- A rone reigning, flourished; but the former, who was also a Jew, was sent by his own people from Alexandria as an envoy to Gaius Caesar. Besides these, we know of Philo the poet, the author of a highly corrupt fragment, and Philo the Ancient. The latter, says Dahn, vol. II, p. 199, in *Geschichtliche Darstellung*, is not to be accepted as the author of the poem; for the latter was a Jew, while the former was a Gentile. This assertion is not sufficiently established, for even if that is read in Josephus in his first oration, *Against Apion*, § 23, Jerome contradicts it by attributing to him the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, in his Preface to the books of Solomon: "The second book (Wisdom) is nowhere among the Hebrews," and the very style itself savors of Greek eloquence: some of the ancient writers affirm that this is Philo the Jew. Furthermore, St. Jerome could not have intended to speak of the Jew who was later than the Incarnation of Christ, but only of Philo the Ancient. Whatever the case may be, it seems to me necessary to distinguish the poet Philo, who was without doubt a Jew, from Philo the Ancient, whether he was a Jew or not.
C Col. 712 C 4. These verses are so corrupted that Vigerus was deterred from his plan of translating them into another language, and in reality, they cannot be translated unless most of the words are changed. Vigerus published 'Aβραὰμ κλυτόχηos; I read κλυτήχου according to the meaning of the name of Abraham. Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, book V, p. 668: *Hermēneuetai Abraam patēr eklektou ēchous; ēchei gar: gegōnōs logos.* "Abraham is interpreted 'Father of an elect echo' because the uttered voice (the Word) resounds." Origen, *Against Celsus*, book V, 45, p. 612: *Ean legē ho Theos Patros eklektou ēchous kai ho Theos tou gelōtos kai ho Theos tou pternistou, houtōs ouden poioi an to onomazomenon.* "If God is called Father of an elect echo, and God of laughter, and God of the wrestler, thus He would not make anything of that which is named." "That author, if speaking of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, should call Him Father of an elect echo, God of laughter, God of the wrestler who cast him to the ground after grasping his thigh, these denominations will be without sense." Thus is the name of Abraham interpreted by Philo, *On Abraham*; *On the Change of Names*; *On the Giants*. It was necessary to change countless words to obtain a sense consistent with reason, with the danger of departing from the meaning of the primitive text. My corrections I leave to the critics, nor shall I attempt to defend them.
I heard the fated thing in primordial decrees, As once, Abraham, through the bond of fetters of the superior D Echo, a flood filled with haughty thoughts, The love-charms pleasing to God. For upon leaving the glorious shoot, Self-grown, the burning of great strength, the Angel holding, Made his word immortal, since his Grandson instead of the birth obtained the manifold glory. And the rest, to which after a little he adds: With the hand recently preparing the sword-bearing Attempt, and the clamor having been gathered aside, But God gave a horned ram to his hands.
Col. 713 A 5. Concerning the diverse orthography of this name, see the annotations on Josephus, *Antiquities of the Jews*, p. 44, ed. Havercamp. Ibid. B 10. Who is that Demetrius whose fragment is given? Hear Dahn on this question, vol. II, p. 220: "It is difficult to answer one who asks whether that Demetrius, whose fairly long fragment is extant concerning the patriarch Jacob, is a Jew or not. There are in truth two authors cited by that name, who are very often confused, although it is very easy to distinguish them. Both composed a history of the Jews. The former, Demetrius Phalereus, whose name and fortune few are ignorant of, was the librarian of Ptolemy Soter. Josephus, *Against Apion*, I, 23, declares that no other spoke more correctly about Jewish affairs. By which words it is clear that Huetius errs when he says that Josephus confused Demetrius Phalereus and his namesake." The latter wrote the book *On the Kings of Judah*; nor is it entirely easy to attribute to him the fragment which deals with the patriarch Jacob. I would rather believe that Eusebius erred in not attributing it to his namesake. For this fragment savors of the style of an Alexandrian author, who might warn that Jacob did not wrestle against God, but against an angel; for Alexandrian authors are accustomed to distinguish more scrupulously the supreme and true God from any other divinity acting among men; which cannot be held to be the proper doctrine of Demetrius Phalereus, unless it is said that he accepted that doctrine from some narrating Alexandrian Jew. Huetius, *Demonstratio Evangelica*, prop. 4, § 22, and Isaac Vossius, *On the LXX Interpreters*, p. 396, consider Demetrius to be a Jew.
Ibid. C 3. Here the author speaks of things in conflict with one another; because, while dealing with Jacob, he makes him at the same time 75 and 77 years old. Vigerus demonstrates that the second number, namely 77, is the true one. For Jacob was 91 years old when he begot Joseph; but 14 years had already passed since he had taken a wife. If therefore you subtract 14 from 91, 77 remain. Compare chapter 30, *On the Nativity of the Patriarchs*, in which not a few errors of Demetrius are corrected.
Col. 716 A 5. The names of the concubines of Jacob are interchanged. According to Genesis, Bilhah was the maid of Rachel, but Zilpah was the maid of Leah. I do not doubt that the error arises from the copyists; for it is evident to all that Demetrius extracted what he reported from the sacred Scriptures, and later restored the names in the peculiar order. In the same place and text, one must also read Bala. The chronological notes and other corrections which P. Petavius proposes in *Doctrina Temporum*, book IX, c. 19, which we follow diligently, can be usefully consulted. Vigerus thinks the *Annales Saliani* should be consulted, vol. I, from the year of the creation of the world 2283. Ibid. B 14. *Palaistai*, 465. Ibid. C 1. *Ouk ethiesthai*, 465, 466. Ibid. 6. I restored the numbers according to the manuscript 466, led by reason and sense. I wonder, however, why Vigerus neglected to correct this absurdity of the text, by which three sons of the same age are attributed to the same mother: which he took care to point out in his notes.
Col. 717 C 1. I do not see why that number of two years is brought in here, unless it is presupposed that something was omitted, and that Demetrius had declared that the brothers of Joseph had come into Egypt in the second year of the famine. Eusebius hands down nothing about these things, and is entirely occupied in explaining why Joseph did not think of summoning his father and family into Egypt, lest they also be oppressed by the famine which had already invaded the nearby regions, according to that which is read in Gen. XLV, 6: "It is two years since the famine began in the land, and there are still five years left, in which it will be possible neither to plow nor to reap." Ibid. 10. The text carries *mian*, one, but it is clearly understood as one besides the others, for the number seven, which denotes an addition, does not allow us to presume that it could be done otherwise. Josephus, as everyone knows, did not sit at the same table as his brothers, but ate separately with the Egyptians.
Col. 720 A 8. Vigerus explains and justifies this chronology thus: Abraham came into Canaan in the 75th year of his age and died in the 175th year: therefore 100 remain. When Abraham died, Jacob was 15 years old, and he departed for Egypt in the 130th year of his age, therefore 115 remain. To which, the former being added, 215 years are counted from the calling of Abraham to the migration of Jacob into Egypt. Ibid. 9. This review of the age of the patriarchs from the day of the transmigration of Jacob seems in many ways faulty. 1st, Two names are omitted, inasmuch as Dan is not placed in the prior catalog, and likewise Issachar is also missing; 2nd, regarding the relation of the various ages, it is sufficient to compare them among themselves, so that you may hold for certain that minor errors in the months are to be attributed to the copyists.
A The years which Demetrius assigns to the various epochs cited by him are exaggerated; thus, he departs from any chronology. Whether the fault lies with the transcribers, or was the act of Demetrius himself, we do not venture to pronounce. What especially conflicts with this historical survey is the interval assumed to have passed from the flood to the departure of Jacob into Egypt; to fulfill this, it would have been necessary to invent many generations between Noah and Abraham, and the longevity of the first men themselves would not suffice to solve the difficulty: he stated above that Abraham was 77 years old. I translated *eis Charrhan* instead of *ek Charran*, for at that time the patriarch was not coming out of Charran, but was going into Charran, where Laban lived.
Col. 720 B12. Vigerus thinks there is an error in the determination of the time when Kohath was born; for according to Demetrius, his birth would correspond with the death of Jacob in Egypt. Furthermore, in Gen. XLVI, 11, where the calculation of Jacob’s grandsons is made, it is said that Levi had three sons: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari; Merari had been born before the departure of the whole family of Jacob into Egypt: therefore, Kohath—being older than him—cannot be said to have come into life after this departure of the patriarchs, specifically 17 years later. I have restored the word "Kohath" in place of "Klath" according to Genesis, which was indeed an error introduced by scribes. Simson, in the year 2290, thinks that Demetrius erred in the enumeration of the years of Levi, since he attributes to him 43 years at the time when he came into Egypt, and 60 years when Kohath was born; but Wesselingius contradicts him on this same point, and declares that the years of Levi in Demetrius agree among themselves: namely, 10 years and 6 months are attributed to Levi for the journey from Mesopotamia; 32 years and 6 months for the time of his dwelling in Canaan, hence he was 45 years old at the time of the migration into Egypt, to which if you add the 17 years of his dwelling in Egypt up to the death of Jacob and the birth of Kohath, you find 60 years, as with Demetrius.
Perizonius suggests that this genealogy is full of errors, in his book *Origines Ægyptiacæ*, c. 20, p. 411: "First," he says, "Jochebed, the wife of Amram, is called the daughter of Levi (Num. xxvi, 59), which cannot be; for then she would have been the sister of Amram himself. Moreover, from the same calculation, she would have given birth to Moses only at a very advanced age, and it would be necessary to interpose certain generations to make the different epochs agree. 2° If attention is paid to the incredible multiplication of the Hebrews in Egypt, it does not seem likely that certain heads of families had so very few children. Thus, for Kohath, in Num. I, 27, four sons are attributed, future leaders of an equal number of people, and in the same family, Num. III, 28, 8,600 males are numbered, while in the same interval of time Amram had only Aaron and Moses. Beyond any doubt," he says, "many generations must have intervened from Kohath to the father of Moses."
Ibid. C1. I have expunged a mistake from the text in which the name Abraham was read instead of Amram, as being more famous. Manuscript 466 carries *Amram*. There was no way to hesitate, and I do not know why Vigerus corrected this error only in the notes. B Ibid. 5. Jochebed, whom Demetrius reports to be the daughter—or paternal cousin—of Amram, is called in Num. xxvi, 59, the daughter of Levi and born in Egypt. Hence returns the difficulty which Perizonius cleared away: for that could certainly not have happened, as is clear from his following calculation: the sojourn in Egypt was 215 years; the age of Moses at the exodus from Egypt was 80 years. Therefore, he was born in the 135th year after the departure of the patriarchs from the land of Canaan. Furthermore, Levi had lived in Egypt for 94 years. If the 14 years in which Levi and Moses lived together are taken away, one finds the age of Levi, at the birth of Moses, to be 123 years. Assuming, therefore, that Jochebed gave birth to Moses at the age of 40, Levi himself was then already 83 years old, which is not inconsistent among the patriarchs. But this enumeration disjoins the birth of each son by an excessive interval. The difficulty would be removed if by "daughter of Levi" one understood only his descendant or granddaughter, as Demetrius holds.
Col. 721 B3. I have amended the text there, since it sins against both sense and syntax; for I found it thus: *Keisthai d' autēn phēsin en tē peri Ioudaiōn*. The word *keisthai* indicates that Sichem is situated *en tē...* (the name is missing) *peri Ioudaiōn*; therein lies hidden evidently the name of that people who are certainly not the same as the Judaeans, since they only arrived here long afterward; furthermore, the word *peri* would be redundant and is recognized as a repetition of things read just above: *Ta de Sikima phēsi Theodotos en tē peri Ioudaiōn*. Therefore, it was necessary to substitute [a name] for *tē peri Ioudaiōn*, the name of some people, namely that one which occupied this region before the Hebrews, and we believe we have done this by supplying the word *Pherezaion*, which is quite in agreement with the text, and seems to restore the sense as well as the phrasing.
Ibid. C1. These verses of Theodotus, although they are slightly less obscure than those of Philo, still offend in many places against sense, syntax, or even prosody. The presumption of Vigerus, by which he tries to render Greek verses into Latin verses, is the reason why he often departs too much from the sense and wanders in his imitation; this happens especially when the Greek verses are somewhat obscure, as they are now. The occasion is for me to set forth what I have mostly employed in my translation; in verse 6 *aulōnis* is read, which word is found used in that sense in no dictionary. In Homer it does not come into use except as an epithet of the word *purphaleia*, and thus it means a helmet having a ridge, says the scholiast: "A shield terminating in a narrow and long [point]. The part terminating in a point into the pipe into which the crest is sent." Therefore, an narrow valley is being discussed here; that is why it is called *aulōn*, that is, a valley, since it is constricted on both sides between mountains. Thus was Sichem situated, as is clear from the description of Theodotus, and otherwise from the very words of Theophrastus, *Hist. plantarum*, IX, 7: "Between Libanus and another small mountain, which they call *Aulōn*, a large and beautiful plain." The same man again: "Between Libanus and another small mountain in a certain *Aulisko*." Pliny reports and translates this place thus, XII, 22 (48): "Between Mount Libanus and another ignoble one—not, as some have supposed, Antilibanus—in a moderate valley near a lake whose marshes are dried up in summer, reeds and fragrant rushes grow for a space of thirty stadia." To some, this word appears faulty, because it is nowhere accepted in such a sense, and otherwise it contradicts the quantity of the verse, by substituting a short syllable for a long one. Manuscript 466 gives another reading, not indeed more suitable for the measure of the verse, but one which makes for an easier emendation: *Atrapitos tetmētai arai aulōnis*... However it may be amended, the question can only be about the word *aulōn*, since clearly *aulōn* properly is the name of that valley, according to Theophrastus. Josephus, *Antiq. Jud.*, book IV, gives the name of either mountain: "Not far from the city of Sichem, between two mountains, with Gerizim indeed [located] on the right, and the one called Ebal on the left." Moreover, near Mount Gerizim was the well of Jacob, in which sitting, the Savior spoke to the Samaritan woman. In John, chapter IV, this city is called
A Sychar, designated under the Romans as Neapolis, and today as Naplouse. Jerome, in the epitaph of Saint Paula, says that Sychar is corruptly said in place of the ancient name Sichem: "He passed by Sichem," not as most erring readers read, "Sychar," which is now called Neapolis, and built on the side of Mount Gerizim, around the well of Jacob. One should read *atranitai* instead of *atranite*.
Col. 721 D 1. Perhaps *lian prolithen* should be read, for it is said below that Jacob came from the Euphrates into Sichem.
Col. 724 A 7. *Epitrepon de demas* lacks meaning. Manuscripts 465 and 466 much more correctly bear *epipreon*, but even then something must be added due to the requirements of the meter; therefore I propose reading: *Eidos epiprepon ede demas, kai amomona thymon*.
Ibid. C 9. *Koinonesasthai*, 465.
Ibid. 14. *Axioeomenos* in four manuscripts.
Ibid. D 4. *Aitios* in four manuscripts.
Col. 725 B 1. *Ioseph*, 465, 466.
Ibid. 9. The text bears *Israel* instead of *Ismael*, and "brother sons" instead of "brother son." Who would have believed that Vigerus would have spared such an error?
Ibid. C 9. This statement seems to be due to a corruption of the name Gessen, which is the region assigned to the Hebrews by Pharaoh, as in Gen. XLVII. The same name, but corrupted in another way, is read in chapter xxvii, *Kassan*: manuscript 468 bears *Tessan*. But here is a difficulty: for in both places Artapanus understands the city as Kessan or Kaissa: "In the city of Kaissan," and chapter 27: "Firstly, indeed, to build Kessan and to establish the sanctuary upon it." The first chapter of Exodus teaches us which cities the Hebrews built for Pharaoh: "They built fortified cities for Pharaoh, both Pithom and Rameses," whence itself *Ramessē*, and *On*, which is Heliopolis. But how could the Hebrews have built a temple to the true God in an Egyptian city, and the temple about which Artapanus speaks in the city of Caissan? Was a shrine dedicated to some Egyptian deity, or the place where the Hebrews were dwelling? One or the other part must be chosen: I, however, do not undertake to resolve this question.
Ibid. 10. I have no doubt that the true reading is *to en Peitho*, instead of *to en Athos*. For, first, *en Athos* is a solecism, and one ought to write *en Athos*; second, there is no city of this name in Egypt: therefore I have changed this word in the text.
Ibid. 11. Regarding the etymology of the word Ermiouth, see above, note 38, in chapter 18.
Ibid. D 11. *Tothen*, 465, 466, for *topos*.
Col. 728 A 3. Who is this author? It does not seem to be Philo, who wrote in verse, but rather Polyhistor, as is confirmed from elsewhere in what follows in the chapter. This Aristaeus *On the Jews* should not be taken for the author who relates the history of the translation of the Septuagint, in which Fabricius erred gravely, *Biblioth. Patr. Græc.*, vol. V, page 61. See Dahn, vol. II, p. 200.
Ibid. 5. *Bassaran*, 465.
Ibid. 12. *Iobam*. This word was first found in the edited text and then corrected to *Iobab* according to manuscript 466; this variation was due to a resemblance in form at some point between the two letters *beta* and *mu*. That Jobab, whom Aristaeus says was born from Esau, seems to be the same person as he of whom there is discussion in Gen. xxxvi, 33, where the genealogy of Esau is given: "Bela died and Jobab, the son of Zerah of Bozrah, reigned in his place." See Petavius, *Doctrina temp.*, on Job, and on his origin, book IX, c. 20.
Ibid. 14. *Hyperballein*, 468.
Ibid. B 6. *Themaniton*, 466.
Ibid. 7. *Saucheon*, 466.
Ibid. 8. *Minuaion*, 466.
Ibid. 9. *Parakaloumenon*, 466, 467, 468.
Ibid. D 3. *Tessan*, 466, 467, 468. See note above on col. 724 C 9.
Col. 729 A 2. But the true and proper name of this king is *Chephren*. In the following distich it is found in the scholiast of Clement of Alexandria, *Protreptic.*, edit. Potter, p. 44: "I saw the monuments of Chephren and of his rival Mycerinus and of Cheops and marveled."
Ibid. B 4. This passage of Diodorus Siculus is cited in Eusebius, *Præp. evang.*, book II, chapter 1, which passage teaches the origin of the worship of various animals B according to the different nomes of Egypt.
Ibid. C 1. *Goneon*, 468; *georgon*, 466.
Ibid. 6. I read, as above, *syngeneon* instead of *georgon*, as the edited text bears. Manuscript 468 writes *goneon*. Soon after 466, *katastratopedesais*.
Ibid. D 7. *Pros phylakes*, 466, 467, 468.
Ibid. 11. That Egyptian by the name of Nacherot is probably the same whom he names below as Chanethoth; this name is borne by the *Chronic. Alexand.*
Col. 732 A 4. *Thelontas ta*, 467, 468.
Ibid. 5. *Apoxenosantas*, 466, 467, 468.
Ibid. B 6. *Elachistos*, 466, 467.
Ibid. C 11. *Elephantasianta*, 468.
Col. 733 D 6. Jerome to Fabiola, ep. 127: "The Hebrews opine that on the night on which the people went out, all the temples in Egypt were destroyed, either by an earthquake or by a strike of lightning."
Col. 736 B 8. This narrative, in which true things are mixed with false, can be found to be very similar to another relation, much more fabricated, of Diodorus Siculus, *Eclog. XI*, tom. II, p. 542 of the folio edition of Wesseling; Justin, book XXXVI. This narrative about Moses is cited according to Artapanus in Eustathius, *in Hexaem.*, page 78 et seq., with the notes of Leo Allatius. In the *Chronic. Alex.*, page 148, edition of Rader: "If one attends to the words in which Artapanus speaks about Moses, about Abraham himself, whom he calls the inventor of astrology, and about Joseph, to whom he attributes the building of the temple of Heliopolis, it will therefore be established as certain that the knowledge of the religion of the Jews had reached him. But whoever might want to conclude from this that he himself was a Jew would likely be embarking on a useless labor; for it cannot be admitted that the doctrines of the pagans were invoked by a Jewish man for the protection of his own religion, since, by constant custom in such circumstances, the Jews rejected whatever smacked of Paganism; nor would they have been willing in any way to acknowledge pagan rites, nor to abdicate their origin from Moses, the legislator of their own race. It is more likely that Artapanus is none other than one among the Neoplatonic syncretists, of whom there was a great number after the birth of Christ; and he, not abjuring the gods, nor the primitive customs, yet not rejecting the use of reason, strove to reconcile among themselves whatever seemed to him provable in the opposite doctrines which he gathered through allegory. Therefore he ought to have been more willing to lean toward the Jews than the Jews toward the pagans. From this it is understood why Musaeus, a disciple of Orpheus, was taken for Moses. This way of acting among the Jews or Christians would have had no other effect than that of giving the Hebrew religion to Greek philosophy as a foundation, which indeed would have been of small moment, while on the contrary, there was the immense danger of confusing the true religion with the false. The Gentiles, on the contrary, professed an infinite diversity in the worship of the gods, and in every case sought to reconcile or confirm their own fables with the traditions of the Jews: they falsely said that the wise men of the Jews borrowed what they held from them, and that their dogmas themselves could not be understood unless they were interpreted in an allegorical sense, in the way of the Gentiles." Dahnius, vol. II, p. 201.
Ibid. C 2. The poet Ezechiel, like the other writers cited by Eusebius, *Præp. evang.*, book IX, gave space to the controversy. Philippson, who edited his works with a German translation, Berlin, 1830 in 8°, in the Preface, sets forth the various opinions of scholars. All admit that this writer was by origin a Jew; but they are divided as to the time when he flourished. This Lemoyne, in *Varia sacra*, whom Morhof copied, *Polyhistor* VII, 2, makes Ezechiel
A later than the incarnation of Christ, and supposes he lived until the time of the rebellion of Bar Cochba, namely in the year of Christ 100: Huetius *Demonst. evang.*, prop. 4, c. 24, has contradicted this opinion; and he offers the reason that Eusebius himself extracted the fragment, which he hands down to us, from the very work of Alexander Polyhistor. We know, however, that this Alexander, whose Life Suidas compiled, was a contemporary of Sulla, or flourished 100 years before Christ. Therefore, Ezechiel preceded him in time. Some wish this poet to be one of the seventy Interpreters who translated the Scriptures into the Greek language, but they affirm this without proof. Is he an Alexandrian? Philippson affirms it, Dähne denies it. This alone is certain, that he was a Jew and sufficiently skilled in the Greek language.
Col. 737 B 15. *Μάλιστα δι' αὐτῶν συγγενεῖς κακουμένους.* This verse does not agree with the following: *Λέγω, τί τύπτεις ἀσθενέστερον σέθεν*, "why do you strike one weaker than yourself?" Nothing in the first verse indicates an unequal struggle. Furthermore, for *κακουμένους*, manuscripts 466, 467, and 468 have *παρουμένους*, which is a better word than *κακουμένους*, by which oppression is denoted; one should read *δειρουμένους* or something similar.
Col. 740 C 13. I had to substitute the name Jexan in place of the name Isaar, whom the Eusebian text presents as the second son of Chettura: first, so that it might be consistent with itself, for above, in explaining the genealogy of Sepphora, it deduces her origin from Jexan, not from Isaar; then because Genesis, chapter xxv, does not number Isaar among the children of Chettura, but indeed Jexan, who is truly the second. Then Abraham took another wife named Chettura, who bore him Zamram, Jexan, Madan, Madian, Jesboc, and Sue. The error in the text could in no way be borne, nor do I see how Vigerus admitted this without a note.
Ibid. D 5. *Φησὶ Δημήτριος τὸν Ἀβραὰμ τοὺς παῖδας πρὸς ἀνατολὰς ἐπὶ κατοικίαν πέμψαι διὰ τοῦτο δὲ καὶ Ἀαρὼν καὶ Μαριάμ εἰπεῖν ἐν Ἀσηρώθ Μωσήν αἰθιοπίδα γῆμαι γυναῖκα.* Demetrius places Ethiopia toward the east with respect to Judea, and says that Sepphora, the wife of Moses, was an Ethiop. In this, he follows sacred Scripture, Num. xii, 1, which attributes this country to Sepphora. So that this opinion concerning the location of Ethiopia may be understood, one must go back to the highest antiquity, *Odys.* A, 25: *Αἰθίοπας τοὶ διχθὰ δεδαίαται, ἔσχατοι ἀνδρῶν,* *Οἱ μὲν δυσομένου Ὑπερίονος οἱ δ᾽ ἀνιόντος.* The geographical explanation of this passage caused a grave dispute between the two first commentators of Homer, Aristarchus and Crates, which Strabo relates at length, book 1, p. 30, and Eustathius on the *Odyssey* A, p. 1386, Edit. Rom.; not that they dissented regarding the division of the same region into two parts; but the one, admitting Ethiopia only as situated to the south of Egypt, separated by the Nile, was setting up the division according to longitudes; Crates, however, according to the common opinion expressed by Homer, which Eratosthenes and Strabo himself still professed, that the sea is rolled around the earth, was cutting this into two parts, Chthonia and Antichthonia, and supposed that the Ethiopians were situated on either bank: therefore he cited this verse: *Ἢ μὲν δυσομένου Ὑπερίονος ἢ δ᾽ ἀνιόντος.* Strabo likewise rejects the doctrine of Crates, subject to many objections, and attacks Aristarchus, for the reason that, by his system, not two Ethiopias are to be admitted, rather than two Egypts similarly separated by the Nile. He asserts that all the navigators of the Erythraean Sea who traveled from east to west, and those navigating the Atlantic sea in the opposite direction, since they could not have encountered each other on account of the long isthmus of Africa running into these seas, likewise named the peoples inhabiting both shores Ethiopians (see Hanno’s *Periplus*), which is true. Then he brings forward the opinion of Ephorus, according to the opinion of the ancients concerning Ethiopia, that this region extends from the winter sunrise to the winter sunset: *Τὸ τῶν Αἰθιόπων ἔθνος παρατείνειν ἀπ᾿ ἀνατολῶν χειμερινῶν μέχρι δυσμῶν.* Which Pliny transcribes, 6, 35: "Ethiopia is situated from the winter sunrise to the winter sunset." Strabo confirms this division from several places in Homer: Thus, from this poet, the Red Sea, not the Nile, flows between two Ethiopias; this doctrine is maintained by both the more recent and the ancient poets. Senec., *Herc. furens*, act. 1, v. 36: *Qua sol recedens quaque deponens diem* *Binos propinqua lingit Æthiopas face.* Ovidius, *Metam.* 1, 779, leads Phaeton from the east to the temple of the Sun: *Æthiopasque suos positosque sub ignibus Indos* *Sidereis transit, patriosque adit impiger ortus.* Mimnermus had published the same sentiment in elegiac verses, which Athenaeus preserved for us, book xi, p. 470, where he opposes Ethiopia to the region of the Hesperides. *Ἠέλιος μὲν γὰρ ἔλαχεν πόνον ἤματα πάντα* *Οὐδέ ποτ' ἄμπαυσις γίνεται οὐδεμία* *Ἵπποισίν τε καὶ αὐτῷ, ἐπὴν ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠὼς* *Ὠκεανὸν προλιποῦσ' οὐρανὸν εἰσαναβῇ.* *Τὸν μὲν γὰρ διὰ κῦμα φέρει πολυήρατος εὐνὴ* *Κοίλη, Ἡφαίστων χερσὶν ἐληλαμένη,* *Χρυσοῦ τιμήεντος, ὑπόπτερον, ἄκρον ἐφ' ὕδωρ,* *Εὕδοντ' ἁρπαλέως, χώρου ἀφ' Ἑσπερίδων* *Γαῖαν ἐς Αἰθιόπων (ἵνα οἱ θοὸν ἅρμα καὶ ἵπποι* *Ἑστᾶσ', ὄφρ' Ἠὼς ἠριγένεια μόλη).* *Ἔνθ' ἐπέβη ἑτέρων ὀχέων Ὑπερίονος υἱός.* Virgil, on the other hand, places the Ethiopians at the extreme west, *Aeneid* iv, 480: *Oceani finem juxta solemque cadentem* *Ultimus Æthiopum locus est.* The Oriental Ethiopians gave rise to the fable of Memnon, who, the son of a certain Assyrian satrap, came to Troy, killed Antilochus, and was killed by Achilles as the son of Aurora. (Hom., *Odyss.* A, v. 187). *Μνήσατο γὰρ κατὰ θυμὸν ἀμύμονος Ἀντιλόχοιο* *Τὸν ῥ' Ἠοῦς ἐκτεῖνε φαεινῆς ἀγλαὸς υἱός.* Aurora, although she had favored the same arms, is not free to be moved by the slaughters and the fate of both Troy and Hecuba. A nearer care and domestic grief afflict the Goddess for the lost Memnon, whom his mother saw perishing on the Phrygian fields by the Achillean blade (Ovid, *Metam.* 1, v. 576). Among the Greek mythologians, this Memnon is the son of Tithonus and Aurora, and thence the grandson of Priam, and king of the Ethiopians. Hesiod in the *Theogonia*, verse 984: *Τιθώνῳ δ' Ἠὼς τέκε Μέμνονα χαλκοκορυστήν,* *Αἰθιόπων βασιλῆα.* Tithonus sent the Ethiopians to the aid of Troy. (See Athenaeus, l. xv, p. 680). Later, when Ethiopia had its own borders in Africa, watered by the Nile, and Meroe was the capital of its cities, then they strove vehemently, twisting the ancient fables, to bring back the son of Aurora to the banks of the Nile and place him on the throne of Meroe. Hence that Memnonium and the stone effigy of Memnon, which, when stricken by the rays of the sun, gives off a vocal sound. (Tacit., *Annal.*, l. ii, 61.) Herodotus in *Thalia* distinguishes the Asiatic Ethiopians from the African, and in his survey of the army of Xerxes (*Polymn.* 70) he presents them as differing as much in their region as in the habit of their bodies. *Οἱ μὲν ἀπ' Ἠλίου Αἰθίοπες ἰθύτριχές εἰσι, οἱ δὲ ἐκ τῆς Λιβύης, οὐλότατον τρίχωμα ἔχουσι.* (See Dionysius Periegetes, v. 249.) Thus far we have cited only poets, among whom truth is less valued than the traditions of mythology. Even the historians themselves, however, opined that a double Ethiopia, eastern and western, had existed, and that for the others, some had smooth, others curly, hair. Hence it appears what is the cause of the confusion among the ancients whenever Ethiopia is discussed. When the true equa-
configuration of the parts of the world was unknown to them, and they were ignorant of the origin of the Nile, and furthermore imagined an eastern Ethiopia for themselves, they cast Cimmerian darkness over everything regarding the Nile and Africa. Most people, imagining the Atlantic Ocean flowing to the south, assigned a false eastern projection to Africa. From this, the error of Alexander is understood: for when he had arrived at the Indus, he believed he had reached the sources of the Nile, and that if he sailed along this river or any other flowing into it, he would arrive in Egypt. See Arrian, *Anab.* VI, 1; Strab. XV, p. 696. Lucan, *Pharsal.* X, v. 292, places the sources of the Nile in the region of the Seres:
And the Seres see you first (though they too search), And the fields of the Ethiopians, strange in a foreign flood.
Virgil, *Georgic.* IV, v. 287, made Persia adjacent to it:
For where the blessed race of Pella's Canopus Dwells by the Nile stagnating with its outspread stream, And is carried about its fields in painted skiffs; And where the neighborhood of quivered Persia presses And waters verdant Egypt with black sand, And rushing diverse, it runs off into seven mouths: The river, brought down from the colored Indies: Every region in this casts its sure safety by art.
Statius, *Thebaid.* IV, 705, having followed Virgil in his own way:
Thus where the receding Nile hides itself in great caverns, And suppresses the liquid fodder of the winter sun With its mouth, the valleys smoke with the deserted flood, etc.
And book VIII, v. 558:
As when the secret Nile, hidden from the averted heaven, Drinks the eastern frost with its great mouth, Splits the wealth of its spring, and carries winter Into the sea for the seven powerful fields.
But, I say again, this license of poets is common to serious authors. Hyginus, a freedman of Augustus, in *De limitibus constituendis*, p. 116, Paris ed. 1554, says that the Nile must be crossed by those traveling from Egypt to the Ocean. There is no cause for amazement, therefore, that so general an erroneous opinion of some eastern Ethiopia should have been admitted by Demetrius and even by the sacred writer.
Col. 740 C 1. The text of all mss. differs from the reading of Robert Stephanus and Vigerus in the first three verses, which stand thus:
Ἐξ ὄρους κατ' ἄκρας οὗ θρόνων μέγαν Τιν εἶναι, μέχρις οὐρανοῦ πτυχός. 468.
Ibid. 15. Vigerus repaired the confusion of the first verses in his notes. He replaced the words in the order necessary for scanning, and had to change a few things. Philippson used this reading in the edition he produced separately in Berlin. In general, the first verses in the Greek manuscripts are very poor.
Col. 741 A 5. *Apistia* ms. Lugd. 466 and 467. Ibid. D 11. *Anablysei* 468; *anabroesei* 466; *anabrysei* 467. Col. 744 A 11. Ms. 466 marg. *Peri tēs thysias kai tōn azymōn ho Theos tō Mōsei hypotithetai.* Ibid. B 5. *Chrysōn te kai argyron ēde kai stolas hōn hōn epraxan misthon apodōsei* 465-467, and ms. Lugd. Batav. Ibid. 18. *Tautēs* om. 463. Ibid. *Epexergazomenēs* all mss. Ibid. C 3. *Labōn* 465-467 and ms. Lugd. Ibid. C 8. For *poila possin*, it should read *kalapossin*, *soccis*, the base of which is wooden. Ibid. 17. All manuscript codices have *apallaxetai* for *apallagē essetai*, which is read in the margin of the ms. of Leiden, the text of which Robert Stephanus used in his edition. If Vigerus had even leafed through one manuscript codex, he would have restored the true reading, not to mention indicating it in the margin.
Col. 745 D 6. *Kat' ephronēs* 466-468. Col. 748 A 4. *Auchenōn* 466, 467, ms. Lugd. Ibid. 5. *Krokōtoisi* 466. Ibid. 6. *Typhos* 466, 467, ms. Lugd. Ibid. 14. The description of the phoenix which the poet Ezekiel gave was partly seized upon by Eustathius, the author of the *Commentary on the Hexaemeron*, p. 26 ed. Leo Allatius, with a few variant readings. Likewise, Isaac Vossius, in his commentary on Pomponius Mela, lib. III, c. 8, cited and corrected it. Salmasius transcribed several verses of the same in his *Exercitationes Plinianae in Solinum*, page 548, Parisian edition. Finally, Philippson, in the edition of the *Fragm. Ezechielis et Philonis* printed in Berlin (1830, in-8°), at verse 8, proposed reading *kattōis* for *koilēs*; which I admitted. The same editor, in order to complete the collection of the same poet's fragments, closed the work with nine verses which Epiphanius cites without the author's name, tom. I, page 544 of the Cologne edition (Leipzig), saying, following Scaliger, that these pertain to Ezekiel. Petavius gave them, corrected by Scaliger, without any observation in his notes on the *Chronicon* of Eusebius:
Ὦ πᾶσιν ἀρχὴ καὶ πέρας κακῶν, ὄφις, Οὕτω βαρὺν τίκτουσα θησαυρὸν κακῶν Πλάνη τυφλοῦ, ποδηγὸς ἀγνοίας βίου, Χαίρουσα θρήνοις, καὶ στενάγμασι βροτῶν· Ὑμεῖς ἀθέσμους εἰς ὕβρεις ὁμοσπόρων, Τὰς μισαδέλφους ὁπλίσαντες ὠλένας Κἀῒν μολῦναι φοινίῳ πρῶτον λύθρῳ Ἐπείσατ᾽ ἂρ γῆν, κἀξ ἀκηράτων πεσεῖν Αἰωνίων τε πρωτόπλαστον ἐς χθόνα Ὑμεῖς ἐτεκτήνασθε.
'O you, the beginning and end of all evils, serpent, who have generated a heavy hoard of crimes; who compel [man] to wander blindly, guide of ignorance in the path of life, rejoicing in the sighs and groans of mortals; by your persuasion, those near have exercised immense fury against those near; brothers have driven iron into the bosom of brothers; Cain, the first, obsessed by fury, with blood shed through slaughter, polluted the earth. You and yours have fashioned that the Protoplast fall from eternal delights through your detestable artifices, so that they might inhabit this wretched earth.'
Ibid. B 13. In this confused narrative, where error is mingled with truth, it is certainly difficult to recognize a Jew, and such ignorance of the principal facts of his own history deprives this hypothesis of all likelihood. For what Jew would have made David the son of Saul? Josephus rightly observes that the Jews are unanimous in their historical accounts, because, clearly, all their historians drew their histories from the sacred books: hence this concord which [exists] nowhere else. How, therefore, does a Jew, who has surely read the historical books, not know that David is not the son of Saul?
Ibid. C 3. The text has *Moauitas*, for *Moabitas*, with the solemn error of *µ* placed for *β*, says Holstenius on Stephanus of Byzantium, page 216. The same, regarding the word *Nabatatoi*, says: If we follow the Hebrew derivation, we would write *Nabathaious* more correctly than *Nabatalous* from the word *Nabaioth*, "germinating." Ovid, *Metam.* I, 61, "Nabathaeaque regna," V, 163, "dextra Nabathaeus Ethemon." Juvenal, satyr. XI, 126, "Nabathaeo bellua saltu." This word, however, is read in the *Periegete*, verse 559:
Ἀλλ᾽ ἤτοι πρῶτοι μὲν ὑπὲρ κλιτὺν Λιβάνοιο Ἀφνειοὶ ναίουσιν ἐπωνυμίην Ναβαταῖοι.
Similarly, Strabo writes, lib. XVI, page 779: *Pros tēn Petran tēn tōn Nabataion kaloumenēn*. Pliny VI, 28, or 33: "Nabatati incolunt Petram."
Ibid. 14. The angel whom Nathan introduced is the prophet, whose name is corrupted. See II Reg. VII.
David's victories over the neighboring peoples of Judea, described in the eighth chapter of the same book, II Kings, involve slightly changed Hebrew names as they pass into the Greek language.
Col. 748 D 5. *Er 'Aɣároiç.* Elana is a city of Arabia. Simson, in his *Chronicle Canon* for the year 3007, A *Aldávoις* (the text has *'Aɣávoις*) *εἰς τὸν οὐφεὶρ* (for *εἰς τὴν οὐφρῆ*). Elana is that famous city on the Arabian Gulf which in the Holy Scriptures is called Elath or Eloth. See Holstenius on Steph. Byzant., p. 16. Salmasius, in his notes on Solinus, p. 284 (new edit. 342), teaches that *Alava* is used more frequently in the plural number. The name of this city is corrupted in Eusebius, *Præp. evang.*, bk. IX, ch. 30.
Ibid. 11. There is confusion here in the names. When David had passed away, the priesthood was divided between two high priests, Sadoc and Abiathar. Abiathar had followed the faction of Adonias, so as to secure the throne for him and his descendants. Sadoc, on the contrary, went with the prophet Nathan, by David's command, in order to anoint Solomon there. See III Kings 1. Sadoc traced his lineage, though not his name, from Heli the high priest, who had educated Samuel.
Ibid. 15. The name Vaphres or Ouaphres, which we find here given to the king of Egypt, is not the same as the one who is simply called Pharaoh in the book of III Kings, ch. III, and in Josephus. Manethon bestows this name upon a much later king in the series of kings, namely the one called Apries by Herodotus, the son of Psammitis (*Euterpe* 161). The same king is called Ephre by the prophet Jeremiah (XLIV, 30), and later writers call him Hophrah. He whom Clement of Alexandria calls Ouaphres is entirely different from the Vaphre of Solomon. But is this perhaps Solomon's final father-in-law? That may be believed; for we know that this prince married a certain daughter of the king of Egypt. But among the kings of Egypt, whose series Manethon—and also Eratosthenes—has given, to whom is this name to be attributed? Let another solve the question. Furthermore, in Josephus he is called nothing else but Pharaoh. Regarding them, however, he says in *Antiquities* VIII, 6, that if anyone asks why the kings of Egypt from Minæus, who founded Memphis and who, for many years, preceded our ancestor Abraham, down to Solomon—a span of more than thirteen hundred years—were called Pharaohs, and why the one who reigned in the times that followed took the name Pharaoh, I have thought that something must be said so that their ignorance might be removed and the reason for the name be made manifest. "Pharaoh" in the Egyptian language signifies "king." B While they had other names as boys, those who later turned out to be kings, having cast aside their prior name, adorned themselves with the name of supreme power in the maternal language. Thus the kings of Alexandria, called differently before, wanted to be called Ptolemies after they obtained the crown. So the Roman emperors, born under other names, are called Caesars, a title they obtained from the authority acquired and their dignity, not from their parents. Therefore, Herodotus of Halicarnassus, I think, after he declared that 330 kings from Mene, the founder of Memphis, had occupied the kingdom of Egypt, by no means handed down their names to us; all of them, clearly, were Pharaohs. With all these passed away, and the government of the kingdom having been assumed by a woman, and since none but kings were called by the common name of Pharaohs by constant usage, this queen, as a woman, could not be signified by this surname, and for that reason she was excluded from said surname on account of her sex; and it is known to me from my own pagan books that no Egyptian king after the Pharaoh who was Solomon's father-in-law was called by this name.
Col. 749 B 7. It is clear that the name *Sebrithita* was corrupted; it should be read *Sethroita*, as is read below, *Batrithita*. Lucas Holstenius, in his work on Stephanus of Byzantium, restored the true orthography of the latter: he calls him C *Athribita*; but he did not see the error of the former [name] which, like other names related here from outside the Delta, does not seem to me to be correctly placed. Ptolemy, in the fourth book of his work, enumerating the nomes of Egypt, places one in these regions under the name of *Sethroita*. It is therefore manifest that this nome is the next in order to those that follow: the Mendesian, whose principal city is Tmuis; the Bousirite, [whose city is] Bousiris; the Leontopolitan [nome], [whose city is] Leontopolis; the Athribitan [nome], [whose city is] Athribis. The restoration of the name *Athribita* by Lucas Holstenius must certainly be accepted. Bochart, in his *Phaleg*, p. 59, bk. 1, ch. 15: The Delta of Egypt was properly called *Rib*, whence it is that in the very heart [this is where] the middle nome was called Athribis, that is, "heart of the pear." See the *Etymologicum Magnum*, under the word *'Aθριβής*. "'Athribis is a city of Egypt; it is also written *'Aθλιβίς*, whose citizen is called *'Aθλιβίτης*. Nicanor, using the letter 'R': The Delta of the island-Egypt is its head, drinkers of the Nile, shaped according to the heart of the things contained therein, whence they named the nome *'Aθριβιν*; which, if anyone wished to express in Greek, he could not say otherwise than 'heart'. Thus Apion and Orion." D See Reland, *Palæstina sacra*, vol. II, p. 937 et seq., where this etymology of the word *Rib*, "pear," comes into controversy. The same Bochart, p. 259: To the Egyptians *& ou 50* is "heart," as Horus writes in his *Hieroglyphica*, bk. XVI, ch. 7, and *r6 pibi*, "pear"; hence *Athribis*, "heart of the pear," that is, the part of Egypt which the Egyptians called *Rib*, that is, "pear," because of its shape: which name is preserved intact today after so many centuries. Leo Africanus writes *Errif*. In the Holy Books it is written *Raab*; which he points out with many examples. (See Reland.)
Ibid. C 1. *Souro*, the name by which the king of the Tyrians is called here, differs much from that by which he is named in Josephus, *'Eipωμος*, *Antiquities of the Jews*, bk. VIII, ch. 2 et seqq. The letters which Josephus cites depart from the text of Eusebius, as do the names; from which it appears that they did not draw from the same sources. However, they agree in their ideas. In Josephus, Solomon requests that timber be cut in Lebanon, which is granted to him by the king of Tyre. From these things it is clear that Josephus followed the account of the third book of Kings, ch. v or vi, more diligently. The name of the king of Tyre, with whom alone we are concerned here, is Hiram in the Holy Scripture (III Kings v et seqq.). In the manuscripts of Josephus it is read: *'Eipωμος*, *Xείραμος*; by Menander of Ephesus he is called *'Eίρωμος*, son of *'Aβιβάλου*. Simson draws the name *Souronis* from others thus: an etymology about which others may judge; for the year of the world 2977: "He is called Hiram and Huram by the Hebrews, *'Eίρωμος* and *Σουρών* by the Greeks in the words of Eupolemus in Eusebius, *Præpar. evang.* IX, ch. 33; but he is rendered *Σούρων* for *Oὔρωμ*."
Col. 752 A 2. *'Aντίγραφος ἐπιστολῆς Σούρονος* 465, 466.
Ibid. B 2. *Σολομὼν εἰς Λίβανον ἀπελθὼν κεκόμικεν τὰ ξύλα ἃ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ προέτεμνεν* 465.
Ibid. 11. *'Ex τῆς φυλῆς τῆς Δαβίδ.* Potterns wants it read *ex τῆς φυλῆς Δάν*. In the first place, there is no tribe of David who is not a patriarch. In book II, ch. 1, of Paralipomena, § 13, 14, it is read: "I have therefore sent to thee a prudent man and a most skillful one, the son of a woman from the daughters of Dan."
Ibid. 12. In the text *€*, but in the manuscripts 465 it is read *ξα*; that it is an error due to the accent is manifest, for *ἑξήκοντα*. For the length could not have been only six cubits when the width was sixty.
Ibid. C 14. Josephus gives them twelve cubits in circumference and four fingers in thickness (which is probably to be understood of the gilding), even though the thing is not stated.
Ibid. D 1. *Oἶκος* is placed here for the Holy of Holies: *οἶκος τοῦ ἁγίου τῶν ἁγίων*, they say in I Paralip. III, 10; it seems that *τοῦ* ought to be placed before *οἴκου*. By the words *τοῦ οἴκου* I proposed the word *πρό* [before] so that it might be indicated where these columns were; then, lest a linguistic error creep in: I had judged that *στῆναι* or *στῆσαι τοῦ οἴκου* lacks sense and harms the syntax in Para-
1581 D. SEGUIERI S. BRISSONE NOTES.
Book II, ch. iii, v. 15, the passage here in question is taken in this sense: *And he made before the house two pillars, and set up the pillars before the temple, one from the right, and the one from the left; and he called the name of that on the right* "Establishment," *and the name of that on the left* "Strength." v. 17. Further on, *oikos* is still found for the Holy of Holies.
Col. 752 D 2. I read the word *eka* twice for the purpose of determining the number of the lampstands, which seem to have existed to the number of ten from that which is read further down; namely, that each individual lampstand had seven lights, whence the number seventy is collected. The Chronicles also gave me assistance here, lib. II, ch. iv, v. 7: *And he made ten golden lampstands according to their ordinance, and set them in the temple, five on the right, and five on the left.* Josephus clearly errs when he contends there were ten thousand, *Antiq. Judaic.*, l. VIII, c. 3.
Col. 754 B 2. Although the manuscript codices unanimously agree in preserving *daxtullon*, I thought that the text should be changed and *diktua* written. Everything proves that this emendation I made is correct: 1º It is proved by absurdity. How could it be possible that two rings consisting of small chains above the temple in the machines, placed at an amplitude of twenty cubits, could cast a shadow over the whole roof of the temple, with four hundred bells hanging, each weighing a talent? 2º The rest of the phrase restores the true word, but in the feminine gender instead of the neuter; mss. 466 has *holous tous diktuous* for *holas tas diktuas*, so that the three genders are attributed to the neuter substantive; but the true vocabulary always appears among these erroneous ones. 3º It concerns a net in the Chronicles, lib. II, ch. iv, 12: *And two nets to cover the heads of the pillars; and four hundred golden bells for the two nets.* In the last chapter of Jeremiah, v. 22: *And a net and pomegranates upon the border round about, all were brass.*
Ibid. D 5. This assertion, that a golden shekel is equivalent to a talent, seems to me entirely false and a gloss added to Eusebius. Josephus, in the third book of *Antiq. Judaic.*, thus reports the value of the silver shekel: *The shekel being a coin of the Hebrews, receives four Attic drachmae.* The Hebrew shekel is equivalent to four Attic drachmae; this was the holy shekel. The common shekel was worth a didrachma, that is, half the other part. V. Waserus, *De antiquis nummis Hebræorum*, book II, where he discusses the shekel. Even if one were to estimate gold, as in our own days, as sixteen times heavier than silver, the weight of a talent would not yet be reached. A talent consists of 60 minae; a mina of one hundred drachmae, which makes 6000 drachmae in a talent. The fourth part of the number 6000 is 1500. Gold could be worth fifteen times its weight in silver, but not fifteen hundred times. Therefore, the golden shekel is the hundredth part of a talent.
Col. 756 A 14. Is the Timocharis named there the astronomer Timocharis cited in the seventh book of Ptolemy's *Almagest*, as one who left behind computations regarding the stars, from which Hipparchus inferred the retrograde motion of the heavens by which the precession of the equinoxes is produced? He preceded Hipparchus by about 150 years, 283 years before the birth of Christ.
Ibid. B 6. The difference between these measurements of the circumference of Jerusalem suggested to Scaliger the thought of emending 49 in Timocharis and 46 in the *Schoenometron*, because Hecataeus of Abdera, whom he holds as a more trustworthy author, assigns 50 stadia of circumference to this city, in the book *On the Jews*. See Scaliger in the fragments after *Emendat. tempor.*, p. 24 of the notes; Reland, *Palæstina sacra*, t. II, p. 855.
Ibid. C 7. Those poems of Philo, no less corrupt than what has already been brought from him regarding Abraham, derive almost no help from the manuscripts. Josephus Scaliger and Isaac Vossius, in their copies, proposed certain emendations, which provide neither a perfect sense nor an exact meter for the poems. [alt-version omitted]
1582 BRISSONE NOTES.
For the first verse, Vossius reads *nissomenos* instead of *nechomenos derkei throun aoida megistuchoio loetrois*, which by no means corrects this verse. However, *echn* seems indubitable to me. Scaliger reads *megistuchoio*, which is better for the meter.
For the third verse, Vossius reads *exaniesoi*, which is a participle in the dative plural case agreeing with *loetrois*; mss. 465, 468, read toward the fifth verse what Scaliger proposes, namely *hyper pyrgoisin oreinois*; Vigerus proposes *upal*. Finally, for the eighth verse, Scaliger reads *udrochooio* for *udrochooi*, which is to be preferred. And even with those emendations, it is difficult to restore the text. In the words *nun oun aoidia* of the second verse, one must seek a neuter substantive for the words *to thambestaton allo*.
Moving aloft, the most wondrous other thing To the gaze, the fountain when I know by the baths of the greatest commander, Fills a deep stream, pouring forth; For the current, high-towering in rainy snows, Flowing down, joyfully under the mountain towers, Turns, and the dry ground, covered in dust, of a spring Far-shining, reveals the highest wonders of men. And steeply they cough out from the earth of the water-pouring Pipe.
Col. 757 A 3. I translate the word *oikos* as Holy of Holies; I have shown the convenience of this interpretation in the preceding chapters; see ch. 34. In reality, not the whole temple faces the East; for there are other parts of the building which face everywhere; but the principal part, that is the *oikos*, is turned to the East.
Ibid. 11. *Udrochooion* Aristæus and all mss.
Ibid. C 8. Who this Astibares, king of the Medes, named by Eupolemus, might be, the learned do not agree. Simson, for the year of the world 3396, wants this to be Cyaxares; for the year 3447, he defends the same thesis: Daniel ch. ix testifies that Darius the Mede was not king of the Medes but of the Chaldeans. That Assuerus, as I said just now, is none other than the famous Cyaxares, as the very name indicates, which is carried variously, namely Assuerus or Achasuerus. *Astiares*, *Oxyares* (for *Ochoares*), *Axoarsis*, *Oxarches*, *Xerxes* or *Axares* whence *Kyaxares*. Those who think this Assuerus is Astyages are therefore mistaken. St. Jerome, following Josephus, thinks Darius the Mede was the son of Astyages, Cyrus's uncle, and succeeded his father Astyages in the kingdom of the Medes. Scaliger in his notes on the fragments, p. 40, says that he was named Astibares by Ctesias. See Diod. Sicul. lib. II, 34. Nevertheless, Wesseling, in a note to Simson's year 3396, believes that Astyages should be admitted under this name; for his daughter Aroitis had been joined in marriage to Nebuchadnezzar if, as cited by Syncellus p. 210, Alexander Polyhistor is to be believed. Scaliger, in *Emendat. tempor.*, wants him to be the same as Nabonidus (see prolegom. from p. 32 to 36), the Labynetus of Herodotus, under whom Babylon was captured by Cyrus, whom he sent as satrap into Caramania. Let it suffice for me to have set forth these various opinions, which I neither wish to defend nor to impugn.
Col. 760 A 2. That rebel, from the more detailed narrative of Berosus in Josephus, is Pharaoh Necho or Neco, whom Berosus considers as a satrap; Herodotus, however, according to the account of the Egyptian priests, has him as the true ruler of Egypt. Behold the words of Berosus in Josephus: *His father Nabopolassar having heard that the satrap appointed in Egypt and in the regions around Coele-Syria and Phoenicia had become a rebel, having entrusted [forces] to his son Nebuchadnezzar, being of age, [and given him] parts of the power, he sent him out against him.* Joseph., *Contra Apionem* I, 119.
Ibid. 7. The fragment of Berosus reported there by Eusebius is cited twice by Josephus, 1º in the tenth book of *Antiquit.* ch. 11; 2º in the first book of *Contra Apionem*; the numbers of the years of the reign of Nabopolassar do not agree. In *Antiquit.* is read 21;
and in his writing *Contra Apionem* 29. Scaliger, in his notes on the fragments of ancient historians which follow the book *De emendatione temporum*, places the number 29 before it. Following Scaliger are Simson at the year of the world 5409, and Capellus in his *Chronologia sacra*. Eusebius, in all manuscript codices, has the number 21, seeing as he, in citing this passage, had transcribed the book of *Antiquities* very plausibly; for this error, if it be an error, is very ancient, since it is found in Syncellus and the holy Epiphanius. Against Scaliger and for the number 21 are Usher in his *Chronologia sacra*; Marsham, *Canon chronicus*, p. 587, Leipzig edition; Van Alphen, in the Appendix, ch. 8, § 11 of his commentary on ch. 10 of Daniel; Prideaux, in his *History of the Jews*, vol. I, p. 119; and finally Perizonius in his *Origines Aegyptiacae*, ch. 23, from p. 479 to 504. Petavius, in the ninth book, ch. 58 of his *Doctrina temporum*, assigns Nabopolassar a reign of 21 or 25 years, according to the canon of the kings of Babylon by Ptolemy. Of all these chronographers, some defend their choice with arguments, while others merely set forth their own without confirming them by proofs. These are the reasons upon which Scaliger relies: the numbers 1 and 9 (v and ϙθ) are easily confused, and even if this variant reading is not found in either of the texts, such an emendation, he says, should have been introduced from the beginning of the prophecy of Ezekiel: "And it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river Chebar, the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God." Since Ezekiel was in Chaldea, Scaliger says he ought to have computed the years only starting from the beginning of the reign of the living prince. Now, this prince was Nabopolassar; therefore, in the thirtieth year begun, or twenty-ninth completed, Nabopolassar died, in the one hundred and fifty-second year of the era of Nabonassar.
Perizonius affirms that this thirtieth year does not express the time Nabopolassar reigned, but rather the time when the Babylonians, having driven out the Assyrians, asserted their freedom, and that Nabopolassar died in the one hundred and forty-fifth year of the era of Nabonassar; the one hundred and fifty-second year, however, corresponds to the thirtieth year of the expulsion of the Assyrians from Babylon. From there Perizonius approaches the question of how the fourth year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, could have been the first of Nebuchadnezzar; to follow him in this I certainly will not commit myself, especially since, while the same obscurities remain, he hardly brings the Egyptian question to an end after twenty pages. Therefore, I do not change the number 21: *Non nostrum inter vos tantas componere lites*.
Col. 760 B 2. Evilmerodach. The text of Eusebius bears *Evilmalourouchos*. Josephus, *Contra Apionem*, writes *Evilmaradouchos*. Evilmarodak (IV Reg. xxv), Syncellus *Eviladmerodach*. Long I hesitated among so many variant readings of this name, but finally I chose the commonly accepted name, such as is found in Holy Scripture and in Scaliger.
Ibid. 7. Neriglisar. This name, in Josephus, *Contra Apionem*, is written *Neriglisoor*; Scaliger accepted this reading.
Ibid. 8. The text of Eusebius bears *Chabassoarachos*; in place of this reading, which is manifestly corrupted, I have chosen the reading of Josephus, which is approved by all the learned.
Ibid. 13. Scaliger in a note on this passage, p. 15 and 16, tends toward proving that this Nabonnidus is the Labynetus II of Herodotus, who is falsely declared by the father of history to be the son of Labynetus I (Nebuchadnezzar); according to Scaliger himself, this would hint at the Darius the Mede mentioned by Daniel. Thus the kingdom of Belshazzar (*Labassoarachos*), according to the prophecy, passed first to the Medes, that is, to a king of the Median race, then to the Persians, after Cyrus had expelled Nabonnidus from the throne and banished him to Carmania. This interpretation is sufficiently approved, although it has had its opponents: when I have spoken of it, where I discussed Astyages, I do not set out to argue it again.
Ibid. D 6. *Per septuaginta annos*, the text and manuscripts bear *quinquaginta* (50), whereas *septuaginta* (70) should evidently be read. This error is already found in the text of Josephus, *Contra Apionem*, lib. 1, c. 21, where Lowth proposes correcting it to *ἑβδομήκοντα*; in Syncellus it has been propagated. And yet it is not plausible that Josephus could have been ignorant of the duration of the captivity, which lasted 70 years, as the prophets had foretold it would last, a duration which Josephus himself declares in the beginning of the eleventh book of his *Antiquities* to have been the case, and that he, having forgotten all this, assigned only fifty years as the duration of the captivity. Here are the words of the eleventh book, c. 1: "In the first year of the reign of Cyrus, which was the seventieth from the day of the transmigration of our people from their native land to Babylon, the Lord, having had mercy on the captivity and the sorrows which these wretched ones endured, as He had foretold to them through the prophet Jeremiah before the city was overturned—namely, after the servitude under Nebuchadnezzar and his successors, which was to last seventy years—promised that He would restore them to their fatherland, that they would rebuild the temple, and would enjoy the happiness they had formerly possessed."
Ibid. 9. *Et decimo regni Darii anno*; Josephus, *Contra Apionem*, 1, 20, writes the second year; Syncellus, his imitator, the sixth; and Abraham, in *Phar. Vet. Test.*, more willingly admits this epoch: but what the true reading is, you do not see.
Ibid. 13. The orthography of the name Nebuchadnezzar is varied: now we read *Nabuchodonosor*, as in this text, now *Nabuchodonosoros*. In Daniel, *Reyes*, book IV, *Paralip.*, book II, and the book of Judith, that name is not declined. In Berosus and Abydenus, it is ascribed to the second declension. The Septuagint Translators kept the Hebrew form, while Greek writers adapted these foreign names to Greek usage.
Col. 761. A 12. This word is derived from the oracle given to Croesus, according to the account of Herodotus, *Clio*, 55: "But when a mule becomes king of the Medes, then, O Lydian, by the pebbly Hermus, flee, and do not stand, nor be ashamed to be base." Cyrus was designated under the name "Mule" because of his origin from a Persian father and a Median mother.
Ibid. B 6. This is in a certain way a prophecy; in the mouth of Nebuchadnezzar at the first approach, it calls to mind the fourth chapter of Daniel, with which it agrees, and from which it simultaneously differs. They agree in that in both cases it is a matter of men brought to the state of beasts. But in the book of the prophet, Nebuchadnezzar himself experiences this fate, whereas in Megasthenes the imprecation is against the Mede who will help the Persians to overthrow the empire of Babylon: this Mede, whom he calls the ornament of Assyria, can be no other than Darius the Mede, who brought death to Belshazzar, and who, in the opinion of Megasthenes, would likely have had to join in handing over the head city of his kingdom to Cyrus. This imprecation, when collated with the fragment of Berosus, ch. 40, favors this opinion of Scaliger (Notes on the fragments, p. 22 et seq., Proleg., p. 37 and 579) sufficiently, namely that Nabonnidus, the Labynetus of Herodotus, is the same as the Darius the Mede of Daniel. In that imprecation, *αἰστῶσαι πρόῤῥιζον* is still Ionic and poetic; Herodotus, I, vi, 86: *ἐκτέτριπται πρόρριζος ἐκ σπάρτης*; 1, 52, *προῤῥίζους ἀνέτρεψε*; Sophocles in *Electra*, v. 765: "The whole race of old has been utterly rooted out by the masters." V. 514, *πόρριζος ἐκριφθείς*. Euripides, *Hippol.*, v. 682: "May Zeus my begetter root thee out completely."
Ibid. B 14. I believe that for *κτίσαι*, to found—which no one attributes to Nebuchadnezzar regarding Babylon—one should read *τετειχίσαι*, to wall. The same Abydenus [attests this]...
A Belo, he records that the city was founded by the grandfather of Nebuchadnezzar.
Col. 761 C 3. *Τῷ χρόνῳ δέ τῷ ἰκνουμένῳ ἀζανισθῆναι*. This expression is merely Ionic and shows that the author cannot belong to later times. Gregor. Corinth., *De dialecto Ionica*, 156: *Τὸ οὐκ ἐκνεομένως ἀντὶ τοῦ οὐ προσηκόντως, οὐ καθηκόντως*—see the interpretation. The form *ἰκνεουμένως* is to be preferred to *ἐκνεομένως*. Herodotus, I. vi, 65: *Οὔτε ἰκνεομένως βασιλεύοντα Σπάρτης*—ibid., 86: *Συνενειχθῆναι δὲ οἱ ἐν χρόνῳ ἰκνεομένῳ*, where see the interpretation; Plutarch, *De educat.*, 9, in *Aemil. Paul.*, and in *Caesare*. The oracle in Demosthenes, vol. II, p. 1072: *Ἐν ἰκνουμένῃ ἡμέρᾳ*; this pertains to the Doric dialect. Damascenus: In Photius, cod. 242, *Vita Isidori*, p. 351, ed. Bekker. *Κατὰ τὸν ἰκνούμενον χρόνον*, instead of *κατὰ τὸν ἐπιόντα*. This word has this meaning here: "in the times that followed." *Ἀφανισθῆναι*—there remained no trace. Thus I interpret that word which Vigerius refers to Belus; which is false. That Belus vanished is of little concern to the narrative; but it is worth knowing that these ancient structures had already disappeared by the time Nebuchadnezzar rebuilt Babylon. Valckenaer, at the cited passage of Herodotus, speaking of Abydenus, had said: "It is not clear whether that word refers to Belus or to Babylon;" this seems not doubtful to me indeed.
Ibid. 5. These are the gates which the prophet Isaiah, ch. 45, indicates: *Θύρας χαλκᾶς συντρίψω, καὶ μοχλούς σιδηρούς συγκλάσω*.
Ibid. 8. The river, or branch of the Euphrates, here called Armacleus, is named differently by other authors: thus Ammianus Marcellinus, 1. XXIV, c. 2, says: "Coming from there to a man-made river called Naarmalcha, which is interpreted as 'river of the kings'." Plinius, lib. VI, c. 26: "Just as those who record that the Euphrates was diverted by the labors of the prefect Chobares, where we said it was split so that it would not molest Babylonia with a rushing course, but was called by all the Assyrians Armalchar, which signifies 'royal river'." Isidorus Charaxenus in his *Parthian Stations*: *Διαβάντων τὸν Εὐφράτην καὶ Ναρμάλχαν ἐπὶ Σελευκίαν τὴν πρὸς τῷ Τίγριδι*. This branch of the river, which seems to be the same as the river Chobar mentioned many times by the prophet Ezekiel, was called the royal river; and with this meaning admitted, Bochart in *Phaleg*, lib. 1, cap. 8, p. 54, thinks it should be written *Naarmalcha* rather.
Ibid. 10. There is no greater agreement among authors regarding the name of these waters flowing from the Euphrates: Pliny calls it Narraga, Ptolemy Baersar or Maarsar; Ammianus Marcellinus Marsias; Bochart in the same place, p. 33, thinks *Ναχαρζάνην*, that is "river of the pond," should be read in Abydenus.
Ibid. It has been doubted whether *Βορσιππῶν* should be read instead of *Σιππαρηνῶν*; however, these two cities, Borsippa and Sippara, are situated not far from Babylon, the former to the south (Borsippa), the latter to the north (Sippara).
Col. 764 B 9. The name of this historian is written in various ways in Eusebius and Josephus; the editions of Josephus carry *Conon*; the manuscript codices of Eusebius that were in my hands all have *Comon*; which is manifestly corrupt; but whether the name of *Conon* should be substituted is a question. Conon, whose fifty narratives Photius summarized for us in his *Bibliotheca*, was a contemporary of Julius Caesar, according to Photius himself. He had dedicated the aforementioned narratives to Archelaus Philopator, the last king of Cappadocia, who followed Antonius in the war against Augustus. Since these narratives are drawn entirely from Greek mythology, from which it is permissible to conclude that they did not arise from the controversies regarding the antiquity of the Jews, I therefore think *Κάμων* should be written instead of *Κόμων*. For we have received from Michael Apostolius, *Prov.* XX, 29, p. 237 of the Pantinus edition, that the author of these *Inventions* wrote: from whence the occasion ought to have arisen for investigating the origins of barbarian peoples. He says, however: *Φοινικήια γράμματα* (Phoenician letters), *Κάμων* in the second book of his *Inventions* says they were named from Phoenice, the daughter of Actaeon; it is told of this man that, being without male children, daughters were born to him, Aglaure, Erse, Pandroso, and that Phoenice died while still a maiden; therefore Actaeon called them *Φοινικήια γράμματα*, wishing to bestow some honor upon his daughter. < "Camon, in the second book of *Inventions*, says that the name *Φοινικήια γράμματα* was given to the letters by Actaeon. It is narrated of him that, since he had no son, daughters were born to him, Aglaura, Ersea, Pandrosa, and Phoenicia, who died a virgin, and whose memory he invoked with *Φοινικήια γράμματα*, the elements of writing." > This narrative seems suspect in that the names it attributes to Actaeon's daughters are the names of the daughters of Cecrops. Therefore, instead of *Ἀκταίωνος*, one should read *Κέκροπος* in Michael Apostolius. See chapter 14 of the *Bibliotheca* of Apollodorus. Actaeon was the father-in-law of Cecrops. Regarding Actaeon's existence, see Africanus cited by Eusebius, *Pr. ev.*, 1. X, c. 10, p. 490.
Col. 768 B 8. *Χαλεπὰ τὰ καλά*. See Zenobius, *Centuria* VI, 338.
Ibid. 13. *Exsumpsit* (he took out), which I translated as "all things to endeavor that he might be rescued from the Hebrews," is an expression used among orators to indicate artifice, guile, and every kind of machination: with this meaning one must understand the words of Theopompus cited by Harpocration at the word *Ἀττικοῖς γράμμασι*. *Θεόπομπος ἐν τῇ κε' τῶν Φιλιππικῶν ἐσκευωρῆσθαι λέγει τὰς πρὸς τὸν Βάρβαρον συνθήκας, ἃς οὐκ Ἀττικοῖς γράμμασι ἐστηλιτεῦσθαι, ἀλλὰ τοῖς τῶν Ἰώνων.* Theopompus declares in his twenty-fifth *Philippic* book that the treaty with the Barbarian (the Persians) had been fabricated, invented, and forged; for it is read as inscribed in bronze in Ionic, not Attic, letters.
Ibid. C 3. *Ὁ καθεῖς*. In the manuscript codex, 468, these words are found separated: *Ὁ καθ᾽ εἷς*; *εἷς καθ᾽ εἷς* is reprobated by Lucian in the *Soloecista*, p. 577, vol. III: *Εἰ ἄρα καθ᾽ εἷς λανθάνει σε περιών*. Thomas Magister at the word: *Οὐ καθεὶς ἀλλὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστος δεῖ λέγειν*. Indeed, surely, according to grammar it should be said *καθ᾽ ἕνα* or *καθ᾽ ἕκαστον*; however, it is known in all languages that such vicious locutions are introduced and propagated: *ὁ καθ᾽ εἷς* has been used quite often by ecclesiastical authors, Jews and Christians; C *Machab.*: *Ὁ καθ᾽ εἷς τῶν φίλων*. *Epistola ad Romanos*, cap XII: *Ὁ δὲ καθ᾽ εἷς ἀλλήλων μέλη*. S. Marcus XIV, 19: *Οἱ δὲ ἤρξαντο λυπεῖσθαι καὶ λέγειν αὐτῷ εἷς καθ᾽ εἷς*. S. Joannes evangelista cap. VII: *Ἐπορεύοντο εἷς καθ᾽ εἷς*. Eusebius in *Historia Ecclesiastica*: *Καὶ μὴ μόνον γε ὁ καθ᾽ εἷς, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ πάντες ἀθρόως ἀνευφημούμεν*, lib. X, p. 466 edit. anglic., 372 ed. Valesii. Nevertheless, the form *καθ᾽ ἕνα* is preferred by distinguished authors. See the note of Graevius on the passage in the *Soloecista*, and the commentator on Thomas Magister, and the note of Henricus Valesius on the cited passage of Eusebius' *Hist. Eccles.*
Col. 769 A 7. *Καὶ ἄκοντες τὴν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀλήθειαν*. I read *ἀκούοντες* (hearing), since *ἄκοντες* (unwilling) expresses the contrary to what Clement strives to prove. For if they had snatched the truth from the Hebrews unwillingly, he would undeservedly blame them; therefore, *ἀκούοντες* or *ἑκόντες* (willingly) must be read.
Ibid. B 2. Instead of *καταχρώμενος*, I read *καταρχόμενος*, with the sense of reiterating. Plutarch in *praecept. conjug.*, vol. VII, p. 415 edit. Hutten: *Οὗτος ὁ τρόπος τῆς οἰκοδεσποίνης, μήτε φεύγειν, μήτε δυσχεραίνειν τὰ τοιαῦτα τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἀρχομένου αὐτὴν κατάρχεσθαι.* "A wife ought to act thus, that she neither refuses D
A nor is displeased when her husband begins to approach her." Col. 769 B 7. I read *ὡς οὐ* with manuscript codex 465, instead of *ὡς μηδέ* in Eusebius, and *ὡς δὲ μή* in Clement. Ibid. C 5. *Ὡς δειχθήσονται, αὐτοτελῶς δὲ τὰ ἑτέρων ὑφελόμενοι, ὡς ἴδια ἐξήνεγκαν.* These things could not be understood unless Clement restored whatever the copyist of Eusebius suppressed, either through negligence (on account of words ending similarly) or through laziness: these I have restored from Clement. I believe there is an error in the text of both writers, as it exists in the manuscript codices. The first words in Eusebius are *ὡς δειχθήσονται*; in Clement, *ὡς δειχθήσεται*. Both are wrong, as is evident. Clement rightly and deservedly uses the singular number, for he is proving a single fact—plagiarism; but he does not endeavor to demonstrate it, since he has already done that and is passing on to another line of reasoning. I do not doubt that *ὡς δέδειχται*, the reading I followed in translating, is what should be read. Ibid. 7. The name of this writer, whom Vossius counts among the historians, although he seems to me to belong to the poets, since Eusebius in his *Chronicles*, at the fifty-third Olympiad, calls him the author of the *Telegonia*, and the theft of which he is accused is the entire book of Musaeus regarding the Thesprotians—this name, I say, is written *Εὐγάμων* in Clement, and in Eusebius’ *Chronicles* and in the *Praeparatio*, *Εὐγράμμων*. Everything suggests that the latter reading should be rejected—the consensus of two citations, of which one is Eusebius’, and the very form *Εὐγράμμων*, which everyone can see is corrupted. Col. 772 A 2. *Πευσόμεθα παρ' αὐτῶν ἤτοι.* *Η.* Words of inquiry cannot be constructed with *ἤτοι*, but with *εἴτοι* placed for *πότερον*, "whether." If examples of the Latin conjunction are rarer than examples of the Greek conjunction *ᾖ*, they are nevertheless common enough in this construction. But *ἤτοι*, "or," must be entirely rejected. In Clement, instead of Eusebius’ *εἴτοι*, one reads *εἶναι*, which slightly mitigates the solecism; but nevertheless, the phrase is faulty: the infinitive cannot follow verbs of inquiring. Col. 772 B 12. This speech regarding Aeacus, who returned abundance to Greece, is indicated in Pindar's fifth *Nemean* ode, v. 17:
They prayed for the handsome and ship-famed (son) B Standing by the altar of the Hellenian father, They stretched out their hands to the Aether together, The renowned sons of Endeis and the might of Phocus, Creon-[tos].
Regarding this matter, the Scholiast says: "Jupiter Hellenius was worshipped on a promontory of Aegina called Hellenium. It is said that when a drought was desolating Greece (others say a flood), and a multitude of Greeks had come to petition Aeacus, as the son of Jove, to intercede for liberation from the calamity by which they were being pressed, he healed their ills by imploring the deity; and because of this restored safety of Greece, Jupiter Hellenius is honored with a special cult in Aegina." Apollodorus, in the third book of his *Bibliotheca*, c. 12: "Aeacus was the most pious of all men. But when a famine raged in Greece, because Pelops had killed and dismembered Stymphalus, king of Arcadia—whom he had attacked in war but whose kingdom he could not invade—after having tricked him with a feigned peace; the oracles replied that Greece could not otherwise be liberated from the evils by which it was being oppressed unless Aeacus would pray for it. Which being done, Aeacus rid Greece of this famine." Pausanias in *Corinthiaca*, p. 179, ed. Kühn: "A drought had long been desolating Greece, and Jupiter would send rain neither beyond the isthmus nor into the Peloponnese, until they had sent to Delphi to inquire both the cause of that calamity and the remedy. The Pythia replied that Jove would be placated if Aeacus C would pray to the god for them. Therefore, each city sent to Aeacus to make the request. When he had offered sacrifice to Jupiter Panhellenius and implored him, at length rain fell over all of Greece." Diodorus Siculus, l. iv, 61: "When Minos had heard of the unhappy fate of his son, he came to Athens to seek a reckoning for the murder of Androgeus. As no one replied to his questioning, he declared war on the Athenians and prayed to Jove that the Athenians might be crushed by drought and famine. Immediately, a drought invaded all of Attica and Greece; the fruits perished. Then the leaders of the cities asked the deity how they might be delivered from this calamity. The deity returned an oracle by which they were ordered to go to Aeacus, the son of Jove and Aegina, daughter of Asopus, to ask him to pour out prayers for their liberation. When they had performed the mandate they received, Aeacus offered prayers, and the drought ceased in the rest of Greece, but persisted in Attica," etc. See Isocrates in *Evagoras*, p. 192, ed. H. Steph. Ibid. D 3. *οἰομένου* 465, 466. Ibid. 5. The correction *πλατώνεια* instead of *πλατίνεια*, which the editors exhibit, was proposed by Vigierius and discussed and approved by Ruhnken in his *Dissertatio philologica de Longino*, § 8, p. 21, with excellent arguments. It is further confirmed by manuscript codex 466 and the words read at the end of the chapter: "Divine Plato, whose feast day our assembly celebrates today," etc. Ibid. 6. Suidas teaches us this regarding Nicagoras, son of Mneseus, an Athenian rhetorician and sophist: he lived under the emperor Philip, wrote *Lives of Illustrious Men*, and about the embassies to the Roman king; he was the father D of Minucianus, likewise a sophist, who composed a rhetorical treatise, *Τέχνη ῥητορική*. See his article in Jonsius, *De script. hist. philos.*, iii, 14, 2. Ibid. 7. The same Suidas wrote the life of Major. Major was an Arab sophist who composed thirteen books on rhetorical constitutions (*Περὶ στάσεων*); he was a contemporary of Apsinus of Gadara, and lived under the reign of Philip and before. We have found nothing regarding the rest. Ibid. 10. The word *κατακλιθεὶς* cannot be translated otherwise on account of the ancient custom of reclining at table. Col. 773 A 3. *Δαΐμαχος*. Daimachus is without doubt, from these words, an historian older than Ephorus, since Ephorus has taken nearly three thousand lines from him. Whatever we know about him we have received from Harpocration, Athenaeus, and Strabo. Harpocration, at the word *ἐγγυθήκη*, cites "Daimachus in the second book of *On India*." Athenaeus in the ninth book, c. 51: "Daimachus in his *Indica* relates that there are yellow pigeons in India." Strabo, l. xv, in the beginning, regarding the breadth of India, cites him several times; and his name is cited differently every time. *Δαΐμαχος*, p. 68, of the Paris edition, 1620, where Hipparchus confirms his opinion—rather than Patroclus'—regarding the breadth of the Indies. On p. 70 he names him three times *Δαΐμαχος*. It is strange that Casaubon did not revoke the uniform orthography, which appears to be *Δαΐμαχος*. "All these," says Strabo, p. 70, "who have written about the Indies, have lied altogether, but before all others Daimachus, then Megasthenes, Onesicritus, and Nearchus, and after them other chatterers." This became most obvious to us when we read again the victories of Alexander; but especially Daimachus and Megasthenes are not to be trusted, etc. That is opposed by Hipparchus, who prefers them to Patroclus: "They were sent on embassies," he continues, "to Palibothra (Allahabad), Megasthenes to Sandrocottus, Daimachus to Allitrochades, the son of the former." Strabo, l. xv, p. 690 A, cites Daimachus, always joining him with Megasthenes. It seems, therefore, that they wrote almost the same things. Furthermore, how does it happen that Ephorus could be a plagiarist of Callisthenes and Anaximenes, and more so of Daimachus?
A Ephorus, a pupil of Isocrates, just as Theopompus, wrote a history of Greece which begins from the return of the Heracleidae into the Peloponnese, 80 years after the capture of Troy, and terminates at the departure of Philip from the siege of Perinthus: even the last book was written not by him, but by his son Demophilus. Diodorus Siculus, 1. IV, in the beginning: "Ephorus the Cuman, being a pupil of Isocrates, having undertaken to write the common affairs, bypassed the ancient mythologies; but having arranged the events from the return of the Heracleidae, he made this the beginning. Ephorus the Cuman concluded his history here at the siege of Perinthus." 540 years before J. C. Col. 775 A 3. Callisthenes and Anaximenes are the two historians of Alexander, who had accompanied him on his expedition: the former gave room to the false history which is inscribed under his name, and which is entirely unworthy of belief. Vossius, in his Treatise on Greek Historians, spoke at length about these two writers. Meursius, in his notes on Chalcidius, wrote a long article about them. See, besides, the Baron von Sainte-Croix, *Examen critique des anciens historiens d'Alexandre-le-Grand*, p. 33 et seq. of the second edition, and specifically regarding Callisthenes, the biographical notice which the Abbé Sevin published in *Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions*, vol. VIII, p. 126. Hemsterhuys, to the ninth book, p. 1075, of Pollux's *Onomasticon*, in a note, made a distinction of the works which are attributed to each Callisthenes, the Sybaritan and the Olynthian who is cited here. Meursius, in his *Bibliotheca Graeca*, regarding Callisthenes the Sybaritan, had confused them.
Anaximenes and Callisthenes, who were companions of Alexander's expedition, wrote of his victories indeed in detail, but they seem to have written histories of this prince that were earlier. Pausanias, *Eliac. Post.*, ch. 18: "Anaximenes [wrote] the ancient things among the Greeks, and as many as Philip son of Amyntas accomplished." Diod. Sicul., 1. XV, § 89, says: "He wrote the first of the Hellenica, beginning from the theogony." These things are sufficient for him. Callisthenes also had written *Hellenica*, cited by Plutarch, in *Cimon* and *Agesilaus*; by Athenaeus, 1. X; by Stephanus of Byzantium in *Teuthrania*. Ephorus could have stolen this. But Daimachus wrote only about India; yet at what time did he live? Seleucus Nicanor, the head of the Seleucid dynasty, appears to be, from Strabo cited above, the one who sent Megasthenes as an ambassador to King Sandrocottus in the city of Palibotra (Allahabad), who had brought war upon him: his expedition is narrated by Justin, XV, 4: this topic is also dealt with incidentally in Pliny, VI, 17: the treaty which he entered into with Sandrocottus is cited by Strabo, XV, p. 724. If Daimachus, as the same man says, was sent to the son of Sandrocottus, to what time shall we ascribe this event? Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata* I, cited by Eusebius, *Praep. evang.*, [says he was] contemporary to Nicanor. Therefore, that prince was of advanced age, who was already growing old when he waged war at the Ganges, at the time when he sent Daimachus to Allitrochades. Therefore, it is impossible that Ephorus had still lived at that time. Thus thinks Vossius *On the Greek Historians* regarding Daimachus: in this sense he attacks Casaubon, who, by restoring the orthography of this name in the *Life of Thales*, confused the historian Daimachus with the Platonic Daimachus, and perhaps believed it to have happened that Ephorus took whole pages from this author, who, since he had written only about Indian matters, therefore provided no material consistent with the history which Ephorus wrote and which has not come down to us. B Ibid. 14. Read *klemmaton* (thefts) for *pragmaton* (matters). Ibid. B 7. Andro C is one of the first historians of Greek philosophy: Diogenes Laertius invokes his testimony in the *Life of Pherecydes*, "Andron the Ephesian says there were two Pherecydes"; the scholiast of Pindar, *Isthmia*, ode 2: "Andron the Ephesian is recorded among the seven sages, the Spartan Aristodemus." His book's title was *Tripod*; Diogenes Laertius in the *Life of Thales*: "Andron, in the *Tripod*, [says] that the Argives offered a tripod as a prize of virtue to the wisest of the Greeks"; Clement in the first *Stromata*: "The seven sages were contemporary to Thales, just as Andron says in the *Tripod*." See Suidas, in the entry: *Samian People*. Ibid. 11. Read *adēlon* (hidden) for *dēlēn* (manifest). Ibid. C 3. Regarding the prediction of earthquakes which is attributed equally to Pherecydes and Pythagoras, there is no consensus among the authors who reported the same event. D For Pherecydes we have Cicero, *De divinatione*: "He will be considered a seer rather than a physicist; who, when he had seen water drawn from a deep well, declared an earthquake to be imminent." Pliny, *Hist. nat.*, lib. II, ch. 81: "Another conjecture of Pherecydes, the teacher of Pythagoras, is recorded, but also a divine one; by the drawing of water from a well, he sensed and predicted an earthquake there." Apollonius Dyscolus in *Mirabilia*, ch. 5 of Meursius's edition: "The things regarding Pherecydes. The same is told about Pherecydes, who, when he was once laboring on the island of Syros, requested water from one of his disciples; and after he had drunk, he predicted that an earthquake was going to happen on this island, which event occurred after three days." Read *en Syro* (in Syros) for *en Syria* (in Syria) with Jonsius, *De script. hist. philos.*. Maximus Tyrius, *serm.* 19, says this happened on the island of Samos. On the other hand, in favor of Pythagoras, besides Andron, we count only two of his historians, Porphyry and Iamblichus. Porphyry in the *Life of Pythagoras*, ch. 29: "For unchangeable predictions of earthquakes are remembered of him." Iamblichus, *Life of Pythagoras*, ch. 28: "It is said that he predicted an earthquake that was to occur at the well from which he drank." Ibid. 4. As far as the ship is concerned, there is also a prediction attributed equally to Pherecydes and Pythagoras. Porphyry, ch. 28 of the *Life of Pythagoras*: "When a ship was approaching the harbor, and all the sailors' friends were offering vows that the merchandise might reach the shore intact, Pythagoras is said to have remarked that only a dead man was being carried in that ship; and the matter was so." Iamblichus, *l. l.*, says he predicted that the ship, which was being driven by a favorable wind, would soon perish in a shipwreck. Regarding Pherecydes, Apollonius Dyscolus, *l. l.*, narrates that when he had come to Samos into the temple of Juno, and had seen a ship which was entering the harbor, he announced to those standing by that this ship would not reach the harbor; while he was still speaking, a swirling vortex arose, and the ship was submerged. Diogenes Laertius narrates the same about Pherecydes at the beginning of his life: "Seeing a ship running before a fair wind, he said that before long it would sink, and before his eyes it did sink." Ibid. 7. The narrative looking toward the city of Sybaris, which he calls Messina, is unknown, since the volumes of the historian Theopompus have been lost. From the preceding, however, it must be supposed that this deals with Sybaris captured by the Crotoniats, with Milo as leader and at the encouragement of Pythagoras, in the first year of the sixty-eighth Olympiad. See Diod. lib. XII, 9; Strab. lib. VI, c. 13, p. 263. Regarding the stranger whom Theopompus calls Perilaus, I believe him to be Perialus the Thurian, who was expelled from the gathering of the Pythagoreans, according to Iamblichus, ch. 17 of the *Life of Pythagoras*; but I believe it should be written *Perilaos*, which name is common among the Greeks. The Megarian city in Sicily is the city of Hybla: "Hybla, the Megara," says Stephanus of Byzantium, "in Sicily, formerly Hyble, from King Hyblon." Generally, it appears that the narratives of Theopompus have prevailed over contrary reports, and to him more commonly
A trusted; the reason is obvious: his book was in everyone's hands, and contrary authors were barely known.
Col. 776 A 4. *Τῆς ἀρρωστίας ταύτης ἐπλήσθη* (He was filled with this infirmity). Concerning this meaning of this Greek verb, as also the Latin verb *implere*, see Ruhnken on the *Lexicon Platonicum* of Timaeus, p. 31.
Ibid. 10. Philostratus the Alexandrian is recognized from the brief biographical notice that his namesake dedicated to him in *Lives of the Sophists*, lib. 1, cap. 7: "I knew," he says, "Philostratus the Egyptian, who philosophized with Queen Cleopatra, and boasted of being a sophist, because he used an ornate and panegyrical style; he had entered into the familiarity of this queen, who herself sought the praise of a witty intellect; so that a parody was written about him in these elegiac verses: 'Beware of the character of the famous wise man Philostratus, who, by using Cleopatra’s familiarity, has become like her.'" Plutarch, in *Life of Antony*, says that Augustus spared him, yielding to the pleas of Arius alone. Arius enjoyed such favor with Caesar that he obtained pardon for many, among whom was a certain Philostratus, the most skilled of the sophists living at that time in the composition of impromptu oratory; whose method of proceeding, however, was unworthy of the Academy, etc.
*Ο δύστην᾿ ὄλβοιο, Φιλόστρατε, ποῦ σοι ἐκεῖνα* *Σκῆπτρα, καὶ αἱ βασιλέων ἄφθονοι εὐτυχίαι* *Αἷς ἐπῃωρήσας ἀεὶ βίον; ἦ δ᾿ ἐπὶ Νείλῳ* *Κεῖσαι Ἰουδαίοις ὢν περίοπτος ὅροις.* *Οθνεῖοι καμάτους τοὺς σοὺς διεμοιρήσαντο,* *Σὸς δὲ νέκυς ψαφαρῇ κείσετ᾿ ἐν ὀστρακίνῃ.*
"O unhappy Philostratus, where now are the scepters and these perpetual fortunes of kings, to which your life clung? Even now you lie within the borders of Egypt and Judea; foreigners divide your labors among themselves, and your remains rest in an earthen urn." Vol. II *Anthologia*, epigram of Crinagoras.
Ibid. 12. Extensice information will be found concerning Caecilius and his works in the edition of Longinus by Toup, first note. Here it could only be repeated: he neglected, however, to cite the passage of Eusebius where the Sicilian rhetor Caecilius is discussed. The orthography should be reformed, which in Suidas, Longinus, and others is *Καικίλιος*.
Ibid. B 1. Here the name of one of the interlocutors is missing, for since he compels Apollonius by naming him below, it is evident that he is not the one speaking.
Ibid. 13. Hellanicus undoubtedly pilfered from Herodotus in his *Barbarian Laws*; two institutions extracted from this book which have reached us prove this: the former, preserved by Suidas and the great Etymologicum under the word *Ζάμολξις*, is this: "Hellanicus in his *Barbarian Laws* (read *Νομίμοις* as in Eusebius, and see Toup's emendations in Suidas, vol. I, p. 232) says that a Greek who had become a follower of the rites introduced mysteries to the Getae, those who are in Thrace, and said that neither he himself would die, nor those who were with him, but they would possess all good things; at the same time saying these things, he built a subterranean dwelling: then, suddenly disappearing from among the Thracians, he lived in it. The Getae missed him, and in the fourth year he appeared again, and the Thracians believed everything he said."
These words are a mere transcription, although the dialect is slightly deformed and changed, of chapter 95 of the fourth book of the History of Herodotus. One should read, instead of *οἱ μετά τούτου* which is empty of meaning, either *οἱ μεθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ*, or as in Herodotus, *οἱ συμπόται αὐτοῦ*; and instead of *πάντα ἀγαθά*, *τὰ πάντα ἀγαθά*.
A second example is drawn from Athenaeus, lib. XI, p. 462: "I know also that Hellanicus in *Names of Nations* (read *Nomima*) says that certain of the nomadic Libyans possess nothing but a cup, a knife, and a pitcher; and that they have houses made of asphodel, small ones, for the sake of shade, which they carry around wherever they go." Herodotus, lib. IV, 190: "The dwellings are constructed of bundles of asphodel bound with rush, and these are portable."
But to which Hellanicus does this reproach refer? Suidas records two historians, Hellanicus of Lesbos or Mytilene and Hellanicus of Miletus. Of the latter, he records nothing but his writings: *Land Period* and *History*. Eustathius (ad Iliad. V, 6, p. 916, 50): "The history of Hellanicus shows." He speaks more at length of the other: regarding his works, he says only this: "He wrote many histories both in prose and in poetic style." Vossius, in two articles of his *Greek Historians* devoted to the Hellanici, lib. I, cap. 4; lib. IV, cap. 5, counts many authors who cited Hellanicus, yet omits more: for Kuster increases his enumeration from Suidas, and Sturz, the editor of the fragments of Hellanicus, has greatly amplified it. Vossius, while he struggles earnestly to assign to each Hellanicus the portion of the named works which pertains to them, is greatly constrained and states nothing. The reason is obvious: if we except Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Tzetzes, who sometimes added the epithet *ὁ Λέσβιος* (the Lesbian) when mentioning the writings of the former Hellanicus, and Strabo, by whom he is mentioned when speaking of Lesbos, it is commonly unknown whether in the citations where they are discussed, one is referring to either Hellanicus.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus says in lib. I of the *Antiquities*, c. 28, p. 74 of the Reiske edition, that Hellanicus the Lesbian thought the Tyrrhenians were none other than the Pelasgians who changed their name by changing their fatherland. Such was his case in the *Phoronis*, of which Clement cited certain verses in *Stromata* I, p. 418, related by Proclus in *Hesiod*, p. 141 of the Heinsius edition; by Eudocia, *Viol.* 248; and in the *Scholia to Apollonius*, lib. III, v. 1178. The same Dionysius in his letter to Pompeius says that Hellanicus was elder than Herodotus; here are his words, t. VI, p. 669: "Indeed, Herodotus did not do this, but, being one of the writers who preceded him—Hellanicus and Charon—having already published the same subject, he did not turn away, but believed he would bring forth something better than them." There can be no doubt but that the Hellanicus named there is to be understood as Hellanicus the Lesbian; he speaks of him thus when he deals with the style of Thucydides, t. VI, p. 818: "The ancient writers, therefore, were many, and existed in many ways, and before the Peloponnesian war, among whom are... and Charon of Lampsacus... a little older than the Peloponnesian [writers], and extending up to the age of Thucydides were Hellanicus the Lesbian and Damastes of Sigeum..." From these it appears that Charon lived before Hellanicus, who himself preceded Herodotus in age. And indeed he adds, p. 820: "Herodotus of Halicarnassus, having been born a little before the Persian wars and having extended [his account] to the Peloponnesian wars, brought his pragmatic intention to a greater and more brilliant conclusion." Herodotus, who comes first after those named by him, reports new things regarding his style and mode of narrating. Thucydides, he continues, "coming after them, neither wished to establish his history in one place as those around Hellanicus did, nor to gather the actions performed by Greeks or Barbarians from every land into one history, having imitated Herodotus." Hellanicus had written history by dealing with each region separately, *from one place*; Herodotus [did so] in a mass; Thucydides, by referring all things to one great political event, that is, the Peloponnesian war. This too is asserted by the same Dionysius, p. 856, citing the words of Thucydides, lib. I, c. 97. That comparative antiquity of Hellanicus with respect to Herodotus is confirmed by an excellent text of Aulus Gellius, lib. XV, c. 23: "Hellanicus seems to have been sixty-five years old at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, Herodotus fifty-three, Thucydides forty." It is written in the eleventh book of Pamphila. Suidas [writes of] Hellanicus and Herodotus as [contemporaries] of King Mace-
Macedon: "Hellanicus, with Herodotus, at the court of Amyntas king of Macedon, at the time of Euripides and Sophocles." A Mr. Sturz rightfully and deservedly attacks the anachronism which he insinuates, as Suidas teaches that Herodotus and Hellanicus were contemporaries of Amyntas, Euripides, and Sophocles; this has no bearing on our thesis.
Now, could it be credible that the elderly Hellanicus, whose histories, divided by subject, all preceded Herodotus’s universal history, should have wished to compose a history in his advanced age which would have been nothing other than a compilation from Herodotus? That is the question. To solve it, epochs must be established. Among the learned, contentions have arisen concerning the time at which Herodotus wrote his history; others, who are the majority, have followed Pliny, who expressly says (Nat. Hist., bk. XII, sec. 8): "Such was the authority of ivory in our city in the three hundred and tenth year; for then that author (Herodotus) wrote his history at Thurii in Italy." B Vossius in his *Historical Greeks*, Simson in his *Chronological Canon*, Des Vignoles in his *Chronology*, and others, have held this to be the true epoch. Furthermore, since the three hundred and tenth year from the founding of the City corresponds to the second year of the eighty-fourth Olympiad, and given the age which, as is known, Herodotus had at the commencement of the Peloponnesian War (fifty-three years), it is easily deduced that he was already forty years old at that time. Therefore, Simson places the reading at Olympia, if it took place, in the first year or during the celebration of the games of the eighty-fifth Olympiad. This calculation, however, is impugned by Dodwell in his *Apparatus to the Annals of Thucydides*, sec. 18, who agrees neither with Simson nor with Eusebius in his *Chronicle*; in his footsteps followed the president Bouhier in his *Dissertation on Herodotus*, and Wesseling in the Preface to his edition. It is objected that Thucydides, still a boy (ἔτι παῖς), attended the reading of Herodotus’s history which took place at Olympia. C The first author to speak of this reading is Lucian, in the work entitled *Herodotus*; but he is silent regarding Thucydides. Marcellinus was the first to report this circumstance in his *Life* of that historian, but he indicated neither the age nor the place; indeed, he reports this as an uncertain matter: "It is said that once, when Herodotus was displaying his own histories, Thucydides being present at the hearing and having listened, wept." Eusebius, in his *Chronicle*, is entirely ignorant of what is attributed to Thucydides; he asserts that Herodotus read his history at Athens during the eighty-third Olympiad. Photius follows him, adding that Thucydides, being very young, attended this reading (*Bibliotheca*, cod. 60): "It is said that when the history was being read to him, Thucydides, being very young, heard it at the house of his father and wept." According to Photius, therefore, the event took place at the house of Olorus. Suidas alone connects the childhood of Thucydides with the Olympic declamation: "Being still a boy, Herodotus was going through his histories which he had written at Olympia, and moved by a certain enthusiasm, he became full of tears." D Influenced by this lone author, Dodwell was led to relate this event to the celebration of the games of the eighty-first Olympiad, when Thucydides would have been fifteen years old, thus contradicting both Pliny and Eusebius. If, however, one considers the time that Herodotus must have spent on his travels in order to devote himself to letters and the commerce from which he had to learn the diverse dialects of the regions he traversed; if we also consider that he had many conversations with all the learned men of the greater part of the world, from Scythia to the borders of Ethiopia, from the Euphrates to Great Greece, it will be difficult to understand how such a history could have been perfected by Herodotus at the twenty-seventh year of his age, as Dodwell contends; for, since he was born in the second year of the seventy-fourth Olympiad, Herodotus would have been only twenty-seven years old in the first year of the eighty-first Olympiad. Be that as it may, and even if these anecdotes had to be accepted in their entirety, it would have to be admitted, with President Bouhier, that this concerns the most trifling part of his history—that is, this part which pertains to Persia and Egypt; and that he made the reading of this part at Olympia; [and that] the remaining parts were composed and reformed at Thurii; furthermore, it escapes no one that these ἐπιδείξεις, or solemn lectures before the whole populace, could not have been a book as sprawling as the nine Muses of Herodotus: which no heart could tolerate, nor attention sustain, nor sufficient interruption in the stadium games permit. He therefore declaimed one or two outstanding parts, as is done in the present day; whence I conclude that his history was published only when he had reached forty-five years; Hellanicus was then fifty-seven. Moreover, with matters thus placed, we must follow Mr. Creuzer, who in his work *On the Historical Art of the Greeks* contends that Hellanicus, although more advanced in age than Herodotus, nevertheless published nothing before this historian. Against this opinion, which is otherwise repugnant, Dionysius of Halicarnassus rises up. For we know from this author that many private histories were written, both in poetic and in prose style, and brought to light: "He wrote many things both in prose and in poetry." On one hand, we know of his previously cited *Phoronis*; *Asopis*, mentioned by Marcellinus, who wrote the history of Thucydides; *Deucalionid*, of which Athenaeus speaks (bk. X, 4), and Clement of Alexandria (*Strom.* VI, p. 752); *Atthis*, reported by Suidas at these words: "Monychus or Stephanephorus," [referred to] by Thucydides (bk. I, § 99) and by Harpocration (s.v. *Alópŋ*); his histories opposed to the *Phoronis* are mentioned by Athenaeus (bk. IX in fine): "Hellanicus in his histories says he is called Archias, but in the second [book] of the *Phoronis* he calls him Cherias." His work, which goes by the name *Trojica*, is attributed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (*Antiquities* I, p. 120): "The most credible account used by the ancient writers is that of Hellanicus in the *Trojica*." In the shipwreck of the writings of Hellanicus of Lesbos, the titles of the written works cannot easily be distinguished from the titles of the works which were written by his homonym; but the matter seems to me incredible, that he is truly the parent of all the books that are attributed to him. 1° Theft committed in the writings of Herodotus shows a writer later than the author himself; 2° it should be noted that sometimes Dionysius, and once Tzetzes (on Lycophron, v. 1374), accurately call him *the Lesbian*, whence it is clear that they themselves wished to distinguish him from another Hellanicus. Nor do they call Thucydides *the Athenian* or Herodotus *the Halicarnassian*, because no other person, known by the same name, wrote history. Whence I cannot doubt that the *Barbarica* or *Customs of the Nations*, which are variously indicated under these names: *Ktiseis*, *Cypriaca*, *Lesbiaca*, *Persica*, *Scythica*, *Phoenician*, are those of the second Hellanicus. But who will be that Hellanicus? Suidas names a certain Hellanicus, a grammarian, at these words: "Andocides or Ptolemaeus, whose surname is Epithetas, because he followed Aristarchus, but had heard Hellanicus the grammarian; he [heard] Agathocles; he [heard] Zenodotus of Ephesus." Ought we to confuse this Hellanicus with the grammarian whom the Homeric scholiast (Venetus 1, page one of the Preface, edited by Bekker) cites, where he contends that the *Odyssey* was not written by Homer; 2° at v. 269 of the fifth book of the *Iliad*; 3° at v. 651 of the fifteenth book; 4° at v. 90 of the nineteenth book? Is this grammarian the same as our Milesian historian? I cannot resolve this dispute; but let it be allowed me again to contend that Herodotus neither learned the way to write history from a grammarian who only compiled *Barbaric Customs*, nor did he recline at table with him at the court of the King of Macedon. I know that in his long age Mr. Creuzer can in some way shore up his own inventions, since Lucian himself, in his work *Macrobii*, testifies that he lived for a very long time. But later...
Mr. Creuzer and Mr. Dodwell show they are working for us more rapidly than Herodotus. What remains for me to say about Damastes will confirm my opinion regarding Hellanicus.
Damastes is cited less often than Hellanicus; no part of his works has been handed down to us. Nevertheless, Dionysius of Halicarnassus instructs us, in the passage where he judges Thucydides (vol. VI, p. 818), that he preceded Herodotus in writing history. But the things that Suidas says about Damastes seem to me to bring the dispute to an end: *Having been born before the Peloponnesian [wars], a contemporary of Herodotus..., and he became a disciple of Hellanicus.* In truth, if he had been a disciple of Hellanicus of Lesbos, how could he have been compiled by that same Hellanicus? But look, Damastes himself is named for the same thing by Agathomerus, lib. 1, cap. 1, *De geographia*: *Damastes of Sigeum, having transcribed most things from Hecataeus, wrote a "Periplus."* This *Periplus*, which is attributed to Damastes by Agathomerus, seems to me to be nothing other than the work of which Suidas makes mention under this title: *A Catalogue of Nations and Cities*. Furthermore, if he was compiled by some Hellanicus, he certainly did not exist as a thief, being a teacher and a predecessor. Thus opines Valckenaer, who, at book IV of Herodotus, ch. 190, mentioning the theft which was discussed at the beginning of this note, introduces Hellanicus of Miletus as having existed as the sole thief. Strabo, lib. 1, p. 47, rebukes Damastes as if he were guilty of falsehood.
Here it occurs to me to say why I have written *Adamastou* instead of *Damasou*, as Eusebius desires. This adulterated name was first restored by Meursius in his *Bibliotheca Graeca*, and [has been used] by all learned men thereafter who cited this passage. But if Vigerus had brought his *Observationes* to light, he would undoubtedly have taken care to amend the adulteration. Harles, in reviewing authors in his *Bibliotheca*, omitted Holstenius in his *Index of writers cited by Stephanus Byzantinus*; the passage which Rickius did not edit with notes on Stephanus Byzantinus is found (vol. II, p. 118) in the work titled: *Miscellaneae observationes criticae novae*. The index which Harles provides of the ancient writers among whom Damastes is cited is likewise imperfect. The aforesaid index would most easily be augmented if it were joined to the index which the *Bibliotheca Graeca* of Meursius contains.
The commentary of the lord de Bougainville (see *Collect. Academ. humaniorum litterarum*, vol. XXIX), in which he treats the first writers of Greek history, has been of no use to me in *discerning the age of these historians*, nor have I been more fortunate in using it to learn the number and titles of the works. That commentary seems to me of little weight.
Col. 776 C 1. Hecataeus of Miletus, the first among the writers of Greek history, cited by Herodotus, b. v, 35, with this epithet *logopoios*, which sounded like "historian," composed a work under the following title: *A Circuit of the Earth*, which Athenaeus mentions at the end of book II in the work *Deipnosophistae*: *If it is a genuine book of the author.* I am completely ignorant of the cause of this doubt. The same Athenaeus, lib. x, p. 447 C: *Hecataeus in the second [book] of the Circuit.* The same work, in as much as the matter relates to Asia, is found in the same author, ix, 410: *Hecataeus declares, or he who wrote the circuits in the work entitled "Asia."* Since Mr. Creuzer has edited the historical [fragments] of Hecataeus in *Fragmentis veterum historicorum*, Heidelberg, 1816, there exist whatever things can shed light upon the aforesaid author.
Ibid. 6. The discourse of Isaeus is falsely indicated. He wishes to say *the succession of Ciron*, and not *of Cylon*, *[the inheritance of Ciron]*, which, in the Reiske edition, vol. VII, p. 192, contains the said passage, which Demosthenes took word for word, p. 874: *You therefore consider the torture to be the most accurate test both in private and public matters; and whenever slaves and free men are present, and it is necessary to find out any of the things sought, you do not use the testimonies of the free, but by torturing the slaves, thus you seek to find the truth of what happened. With reason, oh judges, for you know that some of those who have already testified seemed not to testify to the truth, but none of those who were tortured were ever shown to have said what was not true as a result of the tortures. But this fellow, etc.* Which passage, I say, revives at the end of the oration of Demosthenes *Against Onetor*, vol. II, p. 874. However, we will admit that we read in the argument which precedes the second [oration] that these two orations were composed by Isaeus. *By many*, he says, *these two orations are reputed to be Isaeus's, due to the tender age of the orator; others say they were only amended by Isaeus: for many things are common to these and the discourses of Isaeus. Nevertheless, it is no wonder, in our sense, that a disciple imitated his master, especially when he himself had not yet, due to extreme youth, created a style of his own.* B He follows Isocrates at a slower pace. Behold his words, at the end of the *Trapeziticus*: *I see that even you, regarding both private and public matters, consider nothing more trustworthy nor more true than torture, and while you consider witnesses [to be things that] even it is possible to procure for things that never happened, the tortures clearly show which of the two speak the truth.*
Ibid. 10. Dinarchus: *On the first [speech] against Cleomedon, of assault.* The oration of Dinarchus against Cleomedon, regarding the assault, is referred to in his *Life*, written by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, of which this is the beginning: *"The man, oh judges, and his father Theodorus, indeed..."* is held to be authentic. In the third paragraph of this document, Dionysius of Halicarnassus likewise acknowledges the *Demosthenic character, which he greatly imitated; one might be able to say much more, as also in that "Against Polyeuctus," for he introduces it similarly to that one, and through the whole speech he has remained similar.*
Actions called *aikias*, which in Latin I called *saevitias* (assaults), were private actions, as this is proven by the oration *Against Conon*, named here, and others were different from the actions *hubreōs* (of insolence), which were public and subject to corporal punishments. If you wish to read what relates to this type of conflict, besides Harpocration, you must consult Samuel Petit, in *Legibus Atticis*; Salmasius, *De modo usurarum*, c. 17; the same, *Observ. ad jus Atticum et Romanum*, c. 7, 8, 9; and among all, Hérault, *Animadversiones in Salmasii observ.*, p. 145 et seq.
Ibid. D 1. The verses of Hesiod brought forward here are found in the poem of *Works and Days*, v. 702. The theft perpetrated by Simonides was long ago pointed out by Clement of Alexandria, lib. vi of the *Stromata*, p. 744.
Col. 777 A 12. This verse of Euripides, which Theodectus imitated in his *Alcmeon*, is not found in the doubtful fragments of Euripides edited by Matthiae.
Ibid. B 4. Antimachus of Colophon, whom Porphyry accuses of having compiled Homer, is that poet placed by Hadrian before everyone, and whom this emperor wanted to suffice in place of Homer. Kuster treated this at length in *Suidas*, under the word.
Clement of Alexandria, lib. vi of the *Stromata*, p. 743, brings forward one verse of Antimachus, calling the author *the Teian*. Furthermore, whether Clement or the copyist is wrong, it [is immaterial]. For Antimachus was born in Colophon, and among all those of the same name who Suidas lists, you will find no Teian, nor any who can fully play the parts of Antimachus. The said verse is taken from the *Iliad*, 1, v. 554.
Furthermore, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in recording the ancient orators, at the title concerning Lysias, § 17, confesses that they took whatever they believed would be of use to them from their predecessors, with no one's conscience biting them. *I pass over that everyone, taking even the things said by others, practically does not consider the deed to be a shame.* D Longinus, § 13 of the *Treatise on the Sublime*, encourages us all, far from deterring us, to follow faithfully in the footsteps of exceptional writers: *Some other way besides those mentioned tends toward the sublime: the imitation and emulation of the great writers who came before....*
A For many are inspired by a spirit not their own, in the same way that legend says the Pythia reaches the tripod. It is not theft, but rather an imprint, as it were, of noble characters, or of their ideas, or of their works.
Col. 777 D 4. Lysimachus seems to be the comic poet about whom Lucian speaks (*Judicium de vocalibus*, § 7): "I was entertained by a certain poet, Lysimachus by name, who, although he was clearly a Boeotian, wished to be considered a native of central Attica. Yet he could not deceive me, because he used the letter *tau* more than was proper."
Ibid. 5. This Alcæus, of whom it is said that he wrote epigrams and satyric iambics, is certainly the same as the Alcæus whose twenty-two epigrams are preserved in the *Anthology*, and who usually published verses against the king of Macedon, Philip, the father of Perseus. To whom the king replied with this biting couplet: "On this ridge of the mountain, wayfarer, you see the cross of the man stripped of leaves and bark, sun-scorched, which was erected for Alcæus." See Plutarch, *In Vita Titi Flaminii*, § 9.
Col. 780 A 11. This work of Protagoras perhaps should be conflated with the other one already cited in the *Theatetus*, under this name *Aletheia* (Truth), in which Protagoras said that man is the measure of all things: *Panton metron anthropos*.
Ibid. C 15. *Eugnomoni*, 466.
Col. 781 B 10. *Dododaios*. Viger suggests reading *Didymeus*, so that one god does not take the place of another, nor is the *semnos* (the august one) attributed to two subjects, Apollo and Jupiter.
Ibid. Amphiaraus and Amphilochus frequently appear joined together in the accounts of oracles. Aristides, vol. I, p. 82 of Canter: "For Amphiaraus and Trophonius in Boeotia, and Amphilochus in Aetolia, provide oracles and appear." Philostratus, in the *Heroicus*, p. 60 of Boissonade: "Surely you will do wrong, stranger, if you disbelieve in Amphiaraus, whom the earth is said to hold in a wise shrine, and his son Amphilochus, who is perhaps better known to me, since I am not far from the Cilician mainland." Boissonade, in his notes, refers the reader who is eager to learn about Amphiaraus in detail to Barthius on Statius, *Thebaid*, 1, 399; and likewise for Amphilochus, to Wyttenbach on Plutarch, *De sera Numinis vindicta*, p. 93. We have already spoken of these poets in Book VI, chapter 6.
Col. 784 A 10. *Pythagoras*. Porphyry, Iamblichus, Diogenes Laertius, and Proclus, in their *Lives of Pythagoras*, consider him, above all, the son of Mnesarchus the Samian. Porphyry alone provides the testimony of Cleanthes, asserting that Pythagoras was born in Tyre: which Porphyry undoubtedly accepted readily, for he himself was from Tyre. Behold his words: "Cleanthes, in the fifth book of his *Mythica*, says that he—meaning Pythagoras—was a Syrian, from Tyre in Syria." Christian authors, such as Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Theodoret, immediately arrived at this opinion, because in this way a very famous man was restored to regions commonly called barbarian, at the expense of Greece. Only one author is named, Neanthus in Clement, *Stromata*, book I, p. 352, as the first parent of this fable: "Pythagoras was indeed a Samian, son of Mnesarchus, as Aristoxenus says in his *Life of Pythagoras*, and Theopompus; but a Tyrrhenian, as Neanthus says, or a Syrian from Tyre." Theodoret reads Neanthus in the same way in Clement, whom he followed word for word, p. 7 of the Sylburg edition, in his *Therapeutica*. From this it is clear that the reasons upon which those who contend that Pythagoras was born among barbarian peoples rely are of small weight. For these men, who are called Tyrrhenians by Aristoxenus, are the same as the Pelasgians who came from Attica into Italy. But is it Cleanthes or B Neanthus that we ought to write? The question remains entire. Porphyry alone names this Cleanthes, on whose testimony it could be proved that Pythagoras was actually born among the Tyrians; but he is called Neanthus by all others. Cleanthes gained fame from various works cited by Athenæus, book XIII, p. 572, and others, for instance from the book to which this title is given: *Ta Mythika*. But I myself think it should be written: *Neanthus in the fifth book of the Pythagorica*. For he is frequently named as a writer by Diogenes Laertius, in the *Life of Empedocles*, book VIII, § 72, and is considered to have composed the lives of certain Pythagoreans. (See the note of Menagius on the passage of Diogenes Laertius, and Jonsius, *De script. hist. philos.*, II, 4, 3.) But for those who wish to know at what time Pythagoras was born, one must read what Bentley wrote where he treats of the epistles of Phalaris, p. 46 of the English edition.
Ibid. These items are taken from Plato's *Epinomis*, vol. II, p. 986 of the Stephanus edition. Viger, which one would hardly believe, retained *Epimenides*, which Robert Stephanus had written erroneously.
Col. 785 B 1. This entire passage about Democritus is taken from the first *Stromatis* of Clement, p. 357. Brucker, discussing the way in which these words can be understood—*Epet' etea ogdoekonta epi xenes egenomen*—notes very well that Democritus certainly could not have traveled for eighty years, but that he did not end his travels before the eightieth year of his life (*Hist. philos.*, vol. I, p. 1178). Diodorus Siculus testifies, in book I, at the end, that Democritus remained only five years in Egypt. I read *arpedonaptai*, as in Clement, and not *arsetedonaptai*, as in the texts of Eusebius, from some error of the scribe. Potter, in Clement, offers an etymology of *arpedonas* or *grammas haptein*, which is "to study geometry." But see Zoega, *De obeliscis*, sec. IV, cap. 2, § 5, p. 513.
Col. 788 B 6. *Tines ton palaion*. These "some of the ancients" signify Herodotus in *Terpsichore*, c. 28. Clement of Alexandria, however, *Stromata* I, p. 362, provided this passage, with some changes: "Cadmus was a Phoenician, the inventor of letters for the Greeks, as Ephorus says; whence Herodotus writes that letters are called *Phoenikeia*, while others say the Phoenicians and Syrians were the first to devise letters." The things which follow in Clement provided the entire sixth chapter for our author, although some things were changed from the original passage and others were added. But, in my judgment, he maintains a spurious argument who grants the first place in age to Hebrew letters, on account of the meaning included in each one. For no value resides in letters, except that they represent a sound. But if they were to correspond to full ideas, then they cease to be letters, and, having changed their home, they are called hieroglyphs. I will indeed admit, and I think everyone will easily agree on this, that at the beginning of things the form of each letter responded to a peculiar idea; but as the centuries passed, the letters, having cast off their ancient value, were used only for the sounds of words. Moreover, it is not agreed among all who have treated this question concerning the true meaning of letters. For example, Eusebius contends that by the letter *aleph* a likeness of the Hebrew is signified; but Plutarch in his *Symposiaca*, lib. IX, 9, 2, maintains the following opinion: "In the Phoenician tongue," he says, "the letter *alpha* is the name of an ox: whence it precedes all other letters." Whatever it may be, today it has become clear from the writings of recent scholars that both Greek and Latin letters drew their origin from letters that were either Phoenician, or Hebrew, or Syriac, which is one and the same thing. Among these recent scholars, I will first place Joseph Scaliger in his digression on the Ionic letters, which he inserted in his book entitled *Animadversiones in chronologica Eusebii*, p. 110; Bochart, *Chanaan*, lib. I, c. 20, p. 448; Renaudot, *Memoriæ Academiæ Inscriptionum*, vol. III, p. 231, *De Græcarum litterarum origine*.
Col. 789 D 6. Further down, the same Clement Olympus...
Mysium D fuisse tradit, cum dicit: *Ab Olympo Mysio modi Lydii regulæ innotuerunt*. The same origin is granted to him by Suidas in his *Life*. Plutarch, *De Musica*, § 5: "Alexander (the Polyhistor), in his collection concerning Phrygia, said that Olympus was the first to bring musical strains to the Greeks." § 7: "It is said that the aforesaid Olympus, an auletes from Phrygia, composed an auletic *nomos* for Apollo. And they say that this Olympus was one of those from the first Olympus, the Marsyan, who composed the *nomoi* for the gods; for this man, having become the favorite of Marsyas and having learned the playing of the pipe from him, brought the harmonic *nomoi* to Greece."
These passages, taken both from Plutarch and from Clement, are so confused and contradictory that they require explanation and emendation: 1. The name Olympus appears twice in Clement; we read first that he was Phrygian, then that he was Mysian. The explanation for this is found in Plutarch, who introduces two men of the same name, the former born in Mysia, the latter the descendant of the former. But behold, here the former Mysian is now, according to Clement and Suidas, the son of Marsyas, who was both his teacher and lover. "They say that this Olympus was one of those from the first Olympus, the Marsyan; for he, having become the favorite of Marsyas, learned the playing of the pipe from him." To whom is the word *houtos* (this man) to be attributed? If it refers to the former Olympus, he cannot in any way be both the son and lover of Marsyas; wherefore one ought to write *tou Maionos* (of Maeon) instead of *tou Marsyou* (of Marsyas). For his father is called Maeon by Suidas, who, moreover, in the same article seems to have confused two Olympi, although he spoke separately of the Phrygian Olympus: "Olympus the Phrygian, younger, an auletes, who lived in the time of Midas son of Gordius." Who composed the *Nomos*, or hymn to Apollo, as Olympus? Plutarch does not resolve this difficulty, as he only recounts the names of authors who have held diverse opinions. For my part, I could easily believe that the word *houtos* in Plutarch should be attributed to the latter Olympus, who, as a student of Marsyas, lived in the time of Midas, as Suidas attests; while it is clear that the Mysian, from whom the former derived his origin, existed before the time of Midas. Hence, in my judgment, it is the latter Olympus who brought the flute into Greece. In whichever direction you incline, the name *tou Marsyou* must always be changed. Burette neither resolved nor even perceived these clouds in his analysis of Plutarch's dialogue, vol. VIII, p. 80 of the *Memoires de l'Académie*.
Col. 792 A 6. The text reads *en Kypry*, but this is an error; for the Dactyls inhabited Mount Ida on the island of Crete: see Meursius, who gathered together in his *Creta* everything concerning these men. As to how *Dactylus Celmis* should be written—whom Vigerus writes as *Telmis*—he ought to have restored that name in the text by following the poems cited by him from Phoronis by Hellanicus of Lesbos, and to read *Idaion*, not *Ioudaion*.
Ibid. 12. As the name *Itanos* is mutilated, we do not know how it ought to be written. But Potter, in his notes on Clement, p. 363, following Pliny, lib. VI, cap. 20, reads *Tritanon*: "...Tritanus, famous in the gladiatorial games for the equipment of the Samnites, and whose son was a soldier of the great Pompey." Malinerotus proposes *Tuditanus*. See Plutarch in *Flaminius*, § 14: *hoi peri ton Itanou*; Gellius has *Tuditanus*, *Noct. Attic.* VI, 4, XII, 15; Macrobius, *Saturn.* lib. I, cap. 16.
Ibid. B 13. The corrupt reading *Agny* must be changed to *Yany*, which was indicated by Palmerius, *Exercitat.* p. 687, whom see; likewise the note by Potter on this place in Clement, 1 *Stromata*, p. 363. See Plutarch, *De Musica*, p. 1132 of the Louvre edition; Apuleius, *Floridorum*, lib. I, cap. 3.
Col. 793 A 1. This passage of Tatian, which Clement and subsequently Eusebius followed, provided Bentleius with an argument against the authenticity of the Epistles of Phalaris, p. 335 of the English edition. "In whatever way you wish," he says, "take the word *syntassein*; whether it is understood as writing a letter or as gathering and publishing letters, it could never be the case that Phalaris wrote the letters, since Atossa is of a later age." This argument seems to me weak and without force. For it must be believed that men first used writing to report useful things to those who were absent. And there was certainly no other dialogue by letters than those *sēma lygra* (baleful signs) which Proetus gave to Bellerophon to carry to Iobates (*Iliad* VI, v. 168). But it did not occur to anyone to collect letters until human societies had become refined. Here, if I am not mistaken, the matter should be understood as the better method of sending letters, such as is generally used among us now. These were the *anggaroi*, well known to Suidas as "couriers of the succession, who were likewise called *astanoi*." See Brisson, *De regno Persarum*, p. 238 et seq.; Dodwell, in his discourse on the age of Phalaris, and also of Pythagoras.
Ibid. 3. Theophrastus, Eresius, not Ephesius. Clement reads this very well, and this is confirmed by all historians of Greek philosophy, the first of whom is Diogenes Laertius, lib. V, § 36.
Col. 796 A 15. For *dia grammaton* Josephus reads *ek ton asmaton*. Perhaps both readings are admissible.
Ibid. B 8. It was once believed by many that Pherecydes, who was born on the island of Syros, one of the Cyclades, was a "Syrian," because of a certain similarity of the words; but that error has long since been refuted. Nevertheless, the Christian apologetic authors, and above all Eusebius, used this confusion of words; and Josephus seems to have imitated them. If anyone refers to the part of the work written by Sturzius entitled *Commentatio de Pherecyde*, where this question is treated (p. 3), there he will find the names of various authors who said Pherecydes was a Syrian, and whose texts have perhaps allowed this opinion to be admitted.
Col. 800 B 10. Regarding *eikon* and *prosopon*, see in what way these words differ from one another in Paulus Leopardus, *Emend.* lib. V, cap. 8.
Col. 801 B 14. Regarding the origin of the term *hieros logos*, see Iamblichus in the *Life of Pythagoras*, cap. 28, p. 129, who concedes it to Aglaophamus, formerly an inhabitant of the mountains of Thrace.
Col. 804 A 5. Regarding the manner of writing these names, see Paulus Leopardus, *Emendationes*, lib. X, cap. 25.
Col. 806 A 14. I shall by no means bring into the middle all the reasons gathered from various chronologers by which his chronology could be rebutted, nor shall I weigh whether he should be preferred to the others; I will only take care to recall a certain passage of Scaliger (*De emendatione temporum*, p. 537) in which his opinion is refuted: "What is more alien to sacred history than that which is noted in lib. X of the *Praeparatio Evangelica*? ... If the second year of Darius is the seventieth of the desolation of the temple, how could Cyrus have released the captivity?" But on this he follows Africanus. Which is falsely asserted. For Africanus ends 78 years at the first of the fifty-fifth Olympiad, in which year Cyrus held the throne of Babylon.
Ibid. B 12. On this chronological point, read the commentary of Boivinus the elder, entitled: *Restitutio chronologica cujusdam loci Censorini*, in *Memoires de l'Académie Inscript.* tom. II, p. 385.
Ibid. 15. The name of that judge in Holy Scripture (Jud. XII, 13) is Abdon, not Labdon. Why Vigerus did not emend this error, I am entirely unaware.
Col. 807 B 14. Eusebius, on the page taken from Porphyry which you have just read, omitted to say at what time, in the judgment of Porphyry, Semiramis lived. That time is shown in the same cited place, lib. I,
A cap. 9, p. 31 of the *Evangelical Preparation*, where it is read that Semiramis lived either before the Trojan War or in the times of Troy: *Either before the Ilian times or in those very times, she is recorded to have been.* Because Eusebius suppressed the end of the cited passage, he certainly wished to arrogate to himself the power of concluding as he pleased. We are soon to show that the consequence deduced by him was false. He erred, however, because he mixed two chronologies that are in every respect at variance with each other. Furthermore, without the place cited in Book 1 of the *Evangelical Preparation*, it would not have fallen to our lot to uncover the error of the latter cited locus; and by acting thus, Eusebius seems to me to have been the more reprehensible, in that nothing can be asserted more firmly than the fact that Moses surpassed all the wise men and philosophers of Greece in age. But let us now provide the arguments.
Two completely contradictory chronologies exist regarding the times of Semiramis, the queen of the Assyrians; one, which seems to be attributed to Ctesias, and which Eusebius followed—as the matter is evident from the beginning of this chapter, and will be better evident from the fragments of those *Chronic Canons* which we are about to bring forward—makes Semiramis contemporary with Abraham; the other, to which Herodotus adheres, counts only five generations between Semiramis and Nitocris (lib. 1, cap. 184). This corresponds perfectly with the short span of 520 years by which the same historian wrote the Assyrian empire lasted. Philo of Byblos, who translated Sanchuniathon into the Greek tongue, as well as Porphyry himself, adhered to this latter chronology. This you will read as proven in Stephanus of Byzantium, at the word *Babylon*, and in Eustathius, in his Commentary on Dionysius Periegetes, v. 1005: both assign a place to Semiramis at about the time when Troy was captured, two thousand years, according to Philo, after the founding of Babylon.
Whether homonymy was the cause of this dispute or not, I shall not undertake to judge; I shall at least confess that Eusebius, in the chapter I am now holding in my hand, used contradictory testimonies with a dishonest conscience. Eusebius makes Porphyry's words his own, by which it is evident that Moses was a predecessor of Sanchuniathon—by how much time I do not know—and gradually he arrives at making them contemporaries. Then, from the fact that the same Porphyry said Sanchuniathon was contemporary with Semiramis, Eusebius infers that Moses also lived in the times of that queen; finally, by a sudden return to his peculiar chronology, bringing Semiramis back, and joining four periods into one, he asserts that Semiramis, Abraham, Moses, and Sanchuniathon were contemporaries, and wishes for that to have been Porphyry's opinion. Therefore, with these premises, he who wrote the history of the patriarchs, and of the captivity of the Jews in Egypt, and who led this people through the desert, would have lived at the same time as the founder of that nation! Which is absurd, and certainly not the fault of Porphyry. For Porphyry never devised any such thing; furthermore, Eusebius could not act with sincere faith while ascribing this opinion to Porphyry. For if he had believed it, he ought to have refuted such a great error, as he did in his *Chronic Canons*, let alone use it as an insurmountable argument. Porphyry never believed Semiramis was contemporary with Abraham, since he assigns a place to this queen in the Trojan times. Furthermore, the times of Abraham and of Troy are too well known to each and every one, and they are too distant from each other, for them to be mixed. As I said again, Eusebius could not, without laughter, attribute such an error to Porphyry: namely, if the case were otherwise, 1st, Eusebius would have taken the pains not to omit the end of the cited text, where the doctrine of Porphyry is contained most openly; 2nd, he would have refuted the error to the extent that he did in his own Canons. And, far from using Porphyry’s name to defend his own opinion, it was truly his duty to prove what he asserted against him (p. 484), namely that Abraham was 505 years distant from Moses: *Going up again from Moses to the first year of the life of Abraham, you will find 505 years.* We divide that time below thus: In the 75th year Abraham was born, when he set out from Charrhan; indeed, he was already 100 years old when Isaac was born... We read in Genesis that Isaac was 60 years old when Jacob was born, whence add 60. Jacob dwelt in his father's house for 77 years, that is, until he would set out for Mesopotamia, whence add 77. From this time to the time when he set out into Egypt, there passed 53 years. He was 150 years old when he entered into Egypt, whence the sum is gathered to be 215.
There is no agreement among authors regarding the time the Hebrews stayed in Egypt. Saint Paul the apostle, writing to the Galatians (III, 17), counts 430 years from the call of Abraham to the law given on Mount Sinai. Exodus (XII, 40) assigns a space of 430 years to the sojourn in Egypt alone.
Some have attempted to bring a reason for this difference by ascribing to the computation which is read in Exodus various wanderings of Abraham in Egypt. Whatever that may be, Eusebius, in his Canons, followed the opinion of the Apostle: *The first year of the promise of God to Abraham to the 60th year of that same Abraham to Moses, and the journey of the Hebrew nation out of Egypt, happens to be 430, which Paul mentions while writing to the Galatians.* (Eusebius, *Chron. paschal.*, p. 51 and 52.) Dwelling on which basis, we shall have 215 years when it came to Egypt, whence the sojourn in Egypt also 215, whence the sum is gathered: 430. To which, adding the age Abraham had when he left Charrhan, namely 75 years, you will have 505 years between the birth of Abraham and the vocation of Moses.
I have already said that the error of time, which Porphyry had admitted, was refuted by Eusebius in his *Chronic Canons*; so far indeed is he from confounding the times of Moses with the times of Abraham, that he deserts the opinion of the preceding chroniclers—for example, Clement of Alexandria, Africanus, and Tatian, who all place the birth of Moses in the times of Inachus, the first king of Argos—so as to reduce the birth to the times of Cecrops, that is, 250 years after Inachus. We render this fragment, which we must value highly, taken from Syncellus, p. 65 and 66 of the Louvre edition, into Latin below.
Eusebius, in the preface of his Canon, expounds his opinion in this way: "Moses, a Hebrew by nation, who was the first among the Hebrew prophets to edit in the Sacred Scripture oracles concerning the Savior, that is, Christ, and the knowledge of God which he had been ordered to teach to all nations, flourished in the times of Inachus, according to the testimony of men of extraordinary erudition, e.g., Clement, Africanus, and Tatian among our own; Josephus and Justus among the Hebrews; each of whom brings forth the reasons in what way he gathered them from the ancient histories: in that sense, they contend that Inachus existed 700 years before the Trojan War. One among the Greek philosophers, and specifically he who in the fourth book of his work has labored in vain, having aggressively attempted to plow this ground with such care, says that Moses existed before the times of Semiramis; furthermore, Semiramis reigned over the Assyrians 150 years before Inachus, whence it would be permissible to conclude that Moses existed 850 years before the times of Troy. I, truly, who value nothing so much as that I may be able to state what I have deemed to be the truth, have greatly studied so that in the aforementioned opinions I might distinguish the true from the false.
Wherefore, in the work which I wrote before this book, I gathered into one the matter of the present labor, collecting the chronologies of various nations as numerously as I could—namely, those of the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Lydians, Hebrews, Egyptians, Athenians, Argives, Sicyonians, Lacedaemonians, Corinthians, Thessalians, Macedonians, and Latins, who were afterward called Romans; in a word, of fifteen nations. Writing the present book, and having gathered all these chronicles into one, I composed a Chronological Canon, wherein times are compared with times, so that every nation can see its own years alongside those of its neighbor. But since I found that the computations of time among the Hebrews differ more or less among themselves, I have nonetheless arranged them in the following manner. Under Inachus, whom the Greeks claim to have been the first king in Argolis, I recognized as a contemporary to this prince the patriarch Israel, who was deemed worthy to be the one from whom the twelve tribes of the Jewish nation, of which he was the progenitor, might take their name. Under the times of Semiramis, I found Abraham, a Chaldean by race and, furthermore, beloved of God. As for Moses, who is considered the first of the prophets among the Hebrews, I will confess indeed, lest I lie, that he seemed to me much more recent than all of these, even though he preceded every one of those held most ancient in the estimation of the Greeks—for example, Homer and Hesiod, and the very times of the Trojan War, the Dioscuri, Aesculapius, Bacchus, all the heroes, Mercury and Apollo, and the other gods whom the Greeks worshipped; even though he were of an age more ancient than either the origin of the mysteries or the very deeds which the Greeks ascribe to Jove: for all the descendants of the Greeks testify that the histories regarding themselves are more recent than Cecrops. Furthermore, to me, inquiring with the greatest care about the age of Moses, it became most clearly known that he lived in the times of Cecrops, called Diphyes, whom they assert to have reigned first in Attica, about 350 years before the events of the Trojan War.
Col. 809 C 6. At the end of the annotations of this book, these chronological ambiguities are again resumed, by which it may be discerned to whom Moses was contemporary, whether to Inachus or to Cecrops, who are separated by the lives of seven kings.
Col. 812 A 1. Many critics have explained the use of the word ὁμοῦ with a collective adjective. See among them all, Boissonade in Philostratus’ *Heroicus*, p. 277; but in the numerous examples of this locution which have been brought forward both by him and others, I find none in which the article precedes the word πάντες as it does here: furthermore, one must beware lest it be deleted, since the participle συναγαγόντες, which holds the place of a substantive here, stands in need of it. Therefore these words, πάντες and ὁμοῦ, must by no means be joined; rather, ὁμοῦ must be conceded to the word συναγαγόντες. The word ὁμοῦ is more frequently used in an opposite sense, because I have found it necessary to bring many examples of this locution into the middle. I will cite Sophocles, *Oedipus Tyrannus*, at the beginning: “The city is at once loaded with incense, And at once with paeans and lamentations.” Ibid. C 2. *Synechronisen* 466, 67, 68.
Col. 813 B 2. This passage of Africanus, to the very end of the chapter, is read in Syncellus, p. 63, restoring those things which Eusebius had omitted. Ibid. C 14. Vigerus restored the passage in his notes. Ibid. D 1. One ought to read τὴν πρώτην Ὀλυμπιάδα, and not ἐπὶ τῆς πρώτης Ὀλυμπιάδος.
Col. 816 A 11. Apion, Plistonices, is more well-known than as the name Posidonius, by which the father of his was called in our author, so I should not have deleted it. This is an Alexandrian grammarian, most hostile to the Jews, who was in charge of the embassy which pagan citizens of Alexandria sent to Gaius Caesar, that they might complain about the Hellenistic Jews. Philo, their ambassador, narrates this. (See Josephus, *Antiq. Jud.* book XVIII, chap. 9; likewise his two books *Against Apion*.) That Apion, in the judgment of Pliny, was a ridiculous man ( *Hist. nat.* pref.): "Apion, indeed, the grammarian—this man whom Tiberius Caesar used to call the cymbal of the world, although he could seem rather to be the drum of his own fame." The same Pliny, book XXXVII, chap. 19, calls him by his paternal name, according to a usage very frequent among the Latins: "Apion, surnamed Plistonices, left behind a writing..." in which he is followed by Pliny; Aulus Gellius, *Attic Nights* book V, chap. 14: "Apion, who was called Plistonices"; book VI, chap. 8: "Apion, a Greek man who was called Plistonices." He had written a history of Egypt under the name *Aegyptiaca*, the testimony of which is cited below: "Apion the grammarian in the fourth book of the *Aegyptiaca*." Clement of Alexandria, in *Stromata* I, p. 378, cites chap. 12 of this book of Eusebius, and following Tatian, restores to him his surname: "Apion, then, the grammarian who was called Plistonices, in the fourth book of the *Aegyptiaca*"; Suidas, at his life, names him "the son of Plistonices." Regarding this use by the Romans of transferring the names of fathers to sons, and giving two names to the same person, with the father’s being omitted, the example is noted here as approved by us, both from Plutarch and from Cicero, who, speaking of Apollonius Molon, write now "Apollonius Molon," now simply "Molon." Josephus *Against Apion* cites him II, 14, and passim under the name Molon; nevertheless, the Homeric scholiast in the Venice manuscript *Iliad* I, v. 5, or rather Porphyry, calls this one "Apollonius the son of Molon." Herodes Atticus, so called by Aulus Gellius (*Attic Nights* I, 2), was the son of Atticus: see his life in the *Sophists* of Philostratus, book II, chap. 1, and the note of Olearius.
Ibid. B 2. Amosis, whom Herodotus calls Amasis everywhere toward the end of the second and beginning of the third book, has nothing in those things which he relates about him that pertains to the Jews; furthermore, since his narrative appears nowhere to be interrupted, it must be thought that either Africanus read him badly and confused him with another historian, or he thought he had played a trick on his readers. Ibid. B 8. "Wherefore the discrepancy of the times is not even particularly significant." *En pleon* ought to be translated into Latin as *fere* (à peu près). See the examples brought forward by Leopardus, *Emendationes*, I, iv, 19.
Ibid. C 5. "Therefore, of the one thousand and twenty years, those up to the first Olympiad, from Moses and Ogygus being set forth..." I read *ekcheomenon*, years having elapsed.
Ibid. D 1. *Trikareno*. What does the *Tricarenus* of Theopompus mean? The word is without doubt corrupt. No author attributes this title to the work of Theopompus, and its meaning is not clear. In the first book *Against Apion*, § 24, Josephus cites as a history belonging to Theopompus, though undeservedly, under the title *Tripolitico*: Perhaps one should read *en to Tripolitiko Theopompos*, or *en te Triskaidekate*, with *biblio* understood, forming the thirteenth of his great Philippine history, which consisted of sixty-seven books. Whatever that may be, *en to Trikareno* is to be deleted.
Col. 817 B 6. Theagenes of Rhegium is one of the first authors who interpreted the poems of Homer allegorically. Thus the Venetian scholiast speaks of him on verse 67 of *Iliad* Y: "This mode of allegory, being very ancient and from Theagenes of Rhegium, who first wrote about Homer." "This mode of explanation is the most ancient, inasmuch as it draws its origin from Theagenes of Rhegium, who first wrote about Homer." See Jonsius, *De script. hist. philosoph.*, book I, chap. 5.
Ibid. 7. Stesimbrotus is cited three times in the same scholiast, namely: *Iliad* A 635, O 193, 76; in the great *Etymologicum*, p. 277 and p. 465: "In the *On the Gods*." He was contemporary to Xenophon, and practiced the art of the Homerists. Socrates says this about him when he was an interlocutor at the banquet, chap. 3, § 6: "With Stesimbrotus and Anaximander and many others."
you have spent much money, so that nothing of those things worth much has escaped your notice,"—that is, you have paid much money to Stesimbrotus and Anaximander and others so that nothing of the things worthy of being remembered should perish by oblivion.
Col. 817 B7. I have restored *Antimachus* for *Callimachus*; this man was a Cyrenaean. "Antimachus, indeed, the Colophonian; a poet of no little renown, whom Hadrian preferred to Homer." See what Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Quintilian think of him in Upton's note to the treatise *On the Composition of Words*, page 301 of the Schaeffer edition; however, in the text of Tatian as printed, *Antimachus* is read.
Ibid. 11. *Chamaeleon*. Clement of Alexandria, *Strom.* 1, p. 422: "Chamaeleon the Heracleote in his *On Drunkenness*." And p. 351: "Chamaeleon in his *On Gods*." See him in Jonsius, *De script. hist. philosoph.*, b. 1, c. 17, § 2.
Col. 820 A 4. *Archippus* or *Arxippus*, for there are different ways of writing it: in Tatian, it is read *Archippus*, in Eusebius *Arxippus*. This latter reading is cited in Proclus Diadochus on Hesiod: "This Arxippus was the son of Acastus, having ruled the Athenians for... years"; it is certain: he is the third hereditary and perpetual archon, the son and successor of Acastus. Eusebius, in the *Chronicle*, where he reads *Arxippus*, sets him in the year of the world 4090, following Philochorus, who declares that he lived 180 years after Troy was captured.
Ibid. B 5. *To declare the opinions concerning the discourses to be false*. These somewhat obscure words can be understood from those things which are read toward the end of the same fragment, page 496, in the first line of Viger’s edition: "Concerning the treatment of the times of each discourse, I have inscribed them with all possible accuracy for you." And: "Thus, concerning the studies of individuals in any field whatsoever, and concerning the very reckoning of the times, we have discoursed, if I am not mistaken, as accurately as could be done."
Col. 821 A 5. *Seleucus*. See Marsham in *Canon chronicus*, page 504 of the German edition. He notes that there are either 56 or 61 years between Alexander and Antiochus, just as Antiochus is considered the third after Alexander, and the immediate successor of Seleucus, or the third successor of that same Seleucus.
Ibid. 4. *Asitos*. Laetus, whose name is deformed there as *Asitos* (*Chaitos*) in Tatian, has been restored by all critics where there was a place for speaking of him, according to Clement of Alexandria, *Strom.* 1, page 387. See Potter on these words and the critics he praises.
Ibid. D 1. Indeed, there are only nineteen if one counts the first Inachus and the last, Agamemnon.
Col. 824 A 10. This number of 400 years seems false. It should be read as 700 years from the fragment contained in Syncellus, page 66 of the Paris edition: "Tatian, having promised the proof from ancient history, set Inachus to be 700 years antecedent to the Trojan events." Let us prove this: Tatian counts 20 generations of 30 years between Inachus and the captured Troy: 600. He gives 408 years from captured Troy to the first Olympiad: 408. Sum: 1,008. From Ogyges to the first Olympiad, he counts 1,020. Subtracting the time from captured Troy to the first Olympiad: 408. We have: 612. Let us add the 70 years from Ogyges (who lived under Phoroneus, according to Acusilaus) to Inachus: 70. You have: 682.
Tatian says below that the Olympiads are 407 years more recent than the Trojan War: to reach the 1,020 mentioned above, 613 years are required, corresponding to the twenty generations from Inachus to Agamemnon.
Col. 825 A 3. From Tatian, I have emended the name of the poem of Aristaeus of Proconnesus, *Arimaspea* instead of *Drimaspea*. Viger preceded me. See Vossius’s *Historici Graeci*, book 1, cap. 2; Aristaeus is later than Homer, since he lived in the fiftieth Olympiad.
Ibid. 4. Concerning Eucletus the Cyprian, see Pausanias, in the *Phocics*, book x, cap. 12, page 828, and cap. 24, page 858; he was held to be a prophet, a *chresmologos*, and had predicted the birth and lot of Homer.
Ibid. 5. *Protainidou*. I read *Promantidou*, following the correction proposed by Vossius in the book *De hist. Graecis*, book 1, cap. 2, and by Huet in the margin of his own copy, preserved in the Royal library.
Col. 828 A 6. *Cassianus*. This Cassianus seems to be the same as Julius Cassianus, the leader of the Docetic heresy, who denied that Christ had assumed a body. See Clement, in the third *Strom.*, page 552.
Ibid. B 11. *In the times*. Concerning the book of *Chronicles* of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, all who have reviewed his works are silent: Vossius, Harlesius, and Schoellus. Mention of this exists nowhere else than in this passage of Clement of Alexandria. Boivin the elder wrote a dissertation in the *Memoirs of the Academy*, vol. II, page 519; he was the first to remove the error of the interpreters, who translated it thus: "That the Argolic matters are reported to be older than the Greek." It should have been written "Hellenic"; for certainly the Argolic kingdom preceded the kingdom founded by Hellen; in which he is entirely correct. In his second commentary, on page 373 of the same volume, he attempts to restore this book from those things which are known about the chronology of Dionysius, scattered in his other works: an ambitious plan, certainly, and however much care he may have brought to this, I confess that I cannot but have doubts, although there exists a verisimilitude in the synchronisms taken from other works of Dionysius, and the foundation is not lacking for the supposition by which he contends that Dionysius admitted the chronological *Canon* of Eratosthenes.
Ibid. 13. *Cecrops*. This Cecrops owes his surname *Diphues* (double-natured) to a double origin which tradition attributes to him: Egyptian, from which he led a colony into Attica and the Autochthonia; or, as Charax says, cited by Eustathius in *Iliad* Σ, page 1156 of the Roman edition, because he was the first to introduce the matrimonial union among the still savage Athenians. "For Charax says that marriages and hymeneals were first introduced in Athens by Cecrops, whence also Cecrops is called double-natured."
Ibid. C 5. This number of 400 years for twenty generations would represent only 20 years for each generation, to which 30 are usually attributed.
Col. 829 A 4. The citation of Timaeus the Platonist in Clement is followed by a long fragment taken from Tatian, his name being passed over in silence; Clement's theft is more manifest there because Eusebius in the preceding chapter already reproduced it, so that the comparison is very easy. Ibid. In Clement there is a serious error, which is found in Eusebius; which proves that it existed long ago: "The return from Crete to Phoenicia." Nevertheless, Tatian, from whom all these things are taken, had avoided it, and Eusebius faithfully transcribed him on page 494: which proves that these long citations were not written by Eusebius, but by ignorant transcribers, whom he taught where they should begin and end; the manuscript codices provide no variety of readings. See Viger’s note to the passage.
Ibid. B 8. That it is not certain which king was reigning in Athens when Troy was captured, whether it was Demophoon, son of Theseus, or Menestheus, son of Peteos, grandson of Erechtheus, was caused by the disturbances which at that time restored the crown to the grandsons of Aegeus, which Pan-
- A dionidae had usurped. Towards the end of the reign of Menestheus, therefore, in the beginning of Demophon’s, this occurred.
Col. 829 B 9. *Athenae*. Here Tatian ends, and Clement continues. Ibid. 10. *Dionysius the Argive*. Valckenaer proposes Dinias instead of Dionysius, regarding the *Phoenissae*, p. 599. Ibid. 11. *Agis and Cercylus*. These two names are joined with a change of orthography in both, according to Athenaeus, lib. III, cap. x, p. 87: *Agias and Dercyllus in the Argolica*. *Aigias* is read in Clement. Is this the same as the Agis named by Quintus Curtius among the flatterers of Alexander? (lib. VIII, cap. 4): *A certain Argive Agis, founder of the vilest poems after Choerilus*. Similarly, he is cited by Arrian, in the *Expedition of Alexander*, lib. IV, cap. 9, as a base flatterer: *And actually of the sophists about him, Anaxarchus and the Argive Agis, the maker of epics*. From these two citations, one might believe Agis to be the true name of this poet: as regards Dercylus, with an A, his name should not be written with a K. Valckenaer, in the *Phoenissae* of Euripides, p. 396, calls into question the necessity of the double lambda. Ibid. 15. *Fading moon*. Behold a contradiction: if the moon was full when Troy was taken, it could not be *on the eighth of the waning month*, that is, in the last part, six days before the new moon. Moreover, the argument which Clement produces by citing a verse of the lesser *Iliad* seems to demonstrate that the moon was not full when it rose at midnight. See Scaliger, *De emendatione temporum*, p. 37, and Petavius, *Doctrina temporum*, lib. IX, cap. 31. Ibid. C 4. *20 years*. Behold also numbers which can in no way be true; 604 years between Moses and Perseus. After Perseus, the fifteenth king of Argos, you have none save Eurystheus, Pelops, Atreus, Thyestes, and Agamemnon on the Argive throne. Pelops reigned 59 years, Atreus and Thyestes 65, Agamemnon up to the fall of Troy, 18; which makes 142 years from Perseus to the fall of Troy; which ought to have been 746 years before Moses. Africanus, Tatian, and Clement place Moses 400 years before that event, even though they make him contemporary with Inachus. Eusebius, placing him in the age of Cecrops, follows Clement, therefore there can only be 250 or 260 years between Moses and Perseus. I do not doubt that an error existed regarding the numbers. Col. 832 A 1. *The kingdom of Hercules in Argos* is a false expression, since Eurystheus, king of Argolis, who imposed the 12 labors on Hercules, survived him and subsequently perished in the war which he brought against the Heraclidae, the grandsons of Hercules. This Hercules is held to be a king expelled from his throne. Ibid. B 8. *The seventh generation after Moses*. Clement always asserts that Moses is contemporary with Inachus, of whom Triopas is the seventh successor, with that very person included. Ibid. 9. *Leo*, whose authority is invoked there by Clement, is the same Leo whom Hyginus calls *Astronomicon, Poeticon*, II, 20: *Concerning the likeness of Ammon, Leo who wrote of Egyptian affairs...* Tertullian, *De corona*, VII: *You may unroll the writings of Leo, that Isis first brought around on her head the spikes she discovered.* Is he the same as Leo of Pella cited by Arnobius, *Adv. gentes*, lib. V, cap. 2; and the same as Leo in Augustine, *De civitate Dei*, lib. VIII, cap. 5: *As is written by Alexander to Olympias, with Leo the priest revealing it?* The same, *ibid.*, lib. XII, cap. 10; Cyprian, *De idol. vanitate*, p. 9, Oxon. edition; Minucius Felix, *Octavius*, cap. B 2; see the work on the history of polytheism, vol. I, p. 120 et seq. Rufinus, *Hist. eccl.*, lib. II, cap. 23: *Others relate that a certain Apis, a patriarch or king, was set up in Memphis, and when grain had failed in Alexandria, he had supplied food to the citizens in abundance from his own resources. Upon his death, they instituted in his honor at Mem- phis a temple in which a bull is nourished as a sign of an excellent farmer, having certain marks of color, who is called Apis from his name. But "Soro" (surely), that is the tomb in which his body lay, they led to Alexandria and called it Sarapis, first from the composition of "Soro" and "Apis," but later by corruption "Sarapis."* Ibid. C 5. *From Inachus*. This C fable is repeated by Nicephorus Callistus, who translated it into Greek from Rufinus, lib. XV, cap. 8. Ibid. D 3. Eusebius mixes the servitude of Apollo in the house of Admetus, and his mercenary labor, together with Neptune at the house of Laomedont, for the building of Troy. Scaliger, from the *Chronicle* of Eusebius, removed this error, p. 13 of his *Animadversiones*. The verse cited by Homer is *Iliad* Φ, 443: it refers to the duty of Laomedont. Col. 836 A 2. I entirely embrace the opinion of Lambert Bos, *Animadv.*, p. 115, who proposes *Amosis* for *Omosis*, for which *Tethmosis* has been substituted, with alpha changed into omicron. Previously we saw, in the words cited by Africanus, that the Jews left Egypt during the reign of Amosis. Col. 837 B 3. *Esbo* is called Abesan in the Book of Judges, cap. XII, 8. *After him (Jephtah) Abesan of Bethlehem judged Israel... who judged Israel for seven years, and died and was buried in Bethlehem.* In the LXX, *Abaisan*. Ibid. 13. This is an error: it should be written as 29 years, IV Kings, cap. XV, v. 2: *Twenty-nine years he reigned in Jerusalem.* Ibid. *Azarias*, son of Amasias, also bears the name of Ozias; see the IV book of Kings, cap. XV, where these two names are given to him. He is named Ozias in Eusebius. Col. 841 A 8. A double opinion occurs. The former, and such is the opinion of Clement of Alexandria, Africanus, and Tatian, establishes Moses as synchronous with Inachus, the first king of the Argives; the latter, which is that of Eusebius, makes Moses contemporary with Cecrops I, called the Earth-born, in whom the series of Athenian kings begins. So far, correctly; but soon everything is confused when each one strives to assign a place for his own epoch. But let us see how others contradict others in setting times, so that, by placing the later historical event in the middle, we may discern, if possible, the true mark of the time. Since the destruction of Troy is considered among the more significant events of primitive Greek history, and the time in both systems is established as that which preceded the first Olympiad, each one has begun his epoch from there. Since it is established on both sides that there are 400 or 408 years from the destruction of Troy to the first Olympiad, it remains for us to see how many years Inachus and Cecrops preceded this event. The temporal notes provided here do not at all agree; hence, confusion arises: this problem must be solved. Eusebius teaches us in a fragment of the preface of the *Chronicle* preserved by Syncellus, p. 65 and 66 of the Paris edition, that Clement, Africanus, and Tatian, establishing Moses as contemporary with Inachus, place him 700 years before the capture of Troy: *They established Inachus as preceding the Trojan events by seven hundred years.* But on the other hand, Tatian, cited by the same Eusebius, *Praep. evang.*, lib. X, cap. 11, p. 494, attributes only 400 years to the same period, and the preserved text of Tatian conforms to that: *Wherefore if Moses appeared in the time of Inachus, he is older than the Trojan events by four hundred years.* The same Eusebius finds the same space of years between Cecrops and the capture of Troy. *Praep. evang.*, lib. X, cap. 9, p. 484: *Thence (from the destruction) proceeding back toward the earlier times, and gathering together at once, you would find the number of 400 years, according to the Hebrews regarding Moses, and according to the Greeks regarding Cecrops the Earth-born.* Therefore they agree regarding the time which flowed from the capture of Troy to Moses, but regarding the synchronism, they disagree. For at this time the cycle was lacking to which the events could be reduced. D
We shall not, however, attain this without a calculation of the two kingdoms which separate the two epochs, taken from the canons of the Argive kings compiled by Castor and Eusebius, in the *Chronicon* of Eusebius, and by Africanus in the *Praeparatio evangelica*, book I. But first let us see some documents inserted here and there in these authors, by whose help certainly some light may be brought. Eusebius in *Praep.*, p. 486, wrote what time flowed between Semiramis and Inachus: Ἴναχος Ἀργεῖος ἡγεῖται κατὰ τὸν πέμπτον μετὰ Σεμίραμιν Ἀσσυρίων βασιλέα, νʹ καὶ ῥʹ ὕστερον ἔτεσιν αὐτῆς. "The first Argive king, Inachus, corresponds to the fifth successor of Semiramis, 150 years after her." He also assigns the span of time by which this queen and the first Cecrops are separated: Εἶτ᾽ αὖ πάλιν τῶν ἐτῶν ἄλλοις κατώτερον χρόνοις ἤδη που πλέον ἢ υʹ ἐτῶν ὅλων συμπληρουμένων ἀπὸ Σεμιράμεως πρῶτος Ἀθηναίων βασιλεὺς Κέκροψ, ὁ βοώμενος παρ' αὐτοῖς αὐτόχθων, Ἄργους ἡγουμένου Τριόπα, ὃς ἦν ἔβδομος μετὰ τὸν πρῶτον Ἀργείων Ἴναχον. Behold, Cecrops is born after a full course of 400 years following Semiramis, when the seventh successor of Inachus, counting himself, was reigning in the Argive city, according to the canon and nomenclature brought by Africanus in Eusebius, *Praep. evang.*, p. 494: Inachus, Phoroneus, Apis, Argeus, Criasus, Phorbas, Triopas. If, however, you subtract from this number of 400 years interposed between Cecrops and Semiramis the 150 years which separated the former from Inachus, you will find 250 years for the interval of these two kings. Eusebius does not linger here, but having pursued the count from Semiramis down to the capture of Troy, he enumerates a little less than 400 years from Cecrops to this age, with a slight variation of time, 800 years from Semiramis: Ἀπὸ δὲ Κέκροπος ἐπὶ τὴν Ἰλίου ἅλωσιν, μικροῦ δέοντα ἔτη νʹ. But since according to him Moses is a contemporary of Cecrops, he concludes that from that point Moses is 400 years younger than Semiramis, but 400 years older than the capture of Troy. But if we should transfer this theme to the computation of Tatian, we shall find 400 years from Inachus to Troy; but from that very person to Semiramis only 400 years; this woman was therefore a princess who lived only 550 years before Troy: Διόπερ, εἰ κατ' Ἴναχον πέφηνεν ὁ Μωσῆς γεγονώς, πρεσβύτερος ἐστι τῶν Ἰλιακῶν ἔτεσι τετρακοσίοις. Now this first difficulty grows much greater with Clement of Alexandria intervening, both in his text, *Stromata*, book I, p. 579, and in the citation of Eusebius, *Praep. evang.*, book X, ch. 12, p. 497: Κατέσκαψε τὴν Ἀούαριν Ἄμωσις, κατὰ τὸν Ἀργεῖον γενόμενος Ἴναχον, ὡς ἐν τοῖς Χρόνοις ἀνέγραψεν ὁ Μενδήσιος Πτολεμαίος... Κατ' Ἄμωσιν, φησί, τὸν Αἰγύπτου βασιλέα, Μωσέως ἡγουμένου, γεγονέναι Ἰουδαίοις τὴν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου πορείαν, ἐξ ὧν συνῶνται κατὰ Ἴναχον ἠκμακέναι τὴν Μωσέα. Παλαίτερα δὲ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν τὰ Ἀργολικὰ τὰ ἀπὸ Ἰνάχου λέγω) ὡς Διονύσιος ὁ Ἁλικαρνασσεὺς ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις διδάσκει. Τούτων δὲ τεσσαράκοντα μὲν γενεαῖς νεώτερα τὰ Ἀττικὰ, τὰ ἀπὸ Κέκροπος τοῦ διφυοῦς δὴ καὶ αὐτόχθονος, ὥς φησι κατὰ λέξιν ὁ Τατιανός. "Amosis razed the walls of Abaris. This Amosis was a contemporary of Inachus, if you believe Ptolemy of Mendes in his book *On Times*... Reigning, he says, as king of Egypt, the Jews went out of Egypt, with Moses as leader: from whence it is to be concluded that Moses flourished in the age of Inachus. The Argive kingdom is older than the Greek (I mean the kingdom founded by Inachus), which Dionysius of Halicarnassus testifies to in his book *On Times*. From the Greek kingdom to the kingdom of Athens forty generations elapsed: for it was founded by Cecrops, the double-natured and autochthonous, as Tatian says word for word." Many things are found in this supposed citation of Tatian which are by no means his. Among us is his discourse against the Greeks, and that it is from him is clear; for that is specifically read first: Κατέσκαψε τὴν Αὔαριν Ἄμωσις κατὰ τὸν Ἴναχον γενόμενος, ὡς ἐν τοῖς Χρόνοις ἀνέγραψεν ὁ Μενδήσιος Πτολεμαίος. "Amosis, according to Ptolemy of Mendes, is to be held as a contemporary of Inachus." Likewise he had said before what follows: Κατ' Ἄμωσιν Αἰγύπτου βασιλέα γεγονέναι Ἰουδαίοις φησὶ (Ptolemaeus) τὴν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου πορείαν εἰς ἅπερ ἤθελον χωρία, Μωσέως ἡγουμένου. "Ptolemy testifies that, during the reign of Amosis, the Jews departed from Egypt under the leadership of Moses." But the remaining citation extracted from Dionysius of Halicarnassus is utterly alien to Tatian. Clement delights in these arguments which we blame the learned for—straying from the nearby into the nearby, and from the distant into the distant, like a ship swerving from its course; for they are accustomed to connect matters that have a certain similarity between them. Nevertheless, you might believe these were not added by Clement, who could not ascribe to Tatian what Tatian did not say. Furthermore, whether it was Clement or a pseudonym, he does not depart from the purpose; and against every appearance of truth he pursues the origins of kingdoms. Ἐννέα δὲ τὰ Ἀρκαδικὰ (subauding γενεαῖς, which indeed is to be referred much earlier) τὰ ἀπὸ Πελασγοῦ· λέγεται δὲ καὶ οὗτος αὐτόχθων. "The kingdom of Arcadia is nine generations later than Inachus (concerning this, which was established by Pelasgus, I am about to speak), who also himself was held to be an autochthon." Τούτων δὲ ἄλλα πεντήκοντα δυοῖν νεώτερα τὰ Φθιωτικά, τὰ ἀπὸ Δευκαλίωνος. And Clement could not have spoken so absurdly: therefore this is a transcriber's error. Eusebius, in the cited place, no longer represents the word "fifty" with the letter ν; for thus it holds: Τούτων δ' ἄλλων δυοῖν νεώτερα. This version is itself also vicious; it is to be read with the manuscript codices 467 and 468: "Τούτων (Ἀρκαδικῶν) δὲ ἄλλοιν δυοῖν νεώτερα τὰ Φθιωτικά. "The kingdom of Phthiotis, established by Deucalion, is more recent by two generations than the kingdom of Arcadia." The ill-fated number is again placed for *seven*, p. 401, where Clement assigns the interval between Inachus and Deucalion: Ἀπὸ δὲ Μωσέως στρατηγίας καὶ Ἰνάχου ἐπὶ τὸν Δευκαλίωνος κατακλυσμὸν (τὴν δευτέραν λέγω ἐπομβρίαν) καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Φαέθοντος ἐμπρησμόν, ἃ δὴ συμβαίνει κατὰ Κρότωπον, γενεαὶ τεσσαράκοντα ἀριθμοῦνται. For it must certainly be held that there are no more than seven generations of kings between them: since Crotopus succeeded Triopas, or at most eight. It is also evident that the word "forty," said of Attica, stands in need of a similar correction. Gentianus Hervetus wished to substitute the number "four" for this number, inferring that Inachus succeeded Triopas in the fourth order; the erring man corrected an error: for "seven" must be read. However, it is certain that Clement did not write what we read: "fifty," from the fact that, referring back to Tatian, he cites below the words of this author which refute the preceding: Εἰς δὲ τὸν χρόνον τῶν Τρωϊκῶν ἀπὸ Ἰνάχου γενεαὶ μὲν εἴκοσι ἢ μία πλείους διαριθμοῦνται. But if twenty or twenty-one generations are counted from Inachus to the capture of Troy, forty in no way are to be admitted from the same Inachus to Cecrops, who existed eleven generations earlier than Troy. We shall therefore set aside Clement's addition, since it was born of error and contributes nothing to resolving the dispute. Let us therefore seek a point of certainty, not concerning the 400 years which flowed from Moses to the capture of Troy, since in this all agree; but 1st, concerning the time which elapsed from Semiramis to Moses; 2nd, concerning the king reigning in Argos at that time. Moreover, it is proved by the testimony of not just one author that no less than four hundred years flowed between Semiramis and Moses. Carefully, however, it is to be noted that this concerns that Semiramis about whom Ctesias treated, whom all agree reigned in the time of Abraham. Concerning the other
A Semiramis, I shall follow neither Herodotus (lib. 1, 184), nor Philo Herennius (see Stephanus of Byzantium under the word *Babylon*), nor Porphyry, in *Against the Christians*, cited twice by Eusebius in the *Praeparatio Evangelica* (pp. 32 and 485). I am speaking, I say, of that famous Semiramis, wife of Ninus, though I care little whether she existed or not. I declare, however, that this Semiramis preceded Moses by at least 400 years. The Holy Scripture provides me with the primary authority for this; for it is written in Exodus 12:40, that the Hebrews remained in Egypt with their fathers for 430 years: "The sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt and in the land of Canaan, they and their fathers, was four hundred and thirty years." St. Paul seems to deny this in the Epistle to the Galatians (3:16, 17): "The covenant which was confirmed before [by God, the law] which was four hundred and thirty years after, does not disannul." That is to say, the law promulgated on Mount Sinai did not make void the covenant made by God 450 years prior. Hence it is clear that the Apostle counts 430 years from Abraham’s call to the promulgation of the law. The Apostle could not agree with Exodus in any other way unless these words, "in Egypt and in the land of Canaan, they and their fathers," embraced Abraham from the time of his calling. Eusebius understood the matter this way (p. 484): "If you ascend from Moses to the first year of the life of Abraham, you will find 505 years, namely 75 before and 430 after his calling."
This opinion can be supported from another source. For Africanus, in the fragment which Eusebius excerpted (p. 487 in the *Praep. ev.*), establishes the bases of his chronology as semi-Greek and semi-Hebrew; he seeks an epocha proven and common to both peoples, and he believes he found this in the first year of the reign of Cyrus, since this latter year is the seventieth of the captivity, and the first of the 55th Olympiad. He says that if we follow this path, other histories will concur: "Following these things, we shall harmonize the remaining histories according to the same reasoning with one another." As for the histories which preceded, we shall admit the Attic chronology which begins from Ogyges—during whose reign the first deluge in Attica occurred, and who was contemporary with Phoroneus, as Acusilaus narrates—who calculates 1020 years up to the first Olympiad, at which time the Greeks first reckoned years with certainty; and we shall show that this calculation agrees best both with those things already said, and with those that follow. This manifesty contradicts Varro, whom Censorinus cites in *De die natali*: "From the earlier cataclysm, which they call Ogygian, to the reign of Inachus, it is about four hundred years." This will be treated below. Furthermore, if this calculation can be admitted—namely, that Ogyges lived under Phoroneus, that 1020 years elapsed from Ogyges to the first Olympiad, and that the capture of Troy preceded this last epocha by 408 years—we will have 612 years remaining. By adding to these the entire reign of Inachus, that is, 56 years, and part of the reign of Phoroneus, that is, about ten years, we shall have 678; we will find nearly the same number of years if we review the individual Argolic kingdoms, such as they are handed down in the canons of Castor and Eusebius in the *Chronicon*. Castor writes 674, Eusebius 671. Syncellus, whom we shall presently refute (p. 124), gives a list of the Argolic kings, as well as the time that the reign of each lasted; he often recurs to certain parts of this list in his *Chronographia*, according to which the sum of these reigns is much greater. From Inachus, he says (in the same place), to the ninth king of the same line, Sthenelus, 413 years are counted. "From the first, Inachus, to the ninth, Sthenelus, 413 years." The five subsequent Danaidae, of whom Danaus is one, provide them 162 years; "in sum," he says, "from Inachus to Acrisius, who was the fifth of the Danaidae, 575 years are counted." "From Inachus to Acrisius, fifth from Danaus." Finally, one arrives at the B Pelopidae. Pelops, from whom the Peloponnese took its name, reigned for 56 years: "Pelops, from whom the country is Peloponnese..., he reigned 56 years." After Pelops, Atreus and Thyestes reigned for 65 years: "After Pelops, Atreus and Thyestes 65 years." After them, Agamemnon, until the capture of Troy, reigned for 18 years. We shall use this calculation below to oppose Syncellus with Syncellus.
Since all those calculations tend toward nearly an equal sum, we can affirm that Moses was by no means contemporary with Inachus, if he lived only 400 years before the capture of Troy, and that Ptolemy of Mendes, although most skilled in Egyptian chronology, if you wish, nonetheless was ignorant of Greek chronology: they have this Ptolemy as their only witness, who contends that Amosis and Inachus lived in the same century. Let us weigh now whether the age of Cecrops better agrees with the sought-after epocha of 400 years before the Trojan War.
"From Ogyges to Cecrops," says Africanus in Eusebius (*Praep. ev.*, L. x, c. 20, p. 490), "Attica was without a king for 189 years, on account of the disasters which the deluge had brought." "After Ogyges, on account of the great destruction from the deluge, the present Attica remained without a king until Cecrops for 189 years." Let us again sum the calculation of the same Africanus, who counts 1,020 years from Ogyges to the first Olympiad; from these, let us subtract the 408 years which were interposed between the times of the capture of Troy and the aforementioned Olympiad; let us likewise subtract the 189 years during which the anarchy of Attica lasted: there remain 597 years, which from the said sum of 1,020 are to be subtracted = 423. Syncellus likewise asserts that this is Africanus's calculation (p. 148). In the list of the eleven kings of Athens, from Cecrops to Menestheus, we find the number, in which the calculations of Eusebius and Syncellus agree, to be slightly less than 400 years; hence this number is diminished by as many parts as the other had grown:
Cecrops 50 years Cranaus 9 Amphictyon 10 Erichthonius 50 Pandion 40 Erechtheus 50 Cecrops II 40 Pandion II 25 Aegeus 48 Theseus 30 Menestheus 33 --- 585
Now it remains for us to weigh the opinions of those who wrote that more than 400 years existed between Moses and the capture of Troy. Syncellus (p. 148) seems to call into doubt the epocha of Inachus, as Clement, Tatian, Africanus, and the Greek historians have opined, by ascribing the departure of the Jews into Egypt to the times of the deluge of Ogyges. "It is related differently; some say under Phoroneus, others under Apis. Likewise, the departure from Egypt is thus reported differently by the historians of the Greeks according to the times of the same (Ogyges), at the deluge during Ogyges." Josephus and Justus, Jewish historians, and also Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, and Africanus concerning our topic, agree with these on this point. Do they agree in the synchronism of Inachus or in the 400-year interval? What this signifies is little understood by me. Have those who defend the synchronism of Inachus—which he reported to be the same as those whom he names here—embraced a twofold and doubtful opinion at once? I do not believe this in the least, and that seems to me little likely. Tatian clearly affirms that Moses existed 400 years before the capture of Troy (in Eusebius, *Praep. ev.*).
evangelical [work], lib. x, c. 11, p. 494: "Moses is older than the Trojan [events] by four hundred years." Clement says this again, Stromat. lib. i, p. 579: "Years, so to speak, four hundred and beyond." Although we may find a greater number of years for Inachus, nonetheless Ogyges, who lived under his successor Phoroneus, will still remain at a most remote interval from the former; whence a discrepancy of only 56 years would be found. Syncellus alone is the one who, in his own judgment, affirms that Moses came into the world 592 years before the destruction of Troy. See his passage, p. 170, D: "From the birth of Moses, which was in the 46th year of Inachus, the first king of the Argives, and of the world in the 3738th [year], 592 years are reckoned to the taking of Troy, even if Eusebius, erring, does not think so—by 216 years." From the birth of Moses, which happened in the 46th year of Inachus, the first king of the Argives, and in the 3738th year of the world, to the overthrow of Troy, 592 years are counted: although Eusebius does not admit this computation, who, by an omission, fell into an error of 216 years.
But for us, the epoch of Moses does not begin from his birth, but from the exodus of the Hebrews out of the land of Egypt, which we have proven to be 430 years more recent than the call of Abraham. (Exodus 12:40; Paul to the Galatians 3:17.) At that time, Moses had been born 80 years, which are to be subtracted from the number 592; let us likewise subtract the 46 years of the reign of Inachus that had already elapsed; then it will appear, according to Syncellus, that Moses existed 476 years before Troy was captured. If the 216 years, concerning which Syncellus contends Eusebius erred, are now added to this number, it will indeed be established that Inachus lived 692 years before the ruin of Troy; and this differs little from the truth. It must be confessed here that the error does not come from Eusebius, but must be attributed to Syncellus alone. On the other hand, if we wish to refute the latter, it will suffice to oppose to him the computation which he himself handed down concerning the course of the times during which the Argive kings reigned from Inachus down to Agamemnon, from which the sum of 714 years emerges, as we have said. How, therefore, can the numbers 476 and 714 be in agreement with each other if they are applied to designate one and the same time? Not undeservedly, therefore, would the insults be rejected with which Syncellus attacks Eusebius concerning the time in which Moses lived, p. 153: "In the 45th year of Cecrops Diphues, the first king of Athens, the thundering Eusebius Pamphili says the march of Israel out of Egypt through Moses took place, which, according to his miscalculation, was the 3949th year from Adam; and the 26th of Aod." The year is the forty-fifth of the reign of Cecrops, the first king of Athens, in which that idiot Eusebius Pamphili contends that the Hebrews went out of Egypt, led by Moses, which, from this anachronism of his, corresponds to the year of Adam 3989, Aod 22.
Nothing can show us the stupidity of Syncellus as much as what he noted, p. 125, concerning the origin of the Argive kingdom compared with the kingdom of Assyria: "Africanus seems to me to have erred when he wrote, in the third book of his Histories, that the kingdom of the Argives was established in the 200th year of the Assyrian kingdom under Arius, the fifth king of the Assyrians; for if such a computation were admitted, it would follow that Moses was born before Abraham died, whereas all authors agree that the first year of Abraham corresponds to the 44th year of Ninus, the second king of the Ninivites after Belus; furthermore, Belus reigned 55 years; after him, Ninus 44 = 99; Abraham was therefore born in the 101st year at the time when Inachus was born, whence it would have to be concluded that Moses came into the light when Abraham was already 101 years old, if our Moses, as they say, was a contemporary of Inachus: which is repugnant." This would have been sufficient to notice, in order to refute those who contend that Moses lived in the times of Inachus. Sacred Scripture teaches us that the exodus (*exodos*) from Egypt happened in the 505th year after the birth of Abraham, at which time Moses had already been born for 80 years. The exodus from Egypt could not have happened while Inachus was reigning, unless that prince entered upon his kingdom in the 505th year after the birth of Abraham, whence (by adding 505 + 44 of Ninus, + 55 of Belus), it would be reduced to the 614th year after the founding of the Assyrian kingdom. By that computation, he would have been a contemporary of the seventeenth king of the Assyrians. Furthermore, how could a place be found before the destruction of Troy, which is the fixed epoch, for twenty Argive and also eleven Athenian kings, starting from the seventh Argive [king], Triopas? Unless Africanus had placed Inachus, as he did, he would have contradicted himself, manifestly [making] Moses a contemporary of Inachus; asserting, therefore, as Syncellus did, that 714 years were counted from Inachus to the destruction of Troy, contending that this prince was equal in time to Moses, as well as to the time of the exodus from Egypt, which, he says, happened only 400 years before Troy. Moreover, that we may end the dispute, I shall recur to the computation of times which, given by Eratosthenes, Varro follows. Eratosthenes differs much from those whom we have already cited; much less in the present question; this computation Censorinus handed down to us in *De die natali*, c. 21; its adulterated text is laid bare of a great gap, concerning which Boivin the elder, vol. II, *Mem. Acad.*, p. 385, has discoursed excellently in our judgment; which gap he happily filled: "Varro hands it down that there are three distinct time periods: the first from the beginning of men to the former cataclysm, which, because of [our] ignorance, is called *adēlon*; the second from the cataclysm to the first Olympiad, which, because many fabulous things are referred to in it, is called *mythikon*; the third from the first Olympiad to us, which is called *historikon*. The first time, whether it had a beginning or always existed, certainly cannot be grasped as to how many years it is; the second is not indeed clearly evident, but yet it is believed to have extended to about one thousand six hundred years."
Therefore, according to Eratosthenes or Varro, 1600 years flowed from the deluge of Ogyges to the first Olympiad; by which the computation of Africanus is surpassed by 580 years; but this almost immense discrepancy arises from the fact that Eratosthenes affirms that the deluge of Ogyges existed 400 years before Inachus: "From the former cataclysm, which they call the Ogygian, to the kingdom of Inachus, about four hundred years." Behold, therefore, Inachus lived 1200 years before the first Olympiad; whence the computation of Eusebius, which counts 700 years from Inachus to Troy, and 408 years from Troy to the first Olympiad, is surpassed by 100 years; for those 408 years are to be understood from Troy, not from Inachus, as Boivin clearly proved: "Hence to the first Olympiad more than four hundred." This computation, from which it is to be inferred that 408 years existed from the capture of Troy to the first Olympiad, is found everywhere: "As the registers of times among the Greeks provide." The same Eratosthenes, cited by Clement of Alexandria, *Stromat.* lib. i, p. 402, hands down that computation divided into parts as follows: From Troy to the return of the Heraclidae into the Peloponnese 80 years elapsed; from there to the Ionian colonies, 60 years; from these to Lycurgus, the tutor of the adolescent king of Sparta, 159 years; from that time to the first Olympiad 108 years: 80 + 60 + 159 + 108 = 407. But if we subtract the 407 years from 1280, 793 years will remain for us between Inachus and the capture of Troy. The discrepancy between Eratosthenes and others consists mostly in this, that he asserts that the deluge of Ogyges existed before Inachus; others, however, in this matter bring forward a completely opposite computation, although they agree with Eratosthenes regarding the other times. Eratosthenes, however, by increasing Inachus by 100 years, is therefore separated more and more from Moses, whose epoch, based on the sacred codices, remains unshaken. See Augustine, *De civitate Dei*, lib. xviii, c. 8.
Col. 845 A 2. Diogenes Laertius, lib. i, seg. 56: "The logic of philosophy was formerly of one kind, the physical; but secondly, Socrates added the ethical; and thirdly, Plato [added] the dialectical and perfected it."
A Ancient philosophy embraced a single genus, namely physics; to which Socrates added a new genus, namely ethics; and which Plato completed by adding a third genus, namely dialectic. See Augustine, *De civit. Dei*, bk. VI, ch. 4. Socrates is remembered to have excelled in active (philosophy); Pythagoras, however, in the more contemplative, having applied himself with all the powers of intelligence of which he was capable. Hence Plato, by joining both, is lauded for having perfected philosophy, which he distributes into three parts: one moral, which occupies itself principally in action; another natural, which is set apart for contemplation; a third rational, by which the true is distinguished from the false. Plutarch, *De contradict. stoic.*, vol. XII, p. 342, Hutten edition: Chrysippus holds that adolescents should study logic first, ethics second, physics third, and that finally they should put an end to their studies by introducing the question concerning the immortal gods. Since he has written the same things many times, it will suffice to refer to his words as they are read in the fifth book of his *Lives* (*Περὶ βίων*): "For at first, according to the things rightly said by the ancients, it seems to me that there are three genera of the philosopher’s theorems: the logical, the ethical, and the physical; then, of these, the logical must be placed first, the ethical second, and the physical third; and of the physical, the discourse regarding the gods must be last."
Col. 845 14. This Atticus seems to be the father of Herodes Atticus, concerning whom Suidas, in the *Life* of the latter, says: "His father, Atticus, was ruler of Asia, and was enrolled among the consuls-designate twice." His father was a praetor in Asia and was written among the consuls-designate. It seems the name Atticus passed from father to son, following a usage common enough among the Romans; in this, the Greeks differed from the Romans, for, so that namesakes would not be confused, they connected the names of the sons with the names of their fathers: for whereas among the former, family names were transmitted to the grandsons, as with us, it was not so among the Greeks: for example, the Romans write Apollonius Molon to designate the son of Molon (*V. I.* IX, ch. 19), Plistonicus (A. Gellius, *Noct. attic.*, VI, 8) to designate the son of Plistonicus; Herodes Atticus (*ibid.*, I, 2). This Atticus had become very rich unexpectedly, for when a treasure was found, the Emperor Nerva, an extremely wealthy man himself and unmindful of his own private utility, refused to take a portion of the discovered goods. For the Prince had scarcely learned of the matter when he wrote back to Atticus to use the discovered treasure at his pleasure. But when Atticus persisted, objecting that he did not need such a treasure for his own way of living, the Emperor replied: "Use this money, then, since you do not wish to use it for yourself." Yet Atticus and his son both made very good use of these riches, and both are counted among the distinguished writers. See Philostratus, *De Vitis sophistarum*, in "Herodes"; Aulus Gellius, in the place cited. Chronologically, it has been disputed whether the Platonic Atticus, who is discussed here and also in Theodoret (*Therapeut.*, bks. VI and XII), was the same as the father of Herodes: I have not followed those who deny this, surely because the arguments they offer are not very strong. Moreover, this question has seemed to me of lesser weight than that I should waste longer time in weighing it.
Col. 848 A 2. Jonsius, in the book *Scriptorum historiae philosophiae* IV, 8, p. 250, proposes to read *περὶ φυσιολογίας* [concerning physiology] instead of *περὶ φιλοσοφίας* [concerning philosophy]. And here he follows the opinion of Suidas: "Aristocles the Messenian, of Italy, a peripatetic philosopher; he composed ten books *concerning philosophy*; and in them he catalogs all philosophers and their opinions." Aristocles the Messenian (the city of Messana is in Sicily), a peripatetic philosopher, wrote books concerning philosophy, in which he reviewed all the philosophers and their doctrine. B "Whether is Homer or Plato possessed of greater virtue?" "He also wrote *Technae rhetoricae* (Arts of Rhetoric); *On Serapis*; *Nine Ethical Books*." It will be for further reading to examine the great fragments of the book which he wrote concerning philosophy, and which Theodoret cites in *Therapeutica*: in discourse VIII, p. 116, of the Sylburg edition, and in discourse XII, p. 173.
Ibid. 13. *Επεκρύψαντο* [they hid themselves] 465, 466.
Ibid. B3. "Socrates, this very thing which is said, became 'fire upon fire', just as Plato himself said." The proverb of which there is talk here exists in Plato for the purpose of restraining his pupils, but in truth, to forbid the young from wine. "Teaching that one must not pour fire upon fire into body and soul"; this Plutarch used in *Praecepta coniugalia*, vol. VII of the Hutten edition, p. 424: "So that fire may not be upon fire"; in *Praecepta hygienes*, *ibid.*, p. 375: "So that there may not be fire upon fire (as the saying is), satiety upon satiety, and 'unmixed upon unmixed'." This last example proves that the reading of Aristocles cited by Eusebius is to be preferred to the reading of Plato and the first reading of Plutarch. I do not doubt that the dative case is better used in this syntax. And since, in using this proverb, Aristocles alludes to Socrates, the matter truly ought to be understood regarding the Socrates of Plato, and not the Socrates of Xenophon. For the former is entirely involved in ensnaring those who disagree with entangling and troublesome reasonings, and if the attention were not sharpened by the charms of his style, the reader would surely cast aside the book whose whole scope is the uprooting of an opinion, while not in the least caring to replace the uprooted opinion. Hence it follows that I in no way understand for what reason Plato—if indeed he did this—could have attributed to Socrates a fault which verisimilarly falls back upon Plato himself; for the passage of the second book of *De legibus* in no way pertains to Socrates.
Col. 848 C 1. See Diogenes Laertius, bk. III, seg. 117, where he defines the Stoic doctrines that are missing from cynicism: "They say the wise man is also passionless because he is not prone to fall. That the wise man is free from vanity, for perhaps he has [an attitude] toward what is reputable and what is disreputable." ... "They say the wise man, just as he is liable to no error, is in no way moved by sense; and again, that fame is in no way to be sought by the wise man, since, by his estimation, those things which men praise or contemn are of equal value."
Ibid. D 5. Luzacus, in *De Digamia Socratis*, p. 244, writes that Zopyrus is treated in chapter 9, bk. VI of the *Fragments* of Alexander of Aphrodisias. See Cicero, *De fato*, ch. 5; *Tusculan. quaest.*, bk. IV, ch. 37.
Col. 853 C 14. *Onomatotheta*. In Plato, it is read, according to the ancient editions, *νομοθέτης*, "legislator"; and Vigerus admits this reading and defends his own opinion in the following passage of the same *Cratylus*, p. 259: "Come, does the law not seem to you to be the one that gives those names?" "Yes, so it seems." "The teacher, therefore, will use the work of the legislator when he uses a name." "So it seems to me." "And does it seem to you that every man could be a legislator, or only someone who has the skill?" It is obvious that one must write *νομοθέτης* here; so thinks Heindorf himself in his notes on the *Cratylus*, p. 20, vol. III, of the edition adorned by him. However, the manuscript codex of Gudius contradicts this reading, as Heindorf teaches us, who writes *ὀνοματοθέτης*; manuscripts 466, 467, and 468 here likewise bear *νομοθέτης*. In the cited place, the author of the name is read, which words others turn into the word legislator. Since this knot regarding...
A Platonism rather than Eusebius’s view emerges, I leave it to the editor of Plato to untie.
Col. 856 B 6. The word *διαλεκτικός* (dialectician), both in this passage and in Plato, does not seem to me to be well rendered by the word "dialectician"; for here it concerns a man who has been taught various languages. Col. 860 A 3. *Τανταλώτατον* (most Tantalus-like) 465; *ταλαντώτατον* (most weighted) 467. Ibid. B 3. Leo Allatius, page 209 of his *Commentary on the Hexaemeron of Eustathius*, accuses Eusebius of having given a false meaning to the name Cain. For we read in the sacred books that Eve brought forth a son, saying (Gen. IV, 1): "I have acquired a man through God." Whence this name is derived from the word signifying possession. See the interpreters. Ibid. 11. *Πεποίηται* (has been made) 467. Ibid. 13. *Ἀφανῆ* (obscure) 466, 467. Ibid. Philo, *On the Giants*, page 292 of the Morell edition: "For Abram, interpreted, is 'sublime father'; the name of the Mind [Nous] which surveys all celestial and heavenly things. But when, having improved, he is about to have his name changed, he becomes a man of God, according to the oracle spoken to him: 'I am your God,' etc. For he is called 'chosen father of sound,' interpreted as Abraham; the reasoning of the diligent person, being chosen and purified, and the father of the voice with which we sound together." ["Abram is interpreted 'Pater sublimis,' a name given to him to designate an intellect deeply devoted to observing the meteors and the stars. After he had been instructed and become better, he had to change his name, and was made 'a man of God,' according to these words of the oracle: 'I am your God,' etc. He was called 'father elect of the voice,' which is interpreted as Abraham, that is, the intellect of a man gifted with virtue, and 'Father of the word,' by means of which men communicate with one another."] Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, v, page 648: "As long as Abraham was entirely occupied with studying the motions of the stars and natural philosophy, he was named Abram, that is, 'sublime father.' But after he had looked up to heaven, and whether he had seen the Son in spirit, as certain authors relate, or only an angel, he had contemplated one resplendent with glory; or whether finally in some other way he had received a knowledge of God superior to the creature and the natural order, he added the letter alpha (α) to his name, as knowing the true and only God, and he is called Abraham, having become from a physicist a wise man and a friend of God. For it is interpreted 'Father elect of the voice,' for the voice, or the spoken word, resounds, the father of which is the *Nous*." Ibid. C 2. *Κληθήσῃ* (you will be called) 468. Ibid. 4. *Ὅπως ἂν ἔχηται* (however it may be) 467; *ὁποίας ἂν ἔχηται* 465. Ibid. D 6. *Ὄνομα θεόθεν λαμβάνει* (he receives the name from God) 465, 467; shortly after, *ἀσκητικόν* (ascetic) 465. Ibid. 8. Philo, *On Abraham*, page 377 of the Morell edition: "He who was about to be sacrificed is called in Chaldean 'laughter'; but laughter, not that which occurs in sport with the mouth, is taken now, but the joy and happy state of mind." ["He who was to be sacrificed is called in the Chaldean idiom 'Laughter.' We are not dealing here with the laughter that lights up the face in merriment; truly it deals with the peace and joy with which the intellect is suffused."] Philo, *On Drunkenness*, page 251: "*Jacob* is indeed the name of learning and progress, of the powers dependent on hearing, but *Israel* is that of perfection; for the name signifies the vision of God. And what could be more perfect among the virtues than to see Him who truly is?" ["Jacob is the name of doctrine and also of progress and of the moving intellect. Israel is a name of perfection; for this name signifies contemplation. Is not the highest virtue to contemplate the Being of beings?"] Col. 861, B 1. I wrote the number four in place of the number two. For this phrase evidently coalesces with four letters. Ms. 468 [has] *τεττάρων* (four) for *δύο* (two). Ibid. C 1. Many among the most learned have discussed this epigram, the author of which is unknown. Joseph Scaliger, *Commentary on the Eusebian Chronicle*, year 1730, asserts that this epigram was composed in honor of the Egyptian Serapis, and that, through an error of Eusebius, it had been attributed in this place to the God of the Hebrews, Jehovah. Scaliger cites Hesychius as an authority, at the word *ἑπταγράμματον* (seven-lettered): "The wrathful, harsh, and Sarapis." Henricus Valesius (*Emendations*, lib. I, c. 2, and *Notes on Socrates' History*, lib. V, cap. 17) says that Scaliger rightly wrote that this epigram was made in honor of Serapis; but he adds that the meaning of the said epigram was not understood by the same Scaliger. For Scaliger understood that the name Serapis is composed of seven letters, while on the contrary, the poet wished to say something else: namely, that the Egyptians invoked Serapis by reciting the seven vowels, to which they assigned a different place during prayer, as is read in an inscription found in the city of Bordeaux, and which Vinetus cites in his *Commentary on Ausonius*. Demetrius Phalereus, *On Elocution*, § 7: "In Egypt the priests praise the gods by means of the seven vowels, sounding them in order." ["In Egypt the priests celebrate the praises of the gods with seven vowels, which they repeat in turn."] (See the note of Gal. on this passage.) Jablonski (*Prolegomena to the Pantheon of the Egyptians*, page 56) contradicts the preceding opinion. For what pleasure could the repetition of seven vowels offer to the ears of the gods? In this, he says, something unknown lies hidden, which pertains to religion and to the harmony of the planets, of which each one is indicated by one vowel. (See Porphyry, *Comm. on Dionysius Thrax*, p. 796, Bekker ed.). Jablonski adds that the author of this epigram was one of the Gnostics: to support which opinion, he adduces the following verses of Varro Atacinus in the *Chorographia*, in the *Astronomical Fragments of the Poets* among the *Catalecta* of Scaliger, page 162: "He saw also the world being whirled on an ethereal axis, and the seven spheres giving sound with eternal voices." Ibid. 7. Compare with this place those things which have already been said by the same author, lib. X, cap. 5. Col. 864 C 6. *Κατεμίγνυς* 467, 468. Ibid. 12. *Περυσιολόγηται* 467. Ibid. 15. *Καταβέβλητο* 466. Ibid. D 3. *Τ...* 466. Ibid. 4. *Κέχρηται* 467. Col. 866 A 2. *Την σοφίαν* 466. Ibid. C 7. *Εὖ μάλα* 466. Ibid. 14. *Τοὺς τῶν ὄντων φύσεως τὸ* 466. Col. 868 B 6. *Ἐπηκολουθηκέναι* 466. What should be thought about this second migration of the Jewish people into Egypt, having been driven out by the Persians, I have attempted to clarify: which migration can be referred to no other event except to the historical fact which is obscure, although relying on the testimony of recent authors, that is, the war of Ochus against the rebellious Phoenicians and Sidonians. In which war it seems that Ochus also pursued the Jews in a hostile manner, whence the Jews were first forced to flee into Egypt; then, after the same Ochus had taken possession of Judea, he deported a large part of the inhabitants into Hyrcania, next to the Caspian sea. Recent and Christian authors have reported this event. Syncellus after Africanus, page 256: "Ochus, the son of Artaxerxes, invading Egypt, took a partial captivity of the Jews, of whom he settled some in Hyrcania, near the Caspian sea, and some in Babylon." Orosius, lib. III, 7: "Then also Ochus, who is also Artaxerxes, after the long, great war had been finished in Egypt, [led] many of the Jews into trans..."
- migration, and commanded them to dwell in Hyrcania by the Caspian sea. » A Eusebius in his Chronicon, for the year 1658: "Ochus, marching into Egypt, took a detachment of the Jews, whom he settled in Hyrcania by the Caspian sea." Saint Jerome, in his Latin version, had "Apodasmo" instead of "urbe" [city]: Ochus, having captured the detachment of the Jews, settled the inhabitants [whom he had] moved into Hyrcania near the Caspian sea. Scaliger corrected this most serious error.
Now we must establish the epoch when Plato went into Egypt; which certainly occurred before Ochus gained control of Egypt (in the second year of the 107th Olympiad, the year 349 before the birth of Christ). Plato died at 81 years of age (in the first year of the 108th Olympiad, the year 346 before Christ). According to Diogenes Laertius, Plato died after his return from Italy (lib. III, seg. 6). In reality, Plato went into Italy to the Pythagorean philosophers Philolaus and Eurytus: from there into Egypt to the prophets (παρὰ τοὺς προφήτας), that is, the Egyptian priests. Many authors, among whom are Quintilian, Apuleius, Clement of Alexandria, Valerius Maximus, and Cicero, mention in many places that Plato traveled to Egypt, but they are silent on the time. If, however, we except Cicero, who in a place in his *Republic* cited by Nonius, under the word *Contendere*, teaches us that Plato came into Italy after the death of Socrates: "I believe you have heard that Plato, after Socrates died, went into Egypt for the sake of learning, [and] afterwards traveled into Italy." Socrates died in the first year of the 95th Olympiad, the year 398 before Christ: at that time Plato was 32 years old. According to Diogenes Laertius, the same man, when 28 years old, visited Megara, Cyrene, Italy, and finally Egypt, all of which concord well enough with one another. Diogenes reports that Euripides was his companion on the journey; others add Eudoxus of Cnidus, the geometer and most celebrated observer of the stars. B Eusebius (and in this he agrees with the greater part of Christian authors) makes Plato a disciple of Moses. Lactantius defends the contrary opinion, *Instit.* lib. IV, cap. 2: "I am wont to marvel," he says, "that when Pythagoras and afterwards Plato, inflamed with the love of searching for truth, had penetrated as far as the Egyptians and the Magi and the Persians so that they might know the rites and sacred mysteries of those nations (for they suspected that wisdom consisted in religion), they did not approach the Jews alone, among whom it was then held solely, and to whom they could have gone more easily."
Some have affirmed that Plato drew theological notions from the sacred books of Moses, and himself had before his eyes a version older than that of the seventy, from the reading of which such clear philosophy arose. Aristeas contradicts them, asserting with most certain reasons that no version of the sacred books existed before the Ptolemies reigned. The aforementioned opinion, in lost works, was championed by Clement of Alexandria (*Stromat.* I, p. 460); Origen, *Against Celsus* (lib. VI, p. 288, Camb. ed.); Justin Martyr, *Paraenetic* passim, *Apology*...; Ambrose, sermon 18, on Psalm CXV; Theodoret (*Therapeut.* lib. II, pp. 90 and 91, Sylburg ed.); Josephus *Against Apion* lib. II, and others—all of whom, among many others, are refuted by Augustine, *De civitate Dei*, lib. VIII, c. 11. C Col. 868 D 1. Codices 465 and 466 add after γενησόμενον: "And what is the thing made? It is the thing that is to be made." Ibid. 4. "To these... of ours" 465, 466, 467. Col. 869 B 8. "These things" 466, 468. Col. 872 A 4. Origen, *Against Celsus*, lib. IV, p. 198, Spencer ed.: "I know that Numenius the Pythagorean, a man very skillful in explaining Plato and very well-versed in Pythagorean tenets, has in many places of his writings expounded the sayings of Moses and the prophets, and has referred them to allegories, as in the book which is titled *Epops*, in the books *On Numbers*, and also in the books *On Place*, and in the third book *On the Good*, where he narrates, without naming him, and in a certain distorted way, the history of Jesus (Joshua): whether correctly or otherwise? that is not the question here." D Col. 873 B 14. These words already attributed to Numenius by Clement, but not under the form of doubt as they are now. Here is read the passage of Clement in lib. I *Stromat.*, pp. 410 and 411, which Eusebius transcribed, lib. IX, c. 6, p. 411; lib. XI, p. 527. Theodoret (Therapeut. second sermon, p. 37, Sylburg ed.) refers to the same saying of Numenius. The saying is made about Philo the Jew, that he Platonized, which is more correctly stated, namely, that Plato was compiled from Philo, both in respect to sentiments and words, "ή Φίλων πλατωνίζει, ἢ Πλάτων φιλωνίζει" [either Philo Platonizes, or Plato Philonizes]. St. Jerome, *De viris illustribus*; Isidore of Pelusium, lib. I, ep. 81; Photius, *In Bibliotheca*, cod. XV; Suidas, in the word *Philo*. Col. 876 B 3. "Ἐπερείσῃ" 467; "ἐπερείσῃς" Plutarch. Ibid. 11. "Ποταμῷ γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμβῆναι δὶς τῷ αὐτῷ καθ᾿ Ἡράκλειτον" [For it is not possible to step into the same river twice, according to Heraclitus]. This proverb, from Heraclitus being called *Skoteinos*, that is, the dark one, was sufficiently celebrated among the ancients; Plato in the *Cratylus*, p. 265, Læmarius ed.: "Heraclitus somewhere says that all things flow and nothing remains; and comparing beings to the flow of a river, he says that one could not step twice into the same river." Heraclitus says somewhere that all things pass away, and nothing remains unmoved, and comparing all things to the flow of a river, he adds, "We do not descend into the same river twice." Aristotle, *Metaphys.* III, 5, p. 79, Brandis ed., in-8: "Cratylus criticized Heraclitus for saying that it is not possible to step twice into the same river; for he himself thought [it was not possible] even once." Seneca, *epist.* 58: "This which Heraclitus says: We do not descend twice into the same river." Plutarch returns to this many times. *Quaest. natural.* second, p. 5, t. XIII: "For you could not step into the same rivers twice, as Heraclitus says." *De Sera Numinis vindicta*, p. 62 of the Wyttenbach edition: "We shall become as those who have cast all things into the Heraclitean river, into which he says one cannot step." Heraclitus Ponticus, *Allegoria Homerica*, p. 443 of the Gal. edition: "We step into the same rivers and do not step." "We descend, and we do not descend into the same river." This is likewise taken from Heraclitus the Obscure. See c. 20, lib. XV *Præp. evang.*, p. 821, and Schleiermacher, in the *Museum of Antiquity of Wolf*, p. 356. Ibid. D 2. "Ἐκμαγεῖον." This word is found in the sense of an impression in Philo the Jew, *De profugis*, in the beginning: "The world has become [what it is], and all things have come to be by some cause. The Word of the one who makes is itself the seal by which each of existing things has been fashioned, alongside which the form also follows for those things coming to be from the beginning, as an impression and image of the perfect Word." In the treatise *De mundi opificio*, p. 33 of Morell: "This man, as to his mind, has been made akin to the divine Word, having become an impression, or fragment, or radiance of the blessed nature." Clement of Alexandria, *Protrept.*, p. 77: "The statues, the man-made images appear as an impression far removed from truth." Plato in *Timaeus*; cited by Longinus in the treatise *De sublimi*, § 32, where it was read: "The spleen, as an impression of the internal organs, lying at the liver as a mirror." See Plato, *Legum* VII, 632 and 638, Læmarius ed.; finally Plutarch, in the preface to the fifth book of *Symposiacorum*: "But strictly speaking, the soul living along with the body..."
A ...those thinking they must smile along with his sufferings and also lament with him, just like an impression or a mirror, etc., where it appears the word *xam* is used for the word *κάτοπτρον* (mirror), as though rendering an image of the first subject. Here it signifies a receptacle, just as in book xv, c. 44: "Matter, like a nurse and an impression." See the note of Petavius in *Themist.*, serm. 21, p. 501 of the notes, in the edition of Hardouin; he translates this word now as "expressed image," now as "receptacle."
Col. 877 B 9. Did Plutarch intend to speak of a prism? I do not know; his text, which is very corrupt, is better rendered by Eusebius.
Col. 880 C 2. Herennius, in *Metaphysicam*, ms. 1885 of the Royal Library, folio 39 verso, a work which can be seen among the *Anecdota* of Cardinal Mai, wrote certain things worth calculating of considerable weight regarding the word *ἄῤῥητον* (ineffable): and these verses are read on p. 247, t. II of the treatise *De Polytheismo*, which I edited with Hachette, in-12°, 1840.
Col. 881 A 8. *Περὶ δή* 467. Ibid. 9. *Τοῦ περί* 466, 467. Ibid. 12. *Λέγοντες* 465. Ibid. B 3. *Εὐθέα* 466, 468; *εὐθείᾳ* 467. Ibid. 10. *Ὡς δέ* 466, 467. Ibid. 14. *Ἅμα* 466, 468. Ibid. C 2. *Πέμπτον* 466. Ibid. C 7. The text of the Septuagint Interpreters differs slightly from Eusebius's version. Eusebius: "I am God, the first, and I am after these." LXX: "I am God, the first, and for things to come, I am." Ibid. 11. *Συγκρίνων* 467. Ibid. D 4. *Εὐχόμενος* 466. Ibid. 3. *Τὸ δέ* 468.
Col. 884 A 8. *Συνάγει* 467. Ibid. 15. *Δημιουργικόν* 466, 468. Ibid. B 10. *Καὶ αὖθις* 467. Ibid. C 4. *Τεχνίτης* 466, 468.
Col. 885 A 11. The subsequent citations are taken from the book *De confusione linguarum*. Ibid. C 14. These citations are absent from the book of Philo from which Eusebius asserts that he drew them, and therefore he cannot be their author. See the preceding note. Ibid. D 10. There exists no dialogue of Plato inscribed *Epimenides*. It is clear, therefore, that Eusebius either intended or at least ought to have written *Epinomis*, since this passage is read on page 702 G of the edition of Ficinus, p. 986 C of the edition of Henricus Stephanus, and 662 of the edition of Bekker: this error had been admitted in book x, c. 4.
Col. 888 A 7. I corrected, in the text of Plato, *δαήμων* (learned) for *εὐδαίμων* (happy), which, in my judgment, cannot in the least be admitted in this phrase. Ibid. C 11. *Αἰσθητόν* (sensible) is used here in opposition to the word *νοητόν* (intellectual), which sounds almost the same as the word "material."
Col. 892 B 7. The word *πρεσβεύειν* (to represent, to hold/profess), in the sense of defending, professing, or handing down philosophical doctrine, is used by philosophical writers. Origen, *Contra Celsum*, l. v, § 20, p. 244 (Cambridge edit.): "Celsus cannot judge that one must not suppose that the opinion of those wise men is held by those who promise nothing more of faith than the discourse given to the Christians." Celsus ought not to believe that the defenders of the opinions of the wise men of antiquity have any influence among men who proclaim nothing but the faith which is supported by the doctrine of Christ.
Ammonius (*Comment. in librum Aristotelis De interpretatione*, p. 31, Sabius edit.): "For he denies this regarding their nature, which the Heracliteans professed." Aristotle denies that the origin of language is to be ascribed to nature; but he denies this only in the sense in which the disciples of Heraclitus asserted it.
Ibid. C 8. The proverb is not the same in terms of text as that which we read in Numenius: "The treasure becomes cinders," if at least we follow the text of Lucian who repeats the proverb many times. In B *Philopseude*, l. 1, 32, p. 58: "Our treasure is cinders for us." *Navigium*, p. 265: "The treasure shall be cinders for you." In *Zeuxide*, I, 840: "The treasure was cinders for us." In *Herm.*, 1, 71, p. 813: "Having shown me the treasure as cinders."
Col. 893 C 4. *Κηδεύοντος* 466, 467, as also below. Col. 896 A 15. *Τὸν φυτ.* 466. Ibid. C 2. *ἴδης* 467. Ibid. 4. *Ἀφείλατο* 466, 467. Col. 900 A 5. *Ἑβραῖον* 468. Ibid. C 1. *Καταταχθῆναι* 466. Col. 901 B 10. *Αἰνίγμων* 466, 467, 468, and Plato. Ibid. B 12. *Περί* 466, 467, 468. Ibid. C 4. The text has, the second and the third: *ὁ δεύτερος (καὶ τρίτος)*. I do not doubt that the words *καὶ τρίτος* are a gloss that confuses everything. For indeed, in the following passage, he speaks of only one being. I do not know if Cyril of Alexandria, who (in book vi *contra Julianum*) drew certain things from the same author, likewise transcribed this passage. Whatever the case may be, the adulteration would exist no less, however anciently it may have been admitted. It is clear indeed that a Christian transcriber wished to introduce the Trinity, of which there is absolutely no mention in Numenius, and that he wrote *καὶ τρίτος*, which words, in whatever way they are understood, must be included within parentheses. An adulteration of this kind is read below: the editions have, from the greater number of manuscripts, *Περὶ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ* (About the Father and the Son) instead of *περὶ Θεοῦ* (About God), which the mss. carry, and which Viger restored in the notes and followed in the version. Ibid. 5. Aurel. Aug., *De civit. Dei*, l. x, 29: "That the beginning of the holy Gospel, whose name is according to John, some Platonist—as we were accustomed to hear from the holy elder Simplicianus, who later presided as bishop over the Church of Milan—used to say should be written in golden letters and proposed in the most prominent places in all churches." See the note of Ruhnken in the treatise of Longinus *De sublimi*, sect. 9, p. 250 of the Toup edition.
Col. 904 C 3. Ammonius in the book of Aristotle *De interpretatione*, verso of the fifth page, edition of Aldus: "It must be set forth next for those wishing to raise themselves to the contemplation of beings, and to consider the causes removed from these, concerning which is the discourse, that as there are three [beings] above the physical ones of the original worlds—that is, the divine, and the intellectual, and in addition to these, also the psychic—we say that things are produced from God, but from the intellectual [beings] the concepts subsist, and from the psychic [beings], which are characterized according to reason, and which have a substance separate from every body, the spoken words are brought to completion." "We must add, for the sake of those who wish to return to ontology and to study at what interval the causes and effects of which we are speaking here stand apart, that above material substances there exist three primordial orders: namely, the divine, the intellectual, and finally the principle of souls. Furthermore, we shall say that things draw their origin from God: in the intellectual order, cognitions are engendered; but from the principle of souls, which differs completely from the material nature of bodies, and in which resides the faculty of reasoning, articulate voices draw their origin." Ibid. D 7. *Ἐπισκοπεῖ* 467.
Col. 905 B 2. This doctrine, by which the Divinity is confused with numbers, is proclaimed by all the Pythagoreans: "Hear, O noble number, Father of the blessed, Father of [men." See the *Life of Pythagoras* in Iamblichus, p. 124: "He said that the essence of number is eternal and the most ancient principle of the entire heaven and earth and the intermediate nature, and also the root of the souls of gods and demons." (This is taken from the work *Sacred Discourse*). From these things it has become evident that he took the determined essence of the gods in number from the Orphics.
Col. 906 D 6. *He placed* 467.
Col. 908 B 10. That Didymus, from whom Eusebius took this passage, must certainly be regarded as a writer on philosophical sects; and we read almost a similar passage about the Stoics (under the name of another Didymus, b. xv, p. 817). From this it seems to be concluded that our Didymus ought rightly to be conflated with the other Didymus who is named below, and not with the other Didymus of whom Clement of Alexandria speaks in the first book of the *Stromata*, regarding Pythagorean philosophy: "Didymus in the work on Pythagorean philosophy records." See *Stromata* 1, p. 366. Finally, this Didymus of ours will be the same as the one whom Stobaeus cites in the *Eclogae Physicae*, b. 1, p. 14 of the Herennius edition, in the chapter "On Sects" (*Περὶ αἱρέσεως*); perhaps it should be read as *Περὶ αἱρέσεων*, that is, "On Philosophical Sects." At least this is the opinion of all those who have cited him, namely Scheffer in *De natura philosophiae Italicae*, p. 3, and Herennius in the spot in Stobaeus, who did not name Scheffer as the first author of this corrected reading. Suidas, among all the Didymuses he discusses, provides one under the surname Aetius: "Didymus Aetius, a philosopher who served as an Academic, (wrote) solutions to probable (questions) and fallacies in two books, and many other things." Jonsius *De scriptoribus hist. phil.* thinks it should be read as "Arius," according to Eusebius. Kuster rejects this correction, which nevertheless seems best to me. Stobaeus, in the *Eclogae Physicae*, b. II, p. 14 of Herennius, following Xenophanes, the leader of the Eleatic school, hands down to us Didymus as the author of a certain fragment *On the Uncertain Cognition of Men*. According to Herennius, there is another fragment of the same Didymus which we read in other collections—namely, the *Florilegium* of Stobaeus. That fragment is one which, under this title, supplies us with evidence on Aristotelian ethics. Finally, I compare this Didymus with Arius the Heracleopolite whom our Eusebius cites, b. 1 *Praeparatio*, c. 10, p. 41: "He sent for the one named by the Egyptians as the greatest Hierophant and Hierogrammateus, whom Arius the Heracleopolite translated into the Greek tongue, word for word." Behold, therefore, our Didymus is surnamed Arius. But who is that Didymus, and at what time did he live? If one is to trust Jonsius (c. 1, b. 1, *Hist. Phil.*), Didymus Arius was contemporary with Varro; for it is proven in Jonsius thus: Athenaeus, b. xi, 3, cites an epigram about Demetrius of Phalerum composed by Asclepiades; having translated "*Ariou*" as "teacher of Areius," he believes this concerns our Didymus Arius. Furthermore, if that Asclepiades is the same as Asclepiades of Myrlea, he was a grammarian; and if he was, moreover, the teacher of Didymus Arius, he must have been a contemporary of Varro. Fabricius, on the contrary (see Herennius *de Stobaeo*, b. 1), asserts that he was contemporary with Nero. I have not been given the opportunity to weigh the reasons he brings forward, nor those which Herennius approves, as I do not have at hand the first edition of the *Bibliotheca Graeca* of Fabricius, to which he refers the reader for reading. This question concerning the determination of times is of little importance to the readers of Eusebius.
Col. 913 B 14. This passage is correctly taken not from the sixth, but indeed from the fifth book of the *Stromata*, page 702. Whether this happened because of an error by the transcriber, or from a different division of the parts of the work whose beginning has perished, I would not dare to affirm.
Ibid. C 7. It is known to all of what great moment numbers were among the Pythagoreans; for they believed the image of divinity was expressed in them. Before all, the number six was highly esteemed; the same Clement explains this in the same book of the *Stromata*, p. 811: "The Pythagoreans, according to the prophet (the prophet of Genesis), from the creation of the world consider the number six as perfect, and they call it the *meseuthys* and marriage, because it is the mean of the even, that is, of ten and two; for it appears to be equidistant from both. And just as marriage is born from the male and female, so it is born from the excess of three, which is called an odd number, and two, which is considered an even number." Pythagoreans, in agreeing with the prophet in this, declare the number six is perfect, on account of the creation of the world; they also call this number *Meseuthys* and *marriage*, because it is the middle term of the even number, that is, between the numbers ten and two: for indeed, it is equally distant from both. And as marriage is begotten from the conjunction of male and female, so this number, coalescing from the number three, an odd number, and the number two, an even number, becomes something begotten: twice three begets six.
Euclid in the seventh book *On Definitions*, 22, calls the number six perfect, because it coalesces from its own elements: 1, 2, 3.
Likewise Cassiodorus.
On account of which cause, the Pythagoreans gave it the name of Venus. See Plutarch *De E apud Delphos*, t. VII, p. 524 of the Reiske edition, in which the text is corrupt; Iamblichus in *Life of Pythagoras*, 1, 28; an anonymous author, cited by Meursius in *Denario Pythagorico*, c. 8. Macrobius in *Somnium Scipionis*, b. 1, c. 6: "The senary, which when joined with one makes the septenary, is of varied and manifold religion and power, primarily because it alone of all the numbers which are within ten consists of its own parts: for it has a half, a third part, and a sixth part: the half is three: the third part, two: the sixth part, one: all of which together make six."
Col. 917 C 12. What follows is missing in the text of the *Alcibiades*, according to the edition of Plato, nor do I find that editors of this philosopher have made mention of this matter. Eusebius's manuscripts have four: "things born from me cannot be dissolved, even if I were unwilling." Whether all the manuscripts of Plato have "if I were unwilling" (*ἐμοῦ μὴ θέλοντος*), as the printed texts, I am entirely ignorant.
Col. 925 B 9. *Adding* (*ἐπιπροσθετουμένη*) 466, 467. Ibid. 15. *To save* (*διασώζειν*) 467. Col. 932 A 13. *Unwilling* (*μὴ θέλοντες*), four mss., infra p. 703, *μὴ θέλοντος*. Ibid. B 8. *Circulate with* (*συγκυκλοῖ*) 466, 467. Col. 933 3. *In every way* (*παντοίως*) 465, 467. Ibid. D 4. The text of Plato has the former; but it is without doubt that the latter should be read, since it is the latter which was the cause of the present state.
Col. 937 A 5. Eusebius plays on the words *alkinou* and *alkimou*; which I would attempt to render into French in vain; but among the author perhaps the occurrence of the words here is entirely fortuitous. Ibid. D 7. He prefers the word *parakletikon* found in mss. 465 and 466 to the word *parakinetikon* which the printed text has. Ibid. C 4. *I shall relate* (*διηγήσομαι*) 465, 466, 467.
Col. 959 C 4. *The art of Glaucus*. This proverb is explained by Diogenianus, Zenobius, Suidas, and especially by the scholiast of Plato on this passage. It signifies an art that is an invention of Glaucus, highly to be esteemed. Here it is said that Glaucus, skilled in metallurgy, discovered the art of tempering iron: that art is called in Greek *siderou kollēsis*.
Col. 944 A 7. Origen *contra Celsum*, b. VII, p. 351, Cambridge edition. It seems to me that Plato took from Isaiah, who describes the city of God, those things which he says about the stones which are considered precious among men; which, however, he himself asserts to be nothing other than
A the dregs (ἀποῤῥοή) of the stones which lie in the best soil.” Col. 953 B 6. I read with mss. 466 and 468, *mnes andreias* instead of *meta andreias autes*. Col. 954 B 8. *En* 466. Ibid. 12. *Pe de* 468. Ibid. 14. *Tede hos* 468. Col. 956 C 10. This proverb *Arche hemysys pantos* is mentioned by Aristotle. Among Latin authors, by Horace: *Dimidium facti qui cœpit habet*. See the *Parœmiographi* and Erasmus’s *Adagia*. Ibid. D 7. *Trophous* 466, 467, 468 and Plato. Col. 957. *Hęper* the same. Col. 961 A 13. *Epei ei* I read for the simple *ei*. But this syntax, the order of which I have set forth, unfolded, and explained in the volume which I published in the year 1814, *De Græcarum conjunctionum usu*, Paris, at Eberhart’s, page 145 (cf. the note), was not unknown to Plato. *Republic*, book II, p. 360, ed. Stephanus; *Phædo*, p. 109 of the same; *Protagoras*, p. 354; *Laws*, in the ninth book, p. 873; I *Alcibiades*, p. 123. Ibid. B 2. *Oi te de alloi, o ariste Kallikleis, hosoi kaloi gignontai* 466; *oi te de alloi, o ariste, hosoi kakoi gignontai* 467, 468. Col. 964 A 2. *Hę autē* 466; *ex* Plato. Col. 966 B 5. The printed text in the sixth book says: this error was the reason why Vigerus did not discover the true location of this fragment, as he himself confesses in his notes. Theodoret, who copied it word for word in his *Therapeutica*, b. I, p. 9 from Sylburg, should have been recalled from his error by Vigerus. For he most excellently indicated the book from which that snippet was taken. Ibid. 7. *Allache toutois goun* 466, 467, 468. Ibid. C 8. *Proton kolymban deuteron grammata*. Senec., *Controv.* 27, fourth book. See Aristides, *For the Four* against Plato; Suetonius, in *Augustus*, 64: *Nepotes et litteras et natare aliaque rudimenta per se plerumque docuit*. See Erasmus, in the *Adagia*, under the entries *Ignavia* and *Inscitia*. Ibid. 9. *Epistantai* 468 and Plato. Col. 968 C 14. The passage of Aeschylus to which Plato alludes is read also in the tragedy *Seven Against Thebes*, v. 559, where the poet, describing the character of Amphiaraus, says: *Ou gar dokein aristos, all’ einai thelei,* *Batheian aluka dia phrenos karpoumenos* *Aph’ hes ta kedna blastanei bouleumata.* Which is translated thus: “For he does not wish only to seem good and upright, but to be so. From this he draws that greatness and uprightness of mind whence counsels of prudence are born.” B Plutarch, in *Life of Aristides*, c. 3, and in *Apophthegmata regum ac imperatorum*, p. 116, t. VIII, ed. Hutten, reports that all eyes were turned toward Aristides when, in the first performance of this tragedy, these verses were recited. Xenophon also applies them to Socrates in the book inscribed *Apomnemoneumata*, and Sallust to Cato, in *Bellum Catilinæ*, c. 57. These verses were very famous among the ancients, and the ancients used them very often for the praise of illustrious men. Col. 972 C 11. Porphyry, *De abst.*, b. III, c. 27, p. 288: *Aitia de he genesis kai to en te penia hemas genesthai, tou porou aporrheontos*. Regarding this passage from Plato’s *Symposium*, in which I decided that the Platonic word *ta* should be preferred to the *ta* in Eusebius, which lacks sense, read Ruhnken’s note in *Timæi Lexicon Platonicum*, pp. 188 and 189. Col. 973 B 2. *Automatos* 466, 467, 468. Ibid. D 2. *Enkriton* 467. Col. 976 A 13. Mss. 466 and 467 contain the following supplement: *Te kat’ auton archaiologia kechrëtai kataklysmou mnemoneusas, kai tou meta ton* cataclysm of life; beginning, at any rate, of the third of the *Laws*, he says this: instead of: “In the proem of the *Laws*, at any rate, listen to what he says.” Col. 978 C 8. *Blepein* 467 and Plato. Ibid. 9. *Epikoinoumenous* 466, 467 and Plato. Col. 981 B 13. The text of Eusebius which I have followed has eleven words which are not found in Plato. But I cannot now discover whether those words may have been restored in more recent editions. Ibid. C 6. The disdain for mechanical arts, which among the ancients were practiced only by slaves, was common among the ancient philosophers. The word *banausos*, which expresses their idea, always reeks of a certain vileness. C Plato declares this in many places. See the first *Alcibiades*, p. 131, ed. H. Stephanus; *Amator*, p. 137 of the same, 6 Ficinus: *Epei ge ōmen kai oneidos einai touto kai banausous kalesthai tous peri tas technas eshoudakotas.* *Republic*, b. VI, p. 495, ed. Stephanus: *Houto kai tas psychas synkeklasmenoi te kai apotethrymenoi dia tas banausias tynchanousi.* See Aristotle, *Politic.*, VIII, 2; *Eudemus*, 1, 4; Lucian, *Somnium*, 9: “Where Hemsterhuys…”; Aelian, *Hist. divers.*, VI, 6; finally Cicero, *De officiis*, I, 42: “All craftsmen are engaged in sordid art, for a workshop can have nothing noble.” Col. 984 C 10. *Cum Deo et universo* is a version of those things which are read in Eusebius: *Theo de kai kosmo hogen philosophos homilon*. In Plato: *Theio de kai kosmio*. I have decided that the reading of Eusebius, which all mss. have, should be retained. Col. 985 A 6. *Ethelēsian* all mss. Col. 988 B 7. Here Plato alludes to the verses of Tyrtaeus which have reached us in the *Oration of Lycurgus against Leocrates*, p. 162 ed. Henrici Stephani, and which are found in all poetic selections, as in Stobæus, c. 49. But Plato differs from Tyrtaeus only in this: that he intends to praise military virtue alone there, while Plato attributes to every citizen endowed with virtue and justice the praise given by the poet to the combatant; this allusion, moreover, in the things that follow, is continued, as is easily seen in the poetic words shining forth in this fragment. See Brunck’s *Analecta* t. I, p. 50. Ibid. C 3. The scholia, or the convivial ditty already related in the *Gorgias* (p. 451, *De legibus*, I, p. 631), D mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, *Stromat.*, b. IV, p. 573; Athenæus, b. XX, p. 694; Stobæus, *Ecloga ethica*; Lucian, *De lapsu inter saltandum*; Theodoret, *Therapeut.* p. 153, Sylburg. Clement thinks it should be attributed to Simonides; thus Ilgen reports it in his edition: *Hygiainein men ariston andri thnato.* *Deuteron de, kalon phyan genesthai·* *To triton de, ploutein adolos·* *Kai to tetraton, hēban meta ton philon.* Col. 992 D 4. *Hosper* 466, 468. Col. 996 C 1. This is a *paronomasia*, or wordplay, which can by no means be transferred outside the language in which it was written. Minerva is called in the Greek tongue *Athēne*; *Athēnaios* is formed from that word, while *Attikos* is not derived from it; therefore Clinias calls them *Athēnaioi*, not *Attikoi*, the Athenian stranger, who is thought to be Plato, that he may show a relationship existing between him and Minerva, by whom he is inspired. Col. 1000 C 9. This proverb was used to designate a quantity which could not be determined at all. The *Xoës* or *Congius* was a liquid measure which they used for the distribution of drinks, and the quantity of which—like what the sea contains—is truly a numerical chimera.
NOTES BY SEGUIER AND BRISSONIUS
See the scholiast of Ruhnken, and the note of Petavius on the twenty-first oration of Themistius, p. 262 of the Hardouin edition. On page 511, this note is found: In this version I have decided that the reading of Eusebius ought to be preferred to the reading of Plato which, in my judgment, is to be corrected by Eusebius. For this phrase is read thus in Plato: *Regarding this, both the truly noble nature of men, and also the lack of nobleness and cowardice*, instead of *the noble nature and bravery*.
Col. 1009 A 5. *The lawmaker... of no small help if this also were not so constituted, as now even the text itself asserts it to be.* Regarding the formula *the text asserts* (αἱρεῖ ὁ λόγος), see above, book I, chapter 15, and the note to book VII, chapter 13, where examples are collected at the same time. See Wyttenbach on Plutarch, *On the Delay of Divine Vengeance*, Annotations, p. 8; Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata* VII, pp. 868, 874, 879, 890.
Col. 1013 A 8. Sophocles, *Oedipus Rex*; the final verses: *So, being mortal, look to see that final day,* *and mark no man as happy, until he pass* *the boundary of life, having suffered nothing painful.* Many authors have used this sentiment.
Ibid. C 9. Plato, *Laws* XI, p. 682, ed. Laemarius 931, Stephanus. *Oedipus, being dishonored, invoked curses upon his own children, which indeed everyone celebrates as having been fulfilled and accomplished by the gods; and Amyntor, moved to anger, cursed his own son Phoenix, and Theseus, Hippolytus; and others cursed others, countless thousands upon countless thousands, of which it is clear the gods were obedient executors on behalf of parents against their children.* Oedipus, provoked by insults, imprecates his own sons; and this narrative, which everyone mentions, is proof that imprecations of this kind are heard by the gods. So Amyntor acted towards Phoenix, one of his own children; and Theseus, angry at Hippolytus; and many others towards many others, from which one may conclude that parents are heard by the gods against their children.
Col. 1016 C 8. *Small* (σμικρόν) 466.
Ibid. 13. The words *or he convinces the one who condemned him*, omitted by Eusebius, I have supplied from Plato and the manuscripts, 467.
Col. 1017 C 9. Aristotle attacks this doctrine because it would suppose that the perpetuity of magistracies rests within the same families. *That it is necessary for Socrates to make the rulers the same is manifest; for it is not that for some, and at another time for others, the gold from God has been mixed into their souls, but always for the same ones. He says that for those born immediately, he mixed gold, but for others, silver, and bronze and iron for those who are to be craftsmen and farmers.* It seems evident that Socrates considers it as necessary that magistracy dignities be granted only to those suitable for life; for gold is not given by the gods now to some and then to others: for he teaches that this gold was immediately mixed into the souls of those being born; but to these others, silver; and bronze and iron to men who were to practice the crafts of artisans and plowmen.
Col. 1020 B 2. This definition of a physician, *the healer of the sick*, in Viger’s opinion, should have been repeated here, in his 15th note, and was mistakenly omitted.
Col. 1025 A 13. That description conforms so perfectly to the Athenians that it is likely that they are being satirized by Plato, though not openly.
Col. 1029 A 1. What has come down to us regarding the relations that existed between Homer and Creophylus is very obscure. It seems that Creophylus was a host to Homer and received the poem *The Capture of Oechalia* as a gift of hospitality from him. Others, however, contend that Homer was presented with this poem by him. Callimachus followed this latter opinion in an epigram cited by Strabo, XIV, p. 25, and the scholiast on Dionysius Thrax, p. 725, of the Bekker edition.
1628 Thus Ernestius relates it in his edition of Callimachus; Viger did not recognize it as complete, as appears from his annotation: *I am the work of the Samian, to whose house the divine Homer once came.* *I weep for Eurytus, all that he suffered,* *and the xanthic Iole. But I am called Homeric.* *A writing; for Creophylus, dear Zeus, this is a great thing.*
Col. 1038 B 13. Chapter 28 consists of this entire portion of his citation up to the words: *since we have made it the sole cause of the existence of all things*.
Col. 1045 A 12. *To reach* (ἐφικνεῖσθαι), 467.
Col. 1048 C 7. For the third person I read *for you were listening* (ἤκουες γάρ που), and below, the response *and certainly we were listening* (καὶ σφόδρα γε ἐπ-ηκούομεν), with certain manuscripts of Plato; since the sense seemed to demand this.
Col. 1049 D 8. For *above and the whole heaven*, Wittenbach, in his notes on the *Phaedo*, proposes: *in which also the whole heaven*, by which the firmament is filled. This change does not seem to me to be approved; for by assigning a soul to the universe, Plato makes it an animal. Ficinus, however, interprets it as if it were *as*, or *in the manner of*.
Col. 1064 C 13. The sacrifice of pigs in honor of Ceres and Bacchus took place, as the scholiast of Aristophanes notes in the *Frogs*, v. 340. *O lady, highly honored daughter of Demeter,* *how sweetly the smell of the dancing-flesh breathed upon me.* Pigs were sacrificed to Demeter and Dionysus because they were destructive of the gifts of the deities. *Because they were consuming the gifts of these two divinities.* Ovid, *Metamorphoses* XX, 5, 3. And since the mysteries pertained to them, in addition, Plato considers the sacrifice of this animal, made to these gods, as something mystical. Tibullus has it thus: *But drive away the weapons from us, O Lares,* *and the mystical pig as a sacrificial victim from the full altar.* I prefer this way of reading it to the *rustic* word of the more recent editions, since all pigs are rustic or field-dwelling. Tibullus, moreover, took this from Greek mythology; for not only Plato, but even Aristophanes attributes this epithet to the pig in the *Acharnians*, v. 746.
Col. 1072 C 8. Axiochus, § 12: *For it did not seem to me to be holy to go out together with one who was raving.*
Col. 1073 C 1. This fragment of Aeschylus in the Stanley edition is attributed to the *Psychostasia*, where Jupiter seems almost dubious, weighing death between Achilles and Hector. It is taken from the twenty-second book of the *Iliad*.
Col. 1080 B 12. Numenius, whose testimony he has already used, namely: bk. IX, c. 6, p. 410 and 411; p. 543, in the treatise *On the Good*, and whom we shall find also cited in the following books, was invoked by Origen *Against Celsus*, bk. IV, p. 198, ed. Spencer; from the writing entitled *On*, he declares that he was more of a Platonist than a Pythagorean. Macrobius, *In Somnium Scipionis*, bk. I, t. II, relates what follows: *Dreams revealed that Numenius, curious among philosophers about occult things, had given offense to the gods because he had published the Eleusinian mysteries by interpreting them. He saw the Eleusinian goddesses in the attire of harlots playing before an open brothel: and when he marveled and asked the cause of such shame, unbecoming to the divinities, they answered, being angry, that they had been dragged by him from the sanctuary of their own modesty and prostituted to those who approached them everywhere.* Porphyry refers to him in the treatise *On the Cave of the Nymphs*, c. 10, and c. 21; the notes of Van Goens should be consulted. Jonsius, in his treatise *On the Writers of the History of Philosophy*, bk. III, c. 10, § 4, has dedicated a long article to him, having cited Valckenaer *On Aristobulus*, p. 18, who opines that he was a Jew, from that
which he said, that Plato was another Moses speaking the language of the Athenians. And his citation of Genesis, c. 10. *On the cave of the nymphs*: that the Spirit of God was borne upon the waters. But the great honor in which Plotinus held him renders this supposition highly improbable.
Col. 1096 A C 1. *Τί δ’ οὐ μέλλομεν*, c. 9. In place of *οὐ*, it seems *οὗ* should be substituted, whence comes my interpretation.
Col. 1097 B A 5. One must look to chapter 12, the beginning of which is already found in Clement of Alexandria, *Strom.* 1, pp. 410 and 411, and in book nine, c. 6, of Eusebius’s *Praeparatio evangelica*, p. 410; Valckenaer, *De Aristobulo Judaeo*, p. 47 sqq. and p. 66. The reader must be referred back to him, for I cannot here repeat all the observations contained in this excellent work. Two recent writers have already discoursed on this fragment: Gfrörer, *Kritische Geschichte des Urchristenthums*, vol. II, p. 71, of the second edition of 1835; and Dähne, *Geschichtliche Darstellung der Jüdisch-Alexandrinischen Religionsphilosophie*, 1834, vol. II, p. 73, who, although often disagreeing in the spirit which guided them in the composition of their works, almost always tend toward the same thing; both, however, agree with Valckenaer against Hody and D. Lobeck, *Aglaophamus*, vol. I, p. 448; namely, that these fragments are genuine, being those of Aristobulus the Jew, who lived in the times of the Ptolemies and, most likely, under Ptolemy Philometor and Ptolemy Physcon, and not those of a Christian, nor even a Jew of the Christian era of the second century. Hody aims primarily at this, to render void the testimony of Aristobulus which favors the version of the Septuagint Interpreters, praised in this fragment as having been done under Ptolemy Philadelphus, at the care of Demetrius of Phalerum. The first phrase deservedly moved Valckenaer to censure: *Φανερὸν ὅτι Πλάτων φανερός*. It is certain that this word *φανερὸς* is not by Aristobulus; it was added by Eusebius or by a transcriber.
Ibid. C D 1. The Orphic verses which follow are in great celebrity, both because ancient pagan authors often alluded to them first, as I observed in my little work *On Sanchoniathon*; and because Christian writers mentioned them, whether at length or briefly; for example, Justin Martyr, in his *Exhortation*, c. 15; in his book *On Monarchy*, c. 3; Clement of Alexandria in his *Protrepticus*, c. 7; and in the fifth *Stromata*, though in minute and small fragments; and finally, Saint Cyril of Alexandria *Against Julian*, but that has evidently been most gravely adulterated. The author previously mentioned is worthy of pardon regarding this, for he declares that this whole citation was taken from Aristobulus, whose bad faith is evident; D while Justin names Orpheus alone, just as Clement and Cyril of Alexandria do, but he reports the verses of Aristobulus, with the author not named at all. But now, how is the discrepancy in these texts to be explained, and who is the author of these adulterations? The inventor of them should not, in my opinion, be considered Aristobulus. For this is demonstrated both because Plato, Plutarch, and the anonymous author in the *Florilegium* of Stobaeus, iv, 4, alluded to the first verse, and because of the very frequent imitations of that author made by Latin poetic writers, and mentioned by Brisson, *De formulis*, at the beginning of the first book. Nevertheless, Lobeck, p. 453, thinks this verse was added by the Orphics. But what does he understand by "Orphic verses"? Or were they the verses of Orpheus? It is almost certain that, if indeed Orpheus existed, no verses were composed by him, especially in the Attic dialect, which was not yet known at that time. Onomacritus is considered the first adulterator, who published his poems under the names of Orpheus and Musaeus. He lived in the fifty-fifth Olympiad. But later the Pythagoreans usurped this name and made it famous, with many pseudonymous poems published by them. The first edition of this fragment is of that kind, the only one which seems to have been known to Justin, in which Jupiter is thus called:
..θνητα κόραι εἰσὶν ἐν ὅσσοις Ἀσθενέες δ' ἰδέειν Δία τὸν πάντων μεδέοντα.
Clement, however, knew both and drew from both; Eusebius faithfully followed Aristobulus, whom he points out as his guide, and to whom all fraud must be attributed, as Valckenaer, Gfrörer, and Dähne have demonstrated. Lobeck, *Orphica*, p. 448, contends that these adulterations are certainly later than Clement, and thus he embraces the opinion of Hody and Richard Simon, but since he opposes his own opinion only with the excellent arguments of Valckenaer, I judge that it is by no means to be held. Valckenaer was truly worthy of being refuted.
Ibid. 4. He indicates the law given on Mount Sinai for *Πᾶσι νόμου*. In place of these words, Justin writes *πάντες ὅμως* — all together; which differs significantly: Clement and Cyril follow him. I must confess, however, that not all of Eusebius’s manuscripts contain the same: 465, 466, 467. For in them is read: *πᾶσιν ὁμῶς*. Which is corrupt, for the phrase occurring lacks a substantive, *θείοιο τεθέντος πᾶσιν*; a noun must be used, therefore it must be preserved as *πᾶσι νόμου*.
Col. 1100 A A 8. The difference in the philosophical doctrines by which those who prepared the two editions of this fragment were moved is especially observed in these verses. These are the saintly Justins who drew their origin from paganism.
Οὗτος δ' ἐξ ἀγαθοῖο κακὸν θνητοῖσι φυτεύει, Καὶ πόλεμον κρυόεντα καὶ ἄλγεα δακρυόεντα.
Aristobulus the Jew: Αὐτὸς δ' ἐξ ἀγαθῶν θνητοῖς κακὸν οὐκ ἐπιτέλλει Ἀνθρώποις· αὐτῷ δὲ χάρις καὶ μίσος ὁπηδεῖ.
The difficulty of denying that evils are sent by God, and yet the necessity of acknowledging Him as the sole author of all things that happen, is the most difficult of all questions pertaining to religion. Plato discussed it at length in the second book of his *Republic*; and his dissertation is excerpted by Eusebius from the same book, c. 1, p. 641. It approaches more closely to the sentiment of the Christians and Jews: Justin's Orpheus, however, is nothing other than a disciple and imitator of Homer; that is, of rude and primordial mythology.
Ibid. B 1. This list of the ten commandments of Moses is a certain argument of Jewish adulteration: Ἀρχὴν αὐτὸς ἔχων καὶ μέσσον ἠδὲ τελευτήν.
Ibid. C 3. *Μέσσον*. Ms. 466 has *μέσην*; which has been amended in a different way by the duplication of the sigma, as in Theodoret, *Therapeutica*, sermon 11, p. 26, Sylburg edition. Clement, cited by Eusebius, infra, p. 685, reads: Ἀρχὴν αὐτὸς ἔχων ἅμα καὶ μέσσον ἠδὲ τελευτήν.
Ibid. C 5. I have followed the amendment of Scaliger; he writes: *ὑδογενὴς* for *ὑλογενὴς* which is found in the text. See Valckenaer, p. 75, later Wesseling. Huet wrote it in the margin of his codex.
Col. 1101 A 6. *Ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεθα*. This way of beginning is very famous in all antiquity and mentioned by many authors; it is changed in manuscripts 465, 466, 468 into the following: *Ἐκ Θεοῦ ἄρχο*. Gfrörer, vol. II, p. 78, *Urchristenthum*, has embraced this variation, which seems sufficiently supported by the words of Aristobulus below. Nevertheless, the primitive text is seen to be such that it should be preserved, as it is commended by many Greek and Latin citations which have been transmitted to us from antiquity regarding the beginning of this poem.
A Col. 1101 A 7. "All things are full of God." "Full are the streets of God, And full the markets of men..." In these two verses, Aristobulus substitutes "of Zeus" for "of God"; he speaks of this below; therefore, this variant reading of the original text, which the writer himself admits, must be preserved. It is truly surprising that, having so boldly adulterated the verses of Orpheus and added many of his own to Orpheus himself, the falsity of which is evident to all, Aristobulus would not dare to change even one word in the verses of Aratus. The reason for this procedure is that Aratus the poet was at that time more recent and very famous in the court of the Ptolemies, and his first verse had become a proverb: "Let us begin from Zeus, as Aratus decided."
Ibid. B 14. "Truly, the first [creation of light] can naturally be called that in which all things are contemplated together." This confusion of the first day with the seventh suggested to Alting the following observation, *Opera* t. V, p. 351: "God of external works, on the one day (the seventh), which is likewise the beginning, since Moses, describing the beginning, assigns the seventh day to it, and as if he finally shows the births of all things indicated (Gen. I, II, III, IV) by which he gave a birthday to the works of grace." B Gfrörer refers this passage of Philo to *On the Posterity of Cain*, which completely agrees with the opinion of Aristobulus: "The seventh is in order a derivative of the sixth, but in power it is the most venerable of all numbers, differing in no way from the monad. And he himself will reveal this in the epilogue of the creation of the world, saying: 'And God rested on the seventh day from all his works which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it; because on it he rested from all his works which God had begun to make.' Then he adds: 'This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when it was made, in the day that God made the heaven and the earth.' But these things happened on the first, so that the seventh might be referred to the monad, the first and origin of all things."
Ibid. C 13. Philo, at the beginning of the first book, *Allegories of the Laws*, p. 41 of the Morell edition: "First, then, having rested on the seventh day, He begins the establishment of other, more divine patterns; for God never ceases from creating, but just as it is proper to fire to burn, and to snow to be cold, so also it is proper to God to create. And this is so much the more [true] as He is also the origin of seeing for all other things. If, however, it is said that 'He rested,' it does not mean He ceased; for He ceases to do what appears [to be] creating, not what acts; yet He does not cease creating Himself, which is why He adds: 'He rested from what He had begun.' For whatever is created by our arts, these, once finished, stop and remain; but whatever [is created] by the science of God, once finished, they are moved again. For their ends are the beginnings of others; for instance, the end of day is the beginning of night; and when the month and year arrive, one must suppose [them] to be the beginning of those that follow." See Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata* VI, p. 813: "For the sake of the sign of the seventh word that exists among us, in which we have knowledge of human and divine things."
Ibid. D 5. How then is this "seventh word" to be understood, which teaches us both about God and ourselves? Walckenaer explains it from the doctrines of the Stoics, modified according to the ideas of the Jews. (Laertius Diogenes, in *Zeno* VIII, 110.) "They say the soul is eight-parted; for its parts are the five senses, the vocal organ, and the intellective and the generative." Aristobulus, recognizing only seven faculties, removes or rejects the division of the intellect into two parts, namely the dianoetic and the generative; to the five senses and the organ of voice, he adds the *seventh word*, that is, *Nous*, the intelligence, which is the origin of all our cognitions.
Ibid. 7. This doctrine of the occult attributes of the number seven, which flourished among the ancients, was not peculiar to the Jews alone. Pythagoras, on account of its harmonic properties, had vowed to it a certain worship. Plato in the *Timaeus*, Cicero in the *Dream of Scipio*, had adhered to this false opinion. "Which number is the measure of almost all things," says Macrobius, who in his commentary on this latter work explained in many pages the wonderful advantages of this mystical number. A. Gellius also did this in the tenth chapter of the third book of the *Attic Nights*. It is easily understood how welcome this doctrine of the pagans was to the Jews, and especially to Philo and Aristobulus, as can be seen *De Septenario*, pp. 11, 75, of the Morell edition, and passim...; *De opificio Dei*, p. 20. However, Valckenaer, who strenuously studied this section of our author, and pondering why Philo remained silent about Aristobulus, thinks to the contrary of Gfrörer’s opinion, [that] this elegant writer and alumnus and admirer of the Greek Muses despised all the literary monuments of his own nation, albeit written in Greek, except for the Bible, and that he could not give his assent to the insane suppositions and silly adulterations, and furthermore uncorrected, made by Aristobulus, as this spurious verse of Homer: "On the seventh day we left the river of Acheron." *Aristobulea*, p. 95.
These dreams were also embraced by certain Christians; see Lactantius, *Divinae Institutiones*, bk. VII, c. 14; Clement in the fragment which Eusebius reports, according to the citation of Aristobulus; Saint Jerome on Amos and Micah. Saint Augustine does not seem exempt from that error, *De Civitate Dei*, XI, 31.
Col. 1104 A 1. The fraud of Aristobulus consists in this place in that he separately reports this verse of Hesiod, which is the sixth of the poem *Works and Days*, 770: "But the days are of Zeus of wise counsel; First, the first [day], the fourth, and the seventh, a holy day, For on it Leto bore Apollo of the golden sword." "The seventh day is holy because Apollo was born on it." But the other verses, if you except one only of Homer, are supposititious and in no way demonstrate that every seventh day was consecrated to worship; but only the seventh day of the month. But the adulterated verse of Homer is the following one: "It was the seventh day and all things were finished." *Odyssey* E, 262. "It was the fourth day and all things were finished." Here the bold interpolator was not ashamed to change the numbers themselves! These verses are attributed here to Linus, [but] are assigned to Callimachus by St. Clement, bk. V *Stromata*, for below, p. 677, they are referred to under the name of Callimachus. There is no doubt that the name of Linus is a pseudonym, just as all the verses ascribed to him; but all critics are amazed that Callimachus was substituted for him by St. Clement, and that this error was not noticed by Bentley, indeed that he even adhered to this one in the fragments of that poet. Valckenaer, p. 125, Ruhnkenius in his letters to Ernesti, p. 44, and all who have discussed this citation; Henri Estienne in his *Poesis Philosophica*, attributes them to Linus.
Ibid. B 5. "The seventh is a birthday." In the ideas of the Jews, concerning the world; in the ideas of Philo and Aristobulus, concerning light; and thus the seventh day is to the first day...
C known (see above), according to the pagan ideas about Apollo, for which reason he is nicknamed "the generator of the seventh day." Col. 1104 C 8. The text as it is reported by St. Clement, Eusebius, and all the manuscripts, is evidently erroneous. *Deiknyousi* and *menyousi* provide a meaning that is entirely similar, and display no adversatival significance, which the repetition of the word *allo* requires. The correction is obvious to me, for the well-known definition of the word *allegoria*, "it says one thing, but means another," provides it for us: "Allegories show one thing, but mean something else." Col. 1105 C 8. *Kata ton paronta tropon tes diexodou*. The tenor or meaning of this word is used metaphorically in Plato to express the advances and retreats of battle lines, *diexodoi taktikai* (De legibus, Bk. II, p. 372). See Viger’s note on this final passage, p. 706, cited in the same book of our *Praeparatio evangelica*, ch. 19. Col. 1108 C 5. Here the text of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, VI, 12, is entirely truncated by Clement, just as in the citation that Eusebius provided; for it stands as follows: "We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Col. 1112 B 10. Concerning this verse of Pindar, see Boeckh, Frag. 29. Col. 1113 A 6. See Frag. 87 of Callimachus by Bentley. Ibid. 13. Here the poet’s text is corrupted by St. Clement: for it is read *kai sthenos* instead of *kai noon*; Lobeck observes that this variation should be attributed to Origen, from whom St. Clement undoubtedly lifted it. However, the word *sthenos* is found in the fourth book *Contra Celsum*, § 38. It is the sixtieth verse of the poem *Works and Days*. Ibid. B 2. The Stoic philosophers define not only nature in this way, but God himself: which pleases St. Clement not in the least. But since they very often confuse God with nature, he could use this simile to carry out his own purpose, of inducing the Greeks to speak like Genesis itself. Behold similar sentiments: Cicero, *De natura deorum*, II, 22: "Zeno defines nature in such a way that he calls it an artistic fire proceeding by method to generation." Plutarch, *De placitis philosophorum*, Bk. I, ch. 7: "The Stoics more commonly define God as an artistic fire proceeding by method to the generation of the world, having enclosed within it all the seminal reasons according to which each thing comes to be by fate." Stobaeus, *Eclogae physicae*, Bk. I, p. 64, Heeren’s edition, says the same thing, except that he reads *noeron* instead of *koinoteron*. Aristotle, cited by Eusebius in the *Praeparatio evangelica*, Bk. XV, ch. 14: "The Stoics say that the fire is a constituent of the things that exist, just like Heraclitus. And the principles of this are matter and God; but they say that both are bodies." Diogenes Laertius, Bk. VII, 156: "Nature is an artistic fire proceeding by method to generation." Finally, the refutation of this Stoic sentiment regarding God, whom they imagine to be corporeal, can be read in Athenagoras’ *Legatio pro Christianis*, p. 26 of the edition of H. Stephanus. Col. 1116 C 2. This passage, taken from the sixth letter of Plato, was mentioned by all the apologists; Clement mentioned it in the *Protrepticus*; Athenagoras in the *Legatio pro Christianis*, p. 92; Origen *Contra Celsum*, Bk. VI, § 8; Cyril *Contra Julianum*, Bk. I. Col. 1117 A 4. Concerning Heraclitus of Ephesus, see Plutarch, *De animarum procreatione*, p. 290, Vol. XIII, ed. Hutten; Schleiermacher, in the *Museum antiquitatis* of Fred. Aug. Wolf, p. 374; Simplicius, on Aristotle’s book *De caelo*, folio 68; the same, on Aristotle’s *Physics*, folio 17, Aldine edition. Ibid. 12. "Touching with measure and being extinguished with measure." *Metra* is read in St. Clement, and this reading seems to be preferred by Schleiermacher in the dissertation cited; it is a version of Simplicius, Bk. I, see p. 449 ff. He defends that reading thus on p. 451: "‘Touching with measure and being extinguished with measure,’ is explained certainly as every one of our passages, viewed for itself, of transformations proceeding continuously according to different measure." Whoever rightfully weighs this passage discovers in it most certainly an uninterrupted series of mutations, which occur in various measures (or proportions). Col. 1120 A 2. This interpolation concerning the number seven, which breaks the flow of the discourse, like a certain *parergon*, is for the most part taken from the book of Aristobulus, though it is not named in the least; for that is proved from the fragment from which the preceding chapter of Eusebius’ book coalesces. There is no doubt that if this work had not perished, we would discover many other things secretly purloined by this priest of Alexandria. This fraud was done so ineptly that the inept adulterations of Aristobulus remained whole in it, and Clement did not care to consult the true and genuine writings of the author, which the Jewish writer adulterated. Should that be attributed to a transcriber ancient enough to have preceded Eusebius? This does not seem likely. See, in the annotations of the preceding chapter, whatever pertains to these citations of the ancient poets. Ibid. 10. This verse, which Clement attributes to Callimachus, is assigned to Linus by Aristobulus, as can be seen in the twelfth chapter of this book. Ruhnken wrote thus on this matter to Ernesti, p. 44: "In the fragments of Callimachus by Bentley, no. 115, there are five spurious verses. Clement of Alexandria, to whom appeal is made, wrote all these things from Aristobulus, whose fragment Eusebius exhibits, *Praeparatio evangelica*, Bk. XIII, pp. 663-668. There, on the last page, those verses are attributed to Linus much more conveniently." The same is the opinion of Valckenear, pp. 28 and 124 of his *Dissertation on Aristobulus*. Col. 1121 A 5. See Xenophon’s *Memorabilia*, Bk. IV, ch. 3, § 8, and Schneider’s note on the variants of the text. See Stobaeus, *Eclogae physicae*, II, 1. 19. In place of the word *lampas*, Davies, in Cicero’s *De natura deorum*, Bk. I, ch. 12, p. 37, proposes *lamphanes*, which is read in St. Cyril, *Contra Julianum*, Bk. I, p. 32, and in Stobaeus, 1. 1. Ibid. D 3. "Zeus is into the couch as a man... let us be," I read with Valckenear. Col. 1124 C 5. All things in this fragment, contested by the first defenders of Christianity, openly reveal the fraud; the common opinion of learned men has already settled on this. The unquestionable piety of Sophocles, opposed to the dissembled impiety of Euripides, is a historical fact which all antiquity attests in those things which have reached us concerning these two rivals; but who could deservedly suppose that by this poet, endowed with such excellent piety, the religion of the Athenians was attacked more openly than by Euripides or Socrates? Next, Clement reveals to us here that this citation should be attributed to an unknown writer of Jewish history, perhaps a Jew himself, just as Celsus thought, as cited by Origen, Bk. I, p. 13. See Bentley, *Epistola ad Millium*, p. 93; Valckenear, *De Aristobulo*, p. 18. Not so Clement, who was most skilled in ancient writers; he is accustomed to expose their texts to us; for he very often indicates their works, just as he did above concerning Sophocles’ *Antiope*; here he did not behave in the same way. He relies solely on Hecataeus of Abdera. Yet it must be admitted that many Christian writers had previously done so; among whom were Athenagoras in his *Legatio pro Christianis*, and Justin Martyr *De monarchia* and in his *Cohortatio*, but their authority is of the lightest weight regarding the authenticity of this monument, and it must be believed that they drew from the same source as Clement.
Stromateus. It is already clear from the example of Aristobulus what amount of guilt for fraud the Hellenizing Jews did not hesitate to incur. Col. 1124 C 5. Those verses of Euripides—cited elsewhere by Plutarch, *De exsilio*, vol. I, p. 370, ed. Hutten; *Quæstiones de natura*, vol. XIII, p. 25; *Adversus principem indoctum*, vol. XII, p. 93; transcribed by Lucian, *Jupiter tragicus*; and which Ennius imitated in his *Thyestes*, as Cicero reports (*De natura deorum*, lib. II, c. 2 and c. 25)—are attributed by Valckenaer (*Diatrib. ad Eurip. Fragm.*, p. 47) to the tragedy inscribed *Cretenses*, but now lost. Col. 1125 A 2: "An indiscriminate crowd of stars Ceaselessly dances around." This choral dance of the stars around the supreme God is found very often in the ancient authors. It is cited in the Pythagorean *Perictyone* by Stobaeus, *Florilegium*, serm. 79: "Divine and beautiful is the sight of parents, and the sight and care bestowed by them, such as neither the Sun nor all the Stars, which the heaven having adorned dances around, [can equal]." Col. 1128 C 3. Meineke, like Brunck in *Poesi ethica*, p. 39, rejected among the spuria these verses of Menander, which Justin, in *De monarchia*, attributes to Philemon: I undertake neither to defend nor to impugn their authenticity. Col. 1129 A 4. Those verses of Diphilus are similarly debated by Luzac in *Exercitationibus academicis*, p. 138, who made certain changes to them: he reads *odòn* in the sixth or seventh verse instead of *horon*. The fourth verse, "There is an eye of Justice that sees all things," is cited by Plutarch in his treatise *Contra Colotem*, vol. XIV, p. 189, ed. Hutten; another verse is read in the *Monosticha* of Menander. Stobaeus, *Eclogae physicae*, lib. I, p. 110, ed. Heeren, and Sextus Empiricus, *Adversus mathematicos*, lib. I, c. 13, p. 275, record the final ones. Ibid. B 6. These verses are attributed to Sophocles by Justin Martyr in *De monarchia*. This is the fifty-first uncertain fragment of Brunck. Ibid. C 4. These two Orphic verses are now read in the third book, c. 9, p. 100, cited according to Porphyry. They are taken from the pantheistic description of Zeus which Aristotle inserted into his treatise *De mundo*, and Apuleius, imitating him, added to the Latin version of the same work. They are also read in Stobaeus, *Eclogae physicae*, lib. I, 3, p. 40; and in the commentary of Proclus *in Timaeum*, p. 96. Verses from that work are found passim in Plutarch, *De oraculorum defectu*, c. 48; Macrobius, *Saturnal.*, lib. 1, 20; and Olympiodorus *in Philebum*, quoted by Ruhnken, *Dissertat. in Longinum*, §5. H. Stephanus also inserted them into *Poesis philosophica*. Lobeck collected these various texts in *Aglaophamo*, p. 521 et seq., with their various readings. Ibid. 13. *Kath' Hellēnas*. He alludes to Plato in the tenth book of the *Laws*, p. 905. Eusebius has already cited this passage in *Praep. evang.*, lib. XII, c. 52, p. 635: "Not being so small that you go down to the depths of the earth, nor having become so high that you fly up into heaven." Ibid. D 1. Those three verses are drawn from the long fragment already cited in chapter 12 of this book, according to Aristobulus, 5, 6, 7. In the third [fragment], it is read in the same place as *anax*. See Lobeck, p. 439 et seq., on the Orphic fragments, and the dissertation regarding Sanchoniathon edited by me. (It appears below.) The same must be said regarding the five following [verses], 23 to 27. Col. 1131 A 13. These pertain to the passage of Aristobulus partly cited in the preceding chapter. Ibid. B 12. These verses belong to the same fragment; it was already cited in c. 12. Ibid. D 5. See regarding this place of Orpheus, Lobeck’s *Aglaophamus*, p. 455. Col. 1133 A 2. This text attributed to Hosea is not found in that prophet; a text nearly similar is read in the prophet Amos, and one which is not the same in the Septuagint Interpreters and in the Latin Vulgate. - Clement: "Behold, I am he who establishes the thunder and creates the spirit, whose hands founded the host of heaven." But the Latin Vulgate reads in this way: "Because behold, he who forms the mountains, and creates the wind, and announces to man his speech, making the morning mist and walking upon the high places of the earth: the Lord God of hosts is his name." LXX: "For behold, I am he who establishes the thunder and creates the spirit, and announces his Christ to men; making the dawn and the mist, and walking upon the high places of the earth, the Lord God Almighty is his name." See similar things in Psalm LXXXIV. Ibid. 10. These two verses pertain to the fragment cited in c. 12; they are indeed the eleventh and twelfth; but they vary; however, the text which is read here is discovered in the *De monarchia* of Justin Martyr. Ibid. 14. These verses are more fully quoted under the name of Aeschylus in Stobaeus, *Eclog. phys.*, vol. I, p. 122: "O Zeus, father Zeus, you indeed have the power of heaven; But you behold the works of heaven and of men, Both the lawless and the right, and for you, The pride and the justice of beasts are a concern." They are inserted by Brunck in *Analecta*, vol. I, p. 43. The substitution of the word *horās* for the word *hēis* completely changes the sense of this passage; I have followed the text of Eusebius along with Brunck. Ibid. C 12. These verses are excerpted under the great fragment cited according to Porphyry, lib. III, c. 9, with the following variant texts, v. 6, 7, 8, lib. III of Eusebius: "One power, one god became great ruler Of all, and one royal body in which all these things are [circulated." Proclus reports them thus in *Timaeum*, p. 96. But Clement has them in this manner, p. 726: "One power, one god has become, the great Heaven [burning, And all things have been made one, in which all these things [are circulated." In these indeed, Uranotheism is clearly manifest. Col. 1136 B 9. The aforesaid verses are mentioned by Plutarch, *Peri Euthumias*, vol. X, p. 24, Hutten; Stobaeus, *Eclogae physicae*, I, p. 168. They consist of the eighth and tenth fragments of Meineke’s edition, p. 203. Ibid. D 3. This oracle is due to Herodotus. Col. 1137 A 1. *Theōridas*. His name is written *Theōridas* or *Theōridēs* in the *Life of Pythagoras* by Iamblichus, p. 214, ed. Kuster. Ibid. B 1. That game to which Plato alludes, both here and in the *Phaedrus*, p. 242, is described by the scholiast of Ruhnken, who discourses on this latter passage. By *epistrophē ostrakou*, one understands a certain kind of game in which boys are divided into two completely equal groups, one of which stands towards the east, and the other towards the west; in the middle, however, sits one of them holding a potsherd in his hand, stained on one side with white color, and on the other side with black. He throws it into the air: if the part distinguished by the white color remains uppermost in falling, the group of boys standing to the east pursues the other; if the black part of the potsherd is seen uppermost, the other group pursues the former until they have captured all their rivals and led them back to the station. The description of this game given by Pollux, lib. IX, c. 7, differs little from the aforementioned; only, in it, the captive
is designated by the name *onos* (donkey). "Now the one who has been captured from those fleeing stays as this *onos*." See Meursius, *De ludis Græcorum*, under the word 'Ostrinda', and Erasmus, *Adagia*, under the word *Testulæ transmutatio*. In our own customs, I have searched for a game which might have some similarity to the Greek game, which we do not sufficiently understand to express Plato's idea. Col. 1137 B 40. *Tō zōō* 466. Col. 1144 B 1. *Plāsai* 466. Col. 1145 B 6. *Sōmatōn* 466, correctly. Ibid. C 2. *Lēxeōs* 465, correctly. Col. 1149 D 6. 'In the midst, having obtained Atalanta's soul, and having seen the great honors of the athlete, [she] was unable to pass him by, but instead...' This text provides no sense; I read it thus: 'In the games, having obtained Atalanta's soul, and having seen the great honors of the athlete, she was unable to pass him by, but took another.' Col. 1153 A 3. 'Through such misdeeds they become incurable, from these, examples arise, and these men themselves are no longer benefited, being incurable, but others are benefited.' For the word *kai* (and), I read *ke* (but); this conjunction is necessary for the construction of the phrase. Ibid. C 1. This fragment of a treatise *On the Soul*, whose author is Severus the Platonist, distinguished for dialectic and the rectitude of his intellect, offers us an excellent idea of the entire work; but only this excerpt of it exists, and a brief citation in a fragment from Jamblichus’s treatise *On the Soul* given by Stobæus, *Eclogæ physicæ*, lib. I, cap. 52, p. 862, in which it is said that the soul's form was defined by Severus the Platonist thus: *Schēma· peras diastaseōs kai autē diastasis*. 'A limit of extension, and extension itself.' Without greater explanation, this can scarcely be understood, and yet from the fragment exhibited to us, it is evident that Severus weaves his arguments correctly and appropriately. Fabricius, in *Bibliotheca Græca*, lib. II, p. 65, of the old edition, judges him to have been a contemporary of Augustus: his name is invoked by Porphyry in the *Life of Plotinus*. There are many men of the same name who must not be confused with him. This number, which is not indicated in the text, refers to cap. 17 in its entirety. Col. 1156 A 14. In place of *hē de psychē*, I substituted *ei de psychē*, as that sense clearly demands. Col. 1157 C 8. Vigerus in his annotation discussed the words *exō* and *exōthen*, of which the former is found in Plato, the latter in Eusebius. Cicero employed the latter in his version of the *Timæus*. Notwithstanding this weighty authority, Vigerus nevertheless sets forth the reasons by which Plato’s opinion seems to him preferable. Other texts from this philosopher agree with his view, as does the *Timæus of Locri*, which places the soul outside the body. I have followed Cicero and Eusebius. Col. 1160 B 4. In Vigerus's opinion, I have neglected the repetition of the Platonic text as useless, evidently inserted by an unskilled copyist. Col. 1161 B 3. In this period, there exists an interrupted series of sense, not corrected in the manuscripts. *Tous mē blepontas* has no verb from which it is governed unless it is related to what precedes or was said before; however it is constructed, the construction will always be very bad. Ibid. 11. *Prodosias* 465. Col. 1165 A 5. This name is that of one of the Eleusinian goddesses, the daughter of Demeter, whom, according to the Romans, we interpret as Proserpina; in this place, however, she seems to signify Minerva rather; for the word *Core* sounds like 'Virgin', and it is known to us that Minerva bound herself by oath to remain a virgin forever; furthermore, dancing with full armor, *panoplia*, was among her exercises; then she was called *Pallas* from *pallein* (to brandish); this kind of dancing was called Pyrrhic. Ibid. 12. *Oikountas xenous*. Although Plato and Eusebius agreed in reading *oikountas*, nevertheless, with Vigerus, I prefer to read *ouk ontas*. Col. 1168 A 1. *Theseōs kai anaireseōs hoplōn*. What is understood in Greek tactics by these words *tithesthai ta hopla*? Does it mean to lay down arms, or to stand under arms, or to take up arms? Vigerus, in a most learned note on this passage, demonstrates the absurdity of this exercise of laying down arms, *theseōs hoplōn haptesthai*. Already Leopardus, *Emendat.*, lib. XI, c. 20, had criticized the faulty version of Valla in very many places of Thucydides, where he translated this verb with the word 'to place'. The scholiasts state two contradictory things: to lay down arms and to take them up. See Wesseling on Diodorus Siculus, [regarding] *ta hopla*. It is read among the orators: 'For the fatherland, *tithesthai ta hopla*.' Lycurgus, *against Leocrates*, p. 153; Æschines, *against Timarchus*, p. 5. *Enantia thesthai ta hopla*, Demosthenes, *against Aristocrates*, p. 624. Plutarch, *Life of Alcibiades*, § 30: *Ethnikrous Athēnaiois enantia hopla mē tithesthai*. From all these various locutions, Vigerus gives four meanings nearly similar to this phrase: 1° For *tattesthai*, to draw up in battle line. 2° *Katastratopedeuesthai*, to encamp, according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, lib. V: *themenoi plēsion ta hopla*. 3° To fortify a camp; the same author, lib. VIII. 'Having run up the peak to the height and *themenon entautha ta hopla*, he remained through the coming night.' 4° Instead of 'to besiege'; Thucydides, lib. VII. 'Against the city itself *ta hopla tithentai*.' Ibid. 12. Stadion, Diaulon, Ephippion, Dolichos, are various exercises which Faber explains in his treatise *De arte agonistica*, lib. I, c. 28. *Diaulon* expresses a race which takes place by going and returning; *stadion* signified only one course; *dolichos* performed seven courses; they ran three times around the turning post (*kampter*) and from the turning post made their last course so that they returned to where they had started (*dromēas*). See Tzetzes, VI *Chiliad*. *Ephippion* is a race on horseback. Col. 1169 B 11. *Toiautēs spoudēs*. This means to join the spouses in marriage appropriately. Col. 1173 A 13. I had to restore this phrase of Plato omitted by Eusebius; for its suppression left no sense for the following words, or at least greatly adulterated it; for it could not be referred to the wise rider of the untamed courser (*hēniochos*), which is the phrase that follows, whose subject he is in the *Philosopher*. Did Eusebius omit it with the intention of doing harm, or out of inadvertence? This is not certain. Nevertheless, it must be observed by me that this description of unchaste love, perhaps too vehement, might be to be blamed in Plato. But it is false that he entirely agreed with it; and the *Phædrus* dialogue aims specifically at this: to show how much they differ from each other, friendship based on virtue and philosophy, and the insane and filthy libido of pederasty. Col. 1176 B 1. Plato does not teach that a master who has killed his slave is pure and innocent (*katharos*), but that he is to be purified (*katharsō*), which does not mean 'is absolved', as Vigerus interpreted. He likely wished to follow the opinion of Eusebius; but the word Plato used does not admit this sense; it imposes purifications. When, however, masters had the power of life and death over their slaves, who were considered among the ancients only as things, not indeed as persons, a greater expiation could not easily be imposed. Col. 1177 A 13. After *aneuphēmos* add: 'By men and women [offered] to the deceased, first the pollution might fall upon him and the wrath of the gods, as the curse of the law incites the report.' Ibid. B 1. I have not found this last law
in the ninth book of Plato’s *Laws*. Conversely, in the preceding books, it is commanded that a husband who kills his wife, or a wife who kills her husband, be punished with three years of exile. I cannot in any way accede to the opinion of Eusebius. For a servant, who has neither goods nor money, since he is himself the property of another, could be punished by nothing other than bodily torments; without these, the only thing remaining for him would be impunity.
Col. 1189 D 1. This verse of Parmenides is mentioned by Simplicius in the Aristotelian treatise *De Caelo*, book I, p. 31, Aldine edition: "Parmenides, the first of those we know, says—having inquired about this matter in his verses concerning what IS—he wrote that it is unbegotten; for it could not come to be from what is, since it already existed before, nor from what is not; for it could not even be spoken of, nor ever thought of; for that which is absolutely not is neither utterable nor thinkable." In the same author's *Commentary on the Physics*, p. 19, he refers to the verse thus: "Since fate has bound it to be motionless and whole, to which [the name] 'all' will belong." It is quoted again on page 31 verso. Buttmann, cited by Heindorf on this passage of the *Theaetetus*, proposes it should read: "Such as to be motionless, to which 'all' is the name." Concerning the meaning of the word *dyscryptous*, see Hasius on Lydus, p. 312.
Col. 1193 C 1. Arcesilaus distorted the forty-second verse of Hesiod’s poem *Works and Days* thus: "For the gods have hidden the means of life from men." Alamanni translated this verse thus in the second book of *Della Coltivazione*, v. 357: "He hid the bait / beneath the hard earth; so that it might not rise / to the open sky, if the cultivator / does not call it forth in a thousand ways."
Ibid. 6. But the name of this philosopher is either *Charmides*, as found in Eusebius, or *Charmadas*, as Sextus indicates, whom Eusebius followed word for word and copied in his enumeration of the various academies; and after him, Victorius, *Variarum lectionum*, book XXX, chapter 24. (See *Pyrrhonian Hypotyposes*, book I, 33, p. 56, 57.) *Charmadas* according to Salmasius, *Plinianae exercitationes*, 36 and 50 of the Parisian edition. Valesius imitates him in *Emendationum*, book I, chapter 29. Turnebus had preceded both, *Adversaria*, book X, chapter 16. The reasons he brings forward concerning his own method of writing seem to me to be preferable to the reasons of Eusebius, although the etymology of *Charmis* from *Charis* offers no greater irregularity than the etymology of *Charmadas* from *Charmas*.
This is not the only dispute raised concerning this name. Another, much more serious, occupied the philologists of the seventeenth century. It would be too long and too foreign to Eusebius to set it out here at length; but the gist of it is as follows. The name of Carneades is read twice in Cicero, namely: in the *Tusculan Disputations* 1, 24, and in *De Oratore* II. In these two places it is invoked undeservedly; since he would have been almost a contemporary of Cicero, or at least of Antonius, whom Cicero knew, yet many chronological arguments are provided for the contrary opinion; therefore, Turnebus in *Adversaria* X, 16, and Victorinus in *Variarum lectionum* XII, 24, substituted the name of Charmadas for Carneades. Salmasius, however, corroborated these emendations (in his *Emendations on Solinus in Pliny*), p. 36, by a calculation of time. Petavius, driven by a desire to contradict, in his *Miscellanies*, chapters 8 and 9, attempted in every way to restore the name of Carneades to Cicero, but he found so few followers that Henricus Valesius, though so devoted to him and so hostile and contrary to Salmasius, was nevertheless forced to impugn his opinion. This dissertation of Valesius is a most perfect work of critical science.
Col. 1196 A 5. Here there is evidently a certain suppression of the series of words, which I have thought it necessary to remedy in my translation. Numenius teaches that the doctrine of Plato remained intact under his first three successors, afterward he adds: "Since, as for other things, they diverged in many ways, and distorted others, they did not persevere in the first succession." To whom, however, can this refer: "as for the other things, they diverged in many ways... they did not persevere"? Surely that is not to be reproached of those who in no way adulterated the teachings of their first master. He has Arcesilaus in mind, therefore, and the other founders of the new academies: Arcesilaus, namely, the father of the second academy; Carneades and Clitomachus, the founders of the third; fourth, however, Philo and Charmadas; and finally Antiochus, the founder of the fifth, if a fifth is to be admitted. In my version, however, I have changed the word *diadochi* (succession), as being alien to the true sense, into *didache* (doctrine). In truth, it is not the succession that is changed, but the doctrine; which is what occurs in that matter.
Ibid. C 10. *Esti te*, 466, 467. Ibid. 13. *scarphthmois*, 466, 467, 468. Ibid. D 2. *diaphoros*, 466.
Col. 1197 A 2. "And the cause is that, Socrates proposing three gods and philosophizing to them in the rhythms appropriate to each, those who heard this were ignorant of it, and thought that he was saying everything at random, and from the current of the moment, with the fortune of one time or another, as he might breathe." It is manifest that in no place were three gods constituted by Socrates; and since he could not philosophize with them, the rhythms being pleasing to them, there is without any doubt an error in *treis theous* (three gods); they are likely three ranks of auditors, *treis stoichous*, with whom he was discoursing: "and [while] philosophizing to them; that it could not have another sense." Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, book IV, at the beginning: "It is consistent to conclude that one must philosophize alike, whether slave or free."
Ibid. 4. It is evident to everyone here that, instead of Aristotle, Arcesilaus should be read, since Aristotle is not to be ascribed to the academy, from which he certainly withdrew by opening and instituting the school of the Lyceum.
Col. 1200 A 10. Parody of the verse of the *Iliad* Z, 181: "In front a lion, behind a dragon, in the middle a Chimera." Other verses are found in the manuscript on 467, consistent with the emendation of Theodorus Canterus, *Variarum lectionum*, chapter 9. See the same, ibid. I, 6: "He will lie about Pyrrho, the whole meat or Diodorus. / Carrying the lead (weight) of Menedemus in his stomach, / The glutton will imagine Pyrrho or Diodorus."
Col. 1201 A 5. The text is adulterated. For what is in question? And in addition, *epei toi proseithisthesan* (since they were accustomed), the conjunctions which grammarians term *parasynaptikoi* (adjoined) would require a conditional protasis, since it is from those [types].
Ibid. B 1. "And Pyrrho had started from Democritus, from somewhere or other." It is read in Diogenes Laertius, book IX, 67, *Life of Pyrrho*: "Philo the Athenian, having become his follower, said that he had attended most of all to Democritus." Philo the Athenian, his disciple, said that Democritean things were to be found in him principally.
Ibid. 14. The Theodorians, or disciples of Theodorus the Cyrenaic, surnamed the Atheist, who is introduced in Plato’s Dialogues, are praised by Diogenes Laertius, book IV, 67: "Those called the Theodorians."
Ibid. Bion the Borysthenite and Academic, was a great sophist, according to Diogenes Laertius, book XV [i.e., IV], 47: "Bion, as for other things, was a versatile and varied sophist, and gave the most opportunities to those wishing to practice philosophy."
A It was not the philosophers he was attacking, as Numenius seems to suggest, but only those who disparage philosophers without cause; this appears much more probable, given that he himself was a philosopher and an Academic. It is easily understood that his defense would have been feared by Arcesilaus, had he openly attacked him. Furthermore, one should distrust Numenius, for whom only the doctrine of Pythagoras seems worthy of approval, and who is always trying to carp at others, as can be seen in his book *On the Dissensions of the Academics*, which aims at this one thing.
Col. 1204 A 5. These words, entangled in great ambiguities, mean that philosophers of this kind fall in their own argumentation by denying certainty. "Cataleptic phantasia" (impressive representation) caused serious difficulty for Cicero in the *Academics*, book 1, 12: "That perception, however, when it was seen by itself, was considered 'comprehensive'." (A comprehensive perception, book 2, c. 7; Diogenes Laertius, book 7, 50; Sextus Empiricus, *Against the Mathematicians*, book 7, 151: "A comprehension between knowledge and opinion, which is the assent to a cataleptic phantasia. And a cataleptic phantasia, according to them, happens to be [the] true and such as could not become false." Ibidem, 248: "A cataleptic phantasia being from an existing thing, impressed and sealed according to the existing thing itself, such as could not come from a non-existing thing." A cataleptic phantasia is clearly produced by a real and existing object, in that it exists in itself, it is formed and impressed there, in such a way that it would not be generated at all unless the thing by which it is produced actually existed.)
Ibid. B 9. *Axioterōs* (more worthily) and shortly after *eirēnēs* (of peace), 466, 468.
Col. 1205 B 10. The stratagem dealt with here can be nothing other than the plan for waging war against Africa, in the 117th Olympiad, after Agathocles was defeated and besieged in Syracuse by the Carthaginians—a plan from which Carthage faced the greatest danger of ruin. The elder Scipio Africanus also used the same stratagem, but with even greater success, to repel Hannibal from Italy. In the twentieth book of his *Library*, Diodorus Siculus describes Agathocles' expedition and the whole method of waging that war in more detail.
Ibid. C 8. This final phrase bristles with difficulties of construction. The sense, contrary to the author's mind, seems to emerge from the repeated negations. It is not rightly understood why *tounantion* (the opposite) is placed in the first part of the phrase, while it should rather belong to the second. *Photous* entirely lacks sense; in its place I substitute *psophous* (sounds/noises).
Col. 1208 A 11. This description of ancient customs presents many difficulties, even though I have attempted everything to explain them. What does *koilon grammateion* (a hollow writing-tablet/case) mean primarily? Hesychius, Harpocration, and Pollux teach us this. Hesychius: "A *grammatidion*, sometimes a small tablet, sometimes similar to a *glōssokomon* (casket); it is also called an *epistalion*." This word has a triple meaning: a small box, a silver casket, a writing case. Harpocration on the word *Argyriothēkē* (treasury): "There were two kinds of *grammatidia* which the Athenians used; one which they used only for writing something inside, and another in which they deposited money; which they also called *kibōtia* (caskets)." I amended the text: *eis to* (for the purpose of) instead of *hōste* (so that); I added to the words *kibōtia boiōtia* which are found in Pollux, book 5, c. 2: "A *grammateion* among the Attics, in which money was stored, which they also called a *grammateion boiōtion*." Hesychius on the word *Argyrion* says: "A *grammateion* which is also called a *Boiōtion koilon* (hollow Boeotian)." Clearly, these Boeotian tablets in which silver was kept indicated the ignorance of the Boeotians. See Plutarch, *On the Distinction Between a Friend and a Flatterer*, xxx, page 254 in the Reiske edition. From these citations of the grammarians, however, it is evident that what is being discussed here is a *grammateion koilon*, not for inserting papers, but money, as with a key, for example. Now, the word *grammateion* for designating a casket is found in this passage of Plutarch, *Life of Pompey*: "And there, having fallen ill, Lepidus died not from depression over affairs, as they say, but by encountering a *grammateion* from which he discovered the adultery of his wife." (Leaping into the casket, he discovered the guilt of his wife's adultery within it.)
Ibid. 12. *Dia tou kleithrou* (through the bolt/latch)—here it signifies a hole suitable for locking doors. This meaning of the word *kleithron* is not found in lexicons; however, it can be called into doubt in no way, since the same thing was narrated by Diogenes Laertius, in which, although he errs in many things, he pronounces correctly regarding our question: "Then he sent the ring through the hole into the colonnade." Almost the same word is found in Pherecydes' letter to Thales. Diogenes Laertius I, 122, says: "Letting the finger through the *klēithrēs* (latch)." (When he had inserted his finger through the hole of the gate.) Therefore that word is synonymous with the words *opē* (opening), *trypēma* (hole). So also in the Song of Songs, c. v, v. 4: "My brother sent his hand through the opening." But what do these words, *opē*, *trypēma*, and *kleithron*, through which hands, fingers, and rings are inserted, signify? Certainly not the keyhole; but a larger hole which the ancients used to close doors. "Are the gates locked with bolts And bronze-bound bars To the stone works of Amphion Of the wall?" The Scholiast says: "The gates locked with bolts. Gates fortified with bolts." These verses are taken from the *Phoenissae* of Euripides, 115. Sophocles *Oedipus Rex*, v. 1261: "Crying dreadfully, as if [led] by some guide He leapt against the double doors; and from the sockets he bent back the hollow bolts." The word *koilon* (hollow), *klēthron* (bolt) epithets, indicates a vacuum in the door. Those who stood outside needed to insert their hand through the hole in order to introduce the key into the bolt. Apuleius, *Metam.*, book iv, p. 70 of the Pricaeus edition: "Therefore, that our standard-bearer, the noble Lamachus, trusting in his own bravery, through which the hole was open for the key to be inserted, slowly inserted his hand intending to pull back the bolt. But for a long time, naturally, Chryseros, the most wicked of all bipeds, being awake and sensing every single thing, tolerating a gentle step and stubborn silence, crept up little by little; and with a large nail, he suddenly pinned the hand of our leader with the strongest effort to the door panel." Which led the companions of the thief to amputate his arm at the shoulder joint. "We cut off the part of the forearm where the hand meets the shoulder, with a blow struck through the middle joint." From this passage of Numenius, we have discovered that when the door was closed and bolted, the key was placed by Lacydes in an ark which he sealed with his own seal. Thus, I understand the use of seals in this way, applied to bolts, and not as magistrates apply them; in such a way could the *Thesmophoriazusae* of Aristophanes be explained, v. 422: "For now the men themselves carry secret Laconian keys, most malicious, having three teeth. Before, it was possible even to unlock the door, Having made a ring for three obols; But now this Euripides, that house-breaker, Has taught them to keep them thrice-secured, Tied fast..." Now there are for our husbands secret keys, Most miserably devised, Laconian keys, three-toothed. Once, it was a game for us to open doors; now...
a greater impediment to us was the seal than the three-obol piece. But now this sly servant, Euripides, has taught us to have seals that are not to be imitated, such as those which people use. Thus, in the section of his *Characters*, Theophrastus, in the one entitled "The Distrustful" (*De Diffidentia*): "And he asks his wife, while lying in bed, if she has locked the chest, and if the little vessel has been sealed." *Τὸ κοίλον γραμματείον*—it must be read *γράμμα* because of the abbreviation *γρ*. In Aeneas Tacticus, skilled in the art of breaking open gates, stratagems are found which may be explained in a similar manner.
The following examples can be used to demonstrate the use of seals in preserving provisions: Plautus, in *Casina*, Act II, scene i: "Seal up the storerooms: bring the ring back to me." Pliny, *Natural History*, XXXIII: "And now food and drink also are protected from ruin by a ring." Clement of Alexandria, in *The Instructor* (Paedagogus), book III, p. 287: "The Instructor gives them (the women) a gold ring, not for ornament, but for sealing those things in the house which are worthy of being guarded, for the sake of household management. For if all were trained, there would be no need of seals, since servants and masters would be equally just; but since lack of training gives much weight to injustice, we have need of seals." Suidas, under the word *συσσημαίνεσθαι*, cites a passage of Lycurgus: "So that it was ordered concerning a decree, that the priestess also should seal the state papers." Stobaeus, citing Serenus, VI, 33: "Diogenes used to mock those who secured their storerooms with levers, keys, and seals, while they themselves left their bodies open through many doors and entrances." Tacitus, *Annals*, book II, at the beginning: "The Greek companions of Vonones were mocked for the basest of utensils being sealed with a ring." Horace, *Epistles*, book I, epistle 20, v. 5: "You hate keys and the seals that are pleasing to a modest man." Martial: "Now my ring seals the wine-jar." Menander, apud Stobaeum, 14, 27: "Whoever with levers and through seals Protects his wife, thinking himself wise to do some act, Is a fool, and though he thinks he knows something, he knows nothing."
Col. 1209 A 7. *Οὐ θατέρᾳ ληπτοί*. This expression, which Eusebius uses in the *Demonstratio Evangelica*, book IV, c. 9, in which, speaking of the fall of Satan, he says: "Having uttered terrible threats against all the nations, he found men *θατέρᾳ ληπτοὺς* (to be taken by the other method), possessing by their own free will and choice a propensity for evil," comes up for explanation. "After Satan had vomited forth the most horrific threats against all the nations, he decided to attack those who, because of the free will they enjoyed, could easily be seduced into a proclivity for evil." Vigerus interpreted this in neither direction: which exhibits no sense. His inept version is by no means consistent with the author's mind, and has been noted and attacked by Perizonius in his *Historical Miscellanies* of Aelian. See the index under the word *ἕτερος*. He says this regarding the matter: "I would rather read not *θάτερα* but *θατέρα ληπτούς*, as in Synesius in *Dion*, p. 152, 'and in Suidas under the word *ἐκχείμεθα* (with *χειρὶ* understood),' that is, with the left hand." See Wyttembach, in *Eunapius*, p. 57; Themistius, *Oration* 10; *Praeparatio Evangelica*. "A complex beast (the sophist), and what is termed [the other] should not be taken with the other." According to this emendation, the passage of Clement of Alexandria in the fourth book of the *Stromata*, p. 574, which refers to a verse of the comic poet Antimachus, should be read: *Ὁ πλοῦτός φησι (πλέον).* *Θατέρῳ βλέποντας παραλαβὼν τυφλοὺς ποιεῖ.* This verse is recorded by Stobaeus, Title 91, in another version: *Ὁ δὲ πλοῦτος ἡμᾶς καθάπερ ἰατρὸς κακὸς,* *Τυφλοὺς βλέποντας παραλαβὼν πάντας ποιεῖ.* Aristophanes, *Ecclesiazusae*, v. 522: 498, edition of Brunck.
"Looking aside, she again transformed herself into what she was before." Ibid. 8. *Δακοί*. I think it should be read *Δάοι*, the Greek name for the Latin *Davi*, or *Δαφοὶ* with a digamma. Ammonius in his Commentary on the book of Aristotle's *De Interpretatione*, at the beginning of the work, cites this following comic verse: "Daves is here; what news does he bring?" Col. 1212 A 15. *Εἶτα μὴ ἐξελέγχοι* 465, 466. Ibid. B 4. *Ἀξιοπιστία* expresses a sincerity worthy of faith, but I read *ἀξιοπενθίᾳ*, that is, in the greatest grief; which seems to me better associated with the word *βοῇ* which precedes it. Ibid. 11. This last part of Numenius' narration is most obscure and not sufficiently emended; its emendation cannot be done congruously; for nothing can be deduced toward this from the manuscripts. I did not therefore translate it word for word in my version, but only as regards the context and sense of the whole work. Ibid. 14. *Τούτου δὲ γίνονται ἀκουσταὶ πολλοὶ ὧν εἷς ἦν διαφανὴς ὁ Κυρηναῖος Ἀρίστιππος*. In this statement a manifest anachronism is apparent. For the Cyrenaean Aristippus was never a disciple of Lacydes; but indeed of Socrates, as is proven by all authors: Diogenes Laertius, in his *Life*, Xenophon, in the *Memorabilia of Socrates*, book II, at the beginning; Plutarch, *On Curiosity*, § 2; Cicero, *De Oratore*, III, 17: he was among the courtiers of the Syracusan Dionysius. Philostratus, *Life of Apollonius*, I, 35; Diogenes Laertius, II, 66; Athenaeus, same author, ibid.; finally, he himself was the founder of the Cyrenaic sect whose chief dogma induced toward pleasure, as if that were the only purpose of philosophy. More than a century lies between them. For Lacydes founded his school in the fourth year of the 134th Olympiad, in the garden which King Attalus had granted him, where he taught letters for 26 years, Diogenes Laertius, I, IV, § 60. Aristippus lived contemporary with Socrates around the 100th Olympiad. Neither Vigerus nor Menagius, who refers to this passage in his *Commentary on Diogenes Laertius*, noted this. Ibid. G 1. *Καὶ μόνος τῶν ἀπ' αἰῶνος τῶν παρέδωκε τὴν σχολὴν Τηλεκλεῖ καὶ Εὐάνδρῳ*. Diogenes Laertius IV, 60: "The only one from the age who, while alive, left his school to Telecles and Evander." This succession is handed down to us by Cicero in the fourth book of the *Academica*, c. 6: "After Lacydes, the Academy was completed by Carneades, who is the fourth from Arcesilaus. For he heard Egesinus, who had heard Evander, a disciple of Lacydes, when Arcesilas was at Lacydes'." Ibid. 4. *Ἡ εἰς ἑκάτερα ἐπιχείρησις* (according to Galianus), *τελευτῇ εἰς ἐποχήν*. Cicero says in the fourth book of the *Academica*: "Many things are said on both sides. Some of these seem certain to your wise man, but to ours nothing occurs that is even in the highest degree probable. Thus there are in most cases equal weights for the contrary reasons." This is what produces *ἰσοσθένεια*, and then *ἐποχή*. Col. 1212 C 8. *Ἄδηλον*, which I interpret as 'uncertain' according to Cicero; I, IV, 17 *Academica*: "They do not even see this, that they make all things uncertain, which they do not want. I call those things uncertain which the Greeks call *ἄδηλα*." Col. 1213 B 9. *Τὰς ἀπὸ πιθανοῦ λεγομένας αὐτῷ θετικάς τε καὶ ἀρνητικὰς φαντασίας*. Sextus Empiricus provides us with the explanation, in *Outlines of Pyrrhonism*, I, 1, c. 35, p. 60: "We of the Pyrrhonian school say that the appearances are equal in regard to belief or disbelief, as far as the argument is concerned; they (the Academics) say that some are probable, and others are improbable. And they speak of degrees of the probable: for they think that some of them are merely probable, others probable and verified, and others probable, verified, and undistracted. Etc." There follow the explanations of these divisions.
to us, and perhaps even to the Greeks of that time, are most obscure:
"We Pyrrhonists argue that our representations (phantasiai) are such that they may or may not be accepted as trustworthy. The Academics say that some are trustworthy, others not at all."
"They subdivide the trustworthy ones thus: some are merely trustworthy, B *pithanai*; others are trustworthy and *diexodeumenai*; finally, there are those that are trustworthy which are to be believed, and *raptodeumenai*, and *aperispastoi*."
It would be a rash undertaking for anyone who wished to render into the French language distinctions as subtle as they are obscure.
Col. 1213 C 11. Sextus Empiricus, *Against the Logicians*, Book VII, p. 404, says: "Carneades, regarding the criterion (or the means of discerning the truth), attacked not only the Stoics but all other philosophers. His first argument, which he applied to all philosophers, stood thus: that no criterion of truth properly exists, neither reasoning, nor sensation, nor imagination, nor anything in the whole of reality, all of which conspire to deceive us. He then demonstrated that such a criterion, even if it did exist, could not be free from the sway of the passions," etc.
Col. 1216 A 7. Cicero, in *Lucullus* [Academica Prior], ch. 6: "That which we are now undertaking, to argue against the Academics, certain of the philosophers, and those not men of mediocre standing, thought should not be done at all, nor was it right to dispute with those who approved of nothing; they criticized Antipater the Stoic, who had concerned himself much with this."
Ibid. C 14. Cicero, *Academica*, Book II, 4: "But that part which was against Philo should be omitted; for he is less keen an adversary who denies that the Academics hold those things which were defended yesterday; for even if he lies, he is still a milder adversary."
Ibid. 15. That Antiochus was Cicero's master. In his old age, he deserted the Academy to approach the Porch, or at least to temper his own opinions. Plutarch, in *Life of Cicero*, § 4: "Antiochus was moving away from the so-called New Academy and abandoning the position of Carneades, whether because he was being swayed by evidence and the senses, or, as some say, out of a certain ambition and conflict with the associates of Cleitomachus and Philo, returning to C the Stoic doctrine after a change of heart in most respects."
Augustine, *Against the Academics*, Book II, ch. 6: "Antiochus appeared as a pupil of Philo, who, as it seemed to some, was more desirous of glory than of truth, and brought the opinions of both into confrontation."
Cicero, *Academica*, Book II, ch. 22: "But first, a few words with Antiochus, who both learned these very things that are defended by me, and studied under Philo for so long that it was agreed no one had studied longer, and he wrote most acutely on these matters, and yet he attacked these same things in his old age no less keenly than he had previously defended them... Since there were those who said he did this for the sake of glory: for he hoped that those who followed him would be called Antiochians."
Ibid. D 1. Mnesarchus was a Stoic, against whom Philo had engaged in controversy. Cicero, *Academica* [II, 69]: "What of Aristo? What of the Dardani? Who were the leaders of the Stoics at Athens at that time?"
Ibid. 2. This book is pointed out by Cicero, *Academica*, I, 4: "Antiochus did not restrain himself from publishing a book against his own teacher, which he titles *Sosus*."
Col. 1217 A 14. *Neōs* 466, 467; and *hiera kai mysteria* 466, 467, 468. Ibid. D 1. *Aneō* 465, 466, correctly. Ibid. 4. One may see the passage of the same letter in the work *De Mysteriis*, published at Oxford, 1678, in 4to. D
Col. 1220 C 12. The double meaning of the word "Chaldean" gave place to this remark by Porphyry: "Chaldean sometimes signifies a society of priests specially devoted to the observation of the stars; at other times, as now, the Assyrian nation itself, whose region is called Chaldea."
Ibid. 14. This testimony of Apollo regarding the Jews is drawn from an oracle recorded by Lactantius, and concerning the authenticity of which great disputes have been raised. Furthermore, it is surprising that a Father of the Church, who exposed the emptiness and demonic origin of the oracles, should use the same oracles to bolster his advocacy of the doctrines of the Jews, and thus confuse them with the false religions of the Egyptians, Lydians, and Assyrians. Nevertheless, since all the citations which Eusebius has produced up to this point are genuine, I will not, for that reason, doubt the sincerity of this last one: whence it is clear to me that the oracle in which the Jews are named did indeed exist in Porphyry's book *On Philosophy from Oracles*.
Col. 1225 A 2. By "physiologists," if we accept the sense intended by Eusebius, are meant men learned in natural philosophy.
Ibid. 3. The philosopher Aeschines must by no means be confused with that very famous orator who fought incessantly against Demosthenes; for the former was the son of a certain Charinus, a sausage-seller, while the latter was the son of Atrometus. The dialogues attributed to the former are held to be supposititious. (See Diogenes Laertius, in his *Life*, Book II, § 61.) Lucian, in *The Parasite*, accuses him of having behaved himself in a manner hardly worthy of a philosopher while sitting at the table of Dionysius of Syracuse, although he did praise there the outstanding character of Miltiades. It is certain that he fled to the court of Dionysius and was introduced to the prince by Plato. (See Plutarch, *On the Distinction Between a Friend and a Flatterer*.) Diogenes Laertius asserts, on the contrary, that Aeschines was led to Dionysius by Aristippus, because Plato had refused. Moreover, it is agreed that no familiarity existed between Aeschines and Plato: for the name of Aeschines is rarely read in Plato's dialogues; nevertheless, Plato did name him once in the *Phaedo* as one of those who were present at Socrates' death.
In the note after the following one, the authenticity of this letter is weighed by me.
Ibid. B 7. *Graphōn de ta prachthenta eidoti soi, kaiper ouk aēdes esomenon, chronon echei.* Clearly *chronon echei* is corrupt. For it was not because he refused to write, as Viger interpreted in his version, because he required a longer time, but because Aeschines had nothing to write that he did not already know; therefore, it should not be translated: "it would have been of longer time," which, furthermore, does not correspond to the words *chronou echei*; but it should be read in Greek *ou chronon echei*, which will be in Latin, "for whom there is no room here."
Ibid. C 1. *Sikeliōtis trapeza*. "Sicilian dapes" (feasts) was a proverbial expression among the Greeks, alluding to the exquisite dishes served at the table of either Dionysius, who exercised tyranny in Sicily for 63 years: *Sicula dapes* (Horace, Od. III, 1). Suidas: *Sikelikē trapeza*, "concerning those things which are very expensive and luxurious."
Ibid. This letter, which is read in the collection of the *Letters of Socrates*, Lutetiae [Paris], 1637, edited by Leo Allatius, has been condemned along with all other Socratic letters by Bentley in his *Dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris*, p. 59 of the Latin version printed at Leipzig, 1781; and the critic relies on this, that Xenophon could not have reproached Plato for his stay in Sicily at the court of the Syracusan tyrant by writing to Aeschines, who had visited the court of the same prince and in that way had been in some manner introduced by Plato himself. See Plutarch, tract. *On the Distinction Between a Friend and a Flatterer*, § 39. Moreover, that Aeschines sojourned at the court of the tyrant Dionysius is acknowledged by Philostratus; see *Life of Apollonius*, Book I, ch. 25, p. 43; Lucian, in *The Parasite*, ch. 32; whence all doubt is utterly dispelled. Indeed, Bentley argues that Xenophon himself tasted the splendid condiments of Dionysius at his...
prince's court; see Athenaeus, lib. x, p. 427, who attributes to him a certain statement more ridiculous than is reasonable. In this lies the entire dispute against the authenticity of that epistle. To which it may be answered: although Xenophon went to Sicily, he was certainly not received by the Sicilian tyrant on the journey as if he were a triumphing victor, as happened to Plato; nor can it be said that the adulterations introduced into Socratic philosophy, nor the preference for the banquets of Dionysius over the frugal diet of Socrates, have anything in common with the things Xenophon could have done in Sicily. But if, in actual fact, Xenophon came to Sicily to observe while an exile from Athens for a long time—which, however, seems doubtful to me; yet if he was finally invited to the king's table, his memory is not disgraced thereby, nor is he attacked anywhere in the same way as Plato was by Molo, who said he did not wonder that he had seen Dionysius at Corinth, but wondered much that Plato had gone into Sicily. Diog. Laert. *Life of Plato* lib. III, c. 34. This epistle is cited by Stobaeus in the *Florilegium*, 80-12, tom. III, p. 136 Gaisford, where it is found more fully, from which it is certain that it was not taken by Stobaeus from the book of Eusebius; for Stobaeus rarely takes anything from recent authors who are Christians. Pearson (*Vindiciae epp. S. Ignatii*, p. 11), while rejecting the epistles that they say are Socrates', nonetheless holds this one to be genuine; and the reasons he brings forth seem to me to be preferable to those which Bentley invokes, and which I myself have impugned with arguments; to which it may be added that Xenophon wrote to Aeschines, who was at that time staying in Athens, when he says in Stobaeus that he had asked Hermogenes what he should do as a philosopher, and professes that he himself, when he was dwelling in Athens, had admired him. Therefore, Aeschines was in Athens at that time, or at the very least Xenophon believed the situation to be so, whence all the things that Bentley objects collapse. I consider this to be a mere dispute about the time. A
Col. 1228 A 5. *Tetevtaka* and not *teteuche*, as is read in the edition of Henry Stephens. (See the *Lexicon of Photius* under the word, and Ruhnken in *Lexic. Timaei*, p. 255.)
Col. 1229 B 2. The work called *Placita Philosophorum*, which is believed to be Plutarch's, is cited not only by Eusebius but also by Stobaeus in the *Eclogae Physicae*, lib. I, c. 12, p. 290 of Heeren's edition. Some critics have denied that Plutarch is the author of this work, but in upholding their opinion they do not use irrefutable arguments. Wyttenbach derives arguments from the style of the work; but an argument of this type is weak: 1st, that brief compendium of philosophers concerning natural principles does not seem to have been written in a sublime manner; and it is especially valuable for the fact that it is clear. For Plutarch ought to have adapted his style, which is otherwise more affected, to set forth the reasonings of each individual philosopher. 2nd, those seem to trust themselves too much who think they are endowed with such exquisite judgment that they can judge a book written with an extinct idiom, while we can scarcely form a sound opinion about works expressed in languages still in use. For if a criterion of this kind were admitted, it could truly be said that neither the great *Cornelius* [Nepos] of *Otho* and *Agesilaus*, nor the *Tou Quinquina* of Fontaine, are their authors. Material proofs, so to speak, are required for a work to be deleted from the series of books of a known author, especially if it concerns the ancients, whose mode of conceiving is distinguished from ours imperfectly; moreover, this brief exposition of the doctrines of the principal sects of philosophy in no way contradicts the disposition of a writer such as Plutarch was. Eusebius already cited this treatise, lib. I, c. 8; then in the fifth book, c. 23 and following.
Col. 1233 A 8. These verses of Empedocles, which have been transcribed by many authors, namely Athenagoras, Stobaeus (*Ecl. phys.*), and Sextus Empiricus, have caused great labors for the critics, and have not become any clearer thereby.
Col. 1236 C 10. This accusation of Plato against Anaxagoras seems to me the worst invective against this philosopher. What then? From the fact that Anaxagoras taught that all things in the world could not have been arranged in order unless by a supreme Intelligence, must this philosopher be compelled to render an account for all the acts of the Creator? Indeed, if God ought to have done all things as well as possible, will he convince us that the earth is flat (as Anaxagoras supposed), and that it could by no means have subsisted in another form?
Aristotle was not altogether alien to this injustice toward Anaxagoras, although he rightly praised him in the first pages of his *Metaphysics*, where he compares all the philosophers who existed before Anaxagoras to drunken men, declaring that only Anaxagoras used his reason: *hoion nēphōn ephanē par' eikē legontas* [like a sober man he appeared, while the others talked at random]. He then accuses the same man because he introduced Intelligence, like a theatrical machine, for creating the world, solely because he did not have it firmly established why a certain thing is necessary, but in other circumstances he would refer the effects to any other cause whatever. *Anaxagoras te gar mēchanē chrētai tō Nō pros tēn kosmopoiian. Kai hotan aporēsē dia tina aitian ex anankēs ti esti, tote parelkei auton, en de tois allois panta mallon aitiatai tōn gignomenōn ē Noun.* [For Anaxagoras uses the Intellect as a machine for the construction of the world. And whenever he is at a loss as to why something exists by necessity, then he drags it in, but in other matters he blames everything for what happens rather than the Intellect.]
Third in order, the accuser of the aforementioned philosopher comes, Clement of Alexandria, who argues against him that, having abandoned his own principles, he attempted to explain the system of nature or the world according to physical laws, as he pleased. *Stromat.* lib. II, p. 435: *Anaxagoras (hos) prōtos epestēse ton noun tois pragmasin, all' oude autos etērēse tēn axian tēn poiētikēn, dinous tinas anoētous anazōgraphōn syn tē tou Nou apraxiais te kai anoia.* [Anaxagoras, who first assigned the intellect as the cause of created things, yet he himself did not maintain the dignity of the creative power, depicting certain senseless vortices along with the inactivity and stupidity of the Intellect.] This is: "Anaxagoras, who first assigned the intellect as the cause for created things, did not consistently preserve the dignity of the creative power, describing certain absurd vortices, leaving the intellect in a certain inertia and relaxation of thought."
Thus it is answered: The explanation of physical laws which concern the system of the world from the homoeomeries has nothing contrary to the idea of a God the creator disposing all parts of the world. From the fact that Clarke proposed to demonstrate that God is necessary, he did not take upon himself the burden of providing a perfect exposition of all the works of the Creator, deduced from the axiom of a necessary Being. Descartes himself admitted vortices in general physics, and did not on that account think he was weakening the arguments demonstrating the existence of God. From the existence of God we may deduce whatever laws of the world we may, but we would need the divine mind, and it would be necessary to be participants in the councils of the Most High when He Himself created the world. On the contrary, to explain natural effects from the observation of the laws of nature is the part of a wise man, and is by no means contrary to the reverence owed to the creator of those laws. Furthermore, the accusations of Socrates against Anaxagoras—that Socrates who maintained that it is madness for anyone wishing to explain creation to have a guide—cannot have weight. For thus speaks Xenophon in the prologue of the *Memorabilia of Socrates*. Socrates wondered that men were not aware that it is impossible for themselves to discover the reason for all created things, since those who have taken the most pains in knowing these things, so as to discourse about them, are by no means in agreement among themselves, and thus differ from one another like madmen, some fearing what is by no means to be feared, others, however, not fearing what is truly to be feared. Now, is that Socrates whom Plato introduces speaking in this way the true one? By no means. But that true Socrates is the one whom Xenophon proposes to us; the other, however, is to be considered as if invented by Plato.
Ibid. D 1. *Neuron*. In the old anatomical language, that is, before the attempts of Erasistratus and Herophilus in the art of anatomy, it has a not very precise meaning which covers the system of the muscles generally or of the white parts (commonly in French *tendons, liga-
ligaments*). Hippocrates, Plato, and Aristotle use this word *neura* in this general sense. Later authors, who speak in a precise manner, use the word *neuron* to signify nerves, while others continue to attribute the old meaning to this word. (D. Littré, *Opp. Hippocr.*)
Col. 1237 B 7. Viger says *hupo tou ouranou menein de poiei ten gen*, he commands the earth to wander or to remain with an ordered motion under the heaven.
Ibid. 7. *Hode hosper kardopo plateia, bathron ton aera hupereidei.* For these Greek words, seek the interpretation in Plutarch, *Stromat.*, bk. I, ch. 8, p. 22: "The air being compressed, the earth was first fashioned to be very flat; wherefore, and by reason of this, it is borne upon the air." This system he attributes to Anaximenes. Regarding the word *kardopos*, which seems to have been used as a characteristic expression by the author of this system, it provided Aristophanes with material for mocking his philosophy. See *Clouds*, v. 669–679, 1250–1253.
Ibid. D 5. Euhemerus of Tegea, whose *Sacred History* was expressed in Latin verses by Ennius, a famous man, was a Messenian, or, according to others, a Coan, or a Tegean, or an Agrigentine. It has even been believed that he was born in Messene in the Peloponnese, because of the similarity of the name Messene with Messana, a city of Sicily. From this diversity in designating his homeland, Jonsius draws a very powerful argument with which he attacks the authenticity of the work *Placita philosophorum* (see his book). Vossius, in *De historica philosophia*, persists in the same tracks. Nevertheless, this argument does not seem to me to be insurmountable; since, not infrequently, the same confusion has existed regarding other ancient authors, and Homer above all, as to the place where they were born; and yet no one has impugned the authenticity of the books that are attributed to them. Lactantius (I, 11) calls him a citizen of Messana; Arnobius (bk. IV) an Acragantine; yet no one called these authors pseudonymous.
Col. 1240 A 3. These scazon iambics, which Eusebius omits, are cited in part by Plutarch. One may read them in the *Fragments of Callimachus* collected by Bentley, 86, vol. I, p. 458, *Ernesti’s edition of Callimachus*. These verses are filled with ambiguities which critics have solved with more or less success. The struggle is not to be repeated here.
Ibid. 5. Plutarch cites only certain verses from the *Sisyphus* of Euripides, which Sextus Empiricus quotes more fully in bk. X, § 54. The occasion occurred to me to mention these quoted verses in my treatise *De polytheismo ineunte*, volume two: I would believe that these verses were written by Euripides, and not by Critias as Sextus thinks; and in this matter I follow Pierre Petit, *Miscell. obs.*, bk. I, ch. 1, against Bayle in his *Dictionary*, under the entry *Critias*; and I have confirmed my opinion with proofs. Mosheim agrees with me (in Cudworth).
Ibid. 10. I do not doubt that instead of *hos hestēkei* one should read: *homou hestēkei* or *hōs homou hestēkei*. Everyone knows his axiom which Plutarch mentions in the same work, bk. I, c. 3: "All things were together, and the *Nous* separated them and ordered them." See ch. 15 of the same book where Eusebius reports a passage taken from Plato’s *Phaedo*, in which Socrates weighs the doctrine of Anaxagoras. See likewise the note added by me, by which I defend the philosopher of Clazomenae against Socrates, or rather against Plato who attributes his own opinions to Socrates.
Col. 1241 A 1. No one is ignorant that it was declared by Thales that all things derive their origin from water; but that Anaxagoras was the first among the philosophers to have taught that the *Nous*, or Intellect, disposed and ordered all things which were, in the beginning, in a confused state. Furthermore, Anaxagoras would have followed Thales completely in this, if things were as Plutarch wishes. But there would still remain to be explained why, upon reading the axiom of Anaxagoras brought forward in the *Phaedo*, Socrates was seized with such amazement: "*Nous* is the one who orders and is the cause of all things?" I am not unaware, indeed, that in Cicero I read something similar to those things which are reported here by Plutarch; but to these we shall reply that either Cicero was mistaken, or his text was adulterated. Simplicius expressly asserts that a single principle was admitted by Thales, that is, water (see Simplicius, *Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics*, p. 6): A Thales of Miletus, son of Examyas, and Hippo, who also seems to have been an atheist, said that water was the beginning of things visible, having been led to this by sensory evidence. For the warm thrives on the moist, and things that are dying dry out, and all seeds are moist, and all nourishment is succulent; and whatever things exist, they are naturally nourished by this. And water is the beginning of the moist nature and holds all things together. Therefore, he supposed water to be the beginning of all things and declared that the earth had been fashioned out of water. And Thales is reported to have been the first to disclose the history of nature to the Greeks, although many others had gone before, as even Theophrastus thinks, but he himself surpassed them by so much that he obscured all those before him. And it is said that he left nothing in writing, except for what is called the *Nautical Astrology*. See likewise Heraclitus in the *Homeric Allegories*, ch. 22, p. 75 in Schow’s edition, where: B "For they agree that Thales the Milesian was the first to posit water as the cosmogonic element of the universe. But Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, who was a student of Thales by succession, joined to the water a second element, the earth, so that the moist mixed with the dry, of a contrary nature, might be blended together into one harmony."
We see up to this point that Thales admitted water as the unique element, and did not speak of a *Nous* by which things were ordered; whereas, on the contrary, the *Nous* of the world is admitted by Plutarch as if it were God. However, in Diogenes Laertius, the doctrine of Thales is read as being changed, since, although he recognizes that all things derive their origin from water, he adds: "The world is ensouled and full of daemons"; which passage Cicero rendered in *De legibus*, bk. I, § 26: "Thales, who was the wisest among the seven men, believed that one ought to judge that all things that are perceived are full of gods." This does not explain the opinion of Anaxagoras; for who would speak of the intent of Thales regarding gods? But at least those things which we read now lean toward the opinion of our philosopher, just as those things which follow below, in *De natura deorum*, bk. I, ch. 10: "Thales of Miletus, who first inquired into such matters, said water was the beginning of things: but God was that mind which fashioned all things out of water." To these words, brought up again by Lactantius (I, 5) and by Minucius Felix (19), Augustine (in *De civit. Dei*, bk. VIII, 2) contradicts: "He put nothing before the divine mind." Aristotle also contradicts, *Metaphysics*, bk. I, p. 40 of Brandis’s edition: C "Of those who first philosophized, most thought the principles that exist in the form of matter to be the only principles of all things... but when someone said that there was a *Nous*, as in living beings and in nature, as the cause of the world and of all order, he seemed like a sober man among those speaking at random; we clearly know that Anaxagoras hit upon these notions." In my judgment, that which Aristotle precisely declares is to be preferred to the contrary opinions of Plutarch and also of Cicero; see Cudworth, *Intellectual System*, bk. II, § 20; bk. IV, § 20; Bayle’s *Dictionary*, under the entries *Thales* and *Anaxagoras*.
Ibid. C 1. Regarding the *eidola* of Democritus, see Cicero, *De nat. deorum*, bk. I, 12: "Does not Democritus, who refers both the images and their circuits into the number of gods, and that nature which generates and sends the images, and our own knowledge and intelligence, fall into the deepest error?" And § 43: "To me, indeed, Democritus, a man great above all others, from whose springs Epicurus irrigated his little gardens, seems to waver regarding the nature of the gods: for at one time he thinks that images endowed with divinity are present in the universality of things: at another time he says that the principles and minds which are in the same universe are gods: at another time that they are living images which are accustomed to either help or harm us: at another time certain huge images, so great that they might encompass the entire world—"
A while they encompass [the world] from the outside; all of which are indeed more characteristic of Democritus than they are worthy of him. For who could comprehend these images in his mind? Who could admire them? Who could judge them worthy either of worship or religion? Sextus Empiricus, *Adv. math.*, bk. I, § 19: "Democritus says that certain images approach men; and of these some are beneficial, others harmful." Hence he also prays to obtain favorable images. Cicero himself mocks these images (in *Epistola ad Acacium*, which is the sixteenth of the fifteenth book). See Bayle's *Lexicon* under the entry "Democritus," where he defends the views of Democritus against Cicero. Those philosophical inductions from corpuscles are not only obscured by the densest darkness, but they are also able to bring forth nothing useful; I shall not undertake to unfold them.
Col. 1241 5. Those "similar parts" of Anaxagoras, or otherwise "homoeomeries," are a most obscure invention of this illustrious philosopher. Bayle wrote a lengthy note in order to both explain and refute that notion (*Vita Anaxagorae*). Before him, Lucretius had also attempted the same. Let those who wish to account for this doctrine consult him. I must say in a few words what I think of these things. Therefore, I will willingly admit that the intellect, after having penetrated into the chaos of matter (*χρήματα ὁμοῦ πεφυρμένα*), dissociated similar parts from dissimilar ones, so that from this homogeneous bodies might coalesce (for here the question is only about the explanation of the manner in which the material, or physical, world was formed); but once this separation was made, the same intellect flowed into those bodies endowed with vigor and life. For example, the sun is an igneous mass (*μύδρον διάπυρον*), whence it was called "atheist." This mode of creation presents some difficulties, and in some aspects it even contradicts itself; but who hitherto has clearly explained the manner by which God created the world? For in a question of this kind, faith must precede reason. (See Aristotle, *Metaphysics*, bk. I, c. 3, and his scholiast, edited by Brandis.)
Col. 1244 B 5. *Going to the contrary* 465. Ibid. B 12. *The non-being to be different*. "Different" here has the sense of opposition between two things. *The other* signifies evil opposed to good, by euphemism. See Ruhnken in *Epistola critica*, p. 183; Valckenaer, *Diatribe*, p. 112; Wyttenbach on the *Phaedo*, p. 320; Coray in his notes on the *Aegineticus* of Isocrates, p. 280; Wetstein on the first Epistle of Paul to Timothy, c. v, 25; Perizonius on Aelian's *Varia Historia*, in the index under the word *heteros*.
Col. 1248 A 3. Sextus Empiricus (*Adversus mathematicos*, p. 278, l. 1, § 282) says on the contrary that he received 10,000 gold coins from Alexander, King of Macedon, because he had composed poems in honor of this prince. Ibid. 10. *Anech-krita*. It should perhaps be read *anex-krita*, that is, things which cannot be discerned. It is read lower down in the same sense, *anepikrita*. Ibid. B 1. *Aphasia*, that is, reticence; it means almost the same as *epoche*, though they differ only in that the latter is better said of an act of the mind, whereas the former [is said] of the word. Thus it is defined in Sextus, *Hypotyp. Pyrrhon.*, I. 1, c. 20: "Aphasia is a withdrawal from the commonly spoken statement"; which is the opposite of speech. Ibid. 2. *That the end for the Skeptic is imperturbability in matters of opinion*. Sextus, *Pyrrhon. Hypotyp.*, [I. 1, c. 12]. Ibid. Aenesidemus is mentioned by Sextus, *Adv. math.*, bk. VIII, p. 498. See the note of Fabricius, which I shall invoke quite often in the course of this chapter. Ibid. D 11. *Outhen touto* 466, 467. Read *oude touto*; then *touto* 466.
Col. 1249 C 6. *Induction* is a kind of argument taken from examples. Aristotle, bk. I of the *Rhetoric*: "For the example is an induction, and the enthymeme is a syllogism." In bk. II, § 3 of the *Topics*, the same Aristotle: "Induction is from particular [cases] to universals, and from things known to things unknown." In *Topics* 11, 12; *Analyt. prior.*, XI, 23. Cicero, *De inventione*, c. 31: "Every argument must be handled either by induction or by ratiocination. Induction is an oration which captures the assent of the person with whom it is instituted concerning matters not in doubt: by which assents it causes that person to approve of certain doubtful things, because of the similarity of those things to which he has assented." The same, *Topic.* § 10: "An argument coming from several [points] to where it intends is called induction: which in Greek is named *epagoge*."
Col. 1252 A 5. *Outlines of Aenesidemus* seems to be the title of a certain book of Aenesidemus, which perhaps can be confused with that book which Diogenes Laertius calls *Logoi Pyrrhoneioi* (IX, 106) and about which Sextus discoursed (*Hypotyp.* bk. I, c. 14): "Ten modes are therefore usually handed down to the older Skeptics, by which the *epochē* seems to be brought about." Ibid. *Long outlines* 466. Ibid. C 2. *Koroison* 467.
Col. 1253 D 2. Antigonus Carystius had written the *Lives* of learned men. Jonsius, bk. XI, c. 4, *De scriptoribus hist. philos.*, mentions all the places where this writer of *Lives* is invoked. These passages are reported by Athenaeus and also by Diogenes Laertius. Jerome, preface to the book *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*: "Hermippus the Peripatetic, Antigonus Carystius, Satyrus, a learned man and by far the most learned of all, and Aristoxenus the musician have indeed done this very thing among the Greeks." Works of Antigonus Carystius exist, bearing the title: *Collection of Marvels*, which Meursius published, vol. VII of his complete works; who nevertheless omitted the said work from the catalogue of the works of Antigonus. See Menagius on Diogenes Laertius, bk. IX, p. 426 of the second volume.
Col. 1256 A 12. The printed text has *argaleas parodias*; but only the manuscript 468 has *parodias*, which seems to be the true reading. For we have received from Diogenes Laertius: "He wrote poems and epics, and tragedies, and satyr plays, and thirty comic dramas, and sixty tragic ones, and Silli, and Kinaidoi." But what would parodies be doing in that place? Ibid. B 13. I have followed the text of Theodoret's *Therapeutic*, bk. XI, accepted by Henri Estienne in *Poesis philosophica*, and by Bruck in *Analecta poetica*, since thus neither the integrity of the thought nor the meter of the verses is injured. You might marvel that Vigerus retained the doubly faulty text, for which he proposed a useless correction, while Theodoret provided this twofold remedy: "Wretched men, evil shames, bellies only, / Who out of rivalries and babbling quarrels have been molded..." B Ibid. 15. *Yesterday and the day before*. Regarding this proverb by which a very recently done thing is signified, see the *Adagia* of Erasmus, under the words *Heri* and *Nudius tertius*. Ibid. D 4. *Synallos*. No other among the historians of Greek philosophy mentions this supposed disciple of Aristippus who is named here with Arete, his daughter. It is evident that the word *Synallos* was written by mistake for *syn allois* ("with others"), as Menagius opines, whom I have followed, since nothing better occurred. Ibid. 10. In my judgment, for the word *synkrasin* one should read *synkrisin*, in the sense of the word *idiosynkrasia*, that is, internal constitution. Sextus Empiricus says, *Pyrrh. hypotyp.*, bk. I, c. 14: "There being two things from which a man is composed, soul and body, we differ from others in both: for instance, in body by [our] shapes and idiosyncratic constitutions; and by idiosyncratic constitutions we differ [in such a way that] some digest beef more easily than fish meat." *Synkriseis* is taken in the same sense in Diogenes Laertius, bk. IX, § 80, in *Pyrrho*, to designate the constitution of the body: "Second mode..."
A *Pathetos* (πάθος) in Greek, especially among the philosophers, does not sound the same as the word *passio*, which in more recent idioms designates a mode of the mind that is active rather than passive; whereas, on the contrary, with the Greeks it always implies a passive mode of the mind, whether it concerns an unpleasant or a pleasant state. Here, we shall use the word *passio* in this double sense. See Aristotle, *Metaphysics*, bk. IV, § 18; bk. V, § 21, Duvall ed.: "A *pathos* is called, in one sense, a quality by which it is possible to be altered, such as white and black, and all such things more than these; harmful alterations and movements are also called so, and especially painful injuries; furthermore, the magnitudes of calamities and painful things are said to be *pathe*." Ibid., 3. To know 465.
A Col. 1260 A 12. Sextus Empiricus, *Against the Mathematicians*, bk. VIII, p. 387, says: "There was no lack of disciples of Metrodorus, Anaxarchus, and Monimus, who asserted that no criterion of truth could be found." Metrodorus added that "we do not even know that we do not know." See Cicero, *Academica*, bk. II, c. 23, where one can read: "Metrodorus of Chios, at the beginning of his book *On Nature*, says: 'I deny that I know whether we know anything, or whether we know nothing, or even that I do not know or know this very thing: nor generally whether anything exists or nothing exists.'" It would be easy to believe, from these citations, that in Eusebius the negation serves for an affirmation in the passage: "It follows from these things, then, to examine also those who proceed in the opposite direction, and [to say] that it is necessary to believe everything to the senses of the body having defined [it so]?"—which is repugnant to the truth. This philosophical sect, to which the Pyrrhonists accede, rejected the testimony of the senses and admitted only the mind as a witness, as is to be read below. However, let us continue our journey: Xenophanes, the founder of that school, cited by Plutarch in his *Stromata*, in Eusebius, *Praeparatio Evangelica*, bk. I, c. 8, p. 23, says: "Xenophanes of Colophon declares the senses to be false, and altogether with them he also disparages reason itself." The same, ibid.: "Parmenides the Eleatic, a companion of Xenophanes, throws the senses out of the truth."
Diogenes Laertius, bk. IX, c. 20: "He says Sotion was the first to say that Xenophanes declared all things to be incomprehensible." This locus is equivocal. Aristocles, cited above, c. 17, affirms the same, p. 756: "Others arose uttering the opposite voice; for they think that one must destroy the senses and impressions, and believe in reason alone. Such things, to some extent, were said previously by Xenophanes and Parmenides and Zeno and Melissus; but later by those around Stilpo and the Megarians." From all of this, it is evident that the leaders of the Eleatic school rejected the testimony of the senses, and accepted only the mind as a witness; indeed, not a few among them rejected even that, asserting that no faith should be placed in human judgments.
Now we must speak of Protagoras; but this question is not so easy to resolve. Let us approach our work with the following words of Cicero, *Academica* [concerning his system of] philosophy: "Another judgment is that of Protagoras, who thinks that for each man that is true which appears to each." (One should read: "who thinks.") Aristotle, *Metaphysics*, bk. IV, c. 5, Duvall ed.; bk. III, c. 5, Brandis ed.: "The account of Protagoras is also from the same opinion, and it is necessary that they either are both true or both not true; for if all things that seem and appear are true, it is necessary that all things are at once true and false; for many perceive contrary things to one another, and they think that those who do not judge the same things as themselves are mistaken; so that it is necessary for the same thing both to be and not to be." The reasoning of Protagoras is derived from the same analogy, and leads necessarily to this: that two things simultaneously are and are not. For, if all the ideas which the mind conceives should be true, it is likewise necessary that they should be false; for some perceive one thing, others another, and very often indeed contrary things; but those who differ from others are considered to be in error of truth. Whence it should be concluded that the same things both are and are not. In the first book of the *Outlines of Pyrrhonism*, c. 32, Sextus Empiricus opposes the doctrines of Protagoras to the Pyrrhonic doctrines.
"Protagoras contends that man is the measure (χρημάτων) of all things, of those that exist in that they exist; and also of those that do not exist, in that they do not exist." By the word *metron* (measure), Protagoras understands a criterion, and by the word *chremata* (things), *pragmata* (things), so that by his axiom it is implicitly signified that man is the criterion of things, both those that exist and those that do not. And from there he infers that to each of men those things only are true and perceivable which appear to him, *ta phainomena*, which Aristotle also calls *phantasiai*, or imaginations.
The same, *Against the Mathematicians*, bk. VII, c. 6, p. 382, says: "Some have enrolled Protagoras the Abderite in the chorus of philosophers who destroy the criterion, since he says that all impressions and opinions are true, and that truth is a relative matter, because every thing that has appeared or has seemed to anyone, immediately exists in relation to him." There have been authors who have numbered Protagoras the Abderite among those who deny the criterion, because he said that imaginations and mere opinions are true, and that truth is not an absolute thing, since for any given conceived idea or opinion, it is made into a part of the same thing. Whence it must be concluded: since Metrodorus of Chios denied that man could know anything at all, it cannot be said that he admitted sense and intellect as certain things. One must think differently about Protagoras; for out of his axiom that "man is the measure of all things," which Plato in the *Theaetetus* had taken it upon himself to refute, he should have inferred that the senses are the best guides for man; for how could man become the criterion of all things to be known, unless by the ministry of his own senses and his own intelligence? Therefore, Protagoras should be separated from the Eleatics, to whom he is undeservedly bound. He could perhaps be called a disciple of Democritus alone, were he not separated from this philosopher by his own axiom.
Ibid. D 2. Plato in many things has been pilfered from his homonym Aristocles. Which was secretly detected by Vigerus, who presents the text of Plato in the notes. How, therefore, could it happen that he did not remove the error, from which even the manuscript 465 described has refrained? *All' ou synēkan to kephalaion* (they did not understand the essential matter) instead of *all' ou Cyn hē Kynokephalon* (but not of a dog or a Dog-headed), as in Plato; whence it is clear that Vigerus handed a bare Stephanus text to the printers, who rendered it verbatim. The book of Pythagoras was inscribed *Truth*, which the scholiast of Plato in the *Theaetetus* declares, p. 21: "The essay of Protagoras was called *Truth* by Protagoras."
Col. 1261. The phrase "light shines forth" [is clear] from those things which Plato adds: *Prin mathein tēn phōnēn*. Before he had learned that utterance.
Ibid. 11. This is absurd, since the vision of one eye is no less certain than that of two: these are borrowed from Plato. Which recalls to memory a sentiment foolishly uttered long ago by the Dutch burgomasters, who rejected the telescope discovered by chance at Middleburg, because they could not apply both eyes to it at once.
Col. 1264 C 14. *Parestōti* 465, 468.
Ibid. D 9. Sextus *Against the Mathematicians*, bk. I, c. 1, p. 215: "Among many, Epicurus is revealed to be ignorant because of his ill-will toward those around Plato and Aristotle and the learned who became like them, and because of his enmity toward Nausiphanes, the student of Pyrrho." "Not once does Epicurus betray himself as ignorant, both by his malevolent spirit and by biting the philosophers celebrated for their doctrine with a gnashing tooth, and by pursuing with sharp hatred Nausiphanes, the disciple of Pyrrho."
Col. 1265 A 11. I have already noted the word *pathos*, in the sense of...
philosophical acceptance, that it can likewise be accepted to designate a thing—whether pleasant or unpleasant—affecting the soul. B Col. 1268 B 5. Vigerus notes that it is impossible for Socrates to have explained it this way, and believes it should be read: *hēdonē metriotētos ē phronēsis pleiō kektētai*, "if pleasure possesses more of moderation or prudence." Ibid. C 12. *Hoposa chrē toiauta nomizein tēn idion eirēsthai physin*; for *eirēsthai* I read *hērēsthai*. Col. 1272 A 13. It begins with a truncated phrase: it should be preceded by "It must be noted," or "This question must be solved." Ibid. B 1. Two elements, namely the plenum and the void, are thought by Aristocles to have been devised by Democritus and Metrodorus of Chios. See ch. 19 of this book. Ibid. C 11. Sextus Empiricus, *Hypotyposes Pyrrhon*: *Anaxagoras ho Klazomenios (kalēi ta stoicheia) homoiomereias; Diodoros de ho epiklētheis Kronos, elachista kai amerē sōmata; Hērakleidēs de ho pontikos, kai Asklēpiadēs ho Bithynos anarmous onkous; hoi de peri Pythagoran, tous arithmous; hoi de mathēmatikoi, ta perata tōn sōmatōn; Stratōn de ho physikos, tas poiōtētas.* That these various denominations should be translated is not at all necessary. This Heraclides, here cited by Dionysius, is mentioned by Sextus *Against the Physicists*, L. X, § 318, under the name "the Pontic": *Hoi peri ton pontikon Hērakleidēn kai Asklēpiadēn, ex anomoiōn men, pathetōn de, kathaper tōn anarmōn onkōn.* Asclepiades of Bithynia, a physician by trade, is specifically attacked by Galen because of the *Onkoi Asklēpiadeioi*, and also by Caelius Aurelianus, who aimed particularly at refuting him in chapter 14 of the book *On Acute Diseases*. Col. 1273 C 3. This citation taken from the psalm is completely contrary to the version of the Septuagint Interpreters and the Vulgate: "Thine eyes did see my substance being yet imperfect." Furthermore, Vigerus thinks the author should have said that he saw disordered things, *ataktous* instead of *atheatous* ("invisible"), which sounds the same as *ataktous*. This observation is not entirely correct. Epicureans speak of invisible atoms just as if they saw them. Dionysius opposes them to David, to whom God revealed the imperfection of his ways, at least if the psalm is understood by Dionysius of Alexandria as it is read in Eusebius. Ibid. *Eidon* 465. Ibid. 5. *Eripse* 465, 466, 468. Col. 1276 A 6. *Kosmos* signifies both order and the world. This double sense is alluded to here, and it is a paronomasia, a play on words. Ibid. C 3. *Diaphoras* 468. Ibid. 8. *Kollēseōs* 466, 467. Col. 1277 A 8. *Synkechymēnēn* 466. Col. 1280 A 10. *Mē deousai* 468. Ibid. C 8. These are taken from the prophet Amos, ch. III, v. 3. Col. 1281 B 10. *Kinēsis* 467; then *pantas* for *panta* the same. Col. 1284 A 4. *Diamonē* 467. Ibid. 5. *Chrēsin* 467. Ibid. 13. *Entosthiōn* 466, 467. Ibid. B 1. *Anatheōrēsōmen* 465, 466. Ibid. 5. *Orthon* 465, 466. Ibid. 4. *Panourgon* 467. Ibid. 9. *Sōmatourgoi* 465, 466. Ibid. C 2. *Mathēsin* 466. Ibid. 7. *Empeiros* 465, 467. Ibid. 9. *Eros* 465, 466, 467, 468. Col. 1285 B 3. *Alēthēs* 466, 467. Ibid. 6. *Tōn goun hypothēkōn archomenos*. It is clear that this concerns the title of one of the works of Democritus which is not listed in the catalogue of Diogenes Laertius. *Hypothēkē* signifies "counsel." Isocrates, in the exordium of the oration *To Nicocles*, says: *Tines tōn poiētōn tōn progegenēmenōn hypothēkas hōs chrē zēn kataleloipasin, hōste ex hapantōn toutōn eikos autous beltious gignesthai.* "Some of the poets who existed before us have left behind exhortations on the rule of life; which, if our life were to respond to them, would surely make us better." See Herodotus, I, 211; VIII, 58. Ibid. 13. Up to this point Democritus, according to Vigerus. Ibid. D 7. *Hēdion* 466, 467, 468. Col. 1288 A 8. Herodotus received this etymology, L. II, c. 52, where, speaking of the Pelasgians, he says they gave names to the gods, even if they did not know them: *"Hou kosmōi thentes ta panta prēgmata, kai pasas nomas eichon."* But another etymology, taken from the verb *theein*, is more common. Ibid. B 8. *Atmōn* 468. Col. 1293 C 4. *Logōn*. Read *logon*. Ibid. 5. *Pseudodoxian* 468. Ibid. C 7. *Leukois tois elenchois apegymnōsa*. I have already noted this mode of speaking used by Eusebius in my *Animadversions* on Athenaeus, L. IX, p. 416. Ibid. 14. This construction is faulty, for nothing is referred to *tisi pote logismois*. Vigerus conjectures that *hēspasamēn* should be added. I have already explained for what reasons: I had embraced the religious doctrine of the Hebrews; but *hēspasamēn* would not square with the place in which Eusebius speaks of the truth of Hebrew history. I refrain from amending the text as nothing suitable occurs. Col. 1297 A 5. The Peripatetic Aristocles is specifically named because he wrote briefly the *Life of Philostratus*, which is read among the *Lives of the Sophists*, L. II, c. 3. Synesius, beginning the history of Dio, confutes the same man, because he abandoned the character and serious discourse of philosophers and chose the vain elegance of the sophists. Aristocles lived in the time of Herodes Atticus, that is, under the Antonines. He has already shown us long fragments of chapters 17-21 of book XIV, from which arises a greater desire for the lost work, which is far superior to Diogenes Laertius. Ibid. B 7. Athenaeus, after citing the same words of the epistle of Epicurus, L. VII, c. 59, adds *paralabōn heauton prosekathize tois logois*. I read *parabalōn*, "hastening his step, he was present at the discourses." Ibid. 9. Bayle, at the word *Aristote*, refutes the version of P. Vigerus, because of his advanced age, from which one could assume he was already senile when he was the doorkeeper for the physicians. Timaeus, whose words Polybius preserved in the fragments of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, p. 46, and whom Suidas transcribed under the entry *Aristoteles*, contends against this, that he was the doorkeeper of a highly celebrated school of medicine: *"To polytimēton iatreion apokekleikota."* Here is read *kai tas tychousas*, words omitted by him, the sense of which can in no way be perceived; these must certainly be changed, but what should replace them? A noun is needed in place of the adjective: *kai tas teichiseis*, or something similar. Ibid. C. *Eristikos*, the sect of the Megarians, which had Euclides as its leader, to whom Eubulides succeeded, the teacher of Alexinus, was called by this name. See Stanley and Brucker. Ibid. 14. Demochares, the nephew of Demosthenes on his sister's side, is poorly regarded because he brought a lawsuit against Sophocles, son of Amphiclides, when Sophocles was accused of contempt of the law by Philo (*grapsamenou paranomōn*), because, according to a decree sanctioned by the whole people of the Athenians, he had ordered the schools of philosophy to be closed. It is likely that in the oration for Sophocles, Demochares cast aspersions not only on Aristotle but on all philosophers, *ou gar Aristotelē monon, alla kai tous allous kakōs eirēken*. The law passed by Sophocles is mentioned in Diogenes Laertius, in the *Life of Theophrastus* (sect. 38), and was inserted by Petit in his *Leges Atticae*, in *Historici Graeci*, I, 11; Jonsius, I, 17, and David
Ruhnkenius, in a note on Rutilius Lupus (book I, p. 7), which the reader should consult. In it, Ruhnkenius notes the errors of those who had written on the same subject before him.
Col. 1300 A 6. Cephisodorus, a disciple of Isocrates, pleaded the case of his master against Aristotle, whom he mistreats in many ways. Epicurus followed this and exaggerated it in his letter *On Interests*, as Athenaeus reports (book VIII, c. 13): "I know that Epicurus alone has said these things against him; neither Eubulides nor Cephisodorus dared to say such a thing against the Stagirite, even though they too published writings against the man." Jonsius, *On the writers of the history of philosophy*.
Ibid. 9. Read *hyperpaiei* for *hyperpalaiei*. See Heliodorus, p. 316, Coray edition; Josephus, *Against Apion*, I, 34; Athenaeus, 558.
Ibid. D 1. Pythiades, sister of the eunuch Hermias, the tyrant of Atarneus, was the wife of Aristotle. From her he fathered a daughter, Pythiades, whom, in his testament cited by Diogenes Laertius (V, 12), he gave to Nicanor. This daughter of Aristotle was gifted with talent: see Petrus Alcyonius, *On Exile*, book II. She married three times: see Sextus Empiricus, *Against the Grammarians*, book I, c. 12, § 258.
Ibid. Theocritus of Chios, a sophist, lived in the time of Alexander. He was a disciple of Metrodorus of Chios, who had had Isocrates as his master. It is probable that he himself wished, like Cephisodorus, to vindicate the memory of Isocrates by heaping injuries upon Aristotle, who had himself acted toward Isocrates in no other way. Many satirical sayings of Theocritus are recorded. Clement of Alexandria, in his *Protrepticus*, c. 77, narrates these words of Theocritus concerning the death of Alexander: "Be of good courage, friends, for the gods die before men." Suidas enumerates the works of Theocritus. He was a rival of Theopompus of Chios in his seeking after political rule. See Strabo, book XIV, p. 645, Casaubon edition. Theopompus wrote against him in his *Advice to Alexander*, Athenaeus book VI, 250. The same Athenaeus (book XII, p. 540) records another saying of Theocritus: Alexander had written to the inhabitants of Chios to send purple for making garments for the army commanders—"perhaps," says Theocritus, "for his friends." I understand this verse of Homer, says Theocritus:
"Him then purple death seized and mighty fate,"
because from this gift, ruin was impending for the inhabitants of Chios. The same author cites other words of Theocritus concerning a certain man devoted to his belly whose name was Diocles. Stobaeus cites the following saying under the name of Theocritus, which Clement of Alexandria later inserted in *Stromata* I: "Theocritus of Chios, upon being about to speak of Anaximenes, said: 'There begins a river of words, but a drop of mind.'" Theocritus incurred death on account of his penchant for witty remarks. Plutarch records these things in *Symposiacs* II, p. 633: "Antigonus killed Theocritus of Chios because, when someone said that if he reached the eyes of the king, he would be saved, he said: 'But to me, you say, the things of salvation are impossible.'" Macrobius explained this more fully (*Saturnalia* VI, 3): "King Antigonus killed Theocritus of Chios, whom he had sworn he would spare, because of a jibe spoken by him about himself. For when he was being taken to Antigonus as if to be punished, while his friends were consoling him and promising him hope that he would experience the king's clemency, when he came into his sight, he replied: 'So you tell me there is a hopeless expectation of salvation?' But Antigonus was deprived of one eye, and his untoward wittiness deprived the mocker of his light."
Much differently is the same affair narrated by the same Plutarch in his book *On the Education of Children*. Hence the opinion has prevailed that this work is supposititious. Yet, to return to the epigram directed against Aristotle, it is found corrupt in Diogenes Laertius, book V, § 9. Plutarch, in his treatise *On Exile*, Vol. II, p. 603, explains the play on words of that epigram: A "Theocritus of Chios has reviled Aristotle because, having enjoyed his life with Philip and Alexander, he chose to dwell at the mouths of Borborus instead of the Academy. For there is a river near Pella which the Macedonians call Borborus." There is near Pella a river which the Macedonians call in Greek *Borboron*, that is, in Latin, mud. B
A different reading is presented by the version of Diogenes Laertius:
"A hollow monument to the hollow-minded, Aristotle made for Hermias the eunuch and Eubulus at once his slave."
But I like Eusebius's version better, *Hermiou*, because of the meter of the verse.
Col. 1501 A 9. Apellicon is cited by Athenaeus, book V, p. 214. He bought the books of Aristotle. "He also bought up many other libraries together." The various fates of this library are described by Strabo, book XIII, pp. 608 and 609. Sulla, having captured Athens, redeemed the books of Aristotle, which he carried with him to Rome. When the grammarian Tyrannio had discovered these, he brought them to light, but they were in bad condition. This Apellicon was more a friend of books than of philosophy: "A friend of books rather than a philosopher."
Col. 1304 A 4. Atticus, the author of the quite long fragments that follow, is the same, as it seems, as he whose fragment is read in book XI, c. 2; he was the father of Herod; Philostratus wrote his life, and Aulus Gellius frequently cites him in the work titled *Attic Nights*. See note c. 2, book XI, in which he is treated.
The work of Atticus seems to be directed against those who attacked the doctrines both of Plato and of Aristotle. This syncretism was first employed by Ammonius in the Alexandrian school, whom Herennius, and Origen, and Plotinus, and Porphyry, and Iamblichus, and Hierocles also followed.
Ibid. 9. *O Perin.* Thus 466; others *os*.
Ibid. C 8. These are corrupt, as is evident from the various readings of the manuscripts. In the second verse, for *en* the manuscript 468 has *en to*, which seems to be accepted; the verses are of the Ionic dialect. *Trachys*, also manuscripts 466, is to be retained.
*Palingkotos*, near which is the word *trachys*, recalls to memory the poem of Pindar, *Nemean* IV, 156:
"And the rough one is a match for the hostile."
Should *trachys te palingkotois* be read here as well? In the last verse, manuscripts 466, 467, 468 read *oien elaphrizon machan*. Then it should be understood: "Do you see this high crag? Here stands (like a bird) the one formidable to enemies, who, flying rapidly, engages in battle with you."
Col. 1309 A 17. *En toutois* 465, 466, 467.
Ibid. 8. Vigerus incorrectly corrected these verses of Pindar in Eusebius, which were mutilated. Emendations should be sought from those who cited the same verses: Maximius Tyrius exhibits a correction that should be highly valued in discourse 18, Davis edition, titled: *Whether evil should be returned for evil*. Cicero alludes to this, bringing forth some words in *Epistulae ad Atticum*, book XIII, 38. See Victorius, *Var. lect.*, book XXII, c. 9, p. 406. "Whether a high wall or through crooked deceits rises the race of earthly men," all manuscripts.
Ibid. D 1. *Ate portho* 465, 466, 467.
Col. 1312 B 8. *Ekeinon menonton kat* 465, 466, 467.
Col. 1329 D 10. Dicaearchus, historian, Peripatetic philosopher, musician, wrote many and various things. Among others, the work *On the Ancient Manner of Living of the Greeks* is mentioned, of which Porphyry provided a large fragment in the fourth book of *On Abstinence from Animal Food*. He is cited by Plutarch, Athenaeus, Cicero, and St. Jerome *Against Jovinian*. Concerning him, see what is written in Fabricius's *Bibliotheca Graeca*, I, c. 2; in Jonsius, *On the writers of the history of philosophy*, book I, c. 16, §§ 1 and 4. A certain grammarian existed
A to whom perhaps the treatises *On Musical Contests* and *On Theatrical Institutions* might more rightly be attributed. Jonsius had prepared a long dissertation on Dicaearchus the grammarian in his treatise *On Grammarians*, which did not see the light. Dicaearchus did not deny the existence of the soul, but called it a harmony.
Col. 1336 B 2. Boethus, a Peripatetic philosopher, born in Sidon, was a disciple of Andronicus of Rhodes, who practiced philosophy in the time of Augustus. See Holstenius, *On the Life and Writings of Porphyry*, c. 9.
Ibid. 9. The Aristotelian Entelechy is wrongly refuted by Porphyry, who opposes ecstasy and the foreknowledge of the future as an argument that cannot be contradicted. This mode of reasoning befits Porphyry, a man alien to sound sense, who nevertheless had it in mind to reconcile these princes of philosophy. He had composed a work to attain this end: *Seven Books on the agreement between the tenets of Plato and Aristotle*. See the *Life of Porphyry* adorned by Holstenius.
Ibid. D 6. "Which logos Eusebius declared in the *Laws for the Impious* to be impious." What does this note of Eusebius mean, that he recognized Porphyry as impious in* The Laws of the Impious*? Porphyry, however, did not write about laws, much less about the laws of the impious. In my opinion, it should be read *nomimois*, concerning impious institutions. But Porphyry could not have inscribed the word *asebōn* in the title of the book, which was added by Eusebius.
Col. 1337 B 11. *Synairōn* 465. Ibid. 12. *Syndeisa* 467.
Col. 1341 A 2. Antisthenes was an Athenian; he was surnamed 'Herculean' because he proposed Hercules as a model and form of life to be imitated. Diogenes Laertius, book VI, § 2: "That toil is a good, he established through the great Hercules and Cyrus... he said, 'I would rather go mad than feel pleasure.'" See Menagius in the notes to this passage.
Ibid. C 5. Plutarch *Against the Stoics*, § 35, p. 53, vol. XIV, Hutten ed.: vol. X, p. 438, Reiske ed.: "But the fire of the world again (which they say is a seed, and after the conflagration it transformed the world into a seed from a shorter body and one having a great nature, and it is infinite, occupying the place of the void, prevailing by its growth)." Since fire is the germ of the world (for they say the universal fire must be transformed into a germ after the conflagration so that the world may be renewed), it will increase in extent like a minimal body, running through the void, into an immense expansion. See Athenagoras, *Legation for the Christians*, p. 27, H. Stephani ed.
Ibid. 10. See the note on chapter 23, 1. XI.
Col. 1344 A 14. Plutarch *Against the Stoics*, vol. XIV, p. 52, Hutten ed.; c. 34, p. 434, Reiske ed.: "But surely [they say] that the world is a city, and its citizens are the stars. And if this is so, then it also has its tribesmen and rulers, and clearly the sun is the councilor, and the evening star the prytanis or inspector, etc." See Cicero, *De legibus*, 1. I; *De natura deorum*, 1. I: "The world is the common home of gods and men." Diog. Laert. [says] "God himself, uniquely qualified by his total substance, who indeed is indestructible and unbegotten, being the creator of the arrangement of the world, over many periods of time consuming the whole essence into himself, and again generating it from himself; and they say that the arrangement of the stars itself is a world; and thirdly, that which consists of both. And the world is a uniquely qualified substance of all things, or, as Poseidonius says in his *Meteorological Constitution*, a system of heaven and earth and the natures in them, or a system of gods and men and the things that have come to be for their sake." Suidas cites this text under the word *Kosmos*, B where Kuster proposes *eidopoios* instead of *idios poios*, as Portus reads. Diogenes Laertius took this passage from Didymus and it should also be corrected; *eidopoios* is read in Seneca, *Consolatio ad Helviam*, c. 8: "Whoever was the former of the universe, whether he is God, powerful over all," etc. The same Diogenes, ibid. § 143.
Ibid. B 5. Porphyry, cited from the book *On Statues*, in *Praeparatio evangelica*, 1. III, c. 9, p. 101, "Zeus therefore is the whole world": this etymology of the word *Zeus* is repeated by Stobaeus, *Eclogae physicae*, 1. I, p. 46, Heeren ed.; by Aristotle, *De mundo*, c. 7; by Diogenes Laertius, VII, 147, "They call him Zena because he is the cause of life."
Ibid. 7. Diogenes Laertius, 1. VII, 149: "Fate is the cause of all things, arranged in a chain." Plutarch, *De fato*, 4: "Fate is so called as if it were a certain chain. And it is a decree and law for those things that follow upon what has been brought about to be ordered politically." See above in c. 8, 1. VI, the responses of Diogenianus to Chrysippus regarding these etymologies.
Ibid. 10. *Hēgemonikon*, or the part which excels all others and imparts motion to them, is not the same for every one of the ancient Stoics: Archidamus declared that the *hēgemonikon* of the world existed in the earth; Archidamus said that the earth was the *hēgemonikon* of the world. Cicero, *De natura deorum*, 1. II: "I call that the principate which the Greeks call *hēgemonikon*, than which there cannot and ought not be anything more excellent in any category." Diogenes Laertius, 1. VII, 159: Chrysippus in the first book *On Providence*, and Poseidonius in his *On the Gods*, say that the heaven is the *hēgemonikon* of the world; Cleanthes says the sun is. Chrysippus [prefers] the cleaner part of the ether.
Ibid. D 3. Vigerus translates, "to Boethus," as if this were sent to Boethus, but Boethus had long since died. Read: "against." These are the words of Holstenius, *On the Life and Writings of Porphyry*, c. 9: "That Eusebius in more than one place and Theodoret, *Therapeutic sermon* 1... defended Porphyry in this work on Plato's opinion of the soul against Boethus of Sidon, the Peripatetic, a disciple of Andronicus of Rhodes, a famous philosopher of the Augustan age, I believe to be more certain than that it stands in need of proof." Diogenes Laertius in *Zeno*: "Boethus said the world is not a living being," 1. VII, § 143. This Boethus appears to me to be a Stoic. He is numbered among the Stoics by Philo Judaeus, in the treatise *On the Incorruptibility of the World*; in the same treatise Philo says that Boethus, Poseidonius, and Panaetius, being Stoics, abandoned the doctrine of the conflagration of the world, so that they might admit the more sound doctrine of the eternity of the world. "Boethus and Poseidonius and Panaetius, men powerful in the Stoic dogmas, being god-inspired, left behind the conflagrations and restorations for a more divine dogma, that of the incorruptibility of the whole world: they deserted." Boethus, *On Fate*, is cited as a Stoic by Diogenes Laertius, 1. VII, § 149: "Fate is the cause of existing things arranged in a chain, or a logos according to which the world is led." Porphyry wrote this treatise against the doctrines of the Stoics. Jonsius contends that this Boethus in question is the Platonic Boethus whom Porphyry mentions in his *Exposition of the Categories*, and whom Simplicius very often cites in his commentary on the same *Categories*; but he errs: with Vigerus, he believes this treatise was not composed *against* Boethus, but simply sent *to* Boethus; this opinion is false, as we have seen above. C *On the writers of the history of philosophy*, 1. III, c. 15, § 5.
Col. 1548 B 8. Cicero, *De natura deorum* II, 46: "...so that nothing is left except fire, from which again, as a living creature and God, the renewal of the world might happen, and the same adornment might rise." Cicero, in the place mentioned above, also says that Panae
Panaetius A had doubts concerning this matter, so that finally the entire world would be ignited. Zeno the younger thought this; for he was a disciple of Chrysippus. See Plutarch, *On Common Conceptions*, vol. XIV, p. 53, ed. Hutten; vol. X, p. 438, ed. Reiske, cited at c. 14.
Col. 1548 D 5. Simplicius, in his *Physics* of Aristotle, book I, c. v, transmits certain things concerning the palingenesis of the Stoics, p. 207 verso: "But this problem is more fitting for the palingenesis of the Stoics; for they say that the same person will be born again at the palingenesis, and they reasonably inquire whether I am one in number, both now and then, because in essence I am the same, or whether I am distinguished by the arrangement into another and different cosmic cycle." These matters pertain entirely to the palingenesis of the Stoics, since they assert that I must be reborn the same through the power of palingenesis, and they rightly attend to whether I am one and the same in number (ἀριθμῷ), in a philosophical sense, now, [the one] who I then was—that is, whether I am the same in substance, or whether I am another in the disposition of the organs pertaining to one cosmic cycle and another.
Col. 1349 A 4. Diogenes Laertius, book VII, § 158: "And the seed of a man (spirit), which a man discharges with moisture, is commingled with the parts of the soul through the mixture of the ancestral B reason (logos) or seed." This text is mutilated and can scarcely be understood, but each part confirms the other.
Ibid. B 2. Schleiermacher, in Wolf’s *Museum of Antiquities*, vol. I, p. 352, proposes *autai tois en toisi potamoisi*, "similar to those in the rivers."
Ibid. 5. That axiom of Heraclitus of Ephesus is often cited by more recent authors themselves. See the passage in Plato’s *Theaetetus*, p. 118 F; *Cratylus*, 266 A, ed. Ficino. Plutarch frequently invokes it in his treatise *On E*, the syllable inscribed in the Delphic temple, which Eusebius cites in *Praeparatio evangelica*, book XI, c. 2, p. 528: "It is not possible to step twice into the same river." In the treatise *On the Delay of Divine Vengeance*, p. 62, ed. Wyttenbach; in the treatise *Against the Stoics*, who had embraced this doctrine, p. 1082; in *Natural Questions*, p. 912: "For you would not step twice into the *same* rivers, as Heraclitus says, for other waters flow down." Aristotle mentions this axiom in *Metaphysics*, 5, 6, p. 205, ed. Brandis, under this name: "Heraclitean doctrines." See also the same author, book II, c. 5; *Politics*; in his commentary on the treatise *On Interpretation*, p. 9, ed. Sabio: "We call 'positions' those paradoxical opinions of someone known for philosophy, such as that all things are in motion and that existing things share in nothing of stability, just as Heraclitus said." The same author, in his *Categories*, seems to attribute that axiom to Pyrrho: "Just as, he says, it is impossible to step twice into the same river; so too regarding things." P. 8 verso, ed. Sabio. From this, however, it would be wrongly concluded that Ammonius wished to adorn Pyrrho with the spoils of Heraclitus; he merely says that Pyrrho applied that axiom to all things—using the example—and extracted from it the conclusion denied by Heraclitus, namely, the uncertainty of all knowledge. Sextus Empiricus would not have attributed this thesis, as Ammonius calls it, to Heraclitus in *Outlines of Pyrrhonism*, book III, § 115, if it were Pyrrho’s, whom he praises.
Seneca, *Epistle* 58: "I, while I speak, am changed; I am changed myself. This is what Heraclitus says: 'Into the same river we do not descend twice.'" Persius: "That I speak originates from this." Heraclitus Ponticus in *Homeric Allegories*, p. 465, ed. Gale, 1688: "He assigned Rhea to be the mother of the gods, since the whole is administered by a certain flow and eternal motion," and others.
Col. 1353 A 7. Regarding the correction of this passage, see Wyttenbach in Plutarch, *On the Delay of Divine Vengeance*, p. 83.
Col. 1357 A 3. *Choregon*, 466.
Ibid. C 10. *Pros ti pos echein* ("Having a certain relation"). Diogenes Laertius mentions these words in his *Life of Zeno*, § 161, C book VII, p. 468, the occasion being given by Aristo of Chios, who introduced these along with *adiaphoria* ("indifference") into Stoic philosophy. These are the words of Diogenes: "He did not introduce 'many' virtues, as Zeno did, nor 'one' called by many names, as the Megarians did, but also the 'having a certain relation.'" "He did not admit many virtues, as Zeno did, nor one under different names, as the Megarians did; but as the thing demanded." See also the same author, in his *Life of Pyrrho*, book IX, sect. 96. Simplicius, in his commentary on the *Categories* of Aristotle, explains the doctrine of the Stoics concerning things (*peri pragmaton*), book 5, p. 2, which they divide into substances (*ousiai*), into qualities (*poiotetes*), into relative absolutes or relatives to a subject (*ta pros autou pos echonta*). Boethius calls these last two in Latin 'power' and 'habit': they are further divided into relative things of self to others and others to self. Out of these, virtue is nothing other than the moderation of life in this or that circumstance: virtue is sobriety in the use of food, it is temperance in pleasures, etc.
Aristotle employs this locution in his treatise *On Physics*, vol. I, p. 246, ed. Bekker: "We say that all virtues are in 'having a certain relation'; for each one is by having a certain relation, and it disposes those things that have it well or badly regarding their own passions." P. 247: "Likewise also in the case of the *hexeis* (dispositions) of the soul; for all of them are also by having a certain relation; and virtues are perfections, but vices are deviations." Ibidem: "We speak of much of what is scientific as being in 'having a certain relation.'"
Sextus Empiricus, book VIII, *Against the Logicians*, sect. 163: "Since therefore there are two differences of things, one is that of those things according to [essential] difference, the second is that of those things *pros ti pos echonta* (having a certain relation)." "There are two differences of things, one according to essential difference, the other according to relation."
The same author, § 162, explains this theme so that everyone can understand what "having a certain relation" is: "Of existing things, the Skeptics say that some are according to difference; others are 'having a certain relation.' Things according to difference are whatever are thought of according to their own existence and absolutely; for example, white, black, sweet, bitter, and everything similar to these; for we apply [our conception] to the things themselves, bare and by definition, without thinking anything else along with them. But things *pros ti* (relative) are those things thought of according to the relation toward something else, and no longer taken absolutely—that is, according to themselves; for example, 'whiter,' 'blacker,' 'sweeter,' 'more bitter,' and whatever is of the same idea. For in the same way that white, or black, or bitter might exist according to their own definition, so also 'whiter' or 'blacker' [is not]; but in order to conceive of this, it is necessary to conceive also of that in comparison to which it is whiter, or in comparison to which it is blacker; and the same reasoning applies to 'sweeter' and 'more bitter.'"
"The Skeptics establish a division of things into that which some are 'according to difference,' and others are 'having a certain relation.' Things 'according to difference' have an independent existence (*hypostasis*), and the mind conceives them as existing independently of the subject to which they adhere: as white, black, sweet, bitter, and other similar things; for we have an abstract idea of these, nor is any comparison made, nor is any relation of them to other things imagined. But those which are called 'having a certain relation' do not provide an idea of themselves unless compared with others, as 'whiter,' 'sweeter,' 'more bitter,' and other similar things; for these things do not behave in the same way as things 'according to difference,' since we can only imagine them separated from others. If there should occur to our mind an idea of 'more' or 'first,' it is necessary that we think of another thing which is smaller or larger, whether white, or black, or sweet, or bitter."
Col. 1373 A 5. Plato had already refuted in the *Phaedo* (§ 37) the opinion of those who say that the human soul is harmony, and that it proceeds from an equal temperament of the elements of which the body is composed. To Plato, Aristotle agrees in *De anima*, book I, c. 4.
A Among the authors who uphold this opinion, Dicaearchus, a disciple of Aristotle, is cited most frequently. See Plutarch, *De placitis philosophorum*, IV, 2. Nemesius, *De natura hominis*: "Dicaearchus wishes the soul to be a harmony of the four elements; for he does not mean one composed of sounds, but the harmonious temperament and symphony of hot, wet, cold, and dry things in the body." See Sextus Empiricus, *Adv. mathematicos*, VIII, § 349; Pyrrho, *Hypotyp.* II, § 31; Plutarch, *Adversus Colotem*, § 14. Atticus, cited by Eusebius, *supra*, book XV, c. 9. Finally, Lucretius sets forth this doctrine, book III, v. 98: "Though many a crowd of sages holds the mind Has no determined seat of sense assigned, But is a certain vital habit, named 'Harmony' by the Greeks, which is proclaimed To make us live with sense, though in no part The mind of man resides, as health of heart Is spoken of as existing in the frame, Yet health itself is not a part of name."
B Col. 1373 C 14. *Philologias* 465. Correct. Col. 1376 A 6. *Epitheōrēsai* 465, 466. Ibid. B 1. *Ekphainousas* 465, 468; *ekphainonta*, 466. Ibid. 6. *Ek* is absent in 465, 466, 467. Ibid. C 5. *Peplērōkotos* 465, 466, 467, 468. Ibid. 6. *Kat’ emphasin gignomenon*, 465, 466. Ibid. 9. *Dia bracheas* 465; *bracheos* 466. Col. 1377 A 4. *non* 465, 466. Ibid. 6. *Pollaplasio* 466. Ibid. 8. *Epicurus again, etc.* This phrase is repeated here and in Plutarch, c. 24, 25, and 50. *Echomenos tou endechomenou*. Vigerus translates this into Latin in a double way; c. 24: "Epicurus likewise [says] all the above might possibly be true, nay, [that the sun] is as large as it appears to us"; c. 25: "Epicurus (says) these things do not lack their probability"; c. 30: "Constantly maintaining [that it] could be." Which is the true reading? Or do both err? Diogenes Laertius elucidates these matters little; he says indeed that Epicurus contends the sun is neither larger nor smaller, or a little larger or smaller, than it appears: *tēlikouton einai hēlikos phainetai*, book X, 91: but he is hallucinating entirely when he contends that these pronouncements are proved from the fact that the color of the light reaches us unadulterated, though we are so far removed from the sun. Therefore Cicero said: "Epicurus in physics, on which he most prides himself, is entirely alien." *De finibus*, I, c. 6, § 17. The same author, ibid., § 21: "To Democritus the sun seems large, being a man learned and perfect in geometry: to him it appears perchance two feet [wide], for he thinks it is as large as it appears, or a little larger or smaller." These things Pultarch explains most excellently until the end of the phrase; but what does *endekhesthai ta proeirēmena panta* mean, which is repeated twice? Nothing preceded it. Therefore we do not admit Vigerus's version. Regarding the probabilities, *ta pithanologeomena*, as Epicurus says in Diogenes Laertius, 87, I read *prolēpomena*. Accepted opinions, a preconception whose truth Epicurus often declares, especially regarding the gods and faith in the gods. See Cicero, *De nat. deor.* I, 16; Diogenes Laertius, X, 33.
D Ibid. 5. Who is this Antipho the physicist? Jonsius is silent about him in his long enumeration of the Antiphons. Col. 1380 B 7. Here is indicated Diogenes of Apollonia, cited *supra*, book I, c. 8, p. 25, in the fragment of the *Stromata* of Plutarch and in Diogenes Laertius. Ibid. 11. The stone that fell at Aegospotami was famous among the ancients mostly on account of the explanation of Anaxagoras. After the discovery of the law of gravity, this story was relegated to the realm of fables; but in our own days this story has come to life again, because many stones have been seen falling from the sky in different places. The explanation of this fact can hardly be given by the laws of physics. For no one knows how such bodies exceed their center of gravity to move towards a new center.
Ibid. C 5. In place of *Heraclidis*, I have written *Heraclitum*: for nowhere is there mention of Heraclides as a physical philosopher; but Heraclitus was closest to the doctrine of the Pythagoreans, whose opinions regarding physics he accepted. Schleiermacher collected the scattered fragments of Heraclitus of Ephesus, surnamed the Obscure, among various ancient authors in order to compose a monograph which is found in Wolf’s *Museum of Antiquity*, p. 339, about which I have already spoken *supra* in the note to book X, c. 13.
Col. 1384 C 10. Galen, *Peri philosophou historias*, vol. IV, p. 427, Basil. ed., thus sets forth the doctrines of Plato: "Plato says the world is one, all things are one, and the world would not be perfect if it did not contain all things: for the world would not be like its exemplar, namely the mortal world, *thnētō* (but this last word is falsely placed here; supply *noētō*, intellectual), if it had not been the only generation; if you strip the quality from this, it will not be eternal."
Col. 1385 A 12. *Pronoooumenōs* 465.
Col. 1386 D 1. *Apo pyros kai tou pemptou stoikheiou*. The fifth element belongs to the philosophy of the Peripatetics, but not to the philosophy of Pythagoras. Galen, therefore, in *Philosophou historia* writes only *apo tou pyros*.
Col. 1389 A 11. Among the ancients, the right and the left, regarding the world, are determined by the direction of circular motion. Aristotle, *De caelo*, book II, c. 2: "We call 'right' that of each thing from which the start of motion by place originates; but the start of the revolution of the heaven [is] from where the risings of the stars [take place]; so this would be the right, and where the settings are, the left."
Ibid. 15. *Peryphora*, with the sense of 'enclosure', unusual.
Col. 1392 B 2. Aristotle and Plato [call] matter *sōmatoeidē*, shapeless, formless, unfigured, without quality, considered as far as its own nature is concerned. This is, in my opinion, a manifest contradiction; here he calls matter *sōmatoeidē*, there he calls it: shapeless, formless, unfigured, without quality, considered as far as its own nature is concerned. Therefore *sōmatoeidē* should not be read; I propose *stoikheiōdē*, elemental matter. Aristotle, *De physica auscultatione*, book II, in the beginning, separates matter from form; furthermore, matter, *sōmatikos*, embraces one and the other. "In one way, therefore, nature is called the first matter underlying each thing; in another way, the form and the idea." I do not doubt that neither Plato nor Aristotle held this doctrine, which is contradictory, as Plutarch and Eusebius report. Timaeus of Locri, *De anima mundi*, 1, 2: "All things are generated from an idea, both matter and the sensible things from which the rest are then produced. The idea is unbegotten, immutable, constant, because by its own nature it is intellectual and a paradigm of generated things in so far as they are subject to mutation: this definition of an idea must be conceived and handed down." "Matter is an effigy, *ekmageion*, a mother, a nurse, and a parent of third-order substances. Which receives to itself things akin, unifies them, and thus finishes and perfects its own works." "This matter he used to call eternal, but not immutable, inform [formless] in regard to essence, but receiving all forms." "Regarding bodies, nature can be divided in them, because they originate from both natures." "When these two elements are opposed to one another, namely form and nature, the form performs the role of the man or father, and nature the role of the woman or mother, and third substances arise from both." Idem III, § 3. "The principle of generated things is the substratum, matter, and as a cause of figure, form. From these generators, namely earth, water, air, and fire, are produced..."