some miserable coins, to procure the divine afflatus and breath that brings forth and moves the Spirit. C This pre-eminent merchant truly imagined that the apostles would find his trade pleasant, and the offering of money abundantly welcome and acceptable; for they were poor to whom he offered the money, and most in need of it. But it escaped his notice that their poverty resulted from the fact that they could not endure to receive anything from anyone. For if they had received from each person as much as Simon was offering, he would not have regarded them as poor, nor as those in need of their own sustenance.
And indeed, Simon bore witness in this way to the fact that he considered Peter to be a lover of base gain and avaricious, and he hoped that the Spirit could be given into the servitude of sorcerers as well. Peter, for his part, might have forgiven D a slight against himself, but he did not even suffer the blasphemy against the Spirit to reach his ears. He who was once a fisherman becomes a fisherman again, a good one, and with the trident of perdition he strikes the one worthy of perdition, piercing him inescapably; not only because he thought to buy grace, but also because he thought to resell it. For if this man was already worthy of destruction beforehand, because through his sorceries he enslaved many, he was leading [them] toward this—of how many destructions was he not [the cause]!
A For who would now be found more worthy, he who dreamed that the grace of God is sold, as if it were some wares lying in the marketplace? But truly, these things were most contrary to the Spirit, and more so than water is to fire; and he immediately suffered the penalty for his boldness for daring to rank himself among those worthy of the Spirit. For it was necessary that he who did not act out of ignorance, nor carried away by impulse, but out of deliberation and villainy, dared to inflict such unworthy things upon the greatness of God, should finally be cast into destruction—which Peter, exercising righteous judgment, showed was just.
B Thus, even if one should run back in thought to Gehazi, Simon proved more worthy of punishment; for he did not have a similar outcome to the one who ill-advisedly sought the gifts of the Syrian. For there, another was the one who had granted the healing, another was the one who had received it, and a third—Gehazi—who snuck in, had received the gifts, not thinking either to sell or to buy the grace. For he himself was not the one who gave it, nor the one who had received it; but even after the healing had occurred for the Syrian, he approached him to ask for it, [which] introduces a much milder accusation against him than against Simon. For though that [Syrian] received money, [Gehazi] was ready to give it, so that the former’s greed seemed worse than Simon’s liberality. But to love money and to wish to dishonor God are at a great interval apart, and by as much as the latter is more wicked and absurd than the former, by so much would Simon be more prone to a curse than Gehazi. C And indeed, if Peter had not immediately struck down the author of this wickedness together with the wickedness itself, how many Simons would the evil demon have raised up for us, since he does not even now know how to rest, although wounded and prostrate from the beginning, mindful of the defeat he had received!
But truly, the discourse hastens on its way, wishing to show, and having shown from many sides, that for the apostles the mere laying on of hands sufficed for the bestowal of the heavenly gift. For those men, who were unlearned in appearance, inglorious, and needy, lavishly provided those things which neither the wisest man, nor he who had huge treasures by which he surpassed others, could have provided or produced [such] renowned glory. Again God is conversant among men, even if He did D not again assume the human [nature] as God. Again it is an ineffable descent. Again it is a mystery. And the apostles, fitted for either mystery and prepared to minister with incredible alacrity, and, to speak in a word, having cast aside all other things, became the mouths of the Word, the instruments of the Spirit, and through these, also certain images and imitations of the Primal Mind. Moreover, the apostles are able even in sleep and at rest to understand the Spirit, who suggests what must be done, and in them fashions the sovereign part of the mind in whatever figures He pleases, and warns what they must suffer, and teaches them to what place they must be sent—this one to Joppa, that one to Macedonia: for it is necessary that those who dwell there should also be counted among the number of those being saved.
ENCOMIUM SS. PETRI ET PAULI.
A But the apostles did not shrink from the agreements made with the Master even in the face of manifest dangers; rather, if one’s faith resides not merely in the eyes, he will see that they were accustomed to arise even before the dangers, to run ahead, to triumph in adversity, and to struggle bravely with the torments arising therefrom. For they counted it a grave thing if, while the soul remained unscathed, the pains of the body were to prevail, and if the apostolic body were somehow to be deserted by the apostolic soul and, being weakened, were unable to follow properly. Most excellently! How the soul proved itself invincible, and how the body acted in equality with the soul, and how generously both soul and body bore themselves, can be explained in no words.
B But who will tell me by what reasoning the discourse has again been brought to the dangers of the apostles? It is the Spirit who leads it back again as if home, and shows to those for whom nothing is more accommodating for generating either envy or satiety than either to say or to hear something new about these things. That the Spirit also stood by Paul, let the viper on the island of Malta be the proof, which he handled in such a way that it did not appear to be a viper, or rather, that Paul himself was not considered a man, but God. Let there also be added that which it would not be pleasing to overlook at this point: the suspicion of the Maltese concerning Paul, as though he were a murderer—the suspicion with which they were previously imbued—and the change after this of that same opinion into the direct contrary, and the justice discerned by them, perhaps even praised, so that nothing stood in their way of penetrating his mysteries, seeing that they already yielded to the miracle and with the change of the matter changed their suspicions as well. You yourselves know, even if I do not say it, how much glory and veneration this matter procured for Paul, or rather, before Paul, for the God of Paul. For if the herald was able by his miracle so to move those men that they suddenly laid aside their baser opinion and crossed over to a better one, what shall we suspect of him who was being proclaimed?
C Let those things also be added, for they are of the same Spirit, which were then added to the miracle concerning the viper; let the diseases, I say, that were put to flight be enumerated, all of them being too weak to offer resistance, and the stay of Paul for a time with Publius’s father; D and if anyone wishes to examine everything more thoroughly, he will understand that for the islanders a condition resulted from this which provided them with an abundance of great goods to enjoy, and brought forth such glory as none of the natives of the island had ever attained until that day. And Paul indeed hid whether any god was among them, even though he appeared to be a god. For again and often the sweetness and pleasantness of the matter draws me to this, and not without reason; for if to be able to receive no harm from the most destructive things is sufficient for apotheosis, then by very good right was Paul considered a god; and if he who can confer benefits greater than human capacity is deemed a god, then Paul does not lack this either: for this was as it were the mark of Paul, that everywhere he possessed more
A than a human being could have; and what was impossible for others to provide, this it was ready and easy for him to perform; and, what is most worthy of speech and admiration, he was held prisoner, and not even as much as a free man possessed ease, nor was it in his power even to go where he wished, nor was there open to him the choice to use his time as he wished, and to be present with others whenever and in whatever manner he desired. Yet such a man, placed in this state, would cure diseases, and most easily restore health and deliver from misfortune, and would most readily grant that which any person might wish for in this life.
These and other things of this kind the Spirit did in the apostles—which, if they have been spoken and celebrated according to their dignity, grace be to the Spirit; but if, as I more suspect, I have wandered as far as possible from the dignity of the things, may pardon be granted to me, which I also seek with bended knees and prostrate on the ground: for I am conscious to myself that I have omitted nothing of what my powers could bring forth. But you, auditors, masters of your own mind and opinion, who have hitherto listened to me with great benevolence, deign to show the same to me even to the end. What more is there to say?
I have long felt that some are expecting to see whether I might compare the apostles to those who have shone in piety and virtue throughout all ages. And this is ready for me: for no one will move litigation with the apostles concerning primacy, nor will they contend about the victory; but all will spontaneously yield, and allot the first place of glory to the apostles. B Which persuades me most of all that this effort of comparison is not worthy of great study. For if it were not evident to all, that which is conceded by all to those who are sung and celebrated, perhaps the discourse might have found some relief; but when their dignity and height do not allow us to admire anyone before them, and all, as it were, step out of the way for them, what more could anyone achieve by speaking, other than to be judged superfluous, when even for him who remains entirely silent, it is lawful, without any contradiction, by the calculation of all, to bestow the first rank upon the apostles? For it is impossible to find from the whole number of mortals anyone who, when he hears the apostles named as coryphaei and princes, does not immediately rise in spirit and pronounce them the coryphaei and princes of all others.
D And this is the common opinion among the pious, and the most certain of all persuasions, that no mortal, in whatever state of distinction he may be, can be compared to the apostles. For it is not fitting for those who are accustomed to judge matters keenly, that when mention of the apostles occurs, they should bring forward others, worthy of admiration indeed, but not like these; because, if these also were brought into comparison, the apostles would appear more excellent; just as this too is preeminently apostolic, to strive with all industry from the beginning, so as to excel all in all things, that because of the magnitude and multitude of their right actions, no room at all may be left for any comparison. Nor would we, even if we were to bring forward the sun and compare it with any star and accurately examine it
A, find it more admirable; for it itself sufficiently bears witness to its own magnitude and beauty. It is apparent, therefore, that a comparison of the apostles with others cannot be instituted with decorum, and if it were instituted, it would be of no weight or value. Whoever, therefore, thinks with me on these matters, thinks rightly. But it is fitting that our discourse, not lingering longer upon these things, should proceed to what follows.
Quod si quis studiosius, B if anyone, wishing to examine these things more studiously, should think that it would be done contrary to what is fitting if the apostles were compared with one another—for they alone, if it is permissible to speak thus, are equal to themselves and superior to themselves—such a one, in my judgment, does not understand the laws of collation and comparison. For it is right, let us speak fearlessly, and let us believe this to be the mind of the apostles, that if anyone seeks to speak nothing for the sake of favor, and has been accustomed to give nothing to the ears, then if he should be able to demonstrate that they are, as they are, equal in their deeds: for it is easiest for all to know that we, throughout the whole course of this discourse, have applied ourselves only to this, and this end has been proposed for our praises, that all things might be gathered and conduce to one point. And because the discourse has proceeded to this, and because the opportunity most especially demands it, I consider that one must make use of a line of reasoning which leads to equality, and enjoy the proclamation of parity among the apostles. Paul, indeed, grants his part to us here; attend to how ingeniously. For even if one should look around to see if it fits any other person, he will observe that it fits no other; and if any deed done by others which is marvelous should be brought forward for admiration, all things will seem small by comparison, like a river by the sea. “I know,” he says, speaking of himself, he who was above man, “a man C caught up into the third heaven, and into paradise, and who heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.” O the miracle! A man ascending into the third heaven? A man into heaven? With what wings was he lifted up? By what ladder was he conveyed? By what aid of the highest mountains did he use as a starting-point? But he did not say, ascending, but caught up. O, the prodigy! You speak of a greater miracle to me. You recount a divine matter. A man would never have been caught up had God not taken him; a man would not have been caught up to heaven, had he not become worthy of heaven. God would not have caught up him who had not prepared himself to be worthy of Him. Heaven would not have received him who did not always make the abandonment of earthly things his practice. Elijah was also taken up, but as if into heaven, and he did not even pass beyond the first heaven. But Paul D even attained the third.
And another prophet also said that he saw the Lord sitting upon a throne. But he saw, however he saw; he saw, not being caught up, nor being present with Him whom he saw. But what Paul saw, and with whom he was present in the third heaven—even if I remain silent, I think all men can collect and understand. I become inspired as I speak these things.
A Indeed, I do not know how to restrain myself. I wished to see Paul, even from afar, in this glorious splendor of his, but strong barriers stand in the way, and the obstacles of the heavens ward off all vision. Nor am I able to direct my mind clearly thither. What then? I shall merely listen to Paul, who has come from thence and relates this, and I shall marvel, and I shall worship Him who alone is able to do such things, and I shall offer thanks to Him who has deigned to crown our nature with such great graces. But that Paul was caught up, he himself knows and admits; yet whether in the body or apart from the body, he leaves that in uncertainty. But to me, he seems to say these things out of humility. For if he acknowledges that he is a man, and speaks of the one who was caught up, it becomes clear, even if he seeks to hide it, that he was carried up with the body; for a man is neither of the things of which he is composed B alone, but is both together.
There is a fable of this kind circulated by storytellers—those who have left behind monuments of their own disgrace—concocted in such a way that, if there were any truth in it, how quickly, good God, would disgrace shine forth from it! But if, as it is, it is held to be a fable, it exhibits a sign of both falsehood and disgrace. That fable is as follows: that the Aloadae, when they had placed Ossa upon Mount Pelion, attempted a journey to heaven. Furthermore, although it is a fable and everything is fictitiously composed, it nevertheless imposed a just punishment upon those who dared such things, so that they were forced to desist from their undertaking not without injury; and the fable increased all the more, the less they contributed to the outcome of their attempt. C For what machine could lift a man, as he is a man, to heaven? God alone brings these things to pass; He alone is worthy to be deemed capable of lifting a man, perfected by the law, into heaven. But so much for those stories, in passing.
Our own—for I call the things of Paul our own, since he endured and carried out all other things for the sake of Christ and for us—these, I say, our own are diametrically opposed to the ravings of those others; being, as it is, most conformable to the truth above all else, and full of the highest gravity. But these things are possible and easy for Him who administers them, since the things which are impossible for men are possible with God. D Just as, therefore, God’s descent from heaven is a miracle that surpasses all wonder—as the whole world recognizes with veneration, having obtained salvation by that descent—so also, a man’s having ascended into heaven bears the appearance and grace of an illustrious miracle. Once, indeed, God conversed with men on earth, clothed in flesh, and once a man (I exclude now Him who is God and man) has ascended into heaven. Paul is the witness of this event, a worthy recompense and repayment of things: namely, a participation in the glory in which the first shone, as much as the second is capable of it. And indeed, for Paul, it was enough for glory to have filled all things from Jerusalem and round about even unto Illyricum.
A And where amongst glories should one place him, when that further fact is added, that heaven was not impassable to him, but that he even investigated it, and was admitted into the very innermost sanctuaries, and was initiated there into mysteries more ineffable than those of all other men, having God Himself as his mystagogue? B And these things persuaded him to desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ. And from these things originated his apostolic yearning for the migration to that place; and this was fitting for Paul. For it was necessary that he who had already tasted of heaven should turn away from the earth, and hasten to be loosed from his prison to be transferred to the royal palaces, and to be with the King in all things and to reign with Him.
Besides these things, Paul seems to us to have become another mediator in things pertaining to God. For I would say that he carries out an embassy to that heavenly King, and both confirms the peace previously established and brings down to men His responses—all save those mysteries which are not to be spoken. For it was necessary that after the One who first announced peace to us, Paul, following in His footsteps, should come to this part of the office and erect a pillar of that peace; nay, that having been raised on high like water, and having been spread out, he should descend again like rain, to provide a heavenly irrigation for those things which he had planted. And indeed, the magnitude of this miracle regarding Paul is so venerable, or rather, it transcends all veneration.
C From another side, Peter is present to us, with proclamations and upright deeds not inferior—nay, so luminous that, except for the deeds of his fellow-apostle Paul, the rest of all men’s deeds would be accounted as nothing in comparison. For what else would you call the manifestation here of the three subsistences of the simple Trinity of the heavens—this, on the one hand, through the triple question of the Savior, "Do you love me?" and that, on the other, through the thrice-given confession of the matter, and this again, through the commission so many times over of the oversight of the sheep? Is it not most clearly seen by all, that even if Paul’s dignity reaches unto the third heaven, it is befitting that Peter’s should also be such that he does not remain below, but, as it were, ascends and stays equal with him there?
D For the Savior asked thrice if he loved Him more than the others. But he was loving Him so intensely, and considered that he had no need of being questioned on this—not only before Him who knows all things, but also before anyone else at all—so that he even fell into sadness because he was being questioned so often, as if being questioned twice were not sufficient. Yet, that sadness did not check his confession; for his love toward the Master overcame every emotion that arose to the contrary. And the Savior immediately confirms each of the confessions with the commission of the leadership, and from this, the dignity comes to Peter—such as to no other—and it would be most prudent to hold this grace and that most excellent honor as something incomparable to any other. Even
A if Paul ascended to heaven to Christ, that he might learn what it behooved him to learn and to teach to others, Peter had the same one, now descended from heaven, present with him, hearing him face to face explaining what was to be done and what was not, and handing over to him the prefecture of the sheep.
And why do I suffer this? For indeed the truth is rightly preached everywhere, and whichever of these I take into my hands for examination, the one appears to me greater than the other, and that not by a small interval. What then is to be said here? Or is it what has already been said here and there in the course of this discourse, that all things are equal to the apostles? This is all the more the case, because each extreme appears to possess both the greater and the lesser, which is the most manifest equality. Just as if there should be a contest of equal strength between two pentathletes or wrestlers, of whom the one admires the other sooner than he overcomes him, so that neither through conquering can he boast against his adversary, nor does he wish to be conquered, fearing that he might give the adversary cause to boast of himself and to carry himself magnificently. B Such is the case of Paul, such is the case of Peter. And here again a delay is cast upon the discourse, and it is not permitted to advance further.
No one, unless he be insane, would affirm that the Savior questioned Peter out of ignorance regarding his love; but that He did this as an example to others—and lest He, who is the highest of all, should seem to act unjustly by appointing as vicar in His own place, and granting prefecture over all, one who had fallen a little before—this, others before us have also taught. Nor must his denial be considered. But rather that, both before and after the denial, he was of such a noble heart that he desired to go to death together with the Lord, and that, having returned to himself, he wept bitterly. C God seems, to all those who now come or return from the mire of sins to piety or virtue, and indeed to me and to you who repent, to have proposed the repentance of Peter, who was the first, as an exemplar for imitation, and to have allowed a man so strong and valid to fall, so that, as in other things, so also in repentance, he might be the base and foundation.
For shall we admire and commend those who excelled in one type of virtue—as Abraham, one might say, in hospitality, and Joseph in the study of temperance, and Moses in meekness, and another in another type of virtue—but him who is the leader and patron of repentance, the mother of all virtues, him we shall pass over in silence, as if he had performed nothing illustrious? D This would certainly be the act of very foolish men. And if we establish equality, yet we do not say that individuals are the head of all, which we have rightly posited and asserted. I pass over in silence other things which might be objected here, except for this: that to some this apology might appear superfluous. For what, one might perhaps say, is it necessary to say more? Does not the opinion of the Lord, which is devoid of all contradiction, which granted the primacy over all to Peter, suffice? But let us speak of these things again. 17
The Savior, for the reason I have explained, questioned Peter. Peter, however, although his fellow apostles were present, did not look to their company; nor did he consider whether one of them was about to bear witness to his love; nor did he temper his response to please them. If for no other reason, he was fearful of incurring the mark of foolishness and arrogance; but he was led to think things so much higher than all these, in accordance with the truth of the matter, that he even confirmed the questioning as many times as he heard the Lord asking. For he was asked if he loved Him, and he maintained that he did love Him. The command was given: "Feed my sheep." The Savior would not have asked if He had not known what Peter would answer, just as He would not have commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son if He had not known that he was ready to carry out the deed. And Peter, had he not been conscious in himself that he spoke nothing far from the truth, would not have dared to say these things to One who knows everything. And again, the Savior would not have entrusted the governance of the sheep to Peter if He had not known that he spoke the truth. Thus, everything is demonstrated through other things, and they mutually bear witness to one another. For as soon as one begins to contemplate one of these things, the others also present themselves for consideration; and unless one understands the rest, he cannot admire even this one as its dignity deserves.
It is B not unpleasant to consider this aspect of the matter as well; for among many other rewards for his confession that had preceded, this was added — not that those were small, but to this one, greater than any other you might choose and excelling in dignity, this reward was joined. In addition to this, Peter was greatly honored and considered it worthy of the utmost transformation to show himself always equal to himself, and to respond most aptly to every question, and to say nothing other than what he himself thought, while having the Master immediately agreeing with the things he said. If anything occurred in the meantime that had to be suffered, one could see Peter again in the same state as before. Because of which he was graced with this honor above all others. Of what leaders is he not more revered? Of what kings is he not more august? He is the only one we know who has been appointed in the place of Christ and by Christ as pastor and teacher of the nations throughout the world, C a dignity he preserves for all time.
It is therefore very easy for all who look at this from this point to see how the glories and ornaments of the apostles are equal. Yet I think it right to add this concerning Peter, because it relates even to the third heaven. What then is this that I intend to say? The sheet let down from heaven, which God lowered before him by four corners, containing all manner of irrational creatures, D with the added voice that he should rise, kill, and eat; and Peter refusing to touch such things as unclean, with the heavenly voice inviting him to the same feast not once, but already twice and three times. You know what this vision signifies; for he who saw it has explained it. I have said that this also pertains to
the third heaven, and this is evident from the account. For if the third heaven grants it to you, then this is revealed by the revelation and voice from above. For having been brought three times so that it might be clearly heard, and for each of the miracles of Peter and Paul to be honored by the Trinity — the one by the heavens, the other by the divine voice — how is this not an equality on both sides? For if it was fitting that the miracle of Peter should be glorified by the Trinity, it has been glorified; and if by divine voices, these were not lacking either. Hence, what he himself saw here as if depicted in a shaded sketch, he later applied to the matter in an excellent manner, and he made the whole world interior to it through his preaching. For the things of the revelation were glorious to him, but the matters to which the vision led him were no less so. This, indeed, I have said, even if I was unable to show it to the extent that it actually is. B
And I would certainly not have been silent about the fact that Peter saw the divinity revealed in Christ on Mount Tabor and heard the voice of the Father, were I not to see others also decorated with the same benefit. If, however, it seems so to anyone, let us add this; for even there Peter held the first place. Others were also made participants in this glory; we must see whether this is not similar to the previous one. And indeed, the equality of the apostles shines forth in all things, and as in the best democracy, that saying holds: "Nothing more." Here, moreover, you might find those words drawn from the scales: "equally balanced" and "constant with equal weight." I, for my part, admire one of these as much as the other; but I admire both more than any other. C
But now let us transfer our discourse to further points. For the blessed ones have now opened to me a prone and easy path; nor is the excellence of the apostles obscure. For whatever excellence can be conceived and brought to mind in human affairs, that, both taken together and individually, applies to them so that it belongs to no others—indeed, not even to those of whom it is primarily affirmed. We show this as follows. Kings are considered to have reached the highest power among men because they rule over many nations and cities, because they are surrounded by armies, because they abound in riches, and because they draw to themselves whatever is of eminent honor. But there is nothing of this that does not also belong to the apostles, and indeed much more so than to kings, and at an infinite interval. For they rule, even over willing subjects, as many as the sun beholds throughout the whole world. For it says: "You shall establish them as princes over all the earth." And their armies are as many as those of Christ; whose riches is Christ Himself, whom they bought with all that they possessed, and those who daily obtained or were to obtain salvation through them. And as for honors, even apart from the throne and apart from the [seat] with the Lo- D
Lord, who could have been accumulated with more or greater ones? A
After these come the leaders of war, and all those who hold the great and illustrious names of military prefects—the administration of wars, I mean, and the catalogs and companies of armies, and further, the all-various contests of battle, the sieges and captures of cities, and all that is examined with regard to victories, trophies, and the rest of the spoils. Consequently, no one, while the apostles are present, will boast of military generalship. For their war was not about trivial things, nor was it against a few, or with few, or for a short time, but for the immortal kingdom of the heavens, and against all the powers of darkness, and with as many men as the world brings forth, and for as long as the generation of men endures. For it is not obscure that they are still at war even now. B
Following these, I see the soldier, not an ignoble or dishonorable title; for it is an illustrious spectacle to see an armed soldier moving directly against the enemy. And who would not grant this praise to the apostles? For they did not sharpen others for the spiritual war while they themselves kept at leisure, but they also threw themselves against the enemies. For they feared, as they themselves testify, lest by preaching to others, they themselves, deceived by the confidence in those others, should become reprobate. And indeed, the hero is even more conspicuous than the soldier. For what would one admire more than he who breaks the phalanx of the opponents, and puts them to flight, and wins the victory, and communicates this very thing to all, as well as to his own people, having received an honorary reward? If anyone wishes to designate the apostles by this name too, he will be imposing a most fitting name. For I pass over the mention of their extraordinary deeds which they performed against the demons, and the multitude of their rewards, as these are well-known matters, and as they bestowed the same upon others, such as the apostles. C
Of this lot also is the Olympic victor, honored with a prize, and the apostles likewise carried away the crown from all their adversaries; for they ran as not in uncertainty; they boxed, not as beating the air in vain.
States consider lawmakers to be the first among them, inasmuch as they prescribe things to be done and things to be avoided, and teach with what laurels the good and useful are to be decorated, and with what punishments those who do the contrary of these are to be afflicted. But if I should not say that the apostles were such, I know that all of you will cry out and produce the epistles; and you will bring forward the laws contained in them, or rather, you will maintain that the entire epistles themselves are nothing other than laws, by which not this or that city, but the entire world is legitimately administered and governed. D
It is fitting for judges to render to each that which is beneficial. What then? Shall we judge the apostles to be inept in approaching this? Far from it; for even if one should pass over their other deeds in silence, that which says they are to sit on twelve thrones to judge the tribes of Israel is sufficient to declare their judicial power, as [belonging to the] wisest.
If you wish for an ambassador who composes dissensions, A it is necessary that you grant to the embassy of the apostles the preeminence among all, which reconciled God to men; for ascending to heaven—I know not whether in the body or out of the body, as they themselves say—they brought back peace from there.
Since these things are so, one may also see the pontiff numbered among the honored. But to which pontiffs are the apostles not more sublime? Whom, if we wish to confess the truth, you will deservedly call pontiffs of pontiffs, in the same way that we name the heavens of heavens.
If you also wish to bring into the middle a teacher, B you will find this also to be a most manifest mark of the apostles. For they would not have been instructed in the discipline of that great teacher, Christ, unless they themselves were to be teachers; and by these as intermediaries we are able to call Christ "Teacher," insomuch that it is impossible in the mind to name or conceive of Christ as Teacher unless we immediately conceive of the apostles as well, just as those who drink from a well do not drink except by the intervention of a vessel.
Furthermore, we may rightly call them orators and shepherds, since they performed all things for the sake of procuring our salvation, C partly by exciting [us] to honorable things, partly by restraining [us] from dishonorable ones, and partly by feeding, fattening, and protecting with exhortations, by which the soul is nourished. But now, that which seems to me not only not absurd, but rather just, I shall bring forth: namely, that wreaths should be woven for the apostles from the most beautiful parts of the world, and offered to them as first-fruits, in accordance with the laws of adornment. For they are not to be despised because they are inanimate, but because nothing can be born or survive without them; and what is greater, because they are the works of God, the creator and praiser, they are rightly held in admiration.
In the beginning occurs the heaven, D the most beautiful and greatest of all bodies, painted with stars as if with flowers, creating days and nights by its motion. If anyone calls the apostles "heavens," and "heavens declaring the glory of God," I say that he has played upon this not far from the Davidic lyre. For are they not also the greatest of all who have been celebrated by name for piety and virtue under the law, before the law, and now in the time of grace? Are they not also more splendid and more bright than heaven in virtues and in the multitude of heavenly gifts? Do they not have this over heaven, that they make the only day?
But to one who makes mention of heaven, the sun immediately comes to mind, which David very often calls the eye of heaven and of the day; it is certainly the most beautiful part of this universe, destined for the generation of animals and plants. This too, if you wish to observe, you will see—the most beautiful suns, the apostles, running from the sunrise to the sunset, and there halting their course: who
A in this respect also surpass the heavens, because they did not set even after they had set; but as they shone before sunset, so also after it they shine and illuminate. Let us grant that the apostles may also be called clouds. They supply therefore the early and the latter rain; namely, those things which in this life they have taught and still teach unceasingly. From these what is born? Virtue germinates within us along with correct dogmas, and being watered, receives increase. Thus, when you have spoken of the apostles as partaking of all things that are in price and honor, they themselves by their own right demand still greater names and praises, so that it is necessary that all those aforementioned should yield. What then? Must it be necessary to transcend the heavens? For there, greater and better names are found than those among us. Let them be called angels and archangels, therefore; and let us ascend in order B up to the first; and what is the supreme of all loftiness, let them be called gods—which is the final title of all, yet in the infinite parts, the greatest of all. Now I know that the apostles are honored and praised, and I acquiesce in this description, because it is sufficient, nor is there [a term] more lofty that we should seek. Thus are the apostles admirable in particulars, but in all things at once they are more than admirable.
I wished to put an end to the discourse. Yet I am not so dissonant as to offer nothing of delicate morsels from the fishing of Peter to those who in other respects are accustomed to take delight in those things which concern Peter. Come with me to the Sea of Tiberias, and behold Peter with the other disciples, occupied all night C in his old craft, with no success until the morning hour. Behold also Jesus, after the resurrection, standing then on the shore of the sea, and when no one knew who it was, asking what sort of fish they had; and when they replied that they had none, commanding them to cast the nets to the right side of the boat, and suggesting good hopes that something would be found there; and the apostles fulfilling the command, and having caught so many fish that they could no longer in any way draw the net into the boat, but drew it under the water to land. And Peter, when he understood that the Lord was the author of such a great miracle, immediately, as he was, girt with his tunic, cast himself into the water, and reached the Master by swimming; then drew the net to land, the net full of fish, and indeed large ones—add, if you will, also very numerous, to the extent of one hundred and fifty-three. Can the grace of this miracle not delight you even to satiety? But I, in truth, perceive some saying: "How blessed are those to whom it was granted to enjoy those fish!" I would marvel D if you did not also consider yourselves blessed, who, with Christ and Peter as hosts, have become guests of this miracle. It shall by no means be cast at you, who are satisfied with the miracle of the fish, that which is also reproached to some others: "You seek me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves."
A O voice, to which even the fish were obedient, as formerly the sea and the winds! O disciple, who before all others confesses the miracle, because he is the first to leap out to the Master! O disciple, who even dared something against the waves, when he beheld the Master present! O the zeal of the fervent disciple, kindled with affection, indomitable in love, and breathing only of the Master! What ground for noble thought and speech does he not provide? Did he not seem to be swimming toward heaven when he swam to the Master?
B But permit me to examine the multitude of the fish according to the power of numbers, as it is shown to be composed not only by units and decades, but also by the hundreds, and, as an arithmetician might say, combined by three squares; if one were to examine those [numbers] that generate them, the first would at once appear even; the second they would call a virgin; and the third, the one over them, a perfect number, beyond which one cannot advance without turning back. All these findings denote the most perfect fishing of Peter, and his primacy in all things, and the majesty that accompanies him, insofar as it is lawful to conjecture. And if a certain reason underlies these things, as indeed there does, for nothing in these matters was either done or written rashly, yet speech cannot reach that accuracy which it proposes to itself. C But it appears that he who committed these things to writing wished to give testimony to both the multitude and the magnitude of the catch, by the fact that he employed the perfect number, by which he most clearly set forth to us that immense fishing of Peter, by which he was to fish for men and provide salvation. For it seemed consistent with reason that things which were accomplished in some wondrous way should be committed to letters, and that nothing at all should be omitted of those things that were symbols of the greatest matters. Such is the co-apostle who was allotted to you, Paul; such is the Paul allotted to you, Peter; such as speech has indeed attempted to demonstrate, though it has by no means attained it, yet nevertheless it has demonstrated something even so. Such are you, and so much does each one hold in the Church of Christ as the moon does among the stars. I believe, indeed, that no one who is of sound mind could fail to admire their greatness of soul, their manner of life, and their deeds: greatness of soul, such as you will not find elsewhere; a manner of life like to the angels; deeds, to which many might yield, but to which they would much less concede the first place.
D For when they knew well that the leadership of all had been granted to them, they strove eagerly to surpass all others in labor. For even the leader of an army knows that he must labor more than any of the common soldiers. Therefore, he also labors. The pilot of a ship also knows that he must keep watch more than the passengers
thus he remains awake. A Truly, heaven will sooner produce plants by nature, and earth will be marked by stars, than I could affirm that these apostles do not excel all men in all things. For even if they did not precede everyone in time B — and yet, even in secondary matters, they are set forth as achieving no mediocre things — they have encompassed in themselves all noble deeds, and are exalted as much as is possible above all others. They take precedence over the prophets, and they take precedence over their fellow apostles: over the former, because they confirmed their oracles, and the fruits of what those men longed for were granted to them; over the latter, because they loved the Lord more than all others, and endured more struggles than all others. They also take precedence over martyrs and holy men. For those men, looking toward them—some of them entering the arena against both visible and invisible enemies, others against only the invisible—followed their example. They take precedence over priests, even as fathers do over their children; they take precedence over all others, having surpassed everyone in every way. And to all who call upon them, they become all things. For they themselves, even while they still walked the earth, provided this of their own accord; we know they were eager to be made such, those who were the mouth of Christ, I say, the vessels of election, the foundations of the Church, the stewards of the heavens, the followers and imitators of the Savior, and after Him, the saviors of the world. These things, and even more than these, and nothing less, are the testimonies of the apostles, whom one might confidently claim for himself as invincible champions, impregnable bulwarks, C watchful guardians, consolers in afflictions, deliverers in dangers, physicians in sickness, companions if one travels, pilots if one sails; whom one has as curators while living, and as helpers when dead.
By whose guidance and assistance my discourse, too, now reaches its end, as if sailing into a harbor. Therefore, all things were accomplished and perfected by the apostles in every way. For what was there? Was it necessary to approach Christ? They approached. To preach everywhere? They preached. To fight the good fight in all things? They fought. To place a finish equal to their deeds? They placed it. For a violent death for the sake of Christ sent them to Christ. And the author of this, Nero, is he who, either alone or D especially, showed most clearly to men how great and what kind of crimes an empire can commit if it finds a wicked man at its head. But now, dwelling with Christ in the heavens—to whom they were inseparably joined even on earth—they rejoice without end.
It seems good to me, as we are at the conclusion of my words, to address the apostles and pray to them, and then immediately stop my discourse. Hail, then, O blessed ones, hail, disciples of Christ! Hail, teachers of the world. And indeed, hail! May you rejoice in the joys which you enjoy in heaven, when you behold your flock increased by daily growth; unless something diminishes the pleasure, because those who have been instructed by you everywhere on earth to call upon the one Christ as God, have been divided in many ways by the malice of the devil; rightfully
revoking A dogmas and attempting to oppose the doctrine delivered by you in different ways. You, indeed, proclaim this to all; for truth is one. But in truth, the evil one, using a pernicious stratagem, strove to tear away from the known truth those whom he saw already snatched from the trampled worship of idols, under the pretext of searching for the truth. He is a true impostor and an instrument of wickedness, who devised these things so that, while men enter into battle for God, they might fall away from God, and while they struggle unreasonably and rashly for God at his instigation, they might become alienated from God. Otherwise, if any care for this matter touches you—as it surely does—restrain and settle your dissensions, and gather the Church together again into one. Remember that your very names tend toward this and urge you toward this. Let Paul, therefore, bring a pause to contentions. Let Peter B confirm those brought to the unshakable rock of incorruptible doctrine. And we shall owe you huge thanks, partly for those things which you endured for our sake in these lands, and partly for those things which you will again provide. May we too receive a proof of that former care of yours, so that what we have received by hearing and believe by faith, we may also behold with our eyes—namely, how you drew the whole world toward salvation, having and bearing about Christ within yourselves, whom you proclaimed to be worshiped together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and always, and unto the ages. Amen.
INTERPRETATION OF SOME CHAPTERS OF ST. AUGUSTINE FROM THE FIFTEENTH BOOK OF *ON THE TRINITY*
Which prove that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son
(Golden Theological Works, edited by Peter Arcudio, Rome, 1670.)Since Mark of Ephesus in private conversations used to say that the writings of the holy Western Fathers were corrupt, Bessarion, opposing this foolish assertion, firmly maintained that if all those things were to be erased from the codices that prove this dogma, the pages would certainly remain blank. For they do not merely utter one or another word of the saint in passing to prove it, such that one might suspect their passages to be corrupt; but their entire pages on this matter, and indeed their homilies addressed to the people, exist. Wherefore the Catholic Greeks of that age, especially Bessarion and Demetrius Cydones, translated almost entire treatises of St. Augustine. I wondered, however, why they had not also translated the book *On the Trinity* of so great a doctor, where he deliberately and industriously treats this question. But I later discovered that Maximus Planudes, a Greek monk, a most renowned philosopher and theologian, and most exercised in both languages, and most devoted to holy Augustine, had translated that book some years earlier. From it, we have excerpted what pertains to the matter. And since these things indeed exist in the third volume of Augustine and have been treated before, we have judged it right to insert them here also, before his other treatises.
FROM THE FIFTEENTH BOOK OF ST. AUGUSTINE ON THE TRINITY
CHAPTER XVII
We have spoken enough about the Father and the Son, as far as we have been able to see through this mirror and in this enigma. Now, insofar as it is granted by God to see, we must discourse on the Holy Spirit: who, according to the Holy Scriptures, is not the Spirit of the Father only, nor of the Son only, but of both, and for this reason A insinuates to us the love by which the Father and the Son love each other, as being common to both. But in order that the divine discourse might exercise us, it has made it necessary to inquire with greater diligence, not into things that are readily at hand, but into those to be searched out in the hidden and brought forth from the hidden. Therefore, the Scripture did not say, "The Holy Spirit is love"—for if it had said so, it would have removed no small part of this question—but it said: B "God is love," so that it remains uncertain, and therefore must be inquired into, whether God the Father is love, or God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit, or God the Trinity itself. For we are not going to say that God is called love for this reason, that love itself is no substance worthy of the name of God, but that it is a gift of God, just as it was said to God: "For you are my patience." For it was not said for the reason that our patience is the substance of God, but because it is from Him for us, C as it is read elsewhere: "For my patience is from Him." Indeed, the very phrasing of the Scriptures easily refutes this interpretation. For such is the expression, "You are my patience," as is, "You, O Lord, are my hope"; and, "My God, my mercy"; and many similar things. But it is not said, "O Lord, my love," or "You are my love," or "My God is my love," but it is stated thus: "God is love," just as it is said: "God is spirit." And whoever does not discern this, let him seek understanding from the Lord, not an explanation from us. For we cannot speak more clearly. God, therefore, is love. But D whether it is the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself—for that also is not three gods, but God is one—this is what is being inquired into. But I have already argued above in this book that the Trinity, which is God, is not to be taken from those three which we have shown in the Trinity of our mind, as if the memory were of all three...
[1115 B] of our mind, and the understanding of all three were the Son, and the love of all three were the Holy Spirit, so that the Father neither understands for Himself, nor loves for Himself, but the Son understands for Him and the Holy Spirit loves for Him, while He Himself remembers only for Himself and for them. And for that matter, that the Son also neither remembers nor loves for Himself, but for Him the Father remembers, and for Him the Holy Spirit loves, while He Himself understands only for Himself and for them. Furthermore, that the Holy Spirit also neither remembers nor understands for Himself, but for Him the Father remembers, and for Him the Son understands, while He Himself loves nothing apart from them. Rather, it is so, that all three as a whole, and each individually, possess this in their own nature, nor is there any distinction between these things in them—just as in us memory is one thing, understanding another, and love or charity yet another—but it is one thing that is efficacious for all, like wisdom, and is held in the nature of each in such a way that he who possesses it is that which he possesses, as an immutable and simple substance.
If, therefore, these things have been understood, and so far as it has been granted to us to see and conjecture in such great matters, they have appeared to be true, I know not why, just as wisdom is predicated of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and all together are not three, but one wisdom, so too charity should not be predicated of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and all together be one charity. For so also the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and all together are one God. And yet it is not in vain that in this Trinity the Son alone is called the Word of God, nor [1116 A] is anything called the gift of God except the Holy Spirit; nor is anyone called the one from whom the Word was begotten, and from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds archetypally, except the Father. I have added "archetypally," however, because the Holy Spirit is also found to proceed from the Son; but since the Father gave this to *Him* as well—not when He already existed and did not yet possess it, but whatever He gave to the Only-Begotten Word, He gave in begetting Him—He thus begat Him in such a way that the common gift might proceed also from Him, and the Holy Spirit might be the Spirit of both. Therefore, this inseparable distinction of the Trinity is not to be taken passingly, but to be observed diligently. B Hence it has come about that the Word of God is properly called the Wisdom of God, although the Father and the Holy Spirit are also Wisdom. If, then, one of these three ought properly to be named Charity, what could be more appropriate than that this should be the Holy Spirit? In order, namely, that in that simple and supreme nature of the Trinity, substance and charity should not be different things, but that the substance itself should be charity, and charity itself should be the substance, whether in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit; and yet that the Holy Spirit be properly called Charity. Just as by the name "Law" sometimes all the utterances of the holy Scriptures of the Old Testament are signified. For the Apostle, citing a testimony from the prophet Isaiah, where he says, "With other tongues and with other lips will I speak to this people," 1 Cor. xiv, 21, prefaced it, however, with: "In the Law it is written." And the Lord Himself says: "In the Law, he says, it is written of them, that they hated..."
me without a cause," though this is read in the Psalm. Sometimes, however, "Law" A is properly called that which was given through Moses, according to what was said: "The Law and the prophets were until John." And: "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the prophets." For here, Law is certainly properly called that from Mount Sinai, and by the name of prophets, the Psalms are also indicated. In another manner, however, the Saviour Himself says: "It behooved, he says, that all things should be fulfilled which are written in the Law and the prophets and the Psalms concerning me." Here, then, again, He wished the name of prophets to be understood as excluding the Psalms. Law, therefore, is said universally along with the prophets and Psalms. It is also said properly, that which was given through Moses. Likewise, the prophets are said commonly along with the Psalms. They are also said properly, apart from the Psalms. And by many other examples it can be shown that the names of many things can be used both universally and applied properly to certain things, unless the length of the discourse should be avoided in an obvious matter. These things I have said for this reason, lest anyone should think that we inconveniently call the Holy Spirit "Charity," because God the Father and God the Son can also be called charity. Just as, therefore, we properly call the unique Word of God by the name of "Wisdom," although universally both the Holy Spirit and the Father Himself are Wisdom: so the Holy Spirit is properly called by the name of "Charity," although B universally both the Father and the Son are charity. But the Word of God, that is, the unique Son of God, is openly said to be the Wisdom of God by the apostolic mouth, where he says: "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." But where do we find it said that the Holy Spirit is charity? We do, if we diligently examine the discourse of the apostle John, who, when he had said: "Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God," followed it up by adding: "Every one who loves is born of God; he who does not love has not known God; because God is love." Here he manifested that he had called God "love," which he said was from God. God, therefore, is love from God. But since both the Son is born from God the Father, and C the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father, it is rightly asked which of them we ought to understand here as being called "God is love." For the Father alone is so God that He is not from God; and by this, love, which is so God that it is from God, is either the Son or the Holy Spirit. But in what follows, when he had mentioned the love of God, not that by which we love Him, but that by which He Himself has loved us, and sent His Son as a liberator for our sins, and had from this exhorted us that we too should love one another, and so God might remain in us—because he had certainly called God "love"—he immediately, wishing to say something more clearly about this matter, says: "In this," he says, "we know that in Him...
and He in us, because He has given to us of His Spirit." The Holy Spirit, therefore, from which He has given to us, causes us to remain in God, and Him in us; and this, love does. Therefore, God Himself is love. And finally, after a little, having repeated this same thing, and having said, "God is love," he adds subsequently: "And he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him." Whence he had said above: "In this we know that we remain in Him, and He in us, because He has given to us of His Spirit." Therefore, the same thing is signified where we read: "God is love." God, therefore, is the Holy Spirit who proceeds from God; when He is given to a man, He inflames him into the love of God and of his neighbor, and He Himself is love. For a man has nothing from which he might love God, unless it be from God. On account of which, a little later, he says: "Let us love, because He first loved us." And the apostle Paul also says: "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us."
CHAPTER XVIII.
Concerning the excellence of love, which is so much from God that it is itself God.
B There is nothing more excellent than this gift of God; for it alone is what distinguishes between the children of the eternal kingdom and the children of eternal perdition. Other gifts are given through the Holy Spirit, but without love they profit nothing, unless the Holy Spirit were so distributed to someone that He caused him to be a lover of God and of his neighbor; for from the left one is not transferred to the right. Nor, indeed, is the Spirit properly called a gift, except on account of love; which he who does not have, "if he speaks with the tongues of men and of angels, is a sounding brass and a clanging cymbal. And if he has prophecy, and knows all the sacraments and all knowledge, and if he has all faith, so that he might transfer mountains, he is nothing. And if he distributes all his substance, and if he delivers his body so that it may burn, it profits him nothing." Of how great a good, therefore, is this, without which such great goods lead no one to eternal life? But love itself, or charity—for both names belong to one thing—if he possesses it, he who does not speak with tongues, nor has prophecy, nor knows all the sacraments, nor all knowledge, nor distributes all his things to the poor, or by not having what he might distribute, or by being prohibited by some necessity, nor delivers his body so that it may burn, if there is no temptation of such a passion, leads to the kingdom, so that it makes even faith itself not useful, unless it be through charity; for without charity, faith can indeed exist, but it cannot profit. On account of which the apostle Paul also says: "In Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith, which works through love": thus distinguishing itB from that faith by which even the demons believe and shudder. Love, therefore, which is from God and is God in the proper sense, is the Holy Spirit, through whom the love of God is poured out in our hearts, by which the whole Trinity dwells within us. Indeed, it is also most correctly said that the Holy Spirit, being God, is also called the gift of God. For what is it that we must understand as the gift in the proper sense, if not love, which leads us to God, and without which any other gift of God does not lead us to God?
CHAPTER XIX.
Whether it must also be proven that the Holy Spirit is called the gift of God in the Holy Scriptures? If this also is expected, we have in the Gospel according to John the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who says: "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me, and drink. He who believes in me, as the Scripture says, rivers of living water shall flow from his belly." Furthermore, the evangelist added: "But this he said about the Spirit, whom those who were to believe in him were to receive." Hence the apostle Paul also says: "And we have all drunk one Spirit." But whether this water, which is the Holy Spirit, is called the gift of God, is the question. Yet, just as we find here that this water is the Holy Spirit, so we also find elsewhere in that same Gospel C this water referred to as the gift of God. For the same Lord, conversing with the Samaritan woman beside the well, to whom he had said, "Give me a drink," and when she had answered that "Jews do not associate with Samaritans," responded and said to her: "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, Give me a drink, you would perhaps have asked him, and he would have given you living water." The woman says to him, "Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep; where then do you get living water?" and so on. Jesus answered and said to her: "Everyone who drinks from this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks from the water that I will give him, will not thirst forever; but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into eternal life." Since, therefore, this living water, as the evangelist explained, is the Holy Spirit, there is no doubt that the Spirit is the gift of God, about whom the Lord here says: "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, Give me a drink, you would perhaps have asked him, and he would have given you living water." For what he said there, "Rivers D of living water shall flow from his belly," he says here, "It will become in him [a fountain of water springing up into eternal life]." Paul the apostle also says, "To each one of us grace is given according to the measure of the gift of Christ." And to show that the gift of Christ is the Holy Spirit, he added subsequently: "Therefore he says: 'He ascended on high; he led captivity captive,'
' he gave gifts to men." It is very well known that the Lord Jesus, after His resurrection from the dead, having ascended into heaven, gave the Holy Spirit, being filled with whom those who believed spoke in the tongues of all nations. And let it not disturb us that he says, "Gifts," and not "a gift"; for he has cited that testimony from the Psalm. In the Psalm, however, it is read thus: "Thou hast ascended on high, Thou hast led captivity captive, Thou hast received gifts in men." For so many manuscripts have it, especially the Greek ones, and we have it translated thus from the Hebrew. Therefore the Apostle said "gifts," just as the Prophet did, and not "a gift." But when the Prophet said: "Thou hast received in men," the Apostle preferred to say: "He gave gifts to men," so that from both expressions, the one prophetic and the other apostolic—because in both there is the authority of the divine word—the fullest sense might be rendered. For both is true, that He gave to men, and that He received in men. He gave to men, as the Head to His members. He Himself also received in men, that is, in His own members, on account of which members He cried from heaven: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?" And of which members He says: "When ye did it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye did it unto Me." Therefore Christ Himself both gave from heaven and received on earth. Furthermore, both the Prophet and the Apostle called them gifts because through the gift, which is the Holy Spirit, many gifts which are proper to each are distributed to all the members of Christ in common. For not each one has all things, but some have these, and others those, although all possess the gift itself from which proper gifts are distributed to each, that is, the Holy Spirit. For elsewhere, when He had mentioned many gifts, or charisms, He says: "All these worketh one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will." This word is B also found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where it is written: "God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost." And here, when he had said: "He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, He gave gifts unto men. (Now that He ascended, what is it but that He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things.) And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." Behold why it was said "gifts," because as He says elsewhere: "Are all apostles? Are all prophets?" and so forth; but here he added: "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." This is the house which, as the Psalm sings, is built after the captivity; for they who are of the C members, through whom as His own members He cried from heaven, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?" And concerning His own members He says: "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, ye have done it unto Me." Christ Himself, therefore, both gave from heaven and received on the earth. And for this reason both the Prophet and the Apostle said "gifts," because through the gift, that is, the Holy Spirit, D many gifts, which are peculiar to each, are distributed in common to men who are the members of Christ; for not everyone possesses all things, but some have these, and others those, although all possess the gift itself, the Holy Spirit, from which the peculiar gifts are distributed to each. For indeed elsewhere, having mentioned many gifts, that is, charisms, He says, "All these worketh one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will." The word is also found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where it is written: "God also bearing them witness with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and with distributions of the Holy Spirit." And here, having said, "He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, He gave gifts unto men," he adds: "Now that He ascended, what is it but that He also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all heavens, that He might fill all things. And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." Behold for what reason "gifts" are mentioned. For indeed...
as he says elsewhere, "Are all apostles? are all prophets?" and so forth. Here, however, he joined them together, "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." C This is the house, as the psalm sings, built up after the captivity. For indeed, from those who have been rescued from the devil, by whom they were held captive, the house of Christ is built, which house is called the Church. And this captivity He Himself led captive, because He conquered the devil; and that he might not drag along with himself into eternal punishment those who were to be members of the holy head, He bound him first with the chains of justice, and then with those of power. He himself, therefore, the devil, has been called the captivity, which He led captive who "ascended up on high and gave gifts unto men," or "received among men."
Peter the apostle, as we read in the canonical book where the Acts of the Apostles are written, speaking of Christ, when the hearts of the Jews were pricked and they said, "What then shall we do, brethren, show us?" said to them: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." And again we read in the same book that Simon Magus wished to give money to the apostles, so that he might receive from them the power by which, through the laying on of his hands, the Holy Spirit might be given. To whom the same Peter said: "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." And in another place in the same book, when Peter was speaking to Cornelius and those who were with him, announcing and preaching Christ, the Scripture says: "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God." Regarding this action of his, namely, that he baptized the uncircumcised—for the Holy Spirit came upon them before they were baptized, so that he might remove the knot of this question—Peter, afterwards rendering an account to the brethren who were in Jerusalem (who, when they heard this, were troubled), said among other things: D "And as I began to speak to them, the Holy Spirit fell on them, as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how that He said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit. If then He has given an equal gift to them, as also to us who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God, that He should not give them the Holy Spirit?" And there are many other testimonies of the Scriptures which concordantly attest that the Holy Spirit is the gift of God, in so far as He is given to those who through Him love God; but it is too long to collect everything. And what is sufficient for those for whom these things which we have said are not enough? Certainly they must be admonished, inasmuch as the gift of God is already [original-script column: see facsimile]
A seen to be spoken of as the Holy Spirit, when they hear, “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” that it denotes that kind of expression which was used in the exposition of the body of the flesh. For just as the body of the flesh is nothing other than flesh, so the gift of the Holy Spirit is nothing other than the Holy Spirit himself. Inasmuch, then, as it is given, to those to whom it is given, it is to that extent the gift of God. But with himself God is what he is, even if he is given to no one, since he was God coeternal with the Father and the Son before he was given to anyone. Nor, because they give and he is given, is he on that account less than them. For he is given as the gift of God in such a way that he also gives himself, as God. For it cannot be said that he is not of his own power, of whom it is said: “The Spirit breathes where he wills.” And that apostolic word, which I have already mentioned above: “But all these things one and the same Spirit operates, dividing to each his own as he wills.” There is not there a state of the given and a lordship of the givers, but a concord of the given and the givers. Wherefore, if holy Scripture proclaims, “God is love,” that which is from God, and works in us so that we may remain in God, and He in us, and we know this from this, that he has given us of his Spirit; he himself, his Spirit, is God, he is love: then, if among the gifts of God there is nothing greater than love, and there is no gift of God greater than the Holy Spirit, what is B more consistent than that he should be charity/love, who is said to be both God and from God? And if charity, by which the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father, ineffably demonstrates the communion of both, what is more fitting than that he should be called charity properly, who is the Spirit common to both? For this is believed or understood more soundly, so that not only is the Holy Spirit charity in that Trinity, but he is not in vain properly called charity, on account of those things which have been said: just as not only in that Trinity is there either Spirit or holy, because both the Father is Spirit, and the Son is Spirit; and the Father is holy, and the Son is holy, which piety does not doubt, and yet this one is not in vain properly called holy Spirit. For because he is common to both, he is called properly by that name which both share in common. Otherwise, if in that Trinity only the Holy Spirit is charity, assuredly the Son would be found to be the Son not only of the Father, but also of the Holy Spirit. For thus it is said and read in innumerable places that the only-begotten Son of God the Father: so that that also is true, which the Apostle says of God the Father: “Who rescued us from the power of darkness, and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love,” and he did not say, of his Son; which if he had said, he would most truly have said, just as, because he often said it, he spoke most truly; but he said, “of the Son of his love.” D Filius
is therefore also the Spirit of the holy, if He is not in that A of the Son, lastly of His substance. For charity Trinity charity (of God) unless the Holy Spirit. And if in the Trinity is nothing other than the Holy Spirit. Which, if it is most ignorant, it remains that not only is the Holy Spirit charity there, but on account of those things about which I have sufficiently discoursed He is properly so called. For what was said: "of charity of His Son," nothing else should be understood than of His beloved Son, than nothing is other than His very nature and substance, as we have already often said, and it is not wearisome to repeat often. And by this the Son by His charity is none other than He who is begotten from His substance.
Son, then, and of the Holy Spirit, if there is not something else in the Trinity that is the love of God, other than the Holy Spirit. Which, if it is most ignorant, it remains that not only is the Holy Spirit there as charity, but on account of those things about which I have sufficiently discoursed, He is specifically so called. And as for what was said regarding "the Son of His love," nothing else is to be understood than the beloved Son, or finally, the Son of His substance. For the love of the Father, which is in His ineffably simple nature, is nothing else than His own nature and substance, as we have often said already, and it is not wearisome to repeat it often. And for this reason, the Son of His love is none other than He who is begotten from His substance.
OF MAXIMUS THE MONK, PLANUDES, SYLLOGISMS CONCERNING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AGAINST THE LATINS
MAXIMI PLANUDAE SYLLOGISMS CONCERNING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AGAINST THE LATINS
See volume CLXI, col. 309, where they are published together with the refutations of Bessarion and Demetrius Cydonius. "One might wonder," says Cydonius there, "about this man, who, on account of these few and feeble arguments, attempts to overturn the book of Saint Augustine, on the translation of which into the Greek language he labored greatly. For if he underwent that labor wishing to harm those who would read it, he is truly absurd, and is worthy of much condemnation among the pious for laboring to harm the souls of others; but if, knowing it would be useful to those into whose hands it would fall, he chose to translate it so as to do a favor to our own people, why, then, as if led by repentance, does he exhort them to avoid it as if it were harmful, that which he translated for the utility of the readers? But the cause of this absurdity is the terror of him who was then ruling, whom he knew would be inexorable toward those who assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and he wished to free himself from prison and chains by these arguments."
ST. AUGUSTINE: A TREATISE ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN CONCERNING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
(Translated, as it appeared to Peter Arcudius, by Bessarion or Demetrius Cydones.)From Tractate XCIV, upon the words: *Now I go to him that sent me, and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou?*
A The Lord Jesus indicates that He was to go in such a way that no one would ask, "Whither goest thou?"—a thing they would clearly see happen with their bodily eyes. For previously the disciples had asked Him where He was going, and He had answered that He was going where they could not then come. But now He promises that He will go in such a way that none of them will ask where He is going. For a cloud received Him when He ascended from them, and as He went into heaven, they did not follow Him with words, but with their eyes. "But because I have spoken these things unto you," He says, "sorrow hath filled your heart." He saw, indeed, what those words of His were doing in their hearts; for, not yet having the internal consolation which they were to have through the Holy Spirit, they feared to lose what they were seeing outwardly in Christ. And because they knew they would lose Him, human emotion was saddened because their carnal vision was being taken away. B But He knew what was better for them, because the interior vision, by which the Holy Spirit was to console them, is indeed better: He would not present a human body to the bodily eyes of those who behold Him, but would infuse Himself into the hearts of those who believe. Finally, He adds: "But I tell you the truth: it is expedient for you that I go away. For if I go not away, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you." As if to say: "It is expedient for you that this form of a servant be taken away from you. For although the Word made flesh dwells among you, I do not want you to love Me still in a carnal way, and by being content with this milk, to desire to remain infants forever." It is expedient for you that I go away. For if I go not away, the Paraclete will not come to you. If I do not withdraw the tender food with which I have nourished you, you will not hunger for solid food: if you cling to the flesh carnally, you will not be capable of the Spirit.
And for this reason, since they were to be changed from carnal or animal men into spiritual ones, they were certainly going to be more capable of receiving the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In no way, however, is it to be believed that the Father exists without the Son and the Holy Spirit, or the Father and the Son without the Holy Spirit, or the Son without the Father and the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit without the Father and the Son, or the Father and the Holy Spirit without the Son; but where any one of them is, there is the Trinity, the one God. It was necessary, however, for the Trinity to be intimated in such a way that, although there was no diversity of substances, the distinction of persons might nevertheless be established separately: where, to those who understand correctly, a separation of natures can never appear.
A What, then, is the meaning of, “If I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go away, I will send him to you”? Was He unable to send Him while He was physically present here? Who could say such a thing? For He had not withdrawn from where He was, nor had He come from the Father in such a way that He did not remain in the Father. Finally, how could He not have been able to send Him even while appointed here, when we know that He [the Spirit] descended upon Him at His baptism and remained, or rather, from whom we know He was never separable? What then is the meaning of, “If I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you,” except, “You are not able to receive the Spirit so long as you persist in knowing Christ according to the flesh”? Hence he who had already received the Holy Spirit says, “And if we have known Christ according to the flesh, but now we know Him no longer.” B Indeed, he who perceived the Word made flesh spiritually, did not perceive even the flesh of Christ itself in a carnal way. This, surely, the good Master wished to signify by saying, “For if I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go away, I will send him to you.” Now as Christ departed corporally, not only the Holy Spirit, but also the Father and the Son were present to them spiritually. For if Christ had withdrawn from them in such a way that, in His place, the Holy Spirit was in them but not with Him, where would be His promise when He says, “Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age”? And, “We will come to Him, I and the Father, and We will make Our abode with Him,” since He promised in this way that the Holy Spirit would also come, so that He might be with them unto the age; and because of these things, having become spiritual from carnal, they were necessarily going to be more capable recipients of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For in no one is it to be believed that the Father exists without the Son and the Holy Spirit, or the Father and the Son without the Holy Spirit, or the Son without the Father and the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit without the Father and the Son, or the Father and the Holy Spirit without the Son. D For where one of these is, there also is one God, the Trinity. The Trinity had to be shown in such a way that, even if there were no difference in essence, the persons would nevertheless be acknowledged individually, and thus, to those who understand rightly, a separation of nature would be seen in no way.
From the ninety-fifth discourse:
“But when He has come, He will reprove the world concerning sin, and concerning righteousness, and concerning judgment.” What does this mean? Was the Lord Jesus Christ not reproving the world concerning sin when He says, “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin”? But lest anyone perhaps say that this pertains strictly to the Jews, and not to the world, does He not say in another place, “If you were of the world, the world would love what is its own”? Does He not reprove concerning righteousness, where He says, “Righteous Father, the world has not known You”? Does He not reprove concerning judgment, where He says He will say to those on the left, “Depart into the eternal fire,which has been prepared for the devil and his angels”? B And one could find many other things in the holy Gospel where the Lord has reproved the world. Why, then, is this assigned specifically to the Holy Spirit? Is it perhaps because Christ spoke only to the nation of the Jews, and thus it might not seem that He Himself reproved the world, but only that those who heard the reproofs were reproved? But the Holy Spirit, diffused through the Apostles throughout the whole world, is seen to reprove not one nation, but the whole world. For this He said to them when He was about to ascend into heaven: “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has set by His own authority, but you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” This is what it means to reprove the world. But who would dare to say that it is even only the Holy Spirit who reproves the world through the Apostles of Christ, and not Christ Himself, when the Apostle cries out, “Or do you seek proof of Christ speaking in me?” Therefore, those whom the Holy Spirit reproves, Christ also reproves. But as far as I can see, because charity was to be diffused through the Holy Spirit into the hearts of the disciples, which casts out fear—by which they might have been hindered from daring to C reprove the world, which was raging with persecutions—for that reason He said, “He will reprove the world.” As if to say: He will diffuse charity into your hearts, and thus, with fear removed, you will reprove the world with confidence. Frequently, we have said that the works of the Trinity are inseparable; but it was necessary for the persons to be presented individually, D so that the Trinity might be understood not only as indivisible, but also as unconfused.
He next interprets how He will reprove, saying, “concerning sin, and concerning righteousness, and concerning judgment.” Concerning sin, He says, “because they do not believe in me.” For He sets this forth as the sin beyond all others, as though it were the only one; because while this remains, all others are held fast, and while this departs, the others are forgiven. Concerning righteousness, He says, “because I go to the Father, and you see me no more.” Here, first, one must consider: if anyone is rightly reproved concerning sin, how could he also be rightly reproved concerning righteousness? For if one reproves a sinner because he is a sinner, is it to be thought that one ought also to reprove a righteous man because he is righteous? God forbid! For if at any time a righteous man is reproved, he is rightly reproved, because, as it is written, “There is not a righteous man upon the earth who will do good and will not sin.” Wherefore, even when a righteous man is reproved, he is reproved concerning sin, not concerning righteousness. For in that also which we read said by divine inspiration: “Do not become righteous overmuch,” it is not the righteousness of the wise man that is noted, but the pride of the presumptuous; for he who becomes righteous overmuch, by that very excess becomes unrighteous. For he makes himself righteous overmuch, who says he has no sin; or who thinks he does not require
A the grace of God, but assigns his own righteousness to his own will; and he is not righteous by the rectitude of his life, but rather puffed up, thinking himself to be that which he is not. By what argument, therefore, must the world be reproved concerning righteousness? Entirely by the righteousness of those who believe. The world is therefore reproved concerning sin, because it does not believe in Christ. It is reproved also concerning righteousness by the righteousness of those who believe; for this comparison of the faithful toward the unfaithful is the very reproach of the unfaithful themselves. And this the sequel sufficiently declares. For, wishing to unfold what was said, "But concerning righteousness," he says, "because I go to the Father, and you see me no longer." He did not say, "They no longer see me," concerning those of whom he had said that "they do not believe in me." But what he called sin, he explained, speaking of those, saying, "Because they do not believe in me." But concerning that which he called righteousness, when explaining that by which the world was to be reproved, he turns from those others to those with whom he was conversing, and says, "Because I go to my Father, and you see me no longer." Whence it is clear that the world is reproved concerning sin by its own sin, but concerning righteousness by the righteousness of another, just as darkness is reproved by light. "For all things that are reproved," says the Apostle, "are made manifest by the light." For how great is the evil of those who do not believe, can be revealed not only by itself, but also by the good of those who believe. And since it is customary for the unfaithful to utter this voice: "How then do we believe what we do not see?"—on this account it was necessary that the righteousness of believers be defined as this: "Because I go to the Father, and you see me no longer; for blessed are they who have not seen and have believed." For even the faith of those who did see Christ is not praised on this account, that they believed what they saw, that is, the Son of man, but because they believed what they did not see, the Son of God, clearly. And when the very form of a servant was removed from their sight, then in every respect was fulfilled that which is written: "But the righteous shall live by faith." For faith is, as the Apostle defines it in the Epistle to the Hebrews, "the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." And what is it, "You shall no longer see me?" For he did not so speak—"I go to the B Father, and you shall no longer see me"—as to signify a distance of time, whether long or short, but as if it were defined on both sides in that he would not be seen; but by saying, "You shall no longer see me," it is as if the truth C had foretold that they would never again behold Christ. Is this righteousness, never to see Christ and yet to believe in him? Since, therefore, faith is praised, by which the righteous man lives, because he believes in him whom he does not now see as Christ, but whom he shall see at some time? In the last place, according to this righteousness, are we to say that the Apostle Paul was not righteous, who confessed that he had seen Christ after his ascension into heaven, concerning which he had already said at that time, "You shall no longer see me?" Was not the most glorious Stephen righteous according to this righteousness, who, when he was being stoned, said: "Behold, I see the heaven opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God." D
A What then is this: "I go to the Father, and you shall not see me," if not as I am now, while I am with you? For then he was still mortal, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who could hunger and thirst, and weary, and sleep. This Christ, then—that is, such a Christ—once he had passed from this world to the Father, they were not to see anymore; and this is the righteousness of faith, of which the Apostle says: "And if we have known Christ according to the flesh, but now we know him so no longer." There shall be, then, he says, your righteousness, by which the world will be convicted: "Because I go to the Father and you shall see me no more"; because you will believe in me in him whom you do not see; and when you do see me, you will not see me as I am now, when I am with you. You will not see B me humble, but exalted; you will not see me mortal, but everlasting; you will not see me being judged, but as the judge. And from this righteousness of yours, that is, of your faith, the Holy Spirit will convict the unbelieving world. He will convict it also of judgment, because the prince of this world has been judged. Who is this prince of this world? He of whom he said elsewhere: "The prince of this world comes, and in me he will find nothing," C that is, no sin; clearly, nothing of his. For because of sin, the devil is the prince of the world. For the devil is not the prince of the heaven and the earth, and of all things that are in them, in which sense the world is understood as, "The world was made through him," but the devil is the prince of that world of which he says hereafter: "And the world did not know him," that is, the unbelieving men, of whom the world is entirely full, among whom the faithful world groans, which he chose out of the world, through whom the world was made. About whom the same one says: "The Son of man did not come to judge D the world, but that the world might be saved through him." The world of this one is condemned by the Judge, the world of this one is saved by the Savior. For just as a tree is full of leaves and fruit, and a threshing floor is full of chaff and wheat, so the world is full of both believers and unbelievers. The prince of the world, therefore—that is, of this darkness, or of the unbelievers from whom the world is being delivered—of whom it is said: "You were sometimes darkness, but now you are light in the Lord"; of whom he says elsewhere: "Now shall the prince of this world be cast out," has already been judged, since, being irreclaimable, he has been sentenced to the judgment of eternal fire. Concerning this judgment, then,
B is the world reproved by the Holy Spirit, because it is judged along with its own prince, whom it mimics, being proud and impious. For if "God," as the Apostle Peter says, "did not spare the angels who sinned, but delivered them, fettered by the shades of Tartarus, to be held for judgment," how is the world not reproved by the Holy Spirit concerning this judgment, when the Apostle spoke these things in the Holy Spirit? Let men therefore believe in Christ, that they may not be reproved by the Holy Spirit concerning the sin of their own unbelief, in which sin all other sins are held fast. Let them be numbered among the faithful, that they may not be reproved by the justice of those whom, though justified, they do not imitate; let them beware of the future judgment, that they may not be judged together with the prince of this world, whom they presently imitate as one already judged. For lest the hard pride of mortals think that God will spare it, let it be shaken with the punishment of the proud angels.
From the 96th Tractate, on those words: *“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.”* And after a few words: *“What these are, which the apostles could not then bear, you perhaps wish to know. But who among us would dare to say that he is already capable of those things which they were not able to take in? And on this account they are not to be expected from me, that they should be spoken, which perchance I would not take in if they were spoken by another: nor could you bear them, even if I were so great that you might hear from me those things which are above you. And it is indeed possible that there are among you some already fit to take in those things which others are not yet able to take in, and if not all, yet of those things of which that Master, God, was saying, 'I have yet many things to say unto you,' still perhaps some of them; but which these are, which He did not say, it is rash to wish to presume and to say.”* For even to die for Christ, the apostles were not yet fit, to whom He was saying, C *“Ye cannot follow me now.”* And the first of them, Peter, who had already presumed that he could do this, experienced something other than he thought: and yet afterwards, both men and women, boys and girls, youths and virgins, elders together with juniors, countless multitudes were crowned by martyrdom, and were found able to bear that which then, when the Lord was saying these things, the shepherds were not yet able to bear. Should it, therefore, have been said to all those in that article of temptation, in which it was necessary to strive even unto death for the truth, and for the name of Christ, or for doctrine to shed their blood; should it, I say, have been said to them: "Who of you would dare to deem himself fit for martyrdom?" to whom even Peter had not yet been fit, when the Lord Himself was instructing him face to face? Thus, therefore, someone might say that it ought not to be said to Christian peoples who desire to hear what those things were concerning which the Lord then said: *"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."* If the apostles were not yet able, much less are you able; because perhaps thus many are able to hear what then Peter could not yet, just as many can be crowned by martyrdom, which then Peter could not, especially since the Holy Spirit had already been sent, who then had not yet been sent—of whom He immediately subjoins, and says: D *"But when He, the Spirit,"*
of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth."* A From this, then, it is clearly shown that for this reason they were not able to bear the things that were to be heard from Him, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come. But even if it were conceded that there are many now who are able to bear [these things], since the Holy Spirit has been sent—things which the apostles were not able to bear while He was not yet sent—are we therefore to know what those things were which He then did not wish to say, which we would know if we were to read or hear them spoken by Him? For it is one thing to know whether they can be borne by us or by you, and another thing to know what they were, whether they could be borne or not. Since He Himself has kept silent about these, who among us shall say, "These or those are they"? Or if one should dare to speak, from whence does he prove it? For who is so vain or rash, that when he has said that some things—even true things—are such as he might wish, he asserts without any divine testimony that these were the things He then did not wish to say? Who among us would do this, and not incur the greatest blame for rashness, in which neither prophetic nor apostolic authority is found to support him? B For certainly, if we had read any of these things in the books established by canonical authority, which were written after the Ascension of the Lord, it would not have been enough to have read this, unless it were also read that this was one of the things the Lord then did not wish to say to the disciples, because they could not bear them.
And after some other matters:
Wherefore, most beloved, do not expect to hear from us those things which the Lord at that time did not wish to say to the disciples, because they could not yet bear them; C but rather, make progress in that charity which is shed abroad in your hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to you, so that, being fervent in spirit and loving spiritual things, you may be able to know spiritual light and the spiritual voice—which carnal and animal men cannot bear—not by any sign appearing to the corporeal eyes, nor by any sound striking the corporeal ears, but by interior vision and hearing. For that which is utterly unknown cannot be loved; but when it is loved, that which is known, however slightly, is made perfect by that very love, so that it may be known better and more fully. If, therefore, you make progress in that charity which the Holy Spirit sheds abroad in your hearts, D *“He will teach you all truth”*; or, as other codices have it, *“He will guide you into all truth.”* Whence it is said: *“Lead me, O Lord, in Thy way, and I will walk in Thy truth.”* Thus it will come to pass that you will not learn from exterior teachers those things which the Lord did not wish to say at that time, but that you will all be taught by God, so that those things which you have learned and believed through readings and sermons brought from without, concerning the incorporeal nature of God, and that [He is] neither enclosed in any place, nor by any form...
C extension, as if it were a magnitude spread out, but is everywhere whole, perfect, and infinite, without the brilliance of colors, without graphic forms, without the marks of letters, without the texture of syllables; yet you have been able to discern and know this with the mind itself. Behold, I have said something to you, which in truth is [beyond comprehension], and yet you have received it, and were able not only to bear it but even to hear it with pleasure. But if that inward Teacher, who while still speaking to the disciples from without, said: “I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now,” wished to speak to you from within in this way about that incorporeal nature of God, as He speaks to the holy angels who always behold the face of the Father, we would not have been able to bear the instruction. Hence, when He says, “He will teach you all the truth,” or, “He will guide you into all the truth,” I do not think it possible for anyone to be filled with it in this present life in his mind. For who, living in this corruptible body which weighs down the soul, will be able to know all the truth, when the Apostle says, “We know in part?” But this is said because it happens through the Holy Spirit, D of whom we take the pledge now, so that we may also arrive at the fullness itself, of which the same Apostle says: “Then face to face,” and, “Now I know in part, but then I shall know even as also I have been known”—not in this present life with such [knowledge], but in the future perfection which the Lord promised through the charity of the Spirit, saying: “He will teach you all the truth,” or, “He will guide you into all the truth.”
Since things are thus, beloved, I exhort you in the charity of Christ to guard yourselves against the unclean deceivers and the heresies of shame, concerning which the Apostle says: “For the things which are done by them in secret it is a shame even to speak of,” lest, when [these heretics] begin to teach those abominable uncleannesses which human ears, of whatever kind they may be, cannot bear, they say that these are the things of which the Lord said: “I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now,” and assert that it is through the Holy Spirit that these B unclean and abominable things can be borne. There are some evils which any human decency whatsoever cannot bear, and there are some good things which the small human intellect cannot bear. These [evils] are committed by shameless bodies; those [good things] are removed from all bodies; this [evil] is committed in the impure flesh, that [good] is scarcely discerned by the pure mind.
Be renewed, therefore, in the spirit of your mind, and understand what is the good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God, that, being rooted and grounded in love, you may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the length, and breadth, and height, and depth, and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fullness of God. For in this way the Holy Spirit will teach you all the truth, when He shall pour forth love more and more into your hearts.
A From the 29th discourse, explaining that saying: "For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, He shall speak," he says the following about the middle of the treatise: B Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit, by no assumption of human nature, became man, nor by any assumption of an angel became an angel, nor by any assumption of a creature became a creature, how is that which was said by the Lord to be understood: "For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatever He shall hear, He shall speak"? The question is great, and very great. May the Holy Spirit Himself be present, so that we may at least be able to speak of it in the way we are able to think of it, and thus, according to my humble capacity, be able to lead it to your understanding. You ought, therefore, first to know and be able to comprehend—and to believe what you are not yet able to comprehend—that in that substance which is God, sensations are not distributed in proper places as if by a bodily mass, just as in the mortal flesh of animals there is sight in one place, hearing in another, and likewise taste and smell, while touch is everywhere. Far be it from anyone to believe this concerning that incorporeal and immutable nature! To hear and to see there is one and the same thing. Smell is also spoken of in God, as the Apostle says: "Even as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness." And taste can be understood there, according to which God loathes those who embitter Him, and neither cold nor hot, but lukewarm, He vomits out of His mouth. And the Savior says: "My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me." C There is also a divine touch, whence the Bride says concerning the Bridegroom: "His left hand under my head, and his right hand shall embrace me." But all these things are not in God in different parts of a body. For when it is said that He knows, all these things are there: both to see, and to hear, and to smell, and to taste, and to touch, without any change of that substance, without any dimension which is greater in one part and smaller in another—which is thought so by a childish error in the senses, when God is thought of in this way. Do not marvel, then, if the ineffable knowledge of God, by which He knows all things, is named by the names of all these bodily senses through various modes of human speech, since our own mind also, that is, the inner man—to whom, as he knows uniformly through these five, as if they were bodily messengers, different things are reported—when it understands the immutable truth, chooses, loves, and sees the light, of which it is said: "He was the true light"; and hears the Word, of which it is said: "We run after the odor of your ointments"; and drinks the fountain, of which it is written: "To me it is good to cleave to God"; it is not one thing and another, but one intelligence is named by the names of so many senses. Therefore, when it D is said of the Holy Spirit: "For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatever He shall hear, He shall speak," [it is understood] much more in that simple nature, where most truly it is simple.
and in its infinite length and breadth transcends the nature of our intellect. For our intellect is mutable, since by learning it receives what it did not know, and by unlearning loses what it knew; and it is deceived by the likeness of truth, so that it approves the false as true, and is hindered by its own obscurity, as if by certain shadows, from reaching the truth. Hence, that substance is most truly not simple in which "to be" is not the same as "to know." For it can be, and yet not know. But the divine [substance] cannot be so, for what it has, that it is. And for this reason, it does not possess knowledge in such a way that knowledge is one thing for it, by which it knows, and essence is another, by which it is; but both are one. Nor should both be said of that which is simply one, just as the Father has life in Himself, and He is not something other than the life that is in Him; and He gave to the Son to have life in Himself, that is to say, He begat a Son who is also Himself life. Thus, therefore, we must also accept what was said A regarding the Holy Spirit: "For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatever He shall hear, He shall speak," so that we may understand that He is not from Himself. For the Father alone is not from another. For the Son also was begotten from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. But the Father is neither begotten from another, nor proceeds from another. Yet, for this reason, let no inequality occur to human thought in that supreme Trinity; for the Son is equal to Him from whom He was begotten, and the Holy Spirit is equal to Him from whom He proceeds. But what is it to discourse by seeking, and to define when you have discoursed? For this is most difficult both to comprehend even slightly in the mind, and if by chance the mind understands something thereof, most difficult to explain with the tongue, however great the teacher present, and however great the hearer. Therefore, "He shall not speak of Himself," because He is not from Himself, but "whatever He shall hear, He shall speak." He shall hear from Him from whom He proceeds. To Him, to hear is to know, and indeed to know is to be, as was discussed above. Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit is not from Himself, but from Him from whom He proceeds—from whom existence is for Him, from Him also is knowledge, and from Him, therefore, is the hearing, which is nothing other than knowledge. B And let it not disturb you that a verb of the future tense is placed here. For it is not said, "Whatever He heard," or "Whatever He hears," but "Whatever He shall hear, He shall speak." For that hearing is eternal, just as the knowledge is eternal. And in that which is eternal, without beginning and without end, whatever verb of time might be spoken, whether past, or present, or even future, it will not be spoken untruly. For although that immutable and ineffable nature does not receive "was" and "will be," but only "is"—for it is itself more truly, because it cannot be changed, and therefore it was meet for Him to say, "I am who I am," and, C nevertheless, on account of the mutability of times, in which our mortality and our mutability is engaged, [it is understood] much more in that simple nature, where most truly it is simple, and in its infinite length and breadth transcends the nature of our intellect. For our intellect is mutable, since by learning it receives what it did not know, and by unlearning loses what it knew; and it is deceived by the likeness of truth, so that it approves the false as true, and is hindered by its own obscurity, as if by certain shadows, from reaching the truth. Hence, that substance is most truly not simple in which "to be" is not the same as "to know." For it can be, and yet not know. But the divine [substance] cannot be so; for what it has, that it is. And hence it does not possess knowledge in such a way that knowledge is one thing in it, by which it knows, and essence is another, by which it is. But both are one there; or rather, it is not correct to call them both there, where it is simply one. Just as, therefore, the Father has life in Himself, and He is not something other than the life that is in Him, so He also gave to the Son to have life in Himself, that is to say, He begat a Son who is life Himself. Thus, therefore, we must also accept what was said regarding the Holy Spirit: "For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatever He shall hear, He shall speak," so that we may understand that He is not from Himself. For the Father alone is not from another; for the Son also has been begotten from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. But the Father possesses neither a begetter from others, nor proceeds D from another. Yet, because of this, let no inequality in that supreme Trinity meet with these human reasonings; for both the Son is equal to Him from whom He was begotten, and the Holy Spirit is equal to Him from whom He proceeds. But what constitutes the difference there between being begotten and proceeding is a long matter to investigate and to clarify, and it is rash to define. For this is hard for the intellect to grasp, and if the intellect has perhaps understood anything, it is most difficult to disentangle with the tongue, and so the teacher has proceeded or the hearer has followed concerning the exercise of these [matters]. Therefore, He does not speak of Himself, because He is not from Himself, but "whatever He shall hear, He shall speak." He shall hear from Him from whom He proceeds. To Him, to hear is to know. And to know is to be, as we have argued above. Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit is not from Himself, but from Him from whom He proceeds, from whom existence is for Him, from Him is also knowledge, and from Him, therefore, is the hearing, which is nothing other than knowledge. And let it not disturb you that a verb of future tense is placed here. For it is not said, "What He has heard," or "What He hears," but "Whatever He shall hear, He shall speak." For that hearing is eternal, since the knowledge, too, is eternal. And in that thing which is eternal, without beginning and without end, whatever verb of time may be said—whether past, or present, or even future—this will not be said untruly. For if that immutable and ineffable nature does not receive "was" or "will be," but only "is"—for this truly is, because it is immutable, and for this reason it is fitting for Him to say, "I am who I am," and
A it was in past ages, it is in the present, it will be in the future. It was, because it never ceased to be; it will be, because it will never cease to be; it is, because it always is. For it neither perishes with the past, as if it were no longer, nor does it slip away with the present, as if it did not remain, nor does it rise with the future, as if it had not been before. Therefore, since human speech is varied according to the flow of times, words of any time are truly spoken about Him who could not be absent at any time, nor is, nor will be. Therefore, the Holy Spirit always hears, because He always knows. Therefore, He has known, and He knows, and He will know. And through this, He has heard, and He hears, and He will hear; for, as we have already said, to Him to hear is the same as to know, and to know is the same as to be. Therefore, He has heard, hears, and will hear from Him from whom He is: He is from Him from whom He proceeds. Here, perhaps, someone might ask B whether the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son. For the Son is the Son of the Father only, and the Father is the Father of the Son only; but the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of only one of them, but of both. You have the Lord Himself saying: "For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." You also have the Apostle: "God," he says, "sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts." Is it to be said that there are two, one of the Father and another of the Son? Far from it! "For there is one body," he says, when he was signifying the Church; and he immediately adds: "And one Spirit." And see how He there completes the Trinity: "As you were called," he says, "in one hope of your calling; one Lord." Here indeed he wished Christ to be understood. It remains, therefore, that he should also name the Father. He adds, therefore: "One faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all of us." Since, therefore, as there is one Father, and one Lord—that is, the Son—so there is also one Holy Spirit, [He is] indeed C of both. Just as when Christ Jesus Himself says: "The Spirit of your Father who speaks in you," and the Apostle says: "God sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts." You have in another place the same Apostle saying: "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you," here indeed he wished the Spirit of the Father to be understood. But in another place he says regarding this: "But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." And there are many other testimonies by which it is clearly shown that the Spirit, who in the Trinity is called the Holy Spirit, is of both the Father and the Son. And I do not think He is called Spirit for any other reason, since even if we are asked about each of them individually, we cannot say anything other than Father and Son, because God is Spirit, that is, God is not a body, but Spirit. Therefore, what is called [Spirit] commonly and also individually, it was fitting that He who is not one of them should be called [Spirit] properly.
A If, therefore, His doctrine is understood, which He nevertheless said was not His own, but the Father’s, how much more must it be understood there that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Him, where He speaks thus: “He proceeds from the Father,” in order not to say: “He does not proceed from me”? Now, from whom the Son has that He is God—for He is God from God—from Him He certainly has that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him also; and through this, the Holy Spirit has from the Father Himself that He proceeds from the Son just as He proceeds from the Father. Here, in some way, it is also understood, so far as it can be understood by such as we are, why the Holy Spirit is not said to be begotten, but rather to proceed. For if He were also called Son, He would certainly be called the Son of both, which is most absurd; for a son is the son of no one save of a father and a mother. But far be it that we should suspect any such thing between God the Father and God the Son! Because even the son of man does not proceed simultaneously from the father and the mother; but when he proceeds from the father, he does not yet proceed from the mother; and when he comes into this light, he proceeds from the mother, he does not then proceed from the father. B But the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son, and from the Son proceed to sanctify the creature, but He proceeds from both simultaneously: although the Father has given this to the Son, that, just as He proceeds from Himself, so He should proceed from Him also. For neither can we say that the Holy Spirit is not life, since the Father is life and the Son is life. And for this reason, both are called [Spirit], yet it was fitting that this name should be applied individually to Him who is not one of these two, but in whom the commonality of them both is manifest. Why, therefore, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, since He is also the Spirit of the Son? For if He did not proceed from Him, He would not have breathed upon the disciples after the resurrection, saying: “Receive the Holy Spirit.” For what else was signified by that breathing, if not that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him also? To this also pertains what He says regarding the woman with the issue of blood: “Someone touched me; for I perceived that power had gone forth from me.” For that the Holy Spirit is called by the name of power is evident from what the angel said to Mary, when she asked: “How shall this be, since I know not a man?” C He answered: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” But the Lord Himself, when promising Him to the disciples, says: “But you stay in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high.” And again: “You shall receive,” He says, “power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you shall be witnesses to me.” The evangelist is to be believed to speak about this power: “Power went forth from Him, and healed all.” If, then, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, for what reason did the Son say: “He proceeds from the Father”? Why, do you think, except in the way He is accustomed to refer even His own things to the Father, from whom He Himself is also? From which also is that which He says: “My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me.” If, therefore, His doctrine is understood even there, although He stated that this was not His own, but the Father’s, how much more must it be understood there that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him, where He said that He proceeds from the Father, in such a way as not to say that He does not also proceed from me? D Now from whom the Son has that He is God—for He is God from God—from Him He certainly has that the Holy Spirit should also proceed from Him. Here, therefore, it is understood, in as much as it is possible for such as we are to understand, why the Holy Spirit is said not to be begotten, but to proceed. For if He were called Son, He would be called the son of both, which is most foolish. For no one is the son of two, except of a father and a mother. But may such a thing be far from us, that we should perceive such a thing between God the Father and God the Son! Since even the son of men does not come forth at once from the father and the mother; but when he comes forth from the father, he does not yet come forth from the mother; and when he comes to this light, he does not then come forth from the father. But the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father to the Son, and from the Son proceed to sanctify the creation, but He proceeds from both simultaneously, even if the Father gave this to the Son, that just as He proceeds from Himself, so He proceeds from Him also. For neither can we say that the Holy Spirit is not life, since the Father is life and the Son is life. And for this reason,
A just as the Father, having life in Himself, gave also to the Son to have life in Himself; so He gave life to proceed also from Him, just as it proceeds and from Himself. Following this are the words of the Lord, saying: "And the things that are to come He will announce to you. He shall glorify Me, because He shall take of Mine and shall announce it to you." B
From Tractate C [of St. Augustine], on the words: "He shall glorify Me."
For what He says, "He shall glorify Me," can be understood as follows: that by pouring charity into the hearts of believers, and making them spiritual, He declared to them how the Son was equal to the Father, whom they had at first known only according to the flesh, and thought of as a man just as other men. Or certainly, because by that very same charity, filled with confidence and with fear cast away, they announced Christ to men; and thus His fame was spread throughout the whole world, as if to say: "He shall glorify Me." As if He were to say: He shall take away your fear and give you love, by which, preaching Me more ardently, you shall give the scent of My glory throughout the whole world and shall commend My honor. For what they were going to do in the Holy Spirit, He said that this same Spirit would do. Just as also is that saying: "For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." C
As for the Greek word, [Gk: δοξάσει], some of the Latin interpreters have rendered it in their own respective translations as *clarificabit* [shall clarify], and others as *glorificabit* [shall glorify], because the very word which is called *doxa* in Greek, is that from which the verb is derived, and it is interpreted as both *claritas* [clarity] and *gloria* [glory]. For by glory, each one becomes clear, and by clarity, glorious; and on this account, what is signified by both terms is the one and same thing. But just as the most illustrious authors of the Latin tongue have defined it, Glory is a frequent fame of someone with praise; and when this fact has been brought about in this world regarding Christ, it is not to be believed that it has conferred something great upon Christ, but upon the world. For praising the good is of no benefit to the one praised, but to those who praise.
And further towards the end:
Nothing needs to be said in this place about those who vituperate and blaspheme Christ, because we are speaking of the glory by which He has been glorified in the world; for the Holy Spirit has not glorified Him with true glory except in the holy Catholic Church. For elsewhere, that is, either among heretics or among certain pagans, His true glory on earth cannot exist, D nor where there seems to be frequent fame of Him with praise. Therefore, His true glory in the Catholic Church is sung by the Prophet thus: "Be exalted above the heavens, O God, and Thy glory above all the earth." Because, therefore, the Holy Spirit was to come after His exaltation and was to glorify Him, and the holy psalm and the Only-begotten Himself foretold it would come to pass, we see it fulfilled. And what He has said, "He shall take of Mine and shall announce it to you," hear with orthodox ears, understand with orthodox minds; for not...
glorify: this holy psalm, this the Only-begotten himself promised would come to pass, as we see fulfilled. But as to what he says: "He shall receive of mine, and will announce it," hear it with catholic ears, perceive it with catholic minds. For it is not, as certain heretics A have thought, that the Holy Spirit is less than the Son—as if the Son receives from the Father, but the Holy Spirit from the Son by some degrees of nature. Far be it to believe this! Far be it to say this! Far be it for Christian hearts to contemplate such things! B
Beyond these most certain testimonies of Saint Augustine, it is pleasing to add also a testimony translated into Greek by our own people from the book which is entitled *On the Knowledge of the True Life*, chapter 10, volume IX. Although it is not certain that this book is Augustine's, because it is not found in the *Retractations* nor in the *Indiculus* of Possidius, and the Louvain theologians deny that it is Augustine's based on its phrasing, Bellarmine nevertheless, in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, assesses such minor works which are in volume IX of Augustine, saying it cannot be certainly asserted that they are Augustine's, since the most diligent collector Possidius passed them over, nor are they found cited by Bede, who compiled Commentaries on the Epistles of blessed Paul from the works of Augustine; and yet, most do not dare to deny that these books are Augustine's, since they are pious and learned and not unworthy of Augustine's genius. Thus, therefore, the author, whoever he may be, discourses on the Trinity in that book in which, as in a dialogue, the Brothers ask and the Master answers.
Chapter 10, and following:
Brothers. But because the weight of the flesh weighs down the soul, behold again carnal thought strikes the mind contemplating divine things. For since reason has demonstrated above that God most truly is one, and has proved that he alone created all things from nothing, how are we taught to worship as if three gods, while we are urged to confess the Father perfect God, the Son perfect God, and the Holy Spirit perfect God? For while three distinct persons are distinguished, what else is understood by us than three gods? C
Master. In the truth itself demonstrating itself, and with reason proving it, you will the sooner see the necessity of the Trinity of persons in one essence, and likewise the necessity through all things of the unity of the indivisible substance for the three persons. Since I spoke of it above enigmatically, because I could not speak of it properly, what did I say the essence of God was, if you remember?
Brothers. Light. Master. What is begotten from light? Brothers. Splendor. Master. What is considered in light and splendor together? Brothers. Heat. Master. Is there found any diversity in the substance of light, splendor, and heat? Brothers. No, but identity. Master. Is identity preached in the words or in the offices? Brothers. Not at all, but rather diversity; for the word "light" seems to express the substance itself, the word "splendor" the grace of the light, but the word "heat" the efficacy of the light. D
A
*Fratres.* In what way do we assign unity to the substance?
*Magister.* It is evident that these three separate terms unite to form one individual essence.
*Fratres.* It is evident in every respect.
*Magister.* That the supreme Spirit, the Father, is called light, you have in the apostle John: "God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all." That the supreme Spirit, the Son, is called splendor, you have in another apostle: "Who is the splendor of his substance." That the supreme Holy Spirit is none the less called heat you have in Moses: "Our God is a consuming fire." Since, therefore, light, splendor, and heat are one nature and one individual substance, while the terms are diverse, it is certain indeed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one nature and one individual essence, as long as it is named Spirit substantially in that which it signifies; and likewise, a necessary diversity is asserted in terms of persons, while the Father is preached as begetting, the Son as being begotten, and the Holy Spirit as proceeding from both.
*Fratres.* We clearly perceive the Trinity in the persons, and we hold evidently to the necessary unity in the substance.
*Magister.* Therefore, these two names, namely, substance and person, are most watchfully applied to the divine essence; because substance is always predicated of those things which consist in a plurality of individuals, whereas person is predicated of an individual rational nature, when we assign unity to the essence. B
*Fratres.* By what likeness is the Father called eternal light?
*Magister.* Because he has begotten from himself an equal offspring.
*Fratres.* Would not the name of mother seem more fitting for him?
*Magister.* In the father is always the principal cause of the offspring, and for that reason he ought rightfully to be called by the name of the principal sex.
*Fratres.* By what likeness is he said to be begetting?
*Magister.* It is certain that the mind begets thought; but when the mind thinks of itself, it generates as it were another like itself; thus, when the supreme God thought of himself as such as he is, without doubt he generated an image like himself in all things. And just as one who begets is rightfully called Father, so the one begotten is most rightly called Son.
*Fratres.* If God begat the Son, it would seem that there was once a time when he did not have a Son, and that he possessed this name by accident. But if this is so, the earlier statement is overthrown, by which it was preached that nothing in God is accidental, but that all is essential. C
*Magister.* Reason has taught that the essence of God is eternal life, which knows neither beginning nor end. If, therefore, this unique true life has always existed without beginning, it is certain that it also has always understood itself to be living without beginning. But if it did not understand itself to be living, D it would not be wise, which it is foolish to say of God. If it ever received this wisdom from elsewhere, a wisdom of which it had previously been deprived, then that would have been better than God, from whom it received such a great good. To think this is senseless.
A If, however, the eternal life always understood itself living, this wisdom of intelligence did not accrue to it from elsewhere, but was always coessential to it, although it produced this from itself, as its own offspring, in an ineffable manner. Therefore, the Father never existed without the Son.
*Brothers.* By what likeness is the radiance of eternal light called Son and not daughter?
*Master.* Because the likeness of the Father is expressed in him in all respects; whence he is also called his likeness. For in created things, nothing preserves to the full the likeness of that from which it is born. For hair, produced from the head, is dissimilar to the head; fruits from trees, although produced by them, are dissimilar to them; the offspring of sheep, or even the children of men, are not in all respects similar to the quality of their begetters. B But this one is in all respects most similar to the one begetting, and therefore most truly he is called Son, not daughter.
*Brothers.* By what habit is the Son called Word?
*Master.* The word is understood in three ways. For instance, when a man utters this word "man" with his mouth; or when the same man forms the word "man" in his heart without movement of the tongue; or when the thing itself, which that word "man" signifies, is understood according to what it is. In this third way, God has begotten his own Word, whom he uttered while thinking upon himself. And because he also created the whole form of this world by that same thought, it is said that he created all things by his Word. Whence also concerning the creation of the world it is read: "He spoke, and they were made" (Ps. CXLVIII, 5). For the Son, or the Word of God, is nothing other than his thought, or art, or wisdom. Certainly, when we think of any thing, we form an image of that thing in our thought; so God, when he thought upon himself, formed an image similar to himself in all respects: therefore this Word is called the image or likeness of God, but nothing else is expressed except that same essence; whence this Word is also said to be as it were truly good. C
*Brothers.* Why is it said, "All that was made, in him was life"? Do stones, which are senseless, live in the Word of God?
*Master.* Every creature is said to subsist in three ways: in God, in itself, and in us. In God, there is immutable life; in itself, a mutable substance; in us, an imaginable likeness of things. For instance, a stone in itself is a mutable substance, because it is changeable into lime; in our thought, it is a likeness of a stone; in the art of God, it is an indeterminate essence of durable life. For when a craftsman plans to build a house, the house already lives in the art itself, which the hand later constructs; but that which the hand raises will decay. That, however, which lives in the art, D persists. For the art is nothing other than the soul, and the soul is his art, and that art itself is life. [The translation continues...]
Word of God is nothing other than his art, and the art is nothing other than life itself, and in this all things will immutably persist, which in the substance of their nature fall away as mutable. A Fratres. Since clear reason has invincibly proven that the same Word, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is one and an indivisible substance, how could it alone be incarnated? For if it is separated from the essence of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and thus is not individually indivisible in substance, it could suffer the division of separation. Magister. Just as the eternal power of the Divinity can be understood through those things which are made, so this profound and hidden mystery can be examined through those things that are carried out within us by searching reason. For it is known that the human mind begets the word of common speech by thinking it from itself, and the same word exists in the mind and in memory at once as one essence. But when the mind desires to make its word known to others, with the same thought—which is nothing other than its word—and with memory, it arranges that this same word should put on the body of a voice and proceed, audible to ears and visible to the hearts of those who hear, and even allows its body to be bound in letters and to be seen, and yet, remaining invisible, does not depart B from the essence of the mind and memory. Therefore, not the mind nor the memory, but only the word sounded through the sensible body of the voice; and yet it remained indivisible in the essence of the mind and memory. So too the supreme Father, by thinking of himself, begot his own Word, which subsists coessentially at once in the essence of the Father and the Holy Spirit; yet neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit, but the Word only, which is the Son of the Father, individually put on a human, sensible body, showed himself to men, and permitted the assumed body to suffer indignities, while he himself remained inseparably in the essence of the Father and the Holy Spirit, invisible and impassible. Fratres. By what similarity is the love of God called the Holy Spirit? C Magister. I said that the essence of God is life; but true life understands itself to live, and if it understands itself to be life, it certainly loves itself. Moreover, for God, to live and to understand is nothing other than to exist. The love of God, therefore, is life, and life is the Spirit. And because God through love bestows upon all things to be or to live, for this reason he is called Spirit. And "Holy" is added because all things are sanctified through him. Fratres. How is it proven that this Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? Magister. The Holy Spirit is understood as nothing other than the love of God, whence God is called charity. Moreover, it is certain that the Father loves the Son as himself, and D
binds, and likewise the Son loves the Father as himself. For life loves to know itself, and wisdom loves to live itself; and it has been proven that the essence of life and wisdom is one. Therefore, love, or affection, or charity, which is the Holy Spirit, exists as coessential with the substance of the Father and the Son, and thus proceeds equally from both.
B Brothers. If the Holy Spirit is coessential with the Father and the Son, how has it been able to be separated from the indivisible essence, since it appeared in the form of a dove over the Lord, or in the form of fire over the apostles?
Master. The substance of the Holy Spirit was not transmuted into a dove or fire, just as the substance of the Word was not transformed into flesh: but the Holy Spirit created the body of the dove.
MAXIMUS PLANUDES EPISTLE TO MANUEL PHILES
(From the Dorville codex in the *Miscellaneous Observations on Ancient and Modern Authors*, vol. II, book III, Amsterdam 1733, 8vo.)
C To Manuel Philes.
But no cupbearer urged me, good man, to send you a letter; nor did anyone arrive here from you worthy of trust, such that he might cross over from here to you—someone who is considered of no account to himself, and inferior in virtue, and perhaps a cupbearer. And so we both did something similar: you wrote first, and I, since I did not do this sooner, because you have with you one in whom you may place faith regarding me, and I indeed have not been entirely unheard regarding your affairs, but as Homer says, "one man's speech is heard by others." I gladly saw your letter, therefore, and said it was D elegant, but I was not yet able to know you yourself. But if this should come to pass through the passage of time, then from my own judgment of heart I shall love you and enroll you among the number of the most excellent men. Now, however, I have a different way in which I must love you: because you attribute every portion of praise to the cupbearer, doing so beautifully and as befits a man endowed with eloquence and learning. For in what matter concerning your eloquence would you exert yourself if you did not admire virtue, and by your encomiums cause men to want to emulate beautiful deeds? You admire a military commander, such as perhaps he was or might be, but whom you would not find today. But lest I surpass you in writing, by giving you a longer letter than I received from you, I have only this to say to you for the present: do you admire eloquence? I do also. Do you love virtue? I do also. If
A there should be nothing at all among all things that could stand as an obstacle to us, so that it might not be established that you are mine, and I yours.
This letter is the eighty-fifth among the one hundred and twenty-two letters of Planudes which the Vatican codex exhibits, besides some other writings of the same monk. Since, however, I see that Lambecius and Nesselius did not publish a list of these letters, and since it is relevant to the history of that age to know at least the names of those to whom these letters were sent, we have not deemed it improper to provide a list here, just as it is exhibited in the codex itself:
Index of the letters of Maximus Planudes
1 To the Emperor. 2 To the brother of the Emperor. 3 To Phakrates, being the Logothete of the Flocks, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19. 5 To the Orphanotrophos, Lord Leo Bardas. 6 To the Kanikleion. 9 To [the Bishop of] Adrianople. 10 To Bardales. 18 To Nikephoros of Crete. 20 To John Bardales, 21. 22 To Lord Andronikos Palaiologos, 36, 37, 41. 23 To Glykys, the Logothete of the Drome. 24 To the Grand Papas. 25 To Gregory, a presbyter and monk, his associate, 26, 27. 28 To Lord Theodore Xanthopoulos. 29 To Lord Demetrios Argyropoulos. 30 To Lord John Zarinis, 39, 42. 31 To Autoreianos, being the Exisotes of the Queen of Cities. 32 To the Orphanotrophos. 33 To Bryennios. Unaddressed: 54, 35, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 59, 62, 63, 65, 83, 95, 94. Unaddressed [attributed by Tengnagel to Palaiologos]: 38. 40 To the Despot. 43 To Lord George Bekkos.
53 To [the Bishop of] Nikomedeia. 54 Unaddressed (Tengnagel: to Nikomedeia). 55 To the Protosebastos (for the Protosebastos, perhaps as below). 56 To the Physician, 57. 58 To the Protosebastos, 76. 60 To Philanthropenos (sic, for Philanthropinos), 61, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 91, 97, 98, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 (without inscription), 109, 110, 111, regarding Melchizedek, 112, 113, 114, 119, 120, 121, 122. 64 To Lord Arsenios Autoreianos. 66 To Chalkomatopoulos. 67 To the Protovestiarios Mousalon. 68 To the Protovestiarios Raoulanes of the same. 69 To Merkourios. 70 To the Exarch and Logothete Papes. 71 To Melchizedek, 74, 86, 90, 95, 96, 100, 101, 115, 116, 117, 118. 77 Unaddressed (Tengnagel dubiously ascribes to the Protosebastos). 82 To those monks in the Krittos. 84 To Lord Ignatios. 85 To Lord Philes Manuel. 87 Unaddressed (Tengnagel dubiously to Melchizedek). 92 To Lord Athanasios. 96 To Doukas.
In the same codex there are also these writings of the same Planudes: The Comparison of Winter and Spring by the same. An Encomium on the chief of the apostles, Peter and Paul. An Encomium on the great martyr Diomedes. Regarding these, one should consult Lambecius, Nesselius, and especially J. A. Fabricius, vol. XIII, p. 554 of his Bibliotheca Graeca.
The Vatican codex bears this subscription: In the year 1560, on the eighth day of the waning moon of Skirophorion, it was written by Angelos Bergikios, the Cretan, in the city of Paris. This codex, if I remember correctly, was presented as a gift by the French King, or by Michel de l'Hôpital, I know not to which Pope.
BY MAXIMUS PLANUDES: A COMPARISON OF WINTER AND SPRING
A I imagine that many will shrink from hearing even the name of winter, and that they will immediately promise, if anyone should compare the season of winter and spring, to award the prize to the latter, whenever the seasons are being admired. For it will seem strange and unnecessarily absurd to wish to demolish, by reasoning, the opinion held by the many—among whom speech occupies, at best, a secondary or tertiary place after sensory experience, and who have no ability to observe anything beyond the impressions of that sense. And this is not least so at the present time, when a man of our own circle, a man of the logical catalog—one who is, in all other respects, most dear to me and deeply attached to philosophy, and who is most capable at speaking and at matching words to matters, and even occasionally surpassing them—has at great length set forth his praise of spring and of the things related to it, as a matter of logical play and diversion. But as for winter, he has left the passage towards it forbidden, I know not whether by flooding the path with impassable torrents of argument, or by walling it off with a mass of snow and frost. For he did not escape our notice as he employed a winter against winter, nor as he used up nights—which he stretched out to the greatest possible length—for this pillorying of his. But to me, who have very justly called upon this same winter as my ally, it shall be permitted to cross over to him, having compressed and petrified the violence of his currents, and to enjoy, and to declare to others, the multitude of graces which he offers—which are indeed past measuring. And I know that I have plunged myself into a difficult contest, and one which no one else has yet attempted. But what shall I do? I cannot hide the truth, nor set it aside when it is clear, just as she herself suggests, even for others. For what if someone, ambitious to show his own power in speaking, has grasped the opinion of the many, and has made this the foundation of his own arguments, and then constructs and puts together many words, and makes more of the praise of spring than of winter? As if it were not possible for those whose lives are spent in such opinions not to have their minds fixed on the great mob, to whom it never happens that—by lack of exercise—they attach themselves to something noble; for they have become estranged from things that are good, and have corrupted their own minds.
He reproached winter with many unpleasant things; and yet he was so persuasive that, were it not for the sake of exercise and a demonstration of one's training in rhetoric, what has been said would have been taken as the pure truth. I am even in danger, from this point forward, of winter not only failing to attain the best place, but not even of being considered among the seasons. He was carried away, and he made his argument reach far into plausibility, and into the pressing nature of the season. For winter, and the peak of winter—when the season provides for someone even if not a sense of pleasantness, yet it provides for those to whom he appears as a fearful instructor, brandishing his whip, and as a physician who removes the pestilence, applying razor and cautery—men have tried to imagine hardships even greater than those that present themselves. I imagine, then, that as has been said, some will shrink from hearing this; but bear with us, if we have something to say in reply. That wise man, having poured out, so to speak, everything that might be said against winter, and having run down it at great length as if it were no longer B anything to be heard, left the passage to it forbidden, not knowing whether to flood the path with impassable torrents of argument, or to wall it off with a mass of snow and frost. For he did not escape our notice as he employed a winter against winter, and having passed the nights, extended to the greatest possible length, he consumed them in his pillorying of it. But to me, who very justly have called this same winter to my aid, it shall be permitted to cross over to him—having compressed and petrified the violence of his currents—to enjoy the multitude of graces which he presents (for they are not to be measured) and to share them in turn with others; and I know that I have plunged myself into a difficult struggle, the likes of which no one has yet undertaken. But what shall I do? I cannot hide the truth, nor set it aside when it is clear, just as she herself suggests, so as to present it to others. For what if someone, ambitious to show his own power in speaking, has seized upon the opinion of the many and has made this the foundation of his own arguments, and then constructs and puts together many words, and esteems the praise of spring more highly than winter? Just as if it were not possible for there to be, alongside such life-long opinions, a mind held by the great throngs, who, because they have never taken hold of something noble due to lack of training, have become estranged from things that are fine and have corrupted their minds.
C To reach the truth itself is indeed the greatest good; and to think and to say only those things which she herself suggests is reasonable. But if this is not the case, then—as they say—the second best course is, at the very least, not to be caught being dragged along by vulgar, playful arguments, nor to honor the words of the unlearned, even if one is [not yet] close to the highest happiness...
of wisdom A, it has been said. That winter is less important than spring, such that spring is not as far ahead of winter as those who make such claims think—I pay very little attention to them. Indeed, I do not have much faith even in things that are very obvious and right before our eyes; for I am suspicious of mere words and I grant the least of all freedom of speech to those things that are buzzed about by them. It would take a great deal [of effort] to even begin to assist here. For even if I were to set aside the many other things, and were to briefly examine those who prate about the stars—[claiming] that they are as numerous as the human beings who exist upon the earth, and that it is the stars which the heaven bears that make them—they have dogmatized that those who enjoy good fortune are the most brilliant and [destined to] be seen as stars, while those who live in poverty are inferior. But others, who have fallen completely into a state of destitution, say that it is the dimmest ones, B and those upon whom the light seems to have failed, [that correspond to them]. And from this they conclude that for each of those departing, their allotted star perishes with them, and that for those coming into the light again, others are akin to them; and by wandering about and dreaming such things in many ways, they show that they have cared very little for the truth at all. If, therefore, these things are to be admitted and are to be approved by the dogmas of the wise, then what they have presumed regarding winter and spring must also be believed. But if, instead, they are ignorant and a great madness—far worse than insanity—why then do we not, instead of teaching the things that lead men's lives astray, practice what is real, or else leave those who will not be persuaded to rejoice in their own presumptions? As for us, we shall live and philosophize by reason alone, and we shall know that this alone is well or not, as reason shall judge it, even if a thousand times the things of the senses testify against it. For reason is a keen tracker of the unerring and an ultimate examiner of the secure and of that which is always the same, claiming its due most accurately; whereas sensation is various, of all kinds, and filled with much confusion, now C annoyed by light, now by darkness, now by both, rejoicing in each.
I perceived also that it [sensation] philosophizes in the same way, wandering about everywhere, just as sick people often do, changing from bed to bed, thinking that even that one—which they will have next—will be different. Moreover, this fear also hangs over me, lest we set our hearts on those who are distracted by sensation, and on the accusations against winter and the praises of spring. For they will, straightway, expect us to follow their other opinions step-by-step; may this happen to no one, for he is dear to me and has given thought to the beginning of truth. Since nature is already short-changed if the rational animal does not live his life according to reason; but since the opinion of the many is one thing, and the way in which one must turn away from it—and whom those who are occupied with reason must follow—has been sufficiently enjoined by reason, come, let us sing the praises of the season of winter, and let us demonstrate, by examining it in comparison with spring, in how many other good things it possesses superiority; and furthermore, regarding those things which we shall discuss concerning both.
Winter, that it is far from being worthy of praise to the many D, it has been said—but that if there were no winter, there would be no spring, and that from this it is clear that it [winter] is also more honorable than spring—this I will try to demonstrate before all by my argument. For since the sun, through its return to the same point from wherever it stood, measures the period of the year, and by approaching us and departing as far as the Zodiacal circle and our inclination allow, completes the seasons, driving toward us from the very first degree of Capricorn, which is when the year receives its beginning. And here is the proof: for from this point the days increase, by degrees, with constant additions, and the growth and development of things in the world is naturally produced. And for these reasons I claim that the year does not take its beginning from anywhere else than where the day always begins to be greater, [and where] winter begins to stand together and to be called [winter]; which also serves the nature of the cosmos for the time allotted to it. For it is not because the first parts of the year are carried along, and it wishes to do something new contrary to what is established, that it hands over the duty to spring; having instructed that, once the fixed time has passed, it should hand it over to another. And thus, winter has been shown to be prior to spring. But if that which is older is also by all accounts more honorable, for this very reason winter will be more glorious than spring. And that if there were no winter, there would be no spring, will be manifest to those who observe it thus: bringing in summer, if one were to allow the sun, having rested in the section of the Zodiac around Cancer, to remain there for the rest of the time, and in no way, never at all, to move back to the meridian points of the world, so that there [from there] it might again give a beginning to the year for winter, there would be no spring, but summer would always prevail in the world; and I am not yet speaking of how there would be a conflagration and destruction of the whole. If, therefore, spring is a consequence of winter, then winter will be its most significant cause, and not without reason. And if the causes of things are more precious than those things, winter will be, already for this and often, also more honorable than spring a little later. Yet why do I say these things, where, to those who have looked closely, spring will not even be counted among the things that are, but will be proven to be a name alone, and empty of substance, while to winter will be allotted half of the aeon? And the sun will surely cooperate with my argument, as it discusses the hours—for it is the shepherd of the days and hours, and the steward of the whole year; there is surely no one—not even one who has not tasted of education—who is ignorant that it is twofold, and that it makes its path contrary to all, from turnover to turnover, that is, from the summer one to the winter one, and from this to that again. For the one removes it from us; the other causes it to approach us, and it is impossible to discover a third, some sort of movement, and to assign it to that. For not even to the up or to the down is anything third devised for the sake of movement. But with the heaven, or the sphere, moving, there are the up and the down, the southern and the northern. Since, therefore, it is agreed that there are no more than two solar movements, it is clear to everyone that two...
A seasons are established, with each one being apportioned its proper motion. For it is not absurd, in relation to the truth itself and to the logic of equality, to say there are two motions, but to posit four seasons, and to insert Spring into Winter, and again another season into Summer, as if the year were destined to become greater than itself because of this.
B For, when one motion intermits and gives way to another capable of acting upon the cosmos, its motion ceases, and since every motion that receives rest is naturally formed not without falling off little by little—and this is most clear from many [examples]—so too, the Winter will not be otherwise, but will come to a stop as a season of motion, and in the end, Spring will be the logic of Winter, and Winter will be more powerful than Spring. Or do you not see that even those who assigned the names cared little that Spring should have a name? For how much in Winter, how in Summer, how in Autumn? For to each of these, either a multitude or an extension of syllables, or at least an abundance of consonants, was granted; but Spring is in need of everything. It is stripped bare and compressed to the briefest [form]; it seems, in a way, that it was even forbidden among the ancients to call it "Spring," and that he who said "Spring" (ear), while breathing (ea), was understood to mean this. Poets, and the children of poets—who especially know the counsels and secrets of the gods—also wished to do this. But due to the care for the Hellenic language, and because they were insatiable for a multitude of names, they refrained [on the one hand], but reduced it to the very least, calling the Spring (ear) "the Spring" (ear), so that it would escape notice in the sequence, and that the hearers might not be annoyed between the speakers. As the discourse thus advances, another chapter arises, thanks to which Winter will appear more distinct not only than Spring, but also than the other seasons.
For there are three genders, as those who have studied grammar have technically defined: the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter. The third one is final, and the masculine is better and more prominent than the feminine, and that one [is better] than the neuter, and thus it [the first] surpasses the third by a great deal; for what is greater than the greater is by far greater. If, therefore, Winter was deemed worthy of being shaped in the masculine, while Spring, Summer, and Autumn could not be named even in the feminine, how is it not impermissible for [Spring] to enjoy a status that is not superior to that? So that the life of men, which was destined to slip toward a more luxurious state, might not later on be considered worse than the remaining seasons, those who held power over them long ago called it by the masculine name, from the opposite direction—as if having given some sign D, and shouting, as it were, that this is the season by which a man ought to live, according to which he ought to act manfully, and according to which a man ought to be noble and of virile appearance. And if one were to inquire closely into the account according to the etymon, none the less in this way will he perceive the proper diminution of Spring, or let a passerby show, while wavering in his opinion, whence Spring will be etymologically said [to be better] than Winter, which is deemed worthy of the greatest diligence, so that by merely being spoken, it provides understanding of what it is. It seems to me, therefore, that the Romans of the ancient times, who became the most illustrious and most renowned of the men of their own day and of those thereafter, did not begin the
COMPARISON OF WINTER AND SPRING
without serious and wise supervision.IAMBIC VERSES OF MAXIMUS PLANUDES
BEἰς τὸν ναὸν τῶν ἁγίων Μαρκιανοῦ καὶ Μαρτυρίου. Τολμαῖς καθέλκων καὶ Θεὸν δοκῶν σέβειν, Σαυτὸν λέληθας κτίσματος φύσιν σέβων, Οὐ κτίσμα ταὐτὸν καὶ Θεός· μή πω τόπον, Ἔξω φρενῶν πέσοι τις, ὡς εἴποι τόπον, Μεμνημένος σου τοῦ θεηλάτου μόρου.
Τοῦ αὐτοῦ. Κακῶς Ἀρείῳ ταὐτὰ πεφρονηκότες, Ἄνδρες φονῶσι, πλήρες αἱμάτων στέφος, Καλῶς Θεοῦ προὔπεμψαν ὑμᾶς εἰς δόμους· Καὶ γὰρ Θεοῦ μὲν οἶκος ὑμᾶς ἀμφέπει, Τοῖς δ᾽ οἶκος ᾅδου καὶ τὸ μυρίον σκότος.
Eἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Ἁγίου Ἀνδρέου, ὃν ἀνήγειρεν αὐτῷ ἡ πρωτοβεστιαρία. Πειθομένη σε δόμοισιν ἐν οὐρανίοισιν ἀληθῶς Ψυχῇ ναιετάειν, Ἀνδρέα κλεινότατε, Καὶ τῷ σώματι σεῖο νεὼν ἐδομήσατο τόνδε, Κάλλεσιν οὐρανίοις ἐν χθονὶ λαμπόμενον, Ἡ πάσαις ἐνὶ θηλυτέρῃσι σοφὴ Θεοδώρα, Ἀμφοτέρων τε λόγων κῦδος ἀναψαμένη· Τῆς γενέτης μὲν ἐνῆν Καντακουζηνὸς Ἰωάννης, Μήτηρ δ᾽ Εὐλογία ἀξίη εὐλογίης. Σύγγονος οὖσα Παλαιολόγου Μιχαὴλ βασιλῆος, Οὗ μόνος Ἀνδρόνικος πλεῖον ἄνακτος ἄναξ. Κοινωνὸς βιότου δὲ Ῥαοὺλ πέλεν Ἰωάννης, Τιμὴν εἰληφὼς πρωτοβεστιαρίου. Αὕτη χηροσύνην... ἔστερξεν ἀμέμπτως, Ἔτρεφε νωλεμέως Χριστὸν ἐν ἐνδείῃσιν. Δόγματος ὀρθοτόμοιο χάριν πάθεν ἄλγεα πολλά, Τίμα καὶ φιλίην ὥς τις ἐφημερίων. Τοίη τῷ τοιώδε, τοιόνδε σοι εἴσατο νηόν, Ἀνδρέα, καὶ σὺ χάριν πλούσιον ἀντιμέτρει.
Ejusdem iambi in eamdem S. Andreæ ædem. Ἐπιγραφαὶ δηλοῦσι τὰς τῶν πραγμάτων, Καὶ τῶν προσώπων ἐν γραφαῖς παραστάσεις, Ἐπιγραφῇ δίδωμι κἀγὼ μανθάνειν. Ἡ κλῆσις οὖν μοι τυγχάνει Θεοδώρα, Καντακουζηνὴ καὶ Παλαιολογίνα, Κομνηνή, Ῥαούλαινα, πρὸς δὲ τοῖς ἔφυν Καντακουζηνοῦ θυγάτηρ Ἰωάννου, Κομνηνοφυοῦς Ἀγγελωνυμουμένου, Ὃς Ἰωαννίκιος ἐκ μονοτρόπων Στολῆς ἐκλήθη, πάντα συμμεθαρμόσας. Ἦν δ᾽ οὗτος αὐτὸς υἱιδούς Ἰωάννου Σεβαστοκράτορός τε φυλῆς τ᾽ Ἀγγέλων, Πορφυρογεννήτου δὲ παῖς Θεοδώρας Ἦν οὗτος αὖθις, ἡ δὲ παῖς Ἀλεξίου, Τοῦ καὶ μεγάλου Κομνηνοῦ βασιλέως, Μήτηρ δέ μοι καύχημα πασῶν μητέρων, Ἦν ἡ Κομνηνὴ καὶ Παλαιολογίνα, DΕἰρηνική τις Εἰρήνῃ φερωνύμως. Ὁμαιμος οὖσα Μιχαὴλ βασιλέως Παλαιολόγου τοῦ Κομνηνοῦ γνησία, Ἦν Εὐλογίαν ἐκ στολῆς μονοτρόπων Μετωνόμασαν, οὐδὲ τοῦτ᾽ ἀπεικότως. Ἦν δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐκείνη διάσημος ἐγγόνη Παλαιολόγου δεσπότου τ᾽ Ἀλεξίου, Καὶ βασιλίσσης Εἰρήνης τῆς Ἀγγέλου, Θυγατρὸς Ἀλεξίου τοῦ βασιλέως· Καὶ σύζυγός μοι Κομνηνὸς Ἰωάννης Ῥαοὺλ ὁ Δούκας, Ἄγγελος, Πετραλίφας, Πρωτοβεστιάριος ἐκ τῆς ἀξίας, Ἐκεῖθεν ἕλκων πατρόθεν καὶ μητρόθεν Τὸ τοῦ γένους ῥίζωμα, σειρὰν χρυσέαν, Ὅθεν κατήγον καὶ γονεῖς ἐμοὶ γένος. Ἀδελφιδῆς δ᾽ ἦν οὗτος υἱὸς τοῦ Δούκα Ἄνακτος Ἰωάννου, τοῦ καὶ Βατάτζῃ.
Jambi alii in idem argumentum. Ἃν ὡς μεταλλεὺς τοῦ γένους μοι τὰς φλέβας Ἰχνοσκοπῶν τις ἱστορεῖν γνώμην ἔχῃ, Οὐ ψηγμάτων σύστημα λεπτῶν θηράσει, Σκευῶν δὲ συχνῶν ἡλίκων χρυσηλάτων Εἰς ταὐτὸ συμφόρημα πάμπλουτον χάριν, Καὶ χρυσέας δ᾽ ἂν εὐκλεεῖς σειρὰς μάθοι.