Against Hierocles

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA AGAINST HIEROCLES BOOK

[Summary of the book: Hierocles, governor of Bithynia, a most bitter enemy of the Christians, had composed two books, entitled *Philalethes* ["Lover of Truth"], in which, besides other things once objected to Christians and long since refuted by them, he dared to compare Apollonius of Tyana, a prestidigitator, to our Savior, taken from Philostratus' *History*, asserting that this Apollonius had performed works either equal to or even greater than the miracles of Christ, and that for this reason he was held by anyone of sound mind to be a god. Leaving aside other matters, Eusebius discusses in Hierocles’ books only this comparison of Christ and Apollonius; he proves by internal arguments that the accounts narrated about Apollonius are to be denied belief, argues at length about the nature of miracles, and demonstrates that those things which are reported to have been done by Apollonius were either mere prestidigitation or, if they presented anything wonderful, claims they were performed with the help of demons. Cf. Lactantius, *De mortibus persecutorum*, c. 16; St. Epiphanius, *Haereses* LXVIII, n. 1; Eusebius, *De martyribus Palaestinae*, c. 5, with the note of Valesius; Lactantius, *Divinae Institutiones*, lib. V, c. 2.]

OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILI AGAINST THE ACCOUNTS BY PHILOSTRATUS CONCERNING APOLLONIUS OF TYANA, ON ACCOUNT OF THE COMPARISON ADOPTED BY HIEROCLES BETWEEN HIM AND CHRIST.

EUSEBIUS PAMPHILI ANIMADVERSIONS ON THE COMMENTARIES OF PHILOSTRATUS CONCERNING APOLLONIUS OF TYANA, COMPOSED ON ACCOUNT OF THE COMPARISON ESTABLISHED BY HIEROCLES BETWEEN HIM AND CHRIST.

^A 511 CHAPTER I.

Are you, my friend, also to marvel at those things which the writer, in comparing the Tyanean with our Savior and Teacher, has paradoxically blustered? For as for the rest of what is in the *Philalethes* (for so he thought it fitting to entitle his composition against us), there would be nothing of importance to worry about at the present moment.

For these things are not his own, but have been impudently pilfered—not merely in their concepts, but in their very words and syllables—from the writings of others. ^A Yet these, too, will in their own time receive the refutation they deserve; indeed, they have already been overturned and refuted in advance by the eight entire volumes written by Origen against the *True Word* of Celsus—a work more arrogant than that of the *Philalethes*. In those volumes, the aforementioned writer, having brought forth the charges against us without omission insofar as we have spoken, has taken them up and dismantled in summary fashion everything that has been or will be said by anyone on the same subject. To those works, therefore, we refer those who are eager to understand our position ^B truly and accurately; for the present, let us merely consider the *Philalethes*’ comparison regarding our Lord Jesus Christ, deeming it a waste of time to contend with the rest of what he has pilfered from elsewhere. We shall, however, reasonably look now only at what concerns Apollonius, since this comparison and juxtaposition with our Saviour is unique to him alone among all those who have ever written against us—who, on the other hand, had never before sharpened their pens to strike against us.

CHAPTER II

He admires and accepts, therefore, that [Apollonius] performed miracles not by the sophistries of magic, but by a certain divine and ineffable wisdom; ^C and he believes that the matter is truly so, asserting it without offering any proof. Hear, then, what he says in these very syllables: «They toss it to and fro and exalt Jesus with praises, as one who granted sight to the blind and performed other such wonders.» Then, after some intervening remarks, he adds: «Let us see, however, how much better and more intelligently we interpret such things, and what opinion we hold concerning virtuous men.» ^D

^B And in addition to these, he passes over Aristeas of Proconnesus 13 and Pythagoras 14, as well as several more ancient figures, and adds, saying: «But in the time of our ancestors, under the reign of Nero, there flourished Apollonius the Tyanian, who from his very childhood, and since the time he served as a priest in Aegae of Cilicia 15 to the benevolent Asclepius, performed many wonderful things, of which, omitting the greater part, I shall make mention.» Then he begins from the first and narrates his marvels, after which he adds these words exactly: «For what reason then have I mentioned these things? So that it might be possible to compare our own precise and firm judgment in every instance with the levity of the Christians 16; seeing that we, for our part, do not consider the one who did such things a god 17, but a man made pleasing to the gods. They, on the other hand, proclaim Jesus as God on account of a few juggleries.» To this he adds, after some intervening remarks, saying: «It is also worth considering that the things of Jesus were extolled by Peter and Paul and some others like them, who were liars and ignorant and sorcerers; but the deeds of Apollonius were recorded by Maximus of Aegae 18, and by Damis the philosopher 19, who lived with him, and by Philostratus the Athenian, all of whom reached the highest degree of education and, honoring the truth, were unwilling that the deeds of a noble man and a friend to the gods should remain hidden through a lack of benevolence 20.» These things were said in these very words by Hierocles, who composed the treatise against us 21.

CHAPTER III.

^C Damis, therefore 22, who spent the most time with Apollonius, being from the land of the Assyrians, and who first joined him there in his own country, wrote down the conversation that he had with the man from that time on. Maximus, however, described a very small number of his individual deeds. Finally, Philostratus the Athenian, affirming that he had gathered everything that was known together from the writings of Maximus himself, of Damis, and of others 23, being more accomplished than all of them...

^A in completing the history of the man’s life ^B from his birth to the end of his days.

CHAPTER IV

If, therefore, it is permitted to set our own simplicity and levity, which he has accused, against the accurate and solid judgment of the Philalethes on each point, let us examine the matter together; not, indeed, to see which of them is of a more divine nature, nor which performed more amazing or more numerous miracles. Neither shall we inquire into the fact that our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ, was foretold by the wisdom of the Hebrews—who flourished countless years ago—as being destined to come into the world by divine inspiration; nor that He brought so many to the doctrine of His divine teaching; nor that He acquired genuine and truly faithful disciples, who were ready—nay, almost eager—to die for His words; nor that He alone established a school of temperate life that was to endure for future ages; nor that He saved the whole world by His own divinity and virtue, and, even now, continues to bring countless multitudes from every quarter to His divine teaching; nor that He alone, of all who have ever lived, though opposed in almost every conceivable way by all men—rulers and subjects alike—has been shown to be the victor and far more powerful than the unbelievers who bitterly persecuted Him ^C, by divine and ineffable power easily winning over those who from time to time rose up against His divine teaching, and firmly establishing the divine Word which was delivered by Him for an infinite age throughout the whole world; nor that He even now demonstrates the power of His divine virtue by casting out, by His own most holy name alone, certain wretched and miserable demons that lie in wait for the souls and bodies of men, as we have learned by experience ourselves. For to seek for such things in Apollonius, or even to ask about them, would perhaps be the height of foolishness. Let us therefore weigh only the account of Philostratus, from which we shall prove that he cannot justly be ranked even among good men, let alone men of moderate character (much less would it be fitting to compare Apollonius with our Savior Christ), ^D inasmuch as the writer, who according to the Philalethes is a man of great learning, does not honor the truth. For such was...

entirely Philostratus the Athenian, according to whom we may easily discern that others, too, who in their own time were considered very learned, did not investigate the history concerning Apollonius with any precision. For when these matters have been clarified by us—together with the Philalethes, who has adjudged the highest tribunals of the provinces ^B—the judgment against the Christians, which to him seems firm and, as he himself thinks, precise in every detail, will be revealed for what it is. And we, who are considered by them to be foolish and led astray, will see that what they call our levity and lightness is truly theirs.

CHAPTER V

^B Now another man, preparing to join battle, might immediately have burst forth with blasphemies, treating him against whom his discourse was to be directed as an enemy and an adversary. But for my part, my friend, I have long held the man from Tyana to have been a person clever in human wisdom, and I would even now be willing to retain that opinion, and indeed I would not hesitate to set forth this view to you should you ask me. ^C If anyone wishes to rank the man among the philosophers, provided he does not bring in any of the mythological nonsense regarding him, so be it. But if, overstepping the bounds and daring to claim things beyond the powers of philosophy, any person—be it Damis the Assyrian, or Philostratus, or whatever other author or writer of historical accounts—should embolden himself, by word warding off the charge of sorcery but in reality, more than in words, burdening the man, and fitting him with the Pythagorean school of life like a mask; then indeed he will not emerge before us as a philosopher, but as an ^D ass hidden in a lion’s skin, a sophist wandering through the cities; indeed, he will clearly be detected as a magus instead of a philosopher.

CHAPTER VI.

You ask how I can affirm this, and moved by what reasoning; learn, then. ^A Limits of nature, embracing the beginnings, the middle, and the ends of the essence of all things, [provide] measures and laws for all, by which this whole mechanism and architecture of the entire world is brought to completion. They are set, moreover, by immutable laws and unbreakable bonds of the Providence that administers all things, guarding the utterly wise design. Therefore, nothing in them should move or alter in its order, once it has been established. Indeed, the law of nature has prevailed so that every man is restrained from overstepping the divine law—whoever has a desire more bold than the limit allows. ^B Thus, a fish born to live in water will not be able to live when transferred to the earth; nor will an animal nurtured on the land submerge itself in the waters to select a permanent dwelling place there. Nor will anyone of those fixed to the earth, though he leap with a great bound, be raised high into the air, desiring to wander with the eagles; and yet, those [creatures], even if they should come down to the earth, bending their power toward the bottom, and relaxing their wings, and letting go of their nature—for this too has been ordained by divine laws, that the high may be able to descend—they are not, however, conversely permitted to raise that which is lowly and earthy to the heights.

In this same way, the mortal race of men, sharing in both soul and body, is circumscribed by divine limits. Thus, it is not given to the body to travel through the air, ^C if it is weary of spending time on earth, unless it wishes at once to provide an example of foolishness; nor can the mind, elevated in thought, attain to things that are beyond it, but rather it will fall into a graver disease of melancholy. One, therefore, will act prudently by sustaining the body with firm feet upon the earth, while supporting the soul with discipline and philosophy. Yet, one may also pray that a helper arrive from above, from the dwellings in the heavens, and that a teacher of salvation derived from there should appear to him. For by a potent argument, it is right for the physician to approach the sick, and for the teacher to descend to the disciple, and for one placed in a high and elevated position to descend to those below, but not the other way around. ^D Whence, surely, no argument could prevent the divine nature, which is benevolent, a savior, and provident of existing things, from occasionally coming into association with men, provided that this too follows the limit of divine Providence. For He was Good, according to Plato; and in the good, no envy of anything ever arises.

^A Not only of bodies, therefore, will He who is the governor of this universe take care, being good, but much more of souls, to which the gift of immortality and sovereignty has been granted. 40 To these souls, 41 therefore, as one who is Lord of the whole dispensation and of all graces—bestowing which, as He gives them, He benefits nature—He will liberally impart rays, as it were, of His own light, since they are capable of receiving them; 42 sending forth those who are most closely attached to Himself for the salvation and aid of those who are in these earthly regions. If it should happen to anyone to be fortunate enough, with his mind purified and the mist of mortality dispersed, for this reason he will truly be recorded as divine, carrying within his soul some great god. Would that one so great 43 might rouse the whole race of all men, and illuminate the inhabited world even more than this sun!—leaving behind a work of the eternal divinity, to be witnessed even by future times, ^B and providing a proof of divine nature no less than the works fashioned from soul-less matter 44 did for the example of that divine nature. And by this path human nature may indeed become a partaker of that which is higher than human; but to transgress the boundaries otherwise is not lawful: neither for one who does not have wings on his body to attempt the deeds of birds, nor for one who is a man to meddle with the affairs of demons.

CHAPTER VII

What sort of person, then, do you set before us in these circumstances, Apollonius, you excellent writer? If, as divine and greater than a philosopher, and—to speak in a word—endowed with a nature ^C more excellent than that which is human, keep for me this thesis throughout your entire history, and demonstrate even now the proof of his divinity. For would it not be most absurd that the work of craftsmen and builders should endure for a very long time, even after the death of the artificers, and, one might almost say, immortalize the memory of those who constructed it, while a divine work...

^A should conversely illuminate the nature of men, not let it fall into darkness, nor be of brief duration. Nor should virtue reside eternally, content to have exercised its poor bounty upon some single Damis or other ephemeral men, but rather it should provide for the benefit of an infinite multitude of people, not only those of the age in which it was made manifest, but also for those who would be born thereafter. Thus, the sages of old also created zealots and successors to their virtue, truly providing an immortal achievement for mankind. But if you ascribe a mortal nature to the man, beware lest you be accused of acting contrary to reason by attributing to it more than it can bear.

CHAPTER VIII

But certainly, the man has been introduced by him as divine, and from his very birth, assuming the form and mask of a marine deity. For he says ^B that a phantom of a marine deity—Proteus, who in Homer changes his shape—came to his mother while she was pregnant. She, in no way terrified, asked him what she would bring forth. He, for his part, replied, "Me." And when she asked, "Who are you?" he said, "Proteus, the Egyptian." Then he writes that a meadow and swans served as midwives for the woman, though he does not say whence this story was taken. For he will not ^C attribute the narration of this too to the Assyrian Damis. Yet not long after the beginning of his history, he introduces Apollonius—since he is allegedly of a divine nature—saying these very things: "I, my friend, understand all languages, though I have learned none," and, "Do not marvel, for I even know what men keep in silence." And again, while he was being honored in the temple of Asclepius, ^D he represents him as possessing, through the deity, a certain foresight and knowledge not acquired by learning.

He writes that he was manifestly endowed with a nature superior to that of man, from his very birth and throughout his entire history. And when he had once freed himself from his bonds, he subjoins these words: "Then first, Damis says, did I accurately perceive the character of Apollonius, that it was divine and superior to that of man. For not having offered any sacrifice (for how could he in prison?), nor having prayed, nor said ^A anything, he ridiculed his bonds." And towards the end of the history he writes that his tomb is nowhere to be found on earth, but that he departed into heaven, his body and all, amidst hymns and dancing. And so, he says, it is reasonable that one such as he, "as being more divine than Pythagoras, Empedocles, and Plato, should have approached philosophy." Let then this man be enrolled by us among the gods.

CHAPTER IX

^B Far be envy from the knowledge of all languages, which came to him spontaneously and without a teaching master. Why then does he take him to a tutor, and disparage one who had never learned any language, as if he had attained Attic eloquence through use and practice, and not by nature? For he says, "As he reached maturity, he displayed powers of letters and strength of memory and persistency in study; and his language was Attic." Also: "When he was fourteen years old, he was taken by his father to Tarsus, to Euthydemus, a native of Phoenicia, who was a good rhetorician, and instructed him: and he embraced that master." Furthermore: "With him, the followers of Plato and Chrysippus, and the Peripatetics, busied themselves in philosophy. He also heard the doctrines of Epicurus, for he did not neglect even these. But he grasped the Pythagorean doctrines with a certain ineffable power of mind." Thus, he who had no master of any language, by divine power, perceived even those things which men keep in silence, yet he made use of instruction.

CHAPTER X

^C Philostratus, however, after some digression, again extols him, because he attained to a great knowledge of the language of brute animals; and he proceeds by saying: "He also attained to a knowledge of the language of brute animals." And he learned this through the Arabians. ^D

^A For it is a custom of the Arabians to listen to, and interpret the voices of, swans and birds, just as if they were oracles. They also conjecture the hidden meanings of the wordless voices of serpents, by eating, as some say, their hearts, or according to others, their livers. ^B Here, then, it is highly probable that that Pythagorean—who abstained from the food of living creatures and did not even dare to offer bloody sacrifices to the gods—ate of the heart or liver of a serpent, so that he might share in the wisdom found among these people. For how else, if he did not zealously imitate his teachers, could he have succeeded in such a practice under masters of this kind? ^C We therefore hold, among the teachers of Apollonius whose catalogue we have provided, the wise men of the Arabs as also the instructors of the augural art in which he himself excelled: by whose help, it is likely, he afterward seemed to perform a most wondrous thing before all who were present, when he foretold what the sparrow meant while inviting its fellows to feed. Similarly, having caught sight of a lioness that had just been slaughtered along with her eight cubs on the road through Assyria, he immediately, by making a conjecture from that sign, predicted the time of the delay he would have to make among the Persians.

CHAPTER XI.

The same author relates that, following his studies among the Arabs, he undertook to do the same among the Persians. For while forbidding Damis—who was his sole disciple and companion—to go to the Magi, he himself went alone—so that he might not have as a fellow-student one who was—notoriously—ignorant of the magic arts—and ^D frequented their schools around midday and also around the middle of the night. Furthermore, he relates that when he came for a meeting with Bardanes, the Babylonian king, he used words to this effect: "I embrace, however, the wisdom of Pythagoras, a man of Samos, who taught me to worship the gods in such a way that I may grasp them with my mind, whether they show themselves or not, and in the same manner descend into conversations with the gods." But who would grant him this? Since Pythagoras has left behind no writing of this kind, nor does any secret document of his exist, such that one might even suspect he drew his inspiration from them; yet the teacher of his Pythagorean philosophy differs in no way from the Epicureans according to his own testimony—

^A for Philostratus has written thus: “His teacher in Pythagorean doctrines was not very serious, nor was he one to practice philosophy in earnest; he was a slave to his belly and to sensual pleasures, and was molded according to the school of Epicurus. This man was Euxenus, a native of Heraclea Pontica. But he knew the maxims of Pythagoras just as birds learn what they hear from men.” O, the absurdity! If anyone were to affirm that it was from this man that Apollonius received the knowledge of how to converse with the gods. But let us concede that he heard other interpreters of Pythagoras as well, even though our historian does not provide the slightest indication of such a thing. Yet, who among them ever claimed to have learned, or to be able to teach others, the knowledge of the gods and the experience of their visitations, whether they appear to sight or remain invisible—whether from Pythagoras himself or another? And yet, not even the most renowned Plato, who more than anyone else participated in the Pythagorean philosophy, nor Archytas, ^B nor Philolaus himself—who committed the familiar conversations of Pythagoras to writing—nor any others among that man’s close associates, who consigned his opinions and dogmas to posterity, ever boasted of such wisdom. Therefore, since he learned such things elsewhere and not from Pythagoras, he sought to be called by the name of that philosopher, cloaking himself in his authority to appear dignified. But even if one were to grant, against all reason, that this lie were true, I do not see how he could possibly claim to have received these things from that same Samian, who departed from the living many thousands of years before. Therefore, it is right to add this man to the Arabs as yet another teacher of his supposed secret knowledge concerning the gods. If, then, he was of a divine nature, ^C the account is convicted of falsely attributing to him these teachers; but if the account is true, then the story is false, and the report of his having been divine is not true. And thus, if the narrative is true, the tale will be false, and neither— ^D

CHAPTER XII

I do not yet have the mind to examine more diligently the specter of Proteus.

or to seek assurance regarding it; nor will I look for proofs from the swans he mentions, which he ridiculously relates to have surrounded his mother while she was giving birth to him, and to have performed the office of midwives. Indeed, I do not even ask that he provide a witness to the fables ^A regarding the lightning bolt. For Damis, on whom he called as our informant, will certainly not ^B arrive, having joined the man in Nineveh of Assyria long afterward.

For my part, I most willingly yield credence to things that are probable and adhere to the truth; and even if some things are said in excessive praise of a good man, I judge them to be credible and acceptable—provided they are not merely monstrous and full of nonsense. Therefore, I would not begrudge the writer if he says that the man came from an ancient family and was descended from the founders; or if it so happened that he was wealthier than all the inhabitants of the region; or that, while he was still a young man, he happened to have not only the teachers who were named, but also, if it seems good, to have been a teacher and guide to them himself. ^C And let him further be sagacious in ordinary and common matters—for instance, in the way he advised someone who had come to the Temple of Asclepius for a cure, and by means of excellent counsel delivered him from his illness. For, to a patient suffering from dropsy, he prescribed a diet of self-restraint suitable for the sufferer, and by this means restored him to health; for this, too, the youth is to be commended for his wisdom. And also [let him be commended] for how he drove away the man who was prepared to sacrifice with great extravagance, for he was notoriously wicked; for he represents him as being the wealthiest and most conspicuous of all the locals. ^D And no one would begrudge recording among his sober deeds that he rebuked his lover, who was attempting to corrupt his youth, and that he led a life, as the story says, utterly pure from women at all times. Let there also be found credible those things regarding his five-year silence according to Pythagoras, and whatever he did in a worthy manner while he was keeping it. These things, and whatever else of this kind is human, and truly not far from philosophy and truth, I would accept, holding in high esteem fairness and love of the truth. But to postulate that his nature was beyond that of a human, and to contradict oneself at every step, and to be forgetful of the premise already given—I consider this to bring blame and reproach both upon the writer and, much more so, upon the one being written about.

CHAPTER XIII

^A And these things, indeed, are what needed to be observed from the first book. Let us proceed to the things that occur in the second. The narrative carries him onward in his journey from Persia to India. Then, when something entirely nonsensical, that is to say, something unusual, had happened to him—a certain demon, which he also calls an Empusa—it relates that upon seeing it on the road, he drove it away with insults, together with those who were with him. And when animals were brought to them for food, ^B it says he told Damis that he granted that he himself and his companions might eat of the meat; for to abstain from them, he saw, resulted in no benefit to them, though it did to him for the purpose of the philosophy to which he had dedicated himself from childhood. Yet who would not be at a loss, that he did not prevent even him whom he deemed to be the only one to have as an imitator of his life, and whom he was instructing in the precepts of philosophy—even though he was his closest companion—from the consumption of animals, seeing that he was impure according to the institutions of Pythagoras? But he himself, led by I know not what reasoning, says that it was less expedient for him, yet he admits that he does not see what benefit could come to them from abstaining from animals.

CHAPTER XIV

Post these things, consider what proofs of truth Philostratus, who is testified to by the "Philaleth." (the Lover of Truth) as being a lover of the truth, puts forth. He says that Apollonius, upon arriving among the Indians, took an interpreter unto himself, and through him conversed with Phraotes—for that was the name of the king of India. And he who a little before, according to Philostratus, was most learned in all languages, now, according to the same ^C narrator, has need of an interpreter. And again, he who knows the things of men's minds, and is all but a god to them,

*Understanding the mute and hearing the one who does not speak,*

he asks through an interpreter what manner of diet the king uses. ^D And as for him, whether he be a god or a genius, whom he calls the arbiter of all things—not only of actions but even of thoughts—Apuleius calls that one whom he affirms to dwell in the very deepest parts of the mind in the place of conscience, whom he calls a domestic scout, an intimate knower, and an individual judge. But Eusebius in this place does not understand a genius, but Apollo, whose oracle which follows is brought forward in Herodotus, book I, p. 11, regarding Apollo himself. Tertullian also mentions it in his book *De Oratione*, ch. 1: "God, however, is an auditor not of the voice but of the heart, just as He is a spectator. I understand the demon of the Pythian oracle to be both mute and I hear him as one who does not speak," he says. By whose authority I have thus rendered this verse: *Understanding the mute, etc.* The interpreter: *Understanding the soul of the mute and likewise of the silent one.* Lower down (ch. 41) it is repeated. HOLSTEN. Indeed, he is the one who is held to be a God among them (among the Gentiles, surely, and especially among the adversaries of Eusebius, Hierocles, Eusebius and the rest).

and he requested that a guide for the journey to the Brahmans be given to him. Meanwhile, the King of the Indians ^A, though a barbarian by nature, suddenly sent the interpreter away and spoke with him in Greek, offering proofs of his doctrine and learning. But Apollonius, not even then did he return the favor, as he should have done, to show that he himself was not ignorant of the language of those parts (96).

CHAPTER XV

But the Indian, speaking in the Greek tongue, was surprised, as Philostratus testifies, writing things consistent, as it seems, with himself. For why was he surprised, if he did not think him a barbarian, and marvel at him (97)? And why did he not expect the man to speak Greek? Then, as if amazed by something extraordinary presented to him, and still ignorant of the cause of this (98), he said, “Tell me,” said Apollonius, “O King, whence do you have this facility of the Greek tongue? And the philosophy that is in you, from where does it come to these regions? For you do not, I think, attribute it to ^B teachers, since it is not likely that there are teachers of this among the Indians (99).” These are the extraordinary words of one who grasped everything by foreknowledge, to which the King, replying that he did have teachers, and who they were, explains each detail of what had happened to him from his birth.

CHAPTER XVI

Furthermore, when the Indian was judging for some people concerning a treasure discovered in a field—whether it should be returned to the buyer or the seller of the land—Apollonius, using the sharpness of a philosopher in all things, and being most dear to the gods, when asked for his opinion, awarded it to the buyer, adding this reasoning word for word: “Because the gods would not have taken away the field from the seller—had he not been wicked—and on the other hand ^C bestowed the things under the earth upon the buyer, had he not been better than the one who sold it.” So, according to his reasoning, one must conclude that those who abound in wealth and excel in riches, even if they happen to be the most shameful and most lost of men, are to be considered thrice-blessed and most dear to God; and that those alone are wretched and miserable who struggle most with poverty, even if Socrates himself, or Diogenes, or that very Pythagoras happens to be among them, or anyone else who is considered among the most temperate and upright of men. For one might say, following this argument, that according to him, even the gods would have taken away from the poor—those very ones who excelled in philosophy—even the things for necessary sustenance, had he not ^D refrained from outdoing them [in philosophy].

For they were not entirely base in their manner; rather, he would have provided abundant supplies and even unnecessary things to those who were more licentious, had they not happened to be better than the former. From these things, the absurdity of the conclusion is evident to everyone.

CHAPTER XVII.

Having set forth these things from the second book, let us proceed to the third, in order to consider the matters concerning the celebrated Brachmanes; where things more incredible than those reported about Thule occur. Indeed, if anything monstrous was ever invented by fabulous writers, it will all appear very plausible, nay, most true, when compared with these. It is thoroughly worth our while to turn our attention to these matters, on account of the boastfulness of the "Philalethes," who attributes to us credulity and a lightness of character, while to himself and those like him he attributes an accurate, solid judgment based on knowledge. See, therefore, with what portents he prides himself, preferring Philostratus to our holy evangelists, as one who not only has advanced most in learning, but is also most devoted to the truth.

CHAPTER XVIII.

First, then, on the journey of Apollonius to the Brachmanes, a woman is introduced by him who is, in her complexion, from her head to her loins, most white, but in the other part of her body, black. Furthermore, as they proceed on the way to the Brachmanes, there are mountains planted with pepper, and the laborers of this are apes; and there are certain dragons of stupendous size, from whose heads flames of fire scintillate, and if anyone should kill them, he would find, he says, miraculous stones in their heads, similar to the ring of Gyges, which is mentioned by Plato. These, then, are the things which occur before one arrives at the hill of the Brachmanes. But as they reached this too, he says that they saw there a Sandaracine well of water, truly miraculous, and near it a crater containing fire, from which a lead-colored flame tends upward. Then also [there are] two jars of black stone, one of rains, the other of winds, from which the Brachmanes grant to those of the natives whom they favor [winds and rain]. Moreover, that there are among them statues of Athena "Polias," and of the Pythian Apollo, and of Dionysus, and of certain other Greek gods. Iarchas, however, who presides over all, is called "the master," whom he saw sitting in a habit so far from philosophical that he looked rather like a satrap, seated on a lofty throne. He was of black bronze, and was adorned with golden images, just as one would expect, in the manner of coarse craftsmen, with fire and iron

to construct the work, and to set up the contrivance after the fashion of wonder-workers, so that it might move of its own accord. As for the seats of the others who attended the master, he says they were indeed of bronze, but were not adorned with images, and were less lofty. For it was surely appropriate that the preeminence of royal adornment should consist in those statues, [and it was appropriate] to honor the master of divine philosophy with gold. ^A

CHAPTER XIX.

^B When Iarchas first saw Apollonius, he says, he addressed him by name in the Greek tongue, and asked for the letter which he was carrying to him from Phraotes, having already anticipated this through foreknowledge. And to demonstrate the divine nature of this foreknowledge, he had predicted that the letter was lacking one letter, the "Delta." ^C He began, in a most tasteless manner, right from the first conversation, in the way of those who are overflowing with vast wealth, to boast of his knowledge of hidden things, recounting the father and mother of Apollonius, his lineage, upbringing, education, the travels undertaken at various times, the journey he had made to him, and the things that had been done and said by him along the way.

Then this marvelous writer says that the Brahmans, together with Apollonius, anointed themselves with an amber-colored ointment and bathed; and standing around him as in a chorus, they struck the ground with their staffs. The earth, swelling up, lifted them two cubits into the air, and they remained suspended in that air for a certain length of time. They also drew fire from the sun, of its own accord, whenever they wished. To these accounts the writer of wonders adds a baffling detail: that four tripods, ^D like the Pythian ones, rolled out, moving of their own accord; and he compares them, indeed, to those of Homer. He also sets up four cupbearers of bronze—if you look at the material—to serve them. He adds that the earth spontaneously spread grass beneath them. Of the tripods, he says, two flowed with wine, while of the other two, one provided a mixture of warm water and the other of cold. The bronze cupbearers drew the wine and water in proper measure, and passed the cups around in a circle, just as is customary in drinking parties.

CHAPTER XX.

These things, to Hierocles—who was entrusted with the highest courts in the provinces—after much investigation, seemed to be true.

And indeed, he has condemned our lack of discernment and levity as the greatest possible faults. Yet he himself, believing such things of Philostratus, prides himself on these very words, saying: "Let us consider, however, how much better and more intelligently we receive such things, and what opinion we hold concerning men of virtue."

CHAPTER XXI.

In this sort of banquet, according to Philostratus himself, a king who was in the land of the Indians is introduced, holding a drinking session with the philosophers. He recounts that this man behaved arrogantly and acted like a madman toward philosophy, that he grew hot with drink among them, vied with the sun itself for supremacy, and boasted with an inflated spirit. He further states that Apollonius learned these things from him through an interpreter, and that he spoke in turn to the king, with Iarchas acting as interpreter. How can we do anything but marvel at how it was considered likely that such an arrogant and utterly absurd man would act like a madman and get drunk in the presence of such men—a man who was not worthy to approach the dwellings of philosophers, let alone those who were counted as gods? Why do I call them "god-like," thus mocking the dignity of the men? For when Apollonius asked them who they considered themselves to be, Iarchas replied that they were gods. And he himself, as if he were indeed a god, began the drinking with his guests—in a manner not at all befitting a philosopher, and much less consistent with the dignity of a god, which he professed to be—by leaning over the bowl. And the narrative historian says that, as he was providing plenty of drink for everyone, it was yielding abundantly, just as hidden springs usually supply water to those who draw from them. ^B

CHAPTER XXII.

Following this came mutual conversations and philosophical discussions, with Iarchas teaching that his soul had once existed in another body, that of a human king, and what kind of things he had done in it; and with Apollonius, in turn, recounting that he had once been the captain of an Egyptian ship, and what deeds he had performed at that time. The questions and responses of each are such that it would have been most worthy of wisdom not even to mention them. He says that Apollonius asked whether there was golden water among them. Oh, what a wise and astonishing question! And also regarding people living under the earth, and ^C

^A He further inquires about men living in subterranean regions, and others who are called Pygmies and Shadow-footed. He also asks if a four-footed animal is found among them, called the Mantichora, which is said to resemble a man in its head, but to be equal to a lion in size, and to have a tail furnished with hairs a cubit long and prickly, which it shoots like arrows at hunters. And while he questions Apollonius about such things, Jarchas informs him regarding the Pygmies, that they live in subterranean burrows, passing their lives beneath the river Ganges; but as for the other creatures, they do not exist anywhere.

CHAPTER XXIII

CHAPTER XXIV

CHAPTER XXV

seven [rings], marked with the names of the planets, which he wore one after another, according to the arrangement of the names assigned to the days. ^A Yet, while reporting these things in this place, the one who is considered by the judgment of Philalethes to be a seeker of truth, in another part of his work, as if condemning the incantations of the Brahmins and wishing to show Apollonius free from this concern, adds word for word: "Seeing the tripods among the Indians, and the cup-bearers, and all the things that I said proceeded by their own motion, he neither asked by what art they were made, nor did the desire to learn them enter his mind. Truly, he praised them, yet he did not deign to imitate them." But would he really have done this? He who, with Damis removed, made much of conversing with them, and considered them his only companions, hiding from all others whatever it was he was doing? And how can it be said he did not deign to imitate them? He who accepted the rings marked with the names of the stars, and deemed it necessary to wear them throughout his whole life according to the names of each day; although, as you say yourself, they possessed a secret power. But even if we concede that he did not wish to imitate those things, it remains manifest that he did not imitate them because they did not seem to him to be done rightly. How, then, did he praise those things which he did not deign to imitate? And if ^B he praised them as working by divine art, why did he not imitate them, so as to merit the praise they deserved? Furthermore, after the delay made among them, he says that Apollonius, returning with his companions, came to the region of the Oritae, where the rocks are of bronze, the sand is of bronze, and the rivers carry filings of bronze. And these are the contents of the third book.

CHAPTER XXVI

Let us now examine what follows. He reports that, upon his return from India to Greece, he was declared by the gods themselves to be a companion of the gods, who even sent the sick to him for the sake of recovering their health. And indeed, as if bringing us a stupendous and truly divine man from the Arabs, and from the magi, and from the Indians, he begins from there ^C to narrate wonderful things. And one might say, not without reason, that if he had truly existed of a nature more excellent than human a long time ago, he ought not to have begun performing miracles only at the end of his life, but rather before he had progressed through the instruction of others. Moreover, the learning which he acquired with such great study from the Arabs, and more especially from the Indians, would have been superfluous, if one thinks he should be exalted according to the things Philostratus sets forth. But yet, according to that most truthful writer, he only arrives now, publicly exhibiting proofs of his wisdom. ^D

CHAPTER XXVII.

^AAnd first, indeed, as one coming from the Arabs and the divinatory school among them, he interprets for those present what the little sparrow might mean, which invited others to take food. Then, having a premonition of a pestilence, he prophesies it to the citizens. He himself sets forth the reason for this, too, in his apology to Domitian. For when Domitian asked him from what source he had predicted this, he said, "O emperor, by using a more slender diet, I was the first of all to perceive the evil." And he relates a third miracle that happened to him, how he actually averted the plague. Even though the writer has not placed this at the end in the accusations against him—because he was not present, ^B as is likely, to refute the charge by an apology—let us, however, bring the story to light and examine it in this way. For to anyone it should be clear that the story is much fiction and deceit, and truly full of sorcery, and the very manner of the story exposes it. For he assumes that the plague appeared in the guise of a beggar and an old man dressed in rags, whom, when Apollonius ordered them to stone him, he says first emitted fire from his eyes, and then, after being struck with stones, appeared as a mangled dog, foaming at the mouth like those who are rabid. Concerning this, in his apology to the Emperor Domitian, he writes: "For the form of the plague was likened to a beggar ^C wandering about in such a state, and I saw it, and having seen it, I captured it—not causing the disease to cease, but utterly removing it." Now who, when reading such things, would not laugh loudly at the juggler's miracle-mongering? To hear of the nature of the plague being a beast appearing to the eyes, liable to the hurling of stones, crushed by men, and foaming at the mouth, when it is nothing but a corruption and affliction of the air, which turns to a pestilential state, formed from evil and base exhalations, as medical science teaches! And in another way, too, the phantom ^D could be refuted, since the discourse claims that the plague fell upon the city of the Ephesians alone, and not also upon those in neighboring regions; which could not have happened if the affliction had been a corruption of the surrounding air; for the disease would not have been enclosed and restricted so as to lie in wait only for the air around Ephesus.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

As the fourth miracle, he produces the shade of Achilles, at first five cubits tall in his chlamys, and then twelve cubits tall, appearing to Apollonius at his own tomb; he complained of the Thessalians who were not offering to him the customary funeral rites, and was also still resentful ^A toward the Trojans for the wrongs they had committed against him, and he granted to Apollonius the right to ask five questions, such as he himself wished and the Fates permitted to be asked. And so, he who knew all things and boasted of foreknowledge of the future, still does not know whether Achilles had been buried in the tomb, or whether the Muses and Nereids had lamented over him; he asks and inquires of him about these matters, and whether Polyxena had been sacrificed at his tomb, and whether Helen had reached ^B Troy. How noble and urgent for the philosophic life of that divine man were those questions worthy of study! Moreover, he wonders that so many heroes could have existed among the Greeks at the same time, and whether Palamedes had arrived at Troy. How could it not be considered most shameful for an intimate of the gods, both those who are seen and those who are unseen, to be ignorant of such things and to ask about them? Unless, perhaps, because he is introduced as consulting the dead, the author invents these rather frigid little questions so as to remove the suspicion that he might appear to have been more curious than was fitting. ^C Indeed, he provides us with an apology for Apollonius, that the vision did not appear to him in the manner usually done in necromancies: "For I have not," he says, "come to a colloquy with Achilles by digging a trench like Ulysses, nor by appeasing the shades with slaughtered lambs, but by offering the prayers which the Indians believe ought to be offered to heroes." And he now boasts of these things to his companion, even though elsewhere this author claims that he learned nothing from the Indians and did not imitate their wisdom.

CHAPTER XXIX.

But, my good sir, if that was not damnable magic, why did you not make your one and only, most intimate companion, Damis, a participant ^D of this marvelous spectacle and conversation? Why, furthermore, was it not permitted for this to happen in broad daylight, but had to be performed by you alone in the dead of night? Why, too, did the crowing of cocks put the hero's shade to flight? "For he departed," he says, "with a moderate flash of lightning, for the cocks had already begun their song." To impure demons, perhaps, the time of night is suitable for curious conversations, but not to a heroic soul.

^A seeing that those who have been liberated from the heavy matter of the body ought to be good and perfect in every virtue. But the demon introduced here is envious, malicious in his ways, and is depicted as both irascible and mean-spirited. Is he, then, not of such a sort, since he holds back Antisthenes, a fine young man who was trying to follow the philosopher Apollonius? For he forbids him to be a companion in his philosophy, adding the reason: "For he is a true Priamid," he says, "and does not cease to praise Hector." And how is he not irascible and mean-spirited, since he is angry with the Thessalians because they do not sacrifice to him, and with the Trojans, because they have wronged him untold thousands of years ago, and will not be reconciled, though they sacrifice and constantly pour libations to him; he even gives orders that the tomb of Palamedes, which had been poorly cast aside ^B with its statue, be restored?

CHAPTER XXX

The fifth and sixth miracles, however, would not require much discussion to demonstrate the simplicity of the writer: for he drives out demons, as they say, by another demon—one from an intemperate youth, and another—the one who was disguised in a female form—he drives out as well. And this demon the most wise author calls by their very names, "Empusa" and "Lamia." But as for the story about the girl in the city of the Romans, that he allegedly brought her back to a second life after death, this is most unbelievable ^C and must be rejected, as even Philostratus himself thought. He is, however, in doubt, and wonders whether a spark of vital breath remained in the girl and escaped the notice of the doctors. For he says there is a report that a very gentle rain had fallen, and that a vapor was exhaling from the girl's face. But surely, if such a thing had genuinely been performed in the city of Rome itself, it could not have escaped the notice of the Emperor first, nor the princes who hold the place nearest to him, all of them, and especially the philosopher Euphrates, who was active in those parts at that time, nay, rather was staying in the city of Rome itself at that time, he who in later ^D times is said to have brought an accusation against him as a sorcerer. For surely this also, if it had indeed happened, would have been included by the accuser alongside the other charges against him. And these are the things that were done by him in detail and specifically; but ten thousand [other things] are...

he writes were told by him with a prophetic mind, and that he had predicted and prophesied them. And he writes how, when he wished to be initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries at Athens, he was forbidden by the priest of Ceres, who declared that he would never initiate a sorcerer, nor open the Eleusinian mysteries to a man who was not cleansed of those demons. Moreover, the most philosophical man, fearing Nero, ordered his companions to pay a fee to the man who was wandering shamelessly through Rome and singing Nero’s songs to the lyre for money, in order to pay him for his distinguished work. ^A

CHAPTER XXXI

And with these things, the fourth book of the work composed about him having been completed, in the fifth book, where he had already said something concerning his gift of foreknowledge and had expressed his admiration for the man, the author adds these words verbatim: "That he predicted such things by a divine movement, and that the argument of those who think the man was a sorcerer is unsound, is sufficiently clear from what has been said up to this point. But let us look further into this matter as well. For magicians—and I consider them the most wretched of mortals—apply themselves partly to the torturing of spirits, partly to barbaric rites, and partly by charms or poisons claim to change what is ordained by fate (45). But he followed the decrees of the Fates, and predicted ^B that which was destined to happen by fatal necessity. He predicted it, however, not by the power of magic, but taught by the revelation of the gods. And when among the Indians he had seen the tripods, the cupbearers, and all the rest that they said came forth into the midst by spontaneous motion, he neither inquired by what art they were prepared, nor did he ask to be taught how they were made, but while he praised them, he did not deign to imitate them." By relating these things, he clearly declares those world-renowned Indian philosophers to be magicians. For when he is discoursing about magicians, he makes mention of them; saying that they craft these very wonders, and he assumes that the sort of sophistry in question—which gave rise to the subject of his discourse—was foreign to the man he was writing about, as if it were not noble. ^C If, therefore, Apollonius is convicted of having called these very men gods and having acknowledged them as his teachers, it will not be untimely to judge him also subject to the same imputations as those to whom his teachers are held. He is introduced, therefore, among those whom [Philostratus] calls the Egyptian Gymnosophists, stating these things in the very words: "I do not think it unreasonable that I have suffered something, being bested by a philosophy well-adorned, which the Indians, having sent it to what is fitting (51), bring forth on a high and divine mechanism." ^D

^A And after a short while 54 he says: “For these are indeed gods, and they are adorned according to the Pythian (55).” And to Domitian also he is introduced as saying: “And what war have you against Iarchas and Phraotes, the Indians? Whom I deem to be the only gods among men, and worthy of this title.” And in other places likewise, the narrative, having inscribed the aforementioned as both gods and teachers of the man (56), and having acknowledged that he received rings from them, now forgets this, and in disparaging the disciple along with the teachers, he does not sense ^B that he renders himself liable to reproach.

CHAPTER XXXII

As he continues to write, he introduces a certain flute-player; and Apollonius, as if this were some greatest and most wise science, relates him to have discoursed with great zeal and a prolix argument on the ways of playing the flute. Furthermore, he records that the Emperor Vespasian became a suppliant to him, as if to a God; and that he indeed, after the manner of a suppliant, said: “Make me emperor,” and that he replied: “I have done so.” And who would not justly hate the voice full of arrogance, and next to madness, when he now rages that he himself is God and a maker of emperors, he who was formerly the steersman of an Egyptian ship? For this is what Apollonius himself declared to us ^C just a little before in his conversations with the Indian, regarding his own soul.

CHAPTER XXXIII

To the same emperor, who asked him to indicate which of the philosophers he would approve of as counselors in the conduct of affairs, he replies word for word: “Good counselors of these matters are also these men,” pointing to Dion and Euphrates, with whom no controversy had yet arisen for him. And again: “O emperor,” he said, “Euphrates and ^D Dion, being [both] old friends of yours, are at the doors, and they are not unconcerned about your affairs. Call them, then, to a common discourse; for both men are wise.” And toward Vespasian

^A he says, “I provide doors that are not shut to wise men.” What a fine knowledge of future events this hero has! Euphrates is now good and wise, since no contention has yet arisen between them. But if one should arise, how far off—such as he is—will he be! See what the same man writes concerning him to Domitian: ^B “And indeed, whatever occurs to a philosopher who flatters the powerful, the affairs of Euphrates show. For since then, why should I even speak of money? He has fountains of riches. And he argues at the tables, a peddler, a petty peddler, a tax-collector, a money-changer—becoming everything, both selling and sold. He is always imprinted upon the doors of the powerful, and stands before them for more time than the doorkeepers. He is often checked by the doorkeepers, just as gluttonous dogs are wont to be checked. Though he never bestows even a drachma upon a philosopher, he fortifies his own wealth, nourishing this Egyptian of his with money extorted from others, and sharpening his tongue against me, when it deserves to be cut out. But I leave Euphrates to you; for if you do not delight in flatterers, you will find the man to be worse than I describe.” ^C He who, therefore, testified to the father, Vespasian, that Euphrates was wise and good, but puts forth these things before the son, is clearly caught being both an admirer and an accuser of the same man. Can it be that he who was gifted with the knowledge of future things was ignorant of who Euphrates was and would be? For not only now, but even in the age of Vespasian himself, he undertakes to slander him as having a most wicked character. How then did he commend such a man to the Emperor, ensuring that even the gates of the palace were thrown open to him through his recommendations? ^D Yet it is evident, as they say, even to a blind man, that the fellow is calumniating the man to the writer regarding [his] foreknowledge. He might otherwise be noble, as one who has dared much among his companions; however, also in regard to Euphrates,

^A rendering him a participant in access to the emperor's palace, and yet later, due to an intervening disagreement, bringing forward such things about him—is he not, by the very force of reason, convicted of having acted as a sycophant to Euphrates, the most illustrious of the philosophers of his age, who is celebrated even today by those who are imbued with the studies of philosophy? This itself provides, to anyone who wishes, the most clear example of a just reprehension of Apollonius. For if Euphrates is acknowledged by the consensus of all to be most illustrious in the studies of philosophy, it would certainly not be untimely to demonstrate his hatred against impropriety by his having pursued the evil deeds of Apollonius. But this man, who was being convicted by him, [to conclude] oppressed him with a bad reputation, as if he were leading a life in no way consistent with philosophy.

CHAPTER XXXIV

Again, in the sixth book, the myth-maker, recounting prodigies, brings him carried on a camel along with his companions to those whom he calls the Naked philosophers of the Egyptians. Where, ^B at the command of the naked one, he says an elm tree addressed Apollonius with articulate and feminine voice. And Philalethes desires us to believe these things. Then he narrates of Pygmy men beyond the land of these, and Anthropophagi, and Shadow-footed ones, and a Satyr intoxicated by Apollonius. From these he returns again to Greece. He has conversations again, and prognostications shared with Titus. And a youth bitten by a mad dog—whose soul he even divined, saying it was Amasis, once king of Egypt—he relieves of the malady, extending his philanthropy even to the dog. These, then, are the things performed by him before his accusation.

CHAPTER XXXV

^C It is worth noting throughout the whole discourse that, even if it were granted to the author to be telling the truth about these paradoxes, it is clearly demonstrated that each of these was performed by him through the cooperation of a demon. For as to his having a premonition of the plague, it might perhaps seem not strange if, just as ^D [the young man was not Amasis, as Apollonius said, but Telephus the Mysian; for the author seems to have confused the matter with the deeds occurring at Alexandria concerning a lion, in which Apollonius said the soul of that king resided] he had prior knowledge of it.

But perhaps even this had been foretold to him by the conversation of a demon. For indeed, as for the rest of those things which he is introduced as having grasped and predicted by virtue of foreknowledge, even if one could refute them by a thousand arguments from the very writing of Philostratus, nevertheless, in order that one might concede that even this is true, I would say it was by a strange artifice from a demon acting as his familiar—for he did not grasp everything. This is made clear by the fact that he does not maintain such foreknowledge entirely and regarding all things; rather, he is in doubt about most matters and inquires out of ignorance, which he would not have suffered had he possessed divine virtue. And the very ending of the plague, as the drama turned out, was clearly shown 75 to be an apparition and nothing more 76. Furthermore, why would the soul 77 of Achilles linger at his own tomb, leaving behind the way of life in the islands of the blessed, as someone might say 78, if this were not also the presence of a demon’s manifestation? And it is likely that the demon which was visibly possessing that wanton youth, and again the one he said was an Empusa and a Lamia that had taunted Menippus, he drove out by the aid of a greater demon. Similarly, he likewise cured the youth who had lost his mind from the bite of a rabid dog, and the dog itself which was possessed by a demon, by the same method. Observe, then, as I said, that all his wonder-working was accomplished through the ministry of evil demons. For as for the girl who was called back from the underworld, if she still possessed a spirit within—a spark of life, according to the writer, and still bearing a moisture of breath upon her face 79—that case must be excluded from the number of miracles. For, as I also warned before, such a great deed could not have been passed over in silence, having occurred in the very city of Rome in the presence of the emperor 80.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

Indeed, it would be possible to collect innumerable other things from the same books, by which we might prove how easily they can be refuted, how little they correspond with one another, how fabulous they are, and how full of monsters. Nevertheless, since we do not need too zealous a study against the man—because it is so far from the case that he is accounted worthy of a place among the gods or among wondrous and admirable men, that he is not even mentioned by some men of our age among the philosophers—we shall therefore be content with what has been said, and we shall proceed to the seventh book concerning him.

CHAPTER XXXVII.

Chapter XXXVIII.

^A Now the historian, while explaining the miracle performed in the prison—which, as it is reasonable to believe, had been seen by Damis through the deception of a phantom by a familiar spirit—adds these words: "Then for the first time Damis says he perceived the nature of Apollonius precisely, that it was divine and greater than man. For, having offered no sacrifice (for how could he in prison?), nor having prayed, nor having uttered any word, he held his bonds in contempt; and having set his leg into them again, he behaved as one who was bound." ^B Yet I would not blame the disciple for his sluggishness, considering that, having spent his whole life with him and seeing him perform wonders through the intervention of certain superstitious rites, he thought him in no way different from mortal nature. But even now, after such a great wonder-working, he is ignorant of his true character; and naturally he is anxious and afraid [(88)], as if he were dealing with someone beyond a man, lest he suffer something against his will.

But if he now, for the first time, after such long acquaintance, perceives the cause worthy to be discerned—that he was divine and of a nature superior to man—the historian himself reveals it, saying: "For, having offered no sacrifice, nor prayed, nor uttered any of the secret rites, he caused him to see the wonder." Therefore, the things previously done by the man were achieved through curious arts; and for this reason, Damis was neither struck with awe nor marveled at them. ^C And naturally he now experiences this for the first time, as something strange had been performed by him, contrary to his usual habits.

To the spectacle of the bonds that was displayed, and his departure from the courtroom, I would gladly append the words of Apollonius himself to Domitian. For when the emperor had ordered him to be bound, Apollonius argued with excellent logical consistency as follows: "If you think me a magician, how will you bind me? But if you can bind me, how will you think me a magician?" ^D Yet someone might object to him, taking the opportunity from these very words, thus: "If you are not a magician, how is your leg released? And if it is released, how are you not a magician?" And if by enduring the bonds he is not a magician, by not enduring them, he is, by his own admission, a magician. And again, if by submitting to the trial he is not a magician, by fleeing from it and his captors—the king, I mean, and the guards surrounding him—he plainly proved himself [(88')] a magician. Whence, it seems to me, the account, being conscious of this, provides a remedy for the event, claiming that the miracle appeared without sacrifices or incantations, by some hidden power surpassing human nature.

^A

CHAPTER XL

CHAPTER XLI

CHAPTER XLII

servants ministering to those reclining at table, along with jars of rain and winds, and sandarach-colored water, and whatever other things are represented by those whom he deemed to be gods—gods whom he did not even blush to designate as his teachers—what could these be tokens of, if not of those who cause things that are not to be, and make things that are appear not to be? Those whom he himself names sorcerers, he declares to be false philosophers. ^A Would this divine man, therefore, so adorned in every virtue and most pleasing to the gods, he who has been crowned with the prize of wisdom, truly be judged more divine and by far more blessed than Pythagoras himself and all who have followed after him? Or, on the contrary, being convicted of false philosophy, should he be reckoned as carrying off the first prize among the most miserable?

CHAPTER XLIII

^B Again, in that apologetic writing, he says that he held a discourse in Ionia concerning the power of the Fates, teaching that what they weave cannot be altered; so much so that if they should decree an empire to a man—even one who is currently under the power of another—no one would be able to kill him, lest the rule be snatched away from the Fates' decree; nay, even if he were killed, he would come to life again, in order that the things decreed by the Fates might come to pass. To these things he subjoins, in the very same syllables: «To whomever it has been fated to become a carpenter, this man, even if his hands be cut off, will be a carpenter. And for whomever victory in the race at Olympia has been destined, this man, not even if he be maimed in his leg, shall miss the victory. And to whomever the Fates have granted power in archery, this man, not even if he should lose his eyes, shall fall short of the mark.» ^C Upon these things, wishing to fawn upon the Emperor, he attaches the following, saying: «I used the example of kings, looking toward the Acrisii, and the Lai, and Astyages the Mede, and many others, who seemed to themselves to have consulted well in such matters. For some of them, thinking they had removed their sons, others their grandsons, from the midst, were despoiled of their empire by these very same persons, who—as if coming back to life—leaped upon them, the Fates assisting them. But if I were seized by a desire to flatter, I could say that your affairs also were present to my mind, when you were besieged by Vitellius, and the temple of Jupiter Optimus was being set on fire at the highest peak of the city. ^D Yet he truly thought that his own affairs would turn out well, provided only that you did not escape his hands. And you were then quite a youth, and not yet what you now are. Nevertheless, because it seemed otherwise to the Fates, Vitellius indeed...

^A while he was pursuing these schemes, perished miserably, but you now possess what was his. But since the singing of flatterers offends me (for it seems to me dissonant and discordant), I must break this string. Nor would I wish you to think that I have been meditating upon your affairs. Yet this history of yours, so eager for truth, presents to us Apollonius as an adulator and liar, and anything rather than a philosopher. For the same man, who had previously inveighed so gravely against Domitian, now plays the fawning sycophant, and pretends that those discourses which he himself had stirred up in Ionia concerning the Fates and Necessity were in no way directed ^B against him, but rather in his favor. Take up therefore, O writer, this history in your hands, and keeping a vigilant watch for the truth, read over again that which was formerly written by you, in a clear and truth-loving voice, shrinking from nothing; how, while dwelling at Ephesus, he alienated men from Domitian, and encouraged them all to hold fast to their liberty; and how, thinking that their correspondence by letter was not safe for them, he would take aside the most prudent of his companions, one by one, and say: "I make you a minister of a secret of great brilliance. You must go to Rome to such a one, and converse with him." And he would discourse concerning the Fates and Necessity, and developed the argument that not even tyrants are able to do violence to the ordinances of the Fates. And how, when a bronze statue of Domitian had been set up ^C by the river Meles, he turned those who were present toward it and said: "O fool, how greatly you err regarding the Fates and Necessity! For him to whom it has been decreed by them to rule after you, even if you should kill him, he shall live again." Now, since a man who, after such dialogues, plays the sycophant to the tyrant, and pretends that none of these things were said against him, how could he not be judged guilty of every baseness and servility? Unless, perhaps, someone might claim that those who handed these things down to memory were not truthful authors, but mere calumniators and slanderers of the man. And where, then, are those authors who are lovers of truth, who possess the highest degree of education, and who honor the truth ^D? Damis the philosopher, who was also a constant companion to the one in question, and Philostratus the Athenian, from whom these things are cited—the light of truth has clearly demonstrated them to be so self-contradictory, truly the vainest of braggarts, convicted by their own inconsistencies of dense falsehoods, and shown to be both unlearned and impostors.

CHAPTER XLIV

to descend into the cave of Trophonius, but was forbidden by the inhabitants, who also considered him to be a sorcerer. ^A Yet it is worth asking, if one sets out the words of Philostratus at the beginning—in which, being at a loss as to why they considered him a sorcerer, he marvels at these very things, saying: “Empedocles, Pythagoras, and Democritus, who had associated with the same magi, were never suspected of being masters of that art; and Plato, though he had received much from the priests and prophets in Egypt and had mingled these things with his own discourses, was by no means thought by anyone to practice magic. But this man, although it was not yet known among men that he set out from true wisdom, was deemed a magus because he had associated with the magi of the Babylonians, the Brahmins of the Indians, and the Gymnosophists of the Egyptians.” ^B What then shall be said to him? To this man, did he dare so much that he was long ago and even now considered a sorcerer, still among men of such stature—those who, as you say, have experienced the same teachers—who flourished in the times in which they were known, and have left behind for later times the illustrious virtue of their philosophy? Unless perhaps he has showed himself clearly to those of sound mind as having embarked upon things beyond what is proper? Right now there are some who claim to have discovered strange machines, attributed to the reputation of this man. But it is not pleasing to me to pay attention to them. Concerning the death of the man, moreover, while he strings together inconsistencies with his previous accounts, he shows that the truth of the matter has in no way become known to him. ^C For he reports that some say his end took place in Ephesus, others in the temple of Athena at Lindus, and others in the island of Crete. And while he casts so much darkness over his death, he nevertheless wishes to have him ascend to heaven with his body. For he says that when he had run into a temple, the doors were suddenly closed, and some unexpected song was heard from virgins. And the song was: “Go, go to heaven, go.” And he says that he never encountered a cenotaph of the man, although he himself had traveled the entire world as far as it extends. And his mind wishes for it to be that death did not touch that man at all. For while in the beginning he is doubtful about the manner in which he departed from life, later he says explicitly that he ascended into heaven. Wherefore, as being such a man, both in the preface ^D and throughout the whole document, he says he is more divine than Pythagoras and Empedocles, and that he has surpassed them in philosophy.

CHAPTER XLV.

^A But let us set boundaries to our discourse, and come, let us discuss for a little while further matters regarding the Fates and destiny: let us examine what the argument really intends throughout its entire thesis, for it does away with what is in our power, and introduces necessity, destiny, and the Fates—by examining these, the false doctrine of the man will be utterly refuted by us. For if, according to the doctrine of true philosophy, every soul is immortal (for that which is ever-moving is immortal, but that which is moved by another, having a cessation of movement, has a cessation of life), and if there is a cause for choice, and God is blameless; what reason could persuade it that the nature which is ever-moving is led hither and thither by necessity against its will, and not by its own volition, like an inanimate body moved from without by some other source, as if pulled by strings, acting in no way from its own impulse and movement, nor referring back to itself the cause of what is done? ^B And by this [logic], that [nature] should neither be praised for being a philosopher, nor blamed for being full of vice and wickedness? Why then, my friend, do you reproach and censure Euphrates, if he, not by his own choice but by destiny, surrendered himself to profit, and, as you yourself claim, disregarded philosophy? And why do you insult magicians, calling them pseudo-philosophers, when they are dragged, according to your view, by the Fates into a wretched life? And why do you name vice as an absolute thing? And no evil man of the human race is justly judged by you, since he is fulfilling the law ordained by necessity. Conversely, by what logic do you characterize Pythagoras as an admirable teacher while honoring him, and yet never cease praising him who, according to your view, is a plaything of the Fates, and not a seeker of philosophy? ^C And Phraotes and Iarchas, philosophers of the Indians, why are they held by you to be gods rather than other men, when they possess no glory peculiar to education or virtue? Likewise, why do you not attribute the unbridled arrogance of Nero and Domitian to the Fates and necessity, freeing the men from all cause and every accusation? But even if it is fated, as you say, for someone to be a runner, or an archer, or a builder—so too, for one who is a magician by nature to appear a mage; and for a murderer, an evil man, and a profligate in every way to turn out such by necessity. Why then... ^D

do you propose virtue to those who are incapable of receiving correction, ^A because they are unable to attain it? Or why do you find fault with those who are in the most absurd state, blaming not their choice but their fate? And why, if it was fated for you, being divine in nature, to surpass even the glory of an emperor, did you haunt the schools of teachers and philosophers? Did you engage in restless curiosity about the Arabs 20 and the magi of the Babylonians, and the wise men of the Indians? For all things surely would have been brought to pass for you by the fates even without that intercourse. And why do you think to throw honey-cakes and frankincense in vain to the gods you believe in, and, assuming the mask of piety, urge your companions to turn to prayers? And why do you yourself pray, asking anything of the gods, since you admit that fate rules even them? But you ought to have passed over the other gods and performed divine service to Necessity and the Fates alone, and reverenced Fate above Zeus himself. ^B In that case, there would be no gods left for you, and with good reason, as they could not benefit men at all. But if it was fated that the Ephesian citizens should be seized by a plague, why do you set yourself up against fate by legislating to the contrary? Or rather, how did you overcome fate, setting up a trophy as it were against it? And if the thread of Clotho had already reached its end for the girl, how were you, after her death, able to wind the spindle anew with fresh thread, and to appear as the author of her returning life? But perhaps the very same Fates were leading you to do these things.

CHAPTER XLVI

^C You bring forward nothing that adds to your dignity—far from it—since you say that before you entered into this body, you had been among those who spend their lives in the sea and among the waves. This too, as is likely, was a matter of necessity. Therefore, there is nothing in you to merit admiration, neither your birth and upbringing, nor your liberal education, nor your life of temperate conduct in your prime, nor your training in philosophy 22. It was then some fate of the sisters that drove you even to the Babylonians; and, pushed along, you associated with the wise men of the Indians. Neither was it your own choice or a desire for philosophy that led you to the naked sages of the Egyptians, but fate led you, ^D dragging you by the neck to Gades and the Pillars of Hercules, that you might wander the eastern and western Ocean; and you were driven by their spindles to revolve to no purpose. And if anyone were to say that he had partaken of some wisdom from these, fate would be the cause of this too; and the man would no longer be counted among those who are fervent in the study of learning, nor would he be reasonably admired, since his philosophy was provided for him not by his own judgment but by necessity. Yet when compared to him, Pythagoras himself would be on a par with some monstrous and wretched slave.

Moreover, the death of Socrates, which he chose for the sake of philosophy, and the death of those who condemned him to capital punishment, as well as the lives of Diogenes and the Athenian youths—to finish in a few words, the wisest and the most foolish of mortals would differ in nothing, and the most unjust and the most just, the most licentious and the most continent, the most cowardly and the most courageous would be indistinguishable, if it were certain that they were all merely the playthings of necessity and fate.

CHAPTER XLVII

But in response to these things, the herald of truth will cry out, saying: "O men, a mortal and fleeting race, whither are you being carried, drunk on the unmixed wine of incontinence? Cease at last, wake up from your drunkenness, and with the clear eyes of the mind behold the august face of truth. For it is not right for the truth to war with itself and fight, nor for one and the same cause to underlie two things most contrary to each other. Since the providence of God holds all things, the whole universe is ordered by divine laws. He defines the potential of the human soul to be autonomous, and establishes man as judge, governor, and master of himself; teaching him through natural laws and the doctrines of philosophers that of existing things, some are within our control, and others are not within our control. And those things are within our control which might happen according to our ^B choice and action, which are also naturally free, unhindered, and unimpeded; but those things not within our control are weak, enslaved, hindrable, and foreign, which pertain to the body and to external things, being inanimate and irrational, and possess an existence entirely alien to the nature of a rational animal. As for those things which are within our control, each person possesses in his own choice the impulse toward either virtue or vice. And the Lord and Ruler of all carries into effect each thing immediately, traversing [the universe] according to nature; to Him Justice always attends, the avenger of those who depart from the divine law; but the cause of our impulses toward our actions is not the Fates, nor destiny, nor necessity; the cause lies with the chooser, while God is blameless.

CHAPTER XLVIII

If, therefore, anyone should act too boldly, fighting against those things which are within our control, let him not be shielded. Let such a man openly confess his impiety, neither acknowledging providence, nor God, nor anything else ^D that belongs to our actions.

Indeed, let him openly declare ^A that he acknowledges nothing besides fate and necessity. Furthermore, let him utter without any cloak the conclusions that follow from this doctrine: that there is no such thing as a wise man, nor a foolish one, nor a just one, nor an unjust one, nor one devoted to virtue, nor one who is base, nor a magus, nor that any divine nature occurs among men; nor indeed that there is any such thing as philosophy, nor discipline, or any art or science at all. Consequently, let no one call another man good or evil by nature, but let him say that all things are tossed about in confusion, as if in a daze, by necessity and the spindles of the Fates. Shall we then enroll this impious and profane person in the register of the pious and wise? If, however, concealing other matters, he should pretend to acknowledge Providence and the gods, but should proclaim fate and destiny to be superior to them, he should deservedly be condemned to suffer the penalty for his madness, having been caught admitting things that are ^B contradictory and utterly opposed to each other, and impious at that. And this is all that needs to be said on this matter so far.

But if, after this, some should still deign to make room for this man in the schools of the philosophers, it must be said to them that, once they have purged him of the stain cast upon him from elsewhere, and have rendered him immune to the artifice that is directed at him from this writing, all the odium that might be stirred up against him from this work would be removed. But if anyone, overstepping the boundaries of truth, should wish to attribute to him a divine excellence rather than that which belongs to a philosopher, he will, in his imprudence, be casting upon him the very accusation of being a magus. Therefore, books of this kind, fashioned with sophistic art, seem for my part to serve—among the prudent—rather as a source of disgrace and most grave censure for him.

ORIGEN'S APOLOGY: ONE BOOK

See among the Works of Origen, in Volume XVII of this Patrologia Græco-Latina.

EUSEBIUS PAMPHILI, BISHOP OF CÆSAREA. THIRD PART OF ALL HIS WORKS: EXEGETICAL. ON THE BIBLICAL CARES OF EUSEBIUS. (Angelo Mai, *Bibliotheca nova Patrum*, vol. IV, p. 66. Rome 1847, in-4.)

While I was zealously applying myself to the collection of the remaining works of Eusebius, I could not but turn my attention to that distinct codex, formerly in the Clermont library in Gaul, now in the Vatican, which contains all the prophets, with the revision of Pamphilus and Eusebius; concerning which Curterius spoke long ago in his preface to Procopius on Isaiah, and subsequently, more skillfully, Montfaucon in his *Palæographia Græca*, p. 224 sqq. This codex, by some turn of fate, was brought to Rome in the year 1785, purchased at the expense of the apostolic palace for three hundred gold coins, and added to the Vatican library under the librarian Cardinal Zelada and the prefect Joseph Regius, as is read in the authentic deed of sale. How great the calligraphy and antiquity of this codex are, the learned will judge from the faithful specimen which we have provided here, printed from a woodcut. For on folio 84 before Isaiah, in Greek, as in our printed specimen, are written those things which in Latin hold thus: *Isaiah was taken from the exemplar of the Father Apollinarius the coenobiarch, to which were appended these words: Isaiah was taken from the Hexaplar editions.* It was, however, also collated with another Hexaplar codex having this annotation: *The entire editions were diligently amended; for they were collated with the Tetraplar Isaiah, and also with the Hexaplar.* Then also from the beginning up until the vision of Tyre, it was even more accurately emended. For we had the abundance of the exegetical tomes of Origen on Isaiah up to the end of the vision of Tyre: and observing zealously in what sense he had explained individual phrases to the best of his ability, we corrected every ambiguity according to his mind. Furthermore, a comparison having been instituted with the edition of the seventy men, and with the notes added by Eusebius to Isaiah, in the dissonant places we searched for the meaning, and at his standard we provided the emendation. Then on folio 280 b before Ezekiel is read in Greek, as likewise in our specimen, what we interpret in Latin thus: *Was taken (Ezekiel) from the exemplar of the Father Apollinarius the coenobiarch, in which these things were appended: was taken from the Hexaplar editions, and emended to the Tetrapla of the same Origen, which had been emended by his own hand and furnished with scholia. Whence I, Eusebius, added the scholia. Pamphilus and Eusebius emended it.* You see a most excellent codex, indeed. You see the merits of Eusebius toward the divine books, and how rightly Jerome said of him in *De vir. ill.*, ch. 81: *Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, most studious in the divine Scriptures, and, with the martyr Pamphilus, a most diligent investigator of the divine library.* In truth, the Emperor Constantine himself (*Vit.* lib. IV, 36, 37) imposed upon Eusebius the task of preparing fifty most excellent copies of the Holy Scriptures, which were distributed to various churches. Now if you desire a fuller knowledge of the codex, we shall briefly provide it thus. Folio 1-5, short lives of the prophets by the author named Eusebius, which Curterius edited. Folio 5-11, The death and burials of the prophets, without the name of an author, of which we shall speak later. Folios 12-83, The twelve minor prophets. Folio 84, that inscription before Isaiah which is the first in our specimen. There precedes it a notice concerning Isaiah, and the name of his parent Amos, and the time of the prophecy.

Folios 85-166, Isaiah. Folios 168-280, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations. Folio 280b contains the second inscription of our specimen, pertaining to Ezekiel. Folios 281-376, Ezekiel. Folios 377-412, that is, up to the end of the codex, Daniel, in which also the hymn of the three youths is written on f. 590; and at the beginning, that is, folio 381, the history of Susanna. The text of all the prophets is most complete. Along with such venerable antiquity and critical rules, there exist in the margin—written in characters equally ancient—various hexaplaric readings of the Seventy, of Aquila, of Symmachus, of Theodotion, and of several others, such as Origen. These scholia are sometimes rare, sometimes absent, and sometimes so frequent and copious that we possess a wide section of some interpreter. We shall, at another time, present a printed specimen of these scholia. But besides these, which are indeed precious, other more recent scholia frequently bury the margins, of which we shall take no account now, nor do I know if we shall later; just as we take no account, indeed, of the foolish additions made by a rude hand in the empty spaces.

Therefore, as to things pertaining to Eusebius, with whom we are now concerned, there are three things in the codex: 1. The emendation of the sacred text made by him with Pamphilus, 2. The addition of the scholia, 3. The lives of the prophets. Curterius has for his part sufficiently attended to the third, as we stated above, by publishing those brief lives of the prophets. The first and second will be provided by me, as I hope, as much as there is need, when I transcribe this text in my biblical lucubrations, either integral or accurately collated; however, I shall not omit the scholia, or rather the hexaplaric readings, at least so far as they may have been unknown until now. For Montfaucon (Hexapl. t. II, p. 87) says, lamenting that only a four-day span was granted to him for the use of the codex. (But nevertheless, Curterius had previously collated Isaiah.) Thus, hastily and tremulously, because of the shortness of time, he extracted the hexaplaric variety of readings from only the three major prophets, omitting Daniel and the rest. Meanwhile, since one folio has been offered to us, we know that we are doing something very pleasing to philologists and lovers of literature.

Now, indeed, because I said that there is a certain prologue in the codex before Isaiah, it is as follows: "The vision which Isaiah the son of Amos saw." One might think that this Amos is either the same as the one among the twelve [minor prophets], or just a homonym. But it must be known that the father of Isaiah, with us, ends in the final sigma, which the Hebrews call *shin*, which is as it were a rough sigma; but he who is among the twelve ends in the final character called *tsade*, which is as it were a smooth sigma (a). And the Hebrews also have a third, beside these two, a sigma called *samech*, which is equivalent to saying sigma. — Isaiah began to prophesy in the reign of Uzziah, and he extended until Hezekiah; and the years of these, from the fourth [book] of Kings, are these: Uzziah, who is also Azariah (b), fifty-two years; after him, Jotham sixteen years; after him, Ahaz sixteen years; after him, Hezekiah his son twenty-nine years; since the prophecy of Isaiah is reported as having been spoken in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, without counting the years of Uzziah which are uncertain, and those after the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, the years of the prophecy between these become forty-six; and in these, the prophecy of Hosea also occurred.

The vision which Isaiah the son of Amos saw. Perhaps someone will think that this Amos is either a homonym to him who is of the number of the twelve, or indeed the same man. It must be known, however, that the name of Isaiah’s father ends in that sigma which the Hebrews call *sin*, and which is as it were a rough sigma. But he who is of the number of the twelve has the last element which is called *tsade*, and which is like a smooth sigma. The Hebrews have, besides these two, a third sigma also, called *samech*, which is the same as if you said sigma. — In the reign of Uzziah, Isaiah began to prophesy, and extended as far as Hezekiah. Now the years of these in the fourth book of Kings are these: Uzziah, who also is Azariah, fifty-two years. After him, Jotham sixteen years. Then Ahaz likewise sixteen years. Afterwards, Hezekiah his son twenty-nine years. Since, therefore, the prophecy of Isaiah is said to have occurred still in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, with that part of the years of Uzziah which is unknown omitted, and also those years of Hezekiah which were after the fourteenth, the prophecies made in this intermediate time amount to forty-six years. Within this space, the prophecy of Hosea also existed.

One thing remains to be noted about this codex. After the Eusebian lives of the prophets which we mentioned above, there follow others of the same, more extensive, as we also said, by the same ancient hand and the same...

letter forms, with the title: ^A *Names of the prophets, and their countries, and where they died, and how and in what place they were buried.* It is, moreover, a matter of wonder that neither Curterius nor Montfaucon made any mention of this writing (for those lemmata which are written in a more recent hand, Montfaucon says were neglected by Curterius). Otherwise, it was not difficult for me upon reading to discover that these are those Lives of the prophets, a certain medley of which was accomplished in printed books; namely, both in the edition of Epiphanius by Petavius (Gr. Lat., vol. II) and in the *Chronicon Paschale* (Paris ed., p. 146 sqq.); although the Greek text is very corrupt in the *Chronicon* and varies not a little in Epiphanius. Finally, these Lives exist under the name of Dorotheus of Tyre in the *Bibliotheca Patrum* of Lyon, vol. III, p. 422, in Latin only. Otherwise, Caveus says in vain, indeed, that the Greek text of Dorotheus is unpublished, since it is read almost in its entirety in the *Chronicon Paschale*. Now, on account of the antiquity and excellence of the Vatican codex, ^B I do not know if a new and better edition of this writing should some day be undertaken. Let the account of the miracles of Elisha serve as an example and a sample; it is missing from the *Chronicon* p. 161, where a brief Life of him is read just as it is in our codex, but the rest are not—those which are in the codex on fol. 10, 11 are as follows:

The signs which he performed are these: He too struck the Jordan with the mantle of Elijah, and the water was parted, and he himself passed over on dry ground. The waters in Jericho were evil and barren; and having heard this from the men of the city, he called upon God and said: "I heal these waters, and there shall not be from them any more death or barrenness," and the waters were healed unto this day. When some children were acting disorderly against him, he cursed them, and two bears coming out rent forty-two of them. The wife of a prophet who had died, being harassed by creditors and not having the wherewithal to pay, approached Elisha; and he commanded her to gather as many empty vessels as she could, and to pour the little oil she had into them ^C until the vessels were full; and having done this she filled the vessels and paid the creditors, and the surplus she had for the sustenance of her children. Having gone to Shunem, he remained with a certain woman who did not have a child but desired to have one; having prayed, he caused her to conceive and give birth; later when the child died, having prayed again, he raised him from the dead. Having come to Gilgal, he was entertained by the sons of the prophets, and when a pottage was being boiled, and a death-dealing herb was boiled with the pottage—by which all were near to perishing—he made the food harmless and sweet. When the sons of the prophets were cutting wood by the Jordan, the axe fell off and sank; but Elisha, having prayed, made the axe float to the surface. Naaman the Syrian was cleansed by him of leprosy. His own servant, Elisha by name, Gehazi, who had gone secretly against his will to Naaman and asked for silver—him, when he later came and denied it, he rebuked and cursed, and he became leprous. When the king of Syria was making war on Israel, he made the king of Israel secure by reporting to him the plots of the enemy; having learned this, the king of Syria sent a force to seize the prophet; but he, having prayed, caused them to be struck with blindness, ^D and led them to Samaria among their enemies, and keeping them unharmed, he spared them and fed them; having learned this, the king of Syria ceased from war. After the death of Elisha, a certain man who had died and was being buried was thrown upon his bones, and as soon as he touched the bones of Elisha, the dead man forthwith came back to life.

SPECIMENS FROM THE CODEX OF THE PROPHETS

ISAIAH THE PROPHET

Transcribed from a copy of the Abbak-Polian manuscript of the common version, which is appended to these. It was compared with the Hexaplar editions, and with another simple text having critical marginal signs, in accordance with which the corrected and distinct editions were compared; for they were compared with the Hexaplar Isaiah, and additionally with the simple [version]. In addition to these, we have also corrected more accurately the things from the beginning of the vision of Tyre. For, having at our disposal the works of those who have written commentaries on Isaiah, down to the end of the vision of Tyre, and having thoroughly understood the meaning, we have investigated each word, just as it is, and the entire text, according to their understanding, as we have been called upon. In addition to these, the version of the sixty has been compared; and the comments of Eusebius on Isaiah have been inserted where they were spoken. We have therefore sought out the meaning of the [scriptural] investigation and have corrected it in accordance with it.

EZEKIEL

Transcribed from a copy of the Abbak-Polian [manuscript] of the common version, and [what] is appended to these. Transcribed from the Hexaplar editions, and corrected by those of Origen himself, which were also corrected by his own hand, and the commentaries, which Eusebius added to them, have been corrected.