- nasse in *Harpocrationem*, p. 159, and the note on the text of book VI, chap. 7, p. 255, which contains an oracle taken from Herodotus, and where one can read these words addressed to the Argive people: "Keep yourself safe, holding the shield before you." Here the question is clearly about an ambush laid for an unwary traveler. Although this acceptance does not seem to belong to the golden age of the Greek language, it should nevertheless have been indicated in the lexicons.
Col. 560 B 13. "And another animal, more capable, more skilled in lofty thought Was still lacking, one that could rule over the others. Thus man was born." "And while other animals look down upon the ground, He [God] gave man a face lifted to the sky and commanded Him to raise his eyes to the stars." Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, bk. I, 76.
Col. 561 A 14. *Δευτέροις αἰσίοις*. This expression, which smells so little of paganism and which harmonizes with the Latin *secundis avibus* (under favorable auspices), had come into use, and those who used it were in no way considered to be devoted to the faith of fate or omens.
Col. 564 A 6. It clearly requires nothing more in this incomplete phrase than the second part of the entire phrase. Ibid. 8. This question of great moment concerning metaphysics, if you except the Christians, is impenetrable to almost everyone. Origen had exercised himself on this quite diffusely in the second book of *De Principiis*, as is demonstrated by the Latin version, vol. I, p. 78, of the Delarue edition, and by a certain fragment on Genesis which follows. Rising against the opinion of the entire philosophy of the heathens, he celebrates an easy triumph over all the philosophers, not even Plato excepted. See *Timaeus*, p. 49 and following, of the H. Stephanus edition, vol. III. *Timaeus Locrus*, beginning: "Before the heaven came into being, by reason there were the Idea, and Matter, and God the Creator of the better." See Cicero, *Academia*, I, 24: "Nor could matter itself have co-existed if it were held by no force, nor could force [exist] without some matter." And what follows. Plutarch, *De decretis philosophorum*, bk. I, chap. 9: "Aristotle and Plato recognized that matter was corporeal and formless, devoid of shape, un-fashioned, of no quality in so far as it pertains to its own nature, but having become, to the forms, as it were, a nurse, a mold, and a mother."
Col. 568 C 7. Collectanea published under the title *Philocalia*, in which some excerpts from the writings of Origen are found; moreover, they contain a long fragment which Eusebius presents for us under the name of Maximus, but that moves one to wonder even more because we learn from the title itself that this chapter was extracted from the sixth book of Eusebius’ *Praeparatio evangelica*. Therefore, in place of this, our seventh book’s twentieth chapter should have been substituted. That this occurred is an evident confusion, and it ought to fall upon the amanuensis, whose duty it was to extract the fragment of Origen from Eusebius; for it is only in this, and not in the original work from which it was taken, that it was inscribed under another name, which is the cause of the error. Yet we find that fragment (or almost all of it) in the fourth part of the dialogues against the Marcionites, whose author is reputed to be Origen, and that complicates the question not a little. Scholars have been divided on this material of criticism; they had to embrace the sides of one or the other of these writers: some denied that Origen was the author of the dialogues; they maintained that the stain of a plagiarized script should be branded upon him, unless some Maximus, later in his age, had falsely attributed that work to himself. I do not wish to go deeper into this controversy, which Father Delarue’s preface includes; moreover, the editors of the *Philocalia*, published under the name of St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzen, have already indicated this confusion, who indeed observed it in the note which brings this chapter to an end.
Col. 576 A 5. In Origen’s *Adamantius*, Valens does not say precisely that evils are substances, but asserts that they are qualities co-existing with substances; otherwise, the two authors are split here, so that they might less embrace the lower discordant opinion. Ibid. B 5. Vigenere wishes for a negation to be prefixed to this dilemma: "If evils are not substances," etc.
Col. 577 A 11. Here it seems to me there is an inversion: this address of one of our interlocutors does not look toward those things which the chief orator just said, but to those things which he proved above, namely, that God is the author of evil, if matter considered in itself has no qualities, if it has any from God, if a certain quality of matter is to be recognized in evil. This should have been argued before it was proved by argument that evil is not a substance, which is what we are now reading. Origen’s argumentation inverts the order.
Col. 581 B 14. Vigenere notes the defect of this reasoning, which anyone could easily retort. But, he says, it is not about matter, but about the form of matter that it is argued.
Col. 583 B 2. *Πάσης ἀρετῆς βραβείοις ἀναδησάμενοι* ("crowned with the prizes of every virtue"). As has been seen before, Eusebius willingly uses these words which are employed when the subject is athletes, in this, besides, having done nothing other than reproduce the words of St. Paul, to whom the stadium supplies very many comparisons.
Col. 589 A 2. The text of Eusebius exhibits *ἔκδοσις* and *ἐκδοῦναι*. In Aristeas one reads *εἴσδοσις* and *εἰσδοῦναι*. Vigenere translates this *libellum* (booklet), and for the meaning of this word refers us to observations not yet published... In the treatise *De mensuris et ponderibus* of Epiphanius, one can read *εἴσδοσις*, which Gellenius translates as *suggestio* ("suggestion") and elsewhere as *allegatio*. Ducange has discussed the meaning of this word in his *Glossary*.
Col. 592 A 8. *Χρηματοφύλακας*. In Aristeas one reads *δισκοφύλακας*, and in Josephus, *φύλακας τῶν κιβωτῶν*. Here, perhaps, the keepers of the treasury are designated. Ibid. 15. Among the various objections brought against the authenticity of the work of Aristeas, these which have their foundation in the fact that the tribes no longer existed at the time when Ptolemy’s letter was written, arise in my view from a matter poorly understood. For it is clear that the ten Israelite tribes even then constituted a people distinct from the Jewish people, and therefore it is not about them, but about a territorial subdivision, or another, by the first, second, etc., in which at that time the Jewish people seemed to be enumerated; which indeed does not conflict [with the text]. These tribes he designates by no name. Scaliger first cited the passage of the work of Hermippus, in which it is asserted that Demetrius of Phalerum died in exile, at the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, because he had given counsel to his father to disinherit him, in *Chronicon Eusebii*, then Hody, arguing against Isaac Vossius. In his dissertation on *Aristeas*, Hody embraced this narrative, [which is] contrary to the narrative of Aristeas corroborated by Aristobulus, both of whom would be forgers or pseudonymous. Valckenaer, in his posthumous dissertation on Aristobulus, gave certain words of explanation by which the two accounts seem to agree, with both being saved, and confirms his own explanation in that Ptolemy Soter and Philadelphus reigned together for a sufficiently long tract of time so that the exile of Demetrius preceded the version of the Septuagint Interpreters. See p. 52 of the *Diatribe de Aristobulo*. Two more recent German writers, rarely in agreement, one of whom in particular is said to put forth rather rash opinions on religion—Gfrörer, *Urchristenthum*, vol. II, p. 73, and Dahne, *Tabula historica religiosa philosophiae Judaeroum Alexandrinorum*, vol. II, p. 27—confirm the conclusions of Valckenaer, and impugn the decision of Hody much more sharply. Let us hear the former: "Hody gives implicit faith to the testimony of Hermippus,
A whence he concludes that Aristobulus is a pseudonym. For it is impossible to admit that a Jewish man, who had lived under Ptolemy Philometor, could have fallen into so grave an error in a report of a fact of such moment with respect to his own nation; but Valckenaer resolved this difficulty in a natural way, not a twisted one, nor by resorting to the desperation of the cause; and if the fable of Hermippus were admitted, the conclusion of the good Hody would not therefore remain any more unshaken, for he would prove much more than is reasonable, and not a few ancient writers would have to be erased from the number of historians. It is enough to declare that the works of Aristobulus are to remain in the status of authentic; and that, for as much as any writer of antiquity, as long as nothing is brought against them other than that testimony."
This opinion is thus defended by Dahn: "The primary intention of Valckenaer was, of course, to defend Aristobulus against the report of Hermippus, in arguing that Demetrius, at the beginning of the reign of Philadelphus, could still have enjoyed the favor of the prince, if indeed, according to Aristobulus, Demetrius had been driven into exile only after the death of Soter; and in reality had been exiled by the king later, that is, when he had discovered the plot hatched by Demetrius to despoil him of the throne." (This opinion, far more likely than any other, was the opinion of Petavius in *S. Epiphanium*, tom. II, p. 379; of the Vossii, father and son; of Riccioli, *Chronologia reformata*, tom. I, lib. III; of Valesius in *Eusebium, Hist. eccles.* v, 8; of Perizonius in *Ælianum, Hist. div.* II, 17; of Matter, *Tentamina super scholam Alexandriæ*, tom. I, p. 74.) In truth, if they admit that the Greek version of the Holy Scriptures is to be referred to this epoch, which according to Hody is likely, what does this signify regarding the narrative of Aristobulus, that they should have prefixed the name of his son to the name of Ptolemy Soter? Another supposition, which is worth as much as Valckenaer’s, can be admitted: namely, that everything had been prepared by Demetrius under the son of Lagus for the version which was only published under Philadelphus: which hypotheses and others of the same kind are sufficient to prove that Richard Simon and Hody delivered their judgment hastily and prematurely when they rejected the fragments of Aristobulus, with the aid of the report of Hermippus, as pseudonymous.
Col. 593 B 14. Ptolemy Philadelphus’ marriage with his sister Arsinoe belongs to history, and is too well known to all to be discussed further here. *Ἐκ θυμοῦ στέργοισα κασιγνητόν τε πόσιν τε*, says Theocritus, idyl. 17, v. 130, et sqq., *Ὤδε καὶ ἀθανάτων ἱερὸς γάμος ἐξετελέσθη* *Οὓς τέκετο κρείοισα Ῥέα βασιλῆας Ὀλύμπου.* Valckenaer, in *Aristobulo*, wonders why the high priest of the Jews spoke honorably of this incestuous union. To this it is permitted to reply that no onus lay here upon the Supreme Pontiff to intervene in questions purely pertaining to mores and religion, for the reason that the religion of the king was very different from the religion of the Jews; furthermore, marriages between relatives in one degree—more remote indeed, but only one degree lower—were not only permitted but almost imposed by the law of Moses. Finally, the words brother and sister, especially where there is a question of the Lagids, are used in a figurative sense which does not correspond at all to the true state of affairs.
The twenty-first verse of the elegy which Catullus translated from Callimachus, into the hair of Berenice, is as follows: *Et tu vero orbum luxti deserta cubile,* *Et fratris chari flebile discidium.* Moreover, it is certain that the wife of Ptolemy Euergetes, of whom we are treating here, had as her father Magas, king of the Cyrenians, and not Ptolemy Philadelphus, whose son was Euergetes. "The only daughter whom Magas had," says Justin, xxvi, c. 3, "to put an end to the struggles with his brother Ptolemy (Philadelphus), he had betrothed to his son."
B Regarding this use of the word *adelphē*, by which they designated the queen, the consort of the king, and concerning Berenice, the wife of Euergetes, see D. Letronne in his *Disquisitionibus pro Ægyptiaca historia*, p. 7 et seq. "The name of sister," he says, "which they attribute to the wives of the Egyptian kings, was nothing other than a manner of speaking which had become established by use and protocol."
Col. 596 A 11. *Καθὼς ἀνεγνώσθη ταῦτα τὰ τεύχη*. *Τεῦχος*, in the sense of a book, pertains primarily to the Alexandrian-Macedonian dialect of the Septuagint Interpreters, who gave denominations to the subdivisions of the whole work which are borrowed from this dialect: *Πεντάτευχος*, *Ὀκτάτευχος*. If faith is to be placed in Salmasius, *De modo usurarum*, p. 405, the same distinction exists between a codex and a volume as between *τεῦχος* or *βίβλος*. "Nothing," he says, "is so different regarding form as the codex and the volume: in a paper volume, sheets are sewn to sheets in a line, so that they can be rolled into a scroll; in a codex, a mass or body is made from several sheets, as it were, constructed one upon the other, which the Greeks also call *σωμάτιον* and *τεῦχος*." Which, however, they use for a large volume; Martial properly called the mass, constructed of multiple tablets which compose a parchment codex, *strux*, just as the Greeks call it *σωμάτιον*. This word is explained in the glosses of Philoxenus as "parchment." There follows a long dissertation on the various materials which were used for writing books, namely, barks, skins, tablets, and papyrus. According to Salmasius, by this word *τεῦχος* were designated tablets coated with wax, collected one upon another, and upon which a stylus engraved characters. Regarding the Latin word *corpus*, which corresponds to this, one can add to the examples cited by him, Cicero, in a notable letter to Lucceius, the twelfth letter of book v, *Ad diversos*, in which he urges him to write the history of his own consulship, which reveals a man who was miserably arrogant. "For from the beginning of the conspiracy until our return, it seems to me that a certain small corpus can be compiled." I would believe that confusion later crept into the notions which served for the distinction of words, and nothing proves that sacred books were inscribed on tablets; since by the word in question only divisions of the work are designated.
Ibid. 12. *Τῶν Ἑρμηνέων οἱ πρεσβύτεροι*. Above, I translated *οἱ πρεσβύτεροι* as "priests," which Vigerus interprets as "elders"; but it should be inquired whether among the ancient Jews the word *πρεσβύτερος* meant "elder," which is not clear to me. Christian usage must have taken its origin from the Jews, and by the word *πρεσβύτεροι* we are not to understand merely *πρεσβύται* ("old men"), but senators or rabbis. Otherwise, why would old men have been sent to complete this work? Moreover, let the reader choose the acceptance of the word.
Ibid. B 2. *Διασκευή*, or "retractation" of classical works, is frequently used when the subject is poets. See Freder. Aug. Wolf in *Prolegomenis ad Homerum*, CLII, note 14.
Ibid. 3. *Ἐκέλευσαν ἐπαρᾶσθαι*. A ceremonial of cursing against those who might attempt to adulterate the sacred texts, in Greek *ἐπαρά* or *ἐφορκισμός*, in Latin called "devotions." Regarding the word *ἐπαρά*, see Greg. Corinth., p. 227 of Scheffer and the note of Koen. Eusebius at the beginning of the *Chronicon*: "*Ὀρκίζω σε τὸν μεταγραψόμενον τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο κατὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, δι' ἧς ἔρχεται κρινεῖν ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς, ἵνα ἀντιλάβης (ut conferas quod descripsisti) καὶ καθορθώσης πρὸς τὸν ἀντίγραφον, ὅθεν μετεγράψω, ἐπιμελῶς, καὶ τὸν ὅρκον τοῦτον ὁμοίως μεταγράψης, καὶ θήσῃς ἐν τῷ ἀντιγράφῳ.*" See Van Dale in *Aristaeum*, p. 195.
Ibid. C 10. This part of the report of Aristeas, more than all others, carries with it everything that constitutes a fable,
B and it is too foreign to Eusebius, who only touches upon the matter lightly, for me to wish to recount it; it will suffice to say, regarding Eusebius, that after Josephus, Philo, and Aristobulus—whose names were held in honor among the Jews—and among Christians, after Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, in citing an author studious of the truth and worthy of faith, he did only what everyone would have done in his place; for the authenticity of this book has only recently been called into doubt, and it had never occurred to anyone before that it could be impugned. For the Jews who dealt with this later, such as Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, do not contradict the truth of the history of the Septuagint version, but rather impugn the version itself. St. Jerome seems to us to have sided with the adversaries of the Septuagint by the very fact that he proposed to himself to amend their Latin version from the Greek text by applying the Hebrew exemplar. But St. Augustine, in chapter 43 of book XVIII of *The City of God*, having enumerated various Greek versions of the Holy Scriptures, says: "From this interpretation of the Septuagint, what the Latin Churches hold has also been translated into the Latin language; although in our own times there has not been lacking the presbyter Jerome, a most learned man and skilled in all three languages, who translated the same Scriptures into Latin eloquence not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew." But even though the Jews admit his so-learned labor to be truthful, and contend that the Septuagint Interpreters erred in many things, nevertheless the Church of Christ judges that among the authority of so many men, chosen by Eleazar the high priest at that time for this work alone, no one is to be preferred: because even if the Spirit, without doubt divine, had not appeared in them, but the seventy learned men had conferred among themselves about the words of their interpretation in the manner of men, so that what pleased everyone might remain, no single interpreter should have been set above them; yet since such a sign of divinity appeared in them, certainly whoever else is a truthful interpreter of those Scriptures from Hebrew into any other language, agrees with those Septuagint Interpreters, or if it does not seem to agree, a prophetic depth is to be believed to be there. C Col. 597 C 2. The parts of this extraordinarily prolix phrase do not cohere; it likely depends on the first clause, which is missing, and by means of which it would have been clearer and more consonant with the syntax. Col. 600 A 1. *Kerkops logon*. Learned men do not agree on the meaning of the word *kerkops*. An allusion is made to the inhabitants of Asia Minor transformed by Jove into apes. Ovid, *Met.*, xiv, 91. Hence many proverbs: *Agora kerkopon*; Apost., 1, 21; Zenob., 1, 5. It is certainly said as an insult. Aeschines, *On the False Embassy* (223), speaking of Demosthenes, indicates a base man, a scoundrel. Ammianus Marcellinus, xxii, 14, having a discourse about Julian: "He was ridiculed as a Cercops." Tanneguy Lefebvre, *Epist.* I. 11, epist. 7, contends that it was once *kerkos*; see in the *Epistles of Alciphron*, *okerkos*, epistle 20, with Bergler's note. The addition of the word *logon* shows that this concerns an impostor, which is translated below by the word *panourgos* (knave). D BRISSON NOTES. Ibid. B 13. *Deloutai* 466. Ibid. C 1. *Diexelthein* 465, 466. A Col. 601 C 1. "If you are impious not by deed alone, but also if by words to any random person, against God himself..." I have added *ou theon* (not God), for from those things which follow, the negation seemed to me necessary. Col. 604 A 5. *Me Theon ge epiphemisanta autois*. Eusebius, since he not rarely uses the accusative *theon* or *theous* piously, so as to signify "to honor with the name of God," p. 95: "They named them gods, which not even the animal had been deemed worthy of by God himself, of the human appellation." ["Animalia quibus nec hominis nomen tribuere dignatus fuerat Deus, nomine deorum ornaverunt."] B In the fragment of Diogenianus, p. 265, the verb *epiphemizein* is read in the sense of assigning or naming: "Some of these they designated as gods, administrators and creators, while others they held to be the causes of ourselves." The verb *epiphemisai* is to be restored in the place that is read on page 320, for *eneuphemesas*: "having designated this, the Word of God, the Creator of all." ["Creatore sic nominato Verbum Dei."] Likewise, on page 156, it is to be restored in place of *onousin* in the fragment of Porphyry, where it is construed with the dative in the sense of a consecration: "They sacrificed, designating some of their dearest things to Cronus." Thus Lobeck corrected it in his *Phrynichus*, p. 597. C Example of construction with the accusative, Demosth., p. 495: "They seek to do these things in the name of the gods. But it ought to be, as it seems to me, that all things which anyone does, designating the gods, should appear such that, even if done by a man, they would not appear base." Where it is to be seen that in these cases the verb *epiphemizein* sounds the same as to give under the name of God. Lucian in *Prometheus*, t. I, p. 24: "If you, praising the words too much, as apparently clever, designate the wisest of the Titans as them/these." ["His nomen attribuis Titanorum sapientissimi."] See the scholiast. Greg. Nazian. in *Basil*, speaking about Heraclides: "Designating certain demons and gods and myths to their ancestors." ["Nomina dæmonum seu deorum fabulæ suis attribuentes majoribus."] Suidas, under the word *Oulpianos*: "to designate virtue to a life hating business." Themista, *Or.*, vi, 79 B: "To designate the divinity to him," 19, p. 229, "the state has designated the name of divinity to you." Pausanias, vii, 23: "To designate Apollo as the father of Asclepius." Strabo l. v, 250: "They designated those born then as sons of Ares," in place of *epeuphemisan*, correction by Dorvillis, *Ad Charit.*, p. 550. Examples of construction with the dative. Plutarch, *Vita Camilli*, § 7, p. 515, ed. Reiske: "The chariot having been designated to the king of the gods and father." ["currus regi deorum dicatus."] Similarly in *Vita Niciae* he says: "Body designated to a god," 5, 3. Ibid.: "A throne designated to Alexander." Maximus Tyrius, 8: "They designated as altars to Zeus the peaks of the mountains Olympus and Ida." Idem, ibid.: "Having designated the name of the river to whichever they sacrificed." Appian, *De bello civili*, l. vi, 86: "Of the seventh consulship having been designated to the man (Marius)." Finally, Philo himself in *Legatione ad Caium*, p. 1011 ed. Paris, 565 at Mangey, has: "But what if, if at all, it was designated to another?" ["quorsum, si res alteri dicata fuerit?"] P. 1016, 570 Mangey: "With all things and with names, as much as it is the custom to designate to other gods." ["Nomina quæ mos invaluit diis consecrare et diis solis attribuere."] D
"] A From these examples a double meaning emerges; each looks toward the divine: "For as *phēmē* signifies something more august, so *phēmizein* refers to the opinion and reputation of divinity," says Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 597. And so Plutarch, in his *Life of Sertorius*, uses this word in this third sense, namely, to announce something, to spread a rumor that comes from heaven from the divinity, ch. 11: "He divinized [the hind], claiming it was a gift of Artemis, and he announced many unknown things as being shown to him by it." I believe *epiphēmizein autō* should be read, by removing the word *dēloun* which is nothing but a gloss. It is used synonymously with *onomazein* only in the third book of Eusebius’s *Ecclesiastical History*, ch. 27: "The first [Christians] appropriately named these others Ebionites." However, to return to the two more common meanings, when it is a question of naming God, then the construction with the accusative prevails; but if it is a question of expressing something consecrated to God, then the dative should be used. In this passage of Philo, both usages are found: "Not having attributed God to the possessions"—for "not having attributed the possessions to God." If he has not dedicated his wealth to God; below, this construction appears again: "If a father, if a ruler, to the subject"—here *epiphēmīsē theon* is implied, but between these the other syntax revives: "If a husband should vow the sustenance of a wife." If a married man says "sustenance of a wife." What is to be understood by "sustenance of a wife"? I have thought that this refers to the fruit which a woman carries in her womb; in this sense, a man must consider his wife sacred and abstain from her; the father deprives himself of [his] son, the master of [his] servant, if they have consecrated them to God. If the sense attributed to the word *trophē* is not admitted, another word would have to be substituted for it, namely *tēn nymphēn*, as I think: for *trophē* cannot be used here, whether it designates nourishment or education.
Regarding that law which Philo here indicates, besides the obscurity with which it is stated, there is no mention thus far in the laws of Moses, at least such as have been provided to us by Selden, in *Uxor Hebraica*; by Spencer, in *De Legibus ritualibus Hebræorum*; or by Michaelis, in *Mossaisches Recht*, all of whom pass over this passage of Philo in silence. It evidently ought to be referred to the thirtieth chapter of Numbers, v. 7: "If a woman has a husband, and she vows something, and a word going forth from her mouth has bound her soul by an oath." Ver. 8: "On the day the man hears it, and does not contradict it, she will be guilty of the vow and shall pay whatever she had promised."
Such is the law of Moses, to which Jewish tradition, which Philo follows here, seems to have added certain things which Christ reproves in chapter XV of St. Matthew and chapter VII of St. Mark, looking to the *Corban*, by which was designated a gift made to God, the donors of which—the Pharisees—absolved not only from the obligations of natural law, but even from the precepts of the Decalogue: "Honor thy father and thy mother," making them immune from every duty toward parents.
It is clear from Philo’s words that by even the slightest utterance of a vow made to God, those vowing are immediately despoiled of what is consecrated to God, even if they had spoken without reflection. "‘That every one is master of his own possessions, not having attributed God to them; nor that he gives these to God.’ But if by a word alone he has promised, it is not permitted to touch or handle them, but immediately [one must] be excluded from everything; (lest to me)," I read *mē ti ge ta tōn theōn harpazein, mēd' aposylōn heterōn anathēmatōn* ("lest one even plunder the things of the gods, nor rob other votive offerings"). These last [words] look to the plunderings committed in the temples of the gods among the pagans. B C D
C everywhere spider-webs were gathered; he built a wall, and the crown of the victor was woven from its branches. Daicles of Messene was the first to be gifted this crown, in the seventh Olympiad.
According to another tradition, which Pindar embraced in his third hymn, the olive with which the Olympic victors were crowned was brought by Hercules from the regions where the Danube has its origin, when he instituted these games: An Aetolian man from on high Cast upon his hair the glaucous adornment of the olive, [which once The son of Amphitryon brought from the shady springs of the Ister, A memory of the most beautiful Olympic contests.] Aristophanes seems to have held this crown in mockery, who in the *Plutus* (v. 581) introduces Poverty speaking thus: "Zeus, of course, is poor, and this I shall now clearly [teach you. For if he were wealthy, how, by holding the Olympic [contest himself, Wherein he always gathers all the Greeks every fifth [year, Would he announce that the victors among the athletes [should be crowned With a crown of wild olive?"
Herodotus, book VIII, ch. 26, reports that deserters, when asked by Xerxes what the Greeks were doing, answered that they were celebrating the games at Olympia. And when he inquired of them about the prize for which they were competing: "For a crown of wild olive," these said. "What men are these," replied then one of the standing soldiers, "who fight not for wealth, but for honor (ἀρετή)!"
Col. 621 B 1. A crown from celery was given in the Isthmian games. Diodorus Siculus, book XVI, ch. 79, p. 142, vol. II of the Wesseling edition: "With the troops crying out that they must advance against the Barbarians, by chance carriages laden with celery for making beds met Timoleon; and he said that he accepted this as a presage of victory; for the Isthmian crown is woven from celery." Afterward they wove this from pine, says the scholiast of Nicander on verse 605 of the *Alexipharmaca*: and in this he agrees with Aelian, *On the Nature of Animals*, book VI, 1. Moreover, that this is the crown of the Nemean games, no one, it is lawful to deny, and provided it pertained to someone, it mattered little to Joseph whose it was.
The poet Archias thus gathered together the four games of Greece in the first epigram of the *Anthology*: D There are four contests in Greece; four [are they] Two of mortals, two of the immortals, Zeus, Leto's son, Palaimon, Archemorus; And the prizes for them: Wild olive, Apples, Celery, Pine. See Pausanias, in *Arcadica*, ch. 48.
Ibid. 2. *Anerephyen* (proclamation). It is the proper term by which the victor of the games is designated: and this is confirmed from the cited passage of Aristophanes in the *Plutus*: "He proclaimed that the vic- [tors among the athletes] should be crowned with a crown of wild olive."
Ibid. C 8. *Amelēi*. I have translated this conjunction for the cause by which it happens that; words through which a series of ideas are transmitted are translated with the greatest difficulty from one language into another. The most learned Coray in ch. 31 of *Life of Pompey* discussed at length the function of this word in speech; I shall supply other examples: Plato in the *Phaedo*: "Shall we not count among wolves and hawks all those who have preferred tyrannies, injustices, and plunderings? Or into what other animals shall we say their souls have migrated?" *Amelēi eis ta toiauta*. For the same reason into the bodies of these. Lucianus, in *Nigrinus*, 26: He was teaching a man who professed to scorn wealth that he ought to despise the means by which it is acquired. *Amelēi kai prattōn tauta dietetei*, "Wherefore he was always devoted to the cult of poverty."
In *Auction of Lives*, 7: "If you assign him to be a doorkeeper, you will make much truer use of him than of dogs. *Amelēi* 'dog' is even his name," "For that reason he is called a dog."
Col. 624 C 2. Concerning the confusion of epochs to which the error concerning Eleazar and Aristobulus gave rise, see Dahne in the work already cited, vol. II, p. 79.
Col. 625 A 4. *Hypodeichthentōn* 468. Col. 628 A 14. *Ex* instead of *dia* 465, 466, 467. Ibid. C 14. *Hierois* 466, 467. Col. 629 A 2. *Periephraxan* 467. Ibid. 4. *Nomikos* 468.
Col. 633 A 12. Aristotle refuted this absurd opinion in the treatise *On the Generation of Animals*, *On the Nature of Animals*: "The galeos (smooth-hound) gives birth through its mouth in the sea." However, he doubts this in the same book, IX, 65: "Some say that the galeos does not give birth by the mouth, but that, fearing something, the pups swallow [it] and hide [it], then later vomit it out alive again." "Certain authors contend that the opinion of those asserting that the weasel generates through its mouth is false; they recognize only that its mouth offers a refuge to its frightened pups, where they are hidden until they are vomited out alive..."
Imbued with the same false opinion, for no reason would they have hated the weasel, which anyone initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries considered an unclean animal, as the same Aelian says in the chapter cited above: "The food of that kind, they said, is unclean, since the weasel generates through its mouth."
Ibid. B 5. *Epalgesin periballei* 467.
Col. 656 B 10. I read *prophylaxai* instead of *parakalesai*. The term *physikos*, which Gfrörer incorrectly translated as "as is right," who translated this entire citation in the second volume of *Urchristenthum*, p. 104, makes this amendment legitimate. For it is evident that here one is dealing with the natural sense, entirely alien to the metaphorical sense. Therefore, the word *physikos* retains its own proper acceptance, and in making the change it must remain intact. It is read lower down in the same sense, *physikas diatheseis*.
Col. 637 A 6. Valckenaer, while dying, left a dissertation on Aristobulus the Jew of Alexandria: in this dissertation, to which they attach great importance, and which was sent to the press through the care of Luzac, his successor and pupil, at Leiden, in the year 1806, he annotated this passage on page 69 thus: "Those *hi noountes*, beautifully understanding, are opposed to *tois me metechousi dynameōs kai syneseōs*, *alla tō graptō monon prokeimenois*, to those who are not participants of a power and understanding (to break through any, however difficult, obstacles), but who adhere tenaciously to written words by which *ou phainetai megaleion ti diapsaphōn*, it appears Moses is relating nothing magnificent."
According to me, here it is only a question of the figurative sense removed from the literal sense. Yet not all the sense of this phrase is to be circumscribed in this; I believe that Aristobulus still wished to assert that the great speculations of the philosophers and the noble conceptions of the poets were taken from Moses: this opinion is more than rash, but it prevailed among the first Christians, and Eusebius had it as a most bitter defender.
Origenes *Contra Celsum*, book IV, 12: "It may suffice to observe that Moses and the other prophets, being more ancient than the Greek writers, could not have borrowed from them what they wrote about the conflagration of the world; but if we look to the order of times, it will be lawful to say that these latter, having heard the prophecies in any way whatever, and relying on certain periods, supposed similar events."
Ibid. 9. *Aphormas eilephoties*. Valckenaer, page 65 of the same dissertation, annotated with many words this construction *aphormas didonai, lambanein*, for providing or taking material for a writing; not
many examples of approved authors have been brought forth to corroborate this locution.
Col. 637 B 9. "I will send," says the Lord, etc. Valckenaer notes that this reading differs greatly in the Septuagint, Exod. 3:20. In which it is read: "And stretching out my hand I will strike the Egyptians." "I will send," he says, indeed differs less from the Hebrew text, but the Septuagint frequently translates this verb as "to stretch out."
Ibid. C 5. On account of an unobserved peculiar meaning of the word *cheir* (hand), denoting an army here—though many examples of this meaning occur among Greek historians—it happened that a faulty emendation or rash interpretation was received in the *Philoctetes* of Sophocles, 320 in the Bothe edition, 325 in others: *With anger, would that I might one day fill the hand, / So that Mycenae might know, and Sparta also, that / Skyros is the mother of valiant men.* Which signifies: "Give me the opportunity, yielding to my own hatred, to muster an army one day, so that Mycenae and Sparta and the people of Skyros might learn to their own detriment that valiant warriors are born." This passage was corrupted by Brunck by changing the cases of the nouns: *thumōi genoito cheiri plērōsai*. *Thumon plērōsai*, to fulfill one's desire, is an excellent Greek locution, but *cheiri*, a definitive word, here produces a pleonasm or something that sounds bad, which manuscripts—all of which agree—do not have elsewhere. Porson, however, approves this emendation in his *Appendix to Toup’s Emendations on Suidas*, page 471. Bothe, in scolding, rises up against him and reads *thumou cheira* by catachresis: "the hand of hatred" for "hatred." There are few examples, if I am not mistaken, of this kind of catachresis: the common metaphor of the word *cheir* taken for an army is more pleasing to me: as regards *plērōsai*, to prepare or levy an army, it is a proper word by which armies, both land and naval, can be designated, and it is confirmed by innumerable examples.
Col. 640 A 13. The words "if it were not" are missing in 466.
Ibid. B 12. Valckenaer, on *Aristobulus*, page 72, draws a comparison of this sort with passages brought forward by Clement of Alexandria (*Strom.* vi, pp. 755-56), without mentioning the author's name, which are word-for-word the same; whence he concludes that very many things which are read in the *Stromata* could be restored to their true author if we possessed the whole work of Aristobulus or longer citations. This proves that Eusebius was accurate in his citations.
The same descent of God onto Mount Sinai is interpreted in no other way by Origen, *Against Celsus*, book IV, chapter 12: "If the words of the prophet show us a descending God, when even He says, 'Do I not fill heaven and earth?' (Jer. 23:24), this is said by way of figure. God descends from His own sublimity and height when He applies care even to the least matters that concern man. And as the habit of speaking has admitted that teachers are said to descend to the grasp of little children, or wise men to the capacity of adolescents recently brought to philosophy, yet this descent is not taken to be of the body; so, wherever in the divine Scriptures God is said to descend, this word, like 'ascend,' must be understood from the custom of common speech." Again, book VI, chapter 64: "But if certain words ascribe movement to God, such as this: 'They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the evening' (Gen. 3:8), these things are to be taken as if those who had sinned had imagined God to be moving: or they are to be understood in the same sense as 'sleep' is said allegorically, or 'wrath,' or something similar."
Ibid. C 4. *The other order of those in the state.* The opposition that exists between *the order in the state* and *the multitude* confirms the sense that I myself gave, and which is indicated nowhere else: of that I have no doubt, even if Vigerius translated it very differently, and his version is in no way supported by the Greek text: *Whose mind and virtue would be more constant.* The accuracy of my version may be called into doubt, but it cannot be doubted that the version of Vigerius is unfaithful.
Ibid. 7. MSS 465 and 466 omit the words "for this one he used to release."
*And they deemed these worthy of undying memory.* I find it hard to tolerate this Ionic form of the adjective *alastos* ("undying," "unforgetting"), which is used most frequently in the Attic dialect, both here and on page 584, A 10, *the undying sorrows of those who have suffered*. Euripides, *Troades*, 1222: *Alas, indeed, for the undying sorrows!* *Etymol. Magnum*, page 57, under the word: *Alaston*—undying grief and undying ills, meaning things that cannot be forgotten. Finally, a brilliant emendation by Porson in the *Epistle of Anaximenes* in Diogenes Laertius, II, 5: *But the sons of Aeacus do undying ills.* It is read in the text as "the ills of others," but Valckenaer had unsuccessfully attempted an emendation of this word in *Herodotus*, book III, 139. In the note to verse 44 of *Medea*, the correction of Porson is read: Sophocles, *OEdipus Colonus*, verse 558, *I have suffered to have undying (ills)*. The same author, ibid., verse 1671: *It is for us to groan over the undying blood of our father, we two, wretched ones.* It should therefore be read *undying memory* or *undying sorrows*.
Ibid. C 9. *For this alone.* "This alone" designates exclusively, simply: solely with the aim that it might be shown. Lucian, in *Somnium* 9: "There is nothing except that you will be a worker, neither litigious toward friends, nor fearsome to enemies, nor envied by the citizens, but this alone—a worker," which brings an not-dissimilar idea to "there is nothing except that you are a worker," as is read above. Hesychius on the word *pestai*: "In the game of dice, they move the pieces for this alone." *Players move only the pieces (and do not throw them).* Eusebius, *Demonstratio Evangelica*, book I, page 85 of Robert Stephanus: "To sacrifice for this alone," to do nothing else but to sacrifice.
A part of this note was supplied to me by Abresch, *Dilucidationes Thucydideae*, I, 1, 57. I will add two examples taken from the Judean Philo pertaining to the treatise *On the Contemplative Life*, Paris edition, 896, 479 Mangey: *The forehead-pieces, for this alone, from the ends to the leveling and of the line, are rounded (having been made exact in shape).* Page 698, 480, Mangey edit.: *Not of men driven mad for women, or women for men, for this alone (for these desires are laws of nature), but of men with males, differing only in age.* I could cite others from this same author.
Col. 641 A 5. Regarding the verb *aleiphō* (to anoint) taken to mean "to excite, to impel, to exhort," this locution is taken from the fact that athletes, before they engaged in a struggle, used to anoint themselves with oil; Philo uses this metaphor frequently. In his treatise *On Fugitives*, page 454, 549 of the Mangey edition: *Do not practice a severe and solitary life; for you will rouse the opponent and anoint a heavier enemy against yourself.* In the first treatise *On Special Laws*, page 780, 303 of the Mangey edition: *Which, having rejected, the holiest Moses, as alien and hostile to a blameless state, and exhorting and anointing toward the basest of pursuits, forbade with all his might that one should consort with a sister.* Page 782, 306 of the Mangey edition: *The pederast, adorning the young, and effeminating the flower of youth (which it was fitting to anoint for strength and vigor), and...*
in the manner of a farmer, he allows the deep-soiled and fertile fields to lie fallow, etc. Page 784, 308 edit. Mangey: "The harlot, casting herself out to those who happen by, and selling her beauty like some commodity in the marketplace, both says and does everything for the hunting of young men; she inflames her lovers against one another, setting herself as a most shameful prize for those who offer the most." These rhetorical links have had not a few imitators among ecclesiastical writers; St. Chrysostom, in the last chapter of the second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, has it thus: "Tribulation cuts off all sloth and inflames toward patience." He presents the same idea and in almost the same words again in the ninth sermon on the Epistle to the Romans. St. Gregory Nazianzen, in his sermon on the Maccabees, p. 294, speaking of their mother, says: "Why should she not say, why should she not do, those things that inflame one to victory?" Procopius of Gaza on Isaiah, ch. xxvi, p. 355 of the Curterius edition: "Inflaming these, the face of God is brought in, saying: 'Enter into thy chambers.'" St. John of Damascus, lib. iv, chapter 17, *De fide orthodoxa*: "Inflaming the brave deeds of holy men with us toward courage and zeal and imitation of their virtue, and the glory of God."
[Col. 641 A B] It is a wonder that the institution of the Essenes, of which no trace is found in the Pentateuch, is referred by Philo to Moses: it is true, according to Pliny in the citation which will be placed under our eyes in a moment, that they have existed for many centuries and that Theophrastus, whom Porphyry cites in *De abstinentia*, lib. ii, chapter 26, includes them under the general denomination of Jews; for what he says can be understood of them alone, namely: "They abstain from the eating of victims, which they burn by night, lest the sun (the all-seeing one) should see this." It may therefore be thought that their existence, in order to become known to the pagans, should be referred to an epoch as old as that in which Theophrastus lived, many years before Christ. It has been asked for what reason it happened that the apostles remained silent about them entirely; to me the answer does not seem difficult: the Essenes among the Jews, like the monks among the Christians, constitute a class that is entirely unique and distinct from others, which adds certain pious practices—to which a few are bound to subject themselves—to the general precepts by which Christians are obliged; which, if it were to progress too much, would disturb society. Christ gave attention to this kind of men while He was speaking of those who, that they might win heaven, became eunuchs. But in laying the foundations of Christianity, to which all are called, He could not impose upon us these merely unique and eccentric practices, which insert themselves into the robust trunk of diverse religions. Philo enumerates ten thousand—μυρίους—this is a very vague number. Pliny, *Natur. histor*, lib. v, c. 17, describes in a few words this existence of the Essenes, whose kind of life is to be assimilated to that which is led in the monasteries of later ages: "A people alone and in the whole world remarkable beyond all others, without any woman, having renounced all lust, without money, the companion of palm trees; day by day they are born again in equal number by a crowd of newcomers, as those who are weary of life, driven by the fluctuations of fortune, flock in in great numbers to their customs. Thus through thousands of centuries (incredible to say) the race is eternal, in which no one is born."
Ibid. 9. eod. 466 omits *ὁμίλους*. Ibid. C 4. For *ἤ* I have written *καί*; for it is falsely asserted that gymnastic art is less profitable to the body than the sedentary labors of the cenobites: the intent of our author was surely to say the contrary. Ibid. D 5. *Ἀρρωστίαν* 465, 466, instead of *νόσον*; 468, *ἀῤῥ. ψυχῆς καὶ σ. ἐκτ.* Col. 644 A 2. *Ἔθελήσῃ* 468. Ibid. 10. *Προνοίας* 467. Ibid. B 9. *Ἐκλαλεῖ* 465. Ibid. 13. *Λέλυθε γεγονώς* 468.
Ibid. D 3. *Ἡ ἐν Παλαιστίνῃ Συρία* is not read in Philo's tractate *Περὶ τοῦ πάντα σπουδαῖον εἶναι ἐλεύθερον*, p. 876 Paris edition; 457 Mangey edition, *Ἡ Παλαιστίνη καὶ Συρία*. Ibid. 4. *Οὐκ ἄγονος*. The text of Philo has *Οὐκ ἄμοιρος*, participating in virtue.
[Col. 645 A 10] *Προσβολή ἀνίατος*. This word is used in the same sense by Plutarch. "And they think that such passions are dispelled by the impact of the soul." See tom. VIII, p. 666, ed. Reiske. The same Plutarch, tom. VI, p. 157, ed. Reiske: "The impact of superstition." Ibid., p. 494: "Uneven impacts and tensions of the spirit." Ibid., p. 64: "To the superstitious man, every sickness and the blows of God and the impacts of a demon are mentioned."
Ibid. B 12. *Ἀποδιοπομπούμενοι*. The sense of this word was learnedly expounded by Ruhnken, *ad Timai glossas*, p. 40, and Wyttenbach, *ad Plutarchum*. On the distinction between the flatterer and the friend, p. 543.—Lower down, this word is found in a fragment of Philo's *De providentia*, p. 394.
Col. 649 C 3. This book is inscribed among the works of Philo as *De cosmogonia Mosis*.
Col. 652 B 2. "For reason chooses that the Father and Maker should take care of what has been created." This formula *αἱρεῖ λόγος*, for meaning "reason proves ineluctably," being misunderstood by the scribes, is often deformed in the manuscripts. Euripides in *Phoenissae*, v. 514: "For reason chooses all, Which even the iron of enemies could do." I would wish to read "*Ο κ' οὐ σίδηρος πολεμίων δράσειεν ἄν*", were it not that as we read in Plutarch, this verse was cited, *Vita Pyrrhi*, § 14; *Themist.*, Or. 11, p. 37; Or. xvi, p. 207. Aeschines, *contra Ctesiphontem*, p. 447, ed. Reiske: "Having nodded that it is true that whatever the reasoning itself chooses." Plutarch, *contra Stoicos*, § 24, p. 33, tom. XIV, ed. Hutten, tom. X, p. 414, ed. Reiske: "Which reason often chooses instead of not having chosen the good." Polybius, lib. vi, 5: "When by cataclysms a destruction of the human race comes to pass, such as we have received account of having happened, and again reason often chooses that it will happen." Justin Martyr, 1 Apol., § 4: "But you, as reason chooses, being hearers, show yourselves good judges." Among Origen, *contra Celsum*, lib. v, p. 605: "See if reason does not choose to bid a long farewell to what is written." The text has *ἐρεῖ*. The same, ibid., lib. vii, p. 697: "Reason truly chooses to think such things are somewhat worthless." Eusebius, *Præp. evang.*, lib. iii, c. 15: "Whom reason chooses to believe." In the text, *ἐρεῖ*. Plato, *De legibus*, p. 580 Ficini, 663 H. Steph, lauded by Eusebius, *Præp. evang.*, lib. xii, c. 31: "But the lawgiver, of whom there is not even a small benefit, even if this was not so, as even now reason chooses it to be..." See Wyttenbach, *ad Plutarch.*, *De sera Numinis vindicta*, p. 8, at the annotations. By these examples, finally, the usage and meaning of this formula are sufficiently proven, and also the corrections that restore it are justified.
Ibid. C 5. "He did not write the creation of it off the mark, having theologized very solemnly." The usage of this word *ἀναγράφειν*, to inscribe a book, is found elsewhere in Philo, *Περὶ ἀποικίας*, p. 390 Paris., 438 M. "Most beautifully, the high priest recorded the one holy book of the whole legislation as an exodus, having found a name appropriate to the oracles contained therein."
"»
A *De vita Mosis*, lib. I, p. 694 Paris., 177 M: 'Ev Ἀριστέων τοῖς γενναιοτάτοις ἀνεγράφησαν. Col. 653 A 4. For ἐπικωμάζει, read ἐπεισχωμάζει. Ibid. C 5. Λογισμοῦ, 466, 467, and so the mss. 41 in Mangey’s Philo. Ibid. 9. Ἧς ὀπαδὸς ἀρετὴ καὶ φιλανθρωπία. In a learned note, Vigerus shows from examples in Thucydides that the word ἀρετή there, as in the Attic author, signifies nothing else than kindness, pleasantness. Col. 656 B 9. Κηραίνει γένος τὸ πλεῖστον ἀνθρώπων. In an unlike comparison but one whose sense is the same, Philo uses this verb in *De vita Mosis*, lib. I, p. 167 M, p. 684 Paris.: Ορχηστῶν ἐπιδείξεσι περὶ, κηραίνουσι καὶ δυσθανατοῦσιν οἱ θεατρομανοῦντες. Ibid. C 1. Ἐπιφανέντα δὲ ὑποστέλλει δευτερείοις ἄθλων ἀρκούμενα. Philonic writings are delighted by metaphors taken from the customs of athletes. "Second prizes" were given to competitors who had not absolutely won. In the games established by the orator Lycurgus in honor of Neptune, three prizes are also established. Plutarch, in *Lives of the Ten Orators*, tom. IX, p. 348: Τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος ἀγῶνα ποιεῖν ἐν Πειραιεῖ κυκλίων χορῶν οὐκ ἔλαττον τριῶν, τοῖς νικῶσι δίδοσθαι μὲν οὐκ ἔλαττον ἢ δέκα μνάς, τοῖς δὲ δευτέροις ὀκτώ, ἓξ δὲ τοῖς τρίτοις κριθείσιν. These are the passages of Philo in which the same metaphor is used: *De monarchia*, at the beginning, p. 813 Paris., 214 ed. Mangey: Καθάπερ αἴσθησις ὑποδιάκονος νοῦ γέγονε, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ οἱ αἰσθητοὶ (θεοὶ) πάντες ὑπηρέται τοῦ νοητοῦ συνέστησαν, ἀγαπήσαντες εἰ δευτερείων ἐφίξονται. Ibid., 816, 217: Λογισμὸς ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἄνω μετέωρος ἀρθεὶς αἰθεροβατεῖ καὶ συμπεριπολῶν ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ καὶ τῷ σύμπαντι οὐρανῷ, τἀκεῖ πάντα γλιχόμενος ἰδεῖν ἀμυδροτέραις χρῆται ταῖς προσδοκαῖς, ἀκράτου καὶ πολλοῦ φέγγους ἐκχεομένου, ὡς τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ὄμμα σκοτοδινιᾷν ταῖς μαρμαρυγαῖς. Ἀλλ' οὐ διὰ τοῦτο προκαμὼν ἀπαγορεύει, γνώμῃ δὲ ἀηττήτῳ πρὸς τὴν ἐνδεχομένην θέαν ἵεται, καθάπερ ἐν ἄθλοις δευτερείων μεταποιούμενος, ἐπειδὴ τῶν πρώτων ἐσφάλη. *De migratione Abrahami*, p. 413 Paris.; 461 ed. Mangey: Ὅταν ἐπὶ τὸ δευτερεῖον ἅρμα τοῦ βασιλεύειν νοῦ δοκοῦντος ἀνέρχηται Φαραώ, τὸν Αἰγυπτιακὸν πάλιν ἱδρύεται τύφον· ἀθλιώτερος δὲ ὁ νομιζόμενος ἐνδοξότερος εἶναι βασιλεὺς, ὃς τῷ προηγουμένῳ τῶν ἁρμάτων ἐποχεῖται· τὸ γὰρ ἐν μὴ καλοῖς διαπρέπειν, ἐπιφανέστατον αἶσχος, ὡς τὸ φέρεσθαι τὰ ἐν τούτοις δευτερεῖα, κουφότερον κακόν. Herodian, in *Vita Maximini*, concerning Carthage, lib. VII: Ἡ γοῦν πόλις ἐκείνη καὶ δυνάμει χρημάτων καὶ πλήθει τῶν κατοικούντων, καὶ μεγέθει μόνης Ῥώμης ἀπολείπεται, φιλονεικοῦσα πρὸς τὴν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ Ἀλεξάνδρου πόλιν, περὶ δευτερείων. Ibid. 14. Φορᾶς καί, 466, 467. Col. 657 A 13. Καὶ ταῦτα παρευημερούμενον ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἄνθρωπον ὄντα. The structure of the phrase is to be noted among those few, indeed, in which the accusative is constructed absolutely, that is, independently of all construction. Ibid. C 1. Τῶν ἐπ' εὐτυχία, 468. Ibid. 3. 467 omits γραφάς. 468 [has] ἀνδριάργυρον for ἄργυρον. Soon the words ἄσημον, ἐπίσημον are missing in 465, 466, and 467. Ibid. 7. Ὑπηκόων... τέλει omitted in 465, 466, and soon in 465 τῶν ἀλογήσαντες are missing. Ibid. 11. Λιθογραφημέναι, 466. Ibid. 13. Ἀπαμφιάσαντες, 465, 466. Col. 660 A 4. Πεπειρωμένος, 468. Ibid. 9. Τυφλοπλαστοῦσι, 466. Ibid. 15. Καὶ app. omitted in 467. Ibid. B 5. Φθάσαι μὴ δυνηθέντες. The word φθάσαι signifies to penetrate in Gregory Nazianzen: Κἂν μέχρι τρίτου, κατὰ Παῦλον, οὐρανοῦ φθάσης. Ibid. 12. Τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς are missing in 467. Ibid. 14. Ἔτι, 466, 467. Ibid. C 1. Μηδὲν πώποτε τῶν εἰς πορισμὸν ἐπιτηδεύσαντες. Saint Paul, 1 Timothy, c. vi, v. 5, 6: Νομίζονται πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν. Ἔστι δὲ πορισμὸς μέγας ἡ εὐσέβεια μετ' αὐταρκείας. Ibid. 7. Ἠμέλουν, 466, 467, 468. Ibid. D 4. Πιέζεσθαι, 466, 467, words καί and ψύχει omitted in 467. Ibid. 5. Ταῖς γὰρ... φύσεως omitted in 467. Ibid. 7. "Ἔνθα φόνοι τε λιμοί τε καὶ ἄλλων ἔθνεα καρῶν." I have followed the reading of codex 468, which puts καρῶν for κηρῶν. The Doric dialect ought to have prevailed in the verse which Synesius attributes to Empedocles at the beginning of his treatise *Aegyptius sive de providentia*, where this verse is cited with various readings and with the addition of another verse: "Ἔνθα φόνοι τε κότος τε καὶ ἄλλων ἔθνεα καρῶν, Ἄτης ἐν λειμώνι κατὰ σκότον ἠλάσκουσι." Col. 661 A 6. The structure of the phrase is no less at fault than the historical narrative; the codices have ἐπί for ἐπεί and πρόσθεν δέ for πρόσθες. Having rejected the former reading, I follow the latter: I have conjoined χορηγός, which was separated from the word ἀπήντησε, with χείρων, in place of which Vigerus seems to have put χειρῶν in his interpretation, because of the difficulty of this comparative without a correlation in the context of the phrase: for οἶδα ἔφηκα ἐμαυτόν, manuscript 466 reads οἶδα, ἔφη, καμαυτόν, which Vigerus proposed and which ought to be admitted. As for history, it is false in that it attributes to Polycrates the vision which his daughter had (see Herodotus, lib. III, 124), and records the same Polycrates as killed by the order of the great king, when it is certain that he was crucified by Oroetes the satrap alone. But this error concerning the persons does not harm the philosopher’s argumentation. Col. 661. In the text I should have added the name of Dionysius; for the Sicilian writers did not write the *Life* of Polycrates. Ibid. C 14. Κελεύσας, 468; ἵππος λαμπρότατον καὶ πολυτελὲς δεῖπνον 467. Col. 664 A 13. Ἀρρωστήματα, 468 in the margin; in the text, 465, 466. Ibid. B 14. Κατακρημνισθῆναι, 466, 467. Ibid. C 4. Φθηνάδι, 466, 467. Ibid. 12. The reports of the Sacred War, being closely conjoined with the history of Philip, King of Macedon, have not reached us in a perfect manner, inasmuch as the writers of this or the subsequent time have perished. Diodorus Siculus indeed preserved a small summary in his *Bibliotheca*, lib. XVI, c. 23, and in the following ones. Here, indeed, the facts are narrated in a different manner. Nevertheless, the death of the three Phocian leaders, although it did not occur at the same time, is referred to there in the same manner as in Philo. After these things it seems a matter of wonder that a Jewish writer believed it pleased the supreme and unique God to avenge sacrilege against the demons who had usurped His own name. Col. 665 B 11. Διοικητής, 467. Ibid. C 10. Concerning the use of the verb ἀποδιοπομπείσθαι, see the note at col. 644 B 12 above. Ibid. 15. Διὰ προμήθειαν ἀρετῆς. The cases being reversed, I read διὰ προμηθείας ἀρετήν. Ibid. D 1. Ὡς, 466, 467, for ὁμοίως. Ibid. 3. Ψυχῆς omitted in 466; ψυχίαν, 466. Ibid. 4. Διαυγάζει, 466. Ibid. 5. Ἐγκατείληπται, 466, 467. Col. 668 B 1. Τὰς οὖν τῶν στοιχείων εἰς ἄλληλα μεταβολάς· I have rendered τὰς τῶν στοιχείων as "the constellations of the zodiac" [lit: "by the constellations of the zodiac"], relying on the strict sense of the phrase and trusting in innumerous examples of the significance of this word which Henricus Valesius excerpted in ch. 51, lib. II of the *Ecclesiastical History* of Eusebius, where it expressly says: "The Greeks are accustomed to call the signs of the zodiac στοιχείων." In the Latin language...
the word *elementum* also conveys this meaning. Jerome, in epist. ad Hedibiam, question four: "Every week is divided into the Sabbath and the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days of the Sabbath, which the pagans name after the names of idols and elements." See the same Valesius in *Historia Theodoret*, lib. V, cap. 39. However, Vigerus in his interpretation has incorrectly used *elementorum*; for he seems to be alluding to the four elements, and to be departing from the opinion of Philo, vol. V, p. 396, where the same words appear again. I have already rendered this meaning of the word στοιχεῖον in lib. I, p. 28. Besides the authors cited by Valesius in Eusebius, examine also the writers lauded in the annotations on Theophilus of Antioch, *Ad Autolycum*, from the edition of Christoph Wolf. This expression seems to be peculiar to Christian writers, but not, however, as it appears in Philo and Diogenes Laertius in the *Life of Menedemus*.
Col. 668 C 3. "Halos." A halo, which Aristotle describes in *De mundo*, c. 4, p. 854, ed. Duval: "For a halo is an appearance of brightness around a star. It differs from a rainbow in that a rainbow appears opposite to the sun and moon, whereas a halo circles every star." A halo is a radiant circlet of a resplendent star: it differs from a rainbow which rises opposite the sun and moon, while a halo shines around each of the stars. Scholium of Aeschylus on verse 495 of *Seven Against Thebes*: "A halo is properly when clouds appear white and scorched around the sun, and it is formed as if in a circle of the sun."
Ibid. 8. "Of spirit" 468.
Ibid. 12. "To be blown upon in summer" seems to be a contrary sense: for during the summer time, breezes cannot blow for those walking from porticos facing south, but they certainly can from porticos facing north. Yet Philo clearly speaks only of porticos facing south, which serve for the division of the hours by the shadow of a body cast upon the ground: therefore the words "to be blown upon in summer" should be removed. Nevertheless, from the following lines of Horace, lib. II, ode 15, it is deduced that there were porticos facing north: "...No portico, measured by the ten-foot pole for private citizens, shielded the shady North."
Ibid. 15. "Our measures signify the hours" 466.
Col. 669 A 4. It is evident that in the most remote antiquity the custom prevailed of transmitting signals by fire and smoke in time of war. In the *Agamemnon* of Aeschylus, the destruction of Troy is announced to Clytemnestra by such signs. From the explanation of this text of Aeschylus arose the commentary of Abbé Sallier, which is found in volume XIII, p. 400, *Memor. Academiæ Inscriptionum*. Rollin, in volume VIII, p. 102, *Histor. antiq.*, undertook to explain this text from Polybius. Vigerus, however, refers to the treatise of J. Lipsius, *De militia Romana*, lib. 5, dial. 9; and to Lacerda on Virgil's *Aeneid*, lib. II, v. 256: "...When the royal galley had raised the flames..." And lib. VI, v. 518. Alcidamas attributes the invention of such signals to Palamedes; Pliny, however, lib. VII, cap. 5, § 6, attributes them to Sinon: which indeed Quintus Calaber sings in these verses, lib. XI, v. 25: "For then Sinon raised a smoky beacon, showing the light of the fire to the Argives..." That the movements of troops were signaled by smoke during the day, Titus Livy indicates, lib. IV, cap. 27: "Then from smoke, as had been agreed, the sign was given." Vegetius, *De re militari*, lib. II, 7; lib. III, 1: "By night with flames, by day with smoke, they signal to their allies." Quintus Curtius, lib. V, 2, 7: "The fire was observed by night, smoke by day."
Ibid. C 13. "As if" is wanting in 465, 466, 467; soon "terrible" 465, 466; "to be" 466, 467 instead of "to say."
Col. 672 A 11. "Of Rome" 468.
Ibid. B 9. "Of medicine" 465, 466, 467.
Ibid. C 5. "Hystrices" (porcupines) 465, 466, 467, 468.
Ibid. D 4. "Drawing" 466, 467; "a track" 463.
Ibid. 3. "Suffering" 466.
Col. 673 A 8. "Comes to be" 468; "rejoices in the truce" 467, 468.
Ibid. B 2. "Coming upon" 466.
Ibid. B 5. These things allude to the ninth book of the *Odyssey*, in which the fabulous region of the Cyclopes is described, which produced what was necessary for food without seed, verse 108: "Neither do they plant with hands a plant, nor do they plow... but all things grow unsown and untilled." He wished to portray only nomads or shepherds in these verses.
Ibid. 7. "Not" is lacking in three manuscripts.
Ibid. C 1. "Heraclitus speaks not wide of the mark, where there is dry soil, the soul is wisest and best." This saying of Heraclitus is found also in Porphyry's treatise *De antro nympharum*, c. 11; but with a certain distinction which demands discussion: "Heraclitus himself says that a dry soul is wisest." Plutarch invokes it several times in his *Life of Romulus*, § 28: "For the soul itself and dry is best according to Heraclitus." Coray changed *Aute* to *Au* (light), and indeed deservedly, but he thinks *xere* (dry) should be kept. Wesseling, *Miscell. obs.*, tom. V, in the third part, p. 42, whose authority Heyne follows, *Opuscul.* t. III, p. 96, expunges that word as an interpretive gloss: Coray preserves it, following the example of Plato, *Leg.* VI. p. 617, ed. Ficini 76 H Steph.: "A dry and parched material." Timaeus, *Lexicon*, *Pluton*: "He spoke of light and dry interchangeably; it is the same." The second passage from Plutarch is from *De defectu oraculorum*, p. 703, tom. VII from the Reiske edition, in which it is read: "For the soul itself is dry according to Heraclitus." Certainly this passage was truncated, unless it refers to what was said above; according to Heraclitus, this is "dry intelligence"; or as in the first oration, § 6, *De esu carnium*, p. 140, tom. X Reiske, "wisest," where that text has suffered another corruption: "A dry light, soul is wisest." This *augy zere psyche sophotate* (dry light, soul is wisest) is found, however, in Galen, tom. I, p. 346, from the Basil edition: "That the passions of the soul follow the temperaments of the body," where it is confirmed quite evidently. The following passage ensues: "They will be able to say, those who believe the soul to be a form of the body, that it is the symmetry of the temperament and not the dryness that makes it wiser; and in this they will disagree with those who hold that the more the temperament becomes dry, the more the soul is rendered wiser. But even if they were to concede that dryness is not contrary to wisdom—if they were moved by Heraclitus, for he indeed said thus: 'A dry light, soul is wisest.'—deeming dryness again to be the cause of wisdom (for the name of the light itself indicates this)—and one must consider this a better opinion, having reflected that even the stars are both light-like and dry, and possess extreme wisdom." "But those who think the soul to be the form of the body will be able to say that it is rendered more apt for understanding not by dryness, but by the perfect symmetry of the mixture: and in this they will altogether contradict those who think that it is the more intelligent the drier this mixture is found to be: but if they were to concede that dryness contributes something to the intellect, just as Heraclitus wishes, for Heraclitus said: 'A dry light, soul is wisest,' again calling the dryness the cause of intelligence (if indeed he designates it by this word 'light'), it would be credible that this opinion would have some glory, if indeed they think the stars themselves...
being at once dry and shining as being endowed with high intelligence.
In this conflict of opinions three readings are proposed to us, namely: *Οὗ γῆ ξηρή, ψυχὴ σοφωτάτη* — *Αὔη ψυχὴ σοφωτάτη* — *Αὐγὴ ψυχὴ σοφωτάτη*. Two passages from Joannes Stobaeus, one indeed in the oration of Trincavellus under the name of Heraclitus: «A man when he is drunk is led by a young boy, stumbling, not knowing where he walks, having a moist soul: a dry soul is wisest and best.» The other, however, in oration xv under the name of Musonius: «It suffices for the gods that they be nourished by the vapors rising from the earth and water, and for us it would be that we take the most similar nourishment to this, the lightest and purest; thus indeed our soul would also be pure and dry, such as being best and wisest, if all things, as it seems to Heraclitus saying so, are [as] dry earth, a dry soul is wisest and best.»
The question is left in the middle, since *αὐή* and *αὔη* are found. But evidently, *αὐή* cannot be kept, although Galen perhaps read that in his manuscript codex; therefore *αὔη* is to be preferred to it. *Αὔη καὶ ξηρή* are also to be taken away, as being redundant, although Plato coupled them; since Heraclitus, the "dark" one, accustomed to speak sententiously, rejected useless words. Therefore I follow the opinion of Wesseling and Heyne, though not as regards the passage of Philo in which the primary idea of Heraclitus was inverted. For when that philosopher placed the intelligence of the soul in its dryness, he examined it intrinsically; while Philo, wishing to magnify the land of Greece above others, had to deflect to the goal proposed to him the primitive signification of this most common axiom, even if it be absurd. I do not, however, pass this solution on as the most firm, nor are they to be blamed by me who, with Wesseling, read *αὔη ψυχὴ σοφωτάτη καὶ ἀρίστη*.
Col. 673 C 5. *Τοῖς ἐπεισιοῦσι* 465; *ἐπείγουσι* 466. Ibid. 8. *Νοῦν δὲ οὐκ ἢ εἰς ἥκιστα γεννᾷ* 465, 466, 468. Ibid. D 8. *Εὐωχουμένοις* 467, which omits *εἶναι κατὰ φύσιν*. Ibid. 11. *Ἐπιτρέψαντες* 468. Col. 676 A 15. *Νοῦν* 466, 467 for *νέους*. Col. 680 D 1. *Ἑβραίων* 465. Ibid. 5. *Γεγυμνασμένης* 465; *συνήπται* 466. Ibid. 4. The first incise of the first phrase of this chapter seems to me entirely faulty: first indeed I thought that *γεγενημένης* was to be preferred to the participle *γεγυμνασμένης* of manuscript 465: which substitution indeed is of no moment for the context of the phrase, since neither can be coupled except with *ἀποδείξεως*, «*Οὐκ ἀσυλλογίστως ἡμῖν γεγυμνασμένης τῆς ἀποδείξεως*», from this *ἡμῖν* is produced Eusebius, whom the reception of the sacred books by the Jews eludes: therefore before *τῆς ἀποδείξεως*, *τὰ* is to be removed. But this locution *Ἐπειδὴ συνάπται* seems to be useless and to obscure the thought.
Col. 681 A 2. *Φιλοσ. τῆς τῶν Ἑλλ.* mss. Lugd. Ibid. 15. The text bears *primi libri*: but since it is evidently false, for that reason I restored the truth. See the treatise *De abstinentia*, p. 147, edit. in-4º Rhoer. Ibid. B 1. *Διότι* is missing in 465, 466, 467. Ibid. 3. *Ζωοθυτούντων* 465, 466. Ibid. 8. In these places Theophrastus errs concerning the manner in which the Jews celebrate the Passover: 1° they eat the lamb as a victim; 2° from it they burn the remains with fire, not indeed so that the sun may not see any of these things, but in commemoration of their exodus from Egypt. For God had commanded that nothing of the sacrificed victim should remain when they left this region. See Exod. xii, v. 9. Here, therefore, it is falsely supposed by Theophrastus, just as in the following chapter, *De Esseniis*, by Porphyry himself, that the sun is worshipped by the Jews, which indeed is not at all surprising in pagans, by whom neither spirituality nor the simplicity of God could be reached; nay more, in this same fragment the Jews are falsely accused of having immolated human victims.
Ibid. 13. Ms. 465, which has *νυκτῶν* instead of *εὐχῶν*. Following the reading instead of *θεοκλητοῦντες* I have placed *θεοκλυτοῦντες*, which reading is found in all the manuscripts and also in Porphyry. For this participle can in no way accord with *εὐχῶν*; if indeed praying we do not hear God; which alone *θεοκλυτεῖν* signifies: hence probably the reason for this substitution. Theophrastus therefore here evidently wished to show that the Jews are taught by divine revelations: *τὸ, θεοκλυτούμενον γένος* is joined by Plutarch to *τὸ μαντικόν*, t. VIII, 340 Reisk. Ibid. C 4. This whole fragment *De Esseniis* is taken from Porphyry, l. IV *De abstinentia*, p. 339, Rhoer. Ibid. D 2. In the place *ἤθεσε* I put *ἔθεσι*. For characters are not transformed, but habits are only drawn together, which words among the Greeks very often sound the same.
Col. 684 A 11. *Τὸ γὰρ αὐχμεῖν ἐν καλῷ τίθενται*. These words are rendered by Viger as «they consider squalor an honor»; which interpretation is truly opposed to the sense, since there cannot be squalor along with the cold baths which he asserts below to be in daily use among the Essenes. They only refrained from the custom of the Greeks, and especially of the athletes who after a bath anointed their bodies with oil. The Essenes should be assimilated to more recent peoples who for their skin leave behind the natural dryness of washed-off water. Salmasius, to Tertullian *De pallio*, p. 69, interpreted this place in the same way as Viger. Therefore, as I believe, both erred.
Ibid. 15. *Μετοικοῦσιν ἐν ἑκάστη πόλει*. By the periphrasis of this historian I showed the thought. Whoever is even slightly acquainted with the Athenian constitution should know that at the time the *metoikoi* were below other citizens, entirely alien from transacting public business, and paying tribute under the name of *μετοίκιον*, about whom Potter in *Archaeologia*, l. I, 10, [speaks] abundantly.
Col. 685 B 3. *Περίζωμα*, in French *tablier*, is rendered in the Latin interpretation by *cingulum* [belt/apron]: the reason for this significance follows. In his *Emendat.* [he discusses] the Latin interpretation of the word in the apophthegm of Antigonus related by Plutarch, t. VIII, p. 107 from the edit. Hutten: «*Ἀριστοδήμου τῶν φίλων τινὸς ἐκ μαγείρου γεγονέναι δοκοῦντος, συμβουλεύοντος δὲ αὐτῷ τῶν ἀναλωμάτων καὶ τῶν δωρεῶν ἀφαιρεῖν· Οἱ λόγοί σου, εἶπεν, ὦ Ἀριστόδημε, περιζώματος ὄζουσι.* When a certain one of his friends named Aristodemus, who was considered the son of a cook, was advising him to spare on expenses and gifts, Antigonus answers him: "Your words, Aristodemus, smell of an apron": from the ancient interpreters, however: "they smell of seasoning".» The same Plutarch, in the treatise *An senex administrare debeat*, t. XII, p. 192, relates: «When the Agrigentines were freed from the tyranny of Phalaris, they forbade blue clothes: because the ministers of the tyrants had used belts of the same color (*Γλαυκινοῖς ἐχρῶντο περιζώματι*).» The same, *ibid.*, p. 106: «Just as if the clothes were taken away from a woman of higher standing and modesty, and in a tavern she were given an apron to wear as a servant.» Athenaeus, *Deipnosoph.*, l. VII, p. 290 ed. Casaubon: the cook says: «*Οὐ γὰρ παρέργως ἔμαθον ἐν ἔτεσι δυεῖν ἔχων περίζωμα, ἀλλ᾽ ἅπαντα τὸν βίον.* For I did not learn by the way having an apron for two years, but all my life.» L. VI, p. 540: «*Ἕψοντι γόγγρων λοπάδα καὶ περιεζωσμένῳ.* Boiling a dish of conger-eels and girded with an apron.» Arrian in *Epictetus*, l. III, c. 8, concerning Vulcan: «*Οὐδεὶς ἐρεῖ· Ἐγὼ μουσικός εἰμι, ἂν πλῆκτρον καὶ κιθάραν ἀγοράσῃ, οὐδὲ ἐγὼ χαλκεύς εἰμι, ἂν πιλίον καὶ περίζωμα περιθῆται.* No one will say: I am a musician, if he buys a plectrum and a lyre, nor am I a smith, if he puts on a cap and an apron. Neither a cap nor an apron makes a smith.» Olympiodorus in *Catena*, in the Epistle of Jeremiah to the Babylonians edited by Ghislerius. *Σχοινία*. He says that...
women, by covering only the shameful parts of the body, left the rest exposed, thereby enticing their lovers. Dionysius of Halicarnassus in *Dinarchus*, in the beginning: «I think it more necessary than everything else for those who do not teach rhetoric from a loincloth to distinguish true from false speeches.» «Those who have not learned rhetoric as a commoner, I judge it most necessary for them to distinguish true from false in speech.» The same Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the seventh book of *Roman Antiquities*, c. 72, p. 1491 from the Reiske edition: «Their costumes (for those who had been adorned as Sileni) were shaggy tunics, which some call *chortioi*, and cloaks of every flower; but for those as Satyrs, loincloths and goat-skins, and bristly hair on their heads, and things similar to these.» Those who imitated satyrs in their habit wore belts of goatskin, bristly hair on their heads, and other things of this kind. Casaubon, *De Satyrica Poesi*, l. 1, c. 4, p. 139: Dionysius calls *perizomata* the goatskins with which they covered the parts below the navel.
Col. 685 C 13. *Ἀφέσεσθαι ληστείας*. This, as I judge, was not the place for this, both because they have been mentioned once before, and because they do not at all harmonize with the precepts with which they are intermingled. Ibid. D 9. *Ἀλλως οὐ θακεύουσι*. This expression, the meaning of which Vigerus did not understand, is a most subtle locution noted by Hesychius: *θακεύουσι· κάθηνται εἰς τὰς χρείας* (they sit for their needs). The interpreters of Josephus and Porphyry have not been involved in the same error.
Col. 688 C 1. It would be strange that Eusebius, who so often cites Josephus, would have been ignorant that everything Porphyry recounts about the Essenes was excerpted from the same Josephus, since Porphyry himself designates the various books of Josephus from which these things were gathered: I believe, therefore, that there is some deceit hidden here. Josephus was a Jew; therefore, whatever he recounts about the Jews should have been in the eighth book, in which are found the testimonies of the Jews concerning their own history and laws. But these are the testimonies of pagans; since Porphyry was the leader of these, and a most bitter foe of the Christian religion, he is of far greater authority when he speaks in praise of Jews or Christians: wherefore Eusebius seems to attribute to him exclusively, or to his ancient readings, such extraordinary praise concerning the Essenes, *as is likely from ancient writings*.
Ibid. D 2. What should be thought concerning this Hecataeus, see Clearchus in the following chapter. This, however, is the interpretation of those things which Dahnius wrote about him in *Synopsis historica philosophiae, religiosa Judaeorum Alexandriae*, tom. II, p. 216. «Hecataeus of Abdera, a contemporary of Alexander the Great, had included in his great historical work everything that concerned the Jews, who at that time enjoyed great favor, both with the prince and with the early Ptolemies. Because of this favor, he presumably did not treat them with the same contempt as other later Greek historians who existed at the time when such hatred flared up between pagans and Jews that the Jews were unjustly oppressed. From his writings, which exist among us, nothing — not even the Alexandrian Jews — betrays his pen; therefore it seems strange what Celsus wrote about him, praised by Origen, l. 1, c. [334], ed. Ruæi.» In his 115th Latin epistle to Casaubon, Scaliger favored the opinions of Celsus who was prejudiced against Hecataeus; but Vossius, in his book *De historicis Graecis*, fluctuated in his opinion, and in truth, Philo's sentiment can in no way be justified by this text. Yet, from Aristeas's epistle, it is clear that Hecataeus's words had been interpolated by a certain Alexandrian Jew: for Demetrius of Phalerum, in it, asserts to the king that Hecataeus of Abdera held the law of the Jews in high enough regard that he called it *τινα καὶ σεμνὴν τὴν ἐν τούτοις θεωρίαν* (a certain and solemn contemplation in these); the word *θεωρία* in the religious parlance of the Jews means the same as theocratic legislation. But for it to be admitted that Hecataeus had embraced the Jewish religion, this would need to be proven by other passages from his history.
Col. 689 A 5. The words *περιζώματα* are missing in 466. A Ibid. C 1. The historian Josephus calls this man Mosollamus, *Contra Apionem*, lib. 1, 457, from the Havercamp edition, from which this passage is taken. B
Col. 692 B 4. But in order to weigh upon what moments the cited passage relies, one must recall what has been said concerning the general supposition of Greek authors, whose religion defenders have invoked as testimony for the Jews; namely, Hecataeus, Numenius, Theodotus, Cleodemus, Eupolemus, Artapanus, Demetrius, Aristeas, whom many have handed down as having been Jews in religion. Valckenaer, however, in his act of accusation, p. 47, in the treatise *De Aristobulo Judaeo*, compares them with passages which he thinks were interpolated in the books of Esther and Job, and especially in the second book of Maccabees. «For who,» he says, «from the letters of Solomon to the kings of Tyre and Egypt, and from their responses, would not recognize that the letters of Artaxerxes, which exist in the book of Esther, were suggested by a Hebrew mind?» Theodotus was a Jew, whom Josephus enumerates among pagan authorities *Contra Apionem*, lib. 1, cap. 33; and likewise, from Alexander Polyhistor, Cleodemus is cited in the book of Jewish Antiquities, c. 15. As for Hecataeus, Eupolemus, Artapanus, Demetrius, every doubt is removed by Valckenaer himself. «Now,» he says, «Scaliger suspected Hecataeus; in his supplement to the epistle to Mill, p. 93, Bentley favors this opinion, relying on the sentiment of Herennius Philo cited by Celsus, from Origen *Contra Celsum*, 1, p. 13.» Richard Simon had asserted the same in his *History of the Old Testament*, but relying on no authority, lib. II, c. 2. Concerning Eupolemus and Demetrius, no doubt can arise from the testimony of Eusebius himself, *Historia ecclesiastica*, lib. vi, cap. 13, where he asserts that Philo, Aristobulus, Josephus, and Eupolemus, Jewish writers, had been cited by Clement of Alexandria (*Ἰουδαίων συγγραφέων*). See St. Jerome, *De viris illustribus* on Clement, cap. 38. As for Numenius, from Origen himself *Contra Celsum*, 1, p. 13, IV, 198 and 199, and from Eusebius *Praep. evang.* IX, and elsewhere, it is evident that he was a Jew, or at least that what is exhibited under his name was published by a certain Jew. See Jonsius, *Hist. philos.*, lib. ш, cap. 18, § 4. As is to be seen in the book of I Maccabees 12-16, 15-15, 8-17, Numenius and Eupolemus are Jewish names; whatever allegorical explanations of the laws of Moses Origen recounts as being given by Numenius can be of no one but a Hellenistic Jew. Here Valckenaer ends, who reckons neither Clearchus nor Abydenus among these pagan authors whom he contends are Jews. But others, among whom is Richard Simon, handed down that Clearchus had been supposititiously invented and interpolated by Hellenistic Jews. Concerning which, Graevius had written an epistle to Huet, which would be worth knowing. There exists, however, the response by which the bishop of Avranches undertakes to remove from himself that he held him for a pagan, which response I shall give in Latin, elegantly written by Huet; it is found in the collection edited by Tilladet, tom. II, pp. 249 and 250. «You write acutely and learnedly about Clearchus, according to your custom; for my part, I have followed the good faith of Josephus and Eusebius, and perhaps the matter was not sufficiently weighed. Simonius (Richard Simon) first caused a doubt for us about this matter in his *Critica*, for he suspects that this Clearchus was either supposititiously invented or interpolated by the Hellenistic Jews. You, however, try to prove the same thing with your own arguments, so that it is almost necessary to surrender. Nevertheless, there are also things that can be objected to your reasons by a man not too stubborn. For although it seems to be falsely boasted that Aristotle had traversed Asia in the company of Alexander the Great, he could have run there during the first years of his life. Laertius wrote in his proem that it had been reported by Clearchus that the Jews were the offspring of the gymnosophists—
A or that it would confirm him as having been seen on the authority of Aristotle, if he knew this had been handed down by him from Clearchus. But Laertius certainly has everything else different; he writes, namely, that Clearchus in his book *On Discipline* [Περὶ παιδείας] said that the gymnosophists were descended from the Magi; and that some indeed report that the Jews are also their progeny—that is, of the Magi or Chaldeans, about whom Laertius discourses in that place. Let us grant, moreover, that Laertius wrote what you recite; could he not have been either negligent of Aristotle's words or little mindful of them in a hurried work, such as it is easy to prove this compilation of Laertius to be? You say that Josephus alone remembers Clearchus's book *On Sleep* [Περὶ Ὕπνου]. What then? Are the books of the ancients of doubtful reliability, whoever are cited only once by succeeding writers? You reject not this one only, but other writings as well on this same argument from the same Clearchus. In addition to this, you contend that the name of Judea was unknown to the Greeks at that age: I would concede that it was not very well known to the masses, but I would deny that it was entirely unknown. Indeed, Thales, Pythagoras, and Plato had already traveled through Egypt, where there was a great frequency of Jews; some had even gone into parts of the Orient. There were frequent journeys, for the sake of commerce, of Phoenicians into Greece, and of Greeks into Syria, from very ancient times. Moreover, the Hebrews began to be called Jews after the dissolution of the captivity, and by that time the Greek language had already pervaded not only Syria, but Persia as well. Among Daniel, who lived in the times of Darius, you will find the words *soph*, *psalterion*, *sumphonia*; we do not, therefore, have sufficiently firm arguments by which we might condemn the books of Clearchus as spurious [κιβδηλείας]; and even if the matter is not without suspicion, in an uncertain case it is safer to adhere to received opinions.
Post these testimonies of authors, against the false Clearchus, I will bring forward those for the true Clearchus. The first is Jonsius, *De scriptoribus hist. philos.*, lib. 1, c. 18, whom Bayle also illustrated in his commentaries in his Dictionary under the word *Aristotle*, note B. I cite him: "This place would not be of light weight if it were taken from that most illustrious of Aristotle's disciples, Clearchus, but in all likelihood it is of another Clearchus. For the first author reports that a certain Jew met Aristotle while he was traveling through Asia, who had many conversations with him and other learned men, *hēmin te kai tisin heterois tōn scholastikōn*. Furthermore, from very learned writers, in the time of Clearchus the word *scholastikos* did not yet signify a disciple, nor a man devoted to study. Moreover, since this pilgrimage and history through Asia cannot be reconciled, we ought not to suppose that anyone among his disciples wished to invent a dialogue, the falsehood of which all others would have recognized. A more recent Clearchus, therefore, invented this pilgrimage, which perhaps was done in good faith; since Solinus asserts that in the expedition against Darius, Aristotle was in the company of Alexander. The anonymous author of the *Life of Aristotle* relates the same thing. 2° If Aristotle had had many meetings with that learned Jew, of whom there is talk in the fragment of Clearchus, he would have discoursed more abundantly about Judea and the Jewish nation, nor would he have credited such absurd things as he himself utters about the origin of the Jews. Would he have said that the Jews drew their origin from the Calani, a people of India, and that they took the name of Jews in Syria because they were inhabiting the province of Judea? Yet Aristotle tells all these things in the place of Clearchus which Josephus cites. Would a Jew have let him leave in such a childish error? Would so little be read in all of Aristotle's writings about Judea and the Jewish people if a Jew had taught him such distinguished notions? 3° We read in Diogenes Laertius that the gymnosophists derive their genus from the Magi, and that there were some who attributed the same origin to the Jews: the former of these testimonies is given, according to Clearchus, by a disciple of Aristotle; but the latter rests on no author. Moreover, at that time there was certainly an opportunity for citing Clearchus's testimony about the Indian origin of the Jewish nation. Elsewhere, if the book *On Sleep*, in which Aristotle mentions this Jewish origin, were by the same Clearchus whom Laertius praises, without a doubt that Clearchus would have been designated. Omitting other arguments of Jonsius, from these three it is evident that Aristotle did not say those things which the Clearchus of Josephus attributes to him. You will object that Clearchus knew the Jew who had spoken with Aristotle, a contemporary of Aristotle; but I deny that Aristotle was known by Clearchus.
However, this proof of Bayle against the true Clearchus, which seems impregnable, leaves the difficulty that it ought to be attributed to some Hellenic Jew, as Simonius, Ricardius, and Valckenaerus wish. For if, as Bayle rightly remarks, a Jew could not have told Aristotle that the Jewish nation derived its origin from the Indian Calani, then the Jew, having feigned Clearchus, could not have placed this same assertion in the mouth of that pseudonym. From this, it can be concluded without controversy that: 1° Aristotle did not say those things which are imputed to him; 2° the fable could not have been woven by a Jew.
Nevertheless, Eusebius did not invent this narrative, but is only to be blamed because he transcribed Josephus unthinkingly. But to whom should this narrative be attributed? To Josephus? But Josephus, who wrote the *Jewish Antiquities*, could not have contradicted himself so gravely. Therefore, it seems to be established that the forger was either Clearchus, or some other from among the Peripatetics who knew the Jews, or at least their name. For a nation situated between Egypt and Syria could not have been entirely ignored by the Greeks. Therefore, he introduced the Jews at that time into the *Life of Aristotle* for the glory of this philosopher. At that time the Jews were known as a nation, but their origin and constitutions were sufficiently unknown that false traditions and customs could be attributed to them, according to the lying Greek fashion; for we read in Diogenes Laertius that they derive their origin from the Indian gymnosophists; which is a Greek, and not a Jewish, fable.
Moreover, regarding peoples more known, with whom the Greeks had more frequent use, how many fables did Ctesias and Herodotus not weave? In the beginning of this book, from a place of Theophrastus, which is taken from Porphyry in his book *On Abstinence*, it is evident that this philosopher, the successor of Aristotle, attributed to the Jews customs totally alien to them in the immolation of victims; all things being weighed, we can suspect these testimonies; yet B since it is evident that only those lie who have an interest in it, those things which it was in the interest of the Hellenistic or Hellenic Jews to invent for the glory of their own nation are to be attributed to them. Therefore, as often as their name is mentioned without praise or vituperation, there is no place for suspicion. Since it was not strange that they would cite a nation more local than the Gauls, Iberians, and even Scythians, the things that are narrated about them are of light moment. These things being posited, there is no reason to suspect the place of Hecataeus regarding the perimeter of Jerusalem, or about the bird killed by a certain Jewish archer. But regarding other places of Hecataeus about the Jews, Celsus could have suspected the authenticity and religion of this writer; but we do not have the same reasons for suspecting it, and we must marvel that Josephus should have taken from this book that which in no way led to the glory of his own nation. Vossius refutes Scaliger's argument with valid reasons, *De hist. Graecis*, page 70. The fable of Aristaeus about the seventy interpreters seems to me a Jewish supposition; I feel the same concerning the words attributed to Numenius in honor of Moses, one of which the defenders of religion cite, and the other, indeed, Porphyry in *De antro Nympharum*, c. 10, where he calls Moses a prophet, praising the beginning of Genesis: *hēgounto gar prosizanein tō hudati tas psuchas theopnoō onti, hōs phēsin ho Noumēnios, dia touto legōn: kai ton prophētēn eirēkenai, empheresthai epanō tou hudatos theion pneuma*. From these words, I say, it is not evident to me that Numenius was a Jew; because if he had been a Jew, Porphyry would not have invoked him; which I do not marvel at any more than that Longinus praised Moses in his treatise *On the Sublime*. Since it is not necessary for us to adhere to a certain religion in order to speak reverently.
A of those things which are themselves worthy of veneration; since the Greek writers themselves extol certain religious rites among the Egyptians, while at the same time they disapprove of the worship shown by them to animals. Numenius, therefore, was not bound by Jewish or Christian rites, as we see from Eusebius, Book IX, chapter 7, where he decides that the doctrines of Plato and Pythagoras should be conjoined with the opinions of the Brahmins, the Jews, the Magi, and the Egyptians; this confusion of doctrines pleased the Pythagoreans, whose philosophy consisted partly in dogmas brought from the East, by which means they had interpolated the religious opinions of the Greeks, among which was metempsychosis. But the faith of the Jews and Christians recoiled from these things. Yet to me, the following passage of Porphyry in Eusebius, in his *History*, Book VI, 19, provides credence regarding the pagan Numenius; for Origen is brought forward, whom Porphyry reproves because he had abandoned Hellenism for the Christian religion. Origen, having been educated in other Greek studies, swayed toward the barbarian audacity, in which, indeed, carrying himself over, he traded away his own character and his training in those disciplines, living as a Christian in his life and lawlessly, but in his opinions concerning things and concerning the Divine, he was Hellenizing and submitting the Greeks to alien myths; for he was always associating with Plato, and he was conversant with the writings of Numenius and Cronius, and Apollophanes and Longinus, and Moderatus, and Nicomachus, and B of the men of repute among the Pythagoreans. "Origen, indeed, while he was a gentile and brought up in the disciplines of the gentiles, turned aside to barbarian audacity, to which he enslaved himself and his own talent for writing, despising the laws of his fatherland, and becoming a Christian both in life and in his doctrines concerning the Divine. After he had been instructed in the disciplines of the Greeks, he put aside right doctrine and embraced alien fables. But since he was conversant daily with the writings of Plato, Numenius, Cronius, Apollophanes, Longinus, Moderatus, Nicomachus, and others who were considered preeminent among the Pythagoreans, and studied only the books of the most learned among the Pythagoreans." 2° St. Jerome confirms this assertion of Porphyry in his *Epistle to Magnus*, where he says: "Origen, in his ten books of *Stromata*, compared the opinions of the Christians and philosophers among themselves, and confirmed all the dogmas of the Christian religion from Plato and Aristotle, Numenius and Cornutus." See also the arguments of Spencer against Scaliger in his annotations on the passage of Origen, *Against Celsus*, Book I, chapter 15. The testimony of Porphyry, therefore, concerning the pagan Numenius, whom he numbers among the prominent Pythagoreans of this time, solves the knot of difficulties and leaves no doubt. He frequently cited him in his writings: and indeed in the fragment of the book *On the Soul* cited by Stobaeus, *Phys. Eclogues*, I, 11, 21, p. 832, 836, 866, 894, 896, 910; C in the *Life of Plotinus* and elsewhere. From the same philosopher is taken the passage related by Macrobius in *On the Dream of Scipio*, book I, chapter 2: "The gods, offended that Numenius, who was more curious about occult matters than other philosophers, had divulged the Eleusinian mysteries by interpreting them, sent him dreams in which he saw the Eleusinian goddesses themselves standing before an open brothel in the guise of prostitutes; and to him, wondering and asking the cause of such indecency unbecoming to divinities, they replied in their anger that they had been forcibly dragged from his own sanctuary of modesty and prostituted to all who came by." The detractors of the pagan authorities spared the 12th, 14th, and 41st chapters of the fragments of Abydenus, to which we have recently referred, along with testimonies of authors nearly similar to the ones we have just traversed. But it is true that these fragments shine with a truth such as is not found in others. Since they are written in the Ionic dialect, which had at that time become obsolete, to which the origin of these fragments ought to be reduced, so that they could be attributed to falsifying Jews: for at that time, history was written only in the Attic dialect, to which the Macedonian language was sometimes added by Alexandrian authors, but with the methods of writing of Herodotus left aside entirely, from which their authenticity—which, indeed, has not been impugned—is confirmed. Col. 693 A 11. Regarding this familiarity of the Jew with Aristotle, see the article on Aristotle in Bayle's *Lexicon*, at note A, 11 and B already cited. Ibid. 12. I will not reproach Eusebius for the anachronism he admits; for he follows the faith of Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, Book I, p. 358. But Clement himself was repeating a common error long since refuted by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, *Roman Antiquities*, Book II, chapter 59. See likewise Cicero, *Tusculan Disputations*, Book I; Livy, *History*, Books I and IV. This fable pleased those who wished the Roman king to have had commerce with the Greeks; that this fable was devised by the comic poet Epicharmus, Plutarch teaches in the *Life of Numa*, Book VIII. See St. Augustine, *The City of God*, IV, 31. Ibid. B 4. "For Numa showed them through concealment (Clement writes 'denial') that it is not possible to touch the best with the tongue." The word 'concealment' here seems to me to have been used to indicate the worship which he introduced for the goddess Tacita to be rendered. See Plutarch, in the *Life of Numa*, § 8: "He taught the Romans to revere Tacita, as a silent one or a voiceless one." Ibid. D 5. See in the article: Clearchus, at col. 692, B4, what I have written concerning the Pythagorean Numenius, who indeed ought to be distinguished from that Numenius the rhetorician, the father of Alexander, also a rhetorician, whose biographies Suidas distinguished. Col. 696 A 13. These famous Egyptian thaumaturges, who contended with Moses (Exod. VII, 12), are named by St. Paul in the second epistle to Timothy, chapter III, and by St. Ambrose in his commentary on this passage, and by Apuleius, in the *Second Apology*, p. 375, ed. Colvius: "I myself am Charinondas, or Damigeron, or Moses, or Jannes, or Apollonius of Tyana, or Dardanus himself, or whoever else perhaps who is celebrated among the magi after Zoroaster and Hostanes." Tertullian, *On the Soul*, 57: "Magic, the handmaid of these opinions, sounds of Hostanes and Typhon, Dardanus and Damigeron, and Nectanebus and Berenice." Origen, *Against Celsus*, book IV, 51, p. 542 from the edition of de La Rue, and Van Goens, in *Diatribe de Cepotaphiis*, and Leo Allatius in his *Syntagma on the Engastrimyth* to the dissertation of Eustathius against Origen, p. 495. Ibid. C 8. According to Scaliger, p. 12 of the notes on historical fragments that follow his book, *On the Correction of Dates*, the aforementioned verses do not refer to the Jews, but to the Lycians or their neighbors, concerning whom the question is raised in the *Iliad* under the name of the Solymi. Thus in the *Iliad*, Z, v. 204: "And third, he fought the Solymi, famous in battle; So he slew the son of Isander, a warrior of Ares." D Now, concerning these verses, Eustathius annotates as follows: "It escapes no one that the Solymi were neighbors and enemies of the Lycians; wherefore Bellerophon, having been sent by Jobates to fight them, stoutly engaged them and overcame them; and Bellerophon's grandson also waged war on them. The ancients record that the Solymi, whom Homer mentions, were later called Pisidians: who are a famous race, just as the epithet 'famous in battle' (κυδάλιμος) wishes." From these, Solyma (in the neuter gender, *Solyma*) designates the city founded by the Assyrians after the capture of Jerusalem; and according to Strabo, it is a Lycian mountain. "The ethnic name Solyma has reached even to us: it is a most fortified place adjacent to Lycia, whose inhabitants are called by the barbarian language Tzelimi: whom the *Odyssey* remembers, they are not the Pisidians. The Lycian Solymi were also called Mynienses, from Minos." See Strabo, book XIV, p. 667, from the Paris edition. Moreover, the error by which Eusebius is caught is rather Josephus's than his own, if indeed he transcribed Josephus word for word in *Against Apion*, book I, p. 454.
A In his annotations on the chronicle of Eusebius, p. 101, the same Scaliger observes that the Choerilus whom Eusebius calls "the ancient" must be distinguished from that Choerilus of whom Horace speaks disparagingly: the former was a Samian and almost contemporary with the expedition of Xerxes, which provided him the subject matter for his poem *Persis*, from which the verses are cited. He also imputes an anachronism to Horace, who explicitly puts Choerilus under Alexander the Great, contemporary with Alexander, son of Amyntas. Whether there was one or two poets named Choerilus, and whether the great Alexander was a contemporary of the latter, I leave these things in doubt.
Naeckius, in his collections of Choerilus’s fragments, briefly sets forth the diverse opinions of scholars regarding the people to whom this description applies. From the aforementioned passage of Scaliger and from Bochart in *Phaleg* and *Canaan*, ch. 6, p. 361, it should not be understood as referring to the Jews, but to the Lycians or Pisidians, whom Bochart calls a Phoenician colony and whom Homer sings of as neighbors of the Lycians. In Leviticus, the *trochokourai* [circular tonsure] is explicitly forbidden to the Jews, 19:27, and it is attributed by Herodotus to the Arabians, *Thalia*, ch. 6; furthermore, Bochart recognizes a great similarity between the few remaining words of the Pisidian and Phoenician languages—an opinion which Cuneus seems to favor, *De republica Hebraeorum*, book II, ch. 18, p. 266. As for the lake indicated, the question concerns the lake of Phaselis: Samuel Petit, praised by Havercamp, concurs with this opinion and invokes Barlovius as a witness.
Those who have impugned this opinion, and who restore the Jews into the fragment of Choerilus, are: Salmasius, *De caesurie et coma*, pp. 46 to 50 and p. 82; Casaubon, on Suetonius’s *Augustus*, 45; Grotius, on St. Luke III, 14, and Leviticus XIX, 27; Adrianus Junius, *De coma*, ch. 6; Turnebus, *Adversaria* 19, 9. To these may be added Holstenius, *De Stephano Byzantino* at the word *Solyma*. We have learned from Tacitus, *Hist.*, V, 11, and from Stephanus citing the *Quadratus*, that Solyma was an abbreviation for Hierosolyma. There is a lake in Syria, the Asphaltite lake: but it is true, the same people say, that the *trochokourai* does not befit the Jews, to whom it is so strictly forbidden; but Choerilus was caught in an error, say the proponents of this opinion, because of the proximity of the Arabs who practiced this tonsure; the remaining head covering, that is, horse-hair dried by fire, was alien to Hebrew customs. Therefore, the weakness of both opinions is apparent. Was the Phoenician language the same as the Pisidian? Bochart asserts this more than he proves it, which indeed is very difficult to prove. However, the customs which Choerilus attributes to the Jews are entirely alien to them. Yet in these difficulties, I would willingly assent to Bochart, leaving Naeckius aside.
Naeckius very scrupulously weighs the varied readings of the words which are presented in the five verses. I cannot treat the matter in the same way; what follows is the text which I present as collated.
And behind them a race marched, wondrous to behold, Uttering a Phoenician tongue from their mouths, They dwelt in the Solyman mountains, by a broad lake, Their heads clipped in a circle; but above They wore raw horse-faces, stiffened [with smoke].
Col. 697 D. 2. Concerning the method of writing the name of this mountain, consult Bochart in *Geographia sacra*, Lugd. Bat., 1692. Col. 700 A 2. From these things which Bochart says about this city in *Geographia sacra*, *Chanaan*, book I, ch. 3, p. 4, it is sufficiently clear that it is uncertain where it existed. I would hold the same judgment about the city of Barite; however, since these things are taken from Josephus, *Antiquitates Judaicae*, 1864. B Ibid. 44. See the chronographer Georgius Syncellus, page 30 of the Paris edition, in which these passages are reported from Alexander Polyhistor, who compiled Abydenus. Ibid. B 5. This city is called by Ptolemy *Σέπφαρα*, that is, Kiriath-Sepher of the Hebrews, which is to say, City of Letters. Josue XV, 15. Ibid. 7. C *Ἀνέπλωε* 466; *ἀνάπλως* 467, 468. Ibid. 9. I read with Syncellus, page 30—in which he cites Polyhistor in almost the same words—and with St. Cyril, *Contra Julianum*, book I, and with Scaliger in his *Fragments of Ancient Historians* after the work *De emendatione temporum*: *ἐπεί τ' ὅων ἐκόπασε*, for *ἐπεί τῳ ἐκόπασε*, with *Θεός* to be understood. Xenophon, *De venatione*, *ὅταν νίφῃ Θεός*. Ibid. 11. Wesseling, *Ad Herodot.*, IV, 140; Abydenus, in *Praep. evang.* of Eusebius, book IX, 12: *Ἀπίκato γὰρ δὴ πηλοῦ κατάπλεοι τοὺς ταρσούς*. From which Vigerius ought to have held back his hand; yet he provided this reading changed. Among the manuscripts of Herodotus, one reads *κατακομένους ἐφόνευον ἐς ὅ ἐς τὴν Αἴγυπτον ἀπικέατο*. Certain manuscript codices read *ἀπικέato*, and indeed it is read in Herodotus, book IV, 204: *ἐς ὅ τὴν Αἴγυπτον ἀπικέατο*—this reading was preserved by Wesseling; in some manuscript codices it is changed to *ἀπικέato*. Ibid. C 3. The superstition of amulets belongs to almost all times and men; from Theophrastus, Plutarch in *Life of Pericles*, ch. 38, relates: In the second year of the Peloponnesian war, Pericles, while Athens was laboring under the plague, asked a friend who was visiting him—*Περίαπτον ὑπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν τῷ τραχήλῳ περιηρτημένον*—because he was very ill, and showed him the amulet which the women had hung around his neck as a sign of his worsening infirmity. Col. 701 B 11. The text yields *Molus*, corrupted from *Mochus*, which Josephus gives, and rightly so. But this *Mochus*, an ancient Phoenician historical writer, is falsely introduced by Diogenes Laertius in his *Introduction*, page 2. Menagius restored that name, relying on Strabo; Sextus Empiricus, book IX, p. 363, *Adversus physicos*; Tatianus, Jamblichus, *Vita Pythagora*; Athenæus, etc. For the rest, concerning this Mochus, see the annotation of Fabricius on the passage of Sextus already indicated, and the authors whom he praises. Ibid. 14. But because Hesiod reported nothing of the longevity of the first men, Vossius, in his book *De Graecis scriptoribus*, wants Isidorus Characenus to be substituted for Hesiod, who was praised by Lucian in *Macrobii*, as one who discussed the longevity of men, vol. III, p. 218 of the Reiz edition. This passage and this name, however, are found not only in Josephus, but also in Georgius Syncellus, p. 43 of the Paris folio edition, 1652. Pliny speaks of him in the same way, *Hist. nat.*, book VII, 48. Therefore, it is to be believed that Josephus intended to allude to the passage in the book *Works and Days*, v. 108 sq., where the golden age is described, or to some lost verses about other cited authors, namely, Mochus, Estieus, Hecataeus (Smyrnaeus); see the fragments of Hellanicus edited by Sturz, in-8°, Leipzig, 1826, p. 153. Ibid. 6. D *πύργων*. Missing in 465, 466, in Syncellus and Cyril; it is a gloss, as Vigerius has already seen. Col. 704 C 1. *Ἐνυάλιος θεός*. This epithet, commonly attributed to Mars, is here applied to Jupiter, the father of the gods, which is all the more noteworthy because it is nowhere else repeated. Vigerius offers a passage taken from Pausanias in which Jupiter is named *Ἄρειος* in his first [book on] Elis, ch. 14: *Τὸν βωμόν εἰσιν Ἠλείων οἱ ὀνομάζουσιν Ἀρείου Διός. Λέγουσι δὲ οἱ αὐτοὶ οὗτοι ὡς Οἰνόμαος ἐπὶ τοῦ βωμοῦ τούτου θύοι τῷ Ἀρείῳ Διί.* Furthermore, the name of Jupiter is not rarely found joined with the names of men, but the preceding one, for example—Jupiter Belus is read in Berosus, in Syncellus *Chronograph.*, p. 2; Jupiter Arotrius, in Sanchuniathon, book I, page 37; Jupiter Cassius, in