PROCOPIUS OF GAZA, CHRISTIAN SOPHIST: AN EPITOME OF VARIOUS COMMENTARIES ON THE PROPHET ISAIAH. BY JEAN CURTERIUS, TRANSLATOR. FOR THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS MAN, D. J. ROCHEFOUCAULD, ABBOT OF MAUR-LE-PONT. PARIS, AT THE SHOP OF MICHEL SONNIUS, RUE SAINT-JACQUES, AT THE SIGN OF THE BASILIAN SHIELD, M. D. LXXX.
TO THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS LORD, D. JEAN DE LA ROCHEFOUCAULD, ABBOT OF MAUR-LE-PONT.
Thirteen years ago, at a time when I was still my own master and not yet known to you (most illustrious sir), when there fell into my hands this commentary on Isaiah, the prince of prophets, which I had determined—in accordance with the counsel of great men—to translate into Latin and publish, I had believed that it ought, by rights, to be dedicated to none other than that thrice-great Charles of Lorraine, the most ample prince and cardinal, whom all Gaul recognized as the sole patron of the Church and the Muses. And I would indeed have done so two years before his death, had I continued to be my own man and to pursue my private studies as I had begun. But, as the old man in Terence says:
Never was anyone so well-reasoned in his view of life, But that experience, age, and custom always bring something new, Something to warn him.
For it happened, hardly a whole year after I had acquired the Procopius, that I was summoned to educate the sons of your brother; and having become yours, I saw that I necessarily had to form new plans for myself, having decided to surrender myself entirely to you and yours. I began, therefore, from that time—having ceased to be my own—to turn my mind toward you and your brother’s sons, devoting my total strength to you and them in such a way that whatever time they allowed me to have for myself, I bestowed that entirely on the expression of my devotion and my spirit toward you. Hence, that work of mine—the *Ecclesiastical History* of Eusebius and the others annexed to it—which was published by me among them in previous years, acknowledged no other master than you when it first came to light, and it professed itself in good faith to be your servant. Behold, a second Procopius, a servant like the first, now follows Eusebius, recently generated by me in the same place, though sent down to you from the middle of Italy; and while he knows me indeed as his parent, he recognizes you as his master. And I will say, if you allow it, something else about him quite frankly: I have sensed (if parents are of any value in exploring the minds of their children) that he departs for you all the more willingly because he heard that there was no one left in Gaul whom that great man—Charles, prince and cardinal of Lorraine, of most happy memory—loved more from the heart, and by whom he himself, in turn, was loved more than by himself. If you permit me that piety which allows everyone to honor the heroes of his own homeland, you recognize also in the parent himself the same spirit as the children, by which name I trust both will be dearer to you, when you notice them venerating the memory of such a great man along with you. Accept, therefore, I beseech you, most illustrious Jean, accept, I say, this other servant of yours, Procopius, panting as he travels to you after a long and difficult journey, and protect him at least for so long, against those who are inclined to disparage him more readily than to provide something better, until, once our pilgrimage is finished, not only may your brother’s sons, well-instructed in every kind of literature, take up his patronage, but may they also draw forth many other things from that distinguished store of books, especially the Greek ones, which they have accumulated here from everywhere, to the adornment of the Church, of letters, of your clan, and of your name. Farewell. Bologna, the Ides of October, M. D. LXXIX.
JEAN CURTERIUS.
PREFACE TO THE MOST DISTINGUISHED YOUNG MAN, FRANCIS DE LA ROCHEFOUCAULD, COUNT OF RANDAN, ABBOT OF TRENORCHIS
The excellent Greek writer on Roman antiquities, most distinguished Francis, admonishes those who wish to leave to posterity monuments of their own genius—which are not destined to perish with their bodies—first of all to take care to choose an honest and magnificent subject for their writing, such as may provide utility to their readers; and then to apply no little diligence and care in comparing matters that contribute to the completion of the work undertaken. For those who occupy themselves with a shameful or lowly subject, or who, having set out to write great things, approach them not sufficiently instructed, do not consult well for themselves or others: for while the former suffer the permanent loss of their fame and name, the latter attain none of the glory of their labors. Although, however, the preeminence and dignity of divine things should enjoin one who strives to apply his efforts to them to be secure, in the choice of his subject, from the loss of those who have preceded him; and although it should be unseemly for anyone who wishes to be a Christian in earnest to hunt for that glory which that man understands—yet I cannot but candidly confess that that sentiment of the pagan man has so pleased me that I have always revolved it in my mind as the principle and source of writing; and, as much as becomes a Christian man, I have set it before myself—not, indeed, to procure praise, but solely to avoid reproach, and, by fleeing idleness, to remain solicitous in this manner of my life and profession.
When, therefore, almost thirteen years ago—only one year, that is, before I came to direct your studies and those of your brothers—my mind already inclining toward theology, I had obtained these commentaries; and having read some pages, and deemed them not to be contemned, I had begun to think of translating them into Latin myself: I did not deem that anything should be decided on that matter before I had recalled them, and myself, to the superior standard of the Halicarnassian. For although his own work, which had previously appeared concerning the first eight books of the Bible, would scarcely allow me to doubt of the goodness of these, and indeed the very venerability of the ancient writers, especially the ecclesiastical ones—whom it has always seemed better to restore and illustrate than to devise new things—and finally the very subject of the book explained, all urged me on; nevertheless, I thought that the judgment of the greatest theologians of our age, and of others besides, should be employed. Among these, the first were those two great lights of the Gallican Church, Claude de Saintes and Simon Vigor, of most happy memory; both afterwards raised to the episcopacy. By their counsel, when I had become known to you, I was myself not long after summoned by your mother—a woman, by the praise of all virtues, without controversy, most accomplished—for the education of you and your brothers.
There followed also Gilbert Genebrard, likewise royal professor of Hebrew letters, and most skilled in the Greek tongue; and Noël Rondel, most expert in these same things, and most upright, whose industry I especially and familiarly used; and Fr. François Feu-ardent; and some others, not indeed famous by the title of theological profession, but truly illustrious by their knowledge and profession of it and of Greek and Latin letters. To these I had given not only the Greek exemplar but also a certain rudimentary and adumbrated portion of my own version to be inspected and examined. They not only replied that Procopius, on account of his antiquity and erudition, would bring the greatest utility to the Church, but they also urged me to hasten his edition. From that time, I began to meditate and do all things which appeared to conduce to that end. And it would have appeared sooner, had I not been occupied in laying the foundations of languages for you and your brothers, and until, after the two brothers had set out for Italy, you, having entered upon philosophy, had begun to swim (as they say) without a cork, and to leave me more leisure for these private studies.
But since I had the only exemplar of this author, and that in many places mutilated and depraved, the first labor seemed to be one of restoring and correcting it. In this matter, however, although I labored most intensely, partly by letters to friends and some others by whom I hoped I might be helped, and partly by prayers to those with whom I lived, yet I could not accomplish so much as to heal his wounds otherwise than by the strength of my own little wit and conjectures. However, it happened most conveniently that, after I had revealed my project to René Marchal, otherwise Boismoreau—a man as noble as he is most instructed in every kind of discipline and language, and most loving toward you and your brothers; and furthermore, as a most observant witness of your industry in humane studies and of my own little work—he brought forth from his most rich library an exemplar of all the prophets of wondrous antiquity. From this, I was able not only to append to the same, along with the lines of all the prophets, those Greek words of Isaiah which were missing in the explanations of Procopius, but also to correct some things from the annotations which existed on the margin from the same sources as those from which our Procopius had drawn. Since, by these things, the result has been that there is, in a certain manner, a double edition of this work—that of Procopius, that is, and of Isaiah—it is altogether necessary, above all, to offer some preface to you (for whose utility I hold nothing more precious); and afterwards, to other readers as well.
Preface
I shall speak, then, first of Procopius: whence his manuscript came to me; from whom he drew what he wrote; what is to be thought of his method of explaining and writing; whether he be the same person who wrote on the eight earlier books of the Bible; in what times he lived, and what he wrote; and finally, what is my method of interpretation, what is the meaning of the notes in the margin of his Greek text, and what is my plan of corrections. I shall also speak of all the ancient interpretations of the Holy Scriptures: of the Hexapla of Origen; of his notes; of those things which are in our Greek edition of Isaiah; and concerning the reliability of the old manuscript from which it was taken; and finally, of the lives of the prophets as described by Eusebius Pamphili. And to start from the beginning: I confess frankly and candidly that the manuscript of Procopius, fourteen years ago, was at Venice, copied by the order of John Picus, president of the board of inquiry in the Parisian senate, and at the work and expense of Bernard Turrisanus of Venice, a bookseller then residing in Paris, from the one preserved in the library of Saint Mark—in the hope that, once translated into Latin by a pious and learned president, it might later be published to the light (just as the *Questions* of Theodoret and many other things were). But when he was cut off by death before Procopius had reached Paris, and Turrisanus had gone to his heirs in vain many times to recover the expenses incurred on that account—and had complained of this in my hearing—those famous words of Theocritus, which are not unknown to you, immediately came to my mind:
"Foolish men! What is the profit in the gold hidden within? They do not think like this concerning wealth."
And I judged that I would again be doing a disservice to letters if I were to neglect this *hermaion* (lucky find) offered to me, as I believed, not without divine intervention. I therefore welcomed these holy Muses with open doors, as it is in the same poet, most gladly into my house; and having procured Procopius, I devoted as much time to the advancement of his edition as the duties of your studies and those of our brothers permitted me. For I did not doubt, when I recognized the very sources from which he had drawn these things, that he would be useful to the Church. For who, if he possessed the volumes of Origen, or the commentaries of Eusebius of Caesarea, or Chrysostom, or even the entire discourses of Basil on the prince of prophets—of which today either only a few fragments or absolutely nothing remains—would not read them most avidly and with great profit? Yet you have an epitome of all these (although he names none of them in the entire book) collected and elaborated in one Procopius with faith and diligence; so that in matters where all agree, he speaks of them only once; but where they differ, he does so individually and briefly, desiring, indeed, to compress all explanations into the form of a perfect body, from which, as from a single fountain, it might be granted to all to draw what all think; with some things added by himself for the sake of clarity (as he declares in his preface to Genesis). You also have many comparisons of ancient interpretations which he uses, which are by no means to be spurned; these not only indicate the antiquity of the author, since they have long been missed in a pure state, as we shall prove later, but also commend their utility and reliability, since he seems to have read the individual versions themselves, given that he attempts to elicit suitable meanings from them. But someone will say, "He also hunts for allegories and those meanings which seem either remote from the prophet's words, or are often so cold that when you have translated them into another language, you have certainly said little, or nothing at all." Truly, if Procopius is to be rejected on this account (and we cannot deny that this sometimes happens to him), then the Greek fathers themselves must certainly be rejected, not only those from whom he drew these, but almost all the rest as well, since it is manifest that they followed this path of explanation, especially in the Old Testament. Furthermore, does Scripture have only one meaning? Can it not also be recalled to various and mystical understandings with great profit to the readers? Indeed, they seem to me to be not far removed from the Jews, who defend the letter with stubbornness. But if one must ever depart from the letter to reach inner meanings, I think no one would be so unfair as not to allow this, especially in the prophets. Add also that it is not the fault of the Greek father if he said something elegantly in Greek that cannot be turned as conveniently into Latin; rather, it is the poverty of our language. Furthermore, would it have been fair for the Greek fathers to serve others rather than their own? Finally, is it just for a sumptuous dinner to be condemned by a few guests because, among many and excellent dishes sourced from everywhere, it has some that are less good, or at which the stomachs of some might recoil? Therefore, for this count at least, our Procopius will be free not only from blame, but will even merit praise and be held in high esteem, in that he achieved the task of compressing the writings of earlier fathers (which perhaps were more prolix in this genre) into an epitome, so that they might be read with less weariness; no differently than one who, by showing a shortcut to some city, has relieved us of the burden of a longer journey. Moreover, there exist so many other things said so briefly and sharply against the heresies of all times, the morals of heretics, the rites of the ancient Church, and great and abstruse questions in theology, that he is a man of little wisdom who does not desire him, or an arrogant contemner of antiquity who disdains him. The style itself, in my judgment, is indeed so pure that you recognize a Sophist; it is so elegant, as befitted a commentator; yet it is not everywhere like itself, but rather reflects those, if you pay close attention, from whom he drew what he collected. Nor is there any doubt, moreover, that he requires an attentive reader, since, due to the difficulty of the subject matter and his very zeal for brevity, he has become more obscure in many places. There are also frequent transitions, not only from person to person, but also from number to number—imitations, I believe, of the prophets, to whom this is familiar—done on purpose; which we certainly could not, and perhaps should not, have avoided entirely. Now, however, that we may find the time in which he lived; it must first be established—
whether this man is distinct from the one who published those commentaries on the first eight books of the Bible that are publicly read. Once this is resolved, it will not be difficult to demonstrate the age in which he lived. And indeed, the very inscriptions of the Greek books themselves—partly in both—lead one to judge that they are the same (for you have a handwritten exemplar of the Greek on Genesis, from the inspection of which it is known to be so, kept in that splendid collection of books which you have assembled here); in which are found the same name of the author and of the Sophist, and the same profession of the Christian religion; while in the Latin edition, the city from which he comes is the same; and in part, the very same method of commentary in both; which, once he had proposed it for himself in his preface to Genesis, he considered should also be followed in Isaiah. But what provides the greatest proof of all, and confirms beyond doubt that they are the same person, is the fact that here he makes mention of things he had said in the song of Moses, which are also found therein.
If it is established that both are the work of the same author, it is no longer difficult to offer a certain and undoubted conjecture regarding his age. For since he writes in his commentary on Genesis that all idols in his age had been cut down, there is no doubt that if I can demonstrate when that happened, I will also have taught when he lived. But if someone should say that it was by the edict of Constantine that not only the idols but also the temples of the idols were cast down and destroyed, he will still not prove that Procopius lived in that age, since not even those (I mean Chrysostom, Basil, and Cyril), from whom he borrowed many things, had yet written. Therefore, we must find a different time for their destruction. And certainly, none can be found other than that which took place under Theodosius, who saw to it that the work, which had been in some places rather begun and initiated by Constantine more than it had been completed, was finished throughout the whole world. For it is agreed from Nicephorus, that Gaza itself, from which our Procopius is called "Gazaeus," and the cities of the neighboring regions, stubbornly retained the worship of idols until the times of Theodosius (since as far as those places Constantine's edict had not yet exerted its force); which later, by the command of Theodosius, along with their idols and temples, was totally abolished everywhere. Since, besides all the ecclesiastical histories, I have Eunapius, that bitter enemy of the Christians, as a witness to this opinion, who mentions in his life of Aedesius the destruction of both sets of idols, I no longer see how it can be a matter of doubt that Procopius reached the age of Theodosius the First; indeed, that he had already begun somewhat earlier, since he testifies here that he saw many eagerly undergoing martyrdom, which are found to have ceased under Julian: under whose empire the age of this author could be extended until the second destruction of the idols.
But someone might perhaps say that Hesychius, who I do not doubt is younger than Procopius, failed to make any mention of him in his catalogue *τῶν ἐν παιδείᾳ ὀνομαστῶν*. As if, indeed, such a thing were to be expected from an enemy of the Christian name. For Suidas says that this argument proves that he followed the superstition of the idols, because he did not mention ecclesiastical men. But if this conjecture of mine does not please some, perhaps they will grant me indulgence more easily for this reason, that it is established that Procopius said nothing at all about himself or his own age, except for what I have said; nor could I be assisted here by the opinions of any writer, or indeed even of the learned men of this time: however, I have found a strange silence among all of them.
Besides that, moreover, which was long ago published in Latin on the first eight books of the Bible; and these things also, which now appear for the first time in Greek and Latin; he also wrote on Proverbs and on the Song of Songs; which, when they were recently shown to you at Venice, were shown to merely collect the unadorned opinions of the fathers, just as he had first done in Genesis; but not to draw them into the form of a perfect body, as I discovered later in the same, and in Isaiah himself, from the reading of a few pages. I will also say that in Gaul, in the library of the Queen Mother, are found *προγυμνάσματα* of rhetoric inscribed with his name. The most faithful witnesses are the most learned and at the same time most upright Jacobus Billius, and the most learned of the jurists of this age, Cujacius; with whom, when I was admitted to that library some years ago, having stumbled upon it, I was advised by Cujacius to note this. And indeed, I would the more easily believe it to be by this Procopius, because whatever has been published in his name consistently calls him a "Sophist."
Regarding my own interpretation of him, and this edition, if you expect something, I shall first say that I intentionally retained those expressions that were customary to the Church and the fathers, and even the established Vulgate edition of the Bible, as much as my author could bear; I then endeavored (not, however, rendering word for word, unless the logic of the Latin language demanded it) to imitate the brevity of the Greek speech, so as not to appear to have given a paraphrase rather than a translation. Furthermore, I strove, since I had determined to publish both Greek and Latin, to make both as similar to each other as I could. If I have not achieved this, I have nevertheless done so *οὐκ ἀμογητὶ μὲν, καὶ δὴ καὶ ἀδαπανητί*, as much as I could according to the standard of my own talent and leisure; and this also, that this author—never before read or published publicly, neither in Greek nor Latin, among so many commentaries of the Greek Fathers on the Old Testament, with the Origenian differences of the ancient interpretations and the notes added to the text of Isaiah—might be brought to light: whose utility and delectation will perhaps be all the greater for this reason: that Isaiah easily holds the primacy among all the prophets, and discourses so openly about the kingdom of Christ that he seems to Jerome more an evangelist than a prophet. And he would not, in my judgment, have acted poorly who called him another Paul of the Old Testament; since in both there is the same liberty and power of speech.
I, for my part, believed him to be worthy who should have a Greek commentator for a Greek edition; especially one who could be the equal of all those who, as many as have written on the same before him, of whom now either few or none at all survive. This Procopius of ours on Isaiah will therefore be what either Chrysostom or Ecumenius is for Paul; both of which were long ago published in Greek at Verona. I have furthermore used a single exemplar, and one that is in many places mutilated and corrupt; which indeed it was not always easy to detect, and to supply by conjecture is a matter of great labor and uncertainty.
A In filling in and correcting the shorter gaps and certain other places, I have attempted something myself: which I have noted in the margin only, without any explanatory reasons (so as not to increase the size of the book), not daring to change anything, so that I might leave my conjectures for the learned and upright to examine and judge. I only took care that the actual words of Isaiah, which Procopius had undertaken to explain, should be printed in Greek and Latin in a different typeface: so that, distinguished in this way, they might not only retain their majesty, but, being immediately presented to the eyes, might also indicate the meaning itself more easily and promptly. But I cannot help grieving that the method of my plan, and indeed the entire edition, has been shaken by so many typographical errors (especially in the version), that in purging this Augean stable I have need of a new Hercules. It also happens, I must candidly confess, that some things occurred to me upon re-reading which, had it been permitted to oversee the printing, I would undoubtedly have changed. I have endeavored to remedy both evils as far as I could, so long delayed, yet without my autograph, by noting the more serious errors and adding them to the end of the book: partly indeed so that I might assist the readers myself; and partly also so that I might beg forgiveness for that fault. But if anyone thinks that more things should have been noted, since the state of the punctuation, marks, accents, and letters is disturbed in infinite places, I reply: first, that this is so slight that, B although it may be annoying to the reader, it cannot, however, hinder him. Then, because it scarcely ever happens that the Greek and Latin are corrupt in the same place; by comparing them, it can be detected and corrected with a brief and easy effort. But now it is time that we should proceed to the second part of this preface: which I choose to begin from the Greek interpretations of the Bible, and to state that there are so many things found among the ancient Greek poets and philosophers which were undoubtedly drawn from the Mosaic books, and indeed from Solomon himself, that it cannot be doubted at all that they did not merely hear of them, but possessed the writings of the Hebrews in their own language long before the times of the Ptolemies, Alexander, and the Persians. And surely he who knows Clement and Eusebius, the assertors of this, will no longer doubt it. This being established first, it follows that we must discuss the interpreters of the Seventy: whom, even if it is certain that they were seventy-two, we find to have been signified more frequently by that number than by this. It is agreed, therefore, among all who have written on this matter, that Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, at the urging of Demetrius of Phalerum, by sending an embassy to Eleazar, the high priest of the Jews, obtained not only the transcription of the Holy Books from him, but also their Greek interpretation, which was made at Alexandria by seventy-two men most skilled in Hebrew and Greek, in equal number from each of the twelve tribes. But in what way this was done, and the interpretation of which books it was, is so far from being agreed upon among them, that some even seem to disagree among themselves about the latter, or at least to speak ambiguously. For Jerome does not think it true what Justin Martyr and Epiphanius and some others have handed down about the cells built on the island of Pharos by the order of Ptolemy. C Moreover, Justin and Epiphanius disagree among themselves in that the former assigns single cells to individual interpreters, while the latter assigns one cell to two men. And indeed I would easily agree with the opinion of Jerome, who defends himself against the history of Aristeas—which he wrote concerning this embassy sent to Eleazar on behalf of Philadelphus (in which no mention is made of cells, just as there is none in Josephus)—to the point that he does not hesitate to call it a fable. Furthermore, some think that Justin Martyr, who writes that the remains of the little rooms were shown to him, suggests that this rumor may indeed have existed among the Alexandrians; but that it had its origin from the inventions of the Jews, in which they are marvelous; and that it thus sank into the minds of our people more easily because it seemed to contribute to the authority and commendation of the Holy Scriptures. However, by whatever manner this was done, all agree on this, that they so approve and admire their interpretation that D our people do not hesitate to call it Greek prophecy: while outsiders (as Tertullian relates concerning the philosopher Menedemus) suspect those elders, by whom it was completed, of a communion of sentiment. But as to which books they interpreted, they also disagree no less. For here Josephus and Aristeas and the whole school of the Jews do not now obscurely affirm that only the Law (that is, the books of Moses alone) was translated: and though Jerome seems to embrace this opinion, he nevertheless leaves it uncertain and doubtful. To me, certainly, the opinion of those who think that all the books of the Hebrews were translated is more pleasing: among whom were primarily Irenæus, and Justin, who in his disputation with Trypho uses the interpretation of Isaiah by the seventy against him; which it is manifest that many others have also done in other books of the Bible. There follows also that Clement the Stromatist, who, when he says that both the scriptures of the Law and the prophetic ones have been interpreted, signifies all of them openly. Eusebius will also be added, who, according to the opinion of Aristobulus, writes that the entire Scripture was translated into the Greek language by the order of Philadelphus, and before him, indeed even before Alexander and the empire of the Persians, the five books of Moses. And finally Epiphanius himself, who, reviewing the history of this translation, lists the books of the Hebrews all by name. Furthermore, it is not credible that Ptolemy should have sought only the Law from Eleazar, while neglecting the historical and prophetic writings, which contain the most admirable things; of which the king himself had only heard by rumor, and had read nothing. Nor could I easily persuade myself that Demetrius,
who was furnishing the King’s library with every kind of book, should have been content merely with the books of Moses, which were already used in Greece and perhaps at Alexandria. Moreover, it could in no way happen that in the writings of the Greek Fathers the translators in question should have been cited so often in books other than the Pentateuch, unless they themselves had translated those, too. Finally, I add the example of Renatus Marchali of venerable antiquity, approved and commended by the judgment of all who have seen it, in which all the prophets, as well as the Seventy and the rest of the translators, are compared, with the differences of the interpretations added in the margin. But if anyone should object that I here reject the opinion of Aristaeus and Josephus, which I embraced above in the discussion concerning the cells, I can perhaps bring them also into a moderate interpretation for the confirmation of my opinion, if I say that in this way, by the name of the Law, on account of the celebrity of Moses, all the sacred books of the Jews can be understood—just as in John it is said that the Law of the Jews refers to that which is found in the verses of David.
And these things, indeed, regarding the seventy translators, whom Aquila, a Pontic man from Sinope, followed. Having professed Christ, he later defected to the Jews and, having barely learned the elements of the Hebrews, out of hatred for the Christians he himself, under the Emperor Hadrian, attempted an interpretation of the sacred Bibles. His study was not long after imitated by Symmachus, who was a Samaritan by race but an addict of the Ebionite sect, so that he might disparage the interpretation of the seventy men, which we judge the Samaritans to have used at that time, as much as he could. The same was attempted again by Theodotion, a Pontic man, in his advanced age, after he had long been defiled by the heresy of Marcion and had returned from it to Judaism. For although he was little versed in Hebrew letters, yet, in order to refute the books of the Marcionites as false, he so altered all those things which they had done for them among the seventy translators that he seems to have given a new interpretation.
Not long after, under Caracalla, there were discovered so many others, not indeed marked by the names of their authors, but distinguished by the number itself, so that besides that which is said to have existed in Greece before the time of Alexander, they are all found to complete the number of seven. Because we have said some things about these individually, it now remains that we gather a few things about them and say in a word: from such a multitude of kinds of interpretations, that corruption of the sacred codices seems to have been born which, in the progress of time, lasted until the times of Lucian the martyr, Hesychius, and Origen; when in that age, just as in this, the upholders of Greek superstition, as well as the Jews and heretics, in the constant exchange of one thing for another, had allowed themselves whatever they wished. Time itself had also corrupted many things, as we read in Suidas (12). A Since the three named above by me were striving in the same age, though in different places, to heal this disease, they were certainly able to effect this the better and the more easily because they were all instructed in Hebrew letters. Yet it does not seem that their purpose was the same, nor their method of correcting.
For Lucian and Hesychius seem to have attempted only this: that, comparing the edition of the seventy men with the Hebrew, they might purge it only of those things which had crept into it through the recklessness of profane, heretical, and other men, through age, and finally through the sloth of librarians. But Origen, having then first devised the Tetrapla, Hexapla, Heptapla, and Octapla, had so arranged all the interpretations between themselves that by four, by six, by seven, and by eight spaces, as if in columns, they fell into one view in such a way that he granted the first and second places to the Hebrews (for he had expressed the Hebrew even in its own and in Greek characters), the third to the translators of the Seventy, and to the rest he granted the same order in which we have recounted them. This certainly could not be accomplished except with great labor and great expense. B He had procured this for the purpose that, with the Hebrew sources indicated, all might more easily find what the translators of the Seventy differed from them in, and what the others in turn helped those latter ones. But since those books could not be kept by very many people, partly because of the difficulty of copying, partly because of their bulk and size, and partly also because of the gravity of the expenses, he himself had also pondered another edition of the men of the Seventy; which alone, with certain notes applied, would demonstrate what was in the Hebrew and what was not, what had been added from the remaining interpretations, and what had been taken away.
Nor is there any reason to think that the sacred volumes had long remained uncorrupted by the labor of such men, or that their editions had been received everywhere. For besides the fact that (upon the authority of Jerome) Egypt and Alexandria used the codex of Hesychius, while the churches that were between the two used that of Origen; and that of Lucian, which had perhaps come from Antioch, where he is thought to have bestowed this labor, all the way to Constantinople: from those three codices in turn, so great a corruption and diversity of the interpretation of the seventy men seems to me to have been born afterwards; since, immediately, not only were the notes of Origen added by inept librarians or not faithfully, or even neglected, but interpretations themselves were switched with others by other people, more damagingly than before, and thus confused: so that from thence Jerome seems to me to have written, in his own memory, that in all the libraries of the churches one could scarcely find one or another copy in which there was the pure interpretation of the seventy men, and that there were as many copies of the Scriptures as there were codices.
For these reasons I persuade myself: εἰ μὴ τὴν γνώμην ἐξαπατῶσι θεοί (as Theognis says) that that most excellent *Hellenic prophecy* of the seventy men nowhere now exists true and entire: but that all Greek editions, whether those which have already been committed to press, or those which still lie hidden in libraries, are mixed; perhaps some less than others. But if the one which is in the Vatican at Rome is, as I hear, the one of the seventy men—which I would not easily believe—it could certainly not have been done without great sacred
study of the injury it has long been hidden. But for the recognition of individual interpretations, if any should ever be found (a thing I cannot hope for, however), since the marks of Origen contribute much, it is entirely necessary that I also touch upon them here; and all the more willingly, because they contribute most greatly to the explanation of those things which the old Marchalian exemplar of Isaiah, which we have expressed here, uses. Epiphanius, therefore, and some others, teach that there were four marks of the Origenian edition: the obelus, the asterisk, the lemniscus, and the hypolemniscus. The first, indeed, the obelus, or a line A above the beginning of a word or sentence added by the Seventy interpreters beyond the authority of the Hebrew codex, which was to be struck out. The second, however, that is, the asterisk [*], in the form of a radiating star, where he had added something drawn from the Hebrew fountains, which had been omitted by the men of the Seventy. The lemniscus [2] then, a little rod similar indeed to the obelus, but which lay between two dots: by which the variety of different interpreters in words, but with the same meaning, was signified. The hypolemniscus [×], however, a line with a dot placed beneath; so that it might demonstrate that the things upon which it rests are explained by many in different words and expressions. But if you now ask in what way these Origenian marks agree with those which we have used in our edition of Isaiah, I can answer that in the forms themselves, and in number, there is some discrepancy; but in the matter which they ought to signify, there is either none or very little. For in the first place, I do not recognize the obelus here at all: B nor indeed, in my judgment, was it necessary; since without doubt this is not the interpretation of the seventy men; but some other one, mixed, and increased even with those things from the Hebrew fountains which by certain plan had been omitted by the LXX men, and marked with an obelus by Origen. I see, moreover, others here, the lemniscus and the hypolemniscus, being depicted in a form other than that in which they were delineated by Origen (if we believe Epiphanius). But I believe that this was done by design rather than by error, since they are everywhere in that whole book similar to one another. For when he who transcribed them saw little or no danger at all in the form, he thought it would be more elegant for himself if he should slightly bend the extremities of both in either direction. But surely it is not without reproach that he did not place his dot beneath the hypolemniscus, although perhaps he did this because he rejected the obelus; C which alone, in place of the hypolemniscus, could be taken by error: the danger of which had already been removed here. But in the matters which they signify; if I have attained to anything after long meditation, I can also assert this: wherever you find the asterisk [*], it is signified that something has been added either from the Hebrew or from the interpretations of others: where, however, the lemniscus [2], that there are noted various interpretations of others which are discordant in the words themselves, but in the matter itself similar: where finally the hypolemniscus [×], that they are different among themselves both in words and in meaning. And these indeed are the Origenian marks, and their collation and meaning with respect to ours, that is, of our codex.
Now follow others proper to this our exemplar. For wherever you find the O at the right margin, it must be thought certainly to signify nothing else than the LXX interpreters: where the Σ, Symmachus; where the θ, Theodotion; where the A, Aquila; where finally the F', the three D nameless interpreters: the agreement of all of whom is wonderful, both with those things which are often brought forward by Procopius while explaining, and with Jerome as well. There are, furthermore, two others, namely I' and +, which are used in a few places, and I believe that by them Pamphylius and Origen are signified; by whose labor and industry was amended the codex from which that one was taken, from whence we have drawn those Greek words of Isaiah and the marks of the various interpretations. And so that the credibility of this matter might rest even with those who have not seen the venerable exemplar: we wished that there should also exist the testimony of the one from whom it was taken, which we read in it before Isaiah and Ezekiel. You will find also here the tomes of Origen, as many as were still surviving in the age of Eusebius, marked at the margin; lest you think that they were added in vain among the various marks of the interpreters. But concerning the Π I Π I, which we have expressed so often at the left margin, as often as the name Kyrios occurs in Isaiah, I can certainly say nothing other than that it appears to us to be the Tetragrammaton name; which, so that some difference might exist for it from the other names of God, perhaps the Greeks—ignorant of that language—not being able to paint it when it was expressed by Origen, or someone else, with Hebrew letters, they attempted to imitate it with their own, as much as they could, lest they seem to have omitted anything which had been marked by such great men. Whose religious care I have imitated, and in accordance with the opinion of great men, I did not wish the reader to lack even that mark. I have added, besides, the lives of all the prophets, which, with some others, ascribed to Eusebius, the old Marchalian codex contained; partly, indeed, so that students of ecclesiastical writers might have them from a fragment, from whence they might restore the work itself, from which they were prompted, to its parent and to posterity—if it should ever fall into their hands—as if approved by a rightful *anagnorisis* [recognition]; partly, however, so that the things which so great an author had noted about the prophets might exist for the time being, while the work itself might perhaps come forth entire into the light under better auspices.
But in the interpretation of Isaiah, I have so conducted myself that I did not take upon myself a new one, but I retained the Hieronymian [version] expressed from the seventy men, as much as my codex would allow, which certainly contains a mixed Greek version of another, not that of this or that one. For I do not think anyone will be so unjust toward me as to judge that I ought to have taken a different Latin version than that which the same father edited from the Hebrews, and which the Church also still uses today; to which neither the Greek words of Isaiah would correspond, nor the explanation of Procopius itself. At which place my speech could also come to a close, which, having been finished after the received Fathers, perhaps sufficiently sees
that it must also touch, by way of addition, upon the proper reading of the Sacred Books; an urge prompted not so much by your own temperament as by the argument of this work. And to begin briefly to graze upon the subject: I shall bring forward the opinion of the Pythagoreans concerning philosophy, which is no less elegant than it is true and useful; for they held that it is “the purification and perfection of human life,” intending thereby to signify that the defilements of this life must be purged away by those who would deliver themselves to its discipline, so that, having been made perfect, they might be rendered like unto God.
And if there is one thing that can provide this—that which is truly philosophy, and is called Christian—then it is certainly not to be approached by anyone except with the utmost caution and, as they say, with well-purified hands. For it will be of no benefit to have a mind cultivated by external disciplines (which, however, are necessary here too; nor are they lacking in you, as far as your age can bear) if it comes defiled to this study by the filth of vices; since perverse thoughts, as it is in Solomon, separate one from God, and wisdom shall not enter into a malicious soul; nor can anyone know the mind of the Lord, unless He Himself gives wisdom and sends His Spirit from on high.
Therefore, there is need here not only for the purification of the mind, but also for divine aid in understanding; just as the good author, Isaiah himself, indicated when he asked that his lips be purged by God; and when he warned that he who is learned in letters could not read the book for the reason that it was sealed. And since these two things can be obtained by no means more than by vows and prayers to God, who gives to all abundantly, proceed, I beseech you, Francis, since you lack neither talent nor other aids for this praise. Imitate here also your ancestors, from whom that Phoenix, Picus (from whom you descend on your mother’s side), affirmed that he learned more through prayer than through the assiduity of his studies (although he is said to have used this most extensively, and indeed there is need of it here too).
Do you also remember the remarkable opinion regarding this matter of your uncle, a very great man, to whom the praise for your education primarily pertains; who, often conversing with us about you, saw that you were entering upon and embracing the study of theology; and he desired that you be admonished by us, that you should often intersperse [your study] with the reading of the divine Bernard, in whom he himself delights, for this reason: that, since that most holy man appears in his writings *theodidaktos*, that is, instructed by divine rather than human aid—and since that does not happen to anyone without pure and assiduous invocation of the divine—the intimacy of such a pious and learned father might draw your mind to the admiration and love of similar studies.
The examples and admonitions born of your ancestors and your home are truly illustrious; and I myself, having often experienced them as most holy and true elsewhere, have certainly sensed them most clearly in this work. For when many things in the Greek text of this exemplar of mine were most difficult, and there were many gaps, and many corrupted readings, and I could not extricate myself from them by human reason, I imitated the poets in their tragedies: having fled to the aid of the divine, as if in a desperate matter, I sensed that He Himself did very often stand by me, as they say, *ex machina*; and that I afterward brought forward things that were more *theopneusta* than brought forth or devised by my own talent.
Nor do I doubt, indeed, that this is the same sense of your own mind, and that you have often experienced the same; you who have long been intent upon more serious studies, in which you have shown such a specimen of learning and erudition that, because it surpassed your years, all judged that the divine grace had also come to the aid of the outstanding gifts of your intellect. Whence it happens that I would not have you think that I have added these things to you as if you were in need of them—for you abound in them more than we do—but rather that I would not omit, in this place, what I myself felt concerning the reading of the Sacred Scriptures, as I now lead you to that most obscure part of them, namely, the prophets; and that I would thus congratulate both you and yours, and myself also, if I may justly do so, in the name of the great virtues springing up within you, which promise that you will either equal or even surpass the praises of your ancestors, if you continue.
Go forward therefore in virtue, Francis; continue, continue, I say; and take diligent heed lest in this senescence of the world, and in an age that is falling away—in which virtue is now commonly extinct, yet still shines forth in some brilliant minds, and above all shines in you—you allow yourself to be overcome by the allures of this age, which lie in wait for all good things, and be despoiled of that palm. [index: entries preserved]