those who took their starting point from Papias the Great, the Hierapolitan, who sat at the breast [of the Lord], and from Clement, and Pantaenus the priest of the Alexandrians, and Ammonius, the most sage of the ancient and first harmonious exegetes who understood the entire work of the six days as concerning Christ and the whole Church: "Having received an occasion from the most illustrious Papias the Hierapolitan, who was a disciple of the Apostle who reclined upon the breast, [and from] Clement and Pantaenus the Alexandrian priest, and Ammonius, the most wise among the ancient and primary exegetes, who understood the whole six-day work as concerning Christ and the Church." The translator seems to have read B *phēsan-tos* instead of *phoitēsan-tos*, for *phēmi* means "to speak" in this place, that is, "the one who said"—meaning the disciple; for regarding this same Papias, Jerome says in his *Catalogue*: "Papias, a hearer of John and bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, wrote only five volumes."
Col. 3 A 11, *Psychēn pros*. In two Royal codices, one of which was the property of Henry II and the other the Medicean property of Henry the Great, we find it written thus: *Psychēn echontas pros tēn tōn tēlikoutōn*: "It is fitting that those who wish to call an soul to the hearing of such great matters provide it adorned." Eustathius, however, the ancient translator, does not recognize this; for he only translates: "or according to how the mind ought to be instructed."
B *Idontes de auto asteion, eskepasan*: "But seeing him fair, they hid him." The translator of Origen also translates *asteion* as "fair," Aquila as *agathon* ("good"), Symmachus as *ōraion* ("beautiful"). The Hebrew word *Tōb* is also rendered as *ōraios* (that is, "beautifully") in Greek at III Kings 1:6. Likewise the Apostle in Hebrews 11:23: *Exebathē trimēnon hypo tōn paterōn autou, dioti eidon asteion to paidion*: "He was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was fair." So below, *kata tēn martyrian autēn tou Theou*. Josephus also supports this, writing in Book II, ch. 5, that the infant was pleasing, because he was great and fair—*hyperēgapēse megethous te heneka kai kallous*. Basil, however, seems to have followed the narrative of St. Stephen, whose words these are (Acts 7:20): *Egennēthē Mōysēs, kai ēn asteios tō Theō*. Where the Vulgate Latin has: "Moses was born, and was pleasing to God." There may be a Hebraism involved, so that St. Stephen is saying that Moses was "pleasing, festive, and delightful/beautiful to God"—that is, exceedingly beautiful, just as in Jonah 3:3: *Hē de Nineuē ēn polis megalē tō Theō*: "Now Nineveh was a city great to God." Just as it is translated word for word from the Hebrew, this signifies "very great," because all things that are great are said to be God's, as in Psalm 35:7: "Thy justice is as the mountains of God." Our Brother Ribera, however, prefers that "beautiful to God" signifies nothing else than "beautiful before God," just as in Genesis 13:13 the Sodomites are called "sinners before the Lord" (in Hebrew, "sinners to the Lord," or "in the eyes of the Lord," or "of God"), that is, in reality, even if men dissent. Therefore, Basil rightly said *asteios para Theō*, just as St. Stephen had said *asteios These*.
Col. 6 A 3. *Profunda sensa*. Janus Cornarius, in the 1552 Frobenian edition of Basil, translates: "Even if we do not grasp the writer's keenness." But Eustathius [translates] word for word: "For although we may not be able to reach the depth of the historical heart"—*tēs batheias kardias mē ephikōmetha*. This is a familiar idiom of Scripture. Jeremiah 17:9: *Batheia hē kardia para panta, kai anthrōpos esti, kai tis gnōsetai auton?* "The heart is deep above all, and it is man, and who shall know him?" Jerome records from Symmachus: "The heart of all is inscrutable," and in Isaiah 29:15 he renders it in Latin: "Woe to you who are deep of heart, so that you might hide counsel from the Lord." Chrysostom on the Treachery of Judas, Vol. V of our Paris edition: *Hekaston tōn legomenōn pollēn echei tēn theōrian, kai poly to bathos tōn noēmatōn*: "In individual sayings there is much contemplation, much depth of thought." And Homily 1 to the Antiochenes: *Idete pros poson bathos katēgagomen ton logon*: "You have seen into what a depth we have brought the discourse."
Ibid. 9. Eustathius, sticking closer to the sense of the words, said: "Who is held to have been fair before the Lord." So that we understand Moses to have been fair before God Himself, who indeed C Col. 7 A 6. *Sed secundum*. Argyropylus, or whoever revised his translation, had interpreted this more copiously. And that no one may suspect that he has done any harm, the things we have removed can be compared with the Greek: "And abandoning themselves entirely and accommodating themselves to that first ignorance of theirs concerning God, *which we see all things proceeding as to their origin*, they concluded that these things emerge in a certain perpetual series of succession." Eustathius wrote: "But having fallen through familiar ignorance, they concluded all things with various definitions."
Col. 8 C 11. *Zēteitai ho tēn*. This is published thus from various readings of English codices, to which learned men add *tis*, so that it is read *zētei tis*, or *zētēsei tis*, *tis ho tēn archēn*. The Vulgate reading of the Basle edition is acceptable, supported by two Royal codices: *zētei tis ho tēn archēn*, and Eustathius with Cornarius translating: "Seek who gave him the beginning," or it will certainly be written *Zēteitai tis ho tēn*. "It is sought, who is it, who gave the beginning."
Col. 9 A 14. *Diapheugei*. To be emended from the two Royal codices as *diapheugei*, and conversely presently *diapheugē*.
Ibid. B 7. *Mēdeni meson*. From the same two books—both the Royal and the English—it is to be corrected to *mēdeni mesō*.
mesō*.
to which reading Eustathius agrees, «That the level of them is interrupted by no intermediate obstacles.» What follows was previously read corruptly, *tēn tou kosmou anarchon kai ateleut.*, but the passage has been restored by the authority of those same books. A little later, c. 1, *Ei gar archēn*, we judged that the interpretation of these should be set forth more clearly.
Col. 12 A 40. We have excised two added words, «with God,» which the Greek does not require, nor does the ancient interpreter Eustathius acknowledge, «and the agent and dispenser of things instituted through parts.» Cicero, *Academic Questions*, lib. IV: «To Zeno and almost all the other Stoics, the ether appears to be the supreme God, endowed with mind, by which all things are governed.» The same author, lib. I *De natura deorum*: «Chrysippus argues that the ether is that which men called Jove.» He also says that Plato in the *Timaeus* calls the world God, and the heavens and the stars and the earth: and Proclus in argument 20 attributes the same to Plato, which Benedict Pererius refutes in lib. XV *De principiis rerum naturalium*, cap. 4.
Ibid. B 2. *All’ hoi tōn astrōn*. Perhaps it should be written, *alloi tōn asterōn*, which is supported by Eustathius, who translates: «Others count the intervals of the stars.»
Ibid. B 5. *Tois men eisi phainomenoi*. Two Royal [manuscripts read] *tois men eisi phaneroi*. Eustathius: «They are suspected in certain men, but are held to be unknown to us.» For thus it must be corrected instead of «they are assumed.»
Ibid. B 8. Declinationes. *Basiliens.*, *stērigmous kai apokleiseis*. Eustathius, *praeclusiones*. Following this reading, Tilmann published «stations, exclusions,» and noted that Argyropulus had read *apokleiseis*, just as it was inscribed in the two Royal mss., therefore we have translated [it as] declinationes. For declination among astrologers is the distance of a star or point of the ecliptic from the equator toward the other pole of the world. Aristotle, treating of the sun, *Problem.*, sect. 45, probl. 6: *Apeirous gar enkliseis enkhorēi auton klithēnai* «For it is allowed for it to be inclined by infinite inclinations.» Cleomedes, lib. I *Geograph.*; *Tois tropikois plagiōteros, kai epi pleion enkeklimenos parakeitai*: «It rests more obliquely and more inclined toward the tropics.» Thus Basil himself below: *Ouk echousan, hopou mallon apoklithē*. What follows: *Epi ta proēgoumena kinēsin*, Cornarius translates: «The motion of all towards that which goes before and the beginnings;» Montacutius, «motion into the antecedent.»
Col. 13 A 6. *Hyperkhronos*. So the two Royal mss., not as the *Basiliens.*, *hyperchronios*. Although both are customary, as *isokhrōnos* and *isokhronios*. Shortly after, «which is always urged.» The interpreter had translated: «Approaching always and receding in the manner of flowing water, and never stopping or resting from its begun course.» Cornarius is closer to the mind of the author: «Always hastening and flowing by, and nowhere resting from its course. We have followed Eustathius.»
Col. 15 A 3. *Principium viae*. The passage is Proverbs XVI, 5. A little later, *krēpis kai bathron*, «founAdation and step.» Eustathius expressed it better, «fortification and support,» and Cornarius, «base and foundation.» *Bathron* here is not a ladder, but *themelios* or *hedrasma*, «firmament, or foundation.» Thus in this very homily and page, *themelioi tines kai krēpides prokatetiblē[san]*.
Col. 18 A 5. In summa. Eustathius: «Summative, that is, briefly and suddenly.» Cornarius: «He made in sum God, that is, collectively and briefly.» *Kephalaion* here signifies the sum of a number or of time, in which sense the Hebrew words *R’shith* and *Rosh* are often taken in Scripture, and are translated by the LXX sometimes *kephalaion*, sometimes *archē*, sometimes *syllogismos*, just as they were by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, whom Basil here seems to designate, Numer. IV, 2: *Labe to kephalaion tōn huiōn Kaath* (Take the sum of the sons of Caath). The Latin Vulgate also translates «summa,» and the interpreter of Origen, «numerus»; Numer. I, 2: *Labete archēn pasēs synagōgēs* (Take the sum of all the congregation); Exodi XXX, 12: *Ean labēs ton syllogismōn tōn huiōn Israël* (When you take the computation of the sons of Israel). Thus Basil said below: *En kephalaio paradedosthai ouranou kai gēs poiēsin*. But it is written in Ecclesiasticus XVIII, 1: *Ho tōn eis ton aiōna, ektise ta panta koinē*. (He who lives forever, created all things at once). That is, equally or collectively, says Jansenius: lest anyone collect from this that all things were created at the same time, just as Saint Augustine understood from the same place, that all the works of creation, which are commemorated as having been made in six days, were made simultaneously and at one time, lib. IV *De Genesi ad lit.* cap. 33, nor does «simul» designate identity of time here, but comprehends all things without exception. But this *ekdosis* of those interpreters, of which Acacius seems to have had knowledge in this place of the *Catena Graecorum in Genesim*, which is wrongly attributed to Theodoret by Franciscus Zephyrus, favors the opinion of Augustine. For the Greek text in the codex of the most illustrious Cardinal Joeusaeus stands thus: *Erōtēteon palin autous, poteron hama panta dedēmiourgētai, ē taxe kai hodō. Kai ei men to prōton eipoien, dēlon, hoti hapanta dēmiourgēsas katēpause palai pote, kai hoson en autois nyn argos ōn tynkhanei. Ei de to deuteron erousi, to taxe kai hodō dēmiourgein, kairos autous memnēsthai tou ex archēs hōmologēmenou, hōs ouk an eiē apeira ta dedēmiourgēmena*. «They must be asked again, whether all things were created at once, or in order and by a way. And if they should say the first, it is clear that having created all things He rested long ago, and as much as is in them now, He happens to be idle. But if they should say the second, to create in order and by a way, it is time for them to remember what was acknowledged from the beginning, that the things created cannot be infinite.»
Col. 18 B 14. *Synyparchein*. Must be corrected from the two Royal mss. to *synyparchein*, and they allowed [it] *par' autou synekhōrēsan*. Furthermore, that *automatōs parypostēnai*,
Cornarius translates, "to have substituted of its own accord." Ambrose in Book 1, ch. 5: "He asserted that it subsisted of its own accord"; Montacutius: "That it existed together with Him and at the same time." Again, regarding what follows: *Ouch' autou toutou*, Eustathius has it thus: "That is, He did not provide the cause so that it might exist, but He made it, as He is good, a useful thing." Ambrose, however: "He did not say that He made it to be dependent, He did not say that He provided a cause for the world to exist, but He made it, as being good, what would be useful." Justin, distinguishing from Plato the A *poiētēn* and the *dēmiourgon*, "the factor and the artificer," in his *Cohortatio ad Græcos*: "For the factor, needing nothing else, makes the thing made from his own power and authority; but the artificer, having received the power of craftsmanship from matter, fashions that which comes into being"; [he translates]: "The factor indeed, needing no other thing, by his own virtue and power, accomplishes what he creates; but the artificer constructs his work by the virtue of his artifice from matter accepted."
Col. 20 A 8. *Ek duo tōn akrōn*. We have corrected this from the two Royal codices, from which also the article *tou pantos* must be added; previously it was erroneously *ek duo tōn arkhōn*. Eustathius: "From the two extremities elements, he designates the substance of all things as constructed." Namely, heaven and earth, which two are extremes opposed to each other.
Col. 26 A 9 (for it follows after the Greek text of page 975 beginning A *ho krikos metēōron pherei to sōma, to de meteōro ou hestēke, dia touto phēsi, pepēgasin*): "The ring holds the body [in a state of being] suspended, and [the body] being suspended, it does not stand, therefore he says, 'they are fixed'": "But others [translate] the bases, the piles. For he called the rings themselves supports and foundations. For [the earth] is suspended first, he says; what rings support it? The earth, no doubt: not as if they were anywhere, but because it remains so fixed and stable, as if it were being borne by rings fixed from above. For since a circle or a ring supports a suspended body, and what is suspended does not stand, for that reason he said, 'they are fixed'." He understands rings or iron hoops, by which mosquito-nets or carpets of tents or curtains are supported. But the author of the Latin interpretation translated from the Hebrew, "upon which its bases are made solid": with which what Olympiodorus brought forward from Aquila, Symmachus, or Theodotion agrees. Eustathius finally had edited: "Upon what are its rings fixed?"
Ibid. B 15. *Mē zētei*. In certain English books it was read *mē zētein* and *alla noein*. But the two Royal [codices] of Francis support the vulgate reading, and Eustathius: "Therefore do not seek the reason for individual things, but those things also which Scripture passed over in silence, you must observe from those things which were related." Below, c. 9, *symbouleuōmen*. The Basel edition has *symbouleuomen*, and so does the Medicean Royal codex. Cornarius translates: "We consult also on these same things concerning the earth, so that no one may make trouble for himself." Eustathius referred *autois* to ourselves: "We advise that the same things be felt also concerning the earth, not at all, to be sure, discussing what its substance might be, nor to wear ourselves out with reasonings." But another Royal Henrician codex had *symbouleuōmen*, which seems the preferable reading. "We consult these same things also for ourselves concerning the earth, so that we may not inquire why its substance is ultimately such."
Col. 21 B 12. *Hypothēs autō*. The Medicean and Henrician [codices read] *hypothēs heautō*. In which way it seems the text offended Argyropylus when he translated, "you will have placed with yourself." Eustathius: "But if you have placed water as subject to the earth's stability." Ambrose, book 1, ch. 6: "Or how if it is upon the waters is it not submerged into the water, a heavy ruin of the lands."
Col. 24 A 4. *Epi tinos hoi krikoi*. The passage is Job 38:6, on which Olympiodorus notes: "But others [say] the bases, the pickets. He calls the supports rings. First it is hanging, he says: what rings carry it? The earth, clearly, not as if these [rings] exist [there], but as it stands so securely, as if rings were supporting and fixing it from above. Since..."
Col. 26 A 9. *Sin hoc*. Cornarius [renders] this more clearly: "But if not this," *ei de mē*. Eustathius, "or if it should happen otherwise."
Col. 27 C 3. *Mane*. The interpreter had edited, "from the very dawn." Eustathius was content to say, "when brief morning sermons were finished." For it is likely that in the morning, at the time of the *synaxeōs*, that is, of the gathering or the Mass, a sermon was held by the bishop during Lent, and another toward the evening itself: hence that in Homily 3: "The morning nourishment of souls, and the evening refreshment," and Homily 9: "The morning table of words." Moreover that [expression] *homotimōs*, c. 6, Eustathius translates more clearly: "constructed with equal honor." Cornarius: "done equally for both," that is, by equal command, and at the same time.
Col. 31 A 5. *Quod si ingenita est*. Argyropylus had translated, as Montacutius warns from the older Latin editions: "If therefore this is unbegotten, namely the matter of which there was mention before, which philosophers were claiming to be unbegotten." Cornarius likewise: "If therefore this is unbegotten, first of all it will have equal dignity with God." Eustathius: "Which if we say is unbegotten, without doubt it is estimated to be equal to God in the honors to be bestowed."
Col. 31 C 7. *Melius expressit hæc Cornarius*, than Argyropylus: "From this, however, it comes about for them to deny that the great God is the overseer of the constitution of things." Furthermore, Eustathius must be corrected, in whose text one should read: "Hence to them is given an occasion of denying that God is over worldly things," instead of "a great occasion for causes."
Ibid. D 5. *Ventilabrum*. Tilimannus had annotated on this passage that Argyropylus had read *arotron* for *ptyon*, and had translated [it as] plow, not winnowing fan: Hesychius: *Ptyon*: "a piece of wood, in which they separate the wheat from the chaff"; "a piece of wood, in which they separate the grain from the chaff." Others wish it to be a wooden paddle, with which, taking seeds from the heap, farmers throw them from one end of the threshing floor to the other against the wind.
A And that this was the reading of Basil’s text can be conjectured from Eustathius, who translates: "So that it may be able to separate those things which are held on the outside from those on the inside." Finally, the same Theodoret has *enapoleiphthenta* [left behind] with the two Royal manuscripts, not *enapolephthenta*.
Col. 43 A 14. *But the Syrians.* Tilmann, or some other person, had annotated on this passage that Ephrem Syrus is to be understood, whom others add was equal to and most familiar with Basil; but Diodorus of Tarsus also teaches the same thing about the Hebrew word *merachepet* in the Catena of Zephyrius: "The Hebrew word for which we have *ferebatur* [was being carried/hovering] wishes to signify that, just as a hen warms eggs with her wings, gently brushing against them to bring them to life, so also the Spirit was being carried over the waters to animate them with his warmth." Jerome in his *Hebrew Questions*: "For the fact that it is written in our codices *ferebatur*, in Hebrew it has *meraepheth*, which we can call: was brooding upon, or was hovering over, in the likeness of a bird that animates eggs with its heat. From which we understand this is not spoken of the spirit of the world, as some might think, but of the Holy Spirit, who is also himself called the vivifier of all things from the beginning." It is derived from the root *rachaph*, which signifies to move, or to move oneself by the expansion and spreading out of the wings, as birds are accustomed to do when brooding over their chicks, as in Deut. xxxii, 11: *And fluttering over its young.*
Col. 46 A 10. *It attracts.* The air, surely, as Eustathius expressed: B "For just as our gaze directs itself at that moment of time towards the air: the air, I say, which he previously said had a transparent nature."
Ibid. c. 1, *empegxamenos*. The various reading of the Medicean codex, *empegxamenos* ["shining in," "gleaming," or "when it had shone"], is not to be entirely despised. Hesychius explains *pheggousan* as *lamprunousan* [making bright]. And a little later, the Basilian edition incorrectly had *tupomenon*, for which two Royal [manuscripts] have *tupoumenon*, "formed by the tongue"; Eustathius, however, supports the common reading, "nor the air [by] the tongue [producing] spoken word."
Col. 49 B 3. *Enupakouomenes*. The word *mias* [of one], enclosed by two commas, was absent from two Royal manuscripts and one English [manuscript]. Eustathius: "For us, clearly, as we understand implicitly, because by the naming of the day, night also should be understood."
Col. 50 B 14. *Or that reason.* These things are to be joined with the following, so that the interrogation is deferred until the end of the period, "seven times returning," and the word "indeed" is deleted, in this way: "It is handed down in writing: God, surely, who... of time," etc. Eustathius: "Or as a more secret reason hands down, God, when he was creating the nature of time." Also that phrase, *touto de kuklikon*, is to be translated thus: C "This, however, is a circular figure, to take its beginning from itself."
Col. 52 A 5. *Why to you.* The passage in the prophet stands a little differently: "Woe to those who desire the day of the Lord! D Why [is] this day of the Lord [to you]? And it is darkness, and not light." Woe...
to those who desire the day of the Lord, he says. Why [is] this day to you, being darkness and not light? Since indeed by very many calamities you will be overwhelmed. The Vulgate Latin: "What is it to you?" [implied: why do you desire it to arrive?] And so Basil cited this passage according to the sense, not the word, when he said: "Why do you seek the day of the Lord?" For thus Ambrose interpreted it in Latin, Book I, c. 10.
Ibid. B. 6. *Those words*. Two Royal [manuscripts] read *of that [one]*, and Eustathius agrees: "but the narrative of that evening."
Col. 52. C. 2. *Of the first things*. The inscription should be corrected, although some manuscripts prefer it, due to the carelessness of copyists, for "of the ways (or modes) of the creation."
Col. 54. B. 4. *How they may have loaned*. We have changed the interpreter's words, "how they may have loaned to God:" to which that of Cornarius is similar, "because a part of time loaned for interest does not vanish," and that of Eustathius, "a part of a little time loaned to God does not perish." The word "to loan" (fenerandi) is ambiguous, and is often used regarding money given at interest: but *to daneizesthai*, the Scholiast of Aristophanes distinguishes the *loan* (daneion) from the *interest* (tokos), "any loan whatever, from that which is given for interest," whence the tract of Plutarch: *Peri tou me dein daneizesthai* — “On avoiding debt” is the correct Latin inscription, not as the French interpreter edited, "On not receiving money at interest," or "On not lending." So must that of Psalm XXXVI, 22 be understood: *Daneizetai o amartolos, kai ouk apotisei* — "The sinner borrows (takes a loan), and will not repay;" and Proverbs XIX, 17: *Daneizei Theo o eleon ptochon* — "He lends to God who has mercy on the poor." For the Hebrew word denotes to receive as a loan or mutuum, and to bind faith to the one loaning.
Ibid. C. 12. *How God*. Argyropylus had edited, "That is: does God speak in our manner? And indeed, first from the things themselves a type or shadow, having been abstracted, inserts itself and is imprinted on the intellect or thought of man." Simplifying Eustathius, whom we have followed: "How does God speak, in our, that is, men's manner, who first conceive the form of a future thing in the intellect?"
Col. 58. A. 8. *What then*. Perhaps the interpreter had written "Lo what then;" Cornarius edited more clearly: "These things therefore are those who superinduce the ingenerate matter upon the creator."
Ibid. B. 11. *We, on the contrary*. Theodoret in Question 11, and the author of the *Questions* in Justin, question 57, agree with Basil, since from the words of Moses they gather that there are two heavens: because he surely said that God first created heaven and earth, then commanded that the firmament be made in the midst of the waters. Although one might gather from the passage of Paul, II Corinthians XII, 2, where the Apostle writes that he was caught up even to the third heaven, and from Psalm CXLVIII, 4, it is possible to conclude there are more heavens; yet in this, two other Fathers agree with him, because they gather from the same places of Holy Scripture that there are two, and whereas as it is recognized with them, from that type of locution which uses the number of the multitude when it deals with the heavens, that it cannot be concluded that there are more heavens. Wherefore the very learned Benedict Pererius seems to be undeservedly blamed by some, because he said that Theodoret and Justin had handed down similar things, when these are the words of Theodoret: A “Therefore, he who disbelieves in the second heaven steps outside the straight path; and he who attempts to count more follows fables, despising the teaching of the divine Spirit.” But in Justin: B “From the sequence, therefore, of the words lying before us, we understand the heavens to be two in substance, but more in intervals.” “From these things said, therefore, which have been set forth, it is consequent that we understand the heavens to be two in substance, but more in intervals.” Furthermore, *artos ek ouranou*, “bread from heaven,” John VI, 41, will be read more aptly there than *aetos ek ouranou*, “an eagle from heaven:” for no such thing occurs in Scripture, but only Lamentations IV, 19: *Diokontes emas yper aetous ouranou*. “Pursuing us above the eagles of the heavens.”
Col. 61. A. 8. *Bringing to completion*. Whereas previously it read *notas*, Montacutius corrected it from English manuscripts to *apotelountos*, namely “of the Spirit;” but two Royal codices preferred *apoteloumenous psophous*. Cornarius: “In that they violently erupt, producing thunderous noises.” Eustathius: “Which the spirit, conceived in the clouds and violently erupted, makes as a thunderous sound.” Moreover, the same thing that Basil reports regarding the origin of crystal, as born from the freezing of water, Statius also reports in the *Epithalamium of Stella*,
D *And rare crystals freeze from long-lasting snows;* and Pliny, book XXXVII, ch. 2: “A contrary cause makes crystal with more vehement frost hardened. Nor is it found with certainty anywhere else than where winter snows are most rigid, and it is certain that it is ice, whence the Greeks also gave it its name.” On which passage Dalechampius annotates, from Agricola, book VI *On Fossils*, “that Pliny is mistaken, because crystal is truly made from transparent petrifying juice, which under the earth, or between the cold veins of rocks, a vehement coldness freezes and hardens.” Diodorus Siculus also brings forward another cause in book II of the *Bibliotheca*: “They say that crystal stones have their composition from pure water frozen, not by cold, but by the power of divine fire.”
Col. 62. B. 5. *Of crystal (Specularis)*. We have restored this, instead of *specularii*. In some English [manuscripts] it was...
written incorrectly A *speculaxium*, as also in two Royal [manuscripts]. Pliny, book xxxvi, ch. 22: “*Specularis* however, since this stone also obtains its name [from its use], and is much easier by nature, is split into whatever thin flakes one pleases;” and in book ii, ch. 31: “All the nearer Spain abounds in metals and *specularis* stones.” It is called *specularis*, from which *specularia* (window-panes) were made. Seneca, Epist. 60: “We know that some things have only come into existence in our own memory, such as the use of *specularia*, which transmit clear light through a translucent crust.” Regarding this passage, Lipsius rightly notes that *specularia* were squares or discs inserted into windows for the admission of light and the exclusion of winds, serving the place and use of today’s glass, named after the *specularis* stone; and Catanæus had noted the same thing in Pliny. Martial, book viii, epigram 14:
*The specularia set against winter’s marks admit pure suns....*
But they report that these were removable, so that they could be taken away at will. Eustathius in this passage is to be corrected thus: “And the one which is found to be clean according to its own nature, neither being defiled by the admixture of any rot, nor having its floor pierced by any cracks, is held to be like the air.” We have added from Argyropylus “to the floor,” and “or pierced by cracks,” just as the Greek text demanded. Cornarius translates, “neither consumed by any rot, nor having segments or grooves produced in the height.”
Col. 64 A 6. *He who does not see*. The English books are more correct than the Vulgate reading or the Royal manuscripts. *But he who does not see*, just as shortly before *but he who does not hear*. Eustathius said, “But who is so deaf as he who does not hear Scripture crying out so openly, or who is so blind, unless he is uninstructed by evident proofs?” He alludes to those words of the prophet Isaiah xlii, 19: *And who is blind, but my servants, and deaf, but they who have dominion over them?*
Col. 67 A 2. *Of which is Eridanus*. In Eustathius we read, “of which is the Rhodanus,” but both are false; whether you say the Rhodanus, or the Eridanus, or the Padus, they arise from the Riphaean mountains and pour into the western Ocean: for the Rhodanus flows into the Mediterranean sea not far from Massilia, the Eridanus flows into the Adriatic gulf near Venice. Furthermore, that the Rhodanus flows from the Alps, and after having slid through the fields of the Allobroges, joins with the Arar at Lugdunum, Strabo teaches in his 4th book, and in the same book he establishes the sources of the Eridanus in the borders of the Ligures and Medulli, just as Pliny does. Ptolemy places its capital near the Larium location under B longitude 29, m. 20, latitude 44, m. 45. Finally, that here it is said that certain rivers flowing through Ethiopia *pour out into the sea that is sailed*, we read more correctly from the Medicean manuscript *pour out into the sea that is sailed*, which is translated in Eustathius, “others pour into the nearer Ocean,” where perhaps it should be corrected to “into the outer [Ocean],” which is to say, outside the Pillars of Hercules and outside the Mediterranean sea, which is usually sailed, as Aristotle said in the place already cited: *And Chremetes is discharged into the outer sea*. Thus also said Lucian in *Prometheus*: *And the sea that is sailed, and the inhabited islands*. But the outer sea, as below, *for there is no sea beyond Gades*.
Col. 66 D 3. *From the Pyrenees*. Eustathius expressed the mind of the author more faithfully: “But from the summer climates under the Pyrenean peak, Tartessus;” although Aristotle, from whom Basil took these points, said, *from Pyrene*, “from the Pyrenees.” For what Ptolemy and others call the Baetis, is named Tartessus by Strabo and Pausanias. And it is true that the Tartessus is discharged into the Atlantic sea, [having] risen from the Pyrenees, but it is false that the Ister or Danube flows from it, since, as Seneca says, book vi of *Natural Questions*, it separates Europe and Asia, which is better suited to the river Tanais; but Aristotle and other philosophers did not weigh these geographic matters so exactly; following them uncritically, the most holy Father Basil has described here many things which should rather be examined by the standard of Ptolemy, Strabo, and other historians. Therefore, Strabo places the sources of the Danube in the middle of the Hercynian forest, just as C those of the Rhine, book vii, which forest is in Germany: but Ptolemy wishes his capital to be situated under 30 degrees of longitude, and 46 degrees, 20 minutes of latitude.
Ibid. B 3. *You who say to the abyss*. Thus also Eustathius rendered it in Latin: *You who say to the abyss: You shall be destroyed*, and Cornarius, who do not notice that the prophet introduced God as the one speaking the words: therefore it is more correct to turn to the sense of Basil: *You who say to the abyss*. But if you look at the text of the prophet himself in the LXX, Basil seems to have undoubtedly had a lapse of memory, and the prophet is no longer conversing *with God*, or as some would have it, *the God to the people*, God is addressing the people. Therefore the Vulgate Latin is correct, *Who say to the deep, Be desolate*, whence also it follows in Greek: *and I will parch your rivers*. For it preceded: *Thus says the Lord your redeemer*, and: *Remember these, Jacob*. Two Royal manuscripts constantly read *to God*. We have changed that, “vulgar indeed in speech,” and substituted the version of the Vulgate Latin: for it borrows this from the Apostle, II Cor. x, 6: *But even if I am unlearned in speech, yet not in knowledge.* For even if unlearned in speech, but not in knowledge. Eustathius said: “Indeed, not adorned with ornaments of eloquence, but most powerful in the rationale of knowledge.”
Col. 69 C 10. *Matathesan (Transferred)*. Previously it was read *metatithentos*, but from English manuscripts it was written in the margin *metathesan*, which the typographers admitted into the text, but they did not similarly change the following participles: in two Royal [manuscripts]
A *tropas apagonta* or *tropas epanagonta*, which, since they are somewhat inconsistent, I willingly retained the previously accepted reading. How Eustathius read it, judge from his own words. And certainly we see the regulating wisdom of God transporting the sun from one part to another. But now he conducts it to the southern zone, now to the solstitial signs, according to the change of the seasons."
Col. 71 B 3. *That this appellation of heaven:* It does not concern the appellation of heaven, but the term "firmament": and Eustathius does not translate this correctly: "Properly, indeed, another name would have been suitable for it; nevertheless, we know that heaven is very often used to mean the thick and dense place of the air." Cornarius: "As if it were indeed properly congruent with another appellation, but according to similarity it also assumes this appellation." He means, of course, that the appellation "firmament" is appropriate for one thing, but that heaven is nevertheless called so by participation of similarity. Furthermore, that passage B *petomena kata to stereoma tou ouranou* ["flying across the firmament of heaven"] is taken from Genesis chapter 1, verse 20, which St. Ambrose expressed as follows in Book 4: "Flying things of heaven, and flying over the earth along the firmament of heaven; because the flying things hovering around the higher place look toward the earth." But the prior passage must be distinguished, from Psalm VIII, 9, "birds of the heavens," from the latter one from Genesis 1. Finally, the fourth is from Deuteronomy XXXIII, 13, which was phrased thus in the Basilian edition: *apo horon ouranou kai drosou* ["from the bounds of heaven and dew"], in which manner Ambrose also seems to have read it in his book *On the Blessings of the Patriarchs*, ch. 11. Eustathius [translates]: "from the ends of heaven." But in the Henrician codex [it is] *apo ton oreon* ["from the mountains"], which Flaminius Nobilius testifies is found written in several Deuteronomic codices: the true reading is that of the Medicean book, which we have expressed, and of the Roman edition of the LXX: *apo ton oporon* ["from the fruits"]; the Vulgate Latin [has] "from the fruits [apples] of heaven and dew." The Hebrew word signifies delights and delicate fruits, whence Pagninus [reads] literally, "at the delights of the heavens." Therefore, Kircher of Augsburg is wrong in his Hebrew-Greek Index of the Bible in teaching that this word signifies "mountain," citing this passage, when it should be read *oporon*, not *oron*, even though the German Basilian Bibles defend that reading. Just as he also erroneously contends in the same place that the same Hebrew word *tebuah* sounds "conversion," because in the same place it says, *kath' horan gennematon heliou tropon*, "according to the time of the fruits of the conversions of the sun": when nevertheless the Hebrew word there signifies "produce" or "fruits," and *tropas* signifies "conversions," but not D what we said [was] "delights" or "delicate fruits," as Pagninus and others skilled in the Hebrew tongue interpret.
Col. 74 C 10. *Against the ecclesiastics.* Cornarius [is] clearer: "But to us, against the ecclesiastics, there is indeed a discourse concerning the divided waters." A This is to say, we must dispute against those who are from the Church, no longer against heathens or pagans like those philosophers he spoke of earlier. For he censures Origen, with his name suppressed, and rejects his exposition as if it were a dream or a silly fable, as the most learned theologian of our order, Pererius, advises in his Commentary on this place of Genesis. For he, just as Epiphanius reports in his *Epistle to John of Jerusalem*, which is number 60 in Jerome, was corrupting the truth of history with the falsehood of allegory, and [asserted] that the waters which are above the firmament are not waters, but certain powers of angelic might, and again that the waters which are above the earth, that is, under the firmament, are contrary powers, that is, demons. And Jerome, in epistle 61, counts the sixth of his errors, that he so allegorizes paradise "that he takes away the truth of history, understanding angels for trees, and celestial powers for rivers. The seventh [is] that he judges the waters which are said in the Scriptures to be above the heavens to be holy and supernal powers; and those which are above the earth and beneath the earth to be contrary [powers] and demonic." But the contrary opinion [held by] almost all the ancient Fathers, as much the Greeks as the Latins, whom both Pererius and our own Martin Delrio enumerates in [his commentary on] Genesis, is that they are true and natural waters above the heaven of the stars, as Theodoret (Quest. 11), the author of Justin's *Questions* (Quest. 93), and Gennadius in the *Catena* [hold], whose words Bede seems to have expressed in his book *On the Nature of Things*, saying those waters were arranged for the cooling and tempering of the heat of the stars. Gennadius’s words, transcribed from a manuscript codex of the most illustrious Cardinal Joyeuse, are: "In order, therefore, that it might not, suffering this, succumb to standing still at any time, but might remain always in like manner unshaken and ageless, the wise Master-craftsman God cleverly contrived the removal of the waters from it, for the cooling of it that arises from these [waters] against the heat settling in from the stars." That it should not, therefore, be dissolved by the proximity of heat, but that the firmament should remain always in its state, indefatigable and eternal, God the wise architect himself prudently devised this separation of the waters, so that by their refrigeration He might so temper the heat of the stars that it would lean to neither side.
Col. 75 B. 2. *Although one might say.* The interpreter had written "announces," so that one might argue and interpret these heavens as being certain powers created for contemplation, and the firmament [as] faculties which perform their duty most laboriously and effectively, namely, as operators. It is to be corrected in Eustathius: "that the powers are contemplators, but the firmament [is] the creative power of God," instead of "contemptible powers"; and a little later, "which is in these words," [meaning] not in the words, but the reasoning and consideration exist in the things, whence Eustathius translates: "But the consideration of them, prudently contemplated by those having sense, effects the glorification of the Creator." Cornarius [says it] most optimally: "Indeed, the discourse [is] taken in these [matters] in a speculative sense."
A Col. 76 C 10. *In the beginning the goal.* The Basilian edition had *en arche* joined together, but two Royal [manuscripts] have *en arxe* [in a clear manner], and Eustathius confirms the emendation, while translating: "Rightly, therefore, indeed he purposed that it should be manifest in the reckoning of things coming into being," which, although [it is] erroneous, indicates that one should write here, "Who, therefore, proposed for himself the goal of that which is manifest among the things that happen." In the same way, below, it was read in the Basilian edition, *horomenois en arche* [to those seen in the beginning], and from the same manuscripts it has been corrected to *en arxe* [in a clear manner]; wherefore it must be translated, "manifest examples immediately," as Eustathius said, "that you might receive the most certain monuments of the benefactor."
Col. 79 A 13. *But now.* We have substituted the words of Eustathius in the place of those of the interpreter: "There are not lacking those who have addicted their whole selves even to the point of madness to the exercising of horses for undertaking contests, so much so that they seem to themselves to be struggling in conflict through their sleep for the sake of the horses." But it is not *peri hippotrophōn*, "concerning those who raise or train horses," but it concerns those who, divided into factions, watch the contests or struggle in the circuses themselves: for the Fathers speak of the circus in this way, so as to speak of those who contend while watching as being insane and mad. Tertullian, *De spectaculis*, ch. 16: "Since, therefore, madness is forbidden to us, we are removed from every spectacle, even from the circus where madness properly presides." Gregory Nazianzen, *Orat.* 27: *Peri tous hippikous kai ta theatria, kai ta stadia, kai ta kynēgesia tosouton memēnenai, hōste tauta poieisthai bion* [Concerning those who are obsessed with horse racing and theaters and stadiums and hunting, they have been so maddened that they make these their life], "He is so maddened about circus games and spectacles and races and hunts, that he takes these for his life and as some serious vocation." Jerome in *Vita S. Hilarionis*: "He was not delighted by the madnesses of the circus, nor the blood of the arena, nor the luxury of the theater."
Col. 80 C 13. *Synagogas auton.* Thus it is read in the Royal manuscript codices, and *ekalesen thalassas* [he called the seas], not as in the English [edition] *thalassan* [sea]; nor must anything be changed, as they wish who rewrite *synagogas autou*. For all printed books and those written by hand constantly have *autōn*.
Col. 82 B 5. *It follows.* But Basil did not say this, but *epōthei* [he was urging], whence Eustathius, "By the urgency of the approaching impulse"; and Cornarius: "But [it] pressed [forth] supervening."
Col. 84 A 14. *Ekklēsiastou.* Some English [editions] have *Ekklēsiastikou*, but the French [editions], with the printed [texts], have *Ekklēsiastou*, rightly; for the passage is from Ecclesiastes 1:7: *Pantes cheimarroi* "All the torrents go into the sea."
Ibid. C 1. *Chalinoutai.* The English books add the word *thalassa* [sea], which neither the printed [edition] nor the two Royal [manuscripts] acknowledge, but Eustathius does: "By God's command he curbs the violence of the sea." Furthermore, what he brings forth toward the end of the page concerning Egypt, that it is lower than the Red Sea, is taken from Aristotle, *1 Meteoror.*, ch. 14: *All' heuren hypsēloteran ousan tēn thalattan tēs gēs, dio epausato dioryttōn, hopōs mē diaphtharē to rheuma tou potamou symmigeisēs tēs thalattēs* [But he found the sea to be higher than the land, and therefore he ceased digging, lest the current of the river be destroyed by the mixing of the sea]: "But he found the Red Sea to be higher than the land of Egypt, lest the water of the river be corrupted." Strabo, however, although an Egyptian by nationality, reports that this was falsely relayed to Darius the Mede, *lib.* XVII: *Kai houtos de pseudei peistheis aphēke to ergon peri synteleian ēdē genomenon. Epeisthē gar meteōroteran einai tēn Erythran thalassan tēs Aigyptou, kai ei diakopeiē pas ho metaxy isthmos, epiklysthēsesthai tē thalattē tēn Aigypton* [And this man also, being persuaded by a lie, abandoned the work when it was already near completion. For he was persuaded that the Red Sea was higher than Egypt, and that if the whole isthmus between them were cut through, Egypt would be flooded by the sea]: "He too abandoned the work when it was almost complete. For he was falsely persuaded that the Red sea was higher than Egypt, and therefore if the middle isthmus were cut, Egypt would be overwhelmed by the sea." Diodorus Siculus, *lib.* I, calls it *diōryga cheiropoiēton eis ton Arabikon kolpon*, "a trench made by human hands led into the Arabian Gulf and the Erythraean Sea." Pliny, however, explains more clearly how these kings wished to join both seas, *lib.* VI, ch. 29: "The port of Daneon, from which Sesostris, king of Egypt, first of all thought to lead a navigable channel into the Nile, then Darius of the Persians, then Ptolemy afterwards, who also led a trench, one hundred feet in width, thirty in depth, and thirty-seven thousand four hundred paces in length as far as the bitter fountains. Fear of an inundation deterred them further." Basil does not say that any king dug through the isthmus which reaches from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean, but only that he wished to join those two seas: not indeed by a trench led from the Arabian [Sea] to the Mediterranean, but by that [trench] led from the Red Sea to one of the mouths by which the Nile flows into the Mediterranean, which, however, the historians call digging through the isthmus, although a trench is not led from one sea to the other; and it was pleasing to note this for this reason, that no one might think Basil had a lapse of memory, or that he concurs little with their narrative, which he related here.
Col. 88 A 12. *Red Sea.* Argyrop. had published, "to that which they say the Ocean sea extends beyond Cadiz, and is joined to it." But when Basil says the Red Sea is connected with the Ocean or the Atlantic sea, he follows not a few authors, who by the name of the Red Sea understand not only that which Ptolemy calls *Arabion kolpon*, the Arabian Gulf, which is also called the Erythraean Sea, but all that southern sea which extends eastward as far as India and westward toward the extreme shores of Africa, such as that which says Seneca, *Troad.*, Act I: And he who, receiving the reborn day, Mingles the warm Tigris with the reddening strait. For he says that the river Tigris is discharged into the Red Sea, although it does not flow into the Arabian Gulf but into the Persian [Gulf], because he calls the southern Ocean the Red Sea, just as also Herodotus in *Clio*, Diodorus *lib.* II *Bibliothecae*; Quintus Curtius *lib.* VI, Josephus *lib.* I, ch. 2 of *Antiquities*: even though Africa was unknown to the ancients in the time of Ptolemy beyond the Mountains of the Moon, nor had the Portuguese yet sailed past its extreme promontory, which they call the Cape of Good Hope.
Col. 88 C 14. *In many things.* Although they are not found
in the Hebrew text, nor in the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome, St. Ambrose nevertheless does not judge them to be superfluous (lib. 3, cap. 5): "When he states that it has been done so, they consider the voice of the operator to be sufficient as an indication of an accelerated operation. But because in other creatures also it has a definition of preceding and a repeated indication or effect of the operation, therefore we do not think that what is stated to be added is absurd, even if the truth or authority is shown to be present for the other interpreters. For we discover many things added and joined by the Seventy men to the Hebrew text." Augustine also in his *De Genesi ad litteram imperfecto* says: "So that what is related afterwards should not seem to be added superfluously: but so that after the rational and incorporeal operation, we might understand also the corporeal one that followed." Theodoret acknowledges the same thing (Quaest. 12 in Gen.), and poses the objection to himself as to why, when Scripture has mentioned one congregation of waters, it afterwards recounts many congregations of waters, because indeed the congregation of waters is one, since the seas meet together among themselves, some flowing down through subterranean passages, others along the surface of the earth; but he spoke in the plural number because one thing is the Indian Sea, another the Pontic, another the Tyrrhenian, another the Propontic: "Extra autem rursus adjacet mare maximum, quod nonnulli mare Atlanticum, nonnulli Oceanum appellant." B He said the Ocean was "extra," that is to say, outside Gades; not as the interpreter of Theodoret wrote: "Besides all these things." Thus our author spoke here, ἡ ἔξω Γαδείρων θάλασσα, "which is the sea outside Gades, or the external sea beyond Gades." Finally, the words tà toívuv ἀκριβῆ, up to the end of the period, are not recognized by Eustathius the ancient interpreter, nor do they seem to have been pronounced by Basil while preaching, especially when Epiphanius in his book *De ponderibus et mensuris* says that an obelus is placed to the words of Scripture among the LXX Interpreters, which are not found in Aquila and Symmachus, because the Seventy have placed them from themselves, not without reason, but rather for utility: and Jerome (Epist. 89, to Augustine) says: "Wherever little lines, that is to say obeli, are present, it is signified that the Seventy have said more than is contained in the Hebrew." But not everything which is not contained in the Hebrew, or in Aquila and Symmachus, is rejected.
Col. 96 A 4. τοῦ γεννᾶν αὐτήν. So the Basel edition. But the English manuscripts have αὐτῆς. Two Royal manuscripts support the edited reading, and Eustathius, "offering itself the capacity."
Col. 99 A 8. *Lictores.* We have changed those words of the interpreter, "feruligerosque lictores," and with Eustathius, who translates "faciumque vectores," we have preferred to use the Roman terms, who said that fasces were carried before them by lictors. The author of the Vulgate also (Acts 16:35): *Απέστειλαν οἱ στρατηγοὶ τοὺς ῥαβδούχους* · "The magistrates sent the lictors." Plutarch in his *Romano* calls them ῥαβδούχους, whence the lictors are called *liktores*, and the rods are called *bacula*. Cruserius interprets it: "and the rods which they carried, the fasces." Word for word it would be: "and the rods are called staffs."
Col. 405 A 8. *Προβληθεῖσιν.* In the Basel edition it was βληθεῖσιν; two Royal manuscripts preferred προβληθεῖσι, whence comes *προβολή*, above, *τῇ προβολῇ τῶν ἀνθερίκων*. Ambrose expressed these things (lib. 2, cap. 10): "There is no doubt that it had a greater yield: since neither the sloth of the cultivator could deprive the lands of their fertility." Furthermore, what he said a little later, *στεφανωματικά φυτά*, "which serve to weave garlands," Eustathius had interpreted as "which are called coronaria," for so that erroneous reading "corinaria" must be corrected. Dioscorides uses this word (lib. 1, cap. 9): *Ἄσαρον πόα εὐώδης στεφανωματική.* "Asaron is a fragrant and *coronaria* herb." Theophrastus (lib. 7, cap. 27, *De caus. plant.*): *Ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ χείριστα τὰ ἄνθη καὶ τὰ στεφανώματα* · "In Egypt grow the worst flowers and *coronamenta*," he writes, that is, leaves or herbs from which garlands are woven. Pliny (lib. 21, cap. 1): "Cato ordered *coronamenta* to be sown in gardens." Finally, that Basil adds at the end of the page that the rose lacked thorns before the sin, Ambrose also repeats in the aforementioned place, nor does Augustine dissent from either (lib. 1 *De Genesi contra Manichæos*, cap. 13). Where he says: "that poisonous herbs were created for the punishment or exercise of mortals, and this entirely on account of sin:" but as our most learned Pererius excellently advises in his *Commentary on Genesis*, afterwards, having examined the matter more maturely and accurately, he retracted and corrected it (lib. 3 *De Genesi ad litteram*, cap. 18), and embraced the contrary opinion. Indeed, since Basil asserts that poisonous and destructive herbs were born before the sin (page 58), the same reasons can explain why God willed the earth to produce thorns with roses even before the sin.
Col. 108 C 6. *Παρεμβαλεῖ γάρ.* The interpreter had written: "For the angel of the Lord will insert himself, or will establish a medium." And this indeed sounds in Greek *παρεμβάλλειν* when the case of another thing is added, *ἑαυτὸν*, *ὑπὸ τίνος*, "to insert oneself," or "to instill suspicion," but "et castra locare," to place tents distinguished in ranks, especially with no case of another word added, as in this passage of David, Budæus brings forward in his *Commentary on the Greek Language* from Polybius (lib. 3): *Τὴν δὲ δύναμιν πρὸ τῆς πόλεως παρεμβαλών, ὠχυρώσατο τάφρῳ καὶ χάρακι τὴν στρατοπεδείαν* · "When he had campaigned before the city, he fortified the army with a ditch and a stockade. For the placement of tents and the encampment consisting in military order is called *παρεμβολή*." Furthermore, as often as the Greek word of the Seventy interpreters or of other Greeks is ambiguous, and has two or more notions, that one seems most to be embraced which agrees with the Hebrew: but from the same archetype, Joa Campensis and Pagninus translate: "The angel of the Lord will camp:" And Jerome from the same
text as the Hebrew, "The angel of the Lord encircleth," and in chapter 65 of Isaiah, proving that each of us has an angel, he cites this verse from the Greek and thus sets it forth: "The angel of the Lord encircleth." Certainly those things which follow indicate that Basil understood this passage in this way: *and as it were a stockade he placed for us, having set in the Church first apostles,* and in the homilies on the Psalms, *that an angel is likened to a whole camp and to a populous encampment.* In Eustathius it is written erroneously, just as it is also in certain Latin codices from the time of Augustine: "The Lord will send an angel into the circuit."
Col. 111 B 3. *As it were certain male seeds.* St. Ambrose, book III, chap. 13: "They cast before his branches certain things as it were male seeds, to which a sense of enjoyment is infused as if to them, and it is presented for the sake of sought-after intercourse." For I think it should be amended thus, since here in Greek it is read, *in a sense of enjoyment*. Cornarius: "certain seeds, which they call gnats, and thus they are established as it were in a sense of fruition and pleasure." In Eustathius also the reading is depraved: "they are said to insert certain eyes taken from the male, into the female," where perhaps it should be corrected to "certain gnats;" just as Theodorus Gaza expressed that passage of Aristotle's *History of Animals*, book V, chap. 32: *But the wild figs in the wild fig trees have what are called wasps; but this becomes first a little worm, then when the skin has burst it flies out, while the wasp leaves this behind, and it enters into the wild figs of the fig trees and by chewing makes the wild figs not to fall off;* "The caprifig produces wild-fig gnats from its fruits: it becomes first a little worm, then the skin being broken the gnat flies out, and having changed its place it seeks the immature figs, into which it insinuates itself, and causes them not to fall." The passage is read amended thus in the edition of Casaubon, and Pliny favors this, who in book XV, chap. 19, hands down these things concerning the caprifig: "Therefore it produces gnats: these, cheated of nourishment in the putrid decay of their mother, fly to a relative." Hesychius, *wasps, the gnats which are produced in the wild figs*, but elsewhere he also interprets *wasps* as *the seeds of palm trees*. The Etymologicon also: *Wasps, the small flies, and they call the seed of the palms "wasps";* "Wasps are small flies, and they call palm seeds 'wasps'." By which I am led to believe that the *wasps* of the caprifigs are to be distinguished from these of the palms, of which Basil treats, and that these are not gnats, but a certain flower or down, as Argyropylus had translated it here: "to emit the flower or down of the male." Pliny confirms our conjecture in book XIII, chap. 4, where, dealing with palms, he adds these things: "so that intercourse has even been devised by man, from the males by flower or down, but meanwhile sometimes only by powder sprinkled upon the females."
Ibid. D 7. *Partly the rays.* The translator had perhaps written, "the ray of the sun." Cornarius: "and may receive broadly the ray of the sun through the rarity." And the heat is not brought to the receiving of the sun's heat.
Col. 116 C 10. *Existing.* Correct from two Royal codices, *existing in/on the earth*. "That precept also now which is in the earth." And *at each circuit of a year* Cornarius expressed more faithfully: "According to the circuit of each year:" in Eustathius the word "year" is missing: "their own proper powers, as much as it has, the kind of herbs to be shaped by the courses of the individual years."
Col. 118 A 11. A *Of those contending.* We add the word "athletes" from the Greek, and for "theater," we substitute "stadium," which is read erroneously in Eustathius as "gathered in the studio." For what the circus, distinct from the theater, was to the Latins, that was the stadium to the Greeks. Martial, however, book XIV, apophoreton 26, signifies that he will use the covering of a hat in the theater if the wind has grudged the awnings; and Vopiscus testifies in *Carinus* that Atrebatic cloaks were given to the spectators of public games. Moreover, the Romans were covered from the sun by umbrellas and awnings; but Basil testifies that in the East, spectators watched bareheaded in the stadium. But also that there was a stadium at Rome in the times of the Emperor Constantius is certain from Ammianus Marcellinus, book XVI of the *Histories*, "both the theater of Pompey and the Odeon and the stadium."
Col. 120 D 3. B *The dogma of theology.* That the word "theology" is sometimes used less broadly among the Greeks than among the Latins is observed by the most learned Jac. Billius in his scholia to the 6th oration of Gregory Nazianzen. For among the Latins, they are said to devote themselves to theology who are engaged in the study of sacred letters; but among the Greeks, they are called "theologians" who pursue the doctrine of the divinity in speech or in writing. Thus St. Gregory entitled *On Theology* the orations in which he speaks ex professo concerning the divinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: so in this place Basil calls the doctrine of the two persons of the Trinity the "dogma of theology." But he also teaches that *to theologize* signifies nothing else than "to speak of and to confess God," as in epistle 26 the same Gregory says: *You already openly profess the Spirit to be God.* Therefore you may translate more correctly with Eustathius here: "Everywhere, therefore, the dogma of the deity is interwoven in the history by mystical narration; or from Cornarius, "Everywhere, *the doctrine of theology is mystically interspersed in the history.*"
Col. 123 C 3. C *From a bodily light.* The translator had perhaps written, "the light opposing itself;" for Eustathius also expressed the Greek thus: "For just as on a bright day a shadow soon follows someone standing under the dawn of the sun," and Cornarius: "Just as on a day a shadow stands at that which obstructs the splendor," as if he were to say, that the shadow follows the body which opposes itself to the light, and excludes it.
Col. 127 A 1. D *The sun will be turned.* It is written somewhat differently among the prophet, Joel II, 31: *The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood;* The sun
shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give its light: to A which corresponds the passage in Ezekiel XXXII, 7: *I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not show its light.* The Vulgate (renders it): *And the moon shall not give its light.*
Col. 127 C 13. *Sixty.* The Henrician codex (has) *sixty dividing*; but the Medicean (has) *dividing*, and in the Basilian (codex) Montacutius suspects that it should be read as *dividing parts*, and a little later, *each of those sixty parts again sixty times*. But the two Royal (codices) prefer *again of the sixtieths sixty times*. Eustathius counts them as *sixty times sixty portions*. Thus he speaks a little later, *passing over sixty in time*.
Ibid. In the Basilian edition it was *each thirtieth part*, but the word *thirtieth* was absent from the Royal ms. Eustathius’s interpretation is erroneous, regarding those things in which we said the lot (or portion) of the decrees had been divided. Cornarius (is) more apt: *“in which we said that individual thirtieth parts are divided.”*
Col. 130 A 12. *It will also be.* The interpreter had translated: *“He will also do all things with a ready mind: finally, for gain with a clever character.* But *προετικός* (proetikos) is (said of) one who easily *προΐεται* (proietai), as in Aristotle, *“neither persistent at guarding, nor is it proetikon (liberal/prodigal),”* but *“neither tenacious to store up, but ready and prepared to exhaust,”* IV Ethics, cap. 2. Cornarius did not stray from the mind of the author: *“and voluntary to give, and in turn ready to acquire.”* Eustathius, on the contrary, interprets it as if (the author) had not meant *προΐεσθαι* (proiesthai – to exhaust), but *προεστάναι* (proestanai – to preside), regarding him who is born under Aries: *“He will also be presidential and greedy.”* But what he calls *proetikon* he indicates more clearly later, when he says, *“For the Aries (sign) is ready to give.”* Furthermore, St. Augustine refutes this vanity of the astrologers with the same arguments in bk. II of *De Doctrina Christiana*, cap. 21, when he says that those mathematicians, who while they hunt for the position of the stars when each person is born, and from thence attempt to predict our actions or the outcomes of our actions, err too much, and sell to ignorant men a miserable slavery. B *“For everyone, he says, who is free, when he has come to a mathematician of that kind, gives money, so that he may emerge from there either as a slave of Mars or Venus, or rather of all the stars, to which those who first erred gave labels, either of beasts because of the similarity, or of men, in order to honor the men themselves.”* See also Joan. Pico in *Astrolog.*, bk. VI, cap. 15, and Jos. Scaliger in *Notes to Manilius*, who relates from Aben Ezra that the Persians fixed certain images in the sky, the Indians others, and the authors of the Barbarian sphere (others still). Alexander de Angelis, in bk. IV, cap. 23, *Against the Astrologers*, hands down that the Arabs even overturned all the images of the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and changed all the asterisms.
Col. 134 B 13. *Abundance of crops.* *Εὐθηνήσει* (Euthenesei), he said, not *εὐθυνεῖ* (euthynei), as the interpreter seems to have read, writing: *“when the farmer seems indeed about to do correctly”*; and *εὐθύνειν* (euthynein) indeed, as the Scholiast of Sophocles says, C is said *“regarding those things that are straightened from the crooked, when those things which are tortuous become straight”*; but *εὐθηνεῖν* (euthenein) is (used) regarding those who prosper, *“when we enjoy prosperous successes, when things exuberate as we wish,”* as it is said in homily 4, *a theater thriving with licentious spectacles*. Eustathius: *“by which the abundance of fruits can abound even for those not working.”* Cornarius: *“rather, the farmer will abound in fertility.”* Furthermore, he shows in more detail in the *Commentary on Isaiah*, cap. xiv, that this same vanity of the astrologers induces the necessity of fate, and turns men away from piety and faith: *“For everyone who accepts the matters of genesis (birth), and reveres necessity and fate and destiny.”*
Col. 35 A 10. *For the portion.* The most learned Montacutius prefers that it be translated as *per parts, gradually*. Cornarius wrote: *“particularly.”* Eustathius: *“gradually composes the temperament.”* Furthermore, what Basil brings forth regarding the Ascii and Amphiscii at the end of the page, he seems to have taken from Strabo, whose interpreter uses these same words. Pliny also, bk. II, cap. 73, said: *“In which places of India shadows do not exist, the north is not perceived, and those places are called Ascia, and hours are not counted there.”* What he adds regarding the Arabian Amphiscii is genuine to those things which are cited by experts in astronomy from the second book of Lucan: *To you, Arabs, you came to an unknown region,* *Wondering that the shadows of the groves do not go to the left.* *“For they wish to signify, says our Clavius, that the Arabs came across the tropic of Cancer, where the shadows of bodies at midday are perpetually (projected) toward the north, that is, to the right side of the world, never toward the south, to the left side.”*
Col. 137 B 11. *Four years.* *Συνδρομήν* (syndromen), as the interpreter says, *“the most exact concurrence of times,”* *τῶν ὡρῶν σύνδρομον*. Eustathius translates it literally: *“so that the perfect concurrence of hours may be gathered more diligently.”* So said Horace in the *Art*: *Who purge bile around the hour of the spring time:* And ode 12, book 1: *Who tempers the sea and lands, and the world with changing hours.* But the fact that he says the Hebrews were accustomed to measure the year in such a way that when the moon had completed its course, it was the generator of the year, indicates that their years and months were lunar, and consequently, when twelve lunations had elapsed, only 354 days had passed; and when the solar year is 365 days and a quarter, it was necessary to add an intercalary month, so that those lunar years might be equalized with the solar ones. Carolus Sigonius, in bk. III, cap. 1, *De republica Hebræorum*, hands down that they interposed those eleven days with a quarter, every second and fourth year.
A And the more recent Greeks, such as the Athenians, changed the form of the year by the edict of C. Caesar, and adopted the Julian; its beginning was not at the solstice, but in autumn, and it was Alexandrian, from the month of October, as may be gathered from their decree which they issued for Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews, in Josephus, *Antiquities*, bk. XIV, cap. 16.
Col. 139 A 10. *Peræque contuentur.* Eustathius translates it in the same way, "they look upon it similarly." Montacutius prefers, "they look upon the equal, that is, of the same magnitude," and likewise Cornarius, "the Britons see the equal." Therefore, that Virgilian line has no place here (*Aeneid*, bk. 1, v. 568), which is popularly said:
*Nor does the sun join the horses so turned away from the Tyrian city.*
Col. 143 B 10. *Euriporum refluxus.* The interpreter had expressed these things in such a way as to mix the tide of the Euripi with the tide of the Ocean, "and the surges of the reciprocal sea also, partly in the Euripi, partly in the Ocean, which they follow in order." Eustathius distinguishes them in this manner: "The reflux motion of the Euripi also indicates this, or indeed the reciprocation of the Syrtes, which are held to be adjacent to the Ocean." And Cornarius, "The reflux of the Euripi, and the reciprocation of the sea around the Ocean, so called." Strabo also distinguishes in bk. I, p. 38: "Concerning the floods and ebbs, Posidonius and Athenodorus have spoken sufficiently; but concerning the tidal flow of the straits, it is enough to say that there is not one single manner in which the straits are turbulent, or by class; for the Sicilian would not change twice each day, and the Chalcidic seven times." Furthermore, concerning the estuation of the sea, those things which were said by Posidonius and Athenodorus are sufficient. But concerning the flow and reflux of the straits, since they also have a more physical cause, it will suffice to have said this, that there is not one single mode of tide for all straits; otherwise, the Sicilian would not be changed twice daily, nor the Chalcidic seven times. And in book IX, p. 278: "They say that it changes seven times each day and night." Pomponius Mela, bk. II, cap. 7: "They call it the Euripus, a rapid sea, and with an alternate course, seven times by day and seven times by night, with the waves turned back and forth." Livy, however, in bk. XXXVIII, writes that it does not reciprocate seven times a day, as rumor has it, at fixed times, but randomly, in the manner of the wind, the sea being turned now here, now there. Finally, Pliny, in bk. II of his *Natural History*, cap. 97, where he said that the Euripus reciprocates seven times a day and night, D adds: "The same tide stands for three days in the month, the seventh, eighth, and ninth moon." So various things are told about the tides of the sea, the diverse causes of which the same Pliny puts forward throughout that whole chapter of book II.
Col. 144 D 1. *Ὑμᾶς τῆς ἑαυτῶν.* In the Basle edition it was written *ἡμᾶς*, but the interpreter reads *ὑμᾶς*. Again, the Basle edition had *λόγῳ μετρῆτε, εἰ ἀναλο- γίσασθε*, but two Royal [manuscripts] prefer *ἡμᾶς* and *μετρῆτε, εἰ ἀναλογίζεσθαι*. It seems it should be corrected to *ἡμᾶς τῆς ἑαυτῶν*, and *μετρῆτε, οἷ παρ' ἑαυτοῖς ἀναλογίσης*.
ἀναλογίσης*. A Eustathius: "For which reason one ought to accuse our own weakness, so that it may not be believed that one can measure the magnificence of creatures with human words." Cornarius renders it word-for-word: "Candidly, therefore, we ought to accuse our own weakness, so that you might not expend the greatest works on our own speech, but from the few things related, calculate for yourselves how many," etc.
Col. 147 B 10. *Frogs, mule-flies*. Argyropylus and Cornarius had omitted *ἐμπίδες*. Eustathius translates "flies." The Glossary: *ἐμπίς*, "a wine-gnat." Tilmann substitutes "mule-flies." There is indeed a kind of gnat among Pliny, in Book XI, ch. 18, that are called *muledis*; but the learned seek to know what author said that the *ἐμπίδες* of the Greeks are "mule-flies." The Scholiast of Aristophanes in *Clouds*: *Ἐμπίδες, οὓς ἡμεῖς κώνωπας καλοῦμεν, οἱ δὲ εἶδος κώνωπος παραποτάμιον ζωὴν ἔχοντος* — "Empides, whom we call gnats, but others call a kind of river-dwelling gnat having life." And in *Lysistrata*: *Ἐμπὶς κώνωψ, ἢ εἶδος ζώου παρὰ τοῖς ὕδασι γενόμενον ὅμοιον κώνωπι, μεῖζον δέ* — "Empis, a gnat, or a kind of animal born by the waters, similar to a gnat, but larger." Dalecampius, however, notes on that passage of Pliny that *ἐμπίδες* for Aristotle are mule-flies, which harass laden mules in the summer time. The passage is Book V of *History of Animals*, ch. 19: *Αἱ δ' ἐμπίδες γίνονται ἐκ τῶν ἀσκαρίδων* — which the most learned Theodorus Gaza interprets: "The mule-gnats are generated from ascarids, that is, from tipulae."
Ibid. C 12. *But if*. These things are substituted in the place of those words from Tilmann’s revision: "And if any aquatic animals lean upon and walk with the support of feet. For most of these are amphibious, such as seals, crocodiles, hippopotami, B frogs, and crabs. In these, the prerogative of the name is enjoyed, because by their own nature it is floatable, and therefore it is so called." Argyropylus had edited: "Especially, however, the faculty of swimming is accommodated to these." This is doubtlessly what Basil means: that "reptiles" are called all those things that live in the water, even if some of them have feet, because those that are amphibious spend more and longer time in the water than on land. Ambrose, Book V, ch. 4: "Furthermore, since most have feet and the use of walking, in that they are amphibious, living either in the water or on land: yet when they are in the depths of the waters, they do not walk, but swim." Eustathius more aptly expresses the author’s meaning: "Because although many ambiguous things are held concerning them, yet for them, the primary thing is swimming." Therefore, they are numbered among the reptiles.
Ibid. D 5. *By which nomenclatures*. The most learned Montacutius rightly remarks that Argyropylus translated it much more aptly in earlier editions, which are not currently at hand: "Not those things which lay eggs, which are almost all kinds of fishes." For Basil speaks only of oviparous [creatures] when he says *ὅπερ ἐστὶ πάντα σχεδόν*, and not of viviparous, and oviparous combined, as they seem to signify these words of Tilmann: "By which nomenclatures," etc. Eustathius also expressed it better: "Or whether you call them oviparous, such as almost all kinds of fish are." And Cornarius: "Not oviparous, which almost all kinds of fish are."
Col. 149 A 4. *As many as are scaly*. This ought to be corrected from two Royal [manuscripts] to *φολιδωτά*. Cornarius translates "scaly and bark-like," and *lepida* (scaly) and *pholidota*, because the Latin language has no other synonym for *squamosum*. For what is *φολίς* in reptiles is *λεπίς* in aquatic creatures, in Latin "scale" for both. Thus, in Epistle 8 of Ignatius to the Antiochenians, p. 196, it should be read, as we recently emended: *τοὺς ὄφεις τοὺς συρομένους, τὰ φολιδωτά δρακόντια, τὰς ἀσπίδας* — "the serpents creeping on their breast, scaly dragons, the asps," not *φιλόδωρα*, "beasts rejoicing in the clothing of skins." C *pholidōtos* indeed means a dweller in a nest, or one who builds a nest, or who lurks, *παρὰ τὸ φωλεῖν*, which is "to lurk in dens." The interpreter said "bark-like" because also in Pliny, "those which bring forth animals, have hair; those [which bring forth] eggs, [have] feathers, or scales, or bark, or shells, or tortoises, or pure skin, like serpents."
Col. 150 A 15. *Gregarious, solivagant*. Previously it was read, "gregarious, solitary, such as whales;" but Basil did not say that gregarious animals are solitary, nor did he adduce whales as an example of solitary ones; rather, he establishes these three diverse kinds of fish: gregarious, scattered, and whales. *Ἀγελαῖα καὶ σποραδικά* Cicero translates "congregata et solivaga" (*Tusculan* V). Theodorus Gaza: "gregarious and incivil," for Aristotle also teaches (*1 Hist. animal., ch. 1*) that among the gregarious, just as among the solitary, some are *πολιτικά*, "civil," and some *σποραδικά*. Shortly after, we removed the word "moreover" (*porro*) before these words, "rare, and in passage," so that the lung and the viscus might not appear to be different things, [but rather] the rare. Thus Ambrose, Book V, ch. 4: "For us, the lung receives breath through the wider openings of the chest, and since it is itself penetrable by many pores, it cools the internal heat."
Ibid. C 11. *Shell-enclosed*. We preferred to express it in Latin this way, rather than to say *ostracoderma* with the interpreter. Cornarius said "shell-covered," which word-for-word would be "those for which the shell is in place of skin." Pliny, *Hist. nat.* Book IV, ch. 28, calls them *testis conclusa duris* ("enclosed in hard shells"); but what Basil calls *μαλακόστρακα*, "covered with thin crusts," and in Book XI, ch. 37, "enclosed in a fragile crust." Finally, the "soft ones" to the Greeks are *μαλάκια*. Likewise in Pliny, they are "soft" which have neither scales nor shells, but [have] skin similar to human skin, as Galen teaches in Book III of *De alimentis*. D
Col. 153 A 2. *Take this*. Two Royal books emend it to *σὺ τοῦτον λαβών*, namely, he who had plundered the poor man.
Ibid. 10. *Flee from the condemned*. Argyropylus: "of those to be despised;" Cornarius: "Flee the imitations of those condemned." We have written, "of condemned men," just as the Apostle said in Galatians 2:11: *ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν*, "Because he was reprehensible," he translates...
A from both the Royal manuscripts and from the English ones *κυήσεως*, and in Eustathius, "For when the season of spawning begins to flourish, others from one gulf to another;" we have decided that this reading should certainly be retained, which is supported also by that passage in Ambrose, chapter 10: "There are, however, some species of fishes that do not change their locations for the sake of the ease of their nature, but by the necessity of nurturing their offspring, which they provide for at the appropriate and legitimate time." Oppian also supports this, *Halieutica* book I, verse 598:
Πολλοὶ δ' ἀγρόμενοι ξυνὴν ὁδὸν ὁρμαίνονται, Εὔξεινον μετὰ Πόντον, ἵν' αὐτόθι τέκνα τέκοιεν· Many indeed, gathering together, set out on a common path Towards the Euxine Pontus, that they might there bring forth their young.
And Aristotle, *History of Animals* book VIII, chapter 13: Διὰ δὲ τὴν τροφὴν εἰσπλέουσιν εἰς Πόντον, καὶ διὰ τὸν τόκον. Τόποι γάρ εἰσιν ἐπιτήδειοι εἰς τὸ τίκτειν, καὶ τὸ πότιμον καὶ τὸ γλυκότερον ὕδωρ ἐκτρέφει τὰ κνήματα. B "Therefore on account of both food and procreation they enter the Pontus. For there are places there more suitable for giving birth, and the fresher and sweeter water better nurtures the offspring."
Ibid., C D 1. *Uti torrentem*. We preferred this to what the interpreter wrote: "as a river and through the Propontis and Euxine Pontus." It signifies a *rheuma*, waves flowing with speed, for which reason Ambrose retained the Greek word: "You might say, if you see them ascending, that there is a certain *rheuma*, so they rush forth, and the waves intersect, flowing with violent force through the Propontis into the Euxine Pontus." For this reason we have also corrected it to "through the Propontis into the Euxine Pontus," which a little later he calls simply the "Pontus," and the "Aquilonian sea," *βόρειον πέλαγος*, because it is to the north of the Propontis, or the northern sea. Oppian, book I, *Halieutica*, verse 626:
"Ως τότε μυριόφυλοι ἁλὸς τέμνουσι κέλευθα Εὔξεινον μετὰ κῦμα, περιπλήθει δὲ θάλασσα. So then the myriad-tribed ones of the brine cleave the paths Towards the Euxine wave, and the sea is filled.
The most learned Montacutius adds the emendation of Isaac Casaubon, which two Royal codices support, page 87, chapter 4, *ἀλλὰ καὶ ψυχρὰ χειμῶνος ὥρᾳ*, not *ψυχρᾶ*, as the interpreter also wanted corrected, "it is very cold in the winter time:" and Eustathius, "but it is also excessively cold in the winter season."
Col. 158 D 7. *Quid ipse dicas*. These were poorly understood by the interpreter, who by punctuating improperly was separating them from the preceding text and joining them to the subsequent text; in this way: "What else should follow? What, pray, do you yourself say, who live your life in idleness, which indeed no one who can plead ignorance can deny is the beginning of evil?" A similar sentiment is in Ecclesiasticus 33:29: *Πολλὴν γὰρ κακίαν ἐδίδαξεν ἡ ἀργία*. "For idleness has taught much evil." We have also changed what followed: "It endures no small thing, stabilizing itself like an anchor beneath itself." Eustathius: "Whereby, supported as if by the fluke of an anchor, it may avoid the shaking of the storm."
Col. 159 B 14. *Quid sibi vult hic*. Argyropylus, "What does this my reason want? what does it portend?" Better Eustathius, "What then does this discourse desire?"
A "What does the discourse of such as these mean, unless it is to represent the manners of married people?" However, what the author suggests in this passage regarding the mating of the viper with the muræna is confirmed by the testimony of various writers, such as Licinius Macer in Pliny, Book XXXII, c. 2, who reports that murænas are of the female sex only, and that they conceive from serpents; and Oppian, who in Book I of his *Halieutica* says this about the serpent:
Στὰς δ᾽ ἄρ ἐπὶ ῥηγμῖνος τὸν νόμον ἐῤῥοίζησε, Κικλήσκων φιλότητα· θοῶς δ᾽ ἐσάκουσε κελαινὴ Ἰυγὴν μύραινα, καὶ ἔσσυτο θᾶσσον ὀϊστοῦ.
Standing upon the shore, he hisses forth his call, Summoning love; swiftly the dark muræna hears His cry, and rushes forth more fleet than an arrow.
Aelian, Book I, c. 50, *On Animals*, and Book IX, c. 66: B "When the viper is about to mate with the muræna, so that he may appear gentle and suitable to a bride, he vomits forth and casts away his poison, and thus, whispering, he invites his bride, as if singing some pre-nuptial hymn." However, Hippolytus Salvianus, in his *History of Aquatic Animals*, does not approve of the opinion of these authors. Firstly, because it is not believed to be entirely true by Nicander in the *Theriaca*, v. 826:
Εἰ δ' ἔτυμον κείνην γε σὺν ἐοβόλοις ἐχίεσσι C Θόρνυσθαι προλιποῦσαν ἀλὸς νόμον ἠπειροῖσιν;
"It is a story, if it be true, that the muræna, having abandoned the way of the sea, mates on land with the poison-darting vipers." Secondly, because this common opinion is considered vulgar by Pliny, who says, Book IX, c. 23: "The common people think that the serpent is fulfilled by mating on dry shores." Thirdly, because this opinion appears false to a certain Andreas in Athenæus, Book VIII, p. 312: "He says it is a falsehood which is falsely believed that the muræna is accustomed to go out to muddy places to mate; for they do not feed on shoals, but delight in marshy solitudes." In his book on things falsely believed, he writes that they are liars who say that the muræna goes out to the muddy shore of the sea to mate with the viper, which does not dwell in muddy places but loves only places where none of the things by which hunger is sated are found. D Fourthly and finally, because although murænas are very frequently found on very many seashores, neither the fishermen nor those who stay around the shores have ever encountered Salvianus himself—who claims to have seen them once—conjoined with vipers.
Col. 162 A 11. *Lanam auream*. We preferred to translate this word-for-word with Janus Cornarius, rather than with Argyropylus as "golden fleece," lest anyone might think it alluded to that spoil of the Colchians, although Ambrose also brought this forward, Book V, c. 11: "The water also nourishes a golden fleece, and the shores produce wool in the likeness of the aforementioned metal." Aristotle, Book V, c. 15, *History of Animals*: "Pinnæ grow straight up in sandy and muddy places; they come from the 'hyssus,' that is, the tuft or pinnal wool." Our own Basil himself spoke of this wool of the pinnæ in his homily *Against the Rich and Covetous*, although the passage seems not quite faithfully expressed by the interpreter: Τὰ δὲ ἐκ θαλάττης ἄνθη ἡ κόχλος, ἡ πίννα, ὑπὲρ τὸ ἐκ τῶν προβάτων ἔριον: "The flowers of the sea, the conch and the pinna, exceed the wool from sheep." That is, such an abundance is sought of these precious colors that it surpasses the multitude of common wools from sheep. This golden wool, which Basil calls "byssus" (on account of its yellow color) as Aristotle notes, is remarked upon by a learned man in Book V of Athenæus.
Ibid. C 2. *Ut... immobilem*. Since the Greek text has been corrected by us, the words of the interpreter also needed to be changed. Thus, therefore, the later Basel edition had: "To keep it as if rooted in the sea itself." The Henrician Royal book has: "To keep the ship, as if rooted," as if it referred to "the vessel"; but the Medicean had "rooted," which we have followed, along with Eustathius, the ancient interpreter: "So it retards and holds back huge ships, that they are rendered immobile for a longer time, as if grounded by certain roots in the deep"; also Ambrose, Book V, c. 10: "Just as the small fish, the echeneis, is reported with such ease to stop a huge ship, so that you would see it as if rooted to the sea, and not moving." Oppian, Book I, *Halieutica*, v. 225:
...Κατὰ δ᾽ ἔμπεδον ἐστήρικται, Ηὐτ᾽ ἐν ἀκλύστοισιν ἐργομένη λιμένεσσι.
"And it is firmly fixed, as if kept in calm harbors." On which passage the scholiast, writing from Rondeletius, reports that the trireme in which Cardinal Tournon was sailing to Rome in our age was inhibited in mid-course, to the wonder of all, so that we wonder less at what is in Pliny, Book XXXII, c. 1: "Though winds may rush and storms may rage, it commands the fury and forces the ships to stand." It is said that at the Battle of Actium it held the ship of Antony; it also held the ship of the Emperor Gaius, and interfered with the service of the four hundred oarsmen who were pulling the quinquereme, while it clung to the rudder. The same Plutarch, Book II, *Symposiacs*, quæst. 7, regarding the Chæremonian, when he was sailing in the Sicilian sea, "wondered at the power, because the echeneis had caused no small slowness and delay to the voyage."
Col. 163 C 9. *Deinde ratio*. Montacutius advises that Argyropylus translated it: "Then the reason of the Manichæans will be overturned into the contrary." Aptius Cornarius: "Then the discourse of the Manichæans will be turned into the contrary for themselves"; and Eustathius: "Then the discourse must be turned into the contrary for the Manichæans." This is to say, their doctrine concerning the soul, which already subsists in the earth, will be adverse to their own dogmas.
[LATIN COLUMN]
Col. 164 C 13. *Neither for* (“Oὔτε γὰρ”). Thus reads the Medicean codex, but another, the Regius, reads: “neither for because he heard, let the earth bring forth herbs.” A Col. 171 C 12. *Not easily* (“Nec facile”). Basil does not mean this, that hens do not leave the house, but that they themselves are lustful, like doves. Hence Eustathius says, “a lustful dove, and a domestic hen.” Cornarius’s interpretation ought rather to be used: “Doves and domestic hens are lascivious, having the habit of mating at all times.” What follows regarding the partridge, the interpreter has expressed more obscurely, saying that it acts maliciously in taking prey; Eustathius is rather to be heard: “A crafty and jealous partridge, sometimes maliciously consenting to the capture of others for hunting men.” Cornarius likewise: “The partridge is crafty and jealous, wickedly helping hunters toward their prey.” Aristotle also makes mention of certain partridges, which he calls *thēreutas*, that is, hunters, in *Hist. animal.*, bk. IX, ch. 8: “The leader of the wild ones pushes toward the hunting partridge, clashing as if fighting; this one having been caught in the nets, another again approaches, clashing in the same way.” B (“A hunter partridge is first attacked by the leader of the wild ones, and it joins in an encounter; when it has been caught by the decoy, another occurs, then another, and thus it is fought one by one.”) Pliny, bk. X, ch. 33, while acting as Aristotle’s interpreter, calls it *indicem* (an informer) or, as Turnebus corrects, *illicem* (a decoy): “They are also caught by the pugnacity of that same lust, when the leader of the whole flock goes out to battle against the bird-catcher’s decoy. When that one is caught, another proceeds, and then others in succession.” Aelian, bk. IV, ch. 16, explains with what tricks the hunter lures wild partridges: (“The partridge is brought forward and sirens to the decoy; the first stands singing the melody provocative to battle, egging on the wild one.”) “The hunter partridge uses certain lures to entice the wild ones: for, placed before the nets, it utters a song that provokes them to battle.” C Col. 174 B. *He never uses that* (“Nunquam utitur illo”). Some have written this concerning the king of the bees, but that is not what Basil says; rather, that he does not use that stinger for vengeance. Therefore, it seems better to embrace Cornarius’s version, which holds thus: “And the king certainly has a stinger, but he does not use it for vengeance.” Eustathius: “And he has certain spikes, but he does not use these for the harm of others.” Aelian, bk. I, ch. 60: (“One story says that the kings of these are stingless, but another also says they have very strong stings joined to them, and sharpened most courageously; yet they never use them on a man, nor on the bees.”) “There is one opinion that bee kings are stingless: yet there is another, that they are armed with the strength of very sharp stingers: nevertheless, he never uses them against a man, nor against bees.” Pliny, bk. XI, ch. 47: “It is not agreed among authors whether the king alone has no stinger, being armed only by his majesty; or whether nature indeed gave it to him, but denied him the use of it. This is certain, that the commander does not use his stinger.”
1002
Ibid. C. *Beautiful and becoming* (“Pulchra decoraque”). The passage is Proverbs VI in the LXX, where after verse 6, *Go to the ant, O sluggard*, there is added in the Greek text, (“or go to the bee, and learn how industrious she is, and how she performs her work as something venerable, whose labors kings and commoners use for health.”) St. Ambrose, in *Hexaem.*, bk. V, ch. 21, expressing Basil’s passage in Latin eloquence, renders it thus: “Go to the bee, and see how industrious it is, and how venerable an operation it performs, whose labor kings and commoners take for their health.” St. Jerome, in ch. III of Ezekiel: “And in Proverbs it is said concerning the bee, although Hebrew copies do not have this: Go to the bee, and learn how industrious she is.” These are absent from the Greek text of the Plantin Bibles, as are almost all other things which are not held in the Hebrew text. D Ibid. C 42. *Then others over* (“Deinde aliæ super”). *Orophos* signifies a ceiling or roof, but *orophē* signifies joists or a story: for which reason, describing these cells of the bees, Basil says according to the interpretation of Cornarius: “Then these tubes are twice or three times roofed over, and are built one upon another like the joists of houses”; and Eustathius: “It is disconnected by the most subtle partition of little chambers, which are arranged in two or three layers one upon another.” Col. 178 C 12. *Indeed this one also* (“Quin hunc quoque”). The interpreter wrongly expressed this, as if the author meant that the eagle casts off the second chick, which it had claimed as its own, because of the difficulty of feeding, which is only to be understood of the first; and it should be rendered with Janus Cornarius, “he makes it familiar, and disowns the one he begot because of the difficulty of nourishment.” Eustathius likewise: “Thus because of the lack of food, he is forced to deny the one he begot.” Ambrose, however, does not agree with Basil nor with the authors whom he followed. He says: “The eagle is also used in much discourse, because it disowns its own offspring, but not both, rather one of the two: which some have thought to happen out of a fastidiousness for doubling their food; but I do not think this easily to be believed, since Moses gave such a testimony of piety toward its brood to this bird, as to say: *As an eagle protects its nest, and hovers over its brood* (Deut. xxxii, 11). Then he adds that it is to be thought that sometimes a chick is rejected because, exposed to the rays of the sun, it does not keep an intrepid sharpness of eyes, and is therefore cast off as if it were degenerate. Nevertheless, the faith and authority of Aristotle protect Basil, from whom he seems to have gleaned these things, in *Hist. animal.*, bk. VI, ch. 6, who cites a verse of the old poet Musaeus regarding the eagle: (“Which produces three, but leaves two behind, and cares for one.”) “As for the most part this happens, yet there are also indeed three chicks seen. And as they grow, he throws out one of the chicks, being burdened by the feeding. But the one thrown out is received and reared by the *phēnē* (osprey/bearded vulture).” He excludes two, produces three, rears one. “But although it happens thus in great part, yet even three
are sometimes seen. Another the parent casts out from weariness of feeding. But the fledgling that has been cast out is received and reared by the *ossifraga* (osprey). It is to be observed, moreover, in the same Aristotle, that more kinds of eagles are mentioned, Book IX of the *History of Animals*, chapter 32, and regarding a third kind of them, which is black in color, he submits this: “*ektrephei de monos houtos ta tekna, kai ekpherei*,” which is: “This one alone rears its young and brings them out.” Then, having set forth the various kinds of eagles, he states in common concerning them: “*trophesin de neottous, heōs an dynatoi genōntai petesthai; tote de ek neottias autous ekballousin*,” which is: “They feed their young until they are able to fly; then they cast them out of the nest.” Pliny, Book X, chapter 3, has expressed both passages. For thus he says concerning the eagle which the Greeks call *melanaetos* (black eagle): “Smallest in size, excelling in strength, black in color; it alone of the eagles feeds its own young; the others, as we shall say, drive them away.” Then he adds concerning the other eagles in common: “They lay three eggs; they hatch two chicks; sometimes three have been seen: they cast out one from weariness of feeding.” Therefore, what is written in Deuteronomy concerning eagles feeding and cherishing their young is to be referred to the *melanaetos*, especially since Aelian writes in Book II, chapter 40: “*Zelotypōtaton einai zōon aeton peri ta neottia; ean goun theasētai tina prosionta, epelthein atimōrēton ouk epitrepei*,” which is: “The eagle is of all animals most zealous for its nest; if, therefore, it sees anyone approaching, it does not allow him to come off unpunished; wherefore it fiercely pursues anyone whom it has perceived to have invaded the nest.” But the things which others relate concerning the cruelty of certain eagles toward their young apply to another kind of eagle.
Col. 180 C. *Ouranou*, of heaven. Some things are here missing in Argyropylus, for they do not express those words: *tou aeros proseirēmenou*. Cornarius rightly: “*heaven* being called here the *ouranos* by the Greeks from the air itself.” Here, therefore, it should be written: “Beside the firmament, however, it is called heaven, that is *ouranos*, from the verb *horasthai*, which is to be seen.” Neither did Eustathius himself express the mind of the author: “But heaven we ought here to understand as called from *cernendo* (discerning): for in Greek it is called *ouranos* from *tou horasthai*.” Ambrose, Book V, chapter 22: “*Ouranos* however from *tou horasthai*, that is from seeing: because the air is transparent, and purer for seeing, he called the kinds of animals flying in the air [heaven-dwellers].” By Hippocrates also, it is called air in the manner of the common people, which is above us, as far as the region of the clouds, as Gorraeus notes from Galen. Others derive it from *oros* (limit). Aristotle, *De Mundo*, chapter 6: “*Ouranon etymōs kaloumen apo tou horon einai tōn anō*”—“We call it *ouranos* by etymology from *horon* (limit) of the upper things—we say it is the limit, as if the outermost boundary of the supreme bodies.” Philo Judæus in the book *On the Planting of Noah*: “*Ton de aitherion en kyklō topon ōchyrōto, tōn entōs horon te kai phylaktērion auton titheis*”—“He fortified the ethereal region round about, establishing it as the boundary and guard of the things within—‘This however he fortified all around with air, establishing this outermost limit as a fortification and guard, whence it seems to have been named *caelum* (heaven) by the Greeks.’”
Col. 182 C 6. *Per occultos*. Eustathius. “Attempting to enter the occult ways secretly.” For Livy indeed, Book V, chapter 47, writes that the Gauls, having observed the way up at the rock of Carmentis, and hoisting themselves up one another, had arrived at the high point; and Plutarch in *Camillus*, “*peri mesas nyktas epibantes hama polloi tēs petras echōroun anō meta siōpēs*”—“At the stillness of night, many together began to climb the rock in a silent column.” Diodorus Siculus, Book XIV: “*Tōn de Keltōn tines kata tēs petras ebesan*”—“But some of the Gauls climbed up the rock—‘But others from among the Gauls had reached the top of the cliff.’” Nevertheless, Servius makes mention of some who support Basilius, and wish that the Gauls climbed up through secret tunnels, writing in the eighth *Aeneid* on that line: “Gauls were present through the thickets, and held the citadel”: “Others say that the Gauls attempted to climb through the thickets and rough rocks; others say [they did so] through tunnels.”
Col. 182 D 4. *Anthrōpōn katask*. Two Royal manuscripts read *paraskeuasantos*.
Ibid. D 5. *Ut seleucis avis*. These things must be punctuated differently than they occur after being digested by the translator; for the interrogation is repeated in the Greek text in this manner: “And the command? In what manner does the *seleucis* bird follow it, [as] a remedy for calamity, having obtained from the Creator a nature that is insatiable, by which such great divine benefit can be taken from the midst of the plague?” Ambrose illustrates this place with his own interpretation and example, Book V, chapter 23: “The locust, as we read in Exodus, executes the punishment of a heavenly offense, a minister of pious vengeance: the *seleucis* bird also devours it—for so this bird is named in Greek—given as a remedy for the evils which the locust is accustomed to bring.” Eustathius uses the Latin diction: “How [indeed] the diver-bird suffers an insatiable appetite for eating, through which it acquires for its wounds the remedies of health for its belly?” Galen, Book VI *On Affected Parts*, chapter 3: “*Hōs tois orniphiois, ha kalousin en Asia par’ hēmin seleukidas; attelabous gar tauta di' holēs hēmeras aplēstōs esthionta diatakheōs autous ekkrinei*”—“As in the case of those little birds which they call *seleucides* in Asia among us; for they eat *attelaboi* (locusts) all day long insatiably and quickly excrete them—‘As the little birds which our people in Asia call *seleucides*, for they eat locusts continuously and all day long, but they excrete them quickly.’” Gesner, Book III *On Birds*, adds from Ant. Galat. *On the Situation of Iapygia*: “Of the genus of these birds, the sea bird appears, which in Apulia is called *gaina*, which devours the *bruchi* (locusts) overly abundant in those places, and feeds on their eggs and young”: which I thought worthy of note, since Ulysses Aldrovandus, Book X, chapter 5 of *Ornithology*, thinks the things the ancients related concerning the *seleucis* are mere fables. The Historian Zosimus calls those birds *seleuciades*, Book I, page 659, Wechel edition: “*Apasi tois apo lymēs akridōn enochloumenois seleukiadas paradidous, hai dē tais akrisi symperiiptamenai, kai tois stomasi tautas dechomenai, parachrēma plēthos apeiron diephtheiron*”—“Which he was accustomed to grant to all those troubled by the plague of locusts, which, flying among the locusts and taking them in their beaks, immediately destroyed an infinite multitude of them—‘Which he was accustomed to give to all those vexed by the locust plague, which, flying around the locusts and catching them with their beaks, immediately consumed an infinite multitude of them.’” He also makes mention of them in
A Pliny, lib. x, cap. 27, and Basil himself, hom. 7, in “For his companions did not reject Elisha, even though he was setting before them wild herbs, as if it were some evil food.”
Col. 183 D 8. *O women, you sit.* The interpreter had rendered it: “O women, you repeat your tasks by turns and twist your sedentary work, the threads, indeed,” etc. Eustathius: “Thus, you matrons, when you sit while spinning their works, that is, the warps which the Seres send hither.” We have used Cornarius’s words, and have not followed the conjecture of that most learned man who deemed that one should read here *ἐνατενιζόμεναι*, “beholding,” instead of *ἀναπηνιζόμεναι*, “winding on a spool,” since both the Regii editions support the received reading, and Aristotle, speaking of silkworms, employs this very word in *Hist. animal.*, lib. v, c. 19: “From this creature some of the women unwind those silken cocoons, winding them onto a spool, and then they weave them.” *From this creature some women unwind those silken cocoons, and then weave them.* Pliny also, lib. x, cap. 23, writes that silkworm threads are softened by moisture, and soon drawn out into threads upon a reed spindle. Suidas, *ἀναπηνίζω, ἀναλέγομαι, ἐκλύω, ἀνακυλίω*: “That is, I gather it up by turning a spindle, and I wind it.” St. Ambrose, lib. v, cap. 23: “From the threads of this the Seres comb out those soft fleeces, which the wealthy have claimed for their own uses.” He alludes indeed to that verse of Virgil, *Georgic.* II: *And the Seres comb from the leaves the fine fleeces.* But it must be noted that some of the ancients relate the origin of this wool-work in such a way that they would have the Seres, a people of India, comb these silken threads from the leaves and branches of trees. Thus Pliny, lib. vi, cap. 17: “The Seres, illustrious for their forest wool, combing the fluff of the foliage steeped in water: whence arises a double labor for our women, that of unwinding the threads and again of weaving them.” Ammian. Marcellinus, lib. xxiii: “Among the Seres are translucent forests, in which the fruits of the trees, softened by frequent sprinkles of water like certain fleeces, they comb into a very delicate substance mixed of down and liquid.” But Basil and Ambrose wish the silk sent from these peoples of India to be taken from the wool-work of silkworms; in which manner also Servius, writing upon that place of Virgil, thinks that those silkworms were settled on the trees, and does not admit of tree-wool, although many other historians dissent.
Col. 185 B 7. *Desired.* The two Regii editions better D *desired*, as also in *Psalm* XVIII, 11.
Col. 187 A 11. *Matutinal.* Not as the interpreter had written, “which I first prepared at the rising of the dawn.” Literally, “the table of discourses.” According to Eustathius, “the matutinal table of conversation:” lest anyone perchance think Basil was accustomed to preach early in the morning. Moreover, the trial of Elisha is narrated in 4 *Kings* IV, 39: but Argyropylus had not sufficiently expressed that word, *παρητοῦντο*, “was held in low esteem at the providing of the feast.” Eustathius said: “For the guests of that time did not reject Elisha as a wicked shepherd.” He follows the footsteps of the blessed Ambrose, lib. vi, c. 2:
Ibid. C 14. *Whether it has the shape of a winnowing fan.* Argyropylus had retained the Greek word: “whether *lienoeides*, and concave in the middle.” Cornarius said: “Like a winnowing fan.” Eustathius omitted it entirely. Thus in Aristotle, lib. ii *De coelo*, cap. 13, the same earth is called: *Πλατεῖα καὶ τὸ σχῆμα τυμπανοειδές*, “flat and similar in shape to a drum,” which Plutarch, lib. ii, c. 10, *De placitis philosoph.*, reports to have been one of the tenets of the philosopher Leucippus. Democritus, however, *δισκοειδῆ μὲν τῷ πλάτει, κοίλην δὲ τὸ μέσον*, “said that the earth has the form of a disc on the surface, and is hollow in the middle.”
Col. 194 B 3. *As you are fashioned.* Argyropylus: “As nature has distinguished you in form, so may you wish to order your life. Dwell in the heavenly republic.” Eustathius said: “As you were born, so order your own life;” but Cornarius translates much more faithfully: “Just as you are fashioned, so also order your own life.” This indeed is what he means, in words almost entirely identical and clearly related to these, of his brother Gregory of Nyssa, in *Orat. 2 on "Let us make man"*: *οὐκ εἰς γαστέρα βλέπει, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὰ ἄνω. Κεφαλὴ αὐτῷ ὑψηλὴ, ἵνα τὴν ἄνω βλέπῃ συγγένειαν. Ὀφθαλμοὶ οὐκ εἰς τὴν γῆν νεύοντες. Μὴ τοίνυν ποίει σεαυτὸν παρὰ φύσιν, μὴ τὰ γήινα περισκόπει.* “Man does not look at his belly, but contemplates the things above. His head is lofty, that it may behold its kinship above. His eyes do not look down to the earth. Do not, therefore, make yourself contrary to nature, do not gaze upon earthly things.” Cicero, ii *De natura deorum*: “He has set man apart from the earth, having made him tall and upright, so that by gazing at the heavens he might attain knowledge of the gods.” Ovid, i *Metamorph.*: *He gave to man a sublime countenance, and commanded him to look at the heavens, and to lift his upright face to the stars.* Furthermore, that *πολίτευμα ἔχε ἐν οὐρανοῖς*, “conduct yourself in the heavenly republic,” was interpreted by Argyropylus, perhaps not noticing that Basil was using the words of the Apostle, *Philippians* iii, 20: *’Ημῶν τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρχει*, which the author of the Latin Vulgate interprets, “Our conversation, however, is in heaven,” not, as Beza ineptly renders: “Our city, however, is in heaven;” Tertullian is better, *De corona militis*, cap. 3: “Our municipality is in heaven;” and *Adversus Marcionem*, lib. iii, cap. 24: “He certainly assigns him to the heavenly city, and declares our municipality to be in heaven.” Everywhere, however, among the Greek Fathers, *πολιτεία* is taken for the customs of any private individuals, or for Church discipline, for which reason that passage of Chrysostom, *homil. 75 in Matthæum*, was rightly corrected recently near the end of the homily: *’Αλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ὄφελος ἐντεῦθεν εἰς ἀπολογίαν αὐτοῖς, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐδὲ τοῖς πολιτείας ἕνεκεν μετανοοῦσι τότε·* “But they will receive no benefit from this for their defense, just as neither will those who repent then for the sake of the republic.” Or rather, “just as neither will those who then will repent of their past life.”
A Col. 192 C 7. *Because of nature.* The interpreter omitted this, but not Eustathius, who translates elegantly: “Exalted by the vice of natural pride, it avoids the society of others.” Cornarius: “On account of natural pride.” Literally: “On account of pride inborn by nature.” We have also changed that phrase mentioned a little earlier, *gratiosus canis*, to “grateful dog,” for *eucharistos* means “mindful of a benefit,” not “one who is powerful in grace.” Eustathius: “Gratifying dog.” Similar is the passage below: “And who would not shame the memory of the gratitude of that animal before those who are ungrateful for benefits?”
Col. 194 B 8. *From the stables toward...* Argyropylus: “With joyful looks they emerge from their stables, and look straight toward the exits of the roads.” But the author does not say that they emerge from the stables in wintertime, but that they look out from them and display an eagerness to emerge: which St. Ambrose explains more fully in his *Hexaemeron*, book VI, chapter 4, as to how this happens: “When they perceive by natural instinct a change in the weather, they look outside and stretch their necks beyond the stalls, all of them having a similar appearance, as if to testify that they wish to come out.” Finally, Eustathius translates it thus: “From the stable they all look out simultaneously, changing their expression.”
Col. 198 C 7. *From these things it is clear.* We have translated in this way instead of those things which Argyropylus had put forth: “These indicate that all animals of this kind are by nature untaught and lacking in instruction.” But here, when he says that their natures are *adidaktos* (untaught), it signifies the same as if he called them *autodidaktos* (self-taught), that is, that most animals do those things by their own nature, nor is there need for those things to be made known to them by instruction or the precepts of others. Seemingly, Clement of Alexandria spoke thus in *Paedagogus*, book III, chapter 8: “Some were saved by being taught; but others, self-taught, either zealously sought or pursued virtue.” Basil himself in his *Commentary on Isaiah*: “The offspring of horned animals seek the teat without being taught.” Eustathius translates in this place: “Because natural prudence does not use the tradition of instruction.” A little later, at D 3, [where it says] “these things are shown by nature in the dog that has been taught,” the same Eustathius interprets more clearly: “Things which some, sitting idle for a long life, could scarcely discover, the dog is asserted to have attained by a natural benefit.”
Col. 199 A 14. *Of the one lion.* We have added the word “one” to the words of the interpreter, which Eustathius also omitted: but the two Royal codices recognize *leontos henos*. Supporting this opinion regarding the single birth of the lioness is Herodotus, *Thalia*, p. 232: “The lioness, being the strongest and most ferocious animal, gives birth once in her life: for in giving birth she casts out her womb along with the cub.” Egyptians also, as is found in Horus the Nilist, wishing to signify a woman who has only given birth once, depict a lioness. Finally, Epiphanius, *Heresy* 78: “For if Jacob obscurely called Christ the lion’s cub, in saying ‘...of the tribe of Judah,’ yet a second pregnancy does not happen to a lioness: therefore Mary no longer knew pregnancy, the holy Virgin no longer knew the conjunction of bodies.” Avicenna, cited by Caelius Rhodiginus, book XXVIII, chapter 9, provides the cause of why she gives birth only once: on account of the excess of heat. However, sacred Scripture opposes this sentiment and the history *peri monotokias* (concerning single births), which mentions several cubs of a lioness, not in the singular number of a cub only, Job XXXVIII, 39: “Will you hunt prey for the lioness, and satisfy the soul of her cubs?” Jerome in *Daniel*, book VII: “Those who have written about the natures of beasts say that lionesses are more ferocious, especially if they are nursing cubs.” Homer, *Iliad*, book XVII: *He stood as a lion stands around his own offspring.* And Horace, *Odes*, book III, ode 20: *Do you not see, Pyrrha, at what peril you stir up the cubs of the Gaetulian lioness?* Plutarch, in his book *On Brotherly Love*, citing the verse from the same book of Homer's *Iliad*, says that the lion is “at peace with the hunters concerning its cubs.” Pliny, *Natural History*, book VIII, chapter 16, refutes that common opinion: “But I see that the common people believed that she gives birth once by having the womb lacerated by the sharpness of the claws in the process of delivery. Aristotle reports that the lioness gives birth to five cubs in the first litter, and one less each year, becoming sterile after one.” Aristotle’s words are these, book VI, chapter 31, *History of Animals*: “She gives birth for the most part to two, but most often [up to] six, yet she sometimes gives birth even to one. But the rumor mentioned concerning the casting out of the womb when giving birth is nonsensical.” He then adds that the lions of Syria give birth five times in their life, first five, then immediately fewer by one, then they live as sterile; but [says this] generally of all lions, book II *On the Generation of Animals*, chapters 1 and 10, from which Pliny received that, as did Aelian, book IV, chapter 34, *On Animals*. Oppian, book III *Cynegetica*; Philostratus, in *Life of Apollonius*, book I, chapter 16, [says] the lion gives birth three times in life, the first time three, the second two, and if a third, perhaps one. Sulpicius Severus, *Dialogues* I, chapter 9, writes that the monks of Nitria came to a certain anchorite in the desert neighboring Memphis, who restored sight to five blind lion cubs, whom he was nursing in a cave. The same judgment must be rendered concerning the other story, or fable, of the viper, which Basil here submits, derived from the same source of Herodotus, and from his book III, which indeed Horus Apollo,
A in his Hieroglyphics 56, Plutarch in his book *On Garrulity*, Pliny in book X, chapter 62, and Aelian in book I, chapter 25 of his *On Animals*, have propagated. Theophrastus, in book XV, chapter 16, relates that the young of the viper do not eat through the womb of the parent, but that the mother herself is burst asunder, compelled by the narrowness of the womb. Similarly Nicander, in his *Theriacs*, and Athanasius in *Question 56 to Antiochus*, and Epiphanius in *Heresy 26*. This history is refuted by contrary experience and by the authority of Aristotle, book V, chapter 34 of his *History of Animals*, who reports this about the viper: "It brings forth small eggs inside, which burst on the third day; and it brings forth one on each day." Parit catulos obvolutos membranis, quæ tertia rumpantur: parit autem singulis diebus singulos. (It brings forth whelps wrapped in membranes, which burst on the third day; and it brings forth one on each day.) Philostratus, in book II of the *Life of Apollonius*, writes that he saw the viper licking with its tongue the snakes it had brought forth. Albertus Magnus, in *History of Animals*, 25, mocks the common talk about the birth of the viper and Pliny himself for asserting it to be true, as do many more recent writers, such as Pierius, book XIV of his *Hieroglyphics*, Brodaeus, *Miscellanea*, book XXXIII, chapter 11, and Cardinal Toletus, in his annotations on Luke 11, 22, who admonishes the holy teachers for following the common opinion, thinking it sufficient enough for them to use in constructing the similitudes they employed.
Col. 202 B 8. *And indeed there are*. Argyropulus B interpreted this more aptly in the older, most learned editions. Montacutius: "But now there are those who have recorded that the elephant lives for three hundred years and more." *Tines historousin*, he said, not *tines phasin*. Cornarius: "But now some report that the elephant even lives three hundred years and more." Eustathius: "The elephant, however, is said to live three hundred." Item, that which follows, *dia touto sympepegos*, is not brought forward by Basil as the cause of the longevity of life, as the words of the interpreter sound, and these of Ambrose: "But now they are said to produce life for three hundred years and more, because all its limbs are suited for its magnitude;" and these of Cornarius: "Because of this structure of the limbs, having no joints:" but they signify that, since he lives a long time, he is therefore endowed with compact and indistinct limbs. Here, therefore, it should be written: "For this reason, they are so much the more compact, and his limbs are indistinct and without joints." On the longevity of the elephant, see Aristotle, book VIII, chapter 9, of *History of Animals*: *Ton d' elephanta zen phasin hoi men peri ete diakosia, hoi de triakosia* ("Some say the elephant lives about two hundred years, others three hundred"). The same Pliny, book VIII of his *History*, chapter 10, and Aelian, book XVII, chapter 7.
IN HOMILIES ON THE PSALMS
Col. 211 B 14. *Or certainly*. St. Augustine in the Prologue to the Psalms, or whoever it is who translated this Prologue from Greek to Latin for Basil and prefixed it to St. Augustine’s treatises on the Psalms—which, however, the Louvain theologians did not include in the manuscript codices of his works—interpreted this passage thus: not as Tilmannus, "or certainly not yet have they turned grey with the maturity of their morals:" for even those who are not old can excel in the maturity of their morals, and it was meant to express a youthful age. Cornarius published, "in which they are boys in age, or even dying altogether." And these are the genuine and legitimate homilies of Basil on the Psalms, from which fragments are cited as taken from the *Catena* of Nicetas of Heraclea and other similar works; but not those scholia on the Psalms falsely attributed to him, which were appended in the Latin editions at the end of the book, and which we have elsewhere pointed out were patched together from homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Psalms, reduced to a summary, and from the commentary of Theodoret on the same Psalms.
Col. 214 C. *Touched from above*. Basil does not mean that the strings of the psalter are touched in the upper part, but that the sound is formed in the upper, concave part, as is clear from Bede in his *Commentary on the Psalms*: "The psalter is a musical instrument shaped after the manner of the letter Delta, which is triangular; having a concave belly at the top." Bede perhaps drew this from the Commentary of Jerome on Psalm C XXXII: "The psalter has a cavity from above; by this, celestial preaching or the commandments are understood in the saints, which come from above; the cithara has the cavity at the bottom." Indeed, from this sheds light the explanation in the words of John Chrysostom on the Psalms, which are repeated also by Euthymius: *Psalterion ton entaton men en, plen orthion, kai anothen eiche ton phthongon tas aphormas: Psalterium* (The psalter was of those [instruments] that are stretched, but upright, and it had the sources of its notes from above: the psalter belongs to that kind of instrument which are stretched: but it is narrow, and has its causes at the top, from which it emits sounds.) In the proemium which is attributed to the same Chrysostom, it was observed—which is also approved by most of the more recent authors who have published commentaries on the Psalms—that among the Greeks, the psalter is called by the Hebrews *nablam* or rather *nebel*: and indeed the LXX more often translate that Hebrew word as *psalterion*, as in Psalm LVI, 11, *Exegerthēti, psalterion kai kithara* ("Awake, psalter and cithara"); and Psalm CL, 3, *Aineite auton en psaltēriō kai kithara* ("Praise him with the psalter and cithara"); in which places the former, then *kinnor*, is placed. I have said more often [because] not always, but sometimes vice versa, in the prior place *nebel* D *kithara*, in the posterior *kinnor* *psaltērion* is expressed in Greek, as in Psalm LXXX, 2, *Psaltērion terpnon meta kitharas* ("Pleasant psalter with cithara"); and Genesis IV, 21, where the Vulgate says: "He was the father of those who play the cithara and the organ." The LXX: *Houtos ho katadeixas psaltērion kai kitharan* ("He was the one who demonstrated the psalter and the cithara").
"). A For he had written: "For there is one virtue for man and woman, since the creation is the same for both, and the honor is similar." Hear Genesis. Therefore, an equal opinion follows. *Toutōn kai ho misthos* ("And their reward is the same"). Cornarius published: "For the creation of both is equal, wherefore the reward also is the same for both." It followed in the interpreter: "Let there be, says God, a man," which we have changed, for this intended meaning is not found in the Scripture in these words, but we have rendered it as we have set forth, and as the Greek words of Basil sounded. Gen. 1:26, 27.
*Who shows the psalter and the cithara.* In Hebrew it is *kinnor veghougab*, which is sometimes called the "cithara," the third kind of musical instrument, as in this place in Genesis, and sometimes the "psalter," as in Ezekiel 33:32, *hōs phōnē psaltēriou* ("as the sound of a psalter"), and in Psalm 150:4, *organon* ("organ"). Therefore, what Basil relates in this place concerning the form of the psalter, I think should be understood in such a way that it corresponds to that kind of musical instrument which was in use among the Greeks, and was called "psalter" by them; whether it truly corresponds to the *nabla*, or some other instrument of the Hebrews, is not so certain, since it is not certain to us whether the form of the psalter and the *nabla* was the same, although writers distinguish the psalter from the cithara, and yet the Septuagint sometimes expresses the various instruments of the Hebrews with the word for psalter, and sometimes with the word for cithara. But to return to the interpretation of Basil, it seems that it should be grasped by these words of Cornarius: "For the cithara and the lyre produce sound from the lower part toward the plectrum, but this psalter has the causes of the concord of melodies from the upper part." St. Augustine finally, writing on Psalm 56 and on the words "Awake, O psaltery," explains that difference between the psalter and the cithara in such a way that he acts as the interpreter of Basil: "The psalter is an instrument which is indeed carried in the hands of the one striking it, and it has stretched strings; but that space from which the strings receive their sound, that hollow wood which hangs and resonates when touched, because it receives the air, it has on the upper part."
Col. 215 B 2. *As with eyes beyond.* He said *hyperkyptontes ponōn* ("looking down from the pains"), which other authors might have expressed differently, *hyperkyptontes ponōn*, as in an old lexicon, *hyperkypton tou hydatos phyllon*, "a leaf rising above the water." Budaeus, however, in his *Commentaries* cites a similar passage of this our author in his homily *On Envy*: *Holōs de hyperkypsas tō logismō ta anthrōpina, kai pros to ontōs kalon kai epaineton apidōn*—"He who by his mind and thought has raised himself above human things, and has turned himself toward the truly beautiful and praiseworthy." Therefore, the interpreter had poorly rendered it in this place, "as if the labors, while they are in the hands, are as though already passed by, with all his mind toward good things." Chrysostom brought forward a similar sentiment in Homily 8 *On Penitence*, p. 692 of the Paris edition: *An men gar ton ponon idēs tōn katorthōmatōn, bary kai phortikon; an de tēn amoibēn idēs, kouphon kai rhaston to prokeimenon*—"For if you look at the labor of right actions, it is heavy and burdensome; but if you look at the reward, what is set before you is light and very easy."
Ibid. B 13. *Which nothing touches.* And yet the interpreter had said, "no change of place touches it." Nevertheless, it experiences a change not only of place, but of nothing at all. For he alludes to that passage in James 1:17: "With whom there is no variation, nor shadow of change;" *ouk eni parallagē*, "there is no," says the Apostle, not as the interpreter says, "is not seen." Wherefore Cornarius is rather to be followed, "About which there is no alteration." A little later, "therefore the reward." These had been omitted by the interpreter, having written B for it was... C Col. 222 D. *But to the better.* We have warned before that *politeia* here signifies not a republic or a city, or the law of a city, as in Acts 22:28: *Egō pollou kephalaiou tēn politeian tautēn ektēsamen*—"I obtained this citizenship for a large sum;" but a manner of life and conduct, as in Ephesians 2:12, *apēllotriōmenoi tēs politeias tou Israēl*, "alienated from the conversation of Israel;" which elsewhere the apostles call *anastrophē* (I Peter 3:2), or *politeuma*, as in Philippians 3:20. Therefore, the prior version was rightly amended by a most learned man, but in the former reasoning it reverted to a republic or a society devoted to piety; and in the same way, a similar passage in Chrysostom, Homily 75 on Matthew, is to be corrected: *All' ouden ophelos enteuthen eis apologian autois; hōsper oun oude tois politeias heneken metanoousi tote*—"But there will be no benefit from this for their defense; just as there is none for those who repent at that time on account of the state." Sometimes, too, it is used not so much of the private life of each individual as of the public discipline of the Church and of the worship of God, as in the same Chrysostom, in Psalm 49: *Ta hagia tōn hagiōn, hē latreia pasa, kai hē politeia tēs palaias nomothesias*—"The holy of holies, the whole worship, and the whole form and rite of the old law;" and, *Malista men kai autos ho tēs didaskalias tropos enallaxmenēn pareisagei politeian*—"Most of all, the very manner of teaching introduces a changed form of religion."
Col. 223 B 3. *While eternal.* The interpreter had rendered *aiōnia* as "secular," by which word the perishable things of this world are designated. Cornarius, "where he revolves eternal things with himself." He subjoins then, *ekei doulagōgian sarkos*, "the discipline of the flesh," where we have previously warned that it could be substituted with "castigation of the flesh," or "emancipation," or "maceration." For so the author of the Latin Vulgate expressed that passage of the Apostle I Cor. 9:27: *Hypōpiazō mou to sōma, kai doulagōgō*, "I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection." Cornarius wrote, "Here he sees the delights of the flesh, there the servitude of the flesh."
Ibid. D. *As in most other things.* Cornarius more aptly: "Since custom for the most part passes into nature." For *ta polla* signifies this, as below, *kai stratiōtai men hōs ta polla tois stratopedarchais exomoiountai*—"and soldiers are usually accustomed to be assimilated to the generals." For this saying, there is that genuine one in the *Longer Rules*, 6: *Ethos gar dia makrou chronou bebaiōthen physeōs ischyn lambanei*—"For custom, confirmed by length of time, takes on the strength of nature." But Gregory Nazianzenus says that it is sometimes not *physis* ("nature"), but *nomos* ("law"), in Orat. 34: *Epeidē chronō to ethos bebaiōthen enomisthē nomos*—"Since custom, confirmed by time, was considered law."
NOTES OF FRONTO DUCAEIS ON THE HOMILIES ON THE PSALMS
A ...long antiquity of time, it has been held as law."
Col. 223 D 6. *Do not cast.* The interpreter: "Do not apply your eye." We have used the words of the Roman edition, in which Nobilius appended a note that Prov. 9:18 is absent from the Latin Vulgate, but is present in the LXX and is cited by the holy Fathers Cyprian, Ambrose, and Jerome, to whom the calculation of St. Basil may also be added. In Cornarius and others it was incorrectly annotated in the fifth chapter of Proverbs: but the order of the words of Scripture is inverted: *but flee away, do not linger in her place, nor fix your eye upon her.*
Col. 225 D 5. *They appear simultaneously.* The Olivetan codex has: *they appear simultaneously to themselves.* The English versions: *they appear along with themselves, and those who are looked upon by them.* Pliny in his *Panegyric*: "The life of a prince is a censorship and it is constant: to this we direct [ourselves]." Claudian, *On the Fourth Consulship of Honorius*: The world is constructed By the king's example, nor can the laws So bend human feelings, as the life of the ruler.
Col. 226 D. *Those who, by Greek power...* from the words of Cornarius: "he who imitates a miser, or another who, out of some other wickedness, has attained some illustrious civil power, or holds command over nations, or is a leader of armies." The interpreter omitted *out of some other wickedness* and shortly after, *to tōn zēlōmenou* he expressed incorrectly: "whose imitator he has," when he should have written, with Cornarius: "of him whom he imitates."
Col. 227 A 10. *But if those things which.* The interpreter: "But if, what I began to say about avoiding evils before all else, and about the progress to be attained through good works, I have not finished in this discourse." The reader will notice that the author’s sentence has been truncated in these words by morals, which he would no more change than he would change an Ethiopian’s skin. And it is certainly strange that Basil here says that neither Chusi nor anyone else in the history of the Kings is found to be a son of Iemini, when Semei is named in II Kings 19:16: *Son of Gera, son of Iemini*. Finally, let the reader note how an ancient error has clung to this place regarding the word *archietairos*, B *Prince of the companions* in II Kings 15:32. For it seems entirely probable, as the most learned Flaminius Nobilius suspects regarding the book of II Kings, that there were two words *ho Arachis, archietairos*, as the Complutensian edition has, or that from two, *Arachi* and *hetairos*, one was conflated as *archietairos*, Chusi, the son of Arachi, the companion of David. For thus it is in the Latin Vulgate II Kings 16:19: *Chusai Arachites, friend of David*; whence it happened through the error of copyists that the name Arachi was repeated, and read as *ho Arachi archietairos*.
Col. 230 A 7. *By making irritant.* It was read previously: "...in irritating, such strenuous and vigorous work." Volaterranus had written: "he irritated the plan, and thus strenuous [work]." Tilmannus perhaps had changed it in this way: "by irritating plans," which is not Latin. Basil said: *dialuōn de tas boulas*, "making the plans of Achitophel—a man most bitter and most expert in leading armies—void and strenuous..." Furthermore, what Basil says here, that Chusi was a companion and friend of David and the son of Arachi, not of Iemini, is true: for thus it is found written in II Kings 17:5: *Kalesate ton Chousi ton Arachi*—"Call Chusi, son of Arachi." But it is doubtful whether he is that Chusi who is mentioned in the title of this psalm: since here he is called in Hebrew C *Chus*, with a *Caph*, whence the Greek scholium cited by Nobilius translates it *Aithiopos*, "of the Ethiopian," or rather one of the three ancient interpreters, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, translates for *Chousi*, *tou Aithiopos*, as is evident from the homily of Chrysostom on this psalm: but that other in the Second book of Kings, with a *Ceth*, is called *Chusai*: although the Septuagint wrote *Chousi* in both places. But Vatablus thinks that Saul is called *Chus* here, that is, the Ethiopian son of Iemini, I Kings 9:21, because he was black...
Col. 231 C 3. *Go in peace.* These were added from the Olivetan and English texts, which are added also in Luke 7:50; but that phrase *Let it be for you, as you have believed*, is from Matthew 8:13.
Col. 234 B 4. *Not only received.* We warned that this place must be amended, since the interpreter had published: "not only to receive in reward some benefit or evil, but in the beginning of actions, as, *Retribute*, Ps. 118:17." Concerning this place and Psalm 115, Fran. Vatablus, writing, warns that the Hebrew word, which signifies "to retribute," is taken for "conferring a benefit," and "retribution" for any benefits whatsoever. Euthymius, who is usually accustomed to repeat the words of Basil, says here that *antapodosis* is taken *anti tēs apodoseōs*, "retribution for restitution": *The first name of retribution is used catachrestically for restitution. For giving is the inception of a benefit or of an injury; restitution is the reciprocal measurement of an equal; but retribution is a second laying-out of evils or goods, from those who donate to those who make restitution.* In the first place, he has used the name of "retribution" improperly for "restitution." For he who first brings some good or evil is said to give; but he who gives back a measure equal to what was given is said to restore; but "to retribute," or *antapodounai*, means "to retribute in return," and is said of one who renders a second sequence of benefits or injuries.
Col. 238 B 14. *It is said again.* It was read before: "He says again, The Lord will contend in judgment against all flesh." In the Olivetan codex: *krinēsthai Kyrion*. I think, however, that the place of Jeremiah is cited, chapter 25:31, *krinatai autos pros pasan sarka*—"He himself is judged against all flesh": for I also see that noted in the margin of the Catena of the Greek Fathers on the Psalms, interpreted by Daniele Barbaro, who translates not very aptly: "the Lord will judge all flesh." But both there and in Basil it would perhaps be better read *eirētai krinesthai Kyrion*, as it refers to the prophet himself, since there follows here *auten apodidōsi tē krisei*—"the acts are done, he subjects himself to judgment." For that "of each one" ought to be deleted.
Col. 239 D 9. *Many, he says.* Rather, Basil means this: "Many things, he says, can be said about justice, and the ends of perfect justice are difficult to grasp..."
[A] the psalms; *Homily against Usurers, and the remaining parts of the 14th Psalm.*
Col. 278 A 1. *Creditor.* It must be added, he says, so that it is established that these are the words of Scripture, which you will find in Proverbs 29:13: Δανειστοῦ καὶ χρεωφειλέτου ἀλλήλοις συνελθόντων, ἐπισκ. "When the lender and the debtor meet together," he says, "the Lord provides the inspection of both." Cornarius, from the Greek of Basil: "When the lender and the debtor met together, the Lord makes an inspection of both." A different passage from the same book of Proverbs 5:15 excuses this place: "Drink water from your cisterns." Plutarch explains the law of the same opinion in his booklet *On Avoiding Debt*, where he forbade his citizens from becoming participants in strange water, before they had exhausted their own at home down to the clay, and had found it to be sterile. "Apa δέδεικται περὶ χρημάτων εἶναι νόμον, ὅπως μὴ δανεί- [B] ζωνται παρ' ἑτέρων, μηδ’ ἐπ’ ἀλλοτρίας πηγὰς βαδί- σωσι, μὴ πρότερον οἴκοι τὰς αὑτῶν ἀφορμας ἐξ- ελέγξαντες· "Is it not evident that this law pertains to financial matters, that they should not borrow from others, nor go to strange fountains, before checking their own resources at home?"
Col. 274 A 15. *Vasa quoque (Also vessels).* The interpreter reads *ἐσθιόντων* "of those eating," as substituted from the English; however, the reading of the Basle edition and the Oliv. manuscript *σκευῶν* (vessels) is more pleasing, from which we have in Cornarius, "the vessels and furniture of those from whom you are received at a feast." For the vessels belong to those who receive at a feast, rather than to those being feasted.
[C] Ibid. B 41. *Τί πολυπλόκῳ θηρίῳ; (Why to a complex beast?)* Whence Cornarius expressed it, "Why do you yoke yourself to a complex/manifold beast?" And it was written in the same way in the Oliv. manuscript. Indeed, Scripture also mentions *πολυπλόκων*, Job 5:13, βουλὴν δὲ πολυπλόκων ἐξέστησεν, "it diverted the counsel of the many-wiled/complex." But the reading of the English [manuscript] and the interpreter *πολυτόκῳ*, "fruitful," is more apt, which epithet fits the name and nature better, whence he also implicitly speaks concerning rabbits that litter frequently. Thus Psalm 143:16, τὰ πρόβατα αὐτῶν πολύτοκα, "their sheep fruitful."
Col. 275 A 15. *Liber (Free).* The Oliv. manuscript also presents *ἐλεύθερον* (neuter), but it must be emended to *ἐλεύθερος* (masculine). From the same mind is that [passage] from the book of Plutarch already cited, p. 828: Ἡμεῖς δὲ τὴν αὐτάρκειαν αἰσχυνόμενοι καταδουλού- [D] μεν ἑαυτοὺς ὑποθήκαις καὶ συμβολαίοις, δέον εἰς αὐτὰ τὰ χρήσιμα συσταλέντας καὶ συσπειραθέντας, ἐκ τῶν ἀχρήστων καὶ περιττῶν κατακοπέντων ἢ πραθέντων, ἐλευθερίας αὐτοῖς ἱερὸν ἱδρύσασθαι· "But we, ashamed of self-sufficiency, enslave ourselves with mortgages and contracts, when we ought to have curtailed and consolidated our needs for things useful, and from those that are useless and redundant, by cutting them down or selling them, to build a temple of freedom for ourselves." There follows a passage in Basil partly expressed word-for-word and partly by imitation, described from the same book of Plutarch, p. 830: Πῶς οὖν δια- τραφῶ; Τοῦτο ἐρωτᾷς, ἔχων χεῖρας, ἔχων πόδας, ἔχων φωνὴν, ἄνθρωπος ὤν, ᾧ τὸ φιλεῖν ἐστι· καὶ φι- λεῖσθαι, καὶ τὸ χαρίζεσθαι, καὶ τὸ εὐχαριστεῖν.
εὐχαριστεῖν. A You will say, "But how am I to be nourished?" I ask, is it fair for you to ask this, you who have hands, feet, and a voice? Who are a human being, able both to love and to be loved, to grant a favor and to give thanks, to teach letters, to form children liberally?
Col. 282 C 4. *For not pure.* We have expunged those words of the interpreter, "For prayers are not chaste, nor accepted," for these refer to that precept in Deuteronomy XXIII, 18: "You shall not bring the hire of a harlot into any vow." Furthermore, *euchē* in Hebrew is not *zēkûth*, which signifies prayer, but *nēder*, which signifies *homologia*, a vow or promise, as in Jeremiah XLIV, 25: "We will perform our vows which we have vowed." *Let us perform the vows which we have vowed*—and, "You have fulfilled your vows." Basil, however, used the words of Solomon in Proverbs XIX, 13: "And there are no pure prayers," where the other Hebrew word is *rēb*, which also signifies a vow, though more often strife; hence Symmachus uses the word *drops* (stagonas) there, and the Latin Vulgate, "a contentious woman constantly dripping." Another passage is Jeremiah XI, 15: "Shall not vows and holy flesh take away from you your evils, or shall you escape by these?" Where the prophet said, "or shall you escape because of these," Basil stated it circumlocutiously: "or shall you be pure by these?" A little later, the interpreter had translated *di’ hagiasmon* as "for through the sanctification of life there is an accessible and familiar approach to that holy one," but *oikeiousthai* signifies something more than just having access.
Col. 286 A 1. *After this life.* We have restored this sentiment as it was expressed by Volaterranus. For he calls the course of this life a *dispensation*, in which God permits crimes and, as it were, overlooks them.
Col. 186 C 8. *Beyond the Creator.* We have written this with the words "beyond the Creator" deleted, lest that version be subject to the censure of Theodore Beza, who rightly blames Erasmus for expressing this same passage in Romans 1, 25 as "above Him who created." For he who translates *para ton ktisanta* in this way, or as "beyond the Creator," seems to confess that men had also offered some worship to God, but in such a way that they worshipped creatures too: but the Apostle means that they transferred the worship which was owed to God to the creatures. The author of the Latin Vulgate said, "and they served the creature rather than the Creator." Nor does Jerome say otherwise in his commentary on the Epistle, or St. Hilary in the twelfth book *De Trinitate*: "and they served the creature, the Creator being passed by." Subsequently we wrote "shall be ordered" (*ordinabitur*), not "was ordered" (*ordinabatur*); for he alludes to that passage in Luke XII, 46: "And He will appoint his portion with the unbelievers."
Col. 287 B 11. *For many.* The interpreter had omitted the physical posture: "For many seem to prefer a form of prayer, who yet in this hall..." Even the Pharisee stood and prayed, Luke XVIII, 12, and Christians used to do so on Sundays and from Easter to B Pentecost, standing, not on bended knees. Jerome in *Dialogus adversus Luciferianos*: "On the Lord's Day and throughout Pentecost, a reasonable observance has claimed for itself that we should neither adore with knees bent nor break the fast, and many other things which are not written." The same is found in Ambrose, sermon 61 on Pentecost, from the Council of Nicaea, canon 20: "It pleased the holy synod that we should render our prayers to God standing."
Col. 291 A 7. *Who aspire.* This should be emended in the Greek from the Olivet manuscript to *teleioumenōn*, "in the souls of them who are already initiated." Cornarius wrote, "in the souls of those who are already perfected." But regarding what follows, *para tou Kyriou metonomasthéntes*, the interpreter had published, "they were called by metaphor sons of thunder"; Cornarius, "they were called by translation," as if they were substituting metaphor in place of metonymy. Indeed, he here understands a change of name, which St. Jerome also recognized in his commentary on Daniel 1: "Moreover, the Lord changes ancient names for a good purpose, and imposes names of virtues from things, as He called Abram Abraham, and in the Gospel the sons of Zebedee were called sons of thunder (Mark III, 17)." Of this kind is the subject of the book of Philo Judaeus, *De nominibus mutatis, et quorum causa mutantur*: "Why the names of some in the Scriptures have been changed." Of the same mind is that of Gregory Nazianzen, oration 19 in praise of his father, p. 301: "The grandiloquence of the sons of Zebedee, whence they were also called sons of thunder," and oration 20, p. 369, he also commends the grandiloquence of the sons of Zebedee. But although Theodore Beza is too foolish in writing in his *Annotations on Mark* that this was thought up by Gregory without probability, it is nonetheless confirmed by the authority of St. Basil, who wishes to signify by this change of names the Gospel, which the sons of Zebedee proclaimed with a great voice, that it is a kind of thunder.
Ibid. B 9. *The wheel of Ezekiel I, 15* is read thus in the standard Bibles: "Beside the living creatures to the four, and the appearance of the wheels was as the appearance of Tharsis." But Flaminius Nobilius notes that in some books is added *kai hē poiēsis*, or *poiēma autōn*, which is *poiēma autōn* in St. Jerome's version of the Septuagint, "and the making of them"; just as it is added here in Basil and requires the Hebrew, from which the Latin Vulgate has, "and the appearance of the wheels, and their work, as it were a vision of the sea." Cornarius here translates less aptly as "clinging from the four living creatures."
Col. 205 B 13. *For as in Job.* What is in the Latin Vulgate Job XXXIX, 10: "Will the rhinoceros be willing to serve you, or to stay at your crib?" So we read in the Septuagint; "And the unicorn will be willing to serve you." From which it has come to pass that in the *Catena* of the Greeks collected by Nicetas Heracliensis, which is preserved in the Royal Library, this whole passage of Basil has been copied out and even somewhat amplified: "Neither will he sleep at a manger, nor..."
will he level the valleys following you, nor will he leave his fields to you, nor will he restore the seed to you, nor will he gather what has been threshed;" and there is much besides concerning the animal's freedom and its refusal to submit to men in this part of the prophecy. Moreover, in the Venetian edition, what follows from the words, "The avenging animal power of this one," does not belong to Basil, but to Olympiodorus, as is evident from the same Royal manuscript codex. A Col. 298 B 4. *Facta est flamma*. The interpreter added the word "flamma" on his own; Cornarius wrote: "For it was made," he says, "like a hissing spirit of dew"; I would prefer, "It was made like a hissing spirit of dew"; for we read only this in Daniel v, 50: *Ἄγγελος Κυρίου ἐποίησε τὸ μέσον τῆς καμίνου ὡς πνεῦμα δρόσου διασυρίζον*, "The Angel of the Lord made the midst of the furnace like a whispering spirit of dew."
Ibid. D 3. *Sanctificationis*. The interpreter reads *τοῦ ἁγιασμοῦ*; but the Basilian edition prefers *τὸν ἁγιασμόν*, which is supported by the Oliv.* manuscript and Cornarius, "sanctification." Euthymius also favors this reading: "He shakes," he says, "not the whole desert, but Cades; that is, the holy, the set-apart, and worthy of Him. For *Cades* is interpreted as 'holy' according to the Greeks: 'And he shall shake not all the desert, but the desert of Cades; that is, the holy and set-apart and worthy of it. For Greeks interpret Cades as holy.'" As for what he adds about stags devouring vipers, Pliny also testifies that they are accustomed to eat those serpents, lib. VIII, cap. 32: "They have a battle with the serpent: they track the caverns, and draw them out with the breath of their nostrils, resisting"; and lib. VIII, cap. 9: "they eat them after they are pulled from the caverns." The same Aelian, lib. III, cap. 9, *De animalibus*, says, *Ἔλαφος ὄφιν νικᾷ κατά τινος φύσεως δωρεὰν θαυμαστῆς*: "By a certain wondrous gift of nature the stag vanquishes the serpent"; and lib. XIII, c. 35, there is something similar concerning another purification of stags: *Λέγουσι φυσικοὶ ἄνδρες τὸν ἔλαφον καθάρσεως δεόμενον σέσελι ἐσθίειν· φαλαγγίων δὲ κνήσμασιν ἐχόμενον καρκίνους*. "Physicists say that the stag, when it needs purification, eats seseli, and when suffering from the bites of spiders, it eats crabs." Another reading offers *σελίνα*, but Aristotle, *Histor.* lib. IX, cap. 5, and Pliny, lib. VIII, c. 32, support this.
Col. 302 C. *Alius ex affectu*. Cornarius is closer to the word and the intent: "Who out of affection, who skillfully inquires into heavenly things, who perfunctorily with the tips of his lips."
Col. 303 B 10. *Inhabitare*. The interpreter reads *κατοικιεῖ*, which the Oliv. manuscript also has, not *κατοικεῖ* as in the Basilian edition, "he will inhabit," in which manner it is also written in certain Bibles, as Jerome acknowledges, who nonetheless translates literally from the Hebrew, *Dominus* B *diluvium inhabitat*, and others cite from Aquila, *Κύριος εἰς κατακλυσμὸν ἐκάθισεν*, "The Lord sat in the flood." *Κατοικίζειν* is "to make habitable," and *κατοικεῖν* is "to inhabit," which Basil seems to prefer, since he adds that the soul becomes the *κατοικητήριον* of God in the Spirit.
Col. 306 A 9. *Adimpleatur, πληθυνθείη*. Cornarius, more faithfully from I Peter 1, 3, *Gratia vobis et pax multiplicetur*: the same is found in II Peter 1, 2, and Jude 2. Toward the end of the homily, the interpreter omitted that phrase, *ἐν εἰρήνῃ*, "partakers of the office of blessing in peace."
Ibid. B 6. *Τοῦ ἐγκαίνισμου*. In the interpretation of the inscription, "innovatæ" is superfluous, since *ἐγκαίνισμος* denotes renewal or the dedication of any thing, not only one that has been renovated, but even one that is then being created and founded for the first time. A little later, the erroneous reading *κατ’ ὄργανον* produced a faulty translation in Cornarius: "The Psalter indeed figuratively according to the instrument"; it should be amended from the Oliv. manuscript, *καὶ ὄργανον*, "The Psalter indeed and an instrument adapted for music, is figuratively the structure of the body." Thus he called the *psalterion* an instrument above: *καὶ σοφῶς διὰ τῆς τοῦ ὀργάνου κατασκευῆς ἐνδεδειγμένον*.
Col. 307 *Expuncta*. The most learned Montacutius observes that Volaterranus found in his codices the written text, *οἱ ἐκβάλλοντες τῆς μνήμης τὸν Θεὸν οἱονεὶ λήθην*. For the Basilian edition reads word for word, "those cast out from the memory of God." Cornarius therefore published, "who [are] cast out of the memory of God." The Oliv. manuscript consistently retains the received reading, *ἐκβληθέντες*.
Col. 309 B. *Ὑψώσειν*. The Oliv. and Anglic. [manuscripts] have *ὑψώσειν*, "he promises to God exaltation through good works." The received reading is more elegant. The passage cited at the beginning of the following page is Genesis XLIX, 25. These are the words of Jacob blessing his son Joseph.
Col. 354 B 4. *Dum particeps*. The interpreter, "by which he is nourished, whoever becomes a partaker of the divine Word, who is the bread that descends from heaven." Mention of the "Word of life" is made in Ephesians v, 26, according to the Vulgate; but in the Greek there is only *ἐν ῥήματι*, while "bread, who descends from heaven" is from John vi, 33.
Col. 355 A 2. *Neque enim illi*. He said *τεχνῖται*, not *τέχναι*, as the interpreter seems to have read, "For those arts, which are of the wall, and of an indifferent nature, do not have true praise"; and Cornarius: "For neither do the arts, which reside in the middle, have that which is truly praiseworthy." But the examples which Basil puts forward—of pilots, architects, stonemasons—belong to artisans, not to arts.
Col. 358 D 4. *Plus enim*. To be amended from the Oliv. codex, *πλέον γάρ τι*. Cornarius: "For 'further' signifies to inquire into something more than simply inquiring."
Col. 359 B. *Non sinens*. On the contrary, as Montacutius rightly observes, Basil intends the opposite, "Not that"
he permits me to be troubled, but providing a way out with the temptation." Yet I do not agree with him in that he substituted *toù dynamenou* for *tou dynasthai*, as it was in the Basilian edition. For the words are taken from the Apostle, in whom it is read thus, 1 Cor. x, 13: *tou dynasthai hymas hype-nenkein* [so that you are able to bear it].
Col. 362 A 6. *Et revelare*. The interpreter had edited, "to wish to approach and be manifested," as if he had read *apokalyptesthai*. Therefore, by Cornarius's authority, we have written back, "and to reveal." Yet now it would be more pleasing if what the interpreter reads were supported by the authority of some manuscript codex, since Basil seems to allude to that passage of Isaiah xlix, 9, saying to those in bonds, "Go out," and to those in darkness, "Be revealed," which Jerome translates: "You would say to those who are in bonds: Go out; and to those who are in darkness: Be revealed." Word for word, it would be "to be manifested," or certainly "that they may be manifested," or "that they may be enlightened."
Col. 363 A 4. B *Castrametabitur*. The interpreter had written, "The angel of the Lord will send himself in or insert himself:" and the most learned Basil is no different when he produces this passage of Basil in John Damascene, lib. 1 *Parallel.*, cap. 12. Indeed, in common lexicons, *paremballein* is also defined as "to insert and arrange soldiers of diverse kinds in a certain order;" but *paremballein* also sounds like "to set up tents" in Polybius, and "to encamp," as Budaeus observes in his *Commentarii*, as in Book III of his *Histories*: *tēn de dynamin pro tēs poleōs parembalōn*, "when he had pitched the camp before the city." The LXX also used this verb, as in Numbers ix, 18: *Dia prostagmatos Kyriou parembalousin hoi huioi tou Israel*; "By the command of the Lord the children of Israel will pitch camp." Johannes Campensis here translates from the Hebrew, "The angel will encamp," and St. Jerome: "The angel of the Lord will encamp in a circle around those who fear him." C The mind of the author absolutely demands this translation, who for that reason later says it is likened to the camps of the angels, *holō stratopedō kai parembolē pareikazetai*; for which reason we have added, "and the protection of angels may defend you," which the interpreter had omitted. This passage is repeated here and written out by Euthymius in his *Commentary*, in which the interpreter translates incorrectly: "For since he is only one in number, he resists the whole and entire army of the enemy." *Heis gar ōn, holō stratō pareikastai.* "For since he is one, he is compared to the entire army."
Col. 366 A 5. *Suavitatis*. Cornarius likewise, "and here a taste of goodness," as if he had read, or judged that it ought to be corrected—although the manuscripts resist—not *charitos* [grace], but *chrēstotētos* [goodness], since he said before, *kai idete hoti chrēstos Kyrios*, "and see that the Lord is good" or "sweet," otherwise word for word it would be "an earnest of grace and whatever it may be," which certainly is less fitting.
Col. 367 B 5. *Qui enim corporal*. The interpreter had omitted *sōmatika*, "corporal things," and a little after D all those things which he had not expressed, *ei eksētountes apetynchanon tōn toioutōn agathōn*.
Col. 370 A 8. *Vox est magistri*. Cornarius interprets, "It is the voice of a benign preceptor." Others prefer "internal" or "of the master residing within:" but *endiathetōs* is nonetheless sometimes explained as *empathōs*, "with great affection," so that an *endiathetos didaskalos* is said to be "one who embraces his disciples with great affection," unless one might prefer to correct it to *eudiatheton*. Constant, however, are the Oliv. and other mss. in retaining the vulgate reading, but Oliv. reads *prokaloumenou*, not *prokaloumenou*, that is, "of one exhorting."
Ibid. C 10. *Satisfacere*. Oliv. correctly corrects for *emōn*. Cornarius, "and to pay the debt to the Lord, who died for us." Soon after, "giving back fire in his look." Thus Montacutius substitutes, with those words of the interpreter expunged, "beholding the fire made ready." Cornarius likewise less aptly [substitutes], "bearing before them a fiery face." For he only hints that fire is emitted in a way from the eyes. A similar thing is brought forward from Aristophanes, *astrapas blepein*, "to emit a certain sort of flash from the eyes, to have a flashing look." Homer, *Odyssey* T [19.446]: *Phrixas eu lophiēn, pyr d' ophthalmoisi dedorkōs.* Greatly bristling on his shaggy neck, looking fire from his eyes.
Philostratus in the *Icones*, p. 771, re-reading the traces of Homer, *horō de auton kai tēn chaitēn phrittonta, kai pyr embleponta*. "I see him both bristling with hair, and looking fire with vibrant eyes." Thus Gregory Nazianzen, *Orat. 20*, p. 261, said, *mē pithēkeion blepē, alla blos-yron kai basilikon*: "He should not have the aspect of a monkey, but a certain fierce and horrific and royal one." Toward the end of the page, for *makran apopesontas*, perhaps it would be read more correctly as *makran apontas*, "they are far away." In the same place we have changed that passage of the interpreter: "who by baptism and adoption have become the domestics of God."
Col. 378 A 3. *Nunc igitur potentiam*. The interpreter had omitted that, *kai tēn tōn euchōn antilēptikēn*. Cornarius calls it "our [helper] for power, and the receiver of our prayers:" this is, which helps our prayers, as Raphael said in Tobias ch. xii, 12: *Hote prosēuxō sy, kai hē nymphē sou Sarra, egō prosēgagon to mnēmosynon tēs proseuchēs hymōn*; "When thou didst pray, and thy daughter-in-law Sarra, I brought the memorial of your prayer." Thus it is cited from the same Basil in the *Lexica*: *pros to antilambanesthai tēs adelphotētos*, "to reach out a helping hand to the brotherhood."
Col. 384 A 12. *Quid autem*. This period, up to those words, "To them also," has been added by us, having been omitted by the interpreter: the passage immediately following is Isaiah xlii, 18.
A Col. 387 B 8. *Qui juvenilibus*. The most learned Montacutius advises that it should be translated more faithfully, perhaps from a manuscript written out by hand: "he who can now approach youthful things, or rather brave deeds." Cornarius: "able now to reach upon brave works." Towards the end of the page, *ὑφαίρεσιν ὑπομείνῃ* is to be corrected, as in the Oliva copy, not as in the Basilian: *ὑπομείνῃ*.
Col. 395 C 3. *Et dedecoris plena*. One should add, "and failing before the sons of men:" for thus in Isaiah liii, 3, Jerome translates: *He had neither form nor comeliness, but his form was dishonoured, and failing before the sons of men.* The same passage of Isaiah is brought forward to the same effect by Euthymius in this psalm: *παρὰ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων· περὶ τοῦ σώματος λέγει, οἷον ἦν ἐν τῷ τοῦ πάθους καιρῷ προπηλακιζόμενον, καὶ μαστιζόμενον, καὶ μυρία πάσχον. And failing before the sons of men:* "He speaks of the (Christ's) body, what it was like at the time of the passion, when it was subjected to insults and beatings, and suffered ten thousand evils." That which is brought forward here from Aquila, *κάλλει ἐκαλλωπίσθης*, is found thus in Eusebius in the Catena: *κάλλει ἐκαλλιώθης ἀπὸ υἱῶν ἀνθρώπων.*
Col. 398 A 5. *Sermonibus*. *Περὶ Χριστοῦ*, "in the discourses about Christ." Cornarius said, "in the doctrines about Christ."
Col. 406 B 10. *Odi*. It must be written from Psalm cxxxviii, 21: *I have hated, and was pining away over thy enemies. With perfect hatred.* For the Greek words from the Oliva and Anglican editions were added to the Basilian edition, from which they were absent. In the Oliva, however, it was read: *ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐχθροῖς σου*, not, as in the common Bibles, *ἐπὶ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς σου.*
Col. 411 D 5. *Perficiendæ*. Rather, "of perfect and acquired virtue." And so Cornarius is closer to the sense, though not sufficiently Latin, "but which rejoice in gladness and exultation because of this virtuous deed." The Oliva codex consistently retains the Vulgate reading *ἐπὶ τῷ τοιούτῳ κατορθώματι χαίρουσαι*, so that the conjecture of the most learned man, who suspects here that it should be corrected to *ἐπὶ τὸ τοιοῦτο κατορθώμα χωροῦσαι*, is less necessary. For Basil explains from where that *joy and exultation* may come, from a conscience of right actions or good works. Nor is there need to insert *the apostles* after those words, for neither does the manuscript Oliva codex add it, nor does the Greek manuscript Catena on the Psalms, which displays this entire passage of Basil written out. Yet by *apostles* it is understood by Basil and expounded, as also by Euthymius, whose words these are from the Royal manuscript codex: *Υἱοὶ δὲ οἱ ἀπόστολοι, οἵτινες ἐπανέβησαν εἰς τὸ ἀξίωμα τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ, πατριάρχαι τε γενόμενοι, ἐν τῷ γεννῆσαι διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, καὶ ἀξιωθέντες τοῦ προφητικοῦ χαρίσματος·* "Truly the sons are the apostles, who ascended to the dignity of his fathers, having become patriarchs themselves, when they begat all nations through baptism, and were deemed worthy of the prophetic gift."
Col. 423 C. *Qui per victoriam*. This is the meaning B of the Basilian edition, which the interpreter had rendered, perhaps from a manuscript written out by hand, translating: "At dawn, that is, he accomplished victory over death on the third day in the morning." Truly, in the Oliva codex it was thus: *βοηθήσει ὁ Θεὸς τὴν νίκην πρωίᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐργασάμενος*; but in the Royal Greek Catena library: *βοηθήσει αὐτῇ ὁ Θεὸς τῇ πόλει τὸ πρὸς πρωὶ πρωὶ ὁ τὴν κατὰ τοῦ θανάτου νίκην πρωίας τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐργασάμενος.* Which both readings agree with the book that the interpreter used. It is to be observed here that Basil reads *πρὸς πρωὶ πρωὶ*, not as in other books of the Psalms *βοηθήσει αὐτῇ ὁ Θεὸς τῷ προσώπῳ*, "God shall help her with his countenance," and that Apollinarius joined both readings in a paraphrase in this verse: *Ἐξ ἠοῦς ἐπίκουρον ἔχει πανεπίσκοπον ὄμμα ·* *From the dawn she has a helper, an eye that beholds all things.* The same Apollinarius in the Barbarian Catena C seems to join both readings again, but Flaminius Nobilius rightly doubts whether both expositions are Apollinarius's, since in the Royal manuscript Catena that one is attributed to another author: *Πρόσωπον Ἐκκλησίας νοηθεῖεν ἂν οἱ ἅγιοι ἀπόστολοι, καὶ οἱ κατὰ διαδοχὴν ἡγούμενοι αὐτῆς, οὓς καὶ νευροῖ πρὸς τὸ δύνασθαι εὐτόνως ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι τοῦ κηρύγματος·* "The 'countenance of the Church' can be understood as the holy apostles, and those who succeed them in order as leaders, whom he also invigorates, so that they may be able to vigorously embrace the preaching of the Gospel."
Col. 435 B 3. *Sapientia*. The passage is Ecclesiasticus xx, 32: *"Hidden wisdom, and an unseen treasure, what profit in both?"* That which follows, *εἰς τὸ ἑτέρων ὠφέλιμον*, Volaterranus had correctly translated. "Wherefore for the use of others." Tilmannus wrote "of both," as if it were *ἀμφοτέρων*. Cornarius, "wherefore for the utility of others indeed."
Col. 436 B 13. *Ἀναγγέλλω*. Oliva and Anglican: *ἀναγγέλλω, οὐδὲν ἐμὸν, οὐδὲν ἀνθρωπ. λέγων.*
Ibid. D. *Οὐ κυκλώσει*. The negation must be deleted in the Greek, as it was deleted in the translation of Volaterranus by Tilmannus, since it is absent from the LXX, and from the Hebrew, and from the Oliva ms. In Isaiah xiii, 9, it is written: *'Ιδοὺ γὰρ ἡμέρα Κυρίου ἔρχεται, ἀνίατος, θυμοῦ καὶ ὀργῆς, θεῖναι τὴν ὀργὴν ἔρημον.* "For behold the day of the Lord cometh, beyond cure, of fury and wrath, to make the earth a desert." But that which follows is taken from another prophet; Osea vii, 2: *Ἐκύκλωσεν αὐτοὺς τὰ διαβούλια αὐτῶν·* "Their devices have compassed them about." A little later write, "For not me of sinners," *οὐ γὰρ περιστήσ.*
Col. 439 B 11. *Neque enim*. He did not say *ζητεῖ*, but *ζήτει*. Cornarius should rather be heard, "nor therefore seek a brother in redemption, but him who extends thy nature." Then is subjoined the history of Exodus xxxii, 28, and another, with a doubtful and hesitating voice, Numbers xx, 10. D
Col. 446 B 9. *Insipientem*. Montacutius wishes that this be translated in this way, as the Greek sounds: "It will be possible, however"
for one to say that he is called foolish who lives in the heathen manner, and senseless, he who lives in the Jewish manner." Afterwards the passage is cited from Hosea VII, 14; not, as Cornarius had noted, Hosea IX. He also says a little later that Volaterranus had translated more aptly ὧν γὰρ ὁ βίος νεκρῶν· "For whose life is filled with dead works resulting from sin of every kind, their homes become tombs forever." The passage concerning Jacob is Genesis XXV, 27.
Col. 454 B 9. *Qui imperium*, Cornarius published, "on account of him who destroyed it, and has the power of death." Both translators wandered from the sense of Basil and from the meaning of the Apostle; but Volaterranus had correctly interpreted it in the older edition, as Montacutius suggests, "on account of him by whom he was being devastated, he who had the power of death." The passage is Hebrews II, 14: "ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου, τουτέστι τὸν διάβολον. *That through death he might destroy him who had the power of death, that is the devil.*" So also translates Ambrose, Book III *De fide*, chapter 5, adding: "By which, if not by death of the body, did he dissolve the bonds of death?" Therefore, since this power of death is said to be abolished, as Beza confesses, he is to be judged as having interpreted ineptly, *τὸν ἔχοντα*, "him who has the power," not as the Vulgate, "who had."
AD HOMILIAS IN PSALMOS
A "That passage of the Apostle, in which he disputes concerning virginity and marriage, you will be compelled to discuss otherwise." Basil, *Question on Baptism* 4, καὶ ὁλόκληρον τὴν περιέκοπὴν ἀναγινώσκοντες. Thus at last it is read in the Greek manuscript Catena, in which this whole passage of Basil is written out.
Ibid. C 3. *Viginti millia*. This is to be corrected from the Basel and Oliva editions: "viginti duo millia." For thus it is written in II Kings VIII, 5: Καὶ ἐπάταξε Δαυὶδ ἐν τῷ Σύρῳ εἴκοσι δύο χιλιάδας ἀνδρῶν. "And David struck down twenty-two thousand men among the Syrians."
Col. 464 B 8. *Τῶν ἀνθρώπων*. *εἴκοσι* Oliva. *τῶν πατέρων*, "of paternal vanity." A various reading not to be despised, since it concerns the Gentiles, who clung to paternal superstitions. Yet it said on the preceding page that it could be understood of the entire human race without exception, *περὶ παντὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπων γένους*.
Ibid. C 10. *Ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ*. Word for word it is, "in the underworld he shall be drawn out," not as Volaterranus and Cornarius "even unto the underworld"; but what follows, *τελειωθῶσιν οἱ προειληφότες*, Cornarius expressed more correctly, "who had gone before." Hebrews XI, 40.
Col. 458 A 10. *Introibis*. Theodoret warns that three Greek interpreters, namely Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, published *εἰσελεύσῃ*, "you shall enter," and the translator seems to have read it thus in Basil, not as Oliva and the Basel edition have it, *εἰσελεύσεται*, "he shall enter." Cornarius also wrote "you shall enter," because he perceived that this required the explanation of Basil: therefore it follows, *Τοσοῦτον οὖν παραγίνῃ σύ, ὁ Θεός*· "So much then do you approach [me], O God, and such is the knowledge of you in him": and thus the translation is to be restored.
Col. 460 B 13. *Εἶτα διὰ φιλανθρ.* These things were added from the Anglic and Oliva: "The same persons again, on account of the mercy of God, were admitted and received."
Ibid. C 41. *Βασιλέως*. To be corrected from the Oliva and Anglic: *βασιλέα Σωβᾶ* king of Soba. Among the LXX it is read *βασιλέα Σουβᾶ*, and they also call *Σύρον Ῥάαβ*, the Syrian Rhaab, which Basil [calls] *Σύριον Ῥάαβ*.
Col. 461 A 9. *Παρετάξαντο*. To be corrected from the Oliva and Anglic: *παρετάξατο*, as the version requires.
Col. 462 A 12. *Progressioni*. Thus Cornarius, "historical process," but in the Oliva and Anglic it is read not *προκοπῇ*, but *περικοπῇ*, "of this part of history, or fragment." Suidas, *περικοπή*, *μέρος τι τῆς θέσεως*, "some part of an entire disputation or narration." Jerome to Pammachius, D C 70 B 7. *Idithum vero consecratam*. Word for word Cornarius translates from the Greek, "that Idithum was given for his own utility." For as St. Ambrose writes in *Psalm* XXXVIII: "David wrote the psalm, and gave it to Idithum to be sung, a man instructed in Levitical and priestly disciplines. Finally, even in secular writings, there were some who wrote, and others who were accustomed to sing in the theater or to sing comedies or tragedies." And Theodoret on this *Psalm* LXI: *Δῆλον τοίνυν ὡς τοῦ μακαρίου μὲν Δαβὶδ ὁ ψαλμός· ᾔδετο δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἰδιθούμ, ὅς χόρου προστατεύων ἐν τῷ θείῳ νεῷ ὕμνει τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεόν.* "It is clear therefore that the psalm is indeed of the blessed David; however it was sung by Idithum, who, being the leader of the choir in the divine temple, praised the God of all." And in *Psalm* XLIII: *Τοῦ μὲν Δαβὶδ ὁ ψαλμός· τῷ δὲ Ἰδιθούμ ὡς τὸν τῶν ἀδόντων χορὸν ἐμπεπιστευμένῳ εἰς τὸ ψάλλειν ἐδόθη.* "The psalm is indeed David's, but it was given to Idithum to be sung, to whom the choir of singers was entrusted." Furthermore, in the Oliva manuscript it was constantly read *Αἰμάν*, not as in the Anglic *Αἰθάν*, and thus I Chronicles XXV, 1: *Ἀσὰφ καὶ Αἰμὰν καὶ Ἰδιθούμ τοὺς ἀποφθεγγομένους ἐν κινύραις, καὶ ἐν νάβλαις, καὶ ἐν κυμβάλοις.* "Asaph and Aimam and Idithum playing on harps and on lyres and on cymbals"; and in this manner also it is to be read in this place, not "in cymbals and organs." Basil added *καὶ ἐν τυμπάνοις*, which is not had there; that [phrase] *σάλπιγγές τε καὶ κύμβαλα, τὸ ἀναφωνεῖν* is from I Chronicles XVI, 42.
Col. 473 A 8. *Περιδονουμενοι*. Thus the Anglic and Olivarian manuscripts, yet the old reading of the Basel edition can be retained: *περιδονούμενα*. Cornarius, "plants which are agitated by a gentle breeze."
Col. 476 C 12. *Οἱ καὶ τὸ φονεύειν*. Anglic mss. *οἱ καταφονεύειν*. Oliva *οἱ τὸ καταφονεύειν*. It follows however without any addition of a preposition: simple *κατὰ τὴν τοῦ φονεύειν περιουσίαν*.
Col. 479 A 7. *Delicias*. It reads *τρυφῆς*, as it prefers
A aliter, *Μὴ μέταιρε ὅρια αἰώνια*, "Do not transfer the eternal boundaries," as Basil said. Cornarius [translated]: "You have transposed the boundaries of the fathers." For it is a greater thing to move boundaries placed for fields in a specific location, so that they may settle contention between the fields, than to walk past them in passing.
Col. 483 B 8. *As is due to them*. The interpreter [wrote]: "That I might fulfill the service due to them." Cornarius [wrote]: "That I might also fulfill the ministry among them." A similar locution of the Apostle is in II Timothy iv, 5: *Τὴν διακονίαν σου πληροφόρησον*, "Fulfill your ministry."
Olivarian together with the English [edition]. But from the Basel [edition] he expressed: "Whether the chosen ones in the exercise of virtue, through the benefit of this, will attain eternal life." A little after, there occurs a sentiment taken from the circus of the Epicureans or the impious: "Let present things be given to me," near to which Tilmannus adds in the margin from St. John Chrysostom, homil. 9 on the II Epistle to the Corinthians: *Καὶ γὰρ πολλῶν ἀκούω λεγόντων τὰ καταγέλαστα ταῦτα ῥήματα· Δός μοι τὴν σήμερον, καὶ λάβε τὴν αὔριον. Ἂν μὲν γὰρ τοιαῦτα ἦ, φησίν, οἷα καί φατε ἐκεῖ, ἓν ἀνθ᾽ ἑνὸς γέγονεν· ἂν δὲ μηδὲν ὅλως ᾖ, δύο ἀντ᾽ οὐδενός*· "For I hear many saying these ridiculous words: 'Give me today, and take tomorrow.' For if such things as you say exist there, one has been exchanged for one; but if there is nothing at all, two will be exchanged for naught." Which the most learned Billius, book I, chapter 14 of his Observations, explains thus: "Allow me to enjoy the pleasures of the present life; you, however, keep the future goods for yourself. For if those things which are recounted concerning the rewards of the just and the punishments of the wicked are true, we shall be in an equal condition; for we shall have the present, [and] you the future. But if they are false and fabricated, we shall be blessed in a double sense, as those who have spent our time in this life in every kind of pleasure, and in the other age are to suffer no punishments; you, on the contrary, [will be] miserable in a double sense, as those who have undertaken great labors in this life, and in the future will be in a state no better." In the same place, it has recently been correctly edited by the most learned Savile, *ἀλλὰ δύο ἀντ᾽ οὐδενὸς ἔσται τοῖς δικαίοις*, as the same Billius had conjectured it should be amended. At the foot of the page, in place of *προσφέρεται*, *ζυγά* is read in the Olivarian and English [editions], meaning *προφέρεται*, "is brought forth."
Col. 482 A 14. *Take the par*. Cornarius [says]: "Await the equilibrium." Montacutius [says]: "Await the par," that is, that equal may be returned for equal. A little after, "Have you crossed the boundaries," does not sufficiently express the sense of Scripture, from which these [words] are taken, Proverbs xxii, 28, where although we read in the author of the Vulgate, *Do not transgress the ancient boundaries*, yet among the LXX B Col. 487 C 12. *Who in sin*. We have restored it thus, whereas the interpreter had published: "But whoever shall have been constituted in any sin up to death." For it is not treated here of him who shall have been constituted in sin up to the very last breath of life, but of him who shall have committed a sin unto death, of which the blessed John makes mention, Epistle I, chapter v, 16: *Ἔστιν ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον*, "There is a sin unto death." From which Epistle also is that which follows, although somewhat changed, *Ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν*, "He who commits sin is of the devil." But in the Olivar. edition, *γεγένηται* was read, not *γεγέννηται*, just as also in the Apostle, *Ὅτι ἐκ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται*, "Because he has been born of God." Cornarius had written in this place: "Who remains in any mortal sin."
Col. 489 C 10. *"Έχουσι ἀναπνοήν*. The printer snatched up an added variant reading, but that of the Basel edition is truer, which both the interpreter expressed and the Olivarian manuscript confirmed, *ἀναστροφήν*, that is, *οὐ δύνανται ἀναστρέφεσθαι*. From the same manuscript we restored the following passage, *κατὰ χάριν τοῦ μεγαλοδ*. for *χάριν* was missing from the printed copies.
Col. 493 C 8. *Ἀλγήματα*. The Olivarian manuscript [reads] *οὐκ ἔνι ἄλγημα*, by which manner of writing the interpreter seems to have been offended. In the same book we read *ἐμπορία*, but from the English [edition] it has been edited as *ἐμπορεῖται*, which word the Basel edition had omitted. Finally, the same Olivarian codex after *Ἰησοῦ* added *τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν*, "our Lord."
CONCERNING THE BOOKS AGAINST EUNOMIUS
That St. Basil wrote some books against the heretic Eunomius, St. Jerome testifies in his *Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers* in these words: "Basil, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, brought forth excellent books against Eunomius, and a volume *On the Holy Spirit*." Sophronius translates, *κατὰ Εὐνομίου ἐξαιρέτους συνέταξε λόγους*; but in what number they may have been, it is not sufficiently clearly established. From Photius' *Bibliotheca*, number cxxxix, it is permitted to gather that three were first written by him, since Eunomius dared to defend himself against him in just as many books. For after St. Basil migrated to the heavenly D inheritance, and Eunomius was freed from great fear, he published his own work, upon which Theodore of Antioch, Gregory of Nyssa, and Sophronius, falling, *πολλαῖς αἰκίαις λόγων λωβησάμενοι, οὐδὲν ἧττον τοῦ προτέρου, νεκρὸν καὶ πάσης ἀπόζον ἀκαθαρσίας τῷ γεγεννηκότι ἀπέρριψαν*—"having mangled it with many torments of words, no less than that former little book of his, [as] Basil had [done], finishing it, they cast back the now-vulgarized [work], rank from impurity, upon its own author." The most illustrious Cardinal Bellarmine in his *Catalogue*
of ecclesiastical writers says that in the second volume of Basil’s works three books against Eunomius are placed, but in the Antwerp edition five [are included], and although Erasmus removed the last two books as unworthy of Basil, others nevertheless judge them not unworthy of him. Certainly the same man in his books *De controversiis*, as in book II *De Christo*, c. 25, cites three places from the fifth book by which he confirms the sentence of the Latin Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Greek Church itself also, at the Council of Florence, when Marcus Ephesius spoke on its behalf and disputed with the Latins, brings forward testimony from the fifth book in session 18, p. 436 of the Roman edition: Ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος ἐν τοῖς πρὸς Εὐνόμιον ἀντιῤῥητικοῖς περὶ τῆς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς προόδου τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος τὸν λόγον ποιούμενος τοιάδε φησί· Γεννᾷ ὁ Θεὸς οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπος, γεννᾷ δὲ ἀληθῶς· "Basil the Great in the sermons in which he refuted Eunomius, speaking of the production of the Holy Spirit from the Father, uses these words: 'God generates not as a man, yet he truly generates.'" The passage is found in book V. Bessarion also, Archbishop of Nicaea, in his *Dogmatic Oration*, or *On Union with the Eastern Church*, c. 8, p. 544 of the Roman edition, from the same book V, cites c. 9, p. 118: "Great Basil, therefore, speaking in harmony with the aforesaid doctor, asserting that the Spirit was both breathed into man at the beginning and given by the Savior to the disciples, [asserts this] in the chapter entitled 'That the Spirit is Divine Nature' against Eunomius." From these things it is clear that those five books against Eunomius are habitually circulated and cited in Greek libraries. And although in the Venetian edition, by Stephanus Sabius in the year 1535, only the first three were printed, yet in the later Basle edition of 1551 five are published, which the Royal codex of Henry II also acknowledges, from which we have emended many passages. Away, therefore, with the censure of Erasmus and the audacity—deserving to be castigated—of Theodore Beza, who, although he had gifted four books into Latin, yet dared to suppress the fifth and to truncate the fourth in its latter part, having suppressed the interpretation of that part which, in truth, supported the catholic and true dogma concerning the merits of the works. Janus Cornarius, himself also of the number of Protestants, converted five entire [books] into Latin, whose interpretation we will compare with the edition of Beza by Henri Estienne in the year 1570, wherever they will be of assistance to us in reviewing the accepted version of Trapezuntius. If anyone, however, noticing a disparity of style and a different manner of arguing in the two latter books, should inquire into their causes: he will be able to learn them from the Prologue which is prefixed to the fourth book by the interpreter himself or by some other learned man. D Col. 499 B 11. "Another is also said," which is different only in number, though otherwise it is similar; but he did not say ἑτερούσιον. Therefore Cornarius is better: "unequal according to essence." You might best write word-for-word, "dissimilar according to substance." So a little later in the same book he said: A Ἀνόμοιον κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν εἶναι τὸν Μονογενῆ τῷ Πατρί, "Essentia dissimilem esse Unigenitum Patri." Whence the Anomoeans are called followers of Aetius. Epiphanius, heresy lxxxvi: Ἀνόμοιοι πάλιν τινές εἰσιν καλούμενοι, οὗτοι δὲ πρόσφατοι. Ἔσχον δὲ ἀρχηγὸν Ἀέτιόν τινα διάκονον προαχθέντα διὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ φλυαρίαν ὑπὸ Γεωργίου τοῦ Ἀλεξανδρέως. "There are again some who are called Anomoeans, that is, dissimilars. These, however, are recent. They had as a leader a certain deacon Aetius, elevated because of his nonsense by George of Alexandria." The same is to be corrected below, "of another substance." B Col. 505 B 3. "To whom no person." Thus it pleased to translate ἀπρόσωπον, not as the interpreter had written, "the person of the accuser left behind." Cornarius indeed published, "he undergoes the act of apology without a person." Beza, "to whom no person underlies," whether the accuser’s or another’s, but a little later Basil added the word κατηγόρων, "of the accusers." Πρόσωπα κατηγόρων αἰσχύνεται. Trapezuntius: "He thought it a disgrace to himself to bring into the middle the persons of the accusers." C Ibid. D. "I address, for." Interpreter: "For let speech be held by me equally to that whole heaven." He had also translated δημιουργὸς as "public ministers," but after judges, not public servants or certain lictors or messengers, but rather it could be understood that executioners were to be subjected [to the meaning]. D Col. 506 A. "Eudoxius driven out." In the Royal codex it was read, which we had written in the margin of the Basle edition, καὶ ὁ Εὐδόξιος μὲν τῶν ἐν Συρίᾳ. Trapezuntius had written from the manuscript (for he departed from the living before the year 1530, in which these books were first published at Venice): "then also someone expelled from Syria came to Constantinople as if to a tyranny." Socrates, book II *Ecclesiastical History*, c. 34: Τότε δὲ ἐκβληθέντος Μακεδονίου, Εὐδόξιος ἐν δευτέρῳ τὸν Ἀντιοχείας θέμενος θρόνον, τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἀναδέχεται (thus I would prefer to read, rather than ἀναδείκνυται), τῶν περὶ Ἀκάκιον ἐνθρονισάντων αὐτόν· "At that time, however, Macedonius having been expelled, Eudoxius, placing himself in the second see of Antioch, receives that of Constantinople, those around Acacius having enthroned him." Nicephorus also, book IX, cap. 36, writes that Eudoxius, Antioch having been occupied, openly championed the opinion of Aetius and attempted to assist him. See also Theodoret, book II *Hist. eccl.*, c. 25, and c. 27. From the same Royal codex we have added to the printed [text], after the word λογογράφος, what follows: διὰ τῆς τούτου προστασίας ἱδρῦσαι τὸ δόγμα ἐπειγομένου. In the same place, for "the Sardiensis Church was devoured," we have written from the Greek προποθή, "was drunk / was offered a drink," and so Beza—though it is agreed how inexperienced he was in geography, when he wrote here in the Stephanus edition, "the Sardicensis Church was offered a drink." And yet Sardica, whose citizen is Sardicensis, is a city of Mediterranean Thrace; but Sardis or Sardes is a city of Lydia, situated on the side of Mount Tmolus, whose citizen is called Sardianus or Sardiensis. S. Jerome-
in his *Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers*, calls him the Sardian. "Melito, an Asian, Bishop of Sardis under the Emperor Marcus Antoninus Verus," where Sophronius writes: Μελίτων Ἀσιανὸς Σάρδεων ἐπίσκοπος. Some years ago, Beza's fellow-myst, the Salmurian, imitated this investigation, who so rendered the Council of Sardis in the French idiom that he substituted an Asian city of Lydia for a city of Thrace, concerning which matter he was admonished by us in the first volume of his errors in the *Elenchus*.
Col. 508 D 4. Τοῦτο δέ ἐστι τοιοῦτον. In the Basilian edition it was: τοῦτο δέ ἐστι τοιοῦτον. Τί δὴ χαλεπαίνετέ μοι; whence Cornarius expressed his version: "But what is this? Why are you angry with me, O men, for having progressed to the pinnacle of virtue?" And Beza no differently; but in the Royal (codex H) it was read: Τοῦτο δέ ἐστι τι, μὴ χαλεπαίνετέ μοι. And it seems Trapezuntius found it written in this way in the manuscript, nor is there any trace of an interrogation in the words of Eunomius. A little later we wrote: "With whom he is condemned:" Τίνι συγκατακέκριται; not, as the interpreter says: "out of the arrogance by which he is condemned," but clearly with the devil, into whose judgment and condemnation he fell. I Tim. iii, 6: "Ἵνα μὴ τυφωθεὶς εἰς κρῖμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου. "Lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into B the judgment of the devil."
Col. 510 C 2. *Quod si deprehenderetur*. It is one thing to be *ὑφορᾶσθαι* (to suspect), another to be *φωραθῆναι* (to be detected). Trapezuntius thought he had read the former when he wrote: "But if he were suspected, it appears that he is without any fault."
Col. 511 B 10. *Ἀγυμνάστοις ἀκοαῖς* he had translated: "falling into free ears." Cornarius more aptly: "lest he injure himself before inexercised ears." Beza: "striking unaccustomed ears." In the manuscript it was *τὴν ἀσέβειαν*, but it should have been corrected to *ἑαυτοῦ*: "he would render his impiety unworthy of faith, and not easily audible."
Ibid C. *Ad institutum*. Ἐφ' ἃ προείρηται, as it is read also in the Stephanus edition, where Beza translates it in this way; but perhaps it would be read more aptly as *προῄρηται* from the verb *προαιρεῖσθαι*. Cornarius, expressing the received reading, says: "to those things which have been said." But Trapezuntius had published: "to those things which he willed," indicating *προαίρεσιν*. A little later, from the Royal (H) for *ἐπιστάσεως*, one must correct *τὸ ἁπλοῦν τῆς πίστεως*, "the simplicity of faith," which reading the Stephanus edition also acknowledges.
Col. 513 B 6. *Γνώμονα τῆς ἀληθείας*. We have added from codex H *τοῖς ἐχθροῖς τῆς ἀληθείας*, which it appears Trapezuntius also read in his copy, since before the first Venetian edition he rendered these books from the Greek manuscripts into Latin: for which reason they should have been omitted neither by Beza nor by Cornarius.
Col. 516 A 11. *Τὸν Θεὸν ἀγέννητον*. Thus it was written in the Royal, and in the Stephanus edition, just as in the periods which follow, *προσγεγενῆσθαι* and *γεγενῆσθαι*: for which reason Beza translates: "that God is not factitious, and is not to be said to have been made either by himself A or by another." But in truth *ἀγέννητος* is "not factitious, not created, not produced," but in the Basilian edition it was printed *ἀγέννητον* and *προσγεγεννῆσθαι* or *γεγεννῆσθαι*, and on that account Trapezuntius interpreted it: "and by the common conception of all, that God was not born," and likewise a little later, "that what is ingenerate is contended to be made either by itself or by another," and "that he who is ingenerate is born neither by himself nor by another," he ought to have said more aptly: "nor begotten by another." Nevertheless, in such a variety of readings, it must be noted, as we have warned elsewhere, that the word *ἀγέννητος*, when it deals with God the Father, or is compared with the other persons of the Trinity, sometimes signifies "ingenerate"—that is, not produced by generation—but at other times "uncreated," not factitious, and not produced by creation; however, the word *ἀγέννητος* is more often used in this second notion, which is pronounced with a single nu, not with a double, like *ἀγέννητος*. See what has been annotated above.
Ibid. C 5. *Quasi solido*. *Πυκνὸς καὶ περιττός* signifies a sharp, prudent, and egregiously minded man, as the other interpreters have published, not as Trapezuntius: "If he were to abound in his dense and minute reasonings."
Col. 517 A 6. For *συνάγειν* we have written from the Royal H *συνεισάγειν*.
Col. 520 B 9. *Ὑπαγωγὴν*. We have added from MS H what Beza had noted with an asterisk as missing in the Stephanus edition, and he had interpreted, insisting on the footsteps of Trapezuntius' version, namely: *αὐτῷ ληφθέντος λόγου πρὸς τὴν κατασκευὴν ἐντεῦθεν χωρεῖ τοῦ τὴν C ἀγεννησίαν οὐσίαν εἶναι*: "Nevertheless, he proceeds as if by a certain path obtained from this towards the construction, that he says *ἀγεννησίαν* is the essence of him who is the God of all." Cornarius published more aptly: "hence he proceeds to the confirmation that to be ingenerate is essence." The Latin Fathers translate *ἀγεννησίαν* as "innascibilitatem" (unbegottenness).
Col. 526 B 3. *Et quod ejus propr.* This, omitted by the interpreter, we have added, who had also written in this place: "nor yielding to irrational infirmity," which perhaps he had read as *ὑποφέρεσθαι*, as the Royal H codex had in place of *ἀποφέρεσθαι*. A little before, where mention of faith is made, he omitted that, *κατὰ τὴν πίστιν*. Beza, which is truly strange, since, although the works of that fellow-myst seem to be neglected, he seems to care more for faith. He said, however, *ἐῤῥιζωμένους κατὰ πίστιν*, as Paul in Coloss. ii, 7: *Ἐῤῥιζωμένοι καὶ βεβαιούμενοι ἐν τῇ πίστει*: "Rooted and confirmed in faith."
Ibid. C 3. *Incorruptibilem*. S. Basil's brother, Gregory of Nyssa, treats this place in his last book against Eunomius, lately rendered into Latin by the most learned man N. Gulonius, p. 396, and defends it against the calumnies of Eunomius. Sometimes, however, he uses different words, as where he finds *ὑπερεκπίπτουσαν πάσης περιγραφῆς*, instead of *πάσης ἀρχῆς*, which is the truer reading, as the interpreter of Nyssenus remarks, writing: "every circumscription or"
overcoming every beginning.” Also, for A *toîs αἰῶσιν* we apply *noûn* instead of *tòn noûn epekteinōmen*, if we use these names, instead of “naming them.” In the same place, we corrected that rendering of Trapezuntius, “then we call his infinite [Being], which goes forth into no limit, incorruptible.”
Col. 526 C 14. *Kaì ἀσύμβαντα*. More correctly in the Royal ms. II, *ἀσύματα*, just as some read *ἀσυμβάντως ἔχειν* in Gaza’s Greek Grammar, lib. IV: but a little later the author of the Greek Thesaurus observes that it is written not *ἀσυμβάντως*, but *ἀσυμβάτως*, and cites from Plutarch, *On the First Cold*: *Ἡ μὲν γὰρ κατὰ στέρησιν καὶ ἕξιν ἀντίθεσις πολεμικὴ καὶ ἀσύμβατός ἐστιν*, that is, as interpreted by Turnebus, “For the opposition between privation and habit is hostilely aggressive, and dissents implacably.”
Col. 527 B. *Non se ex commentatione*. We have changed these words of Eunomius thus, whereas it was previously: “Unwilling to decorate human thought in God, when he calls him Unbegotten.” But Beza translates *ἐπίνοιαν* more correctly as “commentation” than Trapezuntius as “thought,” or Cornarius as “contemplation”; since *ἐπινοεῖν* means to think out, or to devise, or to conceive in the mind by cleverly discovering something. Thus, in Nyssen, Gulonius translates *τῇ ἐπινοίᾳ ἡμῶν ἐπιθεωρούντων ταῦτα* as “while we contemplate these things by way of commentation.”
Ibid. 12. *Quomodo igitur*. The interpreter had edited, “How then do we not see that you are raving, if you think that a proper power is not in each of the names, but against the truth;” for he reads *ἀλήθειαν*, not *ἐνέργειαν*, which however the Royal ms. H and the Stephanus edition maintain, in which Beza omitted *παρὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν*, which Cornarius expressed thus: “but rather to decide that all names are of equal value B between themselves because of their efficacy?”
Col. 529 B 9. *Καὶ ἐν τούτῳ*. The Royal ms. H reads *καὶ ἐν ἑνὶ τούτῳ*, which the interpretation of Trapezuntius acknowledges, as it said before *ἐν ἑνὶ τούτῳ μόνῳ*. Translate therefore, “and may he pay the confession in this one thing, which is what is,” and in the words of Eunomius, page 219, c. 2, *ἐν τῇ τοῦ εἶναι ὅ ἐστιν ὁμολογίᾳ*, “in the confession of what is being what it is.”
Col. 531 A 14. *Categoriæ*. Not as the interpreter has it, *De categoriis*, just as some cite the book of St. Augustine *De decem categoriis*, which has in its inscription *Categoriæ decem* from Aristotle’s book. Indeed, some have inscribed that book *Πρὸ τῶν τοπικῶν*, “Before the Topics,” as our learned friend Robert Balfour observes from Simplicius in his Logical Commentaries; others *De decem categoriis*, or, as Boethius translates, *Prædicamenta*; yet in Aristotle himself and in Ammonius the book is inscribed *Κατηγορίαι*. It deals with privation and habit in c. 10, and with opposites, and elsewhere in various places. In the same place, from John VIII, 44, we have written “he speaks from his own,” instead of “from himself,” *Ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων λαλεῖ*, not *ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ*.
Col. 634 B 13. *Si quidem privationes*. Not as the interpreter wrote: “For his privation, which is in nature, is privation, posterior to the habit.” Aristotle in *Categories* c. 10: *Ἐστερῆσθαι δὲ τότε λέγομεν ἕκαστον τῶν τῆς ἕξεως δεκτικῶν, ὅταν ἐν ᾧ πέφυκεν ὑπάρχειν, ἢ ὅτε πέφυκεν ἔχειν, μηδαμῶς ὑπάρχῃ*. “We say that individual things which can receive a habit are ‘privated’ [destitute] when it is not present in any way, in that in which it is naturally prone to exist, or when it is naturally prone to have it.” He adds the example of the toothless and the blind: for we do not call him toothless or blind because he has no teeth or eyes, “but because he does not have them when he naturally ought to have them.”
Ibid. C 9, *Πρὸς τὸ ὅλον*. It was obscurely expressed, “they heap a small thing onto the whole.” Cornarius said, “insofar as it pertains to the whole.”
Col. 536 C 4. *Nullatenus*. The location *σχολῇ γ’ ἄν* is not to be emended in the Venetian and Basilean editions, as it is found in the Royal ms. H and the Stephanus edition, p. 233, *σχολῇ γ’ ἄλλ’*. But his interpreter is by no means to be followed, as he has wandered from the mind of the author, although Stephanus often praises him in the *Thesaurus* as *ἀναμάρτητον*: “For if essence is placed among those things which are not, whatever else we have said will be one and empty.” Cornarius is much more correct: “For if essence is among those things which are not, then none of those things which are said of God will be present.” A little later we have changed what Trapezuntius had substituted for these Greek words, *καὶ αὐτὴν τὴν οὐσίαν τίθεται τὸ ἀγέννητον*, “and he placed C unbegottenness in the substance itself, and collecting the discourse as if to the main point, he writes thus.” Nay, he was saying that the essence of God is unbegotten, [which] Eunomius [held], as is evident from Basil himself, and Greg. Nyssen, in the last book against Eunomius, p. 204: *Αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ διὰ τῆς μὴ γεγεννῆσθαι λέξεως σημαινόμενον οὐσίαν νομίζειν μόνον τῶν ἐκ μανίας παραφερομένων οἰόμεθα*. “I judge it to be only for those who are carried away by madness to think that the substance itself is what is signified by the word ‘unbegotten.’”
Col. 512 A 9. *Invisibilis et orn.* We have preferred this to the words of the interpreter from the Vulgate Latin, which, not being expressed from the Greek but from the Hebrew, was “void and empty.” The Vatican edition translates *ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος*, “invisible and unformed.” St. Augustine in his book *De Genesi ad litteram* [translates it as] “inordinate or unprepared.” Aquila [translates] *κένωμα καὶ οὐδέν*, “inanity and nothing.” Symmachus [translates] *ἀργὸν καὶ ἀδιάκριτον*, “inert and somewhat indistinct”: hence, without a doubt, that chaos in Ovid, 1 Metamorph., “a raw and indigested mass.” A little later, toward the end of the page, the interpreter had said *ἐμβατεύειν οὐσίαν*, “they boast that they themselves have entered into the substance of God;” but this Greek verb does not mean simply to enter, but to set foot in, and as it were to enter into possession, as in Colossians II, 18: *Ἃ μὴ ἑώρακεν ἐμβατεύων*—not “seeing while walking,” but, as Budé [has it], “placing a foot into the possession of those things which he has not seen.” This is cited in the *Thesaurus* from Ecumenius or rather from Arethas in the Acts of the Apostles: *Ὁ Κύριος ὁ τὰς καρδίας* D
καρδίας* A
Notes of Fronton du Duc
ἐμβατεύων—*entering into*—Chrysostom, lib. II. *De sacerdotio*, p. 15: “Not that he himself might learn. For how should he who enters into the hearts of all men be taught, to whom alone the hearts of all mortals are open?” Therefore Cornarius did not interpret this absurdly: “They arrogate to themselves [the ability] to have explored the very essence of the God of the universe.”
Col. 544 C 10. *Τηλικήν τινα*—*Such a...* We have here corrected the Basilian edition, or rather we have removed a typographical error; for it was correct in the Venetian edition, from which that one seems to have been taken: it was not *ἡλικήν* but *ὑλικήν*. Yet I cannot sufficiently marvel at the stupidity of Beza, who, when he saw *ὑλικήν* correctly printed in the Stephanus edition, nevertheless edited from the opposing Greek text: “Besides that he will think the essence of God to be of some quantity: in which matter he agrees with the Greeks,” as if of course he had read *ἡλικήν*, which sounds like “quantum,” not *ὑλικήν*, “a material or corporeal substance”: see below regarding *ταῖς ὑλικαῖς φαντασίαις τὰς περὶ θεοῦ*. Plutarch, lib. I, *De placitis philosoph.,* c. 7, reports that Anaximander wished the stars to be celestial gods; that Democritus taught that the mind, God, is fire-like, the soul of the world; that the Stoics held God to be an artificial fire proceeding by way of the generation of the world; and finally that Epicurus attributed a human form to all the gods, “as the pagan poets were also wont to do.”
Ibid. 12. *A lumbis sursum*—*From the loins upward*. It was not above the loins only, as it was written previously, for thus it is read in Ezekiel VIII, 2: *Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ ὁμοίωμα ὡς εἶδος ἀνδρὸς ἀπὸ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕως κάτω πῦρ, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ ὑπεράνω αὐτοῦ, ὡς εἶδος ἠλέκτρου*—And I saw, and behold a likeness as the aspect of a man, from his loins and even downward fire, and from his loins and above it, as the aspect of electrum. St. John Chrysostom cites the same passage of the prophet on a similar occasion in his book *On the Incomprehensible Nature of God*, p. 361: *Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα πάντα βουλόμενος δεῖξαι, ὅτι οὔτε ὁ προφήτης οὔτε αἱ δυνάμεις ἐκεῖναι ἀκράτῳ προσέβαλον αὐτῇ τῇ οὐσίᾳ, φησίν· Αὕτη ἡ ὅρασις ὁμοιότητος δόξης Κυρίου*—After these things, desiring to show that neither the prophet nor those powers approached that essence in its purity, he says: “This vision was of the likeness of the glory of the Lord”; where he brings forth the words of the prophet just as Basil does. Theodoret also [treats of] the same passage, *ὃν ἐπὶ τῶν χερουβὶμ ἐθεάσατο, τοῦτον ὁρᾷ δίχα τῶν χερουβὶμ.* Whom he had beheld upon the cherubim, him he sees without the cherubim. For sometimes he appears to him fearsomely, sometimes gently, ordering all things for our benefit. For this is his own saying: “I have multiplied visions, and in the hands of the prophets I was assimilated; I was not seen according to my essence, wherefore also the prophet says he has seen a likeness.” B
Col. 546 A 7. *Non enim*. The interpreter had brought out a slightly different meaning. For if we do not inquire what he is, but confess that he exists, he prepares salvation for us.
Col. 551 A 3. *Novam blasph.* We have written it thus, not as Trapezuntius, “devising a vain consolation for blasphemy”: even though Regius II supported him, suggesting: but the Venetian, Basilian, and Stephanus editions have *καινήν*, “a new [blasphemy],” which squares better with the verb *ἐπινοεῖν*; just as later *καινήν τινα τὴν ὁδὸν βλασφημίας ἐπινοῶν*—but in the Stephanus [edition] Beza betrays his own remarkable ignorance, translating thus on p. 249: “Afterwards he aids himself, devising a new remedy for blasphemy, which he contends hides the preceding [errors] by means of the subsequent ones.” He seems to have been ignorant of what *ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι* means—not “to aid,” but “to contend”—and that *ἀποκρύπτειν* here has the same value as *νικᾶν*, as in the same Basil’s Homily on the *Hexaëmeron*, *ἀποκρύπτουσιν* [i.e., “do they not exceed... in human intelligence and prudence?”]. Moreover, in John XIV, 9, it is written, *ἑώρακε τὸν Πατέρα*, he has seen the Father: but in John XI, 45: *βλέπει τὸν πέμψαντά με*, he sees him who sent me: which two places Basil has mingled. C
Col. 552 B 9. *Ἐν μέσῳ*. Cornarius edited a corrupt reading: “Thus in the middle of his seal, who sealed, the figure is seen.” The same error is in the Venetian and Stephanus editions, from which Beza nevertheless kept himself free: “Thus in the very figure which is rendered in the impression of the seal, the character is discerned which impressed [it] into it.” For in Greek it is there, as Trapezuntius also reads, not as the other editions have it. It must be corrected, therefore, from the Royal MS. Shortly after, I wrote “which is in both, identity,” not as Trapezuntius, “in both, likeness,” for Cornarius did not say [likeness], but also said identity, and did not shrink from this word, as did Beza. “We clearly comparing the same form in both places”: nor did H. Stephanus hesitate, bringing forth from Aristotle, *Ethicor.* 6, the word *ταὐτότης*, to add “as if to say identity.” The most learned Billius, in his work on Isidore of Pelusium, translates it thus, Epist. lib. II, that passage: *Προς ποσότητι καὶ ὑποστάσεων ἰδιότητι διαστέλλοντες, εἰς ἕνα πάλιν συστελοῦμεν Θεὸν διὰ τὸ τῆς οὐσίας ταὐτόν*—“Siquidem personarum qualitate atque hypostaseon proprietate distinguentes propter essentiæ identitatem, eam rursum in unum Deum contrahemus.” If the interpreter [of] Justin Languus had done this, he would not have brought out that passage so obscurely in his *Questions to the Greeks*, p. 137. Commelin edit.: *Ἀναιρουμένου τοῦ ἄλλου, καὶ ἄλλου, ἀναιρεθήσεται ἐξ ἀνάγκης τὸ ταὐτὸν τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τῆς βουλῆς*—“One being removed, and another, that which is the same in the essence of God and [his] will will necessarily be removed and that D
which the same is in essence,” A for if we had accepted that we would demonstrate the unity or identity of the essence of the Trinity. There is found also in Isidore, book IV, epist. 228, the word ταυτότης. “That there may be examples, and not that the identity of the thing may vanish.” Finally, Bessarion of Nicaea, in Aristotle, book IV, c. 9 of the Metaphysics, has not abstained from this word: “So it is evident that identity is a kind of unity, either of those that are many, or in reference to being, or when it is used as of many.” Plerionius said, “They call identity the logic of that which is the same.”
Col. 553 B 12. *Extending.* In the Ms. we have *casting away*. And soon *the former and the latter*, and so Trapezuntius, “the former and the latter.” And again *first, and the latter*. And also a little later we have corrected from the same Royal [codex]; since both the Venetian and Basle and Stephanus editions had *necessarily* edited wrongly, and the interpreter too concisely, “casting himself out, he thinks he has delivered the necessary doctrine of his own dogmas.” Incorrectly also did Cornarius, as if he had read *reception*, instead of *not reception*, B “not thinking from this that he shows the succession of his own dogmas.” But what preceded, *and having taken the consequences to the assumptions of such dogmas, of his own dogmas*, he has interpreted rightly, “since he has assumed those things which follow upon the established arguments.” In H. it was *of such dogmas, of his own dogmas*.
Col. 556 C 2. *Of those from time.* We have added from the Ms. the word *pre-eminence*, which both the preceding parts teach ought to be repeated, and the interpreter indicates he found in his copy, when he says, “and the pre-eminence of time.” The same Ms. for *ordered* showed the script *disposed*.
Col. 557 C 9. *Those things.* The following words, *in others against these*, from various readings of the Royal H. [codex] are without reason inserted into the text, nor are they acknowledged by the interpreter: but a little later it was read more aptly in the same Ms. Ibid. below, *But it seems*. These things are unchanged, with those [words] thrown out, “But as it seems, he thinks that by great force of intellect, day and night, C it happens as if by the motion of the stars, and that these are components.”
Col. 559 C 6. *And of the scarab.* Not “of the butterflies,” as Trapezuntius had written. For from *kanthon* is derived the name *kantharos* (scarab), because the scarab is born from the dung of an ass, as *katharos*, the scarab that eats grain. After a few words in the interpretation of Eunomius's words, we have removed these, “Yet he says that neither quality, nor bulk, nor quantity can inhere in the substance of God. For it is necessary that God be free from all composition.” But in the words of the Gospel it was read from Ms. H, not as in the printed edition *the Father who sent me is greater*, and so these words are placed, when they are joined together in the Gospel: for indeed in John xiv, 28, only these are held, “That my Father is greater than I, for D my Father is greater than I; but that which he said, *he who sent me is the Father*, is borrowed from another place of John, namely either from John viii, 16: “That I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent me,” or from xii, 49: “I have not spoken from myself, but the Father who sent me.” Since therefore Basil joined these things in this way, he was a faithful interpreter to translate these things into Latin as they were in the Greek, not to suppress them, as Theodorus Beza suppressed [them] in two places, p. 260 and p. 263, writing only, *The Father is greater than I*. You will find the same place treated against the Eunomians and Arians in book IV, and in the epistle to the Caesareans, and in Athanasius, oration against the Arians, p. 181: “He is greater than I, not indeed in magnitude or age, but because he has his origin from him,” and in the book *On the Human Nature Assumed*, and in Hilary book IX *On the Trinity*, and in the book *On the Synods*, and Gregory Nazianzen, oration *on Theology*. See also the most illustrious Cardinal Bellarmine, book 1 *On Christ*, cap. 16.
Col. 570 B. *Comparative.* No, not the comparison of the greater, as the interpreter had published, but *greater*, which is said from comparison, and indicates only the diversity of principle or origin, because, indeed, the Son has his essence from the Father, the Father does not have the essence of the Son [as] greater in essence.
Ibid. D. *For such.* *Inaccessible* was not sufficiently expressed in this way: “For such is incomparable, that it is equally distant from all, and accessible to none. For if the Son is equally lacking from the Father to others, he is equal to those to whom he is lacking.” *To be left behind* sounds as being absent from someone or distant from him. Ib. for *is compared* the Ms. read *is compared*, if we remember, *we shall remember*. Subsequently this [is the] right reading, and legitimate, which the Royal codex H. provides, not as the Venetian, Basle, and Stephanus editions, *the intimacy existing to him by nature*. For it is customary from the rules of grammar for *to be deprived of* to be joined with the genitive of the thing, of which one is deprived, as *to be deprived of the head, to be deprived of the city*. Beza did not sufficiently express that, *existing by nature*: “It deprives by that very insit necessity, which exists between him and the parent.” From the same Royal codex it was necessary to add, what was absent from the printed editions, that clause, namely, which the interpreter added [rendered] into Latin, *Only that thing, being without origin*, or the interpreter does not read, or has neglected.
Col. 573 in the title: *On the Son.* This is the title of this book in the printed editions, but in the Ms. H. *Against Eunomius*. “Book II on the Son, a refutation of the dogmas of the impious Eunomius.” Subsequently: *In the schools of vanity*, thus interpreted Cornarius.
Or as Beza, playing the paraphrast rather: *In the games where vanity is taught and proposed to adolescents.* The phrasing of Scripture ought to have been preserved, similar to Ps. XXV, 4: A *Oὐκ ἐκάθισα μετὰ συνεδρίου ματαιότητος*, “I have not sat with the assembly of vanity,” where the Hebrew word is that which elsewhere the LXX translate as *ἔργα ἀνόμων*, Job XXXI, 11, “the works of the lawless.” Here, too, he designates the schools of the impious or profane Gentiles, in which the *μελέται*, or declamations, of the sophists trained the youth in the pursuits of eloquence. Ibid. *γέγονεν*. Ms. H. has *ἐγγέγονεν*, and pag. 289, *δικαιότερος*. H. and Steph. have *δικαιότερον*. Pad. 238, *κατηγόρους μὴ ὑφεστῶτας*, “accusers who are not, nor exist”—we have said this, not as an interpreter does, “accusers not constituted for battle.”
Col. 576. A. *Γέννημα*. Not as in the printed editions *γένημα*, which the standard lexicons do not recognize, but *γέννημα*, which is “that which is begotten,” as Ms. H. had it.
Ibid. B 6. *Μεταρυθμίζοντα*—the same Ms. H. reads this.
Col. 579 A. *Jonæ filium*. Trapezuntius: “We understand Jonas.” Nay, rather “son of Jonas,” hence Matthew XVI, 17: *Μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βὰρ Ἰωνᾶ*, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona,” which is John I, 42: *Σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Ἰωνᾶ*, “Thou art Simon son of Jonas.” Therefore, this passage confirms the Vulgate reading, not that of those books which read *τοῦ Ἰωάννου* or *τοῦ Ἰωαννά*, as Jerome testifies regarding some; the Syrian interpreter also confirms the same, Matthew XVI. A little later, *“in seipsum recepit”*—we have written this, not as Trapezuntius, B “took upon himself the building entrusted to him,” lest anyone think Peter was designated as the overseer or architect of the Lord’s works, or that he had contracted for this building to be made; but rather that the Church was built upon him: *Ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν*, Matt. XVI, [18]. And Basil himself in his *In Esaiam*, tom. I, p. 427: *Ἐκ τῶν ὀρέων ἦν ὁ Πέτρος, ἐφ᾿ ἧς καὶ πέτρας ἐπηγγείλατο οἰκοδομήσειν αὐτοῦ τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν*. And in the proem to *De judicio Dei*, he says that he was preferred to the other apostles, and in the *Homilia De poenitentia* he says that he himself was the rock, although inferior to the other Rock, Christ.
Col. 586, A 6. *Retinuerunt*. *Μετεκόμισαν*. Trapezuntius translates “transposed,” and Cornarius “transferred,” literally “carried across”; but because transferring is said from one idiom to another, which is expressed by interpretation, and here Basil wishes to say that those names were expressed in Greek characters without interpretation, just as they sounded in Hebrew, for that reason we have been content with this word “retinuerunt” (retained), and we have written “Eloi,” not “Eloim,” as it was before. For although one of the C ten names of God which St. Jerome provides, Epist. 136, is *אלהים* “Elohim,” nevertheless at 1 Kings I, 11, it is written *Ἀδωναΐ Κύριος Ἐλωΐ Σαβαώθ*, not Ἐλωΐμ.
Col. 592 B 14. *Sed ante suam*. The interpreter had been content to say, “but before it itself was”; but when in the words of Eunomius, *οὐκ ἦσαν πρὸ τῆς ἰδίας συστάσεως*, he translated, “when it was not before its subsistence,” the same words ought to have been repeated here. Shortly after, we have changed that: “they will argue that this was a defect of better ignorance or impotence.” For here *λογίζεσθαι* is not to reason, but in reasoning or outside reasoning to impute something, or to credit it, as Romans IV, 3: *Ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην*, “It was credited to him for righteousness.”
Col. 594 B 3. *Adversarios*. *Πρὸς τοὺς αἰτίους* is literally, “to his authors,” as Cornarius translates, or as Beza, “that it may be turned back upon their heads, who are his authors.” Trapezuntius interpreted as if he had read *πρὸς τοὺς ἐναντίους*. Such is that in Ps. VII, 17: *Ἐπιστρέψει ὁ πόνος αὐτοῦ εἰς κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ*. “His pain shall return upon his head.” Jerome: “His pain shall return D upon his head, and his iniquity shall descend upon his crown.”
Col. 596 B 3. *Ἐκ μὴ ὄντων*. Ms. H. has *τοὺς ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος*, but the Stephanus edition defends the received reading, and the Nicene Council in the Creed: *Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο*—“But those who say, Before he was begotten he was not, and that he came into being out of things that were not.” Jerome, *Against the Luciferians*: “If anyone shall say that the Son was from nothingness, and not from God the Father, let him be anathema.” Cornarius said, “they produce the essence of the Only-Begotten from non-existent things.” Trapezuntius, “they say the Son is from non-being”; but he does not say *ἐκ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι*, but *ἐκ τῶν μὴ ὄντων*, which is “out of things that are not.”
Col. 598 A 6. *Creaturis ipsum*. That of the interpreter was somewhat obscure: *in praeponendo creaturis gloriam ei attestatur*. In its place we substituted the words of Cornarius; Beza, however, wrote: “He testifies his glory in this at last, that he prefers him to those things which were created by him.” Yet that “by him” is not recognized by the Greek. Jerome, in the place just cited, expresses the anathematism brought forth by the Arians at the Council of Ariminum thus: “If anyone shall say that the Son of God is a creature, like other creatures, let him be anathema.” They did not deny that the Son was a creature, but that he was similar to other creatures.
Ibid. B 6. *Γεννήσεως* I have written from Regius H. in place of *γενέσεως*. Trapezuntius, “generation”; for the Basiliensis also had shortly after *ἐξακουόντων τῆς γεννήσεως*. Finally, toward the end of the page, *ὑπομνήσομεν*, Regius was writing *ὑπομνήσωμεν*, Trapezuntius had read it thus: “let us admonish.”
Ibid. C 13. *His duabus*. The interpreter Trapezuntius had omitted this entire period: but we have restored it from others, which Regius also recognizes, from which we have also changed in the Basiliensis and Stephanus editions that *εἴπερ ἔχοι τι ἑαυτῆς ἐξωτέρω*. Ms. *ἐξώτερον*. Trapezuntius had read it thus: “If it held anything above itself,” Cornarius: “If it held anything beyond itself,” Beza literally, but less correctly: “If it held anything outside itself”; yet *ἐξωτέρω* can be tolerated: for there follows *τὰ ἐξωτέρω ταύτης*.
ταύτης*.
A Col. 600 B. *To the insuperable.* In the Basilian and other editions it was *insuperabili*; but Cod. Regius H. had it so, and Trapezuntius, *with this insuperable principle*. Thus, a little before, he said, *of one insuperable and another incommunicable*.
Ibid. B 5. *In the region of Ausitis.* The interpreter: “In the region of Hus,” and so indeed the Latin Vulgate, Job 1:1: “There was a man in the land of Hus named Job.” But among the Greek interpreters we read: *Anthropos tis en en te chora Ausitidi, ho onoma Iob*. “A man was in the region of Ausitis, whose name was Job.” Chrysostom, in the *Catena of Nicetas*: “He says a man was in the region of Ausitis, and this is a great eulogy. For that such a man should be proved in Arabia, where all were corrupt, where there was no example of law-abiding life, this was marvelous.” He says that that man was in the region of Ausitis, and this is a huge commendation. For, in Arabia, for such a righteous man to be found, where all were corrupt, where no example of equity existed, is most worthy of admiration. Olympiodorus, in the same place, reports that that region was named by Aus, one of the sons of Esau, which others locate in Idumæa, others in the borders of Arabia and Idumæa. St. Jerome, in Jeremiah ch. xxv, also translates: “And with the kings of the land of Ausitis”; and cites from the Greek text: “A certain man was in the region of Ausitis, which is called Hus in Hebrew; and yet it must be known that this verse is not present in the Septuagint.” In the same way, in the Vulgate, *Ramathain Sophim* is written in 1 Reg. 1:1, but the Greeks express it, *ex Armathaim Siphá*, “from Armathaim Sipha.” Ibid. *achronon* is “devoid of time, ignorant of time, without time,” not as the interpreter says, “subject to no time.”
Col. 603 A 15. *Nam a veritate.* The period, both obscurely translated and poorly punctuated, was hiding the author’s meaning. “For a falling away from the truth of mind is a privation of sight and blindness.” Again, instead of *tetuphlotai* [blinded], Trapezuntius seems to have read, as it was in H., *ont i meden* [being nothing], or *pephysetai* [inflated], “and understands nothing.” And a little later, for “in a phrenetic sense” we have substituted “in a mental emotion through phrenitis”: *en ekstasei phrenitike*, not *aisthese*. Others say “the furious, when they are not in their right mind.”
Ibid. C 8. *From the questions.* This passage has been restored from the Regius manuscript H., whereas previously in the Venetian and Basilian editions it was *a ton graphon ouden* [nothing of the writings]. From which Cornarius brought out what is not absent from those writings, which B having fixed a fast, held a certain portion of meat as a reward, but he who failed, to drink a cup of brine. Moreover, an enigma and a riddle belong to fellow-drinkers; and the former involves jest, but the latter skill; and indeed he who solved this received some dish of meat as a prize; he who could not, drank a cup of brine. The scholiast adds that the history of Samson provides an example, who at his wedding proposed a riddle about the generation of bees. Athenæus, lib. x, p. 457: *Ton griphon he zetesis ouk allotria philosophias esti, kai hoi palaioi ten tes paideias apodeixin en toutois epoiounto*. “The investigation of riddles is not alien to philosophy, and the ancients made a demonstration of education in these matters.” Examples are brought forward in the same place and in p. 418, from the fragments of the ancient comic poets. A little later we changed that: “the nature of understanding constituted by the motions of the mind without time.”
C Col. 606 C. *Let us answer.* We removed the error of the Basilian edition, in which *apoklinometha* [we decline] was read, but in the Neneta [edition] *apokrinometha*, “we answer”: the same in the Stephanæa and Cornarius, but [in] the H. ms. as we edited it. Trapezuntius seems to have expressed *apokrinoumetha*: “We shall answer, therefore, nay rather, since it is not, it was, not having what is unbegotten, which is: but being is always and co-existing.”
Col. 607 B 4. *Also the reason.* We have added from the ms. H. *ennoian*, which Trapezuntius had translated “opinion,” and Cornarius “notion,” as he perhaps had come across the Venetian edition. The Stephanæa likewise translates *ennoian* as “thought.” From the same ms. we wrote *epizeton* [seeking out], instead of *hypozeton*, and restored the passage, which had been mutilated by the interpreter, to its original integrity: for he had only written: “But why must we argue with the insane? Or if it be at anything of those things that are.” A similar passage preceded.
Col. 610 C 8. *You anointed.* The interpreter had expressed *stele* in Latin as “stone,” and not differently Beza, who could have learned even from his fellow-mystic Henr. Stephanus that *stele* is not just any stone, but a monumental stone, or one erected for the sake of a sign, or certainly a column, whence for historians *Herakleioi stelai* are the pillars of Hercules, and *stelen anagraphein* for Budæus is to proscribe on a cippus. The Vatican [edition] translates “title”: for it is taken for a cippus, on which either inscriptions of graves, or testimonies of treaties and monuments were inscribed. Cornarius [was] correct, and it must be rewritten in this place: “I who appeared to you in the place where you anointed D a column for me.” Nor much later *tois ousin* [to those who are], and *pistois* [to the faithful]. The reader should now be warned that in Ephesians 1:1, by the Apostle, it is read: *Tois hagiois tois ousin en Epheso, kai pistois en Christo*. “To the saints who are in Ephesus and to the faithful in Christ.” Basil perhaps had come across a different codex, from which those [words] *en Epheso* were absent, just as the author of the Vulgate also translates in the same place “to all the saints,” which in Greek he perhaps might have read *pasi tois hagiois*; wherefore I truly wonder at the audacity, or rather the impudence of Beza, who says that what are brought forward here by the most holy Father are merely vain quibbles. But undoubtedly thus the ancients
A have handed down, adds the doctor of the Church Basil, and thus it was found in ancient copies; wherefore I cease to wonder at those who, when they have received from the Fathers dogmas which are not traditive, nor architects of new religions, but which are established, now find fault with these.
Col. 615 C 6. *Qui commodius.* Thus we prefer to translate with Cornarius, rather than with Trapezuntius, « who have understood the Hebrew language, » or with Beza, « having attained the signification of Hebrew words. » For he designates Aquila of Pontus, to whom St. Jerome attributes this praise, because he expressed the propriety of the word in the highest degree, in Epistle 101 to Marcella, « But Aquila is a proselyte and a contentious interpreter, who attempted to transfer not only words, but also the etymologies of words. » And Epistle 139: « Aquila, a most diligent explicator of Hebrew words. » And in Isa. xlix, verse 6: « I do not wonder at Aquila, because a most learned man of the Hebrew language, and word for word, expressing it. » But he also teaches this place of Proverbs viii, 22, the translation of Aquila, where he wrote *ektesato* (possessed), where the LXX said *ektise* (created), in Epiphanius, Haer. 69, p. 320: *Τὸ δὲ Ἑβραϊκὸν οὐχ οὕτως ἔχει, ὅθεν Ἀκύλας λέγει· Κύριος ἐκτήσατό με. Ἀεὶ δὲ οἱ γεννῶντες παῖδας λέγουσιν, Ἐκτησάμην υἱόν.* « The Hebrew, however, is not so; whence Aquila says: The Lord possessed me. And always those who beget children say, I have possessed a son. » He understands it especially, whose words these are, Gen. iv, 1, *I have possessed a man from God, after the birth of Cain*, which Basil himself brings forward at the end of this page, where the word *qanah* is used which is used in the same place in Proverbs, and as Jerome notes in the book of Micah, it signifies to possess, or to have. Gregory of Nyssen handles this same place in book 1 *against Eunomius*, p. 34 of the edition of Morelli, which perhaps ought to be corrected to *ektisthen*, instead of *ektisato*, even if it were written as such in the royal copy and in Basil. B
Col. 618 B 11. *Quamvis nec ab ipsis.* The MS. H repeated the word which we add, *symphasthai*, « even this in no way contributes, » or « that he might permit his work to the Son. » Also that which follows is expressed by the same manuscript, *hypourgon gar auton teleion onomazousi*, « for they call him a perfect minister. » A little after we have changed that interpretation, and *facta sunt*, which the Regius MS. and the Basil edition agree with the text of the Psalms, *kai egenethesan*, and therefore we write, just as in Psalm xxxii, 9: *Ipse dixit, et facta sunt.* Finally we corrected, *thelemati mono*, « by will alone he creates, » instead of *thelemati monon*, from the same MS. H.
Col. 622 C. *Non enim conveniebat.* These [changes] were made by us, that they might be clearer, with those [words] struck out, « *Cum non oporteat minus impassibilitatem Dei credere.* » But upon inspecting the royal manuscript again, A it is found more concisely written: *analloioton ousian paratithenai*, « not to believe, nor when compared with fluid nature, subject to innumerable mutations, to compare the immutable to it. »
Col. 624 A 2. *Bolous drosou, glebas roris*, we read in the edition of Stephanus, and not otherwise in his manuscript, and that reading is confirmed by the authority of the Roman edition among the LXX, and by Olympiodorus in the *Catena Niceta*, and he explains *bolous drosou*, that is, *tas systaseis*, « this, concretions »: but the Basil edition had *bolous drosou*, just as the Regius II, and as Cornarius translates, « drops of dew, » but the Plantin edition, expressed from the Complutensian, and the Basil, although wrongly translated, « cast of dew. » The Vulgate Lexicons explain *bolous drosou* in Nazianzen as « drops of dew, » as the author of the Greek Thesaurus advises, whose place is in oration 36, which is the second of Theology, p. 557, where he himself brings forward this verse of Job, even if the most learned interpreter seems to have read *bolous*, but translates « *glebas roris* » (clods of dew); finally the Latin Vulgate favors « or didst thou beget drops of dew? » But that certain Arians have abused these words against the Catholic Consubstantialists is evident from the Commentary attributed to Origen on Job, where he orders these things to be recited among the Homousiasts, but that these words « *uteri* » and « *partus* » are correctly understood not as communication and destruction in the Son, but to signify pure and clean generation; and from Severus in the same *Catena*: *Ἑτέρῳς γάρ τις ὐτοῦ πατέρα Θεὸν ἀκούει, καὶ ἑτέρως Υἱόν, καὶ τούτου Μονογενους, ὅπερ διορίζει τὸν μονοτρόπως γεννηθέντα ἐκ Πατρός, καὶ οὐχ αἱ ὁμωνυμίαι πάντως τὴν φύσιν τῶν πραγμάτων συνάπτουσι, καθὼς ὀνομάζονται·* « For hearer of the Father of rain one hears one way, and another of the Son, and of this Only-begotten, which distinguishes him who has been begotten in a unique mode from the Father, and homonyms do not altogether conjoin the nature of things, as they are named. » C
Col. 627 A 12. *Quae rationi.* The interpreter brings forward, « which they think are probable, and call the preaching of the Spirit incredible: » in whose place has been substituted the interpretation of Cornarius, *apeithousi*: and Budaeus, Eph. 5, 6, interprets *ulous tes apeitheias* as « sons of disobedience, or incredulity, » as the Latin Vulgate has, although Beza prefers « *homines contumaces* » (contumacious men), and yet *apeithein* for « *diffidere* » (to distrust), and « *fidem non habere* » (not to have faith), especially in ecclesiastical writings, H. Stephanus acknowledges. But this can be translated with Basil with the same [word] as Beza, « which in this respect are evident, that they show themselves disobedient to the herald of the Holy Spirit. » For the Apostle says of some, Rom. 11, 8: *Kai apeithousi te aletheia*, which the Vulgate [has], « Who do not assent to the truth. » And to the Galatians, 3, 1: *Tis hymas ebaskane aletheia mē peithesthai;* « Who has bewitched you not to obey the truth? » The place of Isaiah 5, 21: *Ouai hoi synetoi*...
A *in themselves, and before themselves, being understanding.* Beza brings these forward in the second person, « Woe to you, who are wise before yourselves. » It should have been said *enōpion hymōn*, « before you, » but the later Roman codex reads *enōpion autōn*, « before them. » Paul, after the current text, adds *en archē tou parontos logou*, « in the beginning of this discourse, » but this is a gloss that has crept into the text from the margin.
Col. 634 B 4. *Quare sicut.* In MS. H. it is written *tou phōtos metadosis*, which way of reading Trapezuntius seems to have followed, as he translated: « Wherefore, just as the unborn is never a participant in unbegottenness, so neither are they participants in light: » and so according to the substance of the Only-Begotten, B equally from the Unbegotten and the Light. But John had written that, *vonēsthai kai onomazesthai*: otherwise it could have been translated, *metadōseōs*: « Therefore, just as he who is begotten is never a participant in unbegottenness, so he never imparts light to them? » That is: « Do you concede that he is never endowed with it? »
Ibid. D 2. *Quibus ipse.* This is the reading of the Basle edition; the interpreter seems to have stumbled upon an apograph that agreed with the Royal codex: *houtos hē panourgia dolōn ton logon perikekalymmenos*: « By which he himself conceals the discourse with malicious and deceitful covering. » He says *dolōn ton logon*, as if he learned it from the Apostle himself, 2 Corinthians 4, 2: *Mē peripatountes en panourgia, mēde dolountes ton logon tou Theou*: « Not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the word of God. » Chrysostom explains this as, « being such as we appear, and having nothing composite, but being also in our very preaching: » « Such as we are, such we appear: not having anything in our life or customs, nor in the very preaching of the divine word, that is covered and disguised. » Finally, it is to be noted that in the Stephanus edition this sentence is mutilated; for it is only, « hiding it away in craftiness of words. »
Col. 638 C 11. *Sed evidentia.* The printer did not admit the emendation in the margin into the text: for thus it is in H., *tē energeia de tōn gnōrismatōn*, « but by the evidence of indicia. » For it is properly *indicia*, so that they may be manifest and clear. This reading is therefore truer than that of the Basle and Stephanus editions, p. 443, taken from Beza, « with the efficacy of notions brought in. » But it seems the printer of MS. Trapezuntius read *energeia*, who wrote, « but by the manifestation of the notion. »
Col. 639 A 6. *Quæ vocibus.* We prefer to use the words of Cornarius rather than those of Trapezuntius, « that the significations of these words differ. » A similar passage is in Nyssen, *Contra Eunomium*, p. 127: *Ouden dia tēs synapheias tōn onomatōn eis tōn sēmainomenōn synchysin epagometha* « By the combination of names we are not led into a confusion of the things signified C at all, and before themselves being understanding. » But what Cornarius adds in the margin, Job 38, 19, seems to allude to Basil at Job 38, 19, in which *per viam ubi lux habitat, et tenebrarum quis locus sit*; for which place it is written in the LXX, « Where is the way where light dwells? » Yet the author specifies, 1 Timothy 6, 16, *Ho monos echōn athanasian, phōs oikōn aprositon*, « Who alone has immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; » and Psalm 103, 2, *anaballomenos phōs hōs himation*, « covering yourself with light as with a garment. » Wherefore I cannot but marvel at the ignorance or certainly the sloth of Beza, who insolently accuses the author of the Latin Vulgate of ignorance, and translates *anaballomenos phōs* as « and to emit light, » whereas it follows, when the words concern *agenēsias* (unbegottenness), D *exōthen heautō perikekalymmenon echein*, « having it wrapped around him externally, » which answers to him, when it is said concerning light, « that it is a garment of God, not that he emits it. »
Col. 642 B. *Priorem repello.* The passage must be emended by the authority of codex H., *tē pros heteron synkrisin*, « the comparison with another: » for it seems it is to be rejected not only regarding the Son, but also regarding anyone else, whence on the following page Basil said: *Ouch hekousion echousa asynkriton*, « not having free will, being comparable to nothing, » and shortly after Eunomius himself again: *Oute tēn pros heteron synkrisin epidechetai*, « nor does it admit of comparison with another. » The same error is in the Stephanus edition, p. 346.
Col. 643 C. *Unigenito.* He said *genēton*, not *gennēton*, as Beza erroneously translates, « and him whom he begat, by the communication of himself he rashly rejects, » and in another error he omitted the word *tou Monogenous*. Trapezuntius must also be emended here; for he had written: « That he cannot even approach the Only-Begotten. » And it is inconsistent indeed in those things said by him, only, etc. *Aplastos est, et aprōsitos*, is what he cannot approach, not he who cannot approach others.
Col. 646 A 11. *Quare his qui.* The passage in the Greek is mutilated, and the Royal MS does not help to heal it, in which I read, *hōs ge toutois antilegein ouk echousin, ē pollois an timēsaimēn.* Trapezuntius edited it, perhaps having found a similar reading, « Wherefore they cannot contradict these, even if they were many. » The Basle and Stephanus editions add *parelkon an ein*, but they move it to its proper place, *ouden echousin*. Beza translates: « Therefore since they have nothing to answer, it would be superfluous to contradict. » Thus it should be read in the Greek, *hōste toutois apokrinasthai ouk echousin, parelkon an eē antilegein.*
Col. 650 A 9. *Dominum priorum.* The two editions, Basle and Stephanus, placed *proelabe* before it to suit their interpretation. Thus Cornarius: « Not indeed that he was preoccupied by the Lord with this blasphemy. » But the manuscript which Trapezuntius used agrees with the Royal: *proelabe tē*...
tē*... A blasphemy. « He also joined the Lord to this blasphemy. » But Eunomius was not the first to call the Lord a creature, but Arius before him; Eunomius was the first, however, to call the Holy Spirit a creature, as Basil here contends, nor had this blasphemy been found in the other books of the heretics. For Trapezuntius had translated poorly a little later, *ἐν τοῖς καταληφθεῖσιν*, « unless we find this appellation in the surviving sermons of theirs. » Concerning the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit which shall not be forgiven, see Matt. xii, 32.
Col. 651 A. *Of Montanus alone*. Trapezuntius had edited: « Montanus alone was mad against the Spirit, and disparaged Him with humble names, and so diminished His nature that he said He brought infamy upon the maker. » Beza also translated this latter part even worse: « So that he is even said to have inflicted infamy upon his maker: » as if Basil meant that Montanus was said to have inflicted infamy upon the Creator. Epiphanius, however, in heresy 48, says that the Phrygians or Montanists, who boasted that they had a certain prophet Montanus, felt similarly about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as the holy Catholic Church feels, *περὶ δὲ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ὁμοίως φρονοῦσι τῇ ἁγίᾳ καθολικῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ*. Of the Arians, some said that the Holy Spirit is not consubstantial with the Father and the Son, but rather is inferior to the Son; but the argument against them was mostly about the Son, whereas the discussion about the Holy Spirit occurred in the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, whose followers were called Pneumatomachi, or « Spirit-fighters. » Philastrius, chap. 21, reports that the Eunomians asserted that the Father indeed made the Son, and the Son, who is a creature, made the Spirit: which Basil refuting here adds, *ἐκεῖνο δὲ τίνι τῶν πάντων ἄδηλον;* « But to whom is that not clear, that no operation of the Son is divided from the Father? » On which passage the interpreter had noted in the margin that the Holy Spirit is here proved to proceed from both. For as the most illustrious Cardinal Bellarmine says, lib. ii, cap. 25, *De Christo*, Basil, in proving that not only is the Son the cause of the Spirit, but also the Father, because the Father has everything that the Son has, teaches at the same time—or rather assumes as a known fact—that the cause of the Spirit, as the Greeks say, is the Son.
Col. 654 B 4. *To preserve the doctrine*. We have emended from B C H: *φυλάσσειν διδασκαλίαν*, and *ἀποσιωπᾷ*, whereas previously it was read as *φυλάσσων* and *σιωπᾷ*. A little later follows a most celebrated passage, diligently examined in three sessions of the Council of Florence, 18, 19, and 20, when the legates of the Latin and Greek Churches were disputing about the procession of the Holy Spirit. And the Royal codex indeed agrees with that which the interpreter used, and with the Basel edition, and it is read: *ἀξιώματι μὲν γὰρ δευτερεύειν τοῦ Υἱοῦ παραδίδωσιν ὁ τῆς εὐσεβείας λόγος*. And John, in the name of the Latin Church, brought forth from a most ancient codex of Basil brought to Constantinople by Nicholas of Cusa—which appeared to have been written six hundred years ago—that testimony from this third book *adversus Eunomium*: *'Αξιώματι γὰρ δευτέρῳ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὸ εἶναι ἔχον, καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ λαμβάνον καὶ ἀναγγέλλον ἡμῖν, καὶ ὅλως τῆς αἰτίας ταύτης ἐξημμένον ὁ τῆς εὐσεβείας παραδίδωσι λόγος· φύσει δὲ χρῆσθαι τρίτῃ, οὔτε παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων διδασκόμεθα, οὔτε ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων δυνάμεθα συλλογίσασθαι κατὰ τὴν ἀκολουθίαν·* « By dignity indeed it is second from the Son, as it has its being from Him, and receives from Him, and announces to us, and entirely depends upon that cause, as the word of piety teaches; but that it is third in nature, we are neither taught by the saints, nor can we infer from the things said according to logical consequence. » But to what end the passage was brought forth, John himself explains, especially in session 19, p. 449 of the Roman edition: « I wish to prove by necessary demonstration that when we say 'something from something,' it is understood from the person; and I demonstrate this by the dictum of Basil, when he says that the Spirit has its being from the Son, and depends upon Him as from a cause. If therefore 'to receive' is 'to have being,' the Holy Spirit has being, and receives from the Son, and depends on Him as on a cause: therefore it follows that if the Holy Spirit receives from the Son, He also proceeds from Him. » Marcus of Ephesus, who was debating for the Greeks, opposed this, saying that that addition seemed to have been inserted by the Latins: but John replied that the book was so ancient that it cast no suspicion of corruption, as it appeared to have been written many years before this schism and dissension of the Churches arose, nor could any erasure or depravation or addition by a later hand be detected in it. The most illustrious Cardinal Bellarmine adds, lib. ii *De Christo*, c. 25, that that addition should be in the text of the codices of the Latins or certainly their sense: « For Basil says that the Spirit is second from the Son in order and dignity, but not in nature; and he proves it, because just as the Son is second from the Father, because He has being from Him, so also the Spirit is second from the Son: where, if what is in our codices is not added or understood—namely, that the Spirit has being from the Son, just as the Son has being from the Father—the argument of Basil will conclude nothing, nor will it be possible in any way to prove that the Holy Spirit is second from the Son, as the Son is second from the Father. »
Col. 655 A 3. *Sermo perhaps*. In order that the interpretation might agree with the Greek text of the Basel edition, « perhaps » was added, and below: « that we may concede that; » but we admonish the reader, however, that both were absent from the interpretation of Trapezuntius, and therefore, as is likely, from the manuscript codex which he used, since he translated these books before the first Basel edition; then also that *ἴσως* was absent from the Royal codex, although the other, *ἵνα καὶ ὅλως συγχωρήσωμεν*, is not absent; finally, in it was read not *εἰ καὶ ὑποβέβηκε*, but *εἰ καὶ ἀποβεβηκός*, and not *καὶ τὸ ἀκόλουθον ἐκεῖθεν*, but *φύσεως ἀκολουθίᾳ ἐκεῖθεν*. It is to be observed, moreover, that in the Council of Florence this passage is cited from the books of the Greeks on p. 473 in such a way that not *πρόοδος*, but *πρόσοδος καὶ προσαγωγή* is read, that is, « access » or « approach »
A. Item, after *συγχωρήσωμεν*, [the reading] *non οὐκέτ’ ἂν εἰκότως ὡς ἀλλοτρίως ὑπάρχον φύσεως*, but rather *οὐχ ὅμως ἕπεται καὶ ἀλλοτρίας εἶναι φύσεως* « it does not, however, follow that it is of an alien nature. » Having noted this variety of readings, we may justly conclude that John Provincialis, at the Council of Florence, rightly thought that this particle *ἴσως* « perhaps, » which is added in the Greek books, and likewise the phrase *ἵνα καὶ ὅλως συγχωρήσωμεν*, bring a great reproach upon Basil. For Basil wishes in this chapter to refute the consequence which Eunomius employed in this way: Even if he is third in dignity, it does not follow from this that the Holy Spirit is also third in nature. If, therefore, he were to say, « perhaps the discourse on piety yields [this], » it would seem strange for him to doubt about the very thing which he ought to assert in order to refute Eunomius: for we ought to demonstrate less known things through better known ones. He also adds that the same author in his homily *On the Holy Spirit* asserts: *Φανερῶς καὶ ἀποκεκαλυμμένως τὸ Πνεῦμα λαμβάνει παρὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ χωρίς τινος ἀμφιβολίας* « Manifestly and openly the Spirit receives from the Son without any doubt. » Then, from other places of our author taken from this work against Eunomius, he proves this dogma of faith, which we shall point out as they occur.
B Col. 658 A. *Castrametab.* Trapezuntius had written *Castrametatur*, as Jerome rendered it in the present tense from the Hebrew, *The angel of the Lord encamps in a circle around those who fear him*, as if it were in Greek *παρεμβάλλει*; but the first Venetian edition of all, and the later Basilian edition of Basil, have, as the LXX, Ps. xxxiii, 8, *παρεμβαλεῖ Κύριος*, « the Lord will encamp, » whereas Beza wrongly [translated it], *Castra metatus est* [« has encamped »].
Ibid. A 10. *Angelorum*. Among the LXX we read, *κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων Θεοῦ*, « according to the number of the angels of God, » and so Novatian, book *On the Trinity*, and Rufinus, book *On the Symbol*, and Jerome, book II on Micah; Origen also, homily 28 on Numbers, « Of the sons of God, or, as we read in other copies, of the sons of Israel: » for which reason some suspect that in certain copies of the LXX translators it was so written, as in the Latin Vulgate from the Hebrew, *of the sons of Israel*, unless perhaps by the name of other copies Origen understood those Bibles which contained the common Greek edition mixed with other translators, since it is certain that Aquila and Symmachus edited in Greek *ἀριθμὸν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ*. Beza was not sufficiently attentive here, and did not see that it was written *κατὰ ἀριθμόν*, not *καὶ ἀριθμόν*, for he translated *et numerum angelorum* [« and the number of the angels »]. He could, however, if he had been more attentive, have also noticed that the dogma is confirmed here, which, under the pressure of truth, he confessed when writing in ch. xviii Matth. 10, that angels are peculiarly appointed as guardians to men by God against Satan and unclean spirits, as is manifest from many testimonies, especially of the Old Testament: although Calvin mocks this as a profane and false invention, writing on Acts xv and on Psalm xc, and calls it into doubt in book I of his *Institutes*.
D Confirms this same [point] Severus, [in the] Greek Catena on the Canticle of Scripture: *Πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι διαμερισθεῖσιν ἰσαρίθμους ἀγγέλους ἐπέστησεν, ἐκάστῳ πρὸς φυλακὴν ἀφορίσας ἕνα τινά. Καὶ γὰρ εἶναι αὐτοὺς πνεύματα λειτουργικὰ εἰς διακονίαν ἀποστελλόμενα διὰ τοὺς μέλλοντας κληρονομίαν σωτηρίας, πάλιν παρὰ τῶν θεοπνεύστων Γραμμάτων ἀκούομεν· ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐκάστῳ δεδόσθαι πρὸς φυλακὴν ἄγγελον ἡ τῶν Εὐαγγελίων μαρτυρεῖ φωνή*: « To all the nations that were divided, He set angels equal in number, appointing one for each for protection. For that they are ministering spirits sent forth for service for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation, we hear again from the divinely inspired Scriptures; since the voice of the Gospels also testifies that an angel has been given to each for protection. »
Ibid. 42. *Restitit mihi*. It should have been *stetit ex adverso mihi* [« stood against me »], and a little later, *καὶ αὐτὸν κατέλιπον*, « and I left him behind, » with the prince of the king (or of the realm, as is read in other books, *βασιλείας*) of the Persians. Trapezuntius usurped the words of the Latin Vulgate, which was not necessary, since the text of the prophets ought to have been translated from the Greek according to the LXX, or rather the text of the Itala version from St. Jerome’s commentary should have been consulted, which Flaminius Nobilius did when he was preparing the Roman edition. In the Regius, however, there was only *μετὰ τοῦ ἄρχοντος Περσῶν*, and in the Vulgate *juxta regem Persarum*.
Col. 659 B. *Ex attentione*. We have changed those [words] of the interpreter, « which are for obeying, and diligently, which have been committed, to be cared for, are sanctified. » For *Προσοχή* signifies one thing, *ὑπακοή* another; but Beza, who said that to amend Trapezuntius’ version was a useless labor, strayed far from the mind of the author, writing: « Spiritus ex eo quod Deo astant, et ex functionis suæ ratione præditos merito non dixeris natura sanctos esse » [« Spirits, from the fact that they stand by God and by reason of their function, one would not justly call naturally holy »]. People, indeed, [the] heralds of a new religion, who deny that we can merit an increase of grace and sanctification, do not grasp the opinion of the Fathers, when they concede that creatures are sanctified by study and by acquired attention to holiness, of which sort is that [statement] of this author of ours, quest. 53 in *Regularibus brevioribus*: *‘Αγιασμὸς δέ ἐστι τὸ ἀνακεῖσθαι τῷ ἁγίῳ Θεῷ ἐξ ὁλοκλήρου καὶ ἀδιαστάτως ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ διὰ φροντίδος καὶ σπουδῆς τῶν αὐτῷ ἀρεσκόντων* [« Sanctification is being dedicated to the holy God entirely and unceasingly at every moment through the care and zeal of those pleasing to Him »]. Therefore on the following page he also says that *ἁγιασμόν* is *ἄθλον προκοπῆς καὶ εὐαρεστήσεως* [« a reward of progress and of pleasing »], which the interpreter had translated, « it is so ordered that it has the reward of virtue and divine love in sanctification. »
Ibid. C. *Quibus autem*. Translate more clearly, « But to those in whom there is an adventitious and extrinsically contributed goodness, these are of a mutable nature. For neither would Lucifer have fallen, who was rising in the morning, nor [would there be] in the earth, » etc. Isa. xiv, 12.
Ibid. D 5. *Quo pacto tertiæ*. This has been corrected by us from the Regius H. in the Greek text, whereas in the Basilian edition it was read *πῶς τρίτον;* and in the Stephanian
edition, and indeed even by Beza, it was translated even worse: "How is it the third?" He thought it should be corrected to *πῶς τρίτον;* which the Venetian edition also presents, but it should have been translated, "In what way is he the third?"—namely, the Holy Spirit. He displayed considerable carelessness, which, however, was not noticed by the patron of Herodotus, while he was interpreting the following passage of Jeremiah, "Christ the Lord, under whose shadow of wings we live": for he both omitted that *οὗ εἴπαμεν*, and inverted the order of the words, thus saying instead of "under the shadow of [his] wings." Certain people explain the passage in Jeremiah, Lam. iv, 20: *οὗ εἴπαμεν, Ἐν τῇ σκιᾷ τῶν πτερύγων αὐτοῦ ζησόμεθα*, in Latin thus: "To whom we said, Under the shadow of his wings we shall live." But it ought rather to have been written as it is in the Vulgate, "To whom we said, In your shadow we shall live." In the Roman edition it is more correctly, "Of whom we said, In his shadow we shall live." But there is a Hebraism in the words of the LXX, in which the pronoun *his* is redundant, as in Psalm cxliii, 15: "Blessed is the people, whose Lord is his God." Therefore, in Latin locution, the Hebraism being removed, it should be said, "Whose we said we would live under the shadow of his wings." Thus Ambrose, on Psalm cxviii, says: "Under whose shadow, we said, we shall live." But the word *wings* is absent from the text of Jeremiah, having been taken up by the author, perhaps because that passage of Psalm lvi, 2, was observed in his mind: *Καὶ ἐν τῇ σκιᾷ τῶν πτερύγων σου ἐλπιῶ*, "And in the shadow of your wings I will hope"; that is, in the covering, under the protection, as in Psalm xvi, 8: *Ἐν σκέπῃ τῶν πτερύγων σκεπάσεις με*, "In the covering of your wings you shall protect me." The Vulgate says, "Under the shadow of your wings." And in Isaiah xlix, 2, "Under the shadow of his hand he protected me": *Ὑπὸ τὴν σκέπην τῆς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ*, "Under the protection of his hand." Moreover, the Fathers generally understand this passage of Christ the Savior, such as Irenaeus, lib. iii *adversus Hæreses*, cap. 11; Tertullian, iii *in Marcion.*, cap. 6; Eusebius Caesar., *De demonstr. Evangel.* iv, cap. 24; Gregory Nyss., *Contra Judæos*, and Ambrose, vii *in Lucam*, cap. 16.
C Col. 663 B 10. *These things says the Spirit*. The passage in the Acts of the Apostles, cap. xxi, 11, should have been noted, lest by any chance someone who happens upon the version of Beza might err by following a blind leader; whose subtlety here served no purpose. For since he did not remember having read in the Acts that Agabus had uttered these words in prophesying, "These things says the Holy Spirit: The man whose this girdle is, etc.," to which place without doubt these words of Basil refer, thinking the place was mutilated, he attempted to restore it thus: "Therefore the prophets cry out in the Old Testament, 'These things says the Lord'; but in the New, the apostles say: 'These things says the Holy Spirit.'" Cornarius had also indicated in the margin of Acts xxi, thinking that what the apostles said in the council of Jerusalem was being cited, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us": but this suffices for proving the divinity of the Spirit, that he indeed distributes the gift of prophecy, as the prophets indicate when they speak from his person. See book v, *of those things said by the apostles*.
Ibid. C 2. *If anything with God*. D *The Spirit*, since it is neither alien from him, nor a stranger, can search the deep things of his judgments (1 Cor. ii, 10).
Col. 666 A 44. *As the first*. The interpreter had edited it as "as the first and greater than all and the only such creature of the Only-begotten"; Cornarius is no better, and says "greater than all and the only such creature." But Eunomius did not want the Spirit to be considered greater than the Father and Son: therefore, not greater than all, but the greatest work of all, or the greatest creature of all. In the words of Basil which follow, the word *οἰκεῖν* (to dwell) was missing, which we supplied from the Regius codex: "nor does he seem to believe that the Godhead dwells in us," for which reason he later cites from the Apostle, "The Spirit of God dwells in you" (1 Cor. iii, 16).
Col. 667 A 13. *Of mountains and the inexpleble*. But Basil attributes this epithet to the earth, not to the sea, which Plutarch also uses as a poetic term: but *ἄπλετον* does not always signify *ἄπληστον* and *ἀχόρταστον*, "inexpleble" (insatiable), but rather others derive it as if from *πελάζω* and accept it as *ἀπρόσιτον*, "inaccessible," as Hesychius does, and *ἀπροσπέλαστον*, "inaccessible"; but *ἄπειρον*, "immense in magnitude," is simpler: write therefore, "of the immense earth and the infinite sea." Moreover, in the words of Eunomius proposed, the interpreter seems to have read more than is in the printed Venetian and Basilian books, namely, *ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἀγέννητός ἐστιν*, "but he is not unbegotten," which the most learned Montacutius observed and noted in the margin, but it was also absent from the Regius manuscript. A little later we amended from the H. and Steph. editions *προσπελάζοντος*, with *προσπλεονάζοντος* having been expunged in the Basilian, and *προσπλεονάζοντες* in the Venetian: "with that which can be seen having been approached."
Ibid. B 10. *Why therefore*. After the word "it is necessary," a mark of interrogation must be placed, as in the Greek: we have also changed that phrase in the interpreter to "provided through the Son." In the H. manuscript, for *ζωοποιόν*, it was written *ζωοποτόν*, "vivific." Ibid. we wrote "we believe it to refer to," where it read, "we believe it to be made," which Trapezuntius had perhaps written with his pen as "to be carried." Thus on the following page, *πρὸς τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν τοῦ Κυρίου φέρουσα*. Trapezuntius: "concerning the humanity of the Lord." Cornarius said, "tending toward the incarnation of the Lord." St. Ambrose, retracing the footsteps of Basil, thus explains the passage in Amos, iv, 13, in book ii, cap. 7, *De Spiritu sancto*: "Does not the series of things said clearly testify that the prophet spoke concerning the creature of this world?" He drew this from Didymus, book i *De Spiritu sancto*, to which add these from the commentary of Cyril of Alexandria on Amos: *Πνεῦμά φησιν οὐχὶ τὸ θεῖον καὶ ἅγιον (κἂν εἰ μαίνοιντό τινες τῶν τὰ ὀρθὰ διαστρέφειν μεμελετηκότων), ἀλλὰ τουτὶ τὸ ἀέριόν τε καὶ ἐγκόσμιον*, "He calls the 'Spirit' not the divine and holy one (even if some who have practiced distorting right things should rave), but this airy and worldly one"; and Theodoret, in Comment.: "What is thin in the air and hollow into the terrifying..."
A changes the sound of the thunder, by agitating and swirling it through the winds created by Him. "Who transforms rare and soft air into the sound of a terrible thunderclap, and moves and stirs it with winds created by Himself." This is what the interpreter seems to have read, not *touton*, which relates to the air, not to the thunder.
Col. 670 C 5. "Contemptum esse." Cornarius expressed *athēsin* more aptly as "reprobation of substance," and Th. Beza as "that his hypostasis is abolished." You may also translate it as "that there is an abrogation of subsistence," that is, that his subsistence is rejected or reprobated because it is denied that he is a creature. Finally, regarding the words that follow, *axiōthōmen*, we have sometimes thought that the interpreter added them himself, and that they were absent from the Venetian and Basilean editions, seeming more like the concluding clause of some popular homily than a work of refutation, but they are found in the Royal manuscript H.
Col. 671 in title. *Antirrhētika*. This title was prefixed in the Royal manuscript H to this fourth book, and with the words "in which" omitted, it followed: "Aporiai kai lyseis [Refutation, or questions and solutions from divinely inspired Scriptures, regarding those things which are objected concerning the Son in the New and Old Testament]." However, this fourth and fifth book was absent from the Venetian edition, but the Royal manuscript acknowledges both.
Col. 672 A 4. *Legetai oun*. The conjunction *oun* was absent from the manuscript, which agrees with the version the interpreter seems to have used; and from which we corrected *pseudos* to *pseudōs*. And thus the version can be adapted to this punctuation: "But if the Son is not God by nature, as those who are falsely called gods, he is spoken of as, and is not, God."
Ibid. 11. *Quod adoptione*. We preferred to set this forth thus, with two other translators, rather than by position. The Apostle Paul calls it *huiothesia*, as in Ephesians 1:3: *Proorisas hēmas eis huiothesian*. "Having predestined us to the adoption of sons."
Col. 674 A. *Vere imposita*. *Ta alēthōs onomata*. Rather, what are truly names are the marks of the essence of those things of which they are the names. Beza omitted the word *ousias*. In Cornarius, it is incorrectly edited as "what are truly names."
Ibid. 6. *Sed quia incomparabilis*. Here, too, there is a common slip with Cornarius, if I am not mistaken, and Trapezuntius, because he translated *to asynkriton* not as "incomparable" (neuter) but as "incomparabilis" (masculine), by referring it to the Father. But Beza's error is his own, in that he translated *to monogenes* as "unigenitus." Therefore, so that the reader may guard against both slips, he should write thus: "If being unigenitus is not of generation, but because of the fact that it is incomparable, the Father is also *unigenitus*; for he is incomparable."
Ibid. 9. *Et Yios*. We have corrected the corrupt reading of the Basilean edition, *ho Yios ouch haplōs*, and that of the manuscript, *eis Yios*, following Stephen's edition. Again, in the same article, for *ho Yios kai monogenēs esti*, we have written from the manuscript: *kai Yios kai monogenēs*, as the interpretation of Trapezuntius and Beza itself requires.
Ibid. B 2. *Deus enim nec cum ullo*. We have changed what Trapezuntius had written: "for God is incomparable to all things and through all things."
Ibid. B 14. *Quod in forma Dei*. Another interpretation from Stephen is clearer: "That, 'in the form of God,' is in the essence of God: for the form of God is not one thing, and His essence another." For he refers to the passage of Paul, Philippians 2:6: *Hos en morphē Theou hyparchōn ouch harpagmon*. From the same mind is that of St. Athanasius, explaining this verse of the Apostle, lib. IV contra Arianos, p. 255: *Ouk ek merous de hē tēs theotētos morphē, all' to plērōma tēs tou Patros theotētos esti to einai tou Yiou, kai holos Theos estin ho Yios*. "But the form of the deity is not fashioned from any part, but the fullness of the Father's deity rises up as the essence of the Son, and the Son is whole God." Thus is the version of that passage to be restored; and in *Orat. contra Sabellianos*, p. 509: *All' ho ek tou Theou Theos isa hexei tō gegennēkoti kata tēn physin, hōs kai Paulos martyrei, ta pro tēs enanthrōpēseōs exēgoumenos*. "But God from God will have things equal to the Begetter according to nature, as Paul also witnesses, interpreting the things that preceded the incarnation." And so, if he is God from God, it cannot be but that by reason of nature he has things equal with his begetter, as Paul also testifies, who makes an explanation concerning the things that preceded the incarnation.
Col. 675 A 7. *Quorum eadem*. The Greek text of all editions is to be amended from manuscript H, so that it agrees with the interpretation of Trapezuntius: *energeia de Patros kai Yiou mia*. Whence also in the passage of John 5:19, the name of the Father precedes, and that of the Son follows. Beza, although in the Greek text of Stephen it was read no otherwise than in the Basilean, wrote, nevertheless: "Whose acting is the same, the essence also is the same. But the acting of the Father and of the Son is one." And yet he said *energeias*, not *energeian*.
Ibid. C 10. *Pros to kai adynamēin*. The same translated, "Since to this also imbecility is inherent in him." That is, if he cannot beget, and is of a worse condition than the begetter, "and furthermore imbecile." In the member that follows, for *mē pote* it is read in manuscript H, *mē pō egennēse*. How this is, and that Trapezuntius also supposedly read this, his version shows: "even if he has not yet begotten"; Beza: "even if he never begat": from Stephen and Basil, *mē pote*.
Ibid. C 13. *Et postea sine*. Trapezuntius had written, "or when he once willed, he is unwilling afterward." Cornarius: "or when he has once willed, afterward he does not will." *Aboulētos* does not always carry a passive meaning, as Suidas teaches: *Aboulēton kakon, atheleton, ho ou thelei tis, kai aboulētos, ho mē boulomenos*. "'Involuntary' is termed an evil which one does not will, and *aboulētos*, he who does not will": an example of which may be supplied from this passage of Basil.
Col. 678 A 12. *Cum nos asseramus*. The sentiment of the author was previously more obscure: "When we assert that the Father is always, it is necessary that the Son also be always. Therefore they say, since." But in place of the Greek words *dēmiourgos* and *dēmiour-
-Agia*, if substituted from Cornarius’s interpretation, these two, "maker and workmanship," would be better expressed than "creator and creature" or "creation," as with Beza or Trapezuntios, the discourse will be clearer, because it would square better with the examples of the builder and the shipwright: for they are not said to create the house or the ship; yet the maker and builder of the world is God, even for Cicero, in *De natura deorum*.
Col. 678 B. *Omnipotent.* This is more customary than "All-holding," in Trapezuntios: for thus the author of the Itala interpretation renders the Greek word *pantokratōr*, from which learned men think those books of Holy Scripture remain for us, which he did not translate from the Hebrew *rhoia tēs tou Pantokratoros doxēs*: "And an emanation is a certain brightness of the omnipotent God." Add that the Greek Septuagint used that word to express the Hebrew *Schaddai*, which among the Hebrews sounds as one of the ten names of God, being most rich, and of Him whose goodness permeates through all creatures; therefore in Job vi, 3, it is translated *‘O panta poiēsas*; "Who made all things"; the Vulgate renders it "Omnipotent." The same, cap. xxii, 25: *Εσται οὖν σου ὁ Παντοκράτωρ βοηθός·* "The Omnipotent shall be your helper." But *Sabaōth* is usually joined with the words *Kyrios* or *Theos*, so that it is called *Kyrios Sabaōth*, "Lord of hosts," or "God of hosts," 1 Kings i, 3: *Καὶ θύειν τῷ Θεῷ Σαβαώθ* "And to sacrifice to the God of hosts." Isaiah i, 9: *Εἰ μὴ Κύριος Σαβαὼθ ἐγκατέλιπε·* "Unless the Lord of hosts had left."
Ibid. B 11. *They ask again.* Here also, I think, we substitute a clearer version by casting out those words, "whether the Son was born when He is, or when He is not," and in those things which follow, other things are corrected: but those things also had to be expressed in capital letters: "Sometime" and "In time," and "When it was": that is, "They do not dare to say, 'Whether sometime,'" or "Whether He was born or begotten in time."
Ibid. C. 12. *And who when.* We have distinguished these two places previously confused into one: for the one is of the Hebrews, i, 3, *Who being the brightness:* the other is Philippians, ii, 6, *ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων*, which Beza erroneously rendered, "Who when He is in the form of God": for even in his own text of the Epistle to the Philippians and in his Notes he rendered it in Latin, "Who when He was in the form of God."
Col. 679 A 3. *For man [is not] by another.* The interpreter had edited these things very obscurely: "for man is not said to be more than man: but good is more than good, and just than just." This, indeed, is what the philosophers say, "Substance does not admit of more or less, but quality does," whence Aristotle in the *Categories*: *Οὐκ ἂν ἐπιδέχοιτο ἡ οὐσία τὸ μᾶλλον καὶ τὸ ἧττον.* Lastly, c. ix, from the manuscript and Stephanus, we have written *arxamenon* for *archomenon*, "what has begun to exist, not to cease."
Ibid. C 13. *By Him.* This sentence was truncated when it was read previously, "since it is ordered by Him: he serves compelled and unwilling," but also that *eige kai*. B Col. 682 C 4. *And all things from the opposite.* The interpreter had written, "and whenever they are divided from the opposite among themselves, even unbegottenness is contrary to begottenness. Wherefore if the mode of subsistence is not unbegottenness, but substance, the Father will be contrary to the Son according to substance." Furthermore, in the margin of that passage, "The name Lord for you," Cornarius had noted, Psalm lxxxii, in verse 19 of which we read: *Καὶ γνώτωσαν, ὅτι ὄνομά σοι Κύριος·* "And let them know that the name for you is Lord," where in Hebrew is the *tetragrammaton*. But that Basil demonstrates in this chapter that *to agennēton*, the ingenerate or unbegottenness, does not signify substance or essence, but the mode of essence, or the mode of existing as a person, other Fathers also admit, whom our Gabriel Vasques brings forward, *Disputation* 137 on Part I of St. Thomas, such as Cyril, Book I of the *Thesaurus*, cap. 4, whose title is here: *Ἀπολογία αὐτολεξεί, ὅτι μὴ τὸ ἀγέννητον οὐσία, μόνον δὲ τοῦ μὴ γεγονέναι τὸν Θεὸν σημαντικόν*, "That the ingenerate is not substance, but only signifies that God is not begotten"; and cap. 3 of the same book: *Οὐκ ἄρα τὸ ἀγέννητον οὐσίας, ἀλλὰ τοῦ μὴ τοιῶσδε εἶναι τὴν οὐσίαν σημαντικόν* "The ingenerate, therefore, is not substance, but signifies that the substance is not in such a way"; and Gregory Nyssen, Book XII against Eunomius, p. 304: *Εἰ τὸ ἀγέννητον ὄνομά φασι τὴν οὐσίαν σημαίνειν, καὶ μὴ τὸ ἄνευ αἰτίας τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχειν, ποίῳ ὀνόματι τὸ ἄνευ αἰτίας εἶναι τὸν Πατέρα συστήσουσιν;* "If they say this name 'ingenerate' signifies substance, and not that He has His subsistence without a cause, by what name will they constitute the Father to be without a cause?"
Col. 683 B 5. *But substance itself.* The printer wrote *autousia*, the corrector perhaps doubting whether Basil had rather edited *autousia*, as it was read also in the Stephanus edition, and Beza translated: "If the ingenerate is not a name of essence, but the very essence itself": the Basle [manuscript] and the Regius H. have *all' auto ousia*, "but it is substance itself": and so also Trapezuntios. It followed in the same interpreter, "since both the Son is substance, and He is ingenerate substance, and every substance is ingenerate"; but since in the Basle, the Stephanus, and ms. H. it is D written, *agennētos kai ho Huios*, we have deservedly changed it, "the Son also will be ingenerate."
Col. 687 C 3. *If indeed any.* In the Regius ms. we find written *dektikon kai anthrōpos touto· idion de anthrōpou*, wherefore the particle *kai* is added in the first place, though it was absent from the Basle [manuscript]: but from the Stephanus it is rather to be restored in the Greek text thus: *Εἴ τι γὰρ ζῶον λογικόν, θνητόν, νοῦ καὶ ἐπιστήμης δεκτικόν, ἄνθρωπος τοῦτο, καὶ τοῦτο ἄνθρωπος·* "For if any living thing is rational, mortal, capable of intellect and knowledge, this is man, and this is man." Porphyry, cap. 3 of the *Isagoge*, with this definition of man
A When he is called "capable of reason," he teaches us to distinguish him from brute animals; when he is called "mortal," he teaches us to distinguish him from the angels.
Col. 689 A 12. *Ην ἄρα ταπ.* Cornarius expressed this faulty reading thus: "It was therefore too lowly for it to be fitting for the Father to create those things which were made by the Son"—but it must be corrected from the Royal Ms. H., *οὐκ ἄρα οὖν ταπεινότερον*, or from Stephens, p. 399, *οὐκ ἄρα ταπεινότ.*: "Nothing is therefore more lowly, than that it should be fitting for the Father to create things that are made by the Son." As for what follows, *οὐ γὰρ ἦν ποτε ἄσοφος*, we have translated it thus: ("for he was not, when he was unwise.")
Col. 691 A 5. *Quare videtur.* The interpreter published: "Wherefore it seems that he spoke those words concerning the similarity and identity of them in all things and [their] similar substance, not concerning a creature." What *ἀπαράλλακτος οὐσία* may be, and how it is expressed in Latin by the Fathers, the most learned Bilius teaches in his scholia on Gregory Nazianzen, who also in the same, p. 682, translates Orat. 42, *ἡ ἀπαράλλακτος εἰκὼν, ὁ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὅρος καὶ λόγος*, "The image in all things similar, the Father's term and reason." Therefore, you may interpret that passage of Athanasius, Disputatio 2 against the Arians, p. 155, *καὶ ἀπαράλλακτον ἔσχεν εἰκόνα*, in this way: "and he had an image similar to himself in all things," as he said in the same book, p. 151, *καὶ ὅμοιός ἐστι κατὰ πάντα τοῦ Πατρός*, "and he is similar to the Father in all things." Nor do those who translate "not dissimilar" or "incommutable" sufficiently express the force of the term; those who add "identity" here overstep the mark. B
Ibid. B 7. *Si imago.* It must be corrected in the Greek from Ms. H., *ὁτιοῦν*, but Trapezuntius's codex had a different punctuation, with which even Stephens's edition concurs: *εἰ εἰκὼν πάντως ὁμοία καθοτιοῦν, καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς ἐστιν εἰκών*, "If in any way there is a thoroughly similar image, then the Son is the image." We have amended it from the same [Ms.] and from the Ms. to say *κατ' οὐδὲν ὁμοία, καὶ κατὰ πάντα ἀνόμοιος*—but in the following chapter, Stephens and the Basle edition were faulty in their use of *βλέπων* and *ἀκούων* instead of *βλέπον* and *ἀκοῦον*, as the H. Ms. suggests, which again wrongly had *βλέπει* instead of *βλέπει*, whence Trapezuntius [translated]: "as the body will see, and as the body will hear, (as it will perceive/act), it will operate."
Col. 694 C 8. *Se diabolum.* We have expunged the obscure version, "they hide those who worship the devil and not the Son of God." That some have understood this place in Job xl, 14, as referring to the prince of demons is evident from Olympiodorus in the *Catena* of Nicetas: *Οἱ μὲν φασιν, ὅτι πρῶτον τοῦτον ἔκτισεν ὁ Θεός· οἱ δὲ φεύγοντες εἰπεῖν, ὅτι πρῶτον ποίημα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν τροπὴν ὑπέμεινε, φασὶν, ὅτι οὐ πρῶτος μὴ γέγονε, τὴν πρώτην δὲ ἀρχὴν παρὰ ἀγγέλοις εἶχεν, εἷς τῶν πρώτων ἀρχόντων τυγχάνων, κατὰ τὸ, Καὶ ὡς εἰς τῶν ἀρχόντων πίπτετε*—"Some assert that he was the first created by God; others, however, shrinking from saying that the first creation of God underwent a fall, say that he was not the first [to be created], but held the first rank among the angels, being one of the first archons, according to [the text]: 'And as one of the archons you fall.'" C Others say that he was the first created by God; others, however, while they refrain from saying that the first creature established by God underwent a mutation, deny that that first origin was passed over; they concede, however, that the principate of the angels was granted to him, that he might be one and the first of the princes, from whom even this does not dissent: "And as one of the princes you fall" (Ps. lxxxi). Jerome hands down the same in *Against Jovinian* concerning Lucifer and his fall. St. Augustine, lib. iii *De Genesi ad litteram*, cap. 10, mentions some who felt this way, nor does he note or criticize them. Gregory the Great, *Homil. 34 De centum ovibus*, whom St. Thomas follows (I p., q. 63, art. 7), nevertheless does not wish to condemn the other opinion, which is that of Damascene, lib. ii *De fide orthodoxa*, cap. 4, that the angels who fell were from the lower orders, to be sure. Most certainly, other people prefer to understand that passage of Job in the historical sense, concerning some terrestrial animal or a serpent living in wet places, and that nothing concerning the prince of the demons who fell can be gathered for certain from Scripture, as our Gabriel Vasquez proves at greater length in his [commentary on] that 63rd question of St. Thomas.
Col. 695 C 8. *Cum sperassent.* It is one thing to do penance, another to repent or change one's life; for which reason we deleted that [adding by] Trapezuntius: "when they hoped that they could be saved by repentance."
Col. 699 B 8. *Et creatrix.* Ms. H., *καὶ ἡ ἄκτιστος θεότης*, "and the increate divinity"; but Stephens and Beza [have] *κτίστης*, "and the creatrix deitas," although perhaps Trapezuntius read *κτίστις θεότης*. Shortly after, from the same edition of Stephens, it is corrected to *ἐπὶ τὸ πιστεύειν*: "when indeed believing in him, or together with him, or before him, might be found." Beza wrongly translates *πρὸ* as "after" and has omitted *ἡμᾶς*.
Col. 702 A 15. *Ipsam petebat.* These things had been translated into Latin in a truncated manner by the interpreter, as if those words were missing, *αὐτὴν ᾔτει. Οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἃ εἶχε λαβεῖν ἐπήτει*, which all editions and Mss. exhibit. Again, at the end of this chapter, he had omitted the word *οἰκονομίας*. Concerning Photinus, Epiphanius in *Hæresi 74*, who asserts that he was condemned in the Council of Sardica, which is about the year of Christ 347: *Φάσκει ἀπαρχῆς τὸν Χριστὸν μὴ εἶναι, ἀπὸ δὲ Μαρίας, καὶ δεῦρο αὐτὸν ὑπάρχειν, ἐξότε, φησί, τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐπῆλθεν ἐπ᾿ αὐτὴν, καὶ ἐγεννήθη ἐκ Πνεύματος ἁγίου*—"He asserts that Christ was not from the beginning, but that he exists from Mary and henceforward, since, he says, the Holy Spirit came upon her and he was born of the Holy Spirit." D
Col. 703 A 13. *Creavi.* Thus Cornarius and Beza, more correctly than Trapezuntius, "I possessed man," as it is in the Vulgate from the Hebrew, as if he had read *ἐκτησάμην*, just as the LXX also published, Genesis xli. The Regin. H. has *ἐκτισάμην*, and it is certain that it was his intention to have Basil edited [this way], because he thought it was written thus by the LXX. For *ἐκτησάμην*, from the present *κτάομαι*, means "I possess," not "I create": nor is *κτίζομαι* in use among profane Greek authors so as to mean "I create" or "I build." Scripture also uses the verb *κτίζειν* in the active voice only, as in Wisd. ii, 23: God created man
in incorruption, and Eccl. xviii, 1: He who lives in eternity created all things together. Nevertheless, room for suspicion is left, as in some manuscripts of Genesis it is written that Basil offended by using *ἐκτίσατο*, whereas we read the same in his brother Gregory of Nyssa, lib. II contra Eunomium, p. 34 of the Morell edition, where the passage from Proverbs viii, 22 is also explained: "For he was truly created at the end of the days, He who for us and for our sakes became in these last days, he who on our account was born in time."
Col. 706 A 8. For it is by itself. We write *αὐτοσοφία* from the manuscript, since, as before, it cannot be *αὐτοζωή*. And in the vulgar lexicon it is noted that God is often called *αὐτοζωή* by Dionysius, because he lives by himself and is the source of life for others, and by Nazianzen the Holy Spirit is called *αὐτοφῶς*, since he is light itself and is illuminated by nothing. As in orat. 37, pag. 610: "illuminating, life-giving, or rather *αὐτοφῶς* and life," which brings light and life, nay, is light and life itself. And in Justin in *Quaestiones ad Graecos*, God is called *αὐτοπάρακτος* and *αὐτογέννητος*, i.e., "self-produced" and "self-begotten." In the Basilian, however, and in Steph. it was: *ἡ γὰρ αὐτοῦ σοφία οὐκ ἐγένετο*. Trapezuntius: "For his wisdom was not made:" both readings can stand.
Ibid. C 3. On the contrary. The Royal Codex H. also presents it falsely written, and thus Trapezuntius expressed it in a similar text: "Who is true, is spoken to those, they are distinguished as false on the contrary." But in the edition of Stephanus, *πρὸς τοὺς ψευδεῖς ἀντιδιαστελλόμενος* is said. Beza [rendered it] too concisely: "The true is opposed to the false."
Col. 707 A 7. If only. We have added these two lines, which Trapezuntius had omitted; for he had only edited, "If God is above all," etc. And on the same page, chap. 12, we have published that title in Greek also, which the Basilian and Stephanus lacked: "In that, It is not my word to you (Matt. xx, 23)," which the Royal codex represented; and it is sufficiently certain that this exposition of Scripture exhibits this passage.
Col. 710 A 9. Therefore of them. The interpreter had written: "Therefore of them [it is fitting] to sit at the right or at the left;" which words, since they openly favor the catholic dogma of the liberty of human choice and the merits of good works, were suppressed by Theodore Beza—an act of plagiarism or sacrilege—nor did he wish to add his own interpretation in the Stephanus edition, page 421, but only added these words: "Why these were omitted, is said in the scholia:" which scholia, having been rejected to the Greek Kalends, never appeared anywhere, as far as I know; but they have not escaped the enemies of truth, unless the works of the holy Fathers everywhere bear witness to it. For here Basil himself teaches the same in his *Sermon on Ascetic or Monastic Life*: "To those who keep his commandments, there is a great reward; for surely that abundant and crown of justice is the eternal tabernacles, a life to have no end." And in the *Homily at the beginning of Proverbs*, p. 473: "All who walk the evangelical way, we are merchants, through the works of the commandments acquiring the possession of heavenly things for ourselves." Justin, *Apologia 2 pro Christian.*: "If those who prove themselves worthy by their works to his plan and will, we know that they will be deemed worthy of association with him, and will be future sharers in incorruption and impassibility." Hieronymus, lib. 11 *contra Jovinianum*, indeed explains this passage of Matthew regarding the petition of the sons of Zebedee: "It is not for the Son to give, and how [is it for] the Father to prepare? Prepare, he says, are in heaven, diverse and many mansions with diverse virtues, which not persons receive, but works; do not therefore ask of me that which is placed in you, which my Father has prepared, for those with worthy virtues are to ascend to such great dignity." And St. John Chrysostom in the same place, II ad Corinth. v, 10, from it gathers that there is glory for the body through good works, homil. 10: "For the body will not truly be excluded from the reward or punishment, but with the soul it will be partly tormented, partly obtain the crown: *non enim videlicet id quod ad virtutem vel vitium operam suam administravit, a praemio vel poena excludetur: sed una cum anima corpus partim cruciabitur, partim coronam consequetur.*"
Col. 710 in the title: And that it is not a creature. These things added in the title are [added] by us from the Royal ms. H., or by Cornarius [added] to the interpretation, "or those things which are not yet corrupted, are corrupted," or "rather ought to be corrupted."
Col. 711 A 14. According to the prophet. This is the passage at Amos v, 8, where however *αὐτά* is not added after *μετασκευάζων*. Cornarius translates to God, "Who makes all things, and transforms them." Which, for the word of the prophet to mean God directly, is rightly interpreted, *ὁ ποιῶν*, "who makes." In the Vulgate it is, "Making the Pleiades and Orion." But it preceded in the same chapter, verse 4: "For thus saith the Lord to the house of Israel, Seek the Lord." Theodoretus on Amos: "Seek, he says, the God of power, and of this hold fast your hope. For he easily makes and transforms, and what he wills; and it is easy to change even the greatest dangers into joy: 'Confide in the power of God, and embrace this hope. For he easily makes and transforms, and what he wills, and easily changes the greatest dangers into tranquility.'" In the same chapter, page 297, for *ἑτέρῳ* "to another" A suggest the same Royal ms. H. *ἑτέρῳ ὀρέγειν*...
ὀρέγειν; but those to be immortalized, let us correct from the same. Since previously it was ἀπαθανιζομένων. Herodotus also used this word, book IV, and those whom he calls Getae ᾿αθανατίζοντας, Arrian calls ἀπαθανατίζοντας, that is, those who confer immortality and refer them to the number of the gods. Philo also used it in *De vita Mosis*, ἀθανατίζεται παρὰ Θεῷ, he enjoys immortality with God. I propose that the same word be restored to S. Gregory of Nyssa, Basil's brother, in the *Catechetical Oration*, chap. 37, p. 534, and the passage corrected thus: *Καθάπερ γὰρ μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα πρὸς ἑαυτὴν συνεξομοιοῖ, οὕτω τὸ ἀθανατισθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ σῶμα ἐν τῷ ἡμετέρῳ γενόμενον, ὅλον πρὸς ἑαυτὸ μεταποιεῖ καὶ μετατίθησιν* "For just as a little yeast assimilates the whole dough to itself, so the body, having been rendered immortal by God, coming into our own, transforms and transfers the whole into itself." Otherwise the comparison would not hold if that body were said to be *θανάτῳ ἀφεκτόν* ("affected by death"), which afterward is called A *ἀθάνατον σῶμα* ("immortal body"), so that it may impart immortality to the human body. And at the end of the chapter after the words, *οὐκ ἄρα κτίσμα τὸ Πνεῦμα*, ms. H. added, *καὶ ὅσα μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐνέργειαν δείκνυσι τῆς ἁγίας καὶ μακαρίας Τριάδος*, "And whatever things show one and the same operation of the holy and blessed Trinity;" but these in my judgment do not belong to this place or discussion.
Col. 714 C 10. *Et deficient*. This was added by us from ms. H. *καὶ ἐκλείψουσι*, and in Psalm 103:30, and it is written *Emittes*, not *Emitte*, although in some copies of the Latin Vulgate it was formerly read so, but the LXX published *ἀποστελεῖς*, and S. Jerome from the Hebrew *Emittes*.
Col. 716 D 2. *Σημείων*. These words *σημείων καὶ ἰαμάτων τὸ ἕν τι* were added by error to the text of the Basilian edition from the various readings of the Royal codex; therefore they should be deleted: unless you prefer to retain *τὸ σημείων*, reading thus: *χαρισμάτων, τὸ σημείων ἐστὶ καὶ τῶν ἰαμάτων, τὸ ἕν τι, καὶ οὐχὶ τὰ ὅλα*. But because one certain thing from the division of gifts is the gift of miracles, and it is the gift of healings, one certain thing, and not the whole.
Col. 722 C 10. *Dicit enim in proprio*. These had been omitted by the interpreter: for he had only published: "to have provided the prophet, since Isaiah says concerning them, *He blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart*." And indeed these things are found written thus in John 12:40, by the author of the Latin Vulgate, whose words Trapezuntius loves to use, as on the previous page 299, *as snow they shall be whitened and as white wool they shall be*, he had published Isaiah 1:18: but since the author of the Vulgate translated from the Hebrew and not the Greek, the interpretation of the LXX ought rather to be exhibited, or the Greek text of the New Testament, or even the text of the author, who cites the Gospel with changed words, as Basil does in this place, lest we appear to act as censors and correctors rather than interpreters. And indeed in John 12, the passage of Isaiah is brought D forth thus: *Τετύφλωκεν αὐτῶν τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, καὶ πεπώρωκεν αὐτῶν τὴν καρδίαν, ἵνα μὴ ἴδωσιν* "He hath blinded their eyes, and hath hardened their heart, that they might not see"; but in Matthew 13:14, and Acts 28:27, the same are cited, as they are brought forth in the prophet Isaiah 6:9: *Ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου, καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκάμμυσαν* "For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their eyes they have closed": but Basil said *τετύφλωνται οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ, καὶ πεπώρωται ἡ καρδία* and the words which the evangelist used, he uttered in the passive voice as the LXX had brought forth in the prophet *ἐπαχύνθη* [waxed gross]: which without doubt he would not have suffered with impunity, if Beza had written Notes against him, who did not deign to honor this fifth book with his interpretation, and yet undeservedly carps at the author of the Latin Vulgate in his own custom, because in John he rendered *πεπώρωκε τὴν καρδίαν* in Latin *excæcavit* [blinded], confusing *πώρωσιν* and *πηρώσιν* in his own fashion, which is clearly false; for he translates, *induravit cor eorum* [hardened their heart]: but he would not have erred, if he had translated it so, as in Mark 3:5, *ἐπὶ πωρώσει*, *super cæcitate* [on the blindness], when, as the author of the Greek Thesaurus could have taught him; *πωρός* of Suidas is *τυφλός*, blind, and *πωρόω*, blind, *πώρωσις*, *τύφλωσις*, blindness; for which cause Erasmus also published among the evangelists and Paul *πώρωσιν* blinded, although others prefer to translate *hardened*, because *πῶρος* sounds of callus and hardness, whence also *πωροῦν* to harden: both words denote the obstinate persistence of the soul and dull ignorance.
Col. 724 A 8. *Εἰκόνα*. We emended the title from ms. H., when before in the Basilian it was read *τὰ κατ' εἰκόνα, τοῦτο δὲ διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος γινόμενα*: and in the text of the chapter we expunged *Παύλου δὲ εἰκών*, and wrote *πάντως δὲ ἡ εἰκών*, and in the interpreter, "Omnino autem," instead of "Omnium autem."
Col. 726 B 3. *Cum inhabitationem*. The interpreter had started a new period, when the conclusion of the argument had not yet been brought in, in this way: "Christ in us..... Since therefore he says these things, he affirms the habitation of the Spirit to be the habitation of Christ." And although in the Greek it seems that something is missing even in ms. H., as for example a repetition of the word *ἐνοίκησιν*, Cornarius nevertheless did not doubt to translate it thus: with which words he pronounces the habitation of the Spirit to be the habitation of Christ.
Ibid. B 10. *Sed et imago*. The interpreter had expressed the beginning of this chapter also mutilated, which we shall subjoin, lest anyone complain that the interpretation is changed for the worse: "And the true image not from a true image as we: therefore he assimilates to the image, and effects, he is not effected, and it is an unction, and he is not anointed." Again we emended below, "by something alien to the deity," when before it was "by an alien deity." Furthermore, the title of this chapter is cited by the most illustrious Cardinal Bellarmine, book II, chap. 25, *De Christo*, so that the divinity of the Holy Spirit may be proved, and his procession from the Father and the Son: for since this title says, *ὅτι εἰκὼν ἀληθὴς καὶ φυσικὴ Θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα*: "to be a true
and natural image of God and of Christ," it sufficiently indicates that the Spirit has his being from the Father and the Son: for that is not a true and natural image which is not produced from the exemplar.
Col. 728 A 4. *Of the divine likeness*. We have added these three lines, which were missing in the Basle edition, from the Royal codex H, which the interpreter also acknowledges.
Ibid. B 2. *Remaining*. In the Royal codex H it was, *διὰ Θεότητος εἰς αἰῶνα μενούσαις* ["remaining into the age through the Godhead"]: "the divine things remaining through the Godhead into the age," and *ἐπαναλαβεῖν* ["to resume"] for *ἀναλαβεῖν* ["to take up"].
Col. 732 [Δ] 6. *Therefore also of God*. Cardinal Bellarmine, in the place already cited, uses these words and those which are in the heading of this chapter to prove that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. For how can it be said that the Spirit is related to the Son in the same way B that the Son is related to the Father, if the Son indeed proceeds from the Father, but the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son? Or how is the Spirit the word of the Son, if he does not proceed from him?
Ibid. B. *That the Spirit is not*. In the same way he brings forward this fifth passage in the same chapter of Book II, *On Christ*, in which Basil teaches that the Spirit is from God through the Son, but is not called the Son of the Son, lest we suspect that the Trinity is multiplied to infinity. For if the Spirit were called the son of the Son, it would seem to follow that he himself would also have another son, and so on.
Col. 731 C 13. *Curiously*. Trapezuntius translates *περιεργάζεσθαι* as "to busy oneself with various cares," which properly means "to scrutinize curiously"; and *θέσει γενέσθαι*, as "made by position," whereas he later remembers *τῶν υἱοθετουμένων* ["of those adopted"]; and therefore we preferred to say "made by adoption."
Col. 735 A 5. *You however similarly*. In the Council of Florence, session 18, p. 440 of the Roman edition, vol. IV of the *Councils*, this passage is brought forward and diligently examined, from these words up to the phrase *μόρφωσιν κτίσεως* ["formation of the creature"]. For when Marcus Ephesius, arguing for the Greeks, had said: "Great Basil, in his refutations against Eunomius, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, framing his argument, speaks as follows: God begets not as a man. If, therefore, hearing that the Spirit is from him, we understand [it] from his hypostasis, he already clearly declared that the Holy Spirit is from the solitary hypostasis of the Father, and not from any other hypostasis. Basil the Great, in the sermons in which he refuted Eunomius, speaking of the production of the Holy Spirit from the Father, uses these words: 'God begets not as man, yet truly begets.' If, therefore, hearing [that the Spirit is] from him, we understand [that it is] from his subsistent being, Basil has already clearly pronounced that the Holy Spirit is from the sole hypostasis of the Father, and not from another certain hypostasis." John the Provincial, who defended the party of the Latins, replied: "In this chapter, Basil the Great is eager to show that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and from no other, D saying that the Spirit is a creature: 'In this chapter, Great Basil tries to show that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and from nowhere else, that is, from another substance: this is because the heretics were inferring that the Spirit is a creature.' Since, therefore, the intention of Basil was that the Holy Spirit is not of an alien nature, but of that which the Father has, and that the Holy Spirit is not understood to be from the Father except from the substance of the Father and the Son, it is concluded from this that it is the substance which produces the Holy Spirit, and consequently that he also proceeds from the Son, since the substance of the Father and the Son is one." More [commentary] for the illustration of this passage may be sought from there; we shall pursue only the variant readings. For that phrase, *καὶ ὅτι μὴ γέννησις ἡ τοῦ Πνεύματος* ["and that the Spirit is not a generation"], is thus reported there: *Ἐπειδὴ ἡ ἐκπόρευσις τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ γέννησις οὐκ ἐκλήθη* ["Since the procession of the Spirit of God was not called a generation"]; and that [phrase], *Καὶ περιφρονῶν τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων παραδειγμάτων* ["And despising human examples"], is written thus: *καὶ παραδείγμασιν ἀνθρωπίνοις ἀφορῶν ἀνατρέπεις τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν συνιστάμενα θεῖα δόγματα* ["and looking to human examples, you overturn the divine doctrines constituted from them"]. Hence it is evident that the participle *συνιστάμενα* ["constituted"] must be added to Basil's text, which the interpreter appears to have recognized when he says, "which divine doctrines are understood from them"; the interpreter of the council said, "which are known through those": and that [phrase], *δέχεσθαι σὺν εὐσεβεία* ["to receive with piety"], the text of the council [has], *καὶ πᾶν τὸ λεγόμενον προσδέχεσθαι μετ᾿ εὐσεβείας καὶ οὐκ ἀνοητότατα κατὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐπιχειρεῖν* ["and to receive everything said with piety and not most foolishly to attempt [things] against piety"]: and his interpreter, "and not to use most insipid arguments against piety"; by which words the reading of the Royal codex H is confirmed: *καὶ μὴ μωρότατα τὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας σοφίζεσθαι* ["and not most foolishly to misrepresent the things of piety"]. Again, *καὶ τὸ γέννημα ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐκφαίνει* ["and he reveals the offspring from him"], the text of the council [has], *καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἀναγγέλλει ῥῆμα ἢ λόγον* ["and he announces the thing begotten from him, the word or the reason"].
Col. 738 A 4. *As if humanly*. The interpreter had divided this period into two and obscured the sense of the author: "For as if it were put forward in human language, that by a human figure it might be expounded that the creature was made by him." The things which follow until the end of the chapter had been abridged in the Basle edition in this manner: *Ἔστι τὸ Πνεῦμα ἀεὶ καὶ πρὶν γραφήναι ὑπὸ Μωσέως ἐπιφέρεσθαι αὐτὸ ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ ἐκφυσηθῆναι αὐτὸ εἰς ζωοποίησιν* ["The Spirit is always, even before it was written by Moses that he was being borne over the waters and was breathed out for vivification"]. Cornarius had conformed his version to this reading: "The Spirit also exists always, even before it was written by Moses that he was borne over the waters, and that he was breathed out for vivification": but the older version of Trapezuntius confirms the reading of the Royal codex.
Col. 739 C 2. *To the disciples, the apostle*. These things, wrongly translated, had distorted the sense of the author: "The apostles themselves attributing glory, this says the Holy Spirit." Although these are the words of the prophet Agabus in Acts 21:11. But these confirm our correction, by which we have chastised the rash interpretation of Beza above, in Book II. A little later, *οὐ συντάσσοντες* ["not coordinating"], Trapezuntius had translated as "not coordinating," instead of "composing, comparing," as in II Corinthians 10:12: *Οὐ γὰρ τολμῶμεν συγκρῖναι ἑαυτούς τισι* ["For we dare not compare ourselves to some"]. In the same place, *χειραγωγούμενοι* ["being led by hand"], we have corrected from the manuscripts: "led."
as suggested by the same manuscript H. Reg. ἑτέρῳ ὀρέγειν. That passage A, thus: Τετύφλωκεν αὐτῶν τοὺς, is brought forth; however, ἀπαθανατιζομένων. A word which Herodotus also used, book IV, and those whom he calls the Getae ἀθανατίζοντας, Arrian calls ἀπαθανατιζοντας, that is, those who are gifted with immortality and are referred to the number of the gods. Philo also used it, *On the Life of Moses*, ἀθανατίζεται παρὰ Θεῷ, "he enjoys immortality with God." I also think the same word should be restored to St. Gregory of Nyssa, Basil's brother, in his *Catechetical Oration*, chap. 37, p. 534, and that the passage should be corrected as follows: Καθάπερ γὰρ μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα πρὸς ἑαυτὴν συνεξομοιοῖ, οὕτω τὸ ἀθανατισθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ σῶμα ἐν τῷ ἡμετέρῳ γενόμενον, ὅλον πρὸς ἑαυτὸ μεταποιεῖ καὶ μετατίθησιν, "For just as a little leaven assimilates the whole lump to itself, so the body rendered immortal by God, having come into ours, transforms and transfers the whole into itself." Otherwise, the comparison would not square if one were to say ἀπαθανατισθὲν "affected by death" of that body, which is later called τὸ ἀθάνατον σῶμα, "the immortal body," that it might impart immortality to the human body. And at the end of the chapter, after those words, οὐκ ἄρα κτίσμα τὸ Πνεῦμα, manuscript H added: καὶ ὅσα μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐνέργειαν δείκνυσι τῆς ἁγίας καὶ μακαρίας Τριάδος, "And whatsoever shows the operation of the holy and blessed Trinity to be one and the same;" but these, in my judgment, do not belong to this place or disputation.
Col. 714 C 10. *And they shall faint.* This was added by us from ms. H. καὶ ἐκλείψουσιν, and Psalm CIII, 30, and it is written "You will send forth" (emittes), not "Send forth" (emitte), although in certain copies of the Latin Vulgate it was once read that way, but the LXX published ἀποστελεῖς, and St. Jerome, from the Hebrew, *emittes*.
Col. 716 D 2. *Of signs.* These words, σημείων καὶ ἰαμάτων τὸ ἕν τι, were added by error to the text of the Basilian edition from the various readings of the Royal codex; for that reason they should be deleted: unless you prefer to retain τὸ σημείων, by reading it thus: χαρισμάτων, τὸ σημείων ἐστὶ καὶ τῶν ἰαμάτων, τὸ ἕν τι, καὶ οὐχὶ τὰ ὅλα. But because it is one single gift from the division of gifts that is the gift of miracles, and it is the gift of healings, it is one single thing, and not the whole.
Col. 722 C 10. *For he says in its own [place].* These words had been omitted by the interpreter: for he had merely published: "to have provided to the prophet, since Isaiah says concerning them, 'He has blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart.'" And indeed these words are found written thus at John XII, 40, in the author of the Latin Vulgate, whose words Trapezuntius loves to usurp, as on the previous page 299, "as snow they shall be whitened and as wool they shall be white," he had published Isaiah I, 1: but since the author of the Vulgate translates from the Hebrew and not from the Greek, the interpretation of the LXX should rather be exhibited, or that of the Greek text of the New Testament, or even the text of the author, who cites the Gospel in changed words, as Basil does in this place, so that we may not appear to act as censors and correctors rather than interpreters. And indeed at John XII, ὀφθαλμοὺς, καὶ πεπώρωκεν αὐτῶν τὴν καρδίαν, ἵνα μὴ ἴδωσιν, "He has blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they might not see"; but at Matthew XIII, 14, and Acts XXVIII, 27, the same are cited, as they are brought forth in the prophet Isaiah VI, 9: Ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου, καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκάμμυσαν; "For the heart of this people has been made fat, and they have closed their eyes": but Basil said τετύφλωνται οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ, καὶ πεπώρωται ἡ καρδία, and he brought forth the words which the evangelist used in the passive voice, as the LXX had brought forth ἐπαχύνθη in the prophet: which without doubt he would not have carried off with impunity if Beza had written Notes against him—who did not deign to honor this fifth book with his own interpretation, and yet unjustifiably carps at the author of the Latin Vulgate in his own way, because at John he translated πεπώρωκε τὴν καρδίαν into Latin as *excæcavit* ("blinded"), confusing *pōrōsin* and *pērōsin* in his own fashion, which is clearly false. For he translates *induravit cor eorum* ("hardened their heart"): nor yet would he have erred if he had translated it thus, as at Mark III, 5, ἐπὶ τῇ πωρώσει, "upon blindness," since, as the author of the Greek Thesaurus could have taught him, *pōros* of Suidas is *typhlos*, blind, and *pōroō*, I blind, *pōrōsis*, *typhlōsis*, blindness; for which reason Erasmus also published *pōrōsin* as *excæcavit* ("blinded") in the evangelists and Paul, although others prefer to translate it *obduravit* ("hardened"), because *pōros* sounds of a callus and hardness, whence also *pōroun* means to harden: by either word is designated the stubbornness of an obstinate mind and the dullness of ignorance.
Col. 724 A 8. *Image.* We have corrected the title from ms. H., whereas previously in the Basilian edition it was read as τὰ κατ' εἰκόνα, τοῦτο δὲ διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος γινόμενα; and in the text of the chapter we have expunged ἄλλου δὲ εἰκών, and have written πάντως δὲ ἡ εἰκών, and in the interpreter, "Omnino autem" ("Altogether/entirely, however") instead of "Omnium autem" ("Of all, however").
Col. 726 B 3. *With the inhabitation.* The interpreter had begun a new period, even though the conclusion of the argument had not yet been brought in, in this fashion: "Christ in us... These things therefore being said, he asserts the Spirit's inhabitation to be the inhabitation of Christ." And although in the Greek something appears to be lacking also in ms. H., as it were a repetition of the word *oikēsin* ("inhabitation"), Cornarius nonetheless did not hesitate to translate it thus: by which words he pronounces the inhabitation of the Spirit to be the inhabitation of Christ.
Ibid. B 10. *But also image.* The interpreter had also expressed the beginning of this chapter as mutilated, which we shall set down, lest anyone complain that the interpretation was changed for the worse: "And a true image is not from a true image as we are: therefore he assimilates to the image, and he effects, and is not effected, and is anointing, and is not anointed." Again, we have corrected below, "by one alien to the godhead," whereas before it was "by an alien godhead." Furthermore, the title of this chapter is cited by the most illustrious Cardinal Bellarmine, book II, chap. 25, *Concerning Christ*, so that the divinity of the Holy Spirit may be proved, as well as His procession from the Father and the Son: for since this title says, ὅτι εἰκὼν ἀληθὴς καὶ φυσικὴ Θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα: "that the Spirit is the true and natural image of God and Christ..."
A "There the stags met, and they saw their own faces: not one of them perished." They read ἀπώλετο, not ὑπελείφθη. The Vulgate, however, bears something else: "Thither were they gathered together one to another." But that other passage from the same prophet is Isa. LVII, 16: "Every breath" (*flatum*), I wrote *non statum* (not standing), πνοὴν πᾶσαν. The third is Job XXXII, 8, where we read πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἐν βροτοῖς, not ἐν βρονταῖς, *in hominibus* (in men), and not *in tonitruis* (in thunders), as Trapezuntius had written, "and the breath of the Almighty, He who teaches me." Symmachus also translates from the Hebrew: "Ὄντως δὲ πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἐστιν ἐν ἀνθρώποις. Truly the spirit of God is in men:" nor does the Vulgate translate otherwise from the Hebrew, in which the word אֱנוֹשׁ cannot be taken for thunder; it is, therefore, a scribe's error, who wrote βρονταῖς for βροτοῖς.
Col. 766 B 13. *Non quod disceret.* Through a printing error it was read previously, "and what I shall say you do not say:" although perhaps the interpreter had written, "not learning," οὐ μανθάνων, as in the Royal codex H, which the following words bore out: Τοῦτο γὰρ ἦν ἀμαθοῦς καὶ ἀτελοῦς· "For that would be the mark of an ignorant and imperfect person."
Col. 768 C. *Εὐθυμείσθω.* What follows to the end of the fifth book *Against Eunomius*, and constitutes the seventeenth chapter, were wanting in the later Basel Greek edition: but, having been transferred to another place, they formed a separate homily: *Περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἁγίου*, "On the Holy Spirit," and in the Parisian Latin edition of 1603, p. 223: "Let every soul consider;" but in the Royal codex, the last chapter of book V with this title, *Περὶ Πνεύματος*. Trapezuntius also subordinated this to the rest, and read in his transcript *εὐθυμείσθω*, as it was in H; but another interpreter reads *ἐνθυμείσθω*, "Let every soul consider whether it possesses such eyes:" thus indeed he says later, *σκοπείτω διάνοια*, "let the mind consider," καὶ νοείτω τὰ πάντα πληρούμενα, "and let it think that all things are filled by the Spirit of God."
Ibid. C. 5. *Si quæris.* The passage is Isa. XXI, 12: "If you seek, why:" where the Latin Vulgate has, "If you seek, seek: turn, come." Moreover, in the Royal manuscript it was, οἰκεῖς δὲ τότε, ὅτε μετὰ πίστεως ζητεῖς, "But then you dwell, when you seek with faith."
Col. 770 A 12. *Reliquisque.* These are inserted in the words of Trapezuntius, which the Royal codex also acknowledges, and the other interpreter: "by heresy and the remaining pleasures of those women who enchant and seduce." D
Col. 770 C 8. *Sicut enim.* In MS H, *φωτίσασα νέφος* was read, less correctly: but the interpreter also had said a little more obscurely: "As the sun's rays illuminating the cloud, and making it itself to shine, providing it a golden face."
Col. 772 B 10. *Οὐ χωρίζεται.* We have corrected in the Basel edition *οὐχ ὁρίζεται*, incorrectly written earlier for *οὐ χωρίζεται*, "this is not separated from him," as Trapezuntius correctly: the other interpreter of the separate homily, having followed the faulty reading, "does not circumscribe him in him:" but Cornarius noticed the error and said, "it is not separated from him."
Ibid. C 14. *Nihil in se.* This passage is cited by Bessarion of Nicaea in his dogmatic oration, published at the Council of Florence, session 20, p. 532, *πεφηνέναι* as it is proved, "to be manifest," *τὸ εἶναι καὶ τὸ ὑπάρχειν δηλοῦν*, signifying to be and the eternal subsistence and generation of the Son, since it is said regarding the Spirit and His eternal procession, as the blessed Basil says regarding the Holy Spirit, *ἐπὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος καὶ τῆς ὑπαρκτικῆς αὐτοῦ προόδου*, which is found in this passage, το τὸ Πνεῦμα οὐδὲν ἔχον ἐστὶν ἐπίκτητον ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἀλλ᾽ ἁϊδίως πάντα ἔχει· "It has nothing adventitious in itself, but eternally has all things as the Spirit of God and manifested from Him." *Πεφηνός* expresses this better than Trapezuntius' "existing," or the other interpreter of the homily's "and proceeding from God:" whence Bessarion concludes what Gregory of Nyssa said, *ὡς δι' Υἱοῦ πέφηνε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις*, "that the Spirit was manifested through the Son, having been made known to men temporally," *τὸ δι' Υἱοῦ ἀνθρώποις γνωσθῆναι ἐν χρόνῳ καὶ δι' Υἱοῦ τὴν ἀΐδιον ὕπαρξιν ἔχειν* "and that He has eternal existence through the Son."
Col. 774 A 10. *Multi sunt.* We have restored the preceding passage from the Greek; for it was read poorly in the interpreter, "And again he says, They shall be taught of God:" but this passage, conceived in Greek, Trapezuntius seems to have found as it is in the Royal codex, *πολλοὶ ὂν τοῦτο τὸ θεῖον ἐν ψυχῇ*; but another interpreter, on the contrary, expresses the text of the Basel edition: "Much, therefore, of this divinity is in the rational soul, unless it chooses to fall away from it by its own sluggishness;" but for *ῥᾳθυμίαν* the Royal codex had, "on account of slothfulness (the Holy Spirit, that is) to depart from itself it chooses."
APPENDIX.
(Opp. t. II.)Col. 73 C 2. *Πρὸς Ἀβραάμ.* Something has been added from the English: *ἐν δράματι λέγοντος*· for which cause we must also add to the interpreter's words: "we find written by the Lord in a vision saying." Gen. XV, 1: *Ἐν ὁράματι νυκτὸς λέγων*, "in a vision of the night saying." What the Olivetan codex contained we do not express, because this other homily on Psalm XXVIII was absent from it.
C Ibid. 8. *And when the voices.* This passage has been restored from the words of Scripture, whereas previously it was mutilated in the translator's version. For thus it is in Exodus XIX, 11: *Καὶ ἡ νεφέλη ἀπέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους* — "And when the voices and the trumpets and the clouds shall depart from the mount, they shall ascend." Col. 75 A 11. *That voice indeed.* The translator seems to have read *ὅρασίς ἦν* while rendering it, "That voice indeed, which happened to the people, was a vision," not *φωνὴ ἦν*, but erroneously. A little later we have also changed that phrase, *αὕτη οὖν ἡ φωνή*, which in Latin was, "The voice of God itself, therefore, was upon the waters:" for it is not written *αὕτη οὖν ἡ*. Thus, too, the ancient translator of Basil—whose words the Roman Breviary uses on the third day within the octave of St. John the Baptist in the month of June—has faithfully expressed the mind of the author. Col. 78 C 9. *What then is.* Perhaps it should be read, *τί οὖν ἐστιν ὁ μόσχος; τί ὁ Λίβανος;* "What then is the calf? What the Lebanon?" or certainly, *τί οὖν ἐστιν ὁ μόσχος τοῦ Λιβάνου;* "What then is the calf of Lebanon?" Concerning what follows, *διὰ τοῦ Λιβάνου μορφοῦντες*, the translator had published, "They say concerning Lebanon, that the worshippers of idols of calves, which they fashion for themselves in Lebanon, and thus them," etc. Again, that phrase *ὁ μόσχος ὁ διὰ τοῦ Λιβάνου*, Cornarius translates, "or the calf of incense melting by fire." Montacutius, "or the calf made from Lebanon, melted by fire." Previously it had been edited, "Or it is a calf which melts by fire on Mount Lebanon, according to what is said:" namely in Ps. LXVII, 3. The Greek word *Λίβανος* signifies both that mountain of Syria and incense: but among the Hebrews, incense is called *Lebonah* from whiteness, and the mountain *Lebanon*, because incense grows on it; so says the author Pagninus in his Hebrew Lexicon. These little images of calves, therefore, can be understood as fashioned from Lebanon, that is, from the trees of Lebanon, or from the incense that grows on that mountain and which can be melted by fire. A little later, at the beginning of the following page, we translate *τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς τῶν κέδρων ἐπάρσεως*: "The prince and author of the elation of the cedars." Since the cedars themselves, being tall, are more conspicuous because they have grown upon a mountain, due to the height of the mountain added to them, as Basil himself says, cited in the *Catena Græcorum in Psalmos*. Col. 83 C 6. *For an incantation for the soul.* Cornarius translates more aptly, "And he might use it as an incantation for the healing of the soul." *Ἐπῳδή* and *ἐπαοιδή* are translated by Cicero as *cantio*, by Gellius as *incentio*, by others as *incantatio* and *incantamentum*, that is, a song to remove or at least to soften something harmful. Plato in the *Euthydemus*: *Ἡ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἐπῳδῶν, ἐχέων τε καὶ φαλαγγίων, καὶ σκορπίων, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων θηρίων τε καὶ νόσων κήλησίς ἐστιν* — "For the art of the enchanters is a soothing and mollifying of vipers, phalanges, scorpions, and other pestilent animals and diseases." Homer, *Odyssey* T, concerning the wound of Ulysses: *Δῆσαν ἐπισταμένως, ἐπαριδῇ δ' αἷμα κελαινὸν* *Ἔσχεθον. Λίγαρον δὲ σὺν ἐπιστήμῃ, τῷ δὲ ἐπαοιδῇ αἷμα μέλαν* *κατέσχον.* They bound it skillfully, and by means of an incantation stayed the black blood. *οὐ πρὸς ἰατροῦ σοφοῦ* *Θροεῖν ἐπῳδὰς πρὸς τομῶντι πήματι.* It is not the part of a wise physician to mutter incantations over a wound that needs the knife. Horace, *Epist.* 1, lib. 1: There are words and sounds by which you may Soothe this pain and cast away a great part of the disease. Col. 403 B 4. *Precursor.* We have admonished that the word "faith" should have been repeated here, as in the Greek, in which also what follows requires it to be translated thus: "Faith which does not rest on geometric proofs." Col. 106 A 15. *Assent.* Cornarius omitted the word *πίστεως*, rendering it thus: "He requires assent from faith without examination"; Montacutius, "He seeks an assent that is in no way proven and explored by reason." Similar is that sentiment of St. John Chrysostom, lib. *Contra gentiles*, p. 735, edit. Paris: *Οἱ διαπιστοῦσι τοῖς γεγενημένοις, καὶ πολλοὶ οὕτως ἀβασανίστως καὶ ἀνεξετάστως* — "Who have no faith, and many are loath to investigate or examine anything at all about the whole matter." The same author, writing on this psalm, p. 400: *Ὁρᾷς, ὅσον κακόν ἐστι, λογισμοῖς ἐπιτρέπειν τὰ πράγματα τῆς πίστεως, καὶ μὴ τῇ πίστει;* — "Do you see how great an evil it is to commit the things of faith to reasonings, and not to faith?" The passage following immediately is Hebrews XI, 6: *Πιστεῦσαι γὰρ δεῖ τὸν προσερχόμενον τῷ Θεῷ, ὅτι ἔστι* — "For the one who approaches God must believe that He exists." Towards the end of the page we changed that of the interpreter, "striving to perfection by martyrdom." For here *τελείωσις* signifies consummation, as in Luke XIII, 32: *Ἰάσεις ἐπιτελῶ σήμερον καὶ αὔριον, καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ τελειοῦμαι* — "I perform cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I am consummated." And Wisdom IV, 13: *Τελειωθεὶς ἐν ὀλίγῳ ἐπλήρωσε χρόνους μακρούς* — "Being consummated in a short while, he fulfilled long times." Theodoret, likewise explaining these words of the psalm, says it is proper to undergo death boldly for the Lord, and to give this remuneration for various benefits: *Προσήκει τοίνυν θαῤῥαλέως τὸν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ καταδέξασθαι θάνατον, καὶ ταύτην δοῦναι τῆς παντοδαπῆς εὐεργεσίας ἀντίδοσιν.* Thus in the Apostle, Hebrews II, 10: *Διὰ παθημάτων τελειῶσαι* — "To consummate through sufferings"; and Hebr. XI, 40: *Ἵνα μὴ χωρὶς ἡμῶν τελειωθῶσι* — "That they should not be consummated without us." Thus it is often said in Martyrologies that holy men consummate their martyrdom, and are consummated by martyrdom. Col. 107 B 4. *Into the sight of Achis.* Thus indeed is that king called by the author of the Vulgate Latin, but in the LXX, 1 Reg. XXI, 14, he is called *Ἀγχούς* (Anchus), whose words to his servants are these: *Ἰδοὺ ἴδετε ἄνδρα ἐπίληπτον* — "Behold, you see a furious man"; also, *Μὴ ἐλαττοῦμαι ἐπιλήπτων ἐγώ;* — "Do I lack madmen?" Chrysostom, lib. 1 *De Providentia*, p. 237: *Πρὸς τὸν Ἀγχούς ἀπελθὼν, τοὺς μαινομένους ὑπεκρίνατο* — "Having gone to Anchus, he feigned madness." And among the profane
authors, A *epileptic* signifies one suffering from the comitial disease, and *to be epileptic* to labor under that disease, as Henry Stephanus observes in his *Thesaurus*; but he is mistaken when he adds in that same place that *ἐπιληπτεύεσθαι* is used for the same in book 21 of I Kings, or at least they are mistaken who attach this notion to that verb in that passage. For although in other places the word *ἐπίληπτος* signifies one laboring under the comitial disease, and also one seized by a demon, as in Gregory Nazianzen, *Orat.* 18, regarding Saint Cyprian, p. 280: "A demented lover, and a prudent seized man" — yet it is not to be thought that wherever it is used by Greek interpreters of the Old Testament, it can sound of all those things if the Hebrew words, which it expresses there, do not support it. And so, the Hebrew expression *meshuggah* there signifies a madman, or an insane person, as in 4 Kings 9:11: *Quid venit insanus iste ad te?* (Why came this mad fellow to thee?) and Jeremias 29:26: *Against every man that is mad* (for a man who is insane) — and *ἐπιληπτεύεσθαι* is to be mad and insane; but it does not mean one laboring under the comitial disease. Wherefore, in the commentary on the epistle of Peter of Alexandria, the interpreter translates it erroneously. B He feigned that the epileptic [was himself], fleeing Saul. Therefore, it should be written here: "feigning me to be seized by insanity, or driven by fury."
Col. 114 A 13. *Ex exsoluta.* He calls *humanity* not some one multitude, nor the universal human race, but those men whose deeds and upright morals had merited that they should be immune from eternal punishments: and so Cornarius says rightly: "Since you liberated me from the bonds of sin, when you descended to hell, and released humanity, which was bound by death and detained in the inevitable prisons of hell." In the Greek Catena on the Psalms I read: *having descended to hell, and released humanity.* He clearly prophesies the descent of the Lord into hell *to descend into Hades for the sake of the economy concerning the resurrection.* Moreover, this common doctrine of the holy Fathers concerning the descent of the soul of Christ into the underworld, which is vainly opposed by new rebels against the Church of Christ, Basil also upholds elsewhere as in this place, namely in Psalm 45: *Et in psal. XLVIII*: *But to descend into Hades*...
Col. 115 B 12. *In the courts of.* These last words of the psalm were added from the Oliva [edition] and the English [manuscripts], along with their interpretation as they explain what follows.
TO THE COMMENTARY ON ISAIAH
Col. 131 B. *Videns simul.* Besides those witnesses whom the most learned Godefridus Tilmannus cites to vindicate these commentaries on Isaiah for Basil, I will praise two others. For Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in a letter to Pope Adrian, which exists in the *Jus Græco-Romanum* p. 193, where this passage is cited: "He gave the Law for an aid, that they might say not as this word—" and you will find these very words in chapter eight. Another is the author of the Greek scholia on the Apostolic Epistles, which circulate under the name of Ecumenius, in whom these things are brought forward from Photius, page 399 of the Verona edition: C characters F. H. I. and A. will designate. But you have the prophet Amos chapter 7, 12: *Ὁ ὁρῶν, βάδιζε* — "Thou that seest, go, flee." Towards which passage Cyril of Alexandria writing seems to imply that the name of *ὁρῶντος* (the one who sees) is the same as prophet. *Videntem enim appellat prophetam...* — "For the seer (videntem) he calls prophet: but not for the sake of honor, nor as if he were to be venerated by the name of prophecy." Theophylact on chapter 1 of Nahum: "Beyond this, vision also seems to be something common to prophecies. For in all the modes of prophecy, the mind was illuminated by the light of the Spirit." But it must be observed that in 1 Kings 9, 9, these things are related by the LXX in these words: *Quoniam prophetam vocabat populus antea, Videns.* (For the people formerly called the prophet, a Seer.) That *ἔμπροσθεν* (formerly), therefore, others have not joined with the participle *βλέπων* (seeing), but with the verb *ἐκάλει* (called), as if he might say, that in the past or formerly the prophet was so called, "A Seer," and not "A formerly seeing one," or "A foreseeing one." So St. Jerome or the author of the Latin Vulgate: "For he who is called a prophet today, was formerly called a Seer:" the same Pagninus from the Hebrew, and Symmachus: *Τὸν γὰρ προφήτην, τότε ἐκάλουν κατὰ τὸ ἀρχαῖον τὸν ὁρῶντα.* D In the interpretation of Isaiah, Saint Basil again made mention of this word, and accepted it for purification. You have this place in chapter four. Moreover, for the preparation of the edition of this Commentary, besides the copy sent from England illustrated with various readings noted in the margin, we were helped by the aid of two Royal codices, one of which is paper, of King Francis I, from which the interpreter Tilmannus formed his translation, the other parchment, adorned with the seals of Henry II, and a third also was dug out from the library of the most illustrious Cardinal Joeuse: using their own special...
notes, they called the prophet in the ancient manner, "Seen." The Hebrew word is understood in no other way in Ruth iv, 7: *This was the custom formerly in Israel.*
A Col. 135 C 2. *In the former Paralipomenon.* Thus also we read in Procopius, who followed Basil's Commentary in very many places, p. 6: *In the second of the Chronicles, Ozias is mentioned; but in the second of Kings, Azarias.* For in one of the Paralipomenon he is named Ozias, and in the second of Kingdoms, Azarias. But Basil seems to have suffered a lapse of memory: for it is thus written in II Paralip. ch. xxvi, 1: *The people of Judah made his son Ozias king instead of his father Amasia;* and the other passage concerning Azaria is not in II Kingdoms, but in IV, ch. xiv: *Now all the people of Judah took Azaria, sixteen years old, and made him king instead of his father Amasia.* But as for what follows, *and his father and mother*, it had been translated differently by the interpreter, although in the book of Francis I, which he used, it is read just as in the Henrician and the Joeuse copies: *and his father and his mother.* The interpreter had published it, yet the names of the father and mother are known. His mother, in the French version as also in the English, is called Chalie; in H. and I. erroneously, just as in Procopius Xanaá and Xavá, Chana: but more truly among the LXX, IV Reg. xiv, B Hiechelia of Jerusalem.
Ibid. 6. *Time also.* This too had been omitted by the interpreter, who joined together what follows: *But Isaiah prophesied in the fifty-second year of the reign of Ozias.* He read, of course, as A and F indicate: *In the fifty-second year he prophesied under Ozias.* But in H and I: *For fifty-two years they prophesied under Ozias;* and this reading now seems sounder, and it is to be rewritten and punctuated thus: *And the time of the reign is the same, fifty-two years. And under Ozias, Isaiah prophesied.* The time of the reign is the same, all fifty-two years. But Isaiah prophesied under Ozias. This emendation is supported both by Procopius' own Commentary, which is excerpted from Basil, and by the Chronicle of Eusebius, which sets the beginning of the prophecy of Isaiah, Hosea, and Amos not in the fifty-second year of king Ozias, but in the seventeenth, approximately the year 1210 from Abraham. This, therefore, is what Basil wishes to establish, that Ozias and Azarias are the same person, because the same length of reign is attributed to Ozias and Azarias, namely fifty-two years. But as to what follows, *But because*, the most learned interpreter of Procopius, Curterius, translated the beginning more clearly: *"But is it not because we read in Hosea, that the beginning of the word of the Lord to Hosea was when he himself began to prophesy?"* That part, however, *before the vision of Isaiah*, is not to be interpreted as *"before the vision in which he says the lintel was elevated,"* but *"in which he says that it was elevated,"* not by a vision, but, as Basil suspects, by an earthquake, so that it may be inferred thence that Amos, who prophesied two years before the earthquake, C prophesied before Isaiah: nevertheless, the very text of the prophecy resists this conjecture, in which we read ch. vi, 4: *the lintel was elevated by the voice of the Seraphim crying, Holy, holy,* just as also in Amos ix, 1, the prophets are moved by the apparition of the Lord striking the lintels.
Col. 138 C 13. *A wise man.* In the Greek scholiast in the notes of Flam. Nobilius, we indeed read in Proverbs xii, 23: *A crafty man,* but in the text itself of the Vatican edition and others, *A wise man is a throne of sense.* Symmachus translates, *he will conceal knowledge,* and thus the Latin Vulgate. We have corrected the following period, in which the interpreter had written: *"For just as the seat of sense behaves, he who is sensible,"* and that at the end of the page: *"since therefore there is a certain kinship between the two."*
Col. 141 A 40. *Him who is.* The interpreter translated it into Latin as if he had read in the mss. *the active part of the soul*, but we find it written in it, as in others and in Procopius, *the active [energy] of the soul*, and his interpreter published: *"that is, that part of the soul which delights in labor and exertion, linking it with that which delights in pleasures and affections. For not..."* So, a little later, Tilmannus himself translates *rousing the industrious part of the soul* as *"he rouses the noble and labor-patient strength of the soul;"* but he does not express the other member so successfully, *and healing its pleasure*. For here *to heal* does not mean *"to honor,"* but *"to cure, to sedate,"* or *"to restrain,"* and therefore you will translate with Curterius: *"and restrains it, which delights in pleasures."*
D Col. 142 D 1. *Now however.* Basil notes that this is not in the prophet's discourse, but refers to a certain grade and progress made in the malice of the people: therefore we have expunged those words of the interpreter: *"Now however he has started from the fact that the nation itself is sinful, exaggerating the gravity by the very progress of the sentence. For the people are rendered full of sins. And the seed that flows from it, the children are made wicked."* You have the same in Procopius p. 41, where without doubt it is to be corrected from Basil, *towards becoming wicked children*, instead of *and the becoming*.
Col. 143 D 1. *As an interpretation.* Understand *explanation* in this place not as a translation from one idiom into another, but as an *"explanation,"* as if he were to say that it was added by Origen or Lucian as an explanation of the word *to forsake*, which the LXX used, unless perhaps you understand that Theodotion translated the Hebrew word into Greek in this way, which the LXX translated as *to forsake*. For otherwise they would have been added to the Septuagint text by Origen under asterisks from the interpretation of Theodotion, which had not been expressed by them from the Hebrew, as Jerome writes in epist. 89, and Epiphanius in his book *On Weights and Measures*. Furthermore, the same Jerome in his commentary on Isaiah testifies that this member, *they are alienated backward*, is not had by the LXX interpreter. Basil wishes it to have been added from the edition of Theodotion, but in Proco-
Procopius’s commentary on the margin of the text of the LXX, the same is attributed to Aquila: for which reason Flaminius Nobilius, in his annotations on Isaiah, says that Procopius attributes this to Aquila, although in reality Procopius’s commentary does not acknowledge that part: but it must be noted that in that commentary the text had been transcribed from another very ancient manuscript codex belonging to Renatus Marchalius, which is now in the possession of the most illustrious Cardinal Rupifucaldii, and prefixed to Procopius’s commentary. A little later we changed those of the interpreter: “You have suffered so much in vain, it is good [op. v. ad. n. r.], because you neglected to foresee what would happen at length: since as *ἀμέλεια ἐν τοῖς ὕστερον* it sounds ‘negligence exhibited in the subsequent years.’”
Col. 149 A 14. *For whatever.* Whatever corrections have been made on this page, we shall indicate in few words, for it is not necessary to account for everything, unless the occasion arises where it might serve to illustrate similar sentiments of the Fathers. Those who have compared this edition with previous ones will be able to recognize each point that has been amended. Here, therefore, the interpreter had referred *ἁμαρτάνουσιν* to the Jews, “evils are intended for that sinning people, it will have been permitted to perceive even in ourselves.” Again he had written below, “if our edification shall have depended upon doctrine, we being less conveniently in this life.”
Col. 151 B 1. *In the secret.* It was not necessary in this place to express *ὑποκλαίειν* with an added epithet, “to weep in a secret retreat”; but you might more aptly take it for the simple *κλαίειν* (to weep), especially since *αἰσχύνεται γάρ* follows, which indicates that station of penitents which was called *πρόσκλαυσις*, weeping, of which mention is made in the appendix to the canonical epistle of Gregory Thaumaturgus. This followed here, “why do I no longer wait for the hour of communion?” but *σύναξις* does not signify the *μέθεξιν τῶν ἁγιασμάτων* itself, the communion and participation of the sacraments, but that whole “divine office,” which the Latins call the collect and the mass, and the Greeks also ἁγίαν λειτουργίαν (the holy liturgy), as I have shown at greater length against Erasmus in my notes to the second homily of Chrysostom *Against the Jews*, although learned men in their new exercises seek his patronage in vain. Nor indeed have we denied that *σύναξις* signifies the Eucharist, or rather the gathering convened for celebrating the Eucharist, but we consistently deny that *σύναξις* is accustomed to be restricted by ecclesiastical writers to that part of the reception of the sacraments. Finally, that which follows, *ὅ τι ἂν τύχῃ πλασάμενος*, the interpreter had rendered, “so that his simulation may not be detected.”
Col. 146 D 4. *For receive.* This is a mistake common to all of Basil’s manuscripts, both Gallican and English, *Λάβετε γὰρ ἀπαρχήν*, which the interpreter correctly rendered, *Receive the first-fruits*: in Procopius alone, p. 13, it is read *Λάβετε ἀρχήν*, and there was no reason why the interpreter of that text should add *ἀπό*, when it is clearly absent from the text of Scripture, Num. 1, 2, where the Latin Vulgate is, *Tollite summam universae congregationis*. Saint Ambrose, translating from the Greek at the beginning of his book *De XLII mansionibus*, translates thus: *Receive the sum of the whole congregation of the children of Israel by houses of their families*. The Hebrew word *rōʾš* does not only mean beginning, as the most learned interpreter of Procopius translates, but also sum and head, as Ambrose saw that the word *ἀρχήν* here signifies from the Hebraism, to whom it is better to assent than to Augustine, who in the *Locutiones in Heptateuchum* thinks it signifies the strength of age among the people. Thus also in Num. 1, 49, the same word is translated *ἀριθμός*, *Καὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν αὐτῶν οὐ λήψῃ*, *And you shall not take their number*: and in Exod. 30, 12, *συλλογισμός*: *Ἐὰν λάβῃς τὸν συλλογισμὸν τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ*, *If you take the computation of the children of Israel*. This, therefore, Basil brings forward to prove that *κατὰ κεφαλήν* means the same as, to one man all; for we have deleted in the preceding period, “by the name of the head. As if he were saying the very long-lasting remembering of confirmed grief.” He thought he had read *μόνην*, as it was in the English copies, not, as two Royal and the Cardinal’s copies preferred, *περὶ αὐτὴν μόνην*, “that the grief rests upon her alone.”
Col. 147 C 3. *There are welts.* The interpreter had published, “but the welts are hearts, which though they have drawn a scar, yet underneath they abound in pus and corruption.” He had not seen, of course, that although *ὑπούλαι* ulcers are called properly those that have drawn a scar, but are purulent underneath, yet metaphorically any *ὑπόουλον* thing is said under which some vice lies hidden, or anything deceitful and faithless, as in Plutarch’s *De fortuna Alexandri*: *Φυγῶν ἐνέπλησε καὶ στάσεων ὑπούλων τὴν ἡγεμονίαν*—He filled the leadership with treacherous exiles and dissensions. Chrysostom, lib. 1, *De compunctione cordis*, p. 117: *Καὶ ὑπούλως διακείμενοι τοῖς θυσιαστηρίοις πρόσιμεν*—and we approach the altars with deceits only in our heart. The interpreter of the commentary of Procopius saw this, p. 13: *Ὁ δὲ μώλωψ A ίχνος ἐστὶ πληγῆς ὕφαιμον, ὅ τὰς ὑπούλους καρδίας δηλοῖ. Livor autem est plagae vestigium subcruentum, unde subdola et fallacia corda innuuntur.*
Col. 149 A 14. *For whatever.* That which has been corrected on this page, we shall indicate in few words, for it is not necessary to give the reason for everything, unless the occasion arises where it serves to illustrate similar sentiments of the Fathers. Those who have compared this edition with the preceding ones will be able to recognize the individual points that have been amended. Here, therefore, the interpreter had referred *ἁμαρτάνουσιν* to the Jews, “evils are intended for that sinning people, it permitted to perceive even in ourselves.” Again he had written below, “our edification if it shall have depended on doctrine, to us less conveniently demanding this life.”
Col. 151 B 1. *In the secret.* It was not necessary in this place to express *ὑποκλαίειν* with an added epithet, “to weep in a secret retreat”; but you might more aptly take it for the simple *κλαίειν*, especially since *αἰσχύνεται γάρ* follows, which indicates that station of penitents which was called *πρόσκλαυσις*, weeping, of which mention is made in the appendix to the canonical epistle of Gregory Thaumaturgus. This followed here, “why no longer do I await the hour of communion?” but *σύναξις* does not signify the *μέθεξιν τῶν ἁγιασμάτων* itself, the communion and participation of the sacraments, but that whole “divine office,” which the Latins call the collect and the mass, and the Greeks also ἁγίαν λειτουργίαν, as I have shown at greater length against Erasmus in my notes to the second homily of Chrysostom *Against the Jews*, although learned men in their new exercises seek his patronage in vain. Nor indeed have we denied that *σύναξις* signifies the Eucharist, or rather the gathering convened for celebrating the Eucharist, but we consistently deny that *σύναξις* is accustomed to be restricted by ecclesiastical writers to that part of the reception of the sacraments. Finally that which follows, *ὅ τι ἂν τύχῃ πλασάμενος*, the interpreter had rendered, “so that his simulation may not be detected.”
Col. 154 C 1. *And if by chance.* Tilmannus had written, that today they follow certain rites formerly forbidden by law. Nay, even if someone should observe rites prescribed by law, it turns to ruin, whence the Apostle, Gal. 5, 11: *For if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.* In the following period *ὀπώρα* does not mean autumn, but autumn fruits, or pome. Finally at the end of the page the interpreter had rendered, “embracing the studious eagerness of the perfect,” although in the ms. it was *τελειῶν*, not *τελείων*.
Col. 156 C 9. *Just as.* The interpreter had published: “For just as a vine through pruning, not expiring, easily vanishes.” But indeed *διαπνεῖσθαι* is said not only of that which is blown away and vanishes, but also of that which is blown through, or purged by wind, as in Dioscorides, lib. 5, cap. 9, *δυσδιάπνευστος* is said, which can hardly be transmitted through the spiritual passages, so *εὐδιάπνοος*, which catches a breeze easily. Thus Columella, lib. 4, cap. 14, [to be] cultivated and pruned
A His instruction is that winter rains should be transmitted to them [the vines]. Again, that phrase, *μὴ ἀποσκευασαμένη*, the soul [is] less correctly composing itself regarding these corporeal things. But in fact *ἀποσκευάζεσθαι* does not mean *παρασκευάζειν*, to prepare, to compose, but to adorn, or to empty, as in Leviticus 14:36: *Προστάξει ὁ ἱερεὺς ἀποσκευάσαι τὸν οἶκον* · The priest shall command to empty the house. Vulgate: *ut efferant universa de domo*, that they carry out all things from the house. A similar error was removed near the end of the page, *ἐξοιδαίνειν παρασκευάζοντα*, translating "composing the soul for this, so that it might swell with vain pride." In the same place, it should be corrected from the Royal manuscripts, as was in the English transcript: *ὑπερφυσᾶσθαι*, instead of *ὑπερφύσασθαι*.
Col. 158 A 14. *In the desert nurtured.* The faulty reading of the F manuscript produced a faulty version, *ἐτράφη ἐν ἐρήμῳ*, which the English manuscripts also follow. But in the Henry and Joeusa manuscripts it is written correctly *ἐτάφη*, "was buried." Therefore, the passage must be restored from Procopius, p. 16: *Ὧν ὁ ἐπιθυμήσας ἐπιθυμητὴς πάλαι λαὸς ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἐτάφη*: "Of whom the people, having felt desire, when they became seekers of desire, were long ago buried in the desert." For so we read in Numbers 11:34: *Ὅτι ἐκεῖ ἔθαψαν τὸν λαὸν τὸν ἐπιθυμητήν*, which Ambrose interprets in his book *On the 42 Stages*, stage 12, because there they buried the people who were full of desire. The interpreter of Procopius also did not express the word *ἐπιθυμητής*.
Col. 163 A 11. *As the others.* I am also surprised that the interpreter omitted here what the F manuscript had suggested to him, and what is acknowledged by other codices and by the very excerpts of Procopius, p. 20: *Ὡς ἀσυνέτοις τὸ προσέχειν, ἢ τὸ ἐνωτίζεσθαι, ὡς ἐξέδωκαν ἕτεροι* · "To pay attention as to the unwise, or to give ear, as others [have] rendered." He refers, without doubt, to the three Greek interpreters: Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, whose version in the Tetrapla was joined with the Septuagint. Therefore, this fragment of theirs must be added to the collections of Flaminius Nobilius. A little later, *οὗ φυλακτικὸς ἐστίν*, the interpreter had rendered it thus: "to whose custody he who is attentive becomes famous."
Col. 179 A 13. *But altogether.* And yet it is false that every day is called so in that sense, namely *κλητήν*; rather, Basil means not that one single most celebrated day is rejected, but all the celebrated ones. For not every day at all is called *κληταὶ ἡμέραι*, but only the more celebrated and solemn ones. Thus in Leviticus 23:35: *Καὶ ἡ ἡμέρα ἡ πρώτη κλητὴ ἁγία ἔσται*. And the first day shall be called holy to you. Item 23: *Αἱ ἑορταὶ Κυρίου, ἃς καλέσετε αὐτὰς κλητὰς ἁγίας* · The feasts of the Lord, which you shall call the called holy ones. The same Hebrew word *מקרא* (mikra) is translated by the LXX, as in Numbers 28:18: *Ἡμέρα ἡ πρώτη ἡ ἐπίκλητος ἁγία ἔσται*, the first day shall be holy to you. The Latin Vulgate often calls it *celeberrimum diem*; Hesychius, *vocalem diem sanctum*. It seems that by this word is designated the day of convocation and festivity: for Jerome also renders it in this way, *festivitates alias non feram*; which Montanus renders word for word from the Hebrew: *Vocare convocationem non potero*. Thus, therefore, this place should be written: "they rendered it 'called', but Theodotion *κλητὴν* 'convoked', Symmachus indeed *κλητήν* 'I will not bear the convocation': why we do not think [this], etc., but rather every day which is called or celebrated is so termed." Thus we read in Procopius these things reduced to a compendium: *Ἀντὶ δὲ τῆς μεγάλης ἡμέρας κλητὴν ἐξέδωκαν οἱ λοιποὶ, ὡς μὴ μίαν σημαίνεσθαι, πᾶσαν δὲ τὴν ἐν τῷ νόμῳ καλουμένην κλητήν*.
Col. 182 D 6. *The just soul.* The Latin Vulgate from the Hebrew says: *Non affliget Dominus fame animam justi* (The Lord will not afflict the soul of the just with hunger): but here it had to be translated word for word, *animam justorum* (the soul of the just ones). What follows, however, was omitted by the interpreter, so we have interpreted it; however, being mutilated in one word, it must be healed thus from the manuscripts F, H, I: *οὕτω δ' ἂν καὶ ἐναντίωμα ᾖ πρὸς τὸν τῶν μακαρ.* (so would there be even an impediment toward that of the blessed). He does not, therefore, deprecate the hunger of the body, which Paul counts among the afflictions that are to be pursued with praises.
Col. 194 C 1. *It is a matter of whose.* We have deleted those words of the interpreter: "the removal from ourselves requires an accurate exercise of works." For they stray from the sense of the author, which the most learned Curterius at Procopius, p. 25, elegantly expressed thus: *Ἡ δὲ τῶν κακῶν ἕξεως ἀπόθεσις, ἔργον ἡμέτερον, βοηθοῦντος κἀνταῦθα Θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἐθέλοντας ὁδηγοῦντος πρὸς ἀρετήν.* "The putting away of the habit of evils is our own work, with God helping here also, and leading those who are willing toward virtue. Thus we are able to strip off the corrupt habits of sins by our own works, if the will is directed toward virtue by divine aid." We have amended another place a little further on: *ἵνα μὴ μόνον ἀπὸ τῶν*. Which Tilmannus had expressed thus: "so that we might not take away from the actions not only His providence, but not even from mutual conversations." He referred the word *αὐτήν* to God's providence, not to *πονηρίαν*, and *διαλογισμούς* to conversations, not to inward thoughts, to which belongs what follows from the Apostle, *ἀγάπη οὐ λογίζεται τὸ κακόν*. The paraphrase of Procopius supports this interpretation: *Δεῖ οὖν λογισμοὺς καθαίρειν, οὐ μόνον κακίας ἀποκόπτειν ἐνέργειαν* · "It is necessary, therefore, to purge internal thoughts, not only to cut off the work of wickedness."
Col. 195 D 3. *For all things.* So indeed have the English manuscripts and the Royal F *πάντα ποιεῖ*, wherefore it is truly wonderful that the interpreter had written, "for He will renew all things," as if he had read *μεταβαλεῖ γὰρ πάντα*. But having inspected afterwards another Royal manuscript, H and I, I found written *πάντα ποιεῖ*. It must therefore be rewritten: "Do all things with counsel." Now if you ask where Scripture has said this, I can answer nothing else, by employing the Greek index or Cruden’s concordances, than that Basil alludes to that place in Ecclesiasticus 32:20, *Ἄνευ βουλῆς μηθὲν ποιήσης*, where the Latin Vulgate [has], "Do nothing without counsel." There is indeed another similar [text] in Proverbs 13:16, "A prudent man does all things with counsel"; but this is rendered by the LXX thus: *Πᾶς πανοῦργος πράσσει μετὰ γνώσεως*, "Every clever man acts with knowledge": and in the same chapter, verse 10: "But they who do all things with counsel are governed by wisdom," which is in Greek, *Οἱ δὲ αὐτῶν ἐπιγνώμονες σοφοί*, "But those who are cognizers of themselves are wise." Theodotion said...
A *And in those who take counsel, there is wisdom.* Perhaps the most learned Curterius was aiming at this when he noted in the margin of Procopius’s Commentary on Proverbs XIII, p. 26, where we read likewise, as in *πάντα ποιεῖ*, "Do all things with counsel." The following passage, however, is Proverbs II, 5. A little before chapter 2, the interpreter had rendered that statement of Basil, *ἡ ἔννοια τῶν κεκηρυγμένων*, as "the thought of the matters proclaimed and frightening to us, which shall present themselves in the terrible judgment." But all consistently read *κεκηρυγμένων* ("proclaimed"), not *κεκρυμμένων* ("hidden").
Col. 198 A 4. *Which are to be accepted.* The manuscript exhibits F. and one English [copy] *τά τε λεκτέα καὶ μὴ, καὶ ταῖς συγκατ.* But another English [copy] reads *τά τε λεκτέα καὶ τὰ πρακτέα, καὶ μὴν καὶ ταῖς συγκ.* "Which things must be said, and which must be done." H. I. *τά τε λεκτέα καὶ μή.* "Which things are to be said, and which are not to be said."
Col. 199 C 1. *To the one being betrothed*, *καθαρμοζομένῳ*. The interpreter had rendered it, "accommodating her to himself for salvation": but since he alludes to the Apostle’s place in 2 Corinthians XI, 2, *Ἡρμοσάμην γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἑνὶ ἀνδρί*, we have substituted the words of the Latin Vulgate, "For I have betrothed you to one husband." For not even Beza himself denies that *ἁρμόττεσθαι* in Herodotus is taken for *μνηστεύεσθαι* (to betroth), and the Hebrew word *ארש* (erash), when it is spoken of any application of convenience, is properly said of that which pertains to marriage. A little later, that phrase *ὁμοτίμως τοῖς ἀνθρώποις* was not sufficiently expressed: "as if God lowers Himself to human judgment, nay, as if He were arguing on even terms with them."
Col. 206 A 5. *In heaven, [its] swords*. Someone, either the interpreter or another, had noted in the margin that perhaps *ζήλῳ*, "with zeal," should be read instead of *οὐρανῷ*; but he had not noticed that the words are those of the prophet Isaiah XXXIV, 5: *ἐμεθύσθη ἡ μάχαιρά μου ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ* — "My sword is inebriated in heaven." In Procopius there is a similar thought from Jeremiah, *ἐμεθύσθη ἀπὸ αἵματος τραυματιῶν* — "It is inebriated from the blood of the wounded": where at chapter XXXIV the interpreter noted in the margin, whereas it is Jeremiah XLVI, 10: *Καὶ καταφάγεται ἡ μάχαιρα τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ ἐμπλησθήσεται, καὶ μεθυσθήσεται ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτῶν* — "And the sword of the Lord shall devour and be filled, and shall be inebriated with their blood."
Col. 207 B 12. *To the probable.* As axes and swords are sharpened on a whetstone, so their speech is sharpened by worldly wisdom and the precepts of rhetoric: but the interpreter, by the transposition of words, had made this sense more obscure: "Just as they sharpen [it] with some sword of worldly speech, whereby they may inflict fatal wounds through probable verisimilitude." You will write more correctly, therefore: "Just as if with a certain sword of speech, instructed by worldly wisdom for the sake of the probability of the discourse, they inflict fatal [wounds]." Procopius said: *τῶν ἁπλουστέρων τὴν ζωὴν ἀφαιρούμενοι, καθάπερ ξίφει τῷ λόγῳ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου σοφίας* — "Depriving the simpler ones of life, as if by a sword, by the word of the world’s wisdom." Toward the end of the page, a few "approved money-changers" (*trapezitai*) are spoken of according to the Lord’s word, mention of which is in the *Apostolic Constitutions*, book II, ch. 36. A *Become approved money-changers.* 1 Thess. V, 21: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
Col. 214 C 7. *For what kind of...* This period, up to the fifteenth line of the following page, since the sentence was suspended, had been divided into three diverse periods by the interpreter in this manner: "For what kind of spectac[le], by what reason can it be said to be religious and worthy of admiration? Such a thing is not far from human nature. It had been fair that, having been affected by many reproaches," etc. Therefore, he does not say it is far from human nature, but rather that it exceeds its capacity, because indeed by that virtue men are made like to God. Whence Cicero in *Pro Marcello*: "To conquer one’s spirit, to restrain anger, to temper victory, to raise up an adversary who is preeminent in nobility, talent, and virtue—and not only to raise him up when he is fallen, but to amplify his former dignity—he who does this, I do not compare him with the greatest men, but I judge him most similar to God"; and Claudian in *De quarto consulatu*: "Clemency alone makes us equal to the gods."
Col. 342 B 9. *As more grievous.* Before, it was read less aptly: "because he saw he was being surrounded by so much more grievous troubles": but here *περιίστασθαι* does not mean to be besieged, but to decline or avoid. A little later, having struck out the words of the Vulgate, we have added a literal interpretation from the Basilian edition, Sap. VI, 7.
Col. 219 A 2. *For this reason and the statutes.* The interpreter had noted in the margin: "Heed the ancient custom of the Church": but this custom was not sufficiently clearly explained; for it was thus: "For this reason also certain signs are set up around the church, which keep those caught in forbidden sins from entering and separate them": as if they were, as it were, certain images or *μορμολukeῖα* (specters/hobgoblins) that might drive them away; nay, he indicates the ecclesiastical sanctions themselves. For Basil and other ecclesiastical authors love to use this word in this sense, as in the book *On the Holy Spirit*, ch. 29: *Kaὶ δὴ καὶ παρὰ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν πρεσβυτέρων τύπον καὶ κανόνα παρειληφότες* — "And we also, having received a form and rule from the elders who lived before us." And in Epist. 1: *ὑποδέξασθαι τῇ καρδίᾳ τὰς ἐκ τῆς θείας διδασκαλίας ἐγγινομένας διατυπώσεις* — "That it may be apt to receive the discipline informed by divine monuments." So the interpreter of Procopius accepted *τύπους* in this place, p. 35: *Διὸ καὶ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας οἱ τύποι τοὺς ἀπηγορευμένα πλημμελοῦντας χωρίζουσιν* — "And therefore those formulas which the Church uses separate those who have committed forbidden things." But *διατύπωσις* also signifies a constitution, as does *τύπος*, "a statute." Council of Sardica, can. 12: *Ἅπαντες οἱ ἐπίσκοποι εἶπον· Ἀρέσκει καὶ αὕτη ἡ διατύπωσις* — "All the bishops said: This constitution also pleases [us]." Basil, *Regula* 47, discusses at greater length *Περὶ τῶν μὴ δεχομένων τὰ παρὰ τοῦ προεστῶτος τυπούμενα* ("Concerning those who do not accept what is prescribed by the superior"). *Τὸν δὲ μὴ καταδεχόμενον τὰ παρὰ τοῦ προεστῶτος διατεταγμένα* (for so I think it should be corrected, instead of *διαπεπραγμένα*) — "Concerning those who are unwilling to admit what
has been prescribed by the presiding officer." A Council of Ephesus, canon 1: 'Ἐχρῆν μὴ ἀγνοῆσαι τὰ περὶ αὐτῶν τετυπωμένα· "It was right not to be ignorant of what has been decreed concerning them." Thus, throughout the canons of the apostles and the councils of Ancyra, Laodicea, and Gangra, those who are adulterers, sacrilegious, and others prone to various crimes, are said to be excommunicated, prohibited, anathematized, or relegated to different orders of penitents.
Col. 219 C 10. *But each one.* Among the LXX we read in Judges XVII, 6, and XXI, 24: Οὐκ ἦν βασιλεὺς ἐν Ἰσραήλ, ἀνὴρ τὸ εὐθὲς ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ ἐποίει· "There was no king in Israel; a man did what was right in his own eyes." In both places in the Vulgate it is: "But each one did what seemed right to himself." Tilmann had written: "what pleased his own eyes," which is a familiar locution even in Scripture, as in Esther II, 4, "which shall please the eyes of the king." And I Kings XX, 3, "I have found favor in your eyes." Because the habit of the soul reveals itself mostly in the eyes, it is taken for affection, sentiment, or the judgment of the mind, as in Deuteronomy XV, 9: "Lest your eye be evil against your brother," that is, lest you be envious or unmerciful; II Kings X, 3: "Does David not honor your father in your eyes?"—that is, in your opinion or judgment? B Arias Montanus in *Idiotisms*.
Col. 223 B 7. *Which not from the beginning.* "Lawless" (*ἄνομοι*) are called in this place those who have not been subject to the law, just as in Romans II, 12: Τοῖς ἀνόμοις ὡς ἄνομος, ἀλλ' ἔννομος Χριστῷ· "To those who were without law, as though I were without law, while I was under the law of Christ." But the interpreter did not notice that " τὴν ἀρχήν," which takes the place of an adverb, is the same as "ἀπ' ἀρχῆς" ("from the beginning"), as in John VIII, 25: Τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅτι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν· "That which I also speak to you from the beginning." Tilmann had therefore written, "or certainly, who have not even attacked the beginning, let them complete it with the work." Furthermore, below, instead of *ἐνεργηθήσεται*, he translated as if he had read *εὐεργετηθήσεται*: "As though indeed to abandon the Lord were not a sin henceforth, so that one might even be treated with a benefit." All manuscripts, however, present the printed reading, and Basil afterwards explains the *οὐκ ἐνεργεῖσθαι* as *τοὺς ἐνεργοῦντας κωλύεσθαι* ("those who act are hindered"). But Chrysostom, page 661, explains it differently, *οὐχὶ, οἱ δὲ ἀσεβεῖς, φησίν, ἀπολοῦνται* — "Not so; the impious, he says, shall perish." Near the end of the page, *εἰ γὰρ ἡ ἄλωσις*, must be corrected from H. and I. to *ἡ ἀνάλωσις* ("consumption"), C rejecting the reading of A. and F., which Tilmann had followed, having written, "For if the captivity."
Col. 227 A 1. *Of this garden.* The author of the *Greek Thesaurus* teaches that *ἐπαμφότερα* is found in some places for *ἐπ' ἀμφότερα*, to which this example can be added, with the support of manuscripts F. and A., unless the other two, H. and I., which present the form *ἐπ' ἀμφότερα*, stand in the way. Basil therefore means that the word *κῆπος* ("garden")—which Aquila of Pontus, who was the first to translate after the Septuagint under Emperor Hadrian around the year 125 of Christ, translated as *hortum* into Latin in Genesis II, 8, where the LXX have *παράδεισος* ("paradise")—is sometimes taken in a good sense, sometimes in a bad sense in Scripture. Indeed, the LXX themselves in Deuteronomy XI, 10, translated the same word as *κῆπον*: Καὶ ποτίζωσι τοῖς ποσὶν ὡσεὶ κῆπον λαχανείας· "And you may irrigate with your feet as a garden of herbs." For there it is said that the land of promise is far richer than Egypt, which, while it is being maligned ("dicitur esse," while it is criticized), is said to be like a garden of herbs, because it is watered by the foot, or by the labor of men and by a trench, namely by leading water from the Nile through furrows and ditches; but in the land of Canaan, the fields are watered naturally from heaven by rain without labor, which Egypt does not have. A little further on, *ὡς πρὸς τὸ ῥητόν* had been translated: "As regards this opinion,"—we deemed that the literal or historical sense was indicated, to which is subsequently opposed the *νοῦς ἠθικός*, or tropological sense.
Col. 230 C 2. *Spark.* The interpreter had noted that, for *σπινθὴρ δικαίων* ("spark of the righteous"), which is written in F. H. I., one should read *σπινθὴρ πυρός* ("spark of fire"). But the A. reading is truer, *δικαίως* ("justly"), wherefore we expunged the word "of the righteous," and we translated *ἐλέγχους* as "accusations," rather than "arguments." In the two manuscripts H. and I. we find *ἐμπορεύεται* for *ἐμπορεύεται*. D
Ibid. D 2. *One indeed.* We restored the interpretation of this period, since all manuscripts agreed on the accepted reading, having deleted those words: "Because this effective force is conferred by God upon the saints." The interpreter of Procopius confirms the correction, page 40: "One indeed is the grace of the Spirit, providing a virtue from God to holy men for the knowledge of those things which are unknown, which provides revelation and the illumination of the heart."
Col. 231 C 2. *Wherefore.* The Royal codex F. presents this period as mutilated. Therefore, the interpreter who used it could not represent it complete. *Διὰ ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ Κυρίου διαλεγομένοις αὐτοῖς, ὡς δηλοῖ* — the other Royal manuscript H. and I. support the English ones, in which, however, the word *μέλειν* must be corrected, and *μέλειν* must be written, as we have written elsewhere: *Μὴ μέλειν αὐτῷ τῶν γινομένων* — "That he does not care about what is happening." Here also it should be translated: "For because they thought that God did not care about human affairs, they mocked those who spoke to them from the person of God, just as Jeremiah indicates, saying: 'I am mocked all the day.'" Vulgate Latin, Jeremiah XX, 7: "I am made a derision all the day, every one mocks me."
Col. 234 B 10. *Upon the foundation.* The faulty reading of ms. F. misled the interpreter, which the typographical work also embraced, while they prefer to follow a neatly written Royal codex rather than an English copy burdened with various readings: but in it, as in H. and I., you will find it written: *ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων, et ἓν τῶν ὀρέων ἦν Πέτρος* (Eph. II, 2). Therefore, we have expunged that interpretation of Tilmann: "For it is built upon the apostles and prophets, who laid its foundation, of whom one was Peter." Our correction is supported by the Procopius
A interpretation page 41: "That sword, which is very effective for killing, might be used for preparing the life-giving seeds which are inserted through wisdom into souls endowed with reason, and for being overturned." The Greek text and the Latin interpreter of Procopius, page 46, supports this emendation: "...might prepare those life-giving seeds, which are born in souls participating in reason by the benefit of wisdom, having now been turned into a plow." What follows, "a preservative of the grace, creative," is the reading of the Royal manuscripts H and I. It is held more correctly in F and the English [manuscripts] as "creative of preservatives." Finally, "hardened" will be more conveniently read here on the authority of two Royal [manuscripts] and the text of Procopius, than as the English, "hardened." But "zibyne" will be more simply rendered "lance" rather than "a dart sharpened with iron," lest perchance it should oppose this addition of the interpreter, which is found in Hesychius and Suidas: "zibyne, an all-iron javelin or spear." Tertullian, *Against Marcion* book III, chapter 21, retained the Greek term: "They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their zibynas into sickles." The Hebrew term which Isaiah used, B *hanith*, they [the LXX] rendered now as *dory*, as in Micah IV, 3, now as *seiro-mastē* (spear-shaft), as in IV Kings XI, 10: which word does not signify "quiver," as Kircher thought, but rather "lance." Truly, the interpreter omitted "and thrusting" (*kai apōthoumenon*), "piercing with a point and driving forward."
Col. 246 B 15. *Falsely thought*. *Hypolambanein* in this place is not "to receive," as the interpreter thought, but "to think, to suppose," *nomizein*, a word which must be substituted to fill that lacuna in Procopius, who translated these things into his own Commentary, page 47: "Since they thought they had the prophetic, he added 'of the Lord': 'But since they thought they had sufficient light for themselves, who were being illuminated by the legal and prophetic, he added the Lord's light.'" We restored the remaining sentiment of this period C from comparison with the Greek, having deleted those words: "by which same light previously he might correct the ignorance of those who sit in darkness."
Col. 247 A 13. *Sneezed*. The interpreter had edited, "What does he hint at with this speech?" He had not noticed that this is numbered among the absurdities of those practicing augury and those observing omens, namely, that they might catch omens from a sneeze. Theocritus, Idyll 7: *The Loves sneezed for Simichidas;* On which passage the Scholiast notes that some sneezes are useful, some harmful, and that among Homer they are taken in a good sense. Athenaeus, book II: "That they considered the head sacred is clear from the custom of swearing by it, and of worshiping the sneezes that proceed from it as sacred." Xenophon, book III, *The Expedition of Cyrus*, page 300: "While he was saying this, someone sneezed. All the soldiers, hearing it, with one impulse worshiped God. And Xenophon said..." D
'Since, soldiers, while we were speaking of salvation, an omen from Zeus the Savior appeared, I think we should offer a vow to this God.'" Propertius, book II, epist. 3: *Aridus argutum sternuit omen amor* (Dry love sneezed a clear omen). See Aristotle, *Problemata* 20; Pliny, book XXVIII, ch. 2. A little later, *ἐνεσχέθη* is read in all manuscripts, not *ἐνεσχίσθη*, as Tilmannus thought he had read: "The garment was torn." He had also omitted those words, *καὶ τῶν πάνυ γνωρίμων*.
B Col. 247 D 4. *Vociferantes* (Crying out). There followed in the interpreter: "of whose crying it is said: And the wanderers and the sorrowful are constrained by the lack of the intemperance of the heart in hunting." *F.* [for] *κόρακες, ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ κράζειν λέγεται καὶ ἀλύοντες*. And he indeed seems to have thought these were brought forth as words of Scripture; yet they could not occur to us in it after diligent investigation, nor does it record anywhere either ravens or eagles lamenting for want of prey; only in Amos III, 4 we read: *Et ἐρεύξεται λέων ἐκ τοῦ δρυμοῦ αὐτοῦ θήραν οὐκ ἔχων;* "Will a lion roar from his thicket not having prey?" In the following period, however, we have changed many things C that wandered from the author’s mind, concerning the appearance of a weasel or a dog tearing itself, or rather sticking its head out, which I will omit, as it is not necessary to point out everything that has been corrected. Furthermore, you have a similar speech on the superstitious and against everything in Cicero, book I *De divinatione*, towards the end, and a little after the beginning of book II: "Crassus would not have perished if he had obeyed the omen; if we are to take these things up, a stubbing of the foot, the breaking of a shoelace, and sneezes will have to be observed." And what Basil says, that birds usually flee due to lack of food, not to portend any evil, is similar to that apophthegm which the same Cicero reports, book I *De divinatione*: "When the consul Flaminius was leading his legions against Hannibal, he asked the keeper of the chickens, if the chickens did not feed, what he thought ought to be done; when he replied that they should remain quiet, Flaminius said: 'Splendid omens indeed, if the matter can be managed while the chicks are hungry, whereas nothing would get done if they were full.'" See also Plutarch, *Περὶ δεισιδαιμονίας*.
Col. 250 D 2. *Cum sceleratos*. In the margin Tilmannus had noted that he read, instead of *πολιὰ ἔθη*, *πολλὰ ἔθνη*, "when they had received many nations, accustomed to unapproved morals, they chose according to them," etc. But in *H.* and *I.* we find written, as the English copy and the text of Procopius have it, p. 48, and the interpreter himself, among whom you might perhaps translate it more aptly thus, *καὶ εὐθὺς ἐκ γενέσεως ἀλλότρια γίνεται τοῦ Θεοῦ*, "and immediately from birth they become strangers to God, and are called foreigners." Again, the same interpreter of Basil had noted in the margin that he should conjecture that *κοιλίας* (belly) should be read instead of *τῆς ψυχῆς* (of the soul), or D *ventriculi* (of the womb); perhaps thinking an allusion is made to that Psalm CXXVI, 3: *Ἡ κληρονομία Κυρίου υἱοί, ὁ μισθὸς τοῦ καρποῦ τῆς γαστρός*—"The inheritance of the Lord is children, the reward of the fruit of the womb." But *H.*, *I.*, and the English [copy] defend the reading of the Royal codex *F.*, and Procopius himself, although with the meaning varying somewhat: *Ἐπὶ ψυχῆς δὲ τέκνα ἀλλόφυλα οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν τῆς θεοσεβείας λόγων καρποί*—"But if you refer it to the soul, 'foreign children' will be understood as those fruits which are gathered from external writings alien to piety."
Col. 251 C 5. *Id fieri*. Again the interpreter had added his conjecture in the margin, that it seemed it should be inserted while the law says, *Nequando*, etc., and Procopius supported his conjecture, in whom we read p. 43; *εἰπόντος τοῦ νόμου, Μὴ πληθυνεῖς σεαυτῷ*—since the Royal and other codices do not acknowledge this, it seems superfluous: the sentence should only be conceived in the interpreter with these words: "Lest you multiply horses for yourself: those who were rebuked then had acquired such a multitude of horses for themselves that it exceeded the number." For the sentence depends on the beginning of the period *τοῦ γὰρ Θεοῦ βουλομένου*, "For when God wished," etc. Furthermore, in Deuteronomy XVII, 16, it is written a little differently about the king or prince of the people: *Οὐ πληθυνεῖ ἑαυτῷ ἵππον*. "He shall not multiply horses unto himself," that is, cavalry, as St. Augustine explains in his *Locutiones*. Procopius also brought it out differently: *μὴ πληθυνεῖς*, "you shall not multiply." A little above he translates *ἐπίμικτον* as "miscellaneous and of mixed seed"; the Hebrew word signifies the warp and woof, and also the promiscuous crowd, for which reason also in Exodus XII, 38: *καὶ ἐπίμικτος πολὺς συνανέβη αὐτοῖς*, "and a great mixed multitude went up with them," where the Chaldean paraphrast says, "many strangers who were not Israelite." There are those who understand this as Egyptians converted to the faith of the one God.
Col. 234 A 8. *Odiosa spectac.* It was read before, "they are a loathing, and are avoided, as unworthy of a spectacle, as excrementitious eruption." But here the verb *ἐντρέπεσθαι* is middle, not passive. Moreover, the fact that the author teaches here that Scripture is accustomed to call idols an "abomination" is confirmed by the LXX, when they translate the Hebrew expression which the prophet used here when he said, "the land is filled with abominations," in Leviticus XX, 4: *εἴδωλα*, idols: *Οὐκ ἐπακολουθήσετε εἰδώλοις*—"You shall not follow idols"; and Psalm XCVI, 7: *Οἱ ἐγκαυχώμενοι τοῖς εἰδώλοις*—"Who glory in idols." Chrysostom, in *Isa.*, p. 677: "Scripture is accustomed to call idols an 'abomination'; from here also the statue standing in the temple is called the 'abomination of desolation.'" Scripture indeed, according to its custom, calls idols an abomination: hence the "abomination of desolation" is called the statue, which stands in the temple, Matthew XXIV, 15.
Col. 257 B 3. *Καὶ δήσεται*. We have amended this from the text of the prophet *δήσεται*, just as it was also in *H.* and
the prudent, A which perhaps he had read in the transcript. The interpreter wrote *ἀνοήτῳ*, instead of *ἀνονήτῳ*, which *F.*, *H.*, and other manuscripts constantly prefer. But in the verse of Psalm 103:16, *F.* reads *ξύλα Κυρίου*, for which reason Tilmann had edited "the woods of the Lord," in which manner Symmachus, the fifth and sixth editions also translated; because, however, *H.*, *I.*, and Procopius have *πεδίον*, "of the field," we have changed it in accordance with the Latin Vulgate. Aquila and Theodotion embraced both: *ξύλα τοῦ πεδίου Κυρίου*, "the woods of the field of the Lord."
Col. 267 B 11. *Custom*. He says *κοινή*, not *καινῇ*, as the interpreter did; "he compares the practice of living, thought up by novelty, to an oak." Nay, as Procopius says, *σκληρὸν ἦθος δηλοῖ καὶ ἀντίτυπον, τοὺς δὲ τοιούτους καὶ ἡ κοινὴ συνήθεια παρεικάζει δρυΐ*. "He signifies the very hardness and stubbornness of morals: those who are endowed with these are compared by common custom to an oak." That Homeric passage is well known, Odyssey T, *Οὐ γὰρ ἀπὸ δρυός ἐσσι παλαιφάτου, οὐδ᾽ ἀπὸ πέτρης.* For you are not born from the fabled oak, nor from the rock. To which Plato alludes in Book VIII of *The Republic*: *Ἢ οἴει ἐκ δρυός ποθεν, ἢ ἐκ πέτρας τὰς πολιτείας γίνεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ ἐκ τῶν ἠθῶν τῶν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν;* "Or do you think that states arise from some oak or from a rock, and not rather from the characters of those who dwell in the cities?" Des. Erasmus brings this forward in *Chiliad* 1, *Cent.* 8, *Proverb* 87, "Born from oaks," and repeats it in *Chiliad* 4, *Cent.* 7, *Proverb* 96: "Not from oak and rock." The same Erasmus, unmindful of what he had written, or whoever else it was whose work he was using to compile the collections of proverbs. That which he cites, however, without indicating any author, "and born of hard oak," C is from Virgil, *Aeneid* VIII, 314, 315: *Gensque virum truncis et duro robore nata,* *Queis neque mos neque cultus erat...* And from Juvenal, *Satire* 6: *Vivebant homines qui rupto robore nati.*
Col. 274 B 13. *And every*. The interpreter had omitted these five words, but with the received reading, which *A.*, *H.*, and *I.* support, that of codex *F.* seems more true: *Ὃς ἐστιν ὑπὲρ πάντα νοῦν*. Ibid. E 4, he translates *ἐπιπεπλεγμένως* as if it were *ἐπιπολαίως*, "superficially," when *ἐπιπλέκεσθαι* means to be implicated or mixed. This is how the interpreter of Procopius understood it, p. 85: *Ἐπιπεπλεγμένως δὲ περὶ τῶν δύο τοῦ Κυρίου παρουσιῶν ἡ Γραφὴ διαλέγεται*. "The Scripture speaks in a mixed manner concerning the two advents of the Lord."
Col. 278 B 11. *Figuratively*. The interpreter had written, "the bats can be called allegorically," but Basil does not say this, but rather that the demons themselves are called bats. For he did not say the idolaters, but the demons, are delighted by nocturnal shadows. In Procopius, p. 58, the same meaning shines through; but a little later I wrote "according to the analogy of faith," not as it was before, "according to the analogy are distinguished in each of those who believe in Christ," so that it would be apparent D that the author is using the Apostle's words, Romans XII, 6: E-
- A Sive prophetiam secundum rationem fidei. Moreover, that last member, "Cease from man," Basil warns is not found in the copies of the common edition, but was placed in the Hebrew and translated by the other interpreters, specifically those different from the Septuagint and Theodotion. For which reason someone noted in the margin that the common edition belonged to the Greeks, which is also the Septuagint of the interpreters; yet this is not true if we believe St. Jerome, who says in epist. 135: "So that you may know that there is one edition which Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea, and all the teachers of Greece call *koinē*, that is, common, and vulgate, and by many it is now called Lucianic; and another of the Septuagint interpreters, which is also found in the *Hexapla* copies;" and in the Preface to the book of Paralipomena: "Origen mixed the edition of Theodotion into the edition of the Septuagint, marking with asterisks, of course, what had been lacking, and with obeli, what seemed to have been added superfluously." But the same Jerome in the cited letter warns that between the *koinē* and the LXX edition there is this difference, that the common one, on account of places, times, and the will of the ancient scribes, "is a corrupt edition, but that which is held in the *Hexapla* is the incorrupt" Septuagint edition. Since therefore it is evident from the text of Isaiah which is in Procopius, taken from an old manuscript of René Marchal, which now belongs to the most illustrious Cardinal de La Rochefoucauld, that this member was plucked from the version of Aquila of Pontus, hence we conclude that sometimes the edition which Origen conflated from the LXX and Theodotion is called the common edition—and at this passage by Basil: sometimes also that which is mixed from the diverse versions of all B the interpreters, as the same Jerome indicated. The same man also testifies in the Commentary on this passage of Isaiah that this member was passed over by the LXX, and in Greek copies was added by Origen under asterisks from the edition of Aquila. Finally, it must be noted that in the two Royal manuscripts there is *en tini elogisthē*?; not *en tini*—in which he was reckoned?—with a question, which also must be corrected in Chrysostom's Commentary on Isaiah.
Col. 279 A 14. *Would have been crucified*. These we changed so that the Apostle's words might be recognized, II Corinthians XIII, 4: "For he was also crucified out of weakness, but he lives by the power of God." Also that, *apothaneisthai gar*, which Tilman had translated: "For he died for our sins, the Scripture attesting," not noticing they are Christ's words, John XI, 25. Lastly, there were so many things to be corrected that while we were reviewing this translation while moving quickly through the press, very many things escaped us, such as the one which follows immediately, *dia philoxenian antlousa*, for which the interpreter had noted in the margin that one should read *anthousa*, and had written, "she flourished wonderfully with the zeal of hospitality." And while the vulgar lexicons indeed sometimes explain *antlein* as "to draw out labor," or "to endure"; yet, having weighed the passage more accurately, we judge that it should be corrected to, "hosti- C lity" is defined as follows; for instance, Rebecca receiving Abraham's stranger servant, Gen. XXIV, 20: *Kai tas kamēlous sou potiō, kai hudreusomai. Kai edramen eti epi to phrear, antlēsai hudōr*. "And for your camels I will draw water, and I will draw water." And she ran again to the well to draw water.
Col. 283 C 6. *But even in the Church*. The interpreter had fallen upon a mutilated manuscript F, and therefore rendered this period truncated: "But in the Church the apostles hold the primacy, according to the order, the prophets." He points to the Apostle's passage, I Corinthians XII, 8: *En Ekklēsiā prōton apostolous, deuteron prophētas. Ean ou pote*. But the things which were added from the Anglicans, the Royal manuscripts H and I confirm.
Col. 289 B 9. *Fifty*. In the two Royal manuscripts and I, it was only *ennakosia*, but the Anglican adds *pente*, erroneously, I think, for *pentēkonta*: for如此 it is in Genesis IX, 29: *Kai egenonto pasai hai hēmerai Nōe ennakosia pentēkonta etē, kai apethanen*; "And all the days of Noe were nine hundred and fifty years, and he died." Nor does the Latin Vulgate disagree; but even what he said about Methuselah, attributing to him nine hundred D and seventy years, is somewhat different from what the LXX have, Genesis V, 27: *Kai egenonto pasai hai hēmerai Mathousala, has ezēsen, ennea kai hexēkonta kai ennakosia etē, kai apethanen*. "And all the days of Methuselah which he lived were nine hundred sixty-nine years." Finally, because the manuscript's writing was ambiguous, the interpreter read *ekeinou* for *ekeinōn*, therefore he translated: "than whom no one lived longer thereafter."
Col. 290 B 1. *Who is angry*. The same things were being read in F; yet the interpreter had edited: "who consults for an eye plucked out, that he might offer another": but we read this nowhere in the Gospel: but only in Matthew V, 39, Christ opposes, "Do not resist evil, but if anyone shall strike your right cheek, offer him also the other," to the law of the old law of Leviticus XXIV, 20: *Ophthalmon anti ophthalmou, odonta anti odontos; kathoti an dō mōmon anthrōpō, houtō dothēsetai autō*. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; as he shall have given a blemish to a man, so shall it be given to him"; and Deuteronomy XIX, 21. In Procopius, p. 64: "Who does not now counsel to not pluck out eye for eye, but to offer the other cheek also to one striking?" Soon after he said *meteōrizesthai tēn dianoian*, as the author of the book of II Maccabees V, 17, of King Antiochus: *Kai emeteōrizeto tēn dianoian ho Antiochos*. "And Antiochus was elevated in mind."
Ibid. 13. *But in the mind's intent*. The interpreter had noted that this particle was mutilated, which he thus translated: "In taking meals let him not be dirty, or foul, but let him imprint upon his heart, and the destination of his mind, because the Lord," etc. Rather, he does not wish there to be pollution in foods, as the monastic constitutions cap. 6 say that we abstain from foods, not that we follow the rites of the Jews, *ou gar tōn toioutōn apechometha*.
A Judaizing, but rather fleeing from the surfeit of pleasure; and Augustine, book 30, *Against Faustus*, ch. 5: "Christians, for the sake of adorning the body, in order to humble the soul from irrational impulses—not because they believe these things to be unclean—abstain not only from meats but also from certain fruits of the earth." A little further down, the place from Proverbs xxv, 12 is cited with somewhat different words; for thus it is in the Septuagint: *Eis enōtion chrusoun sardion poluteles dedetai; logos sophos eis euēkoon ous*; "In a golden earring an expensive sardius is set; a wise word in an obedient ear." In Procopius, for "valuable word" (*verbum pretiosum*), we read "operative word" (*verbum operosum*), perhaps by a printer's error.
B Col. 294 B 8. *Vidi enim te*. This must be corrected from another Royal manuscript, H and I, which was wrongly edited from F, from which Tilmannus drew the Latin: "For seeing, I have seen the gravity of morals in secret old age, which is also endowed with a senile sense:" but the true reading requires: *tōi gar phronēmati heōraka presbutikon tunchanonta ho blepōn tēn semnōtēta tēs en tōi kruptōi polias*. Procopius said on p. 66: "Since he also spoke to Jeremiah thus: 'Do not say that I am a youth,' demonstrating that youth did not exist in him because of the perfection of his mind." Thus, the lacuna there must be filled from Basil, as the most learned interpreter Curterius conjectured: "Since the Lord himself, when he approached Jeremiah, forbade him to say that he was a youth, so that he might show that he was not a youth who was endowed with senile perfection of mind." Basil said, *polian en tōi kruptōi*, as the Apostle Romans 2, 29: *All' ho en tōi kruptōi Ioudaios, kai peritomē kardias*; "But he who is a Jew in secret, and circumcision of the heart"; and Matthew 6, 4: *Ho Patēr sou, ho blepōn en tōi kruptōi*; "Thy Father who seeth in secret." Toward the end of the page, another passage was restored by us in the interpreter, having expunged those words: "By their own authority, through which individuals can arrogate power to themselves by their own deeds, and seize from them the power of ruling." For Basil does not say that deceivers would seize the power of ruling, or that they would arrogate it to themselves by their deeds, but rather that the Jews themselves would deserve, by their sins, to be subjected to the yoke of barbarians. But from the two manuscripts H and I, it must be corrected in the Greek: *All' aph' heautōn esē kurieusein, hē hekastos heautōi dia tōn ergōn*, and in Procopius p. 66: *Kuryeusein phēsin hekastou to kurieuthēnai*... "Who were drawn by their works to the license of ruling by every individual."
D Col. 298 A 11. *In eorum partes*. The interpreter had omitted the word *prosēchōroun*, which is suitable for indicating the factions and dissensions of those seditious men who were disrupting everything at the time of the siege of Jerusalem: see Josephus, books v, vi, and vii, *Of the Jewish War*. Again, we translate *chlanida* as "military cloak" (*paludamentum*), not "necklace" (*torquem*), or a very thin and soft little mantle, because such an ornament or garment would not befit a prince, or a person of rank. Moreover, there is a lacuna in Procopius, which can be filled from this Greek text of Basil, if we read thus on p. 67: *gamikōn endumatōn, kai kosmou tou prepontos esterēmenon, ptōcheuonta brōmatōn pneumatikōn*; "He who might lack nuptial garments, and be stripped of seemly ornament, while begging for spiritual foods, and might labor from a lack of true bread," etc.
Ibid. C 5. *Toutesti, to sitometrion*. These were absent from manuscript F; not so from H and I. Therefore, we have added in the interpreter's words, "that is, the measure of wheat."
Col. 299 B 5. *Non contradicant*. These had been omitted by the interpreter, which, however, three manuscripts exhibit with one consent. Where the probity of that age is to be noted, in which holy men separated themselves from all seeking of ecclesiastical dignities, which Saint John Chrysostom also confirmed by his own example, when, seeking flight for himself, he hid so that he would not be promoted to the episcopate, and wrote a book of his defense to Basil, his companion and comrade, wherein he exposes, among other things, the difficulties by which the office of bishop is beset, in his six books *On the Priesthood*, as Socrates records, book VI *History*, ch. 3. The same zeal for fleeing the episcopacy among the ancients is also testified to by that letter of the council of Valentinus to the Forum Juliense, in which they declare that some, out of horror of undertaking the priesthood, confessed that they had committed some sin for the sake of which they might be rejected from it. Ambrose, too, in order to escape the dignity, wished to seem credulous and shameless. See Paulinus, in his *Life* [of Ambrose], and Baronius, year 374, 6.
Ibid. 13. *To axios einai*. The interpreter elicited the opposite from these words: "teaching that he was unworthy to preside": but he was showing himself worthy by this very thing, because he was humble and modest.
Ibid. D 5. *Mestai anomias*. This must be corrected to *meta anomias*, which variant reading, added in the margin of a copy, should have been preferred to the other; and the interpretation follows it.
Col. 302 A 8. *Cum eorum lingua*. The interpreter joined the word "tongue" with the verb *antilegein*, not with *meletāi*, and did not notice that in David "tongue" is called *meletōn* [meditation], Psalm 34, 23: *Kai glōssá mou meletēsei tēn dikaiosunēn sou*; "And my tongue shall meditate thy justice"; and 36, 28: *Stoma dikaiou meletēsei sophian*; "The mouth of the just shall meditate wisdom," where it is wrongly translated in the German Bibles, "it will care for wisdom." For it is not *melei* [it matters], but *meletēsei* [it will meditate], in which passages the Hebrew word *hagah* signifies not only "to meditate," but also "to mutter": and so in Psalm 113, 45, it is translated *phōnein*, *ou phōnēsousin en tōi larungi autōn*; "They shall not cry out in their throat." Therefore, we have deleted those words of the interpreter here: "That they might meditate day and night on the law of the Lord, their tongue contradicted."
Ibid. C 2. *Quod populus*. The interpreter must be careful, lest the similarity of words deceive him, as in this place he thought *to aniaton* "incurable evil," was *para to aniōn* which is, "to cause trouble."
A *auton en te ge*. "And he shall make him blessed in the earth." The Chaldean version in the same place, "And he shall give him blessedness in the earth." St. Jerome, "And he shall be blessed in the earth."
Col. 313 A 14. *Non enim est judic.* The manuscript F expressed this reading in these words by Tilmannus: *Ou gar tou krinontos esti meta tōn krinomenōn erchesthai pros krisin, alla meta tōn krinomenōn meth' allēlon a. p. p. kr.* "For it is not for the judge, when he has already reached a decision, to come to judgment, so that they might be at odds with the judge." But the reading we have expressed from H, I, and the English is more appropriate. Moreover, in the preceding member, F preferred *ouk epi tō krinai, all' epi tō diakrinai*: "not to judge, but to discern"; however, in the English [manuscript] it is: *all' epi tō diakrithēnai*, "but to contend in judgment," or "to test in judgment." B This last [clause] was entirely absent from the Royal manuscript H. From the same and from I and F, we have added to the interpretation on the following page "and those hired for wages," etc., which had been omitted.
Col. 317 A 8. *Epi to katō.* More correctly in H and I: *epi to katō*, which is added in the English transcript here being mutilated; but we have struck out "towards the earth," which had been repeated from the version without cause. A little later, where it treats of the basilisk, it had been written, "to corrupt with gaze alone"; but *diaphtheirein* here means "to kill." For it does not only infect, it kills. Pliny, lib. XXVIII, cap. 4, *Naturalis Historia*: "The basilisk, which even serpents themselves flee, killing others by its scent, which is said to kill a man even if it only looks at him, the magi celebrate with wondrous praises." The same author, lib. VIII, cap. 21, narrates that the Cyrenaic province C produces them of no more than twelve fingers in size; Elian also, lib. II, cap. 5, *De Animalibus*, writes that it is a palm in length: *spithamē tou basliskou to mēkos esti, kai mentoi kai theasamenos ho tōn opheōn mēkistos auton ek tēs tou physiēmatos prosbolēs houtos esti.* "Or the largest of serpents withers at the onset of its exhalation upon seeing it." But lib. II, cap. 31, he says the basilisk trembles at the sight of a rooster, and upon hearing its crowing, is shaken by terror and dies; for which reason those who travel through Africa take a rooster with them as a companion of their journey.
Col. 307 D 1. *Semitam.* Here the interpreter had repeated this sentence as if it were part of the text, and had not connected it with the preceding member; for the author means this: those who praise beyond [what is] deserved, they disturb the path of the feet, and as Procopius says, *synechon autōn tas hodous, tais skiais enapomeinai keleuontes*. "They were confounding their ways, who were ordering them to rest in shadows"; insofar as *to makarizein*, although it literally sometimes sounds like "to make blessed" or "to beatify," as the interpreter had published; yet for the most part among profane authors it signifies "to judge" or "to proclaim blessed," whence for Aristotle, I *Rhetoric*, *makarismos* and *eudaimonismos* are the primary species of praise. So also Ecclesiasticus XI, 30: *pro teleutēs mē makarize mēdena*. "Before death do not praise any man." The Vulgate also of Isaiah III, 42, "They who call you blessed, they themselves deceive you." Indeed the Hebrew word *ashar* sounds no otherwise, as Psalm CXLIII, 15: *emakarisan ton laon*, "they called the people blessed": D sometimes, however, *makarizein* is interpreted as "to make blessed" by the Old Itala, as Psalm XL, 2: *Kai makarisai*.
Col. Ibid. C 4, *Atque utinam.* *Eithe de mē kai tēs Ekklēsias hai thugateres ta auta enkaleointo*; so it is to be read from H, I, A, not as it was in F: *eithe de mē*, and *enkaleounto*, whence the interpreter expressed, "But not even the daughters of the Church were summoned into court for the same things." From the same manuscript codices we corrected a little earlier in the English transcript that faulty reading, *tas archēgous autōn tas thugateras Siōn*. But although it had been correctly written, a little later in F, *paideiais asemnois*, the interpreter thought he had read *paideiais*, "they give themselves to dishonest disciplines."
Col. 349 B 10. *Est igitur opus.* We have removed the mark of interrogation, which the Greek does not recognize, and we have amended from the Royal [manuscripts] what was in the English, *kai hoitines tōn timōmenōn*, and we have changed that of the interpreter: "What then is the work of the Lord? To reveal the habit; and so if among us they be held in honor"
A II Paralipom. III, 5, *he carved upon it palm trees and* B *chains*. Where the Latin Vulgate reads: *And he carved upon it palm trees, and as it were small chains connected to one another*: literally, they are flexible chains.
Col. 223 A 10. *She paints her eyebrows.* We have changed that rendering: "Like the moon bent into horns, she embraces her eyebrows in their orbit around her eyes." Basil signifies that the eyebrows are drawn around the eyes so as to surround them like a crescent moon. St. Jerome, Epist. 10: "She did not wear creaking shoes, nor circles smeared with antimony." Epist. 27: "Degraded is the face which I have often painted with white lead and antimony." St. John Chrysostom, in the treatise on St. Joseph published by us: *Melani tous ophthalmous ypographousa*, i.e., "painting her eyes with antimony." Tertullian, *On the Apparel of Women*, ch. 5: "Those who stain their cheeks with rouge, and smear their eyes with soot." Pollux, lib. V, ch. 16: *Tous ophthalmous ypographei, tas ophrys melainei, eis grammas hemikykliōn periagei, geōmetrei peri episkytion*, i.e., "She stains her eyes underneath, blackens her eyebrows, draws them into semicircular lines, measures her forehead," or rather, "she practices geometry on her eyebrows."
Col. 327, A 7. *That, however, [by] no one.* The published version presented another meaning: "If indeed no one sees a certain person by himself living a private life, [then] casting bright garments around the house. For these signify every excess, by which those were accustomed to abuse them." But as concerns those *Laconian* pellucid [garments], St. Jerome says that the LXX interpreted them in this way, wishing to signify the thinnest garments, with which the bodies of the Lacedaemonians—who were most ready for war and of an austery life—were covered; others refer this to Laconian purples that are shining and splendid, because Pliny, *Hist.* lib. XXXV, ch. 6, writes that Laconian purples are most precious. Basil, however, thinks the Laconian garments were transparent, of the same kind as the Coan garments celebrated by the Latin poets. Tibullus, eleg. 3, lib. II: *Let her wear thin garments, which a Coan woman* *Has woven...* And Horace, lib. I, satyra 2: *There is no obstacle for the other, it is almost possible to see you naked* *In Coan [garments]...* Propertius, lib. II, eleg. 1: *Or to see her gleaming in a Coan toga.*
For the Coan garment of girls was of not too good a reputation. Pliny, *On Silkworms*, lib. XI, ch. 22: "They weave webs like spiders, for the clothing and luxury of women. Pamphila... invented the way to unweave them and weave them again in Coan [garments], so as to denude women of their clothing." Clement of Alexandria [says] these things concerning the dress of the Laconian women, *Paedagogus*, lib. II, ch. 10: *Oude gar hyper gony kathaper tas Lakainas estolisthai kalon; ouden gar meros hotioun apogymnousthai gynaikos euprepes*. "For it is not becoming to be dressed above the knee as the Laconian girls: for no part of a woman is decent to be laid bare." Ibycus also called the Laconian women *phainomērides*, because they revealed their thighs in walking, and *andromaneis*, as if in an insane love for men.
ardentes apud Plutarchum sub finem Vitæ Numæ. A Col. 327 B 10. Purpura pro. These things, as they were desired in the Greek in the Royal manuscript F. and from H. I. and the English, have been supplied, so their Latin interpretation has been added to the text, so that the perfect figure of the four elements might appear in the priestly vestment, which S. Jerome also explains in ep. 428: “Four colors are referred to the four elements, from which all things consist. Fine linen is allotted to the earth; because it is born from the earth. Purple to the sea, because it is dyed from its shells; hyacinth to the air, on account of the similarity of the color; scarlet to fire and ether, which is called *sen* in Hebrew, and they recount that it is just that the pontiff should pray not only for Israel, but for the whole world.” Theodoret, dealing with the coverings of the tabernacle, quæst. 60 in Exodum: “They had a ceiling made of woven work of various and diverse colors, and these were the riddles of the four elements. For the hyacinth resembles the air; the rose-colored or scarlet resembles fire; the purple indicates the sea; for it feeds the shell from which such a color is made; and the fine linen signifies the earth; for it is said to grow from it.” They were covered with various textures of diverse dyed colors, which indeed sub-indicated the four elements. For hyacinth approaches the nature of air; but the rosy color, or that dyed with scarlet, [approaches] the nature of fire; but purple denoted the sea, in which the shell is nourished, from whence color of this kind is taken; but fine linen referred to the earth, from whence it is said to be born. Josephus, lib. III, cap. 8, Antiquit.: “For the fabrics woven from four [types] show the nature of the elements. For the fine linen seems to signify the earth, because the flax is drawn out from it; and the purple [signifies] the sea, from having been blood-stained by the shell; the hyacinth wishes to signify the air, and the scarlet [is] again a proof of fire.” “The veils also, woven from four colors, design the nature of the elements. For the fine linen seems to refer to the earth, from which this sort of flax originates; but the purple [refers to] the sea, because it is dyed with the gore of shellfish; the hyacinth seems to represent the air, just as the scarlet color [represents] fire.” Justly, therefore, have we restored the order of the words that was disturbed, since before these things were expressed in such a way, as if women were dressed in garments which by their own colors represented the elements, but even in the Greeks it must still be corrected from the Royal H. and another English one: D *ekeinoi sumbola*, “clothed, such as those were, in which the priests were clad.”
Ibid. 14. Accubitoria. We have written *accubitoria*, and in the Greek *kataklita*, because two Royal F. H. and I. copies together with the English agree upon that reading. However, because in the Plantin and German Bibles *theristra katakleista* ("closed summer-wraps") is read by the prophet, the interpreter had turned it: “*theristra clausa*.” And indeed in certain copies of Basil this is also read, the most learned man Flaminius Nobilius advises in the Roman edition of the LXX, just as also in some Greek books of the prophet Isaiah: although without B the etymology, which he brings forward, that they are designated as *toralia*, or carpets, with which beds—not litters—were spread, when one was about to recline, as in Virgil, I Aeneid: “...and they recline upon the spread purple.” Thus in Tertullian, *De pallio*, cap. 3, Pamelius understands that passage concerning the peacock: “Although the peacock is also a garment of feathers, and indeed of *cataclitae*, nay more depressed than any shellfish,” that is, of the *accubita* (couches) which they used for reclining, although Suidas wishes *kataklita* to be not *toralia*, but *klinas* (beds). But I think one should agree neither with him, nor with others who derive that word *cataclitis* from *kataklyzein*, when it would have been better written *cataclystis*: but the most learned Theodore Marcilius has best conjectured that it should be corrected here as *cataclistis*, from Fortunatus, lib. *De vita S. Martini*, *Cycladis aut qualis cataclistis effora vasis*, and in book IV, *Quae manus artificis cataclistica fila rotavit*; and from Apuleius, lib. XI, “A pleasant chorus of very choice youth in snow-white garment and *cataclista* followed;” but Apuleius is not to be corrected from Tertullian, as Jo. Mercerius J.C. wished, since this reading of the Greek LXX text confirms that amendment, where *porpa katakleista* are called “*palliola clausa*,” and other places of Seneca, lib. I *De tranquill.*, and Ammianus Marcellinus, from which it is evident that those garments are especially commended which are brought forth from caskets, pressed by weights so that they may shine more: nor could an author easily occur who calls garments *cataclitae*, but only *toralia* are called *cataclita*. In the Greek text also, in the edition by Curterius, we do not read *kataklita* but *katakleista*. From the Hebrew it cannot be clear which word is more apt, because this was added to the Hebrew text by the LXX, as is evident from S. Jerome, who has only “and *theristra*”: for which reason Basil says that the diction is marked here with an obelus, having been omitted by Aquila, Symmachus and the others, as the rest were slaughtered by the obelus in the edition of Origen, which had been added to the Hebrew, just as we annotated before on that of Genesis, “And the water is gathered,” homil. 4 in Hexaem.
Col. 330 B 8. Et incensum. We have designated the place of Scripture in which mention is made of the oil of anointing and the composition of incense, which the Vulgate calls “*thymiama aromatum*.” Furthermore, when the interpreter thought that something was missing here, he had added some words, and had divided one period into two: “For perhaps after voluptuous fragrant odors began to exist in the temple, then the ointment of holy anointing and the composition of incense ceased to be. For it was cast onto the ground.”
Col. 331 C 3. Ante virilem. The interpreter had published, “*præripi morte ante messoriam fulcem*”: because he had not noted that *akmen* not only sounds as "edge" or "point," but also *tēn neotēta*, "youth," and *en akmē* or *tous akmazontas*, "in their prime," or "those flourishing."
A *those in the prime of life*, as Basil says below, *all those in the prime of life*, "who consist in the vigor of age." But there also the translator departed from the mind of the author, bereft of an emended codex, translating, "so that they may appear to have occupied the vigor of their age for no use, or at least because they are destitute of help, not very difficult to endure everything"; but in truth, from the Royal [codex] and I. it must be restored as *ē dia to aboētētos*.
Col. 334 C 3. *And the trouble*. Instead of *agōna autou*, Tilman had noted that he read *agōnian heautōn*, and had written, "hence many together say that they wish to be relieved and to console their bereavement": we, on the contrary, have changed nothing in the Greek against the consensus of all the codices, but in the Latin, as we also retained *chrēson* a little later, nor did we correct with him *klēthō ep' hēmas*, "let it be invoked upon us." Rather, "suit the name to us, that we may be called the wives of such a man."
Col. 335 C 11. *For since their own*. Whatever has been deleted by us we shall not express, but both here and in other places of this commentary, we shall not set forth at length what has been left unchanged or emended, lest these notes be too prolix, and we shall only indicate with a finger, as it were, those sentiments which, when compared with other editions, will signify to the diligent reader what has been achieved in this Greek-Latin version. On the following page we have written *kriseōs hēmera* for *ktiseōs* from F. H. and a little later *leimma* for *lēmma*; the latter, *kat' eklogēn charitos*, "according to the election of grace," is at Romans xi, 5.
Col. 342 A 2. *When therefore*. Here the translator had omitted an entire line of the Greek text, which the Royal F. exhibits, and he had begun a new period, translating those words, *kai ho logos ainissetai*, "Moreover, he also tacitly hints that there are two species of baptism, lest baptism should proceed to a third." Furthermore, that *pneuma kaüseōs*, "spirit of ardor," Cyril of Alexandria also explains concerning baptism in his Commentary: *Kaüseōs de pneuma phamen tēn epi tou hagiou Pneumatos charin ou dicha pneumatos en hēmin ginomenēn*. "We call the spirit of ardor the grace in holy baptism, not brought into being in us without the Spirit." B *promise*, or *proclamation*: since it properly is possession. Ps. 11, 8: *Dōsō soi ethnē tēn klēronomian kai tēn kataschesin sou ta perata tēs gēs*. "I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and thy possession the ends of the earth": and the same Hebrew word *klēronomia* is translated in II Paralipom. xxxi, 1.
Col. 356 A 8. *Since indeed*. These also had been omitted by the antiquary or scribe who transcribed the Royal F., but were restored from the other Royal H. and the English [manuscripts], along with their version: furthermore, that *en chiri mesitou* is from the Epistle to the Galatians iii, 19. Of the guardian angel attributed to each one, it is said elsewhere, in Psalm xxxiii, 3: *Immitet angelus*, "The angel shall encamp," or "will pitch his camp."
Col. 362 B 1. *For it is not*. The passage is Jeremiah xiv, 22: *Mē estin en eidōlois ethnōn huetizōn? Kai ei ho ouranos dōsei plēsmonēn autou, ouchi su autos?* "Are there any among the idols of the nations that can cause rain? Or shall the heaven give its shower? Art not thou he?" But another, "And I will rain upon one," does not differ from the words of Amos iv, 7. Finally, the third is Ezekiel iv, 6, somewhat different: for there it is in the Basilian Bibles and in Polychronius and in the manuscripts which Flaminius Nobilius mentions: *Kai egō dedōka soi tas duo adikias autōn eis arithmon hēmerōn enenēkonta kai triakosias hēmeras*. "And I have given thee their two iniquities in the number of days, ninety and three hundred days." St. Jerome testifies that the LXX so edited it on that passage; and likewise Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, although the Vulgate exemplars have one hundred ninety years: but Basil, for ninety and three hundred, said, "ninety three."
Col. 366 B 7. *And the eye inexhaustible*. The interpreter had written, "than if you should define with yourself possessing nothing at all." But *sunorizesthai* here is not "to define with oneself," but "to be joined by a boundary." A little later in ms. F. it was written wrongly *ou lēpsetai*, whence Tilmann had translated, "he himself however will receive nothing at all from you": but much more correctly in H. and A. it is *ou leipsei*, "it will not fail."
Col. 371 A 10. *Therefore in accordance*. Not as it was before, "therefore in accordance with the proverb," lest anyone think the adage profane, for it is in Solomon, Proverbs xxiii, 31: *Ei gar eis tas phialas kai ta potēria dōs tous ophthalmous sou.* "For if thou shalt give thine eyes to viols and cups." But as to what follows *ton genesiourgon ennoein*, it is from Wisdom xiii, 5. Mention of *phuktērōn* is made in I Esdr. i, 9.
Col. 346 C 1. *And wrongly obeying*. The interpreter did not notice that Basil uses the words of the Gospel and the Apostle Paul, "he rendered the malignantly obedient attentive," and, "the lamentation was the impenitent one ending in sorrow and grief unto salvation." Rather, he says *ametamelēton sōtērian*, not the impenitent man, but "salvation unchangeable": or certainly the Apostle said *metanoian ametamelēton*, II Corinth. vii, 10, "repentance, of which we may not repent," as the gifts of God are said to be *ametamelēta*, Romans xi, 29, and thus St. John Chrysostom seems to have accepted it, homily 15: *Oudeis heautou katagnōsetai, ean luphēthē eph' hamartia, ean penthēsē, kai heauton suntripsē*. "For no one will ever blame himself for the fact that he afflicted and crushed himself with sorrow on account of his sins." Below he said *tēn gēn tēs kataschedseōs*, which Tilmann translates "of the promise," as if *kataschesis* were here to be taken as synonymous with...
Col. 371 D 4. *Of secular [matters]*. He said *tais exōthen*, so as to distinguish the secular from the ecclesiastical, not the pagans or heathens from the Christians, as the interpreter understood it, "so that some honesty might accrue to those prefectures which abhor Christian frugality." Again he had omitted that *to oneidiston peristellousa*, for he had only written, "which is plainly to be blamed."
Col. 379 C 6. *To the western*. Not as it was before, "to the bonds of life"; for wrongly by the pen...
it was written in F: *until the bonds*. But it is amended from H and A: *until the setting of life*. *Setting* signifies "sol: sunset": it is transferred also to the end of life. Hesychius and Suidas: *at the settings of life*, at the end of life.
Col. 382 B 6. *Who from the seed of Cain*. He said, *from the seed*, because *to be a descendant* signifies to arrive at. Procopius said, *descending*, p. 77: *which are the inventions of Jubal, of him who descended from Cain*, "the author of whom, who existed as a descendant of Cain, we have accepted." And it is noted in Genesis IV, 17. For from Cain sprang Enoch, and then from Enoch Irad, from Irad Maviaeb, from whom Mathusael, and from him Lamech, whose sons were Jabel and Jubal. The interpreter had wrongly published: "Jubal, who is written to be a descendant from the genealogy that pertains to him, namely from Cain."
Col. 386 D 4. *To be detested*. The interpreter reads in F: *towards the manifest*, "which does not escape anyone." It is better in H: *in the manifest*, as we have published: for *manifest* does not mean that David killed all the sinners of the earth.
Col. 406 C 1. *To be worth the arguments*. Not as Tilmannus: "who dare to profess themselves to be equal to writing books on every subject." Yet he rightly added later in the margin that the inventor of *the suspension of judgment* was Pyrrho, who forbade assent to be given. See Diogenes Laertius, lib. IX, p. 670: *for not rather this than that is each thing*, "for nothing is this any more than that." The same interpreter had omitted a little later those words which the Greek manuscript F had suggested: "that silver is black because of the rust which it pours forth." In the same place, *to converse with* he had translated: "with whom you should not consort too long familiarly," although the negation is absent, and *to converse* does not only signify to consort familiarly, but also to tarry, to be occupied in a thing, as in Thucydides *having conversed in war*, "engaged in war": and in Chrysostom, homily 1 *On Penitence*, p. 660: *And having conversed for a long time with fire*, "and having been engaged for a long time in the fire": and lib. 1 *On Providence*, p. 158: *as also to converse marriages*, "as also to take wives."
Col. 419 B 1. *Flame kindled*. Two royal codices, F and H, exhibit the text *of kindled flame*, nor does Nobilius note that it is read otherwise in Cyril, *from a flame enkindled*: "wherefore certainly it is a wonder, what he contends is read in Basil, just as in Procopius and in the Roman edition, *from a flame resolved*: unless perhaps the Latin interpreter led him into error, who had written, 'from a flame poured forth,' or he obtained another written codex." The Latin Vulgate said, chap. V, 24: "and the heat of the flame consumes."
Col. 428 B 8. *These as if*. These are expressed word for word from the Greek, and were substituted in the place of those which the interpreter had added. For he had translated the remainder of the text of the fifth chapter of the prophet, and had expressed it in italic character, and had not noticed that those words were Basil's, summarizing the remainder of that text.
Col. 427 D 1. *And fire is turned*. So I have written, not with Tilmannus: "the appearance which is turned about the concretion": for he does not say that the appearance of the flame is called coal. Procopius in Isaiah p. 88: *But coal is earthen fire, having remained after the passing of the flame, in a thicker matter*: "But coal is that earthen fire, which, when the flame is extinguished, is accustomed to remain in a thicker matter." Therefore, Basil does not explain those things by the words *by a flame enkindled*, as Tilmannus seems to have thought. Nobilius in his Notes does not do so, but explains what *coal* is. But if the distinction of Isidore were true, this would rather be *live coal*. "Live coal," he says, "is as long as it burns: when it has been extinguished, it is called coal. Live coal (*pruna*) is so called from burning (*perurendo*): but coal (*carbo*) is so called because it lacks flame." But also in Pliny, lib. XVIII, it is said to be coal, when ignited: "And when the coal shines vehemently"; and lib. XXXIII, cap. 5: "To coal there is greater power when consumed and again glowing."
Col. 418 C 11. *Not however of it*. Tilmannus: "For Scripture says that it is not yet immobile concerning such affections of the soul: but it discourses about it, etc.," which clearly stray from the mind of the author. Thus the passage is to be restored also in Procopius, p. 86: *so long as it does not yet declare the passionless one.* The passage follows from Proverbs XII, 46, where it has thus: *A fool indicates his wrath on the very day, but the crafty man hides his own dishonor*: "A fool on the very day indicates his own wrath: but the crafty man hides his own ignominy." In Procopius we read *will indicate, will betray*, as in Nobilius the Greek scholion *will make clear his fury*, "and will make manifest his fury," and Theodotion *will make known*, "will make known."
Col. 431 A 14. *Also he to whom*. The interpreter had noted in the margin that he found something missing in the exemplar: and rightly; for the word *hearing* was missing, which he had nevertheless expressed by translating thus: "not indeed the voice of the Lord, which has struck the ear of the body: but that whereby God merely imprints counsel upon their mind through certain adumbrations." You have a similar passage below: *not through the bodily hearing, but its ruling faculty*: and in Procopius p. 102: "But he hears the voice of the Lord, who, with a mind informed by Him, listens to the sound of the word resounding within himself."
Col. 435 D 2. *Do not lead us*. The interpreter thought he had read *compel*, or *necessity*, while he translates, *proceed with us, there is no need for us to emigrate*. In Exodus XXXIII, 45, we read a little differently: *If you do not yourself go with us, do not lead us away from here.* "If you do not yourself come with us, do not lead us hence." The Vulgate agrees with the words of Basil: *If you do not yourself precede us, do not lead us away.* A little later the interpreter understood *humanity* to be that which is to be assumed by Christ, writing: "and it was necessary for the humanity to be assumed from God the Word, to be prefigured by typical figures": yet you will more aptly understand the human race. Thus homily 34, *On Free Will*: *For if the nature of humanity were strong without the armor of the Holy Spirit.* The interpreter of Procopius
A regarding the female vultures adds [the following]; Aelian also narrates in *De Animalibus*, book 2, chapter 46: "They say that a male vulture is never produced, but that all are females: they fly against the south wind; or if the south wind does not blow, they open themselves to the east wind with open beaks: the spirit of the wind blowing into them fills them."
Col. 469 C 6. *Apopogona*. It should be corrected from H to *apopogona*, "which he called a beard," as in Procopius, p. 120: *Καὶ τὸν πώγωνα, τουτέστι τὸν κατὰ φύσιν ἀνθρώποις πρέποντα κόσμον* — "And the beard, that is, the ornament which naturally becomes human beings." The interpreter had written: "he said that it would be without a beard." Likewise, what follows, *epi tēs geneseōs ginetai*, he had translated, "according to the birth of our Emmanuel."
Col. 471 C 9. *A thousand vines*. Not, as Tilmann had edited, "they might distribute a thousand vines for a thousand shekels." Procopius said, *Πᾶσαν ἄμπελον κἂν σίκλον ἔχῃ τιμήν* — "Every vine, even if it has a shekel's worth of value, will be desolate and uncultivated"; for I think *ampelon* is more aptly rendered as a vine, since the prophet said a thousand vines were estimated at shekels.
Col. 475 A 8. *On account of their*. The interpreter had read in ms. F *d' ei to euphues*, and therefore had translated, "through the force of intelligence it was apprehended by us, by which without great effort the things which are subject [to us] are persuaded," but the received reading is supported by H and the English [manuscript], and the example of Ezekiel which follows, "but the obedience of the prophet is understood by us."
Col. 487 A 9. *As if he drags*. He said *helkomenon*, not *helkonta*, as the translation of Tilmann required, "nor let him drag to the tribunals of the judges him who has stripped off even his tunic." He alludes, of course, to that [passage] in Matthew v, 40: *Καὶ τῷ θέλοντι κριθῆναι, καὶ τὸν χιτῶνά σου λαβεῖν, ἄφες αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον* — "And to him who wishes to go to law with you, and to take your tunic, let go your mantle also." Again, what follows, *blasphētoumenoi parakaloumen*, he had translated, "that he may exhort the blasphemer, and pray for him": but these are expressed from the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. iv, 13: *βλασφημούμενοι παρακαλοῦμεν*, "we are reviled, and we entreat."
Ibid. C 4. *It is indeed great*. The interpreter had written: "For the fear of God is the greatest argument D for those who strive to follow perfection by keeping the tenor of discipline." But that [expression], *panta kataptēssein*, is a phrase used also by the Septuagint, Proverbs xxviii, 14: *Μακάριος ἀνὴρ, ὃς καταπτήσσει πάντα δι' εὐλάβειαν* — "Blessed is the man who fears all things for the sake of caution." There follows there the passage of Isaiah cited not as it is expressed by the LXX, Isaiah xxviii, 16: *Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐμβαλῶ εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιών* — "Behold I set in the foundations of Sion": but as it is cited by the Apostle, Romans ix, 33: *Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ τίθημι ἐν Σιών*.
Col. 494 B 6. *And Galileans*. Not only unlearned [men], but also in nation Galileans, not as the interpreter had said, "for they were unlearned men, Galileans." Thus Matthew xxvi, 69:
And thou wast with Jesus of Galilee*. And thou art made manifest by thy speech. Regarding which passage Jerome says: “Because every province and region has its own properties, and cannot avoid a vernacular mode of speaking;” and Luke xxii, 59, *for he is a Galilean*. But Josephus, *De bello*, lib. III, cap. 2: A “For the Galileans are warlike from infancy and always numerous, and neither cowardice ever possessed the men nor scarcity of men the regions.”
Col. 499 D 5. *And those indeed*. In the Royal F. there was a gap, because the scribe had omitted two lines, which we have restored from the H. and English [manuscripts] to both the Greek text and the interpreter, up to the words, “who are led into error.” Moreover, these are cited by the Patriarch Tarasios in his epistle *On Ordinations*, p. 193 of the *Jus Græco-Romanum*: “For this is the ridiculous thing.” See also Procopius on this passage. A little below, *I have afflicted you*: these allude to that [passage] of Deuteronomy viii, 3: *And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee in the desert, and he afflicted thee, and brought hunger upon thee*.
Col. 508 B 8. *He received a signal*. Not, “a movement ordained by compact,” as was read previously: for *synthēma* here does not mean “compact” or “composition,” but *sēmeion aphormēs*, “a signal of starting an excursion,” as in Virgil, *Aeneid* v: B ... *the leaders long since gave the signal with a shout, and sounded with the lash*, and in Herodian, lib. II: *Pantes eph’ heni synthēmati syllambanontai* — “All are seized upon one given signal.” Procopius, p. 145: *Dromeus de ōn agathos, hama tō synthēmati pros to telos ēpeigeto* — “But being a good runner, he hastened to the end upon the signal being given.”
Col. 511 B 7. *For he clothed*. It must be corrected in the Greek text from ms. H. F. *Enedyse gar me* — “For he clothed me.” Nor did the Vulgate Bible of Isaiah lxi, 10 [say] otherwise, but instead of *euphrosynēs* the interpreter thought he had read *dikaiosynēs*, and thus it should be written, “and a tunic of gladness,” as in Procopius, p. 148.
Col. 513 B 1. *It might be finished*. *Synapartizesthai* means the same as *apertizesthai*, to be rendered absolute, to be filled out in all its parts. Budæus in his *Commentaries*, p. 735: “to be finished at the same time, to be of equal magnitude.” Here, therefore, you may translate: “along with the very constitution of the world.” Procopius’s interpreter said, p. 151: “Because if it were from the world, it must necessarily have begun from the very origin of the world.” But the things that follow in the same Procopius are to be corrected from Basil thus: *synestai toinyn autē tō par’ autō dexamenō mechri pantos* — “Therefore it will exist forever along with him who has received it from him.” C Mention is made of Solomon’s peace in III Kings iv, 24: *And he had peace from every side round about*.
Col. 515 B 13. *For the part*. We preferred this *ad verbum* to that of the interpreter, “For regarding the Davidic tribe as nothing, as though it could be abolished and oppressed without any trouble; although it held royal dignity.” For the house of David did not possess one tribe, but two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, after the defection of the other ten, who had said in II Paralipomenon x, 16: *We have no part in David, nor inheritance in the son of Israel*.
Col. 527 B 9. *I will approach*. Tilmannus had passed over this without interpretation, because it was read erroneously in both Royal codices, *mallon ē ouch hēttōn*, instead of *mallon ē ho chitōn*. However, by the aid of Kirchmann’s Greek index, this locus, long sought for through every word, has not yet occurred to us in Scripture. See the proverb, “The tunic is closer.”
Col. 531 B 6. *And Samaria*. It followed in the interpreter, “Just as I have taken these, so shall I take all the other principalities:” but these were omitted by the printer, since he thought they had been deleted by us, along with those by which the interpreter had expressed the following period, which he himself had wrongly divided into two: “From which, therefore, he takes [them] for himself, he presumes that he can draw all the remaining ones under the yoke. D Nor did that one meanwhile understand that this is being accomplished.”
Col. 538 B 3. *And I will shake*. The interpreter had edited, “I will draw by persuading,” because in the Complutensian edition it was *peisō*, although in F. he had read *seisō*, as it is in the remaining mss. and in Eusebius, lib. IV *De Demonstratione evangelica*, cap. 9: which is the true reading, since the Vatican and the Marchalian codex both have it thus, and Jerome, “and I have taken away as one mighty [those] residing in the high [places].” Wrongly in Clement and Eusebius, book XI of the *Præparatio*, *sōsō*, “I will save.”
Col. 540 B 9. *For indeed from the soul*. In the Royal F. it was read, *arxomena men hypo psychēs, lēgonta de en tē kardia kai oude mechris*. From which Tilmannus had expressed in Latin, “having their beginning from the soul, and resting in the heart itself:” but in the other Royal codex H. it was so, just as it is edited from the English ones, except that with *kai* removed, it was only read, *oude mechris*. In Procopius, page 170, this passage is alluded to: *arxomenon apo psychēs tōn en tō nō phantastōn*. A little later the same F. wrongly had *phthonon* for *phonon*, and so in the place of envy, we substituted “slaughter.”
Col. 551 A 45. *If indeed others*. The interpreter had wrongly altered these, “If indeed the Hebrews seem to approach more closely.” For Basil does not designate the Hebrews, but the Greek interpreters Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, when he says *hoi alloi*, just as above *hoper heteroi exdedōkasin*. As we have noted on that passage: and below he said that Symmachus and Theodotion correspond to the Apostle toward the end of that chapter.
Col. 555 A 5. *I glorify*. Not, as it was before, “I will glorify:” for he said *doxazō*: although in the very
same location below, it is cited as, *that those who glorify* A me I will glorify. And it is suggested that it ought to be emended to *epitetamenōs* [intensely], which is in usage, and not *epitetagmenōs* [commandedly], nor *epiteteugmenōs*. Procopius said concisely p. 195: “For both belong to one [person], to praise and to glorify rightly: For it is the part of one to effect both, glory and praise, correctly.”
Col. 558 B 12. *To the whole world*. Word for word it would be, “with the whole world let it be crucified:” which is obscure, and overlooked by Procopius; from which, however, we have changed the interpretation of those things which followed this passage, and added to the interpretation, “and in the midst of its effective power extending itself to the ends of the four parts of the world,” and in the following page we added to the interpretation, “from Israel, which is called Ephraim,” having struck out those words, “true Israelites.” For the ten tribes which had fallen away from the family of David, and had constituted Samaria as the primary city of the kingdom, were called Israel and Ephraim, and the house of Joseph, as in Zechariah 10, because certainly the first ten tribes had originated from the tribe of Ephraim. Cyril in Osee 1: “When you hear the holy prophets naming Israel or Ephraim, then know that I mean those who are in Samaria.” B
Col. 559 C 14. *Ammon*. Here the scribe of the royal codex F had omitted an entire line, which H and A represent. In the manuscript codex of the Royal Library, the Greek lexicon of Hebrew names interprets it thus: *Ammōn, out of my race, Amanitis, our people;* and Jerome in the chapter 3 of Nahum: “Moab is interpreted from a father, but the younger Ammon, either son of my race, or our people.”
Col. 562 D 5. *And after these he shall lead forth*. Tilmann had noted in the margin, “for *telos* [end] read *to phōs* [the light],” and had interpreted, “He shall do my judgment, and after this he shall lead me into the light:” as if he wished to substitute those things which are read in the prophet Micah 5, 9: *And he shall do my judgment, and he shall lead me out into the light.* We, on the contrary, following the consensus of the royal and English codices, have judged that nothing should be changed. Since Basil is often accustomed, either through failing memory or by bringing in other words from other prophets, to bring forth the words of some one person slightly changed. For we also read in Job 23, 7: *But he shall bring forth my judgment unto the end [or, to the light]*; yet he brings forth judgment toward the end, and Habakkuk 1, 4: *And judgment is not led forth unto the end.* A passage is then cited from Psalm 101, 9, where the Vulgate [has], *nor shall he threaten forever.* C
Col. 564 B 7. *To the same indeed*. In the royal manuscript book it was written *doxazein te epiteteugmenōs* [to glorify—how?], from which the interpreter had brought forth, “It touches the heart itself, that it might glorify God obnoxiously, and sing along in psalmody after the manner of servants.” *Epitetagmenoi* in the printed lexicons are “subordinates” or “ministers,” for which reason Tilmann thought it seemed it ought to be corrected to *epitetagmenōs* [in a subordinated manner], and thus the other royal [copy] H presents the writing. But the series itself of the narration does not suggest *epitetagmenōs*, nor *epiteteugmenōs*.
Col. 565 B 4. *He lifts up*. You will interpret more aptly, *the Lord exalts the just*. But this passage is expressed differently in David, to which Basil seems to allude, Psalm 145, 8: *The Lord lifts up the crushed, the Lord loves the just.* Perhaps that other [passage] in Proverbs 18, 10 was observed by the mind of the author: *But the just who have run to him are exalted.*
Col. 568 D 1. *To be reared*. This reading of F and A, *anastrophēs* [conversation], is truer than that [reading] of H, *anastrophēs* [reared]. A little later in F and H it was written *ochrōdes* [strong], not *ochrōdes* [like a fortress], as it was in another copy. Procopius said p. 202: *Mē apokrēmnon* [not precipitous], and his interpreter [translated it], *not precipitous or headlong*; but *hyplotēti* he translated not adequately enough, “humility.” And so it seems it ought to be rewritten, “yet on account of its flatness, secure for those remaining in it.” In the same place, instead of *akrosphaleis* [very slippery], Tilmann thought he had read *asphaleis* [safe], when he translated, “renders them safer, who ascend the stations,” in a meaning clearly contrary. Finally, instead of *noēs* and *diēgēsthe*, it was read in H *noein* and *diēgēsthai*.
Col. 574 C 3. *But the kings*. The interpreter had written, “but the kings, who are elected for the pastoral regimen of the Church.” But the Greek sounds nothing of the kind concerning pastors, nor does Procopius have it otherwise p. 204: *Of whom he calls the elect kings* [meaning: those of the number who are elect, he calls kings, as if they were sons of the kingdom]. Again in the same place we have changed what followed, “because the word giants indeed equates with the voice of many nations.”
Col. 575 A 10. *Of infidelity*. It was read in F *ponērou thyreos estin apistia* [of the wicked shield is infidelity]. Tilmann had translated, “the shield of the reprobate is infidelity:” but in H it was as we have edited—to which Procopius, p. 204, gives suffrage: *To some truly the shield is of faith, to others of infidelity.* He alludes to that [passage] in Ephesians 6, 16: *Taking up the shield of faith.* Also, a little after in F it was *epangelian kakōn*, “a promise of evils,” but H [was] *apangellian*, a denunciation. Furthermore, that [passage], *that the spirit might be saved*, is from I Corinthians 5, [where] Hymenaeus and Alexander are said to have been delivered to Satan in I Timothy 1, 20. D
Col. 582 A 2. *Savior*. Not as it was previously edited, *And man by the grace of the Savior can be called noble.* Nor is it read otherwise in H than *ho kata ton Sōtēra* [he according to the Savior], but perhaps more correctly in Procopius, p. 208, a various reading is ascribed, *kai ho kata sarka anthrōpos* [and the man according to the flesh], and therefore the interpreter Curterius translates: “He therefore, according to the flesh, is noble, the lineage being related to David.” Thus we know that Christ is often called in Paul, *of the seed of David according to the flesh*, Romans 1, 3; *and we have known according to the flesh*
A Christ, I Cor. V, 16. A little later, the sense is not at all changed by the words *when we have moved far away from him*, “as often as we have distanced ourselves from him, we approach destruction;” but in Psalm LXXXVII, 19, *they who distance themselves from thee shall perish.*
Col. 586 C 15. *Orion app.* Tilmann was eliciting a different meaning, “which, even by the testimony of Scripture, is named Orion, because it is compacted into one body.” But Scripture nowhere testifies to this; it only mentions Orion in Job XXXVIII, 31: *Kai φραγμόν Ὡρίωνος ἤνοιξας. And you have opened the enclosure of Orion.* Again, at the end of the page, he had translated *μεταξύ τῶν μερῶν*, as if it were *ἐν μέσῳ τῶν μερῶν*, “in the middle part of Orion.” But Aratus places Arcturus not among the parts of Orion, but among the parts of Arctophylax or Bootes.
….. *ὑπό ζώνῃ δέ οἱ αὐτός* *Ἐξ ἄλλων Ἀρκτοῦρος ἐλίσσεται ἀμφαδόν ἀστήρ* which Cicero translated thus:
*Huic autem subter præcordia fixa videtur* *Stella micans radiis Arcturus nomine dicta.*
The same Aratus distinguishes from Arctophylax, or Bootes, *τόν μέγαν Ὡρίωνα*, “the great Orion,” whom Basil here says is the same as Bootes. But our Clavius, in his commentaries on the *Sphere* of John de Sacrobosco, assigns twenty-two stars to the constellation of Bootes or Arctophylax—four of the third magnitude, nine of the fourth, and nine of the fifth, just as Basil states here—but he allots to the constellation of Orion thirty-eight stars in number: two of the first magnitude, four of the second, eight of the third, fifteen of the fourth, five of the sixth, and one nebulous star. B
Col. 587 A 2. *Qui nimirum.* In F., it was only *ἔξωθεν δηλονότι*, from which Tilmann had expressed, “they follow, that is, the Hebrews, who comment on these secrets of nature with anxious labor;” but in H. it is *ἔξωθεν τῶν παρ’ Ἑβραίων δηλονότι πολυπραγμονούντων*, and in English as we have edited; therefore, the repetition of the article changes the meaning. Furthermore, the same H. exhibited *ὑπόχειρον* for *ὑπόπυρρον*, while the other Royal codex F. had *ὑπόκηρον*, but the interpreter correctly saw that it should be amended to *ὑπόπυρρον*, since he translates it “subrufescens” (reddish), which is found in Aristotle, and Pliny interprets it as “honey-colored.” Job mentions the Pleiades in chapter IX, 9.
Ibid. C 42, *Maledictus.* Although the Royal F. exhibited *ἐπικατάρατος Χαναάν*, yet by I know not what error the interpreter had written, “Maledictus Cham. Atqui contristatus erat.” Certainly, in Genesis IX, 25, we read nothing else but *ἐπικατάρατος Χαναὰν παῖς*, Maledictus Chanaan puer. A little later, the version must be corrected to “sed germini ejus, et operi ipsius, quod figurate Chanaan nominatur:” for in Greek it is not *διά τό ἔργον*, but *καί τῷ ἔργῳ αὐτοῦ*.
Col. 598 A 2. *Cum mensura.* F. offered *ἐν μέτρῳ*. Tilmann translates, “for the exacting of the punishment of those who have lived wickedly.” Procopius, *εἰς τό κολάζειν ἐν μέτρῳ τοὺς κακῶς βεβιωκότας*, “and for the punishment of the wicked to be exacted worthily and with measure.” But in the Royal H. it was as in A., *ἐμμέ- τρως, cum mensura, moderate*, or as it is in C John 34, *ἐκ μέτρου, ad mensuram*.
Col. 599 B 3. *Quare absolute.* Here the Royal copyist in F. had omitted three lines, and therefore Tilmann, from the mutilated codex, had translated, “why that desolation, for how long a time it would last, it did not absolutely reveal. For not by that.” Again, below, for *ἀποτελεῖσθαι*, as it was written in F., the interpreter thought he had read *ἀπολεῖσθαι*, when he translated, “once disrupted it is not allowed to perish.” In the exactly contrary sense: “for in inhabited places it is said to perish, as in Procopius, page 248: *Εἴωθε παραθραύεσθαι*, whence it happens that it is disrupted and dissipated.”
Col. 602 A 40. *Obscenum.* Instead of *κάθυλον* in ms. F., *κάθυδρον* was read more correctly in others, which, however, is not derived from *ὑλακτεῖν*, which is “to bark”: lest you translate here with Tilmann, “oblatrans” (barking), but [*τὸ*] *ἔνυλον*, or *ὑλικόν*, or *ὑλαῖον*, “that which is material,” as *πρόσυλον*, “that which clings to matter, that which is carnal,” from *ὕλη*, which among theologians signifies filth and worldly dregs. Thus the interpreter of Procopius, indicating *κάθυλον καὶ ἐσκοτισμένον δαίμονα*, “indicates an obscene and dark demon.” Thus among Hesychius, *καθυλομανεῖν* is to have much *ὕλη* (matter). But what follows concerning the onocentaurs, that this is another species of demons, which the remaining interpreters named by the Hebrew word *Siim*, is also handed down by Eusebius, cited in the Vatican edition: *ἀντί τοῦ ὀνοκένταυροι σείειν ἀνέγραψαν, Et pro onocentauri scripserunt siim*: which, however, cannot stand with what the same Eusebius says in the same place: *Ἀντί τοῦ θηρία σείειν οἱ λοιποί ἑρμηνευταί ἐκδεδώκασι, Pro bestiæ, cæteri interpretes ediderunt siim*: nor indeed with the Hebrew text itself, from which Pagninus brought out *צִיִּים tsiim* in Latin, *bestiæ silvestres*, and for *שְׂעִירִים seghirim*, *dæmones*, Arias Montanus with Aquila, *pilosi*, but the Septuagint, *ὀνοκένταυροι*. Finally, that *μετά τήν ἐρήμωσιν*, we translate, *postquam redacta fuerit in solitudinem*, as it was before, that the place may be likened to Babylon which is to be reduced to solitude. D
Col. 607 A 4. *Terra hæc.* He did not say, *οὐκ ἔχει μερίδα*, but *οὐκ ἔστι μέρος*: lest there be room for the Vulgate version earlier, “Terra hæc nullam habet partem cum ea, de qua subjecta maledicto dictum est: In doloribus,” etc. Again, the interpreter had translated, *Ἰακώβ, ὅν γειώραν Γραφή*, Jacob, with *γειώρας* used in Scripture, as if Jacob himself were called *γειώρας*. Rather, by Jacob he understands the Israelite people, to whom whoever attaches himself is called *γειώρας* and *προσήλυτος*, “advena” (sojourner), as in Exodus XII, 19: *Ἐξολοθρευθήσεται ἔν τε τοῖς γειώραις καὶ αὐτόχθοσι τῆς γῆς• Peribit inque advenis et indigenis*; and in the same chapter, verse 49: *Νόμος εἷς ἔσται τῷ ἐγχωρίῳ καὶ τῷ προσηλύτῳ• Lex una erit indigenæ et advenæ*. In both places there is the Hebrew word *גֵּר ger*, which is translated as both *γείωρας* and *προσήλυτος*. Properly, *γείωρας* is *ὁ γῆν ὡρῶν*, one who guards the land. Hesychius: *γείωρας, γείτονας ἐξ ἄλλου γένους, καλουμένους, ἢ τοὺς περὶ τήν γῆν διαπονοῦ- *
A μενους. « *Geiōras* explains neighbors from another people, or those who occupy the land to till it. »
Col. 644 B 3. *Pro peccatis*. In both Royal [manuscripts] I read *ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις*, not *τὰς ἁμαρτίας*, as the translator seems to have wanted to correct, writing, « they may slaughter the offspring, namely the sins: » but Basil says this, « that they may slaughter the offspring of their own soul with sins, » whence he subjoins: « For if we do not die to sin ourselves: » for which reason the Apostle speaks to the Romans vi, 2: *Οἵτινες ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ*, « We who have died to sin. » So Basil said before, so *σφαγαῖς ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις*. A little later Tilmann had translated, « may he fill the earth with wars, » as if he had read *πολέμων* in F, which however exhibited the written *πόλεων* [cities], as the other manuscripts do. The Latin Vulgate said, « and they shall not fill the face of the world with cities. » But in the Vatican edition [it is] *πολέμων*, « with wars, » and it is noted in some books that *πολεμίων* is read, « with enemies, » and that the Hebrew word can signify cities and adversaries according to Jerome’s opinion.
Col. 645 C 3. *Adversus ineptos*. I would prefer he had said « towards the simpler ones, » or « the innocent and least wicked. » As he said regarding Psalm xxviii: *Ὡς πρόβατον διὰ τὸ ἥμερον καὶ μεταδοτικὸν λέγεται ὁ ἅγιος*, « So also the saint is called a sheep, because he is gentle and shares his own in common. » The author of the *Opus imperfectum* homily on Matthew: « It is manifest that he calls them sheep on account of their gentleness, but because they do not fear God, [he calls others] wolves on account of their cruelty. »
Col. 623 C 7. *Et idcirco*. *Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο* is what F exhibits, but at the end of the chapter in Basil’s *Commentary* [it is] *δι’ αὐτοῦ οἱ ταπεινοὶ τοῦ λαοῦ σωθήσονται*, « through him the humble of the people shall obtain salvation, » in which manner it is also read in the Vatican edition and in Procopius. Wherefore, « many peoples shall be saved » must be deleted here: for in F it was written *οἱ ταπεινοὶ τοῦ λαοῦ*. Towards the end of the page the Hebrew etymology of the Palestinians is provided, where the translator had noted that he had found written in the Royal F *πίπτοντας πτοήματι*, « falling in panic or fear, » but that he reads and interprets *ποτήματι*, « by a drink, » for here too it follows in Basil and in the same Royal codex, *πίπτουσι δὲ οὗτοι ποτήματι*. But in the other Royal H, in the first place, it is read *πτώματι*, « by a fall, by chance, » [and] in the second, *ποτήματι*, « by a drink. » In the Greek scholia on Hebrew words, *Φυλιστιεὶμ*, *ἀλλόφυλοι*, *θαυμαστοί*, « aliens, wonderful ones, » often occurs. Jerome on Psalm xxviii: « The Philistines, however, are interpreted as ‘falling by a drink,’ that is, those who are drunk from the cup of the devil, and being drunk, have fallen. » Augustine on the same psalm: « Aliens in Hebrew are called *Philistiim*, which is interpreted as ‘falling by a drink,’ just as those whom secular luxury has made drunk. » In Santes Pagninus, *Peleseth* is called the maritime region to the west of Judea, containing five prefectures or satrapies, and its inhabitants are called *Pelisthim*, as if rolled in ashes: and some interpret them mystically as those entangled in the cares of the world; for *palesch* is to wrap oneself in dust or ashes. In Suidas, I find B them even in century 5 of Proverbs, 9: *Γυμνότερος ὑπέρου καὶ λεβηρίδος*, « Nudior pistillo et leberide, » [Naked as a pestle and a shell,] and *Γυμνότερος παττάλου*, « Nudior clavo, » [Naked as a nail,] regarding the most destitute men.
Col. 634 C 13. *Nomine enim*. F. *Τὴν γὰρ Ναβάθ*. But the other Royal A, *Ναβαῦ*. Which the Vatican edition, [and] the Anglican, *Nabau*, and the text published with Procopius support, [while] the translator [renders it] badly « Nabo. » But the truer reading seems to be *Nabau*, the etymology and interpretation of which is difficult to explain, even though Tilmann had noted in the margin « speech, prophecy, seat: » for neither do I find in Pagninus’s Hebrew Thesaurus anything other than *נבא*, which word signifies prophecy or prediction, never a seat. But *נאג* (nagar) is translated *ἐγκαθίζειν* in Ezekiel xxxv, 5: *Καὶ ἐνεκάθισας τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰσραὴλ δόλῳ*: « And you have laid wait C against the house of Israel with deceit; » and in Ecclesiasticus viii, 14, the verb *ἐγκαθίζειν* is used in the same sense: *Ἵνα μὴ ἐγκαθίσῃ ὡς ἔνεδρον τῷ στόματί σου*: « That he may not sit as a snare unto your mouth. » Yet the word *ἐγκαθισμός* itself is not found in the Thesaurus of the Greek language.
Col. 638 C 13. *Appetitus, ὀρέξεις*. Before, through the error of the printer rather, it was wrongly published as « apparenti subfer. gen. supprimendæ, » when the translator had perhaps written « appetentiæ. » Towards the end of the page the interrogation mark is missing in the printed Greek text, and in both Royal MSS it is to be supplied from the sequence of the speech, which Tilmann also correctly added to the translation, just as in some books of Genesis it is added in this way, *καὶ ζήσεται ἡ ψυχή μου;* [and my soul shall live?] The Latin Vulgate [has], « Is it not a little one? » [Gen. 19:20]. By some books, however, this mark is absent.
Col. 642 A 7. *Sermo enim*. *Λόγος* sometimes among the Fathers is of equal value to « Scripture declares: » therefore the translator had rendered it, « For the Scripture, as soon as it has stung and keenly pierced the elation of a wicked mind, crushes it with contrition itself: » but here it is a matter of any cautionary D discourse, not of Scripture alone, as he had said before when speaking of Paul, *εἰς συναίσθησιν ἄγοντας τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ λόγους*, « leading one’s own words to conviction. » Towards the end of the page he had also edited, *μὴ καὶ οὕτω μέλλη*, « that they might not thus be saved. » But in this place *μὴ* is an interrogative, not a negation, as in Matthew vii, 9: *Μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ;* « Will he give him a stone? »
Col. 643 A 2. *Nam quoniam*. In H and I, *τῷ αὐτῷ δύναται καὶ πέρας εἶναι χώρας καὶ ἀρχὴ τὸ χωρίον τι*. But it agrees with the Royal F, the Anglican, and Procopius, p. 217, whose translator we have followed, after Tilmann’s words were struck out: « For when can it be a boundary, nor is the beginning and end of the Moabite land. » From the same Procopius, we added to the Greek text, *ἕως τοῦ φρέατος Ἐλείμ*. Again, we emended that [phrase], « the seed of Moab, not that it should pass over to better things, » which was in Greek in F, *τὸ μὴ μεταβαῖνον ἐπὶ τὰ κρείττονα*, [whereas] in Procopius, p. 228, [it is] *τὸ μὴ μεταστὰν ἐπὶ τὰ κρείττονα*, « which did not wish to pass over to better things. » See the passage in Deuteronomy xxiii, 3. Finally, in the translation of Ariel, we have deleted the word
"Dei," for in Greek it is rendered only as *leon* (lion): as it is in the H. E. I. and in Procopius, even though the translator wrote his own conjecture in the margin, *ἴσως λέων θεοῦ*, "Perhaps the lion of God." Jerome, Epistle 27: "Woe to thee, city of Ariel, that is, lion of God, and once most strong, which David captured." The same prophet Isaiah mentions this city in ch. xxix, 2: "I will besiege Ariel;" but there I read in Hebrew אריאל Ariel, whereas here it is only ארי Ariel, which word signifies a lion, whence Jerome translates, "for those who shall have fled from Moab, the lion."
Col. 644 C 7. *Genuerint.* He said *gegen* (having generated), not *gegennesthai* (to be generated), but it should be corrected to *dia to gegen* from Procopius, whose translator published: "when they themselves, by their own wickedness, have assumed the nature and poison of serpents."
Col. 631 A 9. *Iniquitatem.* Previously this was wrong: "the prelate of heresies persuades them to speak iniquities on high." The passage is Psalm LXXII, 8, where the Vatican edition from the Greek LXX says, *ἀδικίαν εἰς τὸ ὕψος ἐλάλησαν*, "they spoke iniquity on high." There followed *εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς συνεκαταβαίνοιεν*. Tilmann: "If at any time they lower themselves so as to assent to the proposed question." But *synkatabainein* does not mean "to assent," but "to lower oneself thereto."
Col. 654 A 4. *Nequaquam, Ob hoc.* The printer did not express our emendation well: it must therefore be rewritten, *nequaquam confundentur*. For this reason it was said, *Campi Esebon*. We have deleted those words of the translator, "they will in no way reach the center or point." For those words of codex F express a faulty reading, *λόγοις οὐ κέντρῳ ποιήσονται*. Therefore *τὰ πεδία*. It should have been corrected from the text itself exactly as H. and I. exhibit it, *οὐκ ἐντραπήσονται·* for it was said by the prophet, *καὶ οὐκ ἐντραπήσῃ*, "and you shall not be put to shame." In Cyril it is also read, and in the prophet, *καὶ οὐκ ἐντραπήσονται τὰ πεδία Ἐσεβών*. "And the fields of Esebon shall not be put to shame." Whence it could perhaps be translated no less aptly, *καὶ οὐκ ἐντραπήσῃ*, "and you shall not be put to shame," and in Basil's Commentary, *οὐκ ἐντραπήσονται*, "they shall not be put to shame, or be confounded."
Col. 655 D 4. *Subauditur.* Tilmann had published: "It is said commonly of both peoples, because they will mourn and lament." This is about Esebon and Sabama, but that Greek phrase *ἀπὸ κοινοῦ* means nothing else than the verb *πενθήσει*: it must be supplied, as it is common, and joined with those words *τὰ πεδία Ἐσεβών*, and with these *ἄμπελος Σεβαμά*. For in the Vatican edition, and in Procopius, in the text these are punctuated thus: *Οὐκ ἐντραπήσῃ τὰ πεδία Ἐσεβών· πενθήσει ἄμπελος Σεβαμά*· "You shall not be put to shame, fields of Esebon; the vine of Sabama shall mourn." In other books, as here in Basil, it reads: *Καὶ οὐκ ἐντραπήσῃ. Τὰ πεδία Ἐσεβὼν πενθήσει, ἄμπελος Σεβαμά*. Thus in Olympiodorus, in Ecclesiastes ver. 16: *Εἰ δὲ κατὰ κοινοῦ ἐκληφθῇ τὸ ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον* « And if it be taken in common, "under the sun," » and in St. John Chrysostom, in Psalm cxxvii, v. 6: *Καὶ ἴδε τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν υἱῶν σου, εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραήλ*, in common, but it must be corrected from the Royal manuscript Catena on the Psalms, *κατὰ κοινοῦ τὸ ἴδε. Τοῦτο γὰρ μάλιστα ποθοῦσῖν*. « "Peace upon Israel." Supply, "See." For this they desire most. » The copyist, because he did not grasp this locution, had substituted *καὶ* for *τὸ ἴδε*, whence the translator had rendered, « This is a prayer for the common [good]. »
Col. 659 C 4. *Ex Spiritu.* Not "from the Father," as the translator had written, which would be erroneously *ἐκ τοῦ πατρός*, instead of *πνς*. *πνεύματος*.
Col. 660 C 9. *Qui ad evitandas.* *Συμπεριφέρεσθαι* here seems to mean the same as it does in Epictetus, namely *συναναστρέφεσθαι*, « to associate with the nations: » unless you prefer it to be taken as it is in II Maccabees ch. ix: *συμπεριφέρεσθαι ὑμῖν*, making oneself compliant and assenting to your wishes. Procopius said p. 240: *συγκαθιεὶς ἑαυτὸν δόγμασιν ἐθνικοῖς* « by embracing the dogmas of the pagans. » Tilmann had written, « those whom no peoples, no kind of temptation pursues, these are carried about. »
Col. 662 A 44. *Ascensiones.* The translator had added, « he disposed, » and noted in the margin, « *διέθετο* is missing in the exemplars. » But since that word was missing in H. and I., we believed it to have been omitted by Basil, with *εἰσὶ* being implied, « there are ascensions: » otherwise he altered not a little the words of David, Psalm lxxxii, 6: *ἀναβάσεις ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ διέθετο*. However, the Greek Scholiast warns that some place a period after *αὐτοῦ*, and join the verb *διέθετο* to what follows, and Flaminius Nobilius noted that Theodoret also punctuates it that way.
Col. 666 A 2. *Et erit ut revereantur.* It must be corrected, « *Et erit ut tu reverearis*, or *ut tu erubescas*. » In the Vatican edition it is translated, « *Et erit in confusionem tuam*. » Procopius's translator, « *et erit ut confundaris*: » but because Basil adds *αὐτούς* in the following places, you will more aptly use the verb « to revere, » or « to blush. » « *Et erit ut tu reverearis ipsos* » (And it shall come to pass that you will revere them), that is, it will happen that they bring upon you, or impose, shame. Finally, p. 617, « *Quanto majorem famæ celebritatem* » (How much greater celebrity of fame), we substituted in place of those words of the translator: « For inasmuch as he thought that there remained for him more notable riches, he so much deserved that, by not having revealed the mysteries: » for *ὑπόληψις* signifies fame, not wealth, and *ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι* means to reveal, not to cover, as in Luke x, 21: *Καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας αὐτὰ νηπίοις* « And you have revealed them to little ones: » and I Cor. xiv, 25: *Τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας φανερὰ γίνεται*· « The secrets of the heart are made manifest. »