Preface

PREFACE

1. Perhaps there is no class of men that has done more harm to good studies than those who have mingled the genuine writings of the holy Fathers with false ones. For no one, unless he is entirely unversed in ecclesiastical matters, is ignorant of how many evils have sprung from this in the past and continue to spring up to this day. Dogmas are obscured, morals are defiled, history wavers, tradition is perturbed, and, to use a single word, if genuine works are once confounded with adulterated ones among the holy Fathers, it is necessary that everything should be confounded with everything else.

2. Malicious examples of what I have said are more frequent than there is need to recount. Yet I will recall to memory the impudence of the Apollinarists and the Eutychians, who, having promulgated their own writings as the sincere and genuine ^A works of the holy Fathers, so infested the whole Church that such a wound has not yet been able to be healed. For even today there is such contention among the learned regarding the authorship of certain writings that if anyone should offer some testimony of that great Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, or of the supreme pontiff Julius, or of Gregory Thaumaturgus, you will immediately hear those who say that it was not Athanasius, not Julius, not Gregory who said such things, but Apollinaris, whose own smaller works were long ago deceitfully attributed to those great men, so that the simpler folk might more easily be led into error. But, to be silent now about the Apollinarists and Eutychians, I will say in general that countless inconveniences have flowed from that same source. You may see even the most learned men, because they have chanced upon such supposititious books, arriving anywhere rather than where they intend; and while they think they have reached the mark, they are often as far from it as possible. You might believe that the most ancient and grave writers are being used as witnesses for the most weighty matters, and yet, if the thing be considered more attentively, the testimony of a person who is both most recent and most base is produced. And although that plague, as it were, has spared no one, yet I know not how it happens that Basil has been treated worse in this matter than other holy Fathers. For his true writings are so mixed with false ones that, unless the one is diligently distinguished from the other, an occasion for error is everywhere offered to the readers.

3. I know indeed that men of great learning have expended egregious labor in the past two centuries ^B in ensuring that the sincere might be separated from the adulterated among the holy Fathers, and have succeeded in such a way that they have brought the greatest light to matters that were in themselves very obscure: yet if anyone wishes to weigh the remainder diligently, I will guarantee that there will be no lack of matters for him to investigate. A theme truly worthy, to which all should confer their every effort, since the most important matter of all is at stake. However, this task is not suitable for just anyone, but only for him who judges matters without any prior bias. But this virtue belongs to few. For some are more severe in critical disputes, such that nothing of what others approve is approved by them; others are more indulgent, to whom whatever has been accepted by the vulgar pleases them indiscriminately. That both err, no one, I think, will deny; but which of them errs more, others shall see. Meanwhile I, who am compelled by the kind of study I have embraced to agitate such critical questions, will indeed freely set forth my own sentiment, but in such a way, however, that I do not properly judge, but rather await the judgment of the learned to pass sentence. Thus, therefore, animated, I approach the matter.

§ 1. Of the second homily on fasting.

4. There is no such dissension among the learned regarding the first homily on fasting. For it is so elegant and so worthy of Basil that it is attributed to him by the votes of all. But regarding the second homily, there is not one single judgment of all. The most learned men, Tillemont and Dupin, hold it to be truly the offspring of Basil: from whom Erasmus dissents, whose words these are in a letter to Joannes Cholerus: "The latter homily does not seem to me to be by Basil, but by some student exercising himself in the emulation of the former." For my own part, I will not fight if anyone feels differently; yet I think the learned, if they move their eyes more closely, will subscribe to my opinion. I approve of the type of ^C exercise, but I do not approve of the tricks of those who palm off spurious and degenerate works upon the world under the titles of the greatest men. As for what Tillemont says, that it seems Erasmus placed the latter homily on fasting among the spurious works for no other reason than that it agrees in many things with the first, it can be believed that he did not read Erasmus's letter. For it is plain from his words that that oration was suspect to him for this reason, that it degenerates from the elegance and festivity of the former: in which, to tell the truth, I do not think he is altogether far from the truth. As for what Tillemont adds, that this latter discourse is cited by John Damascene and Euthymius, that is not of such a nature as to confirm his opinion much, since we see adulterated writings cited not infrequently by ancient writers under the names of great men. When I read this short work, I noticed that some things were taken from the first oration, and others imitated from the same: that the latter homily is not indeed inelegant, but the first is most elegant; a certain wondrous abundance of expression is found in the first oration, which is much lesser in the second, and ^D of such a sort, that if any

should suspect that this was said rashly, I would wish him to read those most beautiful orations On Thanksgiving (vol. I, p. 24 and 53*), in the latter of which nothing is repeated of those things which had been said in the former.

II. Concerning the seventeenth oration, on the martyr Barlaam.

5. This oration, in which the eulogy of the martyr Barlaam is contained, is indeed brief, but so elegant and ornate that its author, whoever he may have been, seems to deserve a most distinguished place among orators. But those very same most learned men whom I mentioned before, Tillemont and Dupin, disagree with one another concerning it. Tillemont attributes it to Basil the Great [(b)]; Dupin to Chrysostom, yet so that he felt he had said enough by remarking that this oration approaches more nearly to the phraseology of Chrysostom, and that it seems more probable that it was delivered at Antioch. Someone might perhaps suspect that this is a matter of small importance, and that it makes little difference to whom it is ascribed, since both are worthy of belief and possess equal authority among scholars; but it is not so. For the historical question depends entirely upon this, which cannot be solved otherwise than by establishing to whom this oration ought to be ascribed. For if it were once attributed to Basil, it would consequently follow that the martyr Barlaam is rightly said to have suffered death at Caesarea of Cappadocia, and to have been buried in the same place; if to Chrysostom, it must be admitted that the holy martyr both suffered and was buried at Antioch. And indeed, those who, following Tillemont, say that the blessed martyr Barlaam died and was buried at Caesarea of Cappadocia, rely on no other argument than that Basil, who is believed to have preached at Caesarea, delivered the oration in this very place, where the tomb of the most valiant athlete was seen. Wherefore, if it does not belong to Basil, their opinion must necessarily collapse. But that the author of the oration, whoever he is, preached in this very place where the renowned martyr Barlaam lay buried, cannot be denied, unless by one who has never read this oration. For we thus find written in it not far from the beginning (p. 139): ^A *Splendidum et apud nos arrhabonem jam obtinent, cum inter divinas acclamationes omnium plausu celebrentur, populumque frequentissimum e sepulcris congregent. Hoc ipsum sane in forti ac strenuo Barlaam hodie factum est: insonuit enim bellica martyris tuba, et pietatis milites, ut cernitis, convocavit:* which words show so openly that this oration was delivered in that place where the body of the most blessed martyr Barlaam was buried, that I do not think it needs proof or exposition.

6. As for Tillemont, he plainly saw that if this oration were not ascribed to Basil, his opinion would necessarily collapse, and he omitted nothing of those things by which it could be proved to be his. And first of all, to Dupin, who affirms that the style of the writing smacks more of the phraseology of Chrysostom than of Basil,2 he responds in such a way as to signify openly that he feels otherwise: then the most learned man adds that it was not customary for Chrysostom to deliver twice a sermon on one and the same saint. And what may move some more, he says that this oration had long ago been ascribed to Basil, since it is cited under his name in the seventh council, ^C and is attributed to him by both John of Damascus and Metaphrastes. As regards the similarity or discrepancy of style, no one, I suppose, will deny that the argument derived from that is a most valid one; but as far as the authority of John of Damascus and Metaphrastes, or of the seventh council is concerned, anyone with a little bit of culture knows that such testimonies are not of such a kind that anything can be certainly concluded from them. Nor, as it seems to me, does the argument which we said was derived from the custom of Chrysostom carry any more weight, since many cases often provide an occasion for changing one's custom. Therefore, the hinge of the matter turns on this: that it be known by us with as much certainty as can be managed in matters of this kind, whose phraseology and style this oration tastes of more, Basil's or Chrysostom's: which we now propose to examine.

7. Since this oration is very brief, it is most difficult to find clues of similarity or discrepancy of style in it; I shall try, however, if I might be able to point any out. I find, however, in the very beginning, what

is most agreeable to Chrysostom, rather than to Basil. For when I read these words: *“No longer do we follow the deaths of the saints with lamentations, but with divine dances we dance around their tombs... already they harvest a splendid pledge among us, being applauded by all with divine praises, and drawing myriads of crowds from their tombs,”* ^A I seem to hear Chrysostom, who in those orations which he delivered concerning the holy martyrs, speaks passim of their sepulchres. It is more common to find examples of this in Chrysostom than it is necessary to cite any. Conversely, when I recently read Basil’s panegyric orations on the holy martyrs, I believe I can affirm that nowhere in them is mention made of the martyrs’ tombs. Nor is the cause of this far to seek. It is known that such sepulchres were very frequent at Antioch, whereas they were rarer in Caesarea of Cappadocia. Perhaps it will seem trivial what I add, yet it will not repent me to add it, specifically, that which is read in this oration (p. 139), *“And as the Lord of the faithful said: ‘He that believeth in me’,”* etc., appears rather to be Chrysostom’s than Basil’s. For elsewhere, too, when citing Scripture, Chrysostom employs a similar circumlocution of his own words, as can be seen in that oration which he delivered on the martyr Julian. These are his words (tom. II, p. 673): *“And that you may learn that things which by nature are heavy and unbearable, these through the hope of things to come become light and easy, hear the leader of such good things, saying, ‘For our light tribulation, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory’.”* ^B And indeed it can be noted that Scripture is cited in both places by a periphrasis. For it is not stated simply, *“and as the Lord said,”* but, *“and as the Lord of the faithful said.”* Again, it is not stated simply, *“hear the Lord saying,”* but more copiously, *“hear the leader of such good things, saying.”* Basil, however, when he brings forward some testimonies from the Scriptures, never, that I know of, uses a similar circumlocution. Therefore, this controversial oration should rather be attributed to Chrysostom, who, as it is evident from what has been said, used circumlocution in citing Scripture.

8. What follows is more serious. It is helpful to point out that there is no other style of speech in which Chrysostom takes more delight than that in which he uses the word "to philosophize" or "philosophy" in celebrating the martyrs. I will bring forward a few examples here, from which judgment can be made about the rest; but if anyone wishes to examine the matter for himself, with no trouble he will be able to find many more, since that manner of speaking is found used passim in those orations of Chrysostom that I have mentioned. These, therefore, are Chrysostom's words from his oration on the martyr Lucian (t. II, p. 526): *“For he, seeing, that he mocked every kind of punishment and torture, and... neither by casting him into precipices, nor by throwing him into the teeth of beasts, was he able to overcome the holy man’s philosophy,”* etc. ^C For being observant, he saw that he [Lucian] treated every kind of punishment and torture with derision, and that he [the persecutor] could not, even when he had cast him into precipices, nor even when he had thrown him to the teeth of wild beasts, overcome the holy man's philosophy, etc. The page (327) that follows immediately will supply three examples. One is expressed in these words: *“...this holy man he could not trip up, nor did the torture overcome his philosophy.”* In the second, Chrysostom speaks thus: *“In a foreign land and a barbarian region, they displayed such great philosophy.”* In the third, it is read thus: *“If, then, captives, slaves, and youths before the law of grace displayed such great philosophy,”* etc. Nor should it be passed over in silence that this manner of speaking pleased Chrysostom to such an extent that when, at the beginning of an oration, he cited Holy Scripture, he made use of it. For there (p. 524) we find it written thus: *Regarding him who philosophized about wealth, saying: “His glory shall not descend with him after him.”* ^D And from that oration, too, in which Chrysostom celebrated the praises of all the martyrs at once, it is pleasing to refer to a few examples of the thing I have mentioned. Thus, therefore, the most excellent orator speaks not far from the beginning (t. II, p. 651): *“For do not look at their barbarian language, but at their mind, which is refined by philosophy.”* A little later it is read in this way: *“It is, indeed, nothing difficult to philosophize with words in this manner, but the martyr,”* etc. Toward the end of this oration (p. 657), another passage is found which also pertains to the matter. And it is of this kind: *“Spend upon the destitute, when you have it, so that when you are stripped of it, you may have double the gain: both that which is laid up in return for the excellent expenditure--”*

and the philosophy and patience acquired from the contempt of these things, which will be of use to you when you are bereft of them. Since this discussion has been undertaken for the sake of the martyr Barlaam, it does not seem inappropriate to bring forward something from that oration which Chrysostom delivered concerning that most valiant athlete. First, therefore, these words occur (Vol. II, p. 682): *Ἀλγῶν δὲ καὶ πάσχων, τὴν τῶν ἀσωμάτων δυνάμεων ἐν σώματι θνητῷ φιλοσοφίαν ἐνεδείκνυτο.* “But suffering and in pain, he displayed the philosophy of the incorporeal powers in a mortal body.” Then there is offered ^B that (p. 686): *Εἰ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς Παλαιᾶς Διαθήκης ταῦτα ἀπηγόρευτο, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐπὶ τῆς χάριτος, ἔνθα πλείων ἡ φιλοσοφία.* “If these things were forbidden under the Old Testament, how much more under grace, where philosophy is greater.” I would like it to be read, among other things, what Chrysostom wrote on the most strenuous martyrs Romanus and Julian, also what the same man wrote on the blessed Drosis and the Maccabees; in which orations I would dare to assert that many testimonies will be found by which what I have said is wonderfully confirmed. Chrysostom is also not a little fond of the comparison of meadows to signify a pleasant and agreeable thing. I shall subjoin some examples, as each occurs. Thus, therefore, Chrysostom spoke in a certain oration (Vol. II, p. 670), in which he praises all the martyrs together: *Ἀλλὰ κήποις ἐνδιατρίψαι βούλει, καὶ λειμῶσι καὶ παραδείσοις;* “But do you wish to spend time in gardens, and in meadows and parks?” And not much below that same place, which I mentioned, it is read again: *Οὕτως ἀεὶ ἀπὸ τῶν μαρτύρων ἐπανίωμεν, ἀπὸ μύρων πνευματικῶν, ἀπὸ λειμώνων οὐρανίων,* etc. “Thus let us always return from the martyrs, from spiritual ointments, from heavenly meadows,” etc. One can learn, as I have warned, from that homily which was delivered on the most holy martyr Romanus, that a certain manner of speaking was very familiar to Chrysostom; I will again produce a passage from the same work by which it can be proved that the form of speech with which we are dealing was not a little pleasing to him too. ^C But these are his words (Vol. II, p. 614): *Καὶ ὥσπερ ἐν ἱερᾷ πομπῇ χορεύοντες, καὶ ἐν λειμῶνι παίζοντες χλοερῷ, οὕτω τὰς τιμωρίας ἕκαστος ἥρπαζεν.* “And just as if dancing in a sacred procession, and playing in a green meadow, so did each one snatch up the tortures.” To confirm the same, there can be brought forward things that are read in Chrysostom in the homily we have already cited, where, clearly, the excellent orator attributes praise to all the saints at once. Yet he speaks thus (Vol. II, p. 654): *Οὐχ οὕτω λειμῶνές εἰσι τερπνοί, ῥόδα καὶ ἴα παρεχόμενοι τοῖς θεωμένοις, ὡς μαρτύρων τάφοι.* “Not so pleasant are meadows, offering roses and violets to those looking, as are the tombs of the martyrs.” From all of which, I think, it is clearly evident that the former was more pleasing to Chrysostom, but the latter ought to be numbered among those kinds of speaking which, if not as friendly to Chrysostom as the former, were nevertheless also quite pleasing to him. Hence it is clear that what is truly said is wont to happen: that different people are delighted by different things. ^D For since I am fresh from reading the panegyrical orations of Basil, I think I may be permitted to affirm that the kind of speaking in which either the word *φιλοσοφεῖν* or the term *φιλοσοφία* is used everywhere by Chrysostom to signify the virtue of the martyrs, is nevertheless found nowhere in those orations of Basil which I have mentioned. I would like those panegyrical orations to be read which the great man Basil held concerning some most glorious martyrs, so that it may be better understood that what I said is true. We have also seen Chrysostom gladly use the comparison of meadows to indicate a pleasant thing; and yet for the reason I have brought forward, I think I can assert firmly that nothing of the sort is found in Basil in those homilies in which he himself has committed to writing the illustrious deeds of certain most valiant martyrs. Indeed, this comparison of meadows, which was sufficiently pleasing to Chrysostom, moved Basil so little that I believe he did not use it even in others of his orations. Now let us return to the contested oration, and let us see who is its legitimate parent, Basil or Chrysostom. That kind of speaking, however, which I have shown to be so familiar to Chrysostom, which nonetheless Basil is found never to have used in praising the martyrs, I notice is employed in the oration in question. For in it, it is written thus (in Basil, Vol. II, p. 139): *Διασκαπτόμεναι πλευραὶ δεδαπάνηντο, ἀλλ’ ἡ τοῦ φρονήματος ἤνθει φιλοσοφία.* “The perforated sides were being consumed, but the philosophy of the mind bloomed.” Similarly, that comparison of meadows, which was not unpleasing to Chrysostom, can also be observed by anyone in the oration about which there is currently controversy. But it is better to hear the author himself, whoever he is. Thus, therefore, he speaks (in Basil, p. 140): *Κολαστήριον ξύλον ὡς σωτήριον ἀσπαζόμενος, κλείσμασι δεσμωτηρίων ὡς λειμῶσι τερπόμενος.* “He was kissing the instrument of torture as if it were a saving [relic], rejoicing in the enclosures of prisons as if they were meadows.” How, therefore, did it occur to Basil, when he was delivering a discourse on the martyr Barlaam, to use certain kinds of speech which he is found never to have used in his certain and undoubted orations? Is it not far more probable that the true and legitimate parent of this controversial oration is Chrysostom, who was wont to use the forms of speech I have mentioned in a familiar way? I would wish this oration were longer. If that were the case, I think that more often, both the word *φιλοσοφεῖν* and the comparison of meadows would occur in it; and thus it would be more understood that it ought to be attributed to Chrysostom. Added to this is the fact that Basil in his panegyrical orations always uses the word *ἀνήρ* to indicate the martyrs themselves whom he praises; Chrysostom, however, in those orations which I have cited...

^A in some others never uses that word in this sense. From which it follows that this oration ought to be attributed to Chrysostom rather than to Basil.

9. There exist, as appears from what has been said, two sermons on the martyr Barlaam. One is ascribed to Chrysostom by the unanimous consent of all; the other, which we are discussing, is brought into controversy. But, unless I am greatly mistaken, if anyone were to compare these two orations with each other, he would easily understand that they both have the same author. For the author, whoever he was, who delivered this oration, when he had decided to preach with few words, seems to have set before himself nothing else but to make a sort of epitome of the other sermon. And indeed, whatever is narrated in the longer sermon concerning the manner of the martyrdom, all that is briefly and summarily stated in the other, so that it can hardly be doubted that one and the same parent belongs to both orations. Nay, not only are the same things found summarily in the shorter sermon, but the same words are also sometimes employed. And so that this may be more easily judged by anyone, I will transcribe some passages from each oration. In the longer sermon, therefore, it is read (apud Chrysost. t. II, p. 62 et seq.): "Carrying an entire pyre on his right hand... for this too was of that man's malice, that he did not at the very beginning apply grievous engines... having brought him out into the midst... What, therefore, is the engine? Ordering him to extend his right hand palm-upward over the altar, they placed coals and incense on the hand... For the blessed Barlaam remained, keeping his hand unbent and immovable... but just as if it were set fast like adamant, so it remained immovable... and indeed the coals, having pierced through the middle of the hand, fell down, but the courage of the soul did not fall." This was the last engine of those fighting against him which was applied to him. For having kindled an altar for the libation of the demons, they place the martyr brought beside it, and ordering him to hold his right hand palm-upward over the altar, they used his hand as a bronze altar, having wickedly placed burning incense upon it. ^B For the flame indeed devoured the hand, but the hand remained as if carrying the flame like ash; it did not give its back to the one fighting against it after the manner of runaways, but stood immovable against the flame, acting bravely... but there was a certain new victory of the right hand in those contests, the flame as it were, the hand still being stretched out for the struggle.

"Carrying a pyre on his right hand... for this too was of that man's malice, that he did not at the very beginning apply grievous engines... having brought him out into the midst... What, therefore, is the engine? Ordering him to extend his right hand palm-upward over the altar, they placed coals and incense on the hand... For the blessed Barlaam remained, keeping his hand unbent and immovable... but just as if it were set fast like adamant, so it remained immovable... and indeed the coals, having pierced through the middle of the hand, fell down, but the courage of the soul did not fall."

What are read in the shorter oration (apud Basil. p. 140) are these: "What last torture was applied to him by his enemies. For indeed intending to perform a libation to the demons, when they had placed fire on the altar, they set the martyr who had been brought before it, and ordering him to hold his right hand palm-upward over the altar, they abused his hand as if it were a bronze altar, with incense maliciously placed upon it... For the flame indeed devoured the hand, but the hand remained, carrying the flame as if it were ash: it did not give its back to the raging fire after the manner of runaways, but remained immovable, acting sturdily against the flame... a struggle was being prepared between the flame and the martyr's right hand: but the right hand had a certain new victory of struggles, since though the flame passed through the middle of the hand, the hand was stretched out to the struggle." From which it is understood that not only the same sentiment is found in these two orations, but, as I said, the same words are sometimes used in each. For these expressions, which are found in the longer sermon, the same are read also in the briefer one, albeit often differently used. I know indeed that it is not rare for two writers who treat the same subject to agree not only in sentiments, but also sometimes in some words: but in these that I have brought forward, there are so many things that agree with each other, that I think it would not be easy to offer any example in which two writers have agreed in so many things in so few words. Wherefore it seems to me much more likely ^C that there is one and the same author of both orations, who, having decided to treat the same subject twice, made an epitome of the former in the latter sermon. But it is plainly evident that the author of the former is Chrysostom; it is therefore a consequence that the latter should also be attributed to him.

10. Those who have lately been reading the writings of Chrysostom well know that this great man once preached before Bishop Flavian: but yet, since it is expedient, it will not be irksome to bring forward some passages by which this is openly shown. When, therefore, Chrysostom was narrating the praises of the Maccabees, he spoke thus (t. II, p. 631): "But it is time to bring the discourse to an end, so that they may be heaped with more praises by the common teacher." And in that oration which was delivered on the Nativity of the Lord, it is found stated thus: "If I add only one thing now, I will put an end to my oration: leaving the things that are greater to be spoken by the common teacher." It is worthwhile now to relate what are read in the controversial sermon, so that by the contention and comparison of the places it may be more easily known to whom this oration ought to be ascribed, to Basil, or to Chrysostom. They are of this kind (Basil. t. II, p. 141): "But why do I diminish with childish ^D... But the time now is to bring the discourse to an end, so that they may enjoy greater praises from the common teacher. Having said one thing now, I will bring the oration to an end, having ceded the greater things to the common teacher. But why do I diminish with childish..."

^A stammering the great victor? Let us cede the place of praising the martyr to more magnificent tongues, and let us invite the more vocal trumpets of the teachers to this proclamation. It is indeed possible that I am mistaken; but when I hear the author of that shorter oration speaking in this way, "Let us cede the place of praising the martyr to more magnificent tongues," etc., I seem to hear Chrysostom, who, when he wished to give a place of preaching to Bishop Flavian, used to speak in such a way. Nor should anyone say that the singular number is used in other orations I have indicated, but the plural here. For it happens sometimes that speakers use the plural number when, if they wished to speak accurately, they would use the singular; or perhaps—which does not diverge from the truth—two bishops were about to speak after Chrysostom, and for that reason he had to use the number of a multitude. Certainly, from the very brevity of the oration, one may conjecture that three had spoken in turn at that time, of whom the first was Chrysostom, the second Flavian, and the third someone else. But it makes no difference to the point whether one or two bishops are invited to preach by the words I have produced. For whether you say one or two, it will clearly be established that Basil is not the author of the oration being disputed, since no one is ever found to have preached after him.

Moreover, if anyone reads these two orations a little more carefully, he will easily, I think, admit ^C that both were held in that place where the tomb of the martyr Barlaam was. Regarding the shorter one, there can be no place for doubt, since those things we reported above—and which there is no need to transcribe again in this place—clearly demonstrate it. Nor do I think another judgment will be rendered concerning the longer one, except by those who profess to interpret everything in both directions, but not by those who simply seek the truth. Now, thus it is read in that more prolix oration (Vol. II, p. 685): "Receive the crowned one, and never permit him to depart from your mind. For this reason we have also led you to the shrines of the holy martyrs, so that also," etc. "Receive the victor crowned, and never permit him to depart from your mind." Therefore we have also brought you to the very tombs of the holy martyrs, in order that, etc. Nor much later after these, Chrysostom adds (ibid., p. 686): "For this reason we also have gathered here; for the tomb is a military tent of the martyrs... For when you see a person afflicted by a demon lying supine by the tomb of the martyr," etc. Therefore we also have gathered here: for the tomb of the martyrs is a military tent... For when you see a man seized by a demon lying supine beside the martyr's sepulcher, etc. After the discourse was instituted ^B by the turning of the sermon toward the tomb of the martyr Barlaam; and the more so because Chrysostom, when he uses the singular number "martyr" in his orations, signifies that martyr he had intended to honor with his praises, and for that reason there can scarcely be any doubt that, in this place also, he wished to indicate the martyr Barlaam, since he used the singular number. I believe, therefore, that Chrysostom, when he pronounced these words—"for when you see a man seized by a demon beside the martyr's sepulcher," etc.—pointed to the tomb of the martyr Barlaam with his hand. But if the defenders of the opposing opinion once admit that this long oration was held at that place where the body of the martyr Barlaam lay, they must necessarily admit that the tomb of that martyr existed at Antioch, or rather in the territory of Antioch, since it is established that Chrysostom held that longer oration there. Therefore, the shorter oration was also pronounced at Antioch, since it was pronounced, as is evident from what has been said (b), in that very location where the tomb of the martyr Barlaam was present. For without a doubt, the tomb of this martyr was not placed in two locations. From which it follows that that shorter oration is Chrysostom’s, not Basil’s, who had never preached at Antioch. That the martyr Barlaam met his death at Antioch, as we have said, can be confirmed even from Eusebius, who, when he speaks of the martyrs of Cappadocia, says nothing that could apply to this holy martyr; and on the contrary, when he speaks of the martyrs of Antioch, he reports a certain type of torture that does not differ much from the history of blessed Barlaam. These are his words (c): "Some were destroyed, as happened to those in Arabia; others had their limbs broken, as happened to those in Cappadocia... What need is there to rekindle the memory of those in Antioch? Some were roasted on grates of fire, not unto death, but for a long torment; others were quicker to cast their right hands into the fire than to touch the impious libations." Since, indeed, the admirable martyrs were in part killed with axes, as happened in Arabia, and in part died with broken legs, just as happened in Cappadocia... Now, what need is there to recall to memory those things which were done at Antioch, where some were placed on grates and roasted not unto death, but for the duration of the torture; others preferred to cast their right hands into the fire rather than touch the impious libations? For no man, I think, will deny that the history of the martyr Barlaam is quite aptly adumbrated by Eusebius's final words. Nor should anyone say that in these two orations are found things which are, or appear to be, contrary to one another, and for that reason they should not be attributed to one and the same author. For it is known that speakers, when they propose to praise someone, are accustomed to use certain commonplaces, and those

^A show by the inspiration that the Spirit is of the divine essence, and not of created nature, I find something which I do not think was spoken according to the custom of Basil. For although this excellent orator very often expresses something divine in many places, yet he never, as far as I know, uses the word *theikos*. Wherefore, when I was trying to prove that the last two books against Eunomius ought to be placed among the spurious works, among other arguments which I used to substantiate this, this also is found, that the word *theikos*, which is absent from the indubitable works of Basil, occurs very frequently in those books I mentioned. And what increases my suspicion is that in this very short composition the word *theikos* is used again not long after. And that also displeases me (p. 584), "For 'All things were made through him' refers to the multitude of creatures." For those last words, "concerns the multitude of creatures," as they run in Greek, so they do in Latin. For it may be translated word for word thus: for that, "All things were made through him," is about the multitude of creatures. Certainly, if those who know Latin are not accustomed to speak so, Basil, who was most skilled in Greek literature, is not to be thought to have spoken in Greek in this way. Furthermore, that which is placed at the beginning of the period is no more pleasing. For when Basil cites the very words of Scripture, he inserts something into his discourse by which those who hear or read may be reminded that Scripture is being cited; nor do I think he would have spoken so nakedly and simply, "For, All things," etc. It also moved me that I found the word phrasing in that little oration twice, which, however, I do not know if it is read as many times in the genuine orations of Basil. Nor, indeed, are those things better which we have added from the Royal Codex: which can be sufficiently known from the beginning alone. For it begins thus (p. 585): "Since by the grace of God the good, by the remembrance of the words of the only-begotten Son of the living God, and of his holy evangelists and apostles and prophets, who have sufficiently clarified for us the account concerning the baptism according to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, we have been instructed that the baptism which is in fire is indeed convicting of all wickedness, but receptive of righteousness according to Christ, creating hatred of wickedness and desire for virtue," etc. But in truth, thanks to the grace of the good God, in memory of the words of the only-begotten Son of God who is living, and of his holy evangelists and apostles and prophets, who sufficiently explained to us the doctrine of the baptism which is according to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, we have been taught that the baptism which occurs in fire is suitable as much for convicting all malice as for receiving Christ's righteousness, etc.: than which nothing could be said more languidly, or more coldly, or more inelegantly. Similarly, what is read toward the end, ^{B C D}

^A a more careful weighing will show. I blame the interpreter, indeed, who, because he did not immediately understand the Greek words, preferred to translate them ineptly rather than to search out their meaning more laboriously: but I consider the writer himself to be much more to be blamed, who, because he spoke so poorly, gave room for a bad interpretation. Basil, therefore, or rather some other person—if only he had not been entirely unskillful at speaking—would have written thus: Ἀλλὰ τὸ, Ὁ βλέπων λεῖα, νόει μοι ὑψηλῶς, which words, since they are clear when placed in this way, could have been a stumbling block to no one; for whoever read them, even cursorily, would have immediately seen that they ought to be translated thus, but understand that "He who sees smooth things" in a higher sense. And because the discourse concerns that saying, Ὁ βλέπων λεῖα ἐλεηθήσεται, I shall warn that, as Ducæus has already warned before in his most learned notes, these words are nowhere to be found in the Proverbs. How, therefore, could the author a little before (page 587) have spoken thus: Εἴρηται πρῶτος λόγος ἐν Παροιμίαις κατὰ τὸ εἶδος τὸ παροιμιακὸν, πρὸς γυμνασίαν τοῦ νοῦ τοῦ ἡμετέρου τῆς ἀσαφείας ἐπιτεθείσης, ὅτι, Ὁ βλέπων λεῖα ἐλεηθήσεται; “The first saying in the Proverbs is spoken in the manner of a proverb, with a certain obscurity added to exercise our mind, ‘He who sees smooth things shall obtain mercy’”? Nor will anyone say that similar things are to be found in the Proverbs, where it is thus written, Οἱ ὀφθαλμοί σου ὀρθὰ βλεπέτωσαν, “Let your eyes look straight.” For although from those words, Ὁ βλέπων λεῖα, the same meaning could be derived as from these, Οἱ ὀφθαλμοί σου ὀρθὰ βλεπέτωσαν: nevertheless, the words themselves so differ from one another that the most diligent man, Basil, cannot deservedly be believed to have substituted one for another, especially when the place of the Proverbs is said to have just been read. Moreover, I would willingly ask whence the author drew that word, ἐλεηθήσεται. If he added this word of his own accord, Basil is not accustomed to act in such a way: but if you say that it was taken from some place of the Proverbs, the very learned man Ducæus has long ago signified clearly enough that such a place appears nowhere in the Proverbs, when he wrote thus: “This is cited: ‘He who looks upon smooth things’ from the Proverbs, in which, however, it can nowhere be found, at least by one who wishes to use the Greek index of the Bible compiled by Kircher.” For it occurs nowhere in the Proverbs, neither λεῖα βλέπειν nor ἐλεηθήσεται βλέπων. We have seen the writer to have been so negligent that he was forgetful of those things which had been recited a little before from the Proverbs: now we shall see that he was forgetful of those things which he himself had just said before. For after these words, εἴρηται πρῶτος λόγος ἐν Παροιμίαις... Ὁ βλέπων λεῖα ἐλεηθήσεται, “He who sees smooth things shall obtain mercy”; with two verses interjected, it follows, πῶς ὁ λεία βλέπων ἐπαινεθήσεται; “how shall he who sees smooth things be praised?” For in this last place, it is certain both from the notes and from the series of the discourse that we must read ἐπαινεθήσεται. For the writer thus proceeds (page 587), ἐπαινετὰ γάρ ἐστι τὰ κατὰ προαίρεσιν... πόθεν ὁ ἔπαινος τῷ ὁρῶντι τὰ.

§ IV. Concerning the homily which was delivered in the Lacizæ.

12. We cannot judge even by conjecture ^B the place where that oration is said to have been delivered. The very learned Tillemont, who thought this oration to be Basil’s, suspected that Laciza was some place of the Caesarean diocese; nor do I deny that he could have rightfully suspected this, especially since no one, as far as I know, has hitherto held that oration to be suspect. And certainly that old opinion is not a little confirmed by the fact that this homily is found among the genuine orations of Basil in all books, both those printed in type and those written by hand. But if anyone would consider the matter a little more ^C attentively, I do not doubt greatly that he would place that oration either among the spurious, or at least among the suspect ones. Meanwhile, I shall bring forward the reasons why I think it ought to be doubted. First, that place occurs where it is read thus (page 588): Ἐπεὶ τοίνυν ἀνώμαλός ἐστι τῶν ὁρωμένων ἡ φύσις, πῶς ἐπαινεῖ ἡ Γραφὴ τὸν βλέποντα λεῖα, ὑπὲρ τὸν τραχέα; Καὶ κατακρίνει τὸν ὄρη καὶ σκοπέλους, etc. “Since therefore the nature of visible things is uneven, how does Scripture praise him who sees smooth things more than him who sees rough things? And condemns him who sees mountains and crags, etc.” Therefore, since the nature of things that are seen is unequal, how does it happen that Scripture praises him who sees smooth things, above the other who looks upon rough things? Thus it condemns one seeing mountains and crags, etc. That tóv which is placed in the last position does not please me, and is of such a kind that at first sight you would believe there is some defect in the Greek. I know indeed that the word βλέποντα ought to be supplied in this place: but this article, used without any verb, has something obscure and disjointed about it, nor does the ellipsis seem to have been placed suitably in this place. I think, therefore, that the writer, had he been a little more humane, would have either added the word ὁρῶντα or would have used some other type of expression. What follows immediately, Ἀλλὰ νόει μοι ὑψηλῶς, Ὁ βλέπων λεῖα, pleases me even less. And if the prior place is of such a kind that, as I have warned, it might present an error to the incautious, the latter actually presented an error to the old interpreter. For it was as if he were situated in the midst of darkness that he rendered into Latin the words I have spoken: [Verum nihil illud.] “He who sees smooth things,” ^D

^A etc. For while man was alone, the devil had no handle; but when woman was created, a tender creature, the Creator necessarily implanted a natural tenderness, so that by her kindness infants might be easily nursed. For if the woman were austere, she would not have taken the weeping infant to her breast, nor would she have neglected her own sustenance, but would have offered her breast for the benefit of the suckling child. Now, however, that maternal affection not rarely drives sleep from the eyelids, whenever the infant is even slightly disturbed. That the infant might be reared, therefore, the female sex was brought forth tender, tender and humane. For which reason, tender and soft, etc. What is it, I ask, to trifle, if this is not? Certainly, if some little woman had related such things, perhaps there would be no reason to wonder; but who could be persuaded that a most grave man like Basil blurted out such trifles? I point out that in these words something should have been placed after the word “infants,” such as that; so the sentence would be clearer and hang together better. If these words had been added in the place I mentioned, it could have been interpreted ^B thus: “For as long as man was alone, the devil had no handle; but after woman was created... that by her kindness she might be prone to rear children, then it happened that he had a handle.” I have noted that point, moreover, so that the error might be more evident which a similar manner of speaking presented to most learned men. Now, the passage I am speaking of immediately precedes the words I have recounted. For there it is read (p. 593): “After he had considered man; after he saw that this little creature was being called by the Lord to an equality with the angels, by leading him through virtue and by temperance ^C in the things of this life, since the perfection of the soul... it is wanting. For when—”

14. That such utterances do not sufficiently befit the orator Basil, the things themselves do not seem to be of sufficient weight to be worthy of the most grave Father of all. After the writer had said more than was fitting concerning the excellence of man, so that he could infer that the devil envied him for such great prerogatives, then at length he begins to institute a discourse concerning the woman, in this manner (ibid.): “For as long as man was alone, the devil had no handle; but when ^D woman was created, a tender creature, the Creator necessarily implanted a natural tenderness, so that by her kindness infants might be easily nursed. For if the woman were severe, she would not have taken the weeping infant to her bosom, nor would she have neglected her own nourishment, but would have held her breast for the benefit of the suckling child. Now, however, those maternal affections not rarely drive sleep from the eyelids, when the infant is in the least disturbed. That the infant might be reared, therefore, the female sex was created tender, tender and humane. For this reason, tender and soft,” etc.

What is it, I pray, to trifle, if this is not? Certainly, if some little woman had narrated such things, perhaps there would be no cause for wonder; but who can be persuaded that the most grave man Basil blurted out such trifles? Regarding which words, I advise that something ought to have been placed after the word *νήπια* [infants], as is that [phrase], so that the speech might be clearer and hold together better: which words, if they had been added in the place I mentioned, might have been interpreted thus: *Etenim quandiu solus fuit homo, ansam non habebat diabolus; sed posteaquam condita est mulier... ut ob benignitatem pueros propense educaret, tunc contigit ut ansam haberet* [For as long as man was alone, the devil had no handle; but after woman was created... that by her kindness she might be prone to rear children, then it happened that he had a handle]. That point, moreover, I have noted so that the error might be more evident, which a similar method of speaking posed for most learned men. Now that passage of which I speak immediately precedes the words I have reported. There, however, it is read (p. 593): *etc. Postquam consideravit hominem:* [etc. After he considered man:] “After he saw this little animal being invited by the Lord to the equality of the angels, by leading him through virtue and through the conduct of life, since the perfection of the soul is lacking: For when,”

^A a moderate use might result in the perfection of the soul, etc. It is worth noting here that the word λείπει was added in the Parisian edition to warn the readers that something was missing in this place; but yet nothing is missing, and it is evident from old books—in which not even a trace of it exists—that the word λείπει should be deleted. That foolish method of expression misled the authors of the Parisian edition, as it also misled that most learned man Combefis. They supposed that these words, *ἐπειδὴ κατέμαθε τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἐπειδὴ εἶδεν ὅτι*, etc., referred to something that ought to follow, whereas they refer to those things which precede. Therefore, the meaning of the passage must be sought from those words which were read a little earlier, so that the word *ἐπονηρεύσατο*, which is found at the beginning of the previous period, may be understood. When these things have been rightly understood, it is clear that the whole meaning of this passage is: The devil acted maliciously when he saw much pleasure flowing to man... Again, he acted maliciously when he considered man, and when he saw this tiny animal being invited by the Lord to the equality of the angels, etc. Therefore, they were indeed mistaken who thought that something had been omitted by the scribes here, but I judge them much less blameworthy than the writer himself, who, by speaking badly, gave occasion for error. Nor is it much further down, when the author wanted to describe the hatred of panthers toward men, that he used these words (page [595]): *τοῖς σταδίοις πολλάκις, ἢ εἶδον ἢ ἤκουσα*. "I have seen in the arenas most dangerous animals to man, either I saw them or I heard of them: for my account is safe." First, the writer says that he saw it himself, but as if struck by religious scruple, he immediately adds that he either saw it or heard of it. But to speak in this way, as it seems to me, is the mark of someone who desires to while away time pleasantly in private and familiar conversations, not of one who is delivering a public discourse to the people. Furthermore, how can he who says that he has often seen something say that he either saw it or heard of it? For it may indeed happen at some time that, if we have seen some thing once, we might doubt whether we saw it or heard it; but if we have seen something often, all doubt and scruple is removed, and we have the consciousness that we did indeed see it. I warn you elsewhere ^B that this formula of speech, "I have seen, I know," was most familiar to Basil the Great, and for this reason I do not doubt greatly that the author of the speech, when he spoke thus: "I have seen often in the arenas," etc., intended to be seen either as Basil himself or certainly as some excellent imitator of his. But when he hoped that this would be the case, he was flattering himself too much. For no one can be persuaded that it was Basil who would say that he had seen something often, and yet immediately doubt whether he had ever seen it. I wish the original places were examined, in which Basil used that formula of words; if someone reads them, he will understand more and more that Basil said nothing such as is found in this discourse. I will add one thing, and omit the rest. Immediately, therefore, the author writes thus (page 595): *Οὕτω καὶ ὁ διάβολος ἐν τῇ εἰκόνι τὸ μισόθεον ἔδειξεν, ἐπειδὴ Θεοῦ προσάψασθαι οὐκ ἐδύνατο. Οὕτως ὁ εἰς ἡμᾶς πόλεμος ἀπόδειξιν ἔχει τοῦ θεομάχον εἶναι τὸν πονηρὸν, καὶ πρῶτον πολεμεῖν τῷ Δεσπότῃ. Ἐκεῖνος κατήγαγεν ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλὴμ εἰς Ἱεριχὼ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀπὸ τῶν ὑψηλῶν ἐπὶ τὰ κοῖλα· ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς ὀρεινῆς ἡ Ἱερουσαλήμ, ἡ δὲ Ἱεριχώ κάτω ἐν τῇ ἁλμυρᾷ θαλάσσῃ. Εἴ τις ὑμῶν εἶδε τὸν τόπον, οἶδε τῶν λεγομένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ὅτι Ἱεριχὼ μὲν ἔχει τὰ κοῖλα τῆς Παλαιστίνης, Ἱερουσαλὴμ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς κορυφῆς ἐρήρεισται, τὴν ἄκραν κατέχουσα τοῦ ὄρους τοῦ διὰ πάσης ἐκείνης τῆς χώρας ἀνεστηκότος.* "Thus also the devil showed his hatred of God in the image, since he could not lay hold of God. Thus the war against us has proof that the wicked one is a God-fighter, and that he wars first against the Master. He brought man down from Jerusalem to Jericho, from the heights to the hollows; for Jerusalem is in the mountain region, and Jericho is below by the Salt Sea. If any of you has seen the place, you know the truth of what is said, that Jericho has the hollows of Palestine, but Jerusalem is perched upon the summit, holding the top of the mountain which rises through all that land." So also the devil makes his hatred toward God manifest in the image, since he cannot reach God. Thus, from the war waged, it is clear that he is that wicked enemy of God, and that he wars first against the Lord himself. He led man down from Jerusalem to Jericho, from the high to the hollows. Jerusalem is indeed situated in a mountainous region; Jericho, however, is in a low and humble place by the Salt Sea. If any of you have seen the place, you know that the things said are true, that Jericho is situated in the hollows of Palestine, while Jerusalem is situated on the highest point of its mountain, which rises throughout that whole region, occupying the summit. ^C While I was reading these things, they seemed to me not to cohere sufficiently with themselves. If this were a discourse about the love of one’s neighbor, I would admit that the example of the man who was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho had been brought in aptly and conveniently; but in this place, such an example is brought in so untimelily that the speech appears utterly disjointed. Certainly, if any other capable author had intended to demonstrate the devil's hatred against God or against men, he would never have thought to bring forward this example, as there are six hundred other very apt and well-known ones which he might have used to show this. How, then, can Basil be deservedly called the author of these things, who of all men is found to be the most felicitous in bringing forward apt examples? Furthermore, those things which follow—"Jerusalem is indeed situated in a mountainous region; Jericho, however, in a low and humble place by the Salt Sea; if any of you have seen the place, you know the things said are true," etc.—are of a man who speaks vanities in earnest, not of the most grave Father, who everywhere teaches the most fitting and useful things.

15. The author, whoever he is, either wished to be the one seen as Basil, or certainly exerted himself to be Basilian. For he is sometimes detected having taken the very words, and often the thoughts, from him. Therefore, whatever is said here about anger, or about envy, or about avarice, ^D ... or he surely studied to be a Basilian. For he is sometimes caught having taken the words themselves, and often the thoughts, from him. These things, therefore, that are spoken here—whether of anger, or of envy, or of avarice—are from no other source more...

clearly recognized than from the books of Basil, who, as is well known, possessed the most beautiful orations upon these vices. Indeed, even if anyone reads diligently that oration entitled: *That God is not the author of evils*, he will recognize that something was also expressed from it. Now, so that everyone may be free to judge the matter for himself, I shall bring forward one passage, from which a conjecture may be made regarding the rest. The author, therefore, speaks thus (page 589): "How unseemly is the angry man? He casts off the human form and takes on the form of a beast. Consider the one who is angry: anger has boiled up in him, and his eyes have changed; they are not the same eyes. He sees fire; the blood has rushed up to him, it has boiled around the heart, it has moved beneath the coverings of the eyes, it has become bloodshot, dwelling in the passion, it has altered his eyes. An angry man is not seemly. If you see one who is angry gnashing his teeth, consider that such a one is like a boar... if you see one who is angry forgetting his father, and ignorant of the body of his child... and there has arisen a contention of evils. But he who wins in the contests of evils is more wretched." ^A And the virgins, and she who was betrothed to a man, were judged suitable for the service of the dispensation, so that both virginity might be honored, and marriage not be held in contempt. For virginity was chosen as being suitable for holiness; but through the betrothal the beginnings of marriage were included. At the same time, also, so that Joseph might be an intimate witness of the purity of Mary, and that she might not be exposed to calumniators as if she had defiled her virginity, she had a spouse as the guardian of her life. ^B And: "On account of this, brothers have been ignorant of one another; and parents and children have forgotten nature... and, rushing more shamelessly than any venomous beast, they do not pause until, through a great and incurable evil... the inflammation is dispersed... For in those who pant for vengeance, the blood boils around the heart, just as if stirred by the force of fire and bubbling; but when it has blossomed forth to the surface, it has shown the one who is angry in another form—changing the habitual and known form for all, as if it were a mask upon a stage. For those own, familiar eyes are ^C not recognized; the eye is distorted, and he already sees fire, and he gnashes his teeth against those who encounter him. The face is livid and bloodshot... for in wicked contests, he who conquers is the more wretched." I have related these things somewhat more fully, lest anyone wonder why this oration is placed among the true and genuine orations of Basil in all editions. For when librarians noticed that there were many things in it which were also found in the discourses of Basil, they were easily induced to place it among his genuine writings.

V. Concerning the homily on the human generation of Christ.

16. Before we report the opinions of the learned regarding this oration, it will not be beside the point to note in few words what in it seemed to us worthy of knowledge. First, therefore, the writer, whoever he was, brings forward many reasons why Mary was betrothed to a man; which reasons, if you except one, of which I shall speak more conveniently a little later, I shall not regret to transcribe in this place. And since it is better to listen to the authors themselves, I have decided to report the Greek words themselves. Thus, therefore, he speaks (page 598): "And she was a virgin, and betrothed to a man, and was judged suitable for the ministry of this dispensation, so that both virginity might be honored, and marriage not be held in contempt. For virginity was chosen as being suited for holiness; but through the betrothal, the beginnings of marriage were included. At the same time, also, that Joseph might be an intimate witness of the purity of Mary, and that she might not be exposed to calumniators, as if she had contaminated her virginity, she had a spouse as a guardian of her life." And not much lower, proposing the opinion of a certain ancient, the same author writes thus: "Another reason also was brought forth by one of the ancients, namely, that the betrothal of Joseph was devised so that ^D the virginity of Mary might remain hidden from the prince of this world." And it can scarcely be doubted that by the name of "the ancient," one must understand the martyr Ignatius, whose words are in the *Epistle to the Ephesians*: "For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary according to the dispensation of God, of the seed indeed of David, but of the Holy Spirit... And the virginity of Mary, and her childbearing, and likewise also the death of the Lord, were hidden from the prince of this world." Where, in passing, I shall warn that the most learned of men, Tillemont, seems to me to be deceived, when he wrote that Origen...

^A in this homily mentions the name of some ancient author. For that it should be understood as the martyr Ignatius can be confirmed by the very serious author Jerome, who, when he was interpreting the first chapter of Matthew [(b)], wrote thus: "The martyr Ignatius also added a fourth reason, why he was conceived by one betrothed: namely, he says, so that his birth might be hidden from the devil, while he thinks him to be begotten not of a virgin, but of a wife." And I do not think it unworthy of note that two mysteries were once celebrated on one and the same day, the birth of the Lord and the adoration of the Magi. For the author so explains and joins these two mysteries that it is not obscure that both were celebrated at those times at once. Now the name for the feast day was Theophany. For when the author was thinking about putting an end to his own oration, he speaks thus (page 602): "Let us also utter some voice of exultation: let us give a name to our feast, Theophany." Let us also utter some voice of exultation and call our feast Theophany. And, when I began to collect such things, I will add this as well, that the virgin Mary is called Theotokos.

17. Now, regarding our dispute as to whether this oration is deservedly or undeservedly attributed to Basil. The most learned men, Combefis and Dupin, do not even seem to have held this oration in suspicion. Tillemont, however, a man endowed with the sharpest judgment, says it can be placed among the doubtful. Nor should it be passed over in silence that this sermon is missing in some old books: but that nothing sufficiently firm for rejecting it can be concluded thence, all, I think, see. Therefore, one must necessarily recur to other principles, and the oration itself must be considered in itself; whether anything can be found in it that might hold a torch for us in judging. The first thing that occurs is that (page 596): "How then, he says, did the lamp [lamptērion] come to all through one?" Which, to confess the truth, seems to me utterly foreign and alien to Basil's usage. For, unless I am greatly mistaken, just as among other good authors, so among Basil, *lamptēr* (lamp) is usually said, not *lamptērion*. A little later, the author promised he would speak of something great, yet beyond expectation he says nothing of the sort. For after he had brought forward a few reasons why the Virgin Mary was betrothed, intending to bring forward another, he speaks thus (page 598): "I have another argument to relate, nothing less worthy than what has been said, that the suitable time for the incarnation of the Lord, long ago foreordained and pre-appointed before the foundation of the world, then arrived, in which it was necessary for the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High ^B to form that flesh which would bear God [Theophorum]. Since, however, the generation of men in her time had nothing equal to the purity of Mary, so as to receive the operation of the Spirit, and was already engaged by betrothal, the blessed Virgin was chosen, with her virginity in no way harmed by the betrothal." ^C I can also bring forward another reason, not inferior to those we have brought forward, that is, that the time suitable for the incarnation of the Lord, long ago foreordained and pre-appointed before the foundation of the world, was then at hand, in which it was necessary for the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High to form that flesh which would bear God. Since, however, that age of men had nothing equal to the purity of Mary, such that it could receive the operation of the Holy Spirit, yet was already occupied by betrothal, the blessed Virgin was chosen, with her virginity in no way harmed by the betrothal. The author promised, as I said, that he would bring forward some excellent reason why the Virgin Mary had been betrothed: but he does not seem to have stood by his promises. Indeed, if the matter be considered move closely, he does not properly bring forward the reason why she was betrothed: but says only that she, having been found already occupied by betrothal, was chosen for that reason, because no other virgin was her equal in purity at that age. From the author's words, therefore, we learn not why she was betrothed to a man, but why she was preferred to other virgins, namely, on account of her purity. What the author adds, that Mary's purity was in no way harmed by the betrothal, is as irrelevant to the point as it is unquestioned by anyone. Either Basil would have promised nothing of the sort, or, if he had promised, he would have said something worthy of his promises. That also which is read shortly thereafter: "Joseph found both, the pregnancy and the cause, that it was of the Holy Spirit," ^D displeases me. And indeed in these words there seems to be something unpleasant and inelegant; and I doubt not at all that any other writer would have added some little word, by which he might have rendered his oration more ornate. Nor is that passage more pleasing (ibid.), where the writer makes the angel speak thus with Joseph: "Do not fear to take Mary thy wife, nor think that thou wilt shade the sin with strange suspicions. For thou hast been called just; it is not, etc." That is to say: "Do not fear to take Mary thy wife, nor think that thou wilt hide the sin with absurd inventions. For thou hast been called just, but it is not, etc." For as for that part: "Do not fear to take Mary thy wife," 6 whence it was taken, I know well: but where the rest can be read, I know not, unless perhaps in certain apocryphal scriptures, which the author has clearly used in another place, and for this reason he may deservedly be believed to have drawn this very thing from the same fountains. But Basil, as he constantly had the true Scriptures in his hands, so he did not read apocrypha: or if he read them, he so despised them that he was always ashamed to use them. Shortly before, I suspected that the writer had borrowed something from the apocrypha; now to affirm that this happened to him, is deservedly...

^A a thing that might displease me, yet nothing moved me more than what is said about comets. The words of the author are these (p. 601): “Nor, indeed, is it permitted for those who curiously explain matters pertaining to the birth to say that the star was similar to comets, which appear to stand in the heavens most especially to signify the successions of kings.” Surely it could have seemed so to anyone else rather than to Basil the Great. For he was not the man who would either believe that the successions of kings are indicated by comets, or induce others to believe it. For he so refutes the errors and inventions of genethlialogists that he rejects the fable of such comets almost by name. I shall cite a few from many (a). Thus, therefore, he speaks: etc. “What effects, then, are produced? ‘The hair of such a man,’ they say, ‘is going to be curly, and his eyes bright, for he has the hour of Aries;’ and the animal is seen to be somehow of such a kind. ‘Moreover, he is high-minded,’ since the ram is a leader, ‘and eager, and again, acquisitive,’ since this animal sheds its wool without pain, and again easily clothes itself again by nature. ‘But the Taurian is enduring,’ he says, ‘and servile,’ since the bull is placed under the yoke. ‘And the Scorpion is a striker’ because of the resemblance to the beast. ‘But the Libra-born is just’ because of the equality of the scales among us. What could be more ridiculous than these things? … How then, saying that the primary causes for the lives of men proceed from thence, do you characterize ^B and fashion the characters of men born from the cattle among us? … Why then do you awe us with the reliability of the stars?” And the history according to Zacharias, that Mary was a virgin until the end. For there is a certain story, and this one arrived to us from tradition, that Zacharias, when he had placed Mary in the place of the virgins after the birth of the Lord, was killed by the Jews between the temple and the altar, having been accused by the people as one who, through this, was contriving that miraculous and much-sung sign, a virgin having given birth, and not having corrupted her virginity. Surely it ought to appear wonderful that such trifles could have been said in a serious matter: and it is no less surprising that such a discourse has been attributed to Basil the Great for so long. Long ago, Jerome, exposing the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew, refuted a similar fable. For when he had come to that place where mention is made of that Zacharias who was killed between the temple and the altar, and sought who this Zacharias was, he spoke thus: “Others wish the father of John to be understood as Zacharias, approving from certain dreams of the apocrypha that he was killed for the reason that he had preached the coming of the Savior. Because this has no authority from the Scriptures, it is despised with the same ease with which it is proved.” Certainly, those two fables so agree with one another that they seem to have proceeded from one and the same source. But I should think myself to think badly of that great Basil if I were to deem that he had dreamed so foully as to narrate the dreams of the apocrypha as truth. Where, also, it can be noted besides that the opinion of the author is not at all helped by this comment. For he had set out to prove that Mary had always kept her virginity inviolate: a thing which he did not prove. For even if Mary had been enrolled in the order of virgins, even after the birth of the Lord, still it could always be asked whether she had remained in that degree which she had attained until death. For if a little after the birth of the Lord she fell from that order, and Joseph had other children by her, it is established that she was not always a virgin. Wherefore, if the author wished to prove by firm reason that Mary was always a virgin, it was not enough to say that she had been placed in the place of virgins by Zacharias after the birth of the Lord, but he ought to have shown that she had persevered in the order in which she had been placed once, until her last breath: a thing which he did not perform. We have already seen the author err from the mark in a similar matter: but Basil, alone of all, knew most happily how to hit the mark, and when he once proposed to prove something to himself, he never proves anything else. Moreover, since there are many things in this discourse, ^C he is a lover of large thoughts, since precedence belongs to the ram: he will be generous, and again acquisitive, since this animal sheds its wool without trouble, and again is easily clothed by nature. But he who is born in Taurus, they say, is enduring of labors, and servile: since the bull is subjected to the yoke. But he who is born under Scorpio will be a striker, on account of the resemblance which it has to that animal. But he who is born in Libra will be just, on account of the equality of scales among us. What could be more ridiculous than these things? ... How, therefore, do you teach that the primary causes of human life proceed thence, and from earthly cattle you express and fashion the characters of men being born? ... Why therefore do you terrify us by making faith from the stars? For he who, where the birth of men is concerned, did not value the stars and their movements more, he, as it seems to me, could least of all say that the successions of kings are indicated by comets. Now we shall hasten to other things, but if we first add that one thing, such an abundance of variant readings in

ancient books is found, that if I had wished to transcribe them all, I would have exceeded due measure. The most learned Combefis, having noticed this, wrote as follows: "This homily, because it is worn out by the frequent use of the churches and described in very many ecclesiastical books, abounds in diverse readings, for as each one transcribed it for the use of his own church, he indulged in changing some word, or interpolating something, according to the capacity of the faithful flock to which he was devoted, or even as it crept in upon the copyists." I would not indeed contend with that most learned man regarding this matter: yet I find nowhere that this homily was most worn out by the use of the churches. Furthermore, that same most skilled man whom I mentioned warned that two of Basil's orations on fasting were accustomed to be recited at the beginning of Lent; yet in these, such a store of diverse readings is not found. But, however that may be, I judge that that immense multitude of variant readings contributes somewhat to confirming my opinion. For I have learned by experience that so much discrepancy between ancient books is very often the surest sign of [vοθείας] [spuriousness].

VI. On the homily on repentance.

18. The author of this oration, whoever he is, did not set out so much to exhort his hearers to repentance, as to confute the Novatians and Montanists, ^B who denied repentance. The first words openly reveal that this oration was composed by one bishop at the request of another. The most learned Tillemont discusses this writing (a) in such a way that he casts upon it a certain faint mark of suspicion; yet he admits that it has hitherto been held by learned men as genuine. But whether I consider the words, the construction of the words, or the sentiments themselves, I have never seen anything less Basilian. I will bring forward a few passages from which what I say can be proven. ^C The following immediately occurs (p. 603): "The creator of these things says: 'If your sins be as scarlet, if you wash, they shall turn into the purity of snow'." Yet he who composed these things says: "If your sins be as colors that cannot be washed out, if only you wash, they will pass into the purity of snow"; where any other man, a little more diligent, for "they pass" [transít] would have written "they shall pass" [transibunt], namely [αἱ ἁμαρτίαι]. Nor is it found written much later: "But since there is no room for salty things to become sweet," ^D and since we are now bringing forward words from the Old Testament, let us relate what they oppose against those things which are said from the Old Testament. It would be better, if I am not mistaken, if that were absent, "since there is no room for salty things to become sweet, for there is no room for salty things to become sweet," because to things imbued with salt there is no place for becoming sweet. For these things, together with what follows, do not seem to cohere; and by what reasoning the writer said he would relate arguments from the Old Testament, "because to things imbued with salt there is no place for becoming sweet," he could have clearly said the same thing about relating arguments from the New Testament, "because to things imbued with salt there is no place for becoming sweet." And in truth, one does not cohere more with what is brought forward than the other: or, to speak more truly, neither coheres. These things, as they are not Basil's, so neither are those which follow (page 604): "I address you as attentive, from which I also touch upon graver matters... Who is recorded as more impious than Achaab, I say as they read." I say "I say as," when we speak to you, let us say it more clearly: "However much the strong man falls, he has a swift rising again. David is indignant... He immediately came to the remedy; he saw the wound; he fled to the physician. 'I have sinned,' he says, and immediately there is the cure. 'And the Lord has taken away your sin.' For what do you want, for one sin to be reckoned to the holy, or much righteousness? He committed sin, but he also performed many acts of righteousness. What is just before the just God, to remember the few, or to forget the many? Let the balance be set, and with what we measure, it shall be measured to us. If the sins are more, let him be a sinner; if the righteous acts are more, let him be righteous. One after one; for all things among us are spoken of from the greater. And there is whiter than the white, and for comparison another sweeter than the sweet; so also we just ones are as men, not as sin is righteousness. Whence the Son of God is called righteousness, but we are righteous by the participation of righteousness. And Moses spoke something with his tongue, but it was not taken up into history." Although the strong man falls, he rises quickly. David takes it ill... He immediately had recourse to the remedy: he saw the wound, he fled to the physician. "I have sinned," he says, and the remedy is immediately at hand. "And the Lord has taken away your sin." For what do you wish, that one sin be imputed to the saints, or much righteousness? He performed a sin, but he performed also many righteousnesses. What is just

is before the just God: is He to remember the few, or forget the many? Let there be a balance; and with what measure we have measured, it shall be measured to us. If sins are more, let him be a sinner: but if acts of righteousness are more, let him be just. One and one: for all our things are judged by the greater number. And one white thing is surpassed in whiteness by another; and if you compare, something else is sweeter than what is sweet. ^A So also we are just as men, not that sin is justice. Whence the Son of God is called justice: but we are just by the participation of justice. And Moses spoke something with his tongue, which however is not comprised in the history. What, I ask, could be imagined, in this doctrine, either worse, or less Basilian? However grave the fall of the strong man may be, he rises quickly, if faith is to be had in the author! But if it is so, and Basil is the author of these things, how can it be that that excellent doctor should have issued those distinguished canons, by which such a long and severe penance is prescribed for purging any sin whatsoever? For if a strong man, however gravely he may have sinned, rises so easily, those canons were not at all necessary, by which both the strong and the weak were then long exercised in rising. But what is so new, or more unheard-of, I do not say among Basil, but among those who have even slightly tasted the holy Scriptures, than that comparison of justice and sin, such that if someone has committed more sins, he is a sinner; but if he has performed more acts of righteousness, he is to be just? While I was writing these things, there came to mind a certain law of the Persians, which a very learned and also very elegant man says he has read: Many laws, he says, are recorded to have existed among the Persians: from which it can be easily understood that there was a certain singular wisdom of that nation... It was therefore established among them, that when someone was accused in court of having done something against the laws, even if it were clearly established that he was liable for the guilt, he would not however be immediately condemned, but first they would inquire most diligently into his whole life, and a calculation would be made, whether he had performed more things basely and flagitiously, or well and laudably. Then if the number of base things won out, he was condemned; but if the base things were outweighed by the honest ones, he was acquitted. For they thought it not in human nature to keep a straight course perpetually: that those should be held for good men, not who had never sinned, but who had more often acted honestly. Be it so, that a law of this kind prevails among the Persians: but let it be entirely warded off from the Church of God. ^D But let us return to our subject, and let us not be satisfied with having transcribed the passage in its entirety, but let us examine its parts more diligently. Thus therefore the author speaks: "If the sins are more, let him be a sinner; if the righteousnesses are more, let him be just. One and one: for all, etc." But what that "one and one" means, I do not sufficiently understand; nor can I easily be led to believe that a man who was not a Persian wrote thus. It follows (page 605): "So also we are as men, not that sin is justice." Whence, etc. I do not object to the rest; but in that, "not that sin is justice," there seems to me to be something obscure and discordant. Again, it is written immediately: "We are just by the participation of justice. And Moses spoke something with his tongue, but it was not captured in the history. And Abraham, etc." But we are just by the participation of justice. And Moses spoke something with his tongue, which however is not captured in the history. And Abraham, etc. Where that, "And Moses spoke something with his tongue, which however is not captured in the history," is not well connected to the other parts of the discourse: from which it happens that the discourse in this place appears to be disjointed. It is clear, therefore, not only from the sentiments, but from the very manner of writing itself, that this sermon cannot deservedly be attributed to Basil the Great. The author, before he came to the New Testament, brought forth this testimony from the Old (page 605): "For even Manasses, who placed four-faced idols in the temple of God, so that from wherever anyone entered, he might worship the idols, was, having repented, recalled from captivity." For even Manasses, who had placed idols having a quadruple face in the temple of God, so that from wherever anyone entered, he might adore the idols, having performed penance, was recalled from captivity. In this, however, the author sinned in that he did not indicate the place of the Old Testament. For where mention of such four-faced idols of the Scriptures is made, is today unknown; nor can there be any doubt that this story was drawn from some other source.

19. After the writer had related some testimonies from the Old Testament, he judged that some things also from the New should be excerpted. Thus therefore he speaks about the Prodigal son (ibid): "He received him, and says: Sacrifice the calf, and bring out the robe, that ancient one, and the ring on the hand. All these things are interpreted in one way, but they indicate briefly the good exhortation of the one receiving him, not to the things which I wish, but to those which he says. If, etc." He received [his son], and says: Sacrifice the calf, and bring out the robe, and that original [robe], and the ring on his hand. All these things are explained in another sense; but nevertheless they signify in summary the good exhortation of the receiver, not to the things which I wish, but to those which he says. But if, etc. From which words how any suitable sentiment can be fashioned, let others see: it will be enough for me to warn that a manner of writing of this kind is both inept and obscure and does not befit such a great man as Basil. When the author had said many things about the prodigal son, then he finally makes mention of Peter and Paul, in this way (page 606): "Peter denies three times, and he lies in the foundation. Paul, from a persecutor, a herald. But here there is a question. But what does he say?" ^D

he himself? *Jesus Christ came into the world, to save sinners, of whom I am chief.* He declares his own defect, that he may show the magnitude of grace. But Peter, having spoken and been blessed, having spoken: *Thou art the Son of the living God,* and having heard that: *Thou art Peter,* was praised. For even if he is a rock, he is not a rock as Christ is a rock, nor as Christ is a rock is Peter a rock. For Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter is so because of the rock.

*Petrus ter negat, tamen in fundamento collocatur.* Paul from a persecutor ^B became a preacher. But here is the question. What, however, does he himself say? *Jesus Christ came into the world, to save sinners, of whom I am chief.* He declares his own fault, that he may show the magnitude of grace. But Peter had spoken, and had obtained a blessing; he had said: *Thou art the Son of the living God*; and when he had heard, *Thou art Peter*, he was ennobled by the proclamation. Although he is a rock, he is not a rock as Christ is, but Peter is a rock. For Christ is truly an immovable rock; but Peter is so on account of the rock. Everywhere the kind of speech is abject and humble; but besides the fact that the discourse in this place is humble and abject, some things are said most ineptly. For what is the point of that manner of speaking: *But Peter having spoken and been blessed, having said that*, that Peter spoke, and having obtained a blessing, spoke—is this either more inept or more absurd? Perhaps what follows ^C will not appear better: *as Peter a rock*, as Peter a rock. I wished to disguise that the author proposed a certain question here, and yet did not imitate good writers, who, when they institute a certain question, explain its logic in a few words. That great master of discourse, whoever he is, speaks thus a little later: *Abraham was truly great; he was so great because he is earth and ashes.* Abraham was truly great; he was so great, since he is earth and ashes. Where it is not obscure that the word *because* (διότι) was placed for *although* (ὅμως), so that it might be, *yet he is earth and ashes*. When the writer was not satisfied with having spoken such things earlier about multiple justice, he proceeds thus: *Does God count the one evil, but not count the many goods? How many martyrs, having first denied, secondly recalled their defeat? But they denied, not in mind, but in tongue. For the flesh is weak.* One who denies falls away; one who confesses again is recalled. ^D *For God does not keep the evils, while discarding the goods.* And one being tortured, often gave way, not bearing it—not the willingness, but the pain; but having been brought low and having taken rest, he is recalled. Shall the small word be kept for him, but the torments not be numbered? *But God is judge, not the daring of men.* Dare you prescribe a law to God, who knows the weakness, and provides help, and will give the victory? How many have not been martyrs from a good life? Shall they be deprived of their labors because desire turned them? We are not angels, but men. And we fall and we rise again, and often in the same hour.... But if someone who had sinned were not granted forgiveness, there would be a distinction in the variety. How many voices, so many nearly reach the argument of foreignness and spuriousness. *Does God count one evil, he says, but does not count many goods?* It is so; God sometimes counts one evil, but does not count many goods; and Basil could not be ignorant of this. For the excellent doctor knew that man is sometimes ^A for a single mortal sin, by the just judgment of God, both deserted and perished. But he himself must be heard, who, when he was celebrating the praises of the forty martyrs, spoke thus of a certain wretched soldier: *And while they were contending, one was watching what would happen, and saw a strange spectacle: certain powers descending from heaven, and as it were distributing great gifts from a King to the soldiers; and while they were dividing the gifts among all the others, they left one alone unrewarded, unworthy to be judged for heavenly honors; who, immediately desponding in his struggles, deserted to the adversaries. A pitiful spectacle to the just; the soldier a fugitive, the athlete a captive, the sheep of Christ caught by a beast; and what is more pitiful, that he also missed eternal life, and did not even enjoy this, his flesh having been dissolved immediately in the encounter with the heat. And he indeed, who loved life, fell having sinned in vain, but the other, etc.* But while they were struggling, and the guard was watching the outcome, he saw a marvelous spectacle, certain virtues descending from the heavens, and as it were distributing ^B great gifts from a King, which were distributing gifts to all the others, but yet they left one ungifted, judging him unworthy of heavenly honors: who, immediately yielding on account of his pain, deserted to the adversaries. A miserable spectacle to the just; a soldier a deserter, a man ^C of the greatest strength a captive, the sheep of Christ torn by a wolf: to be wounded p...

the most strenuous of captives, the sheep of Christ torn by the wolf: and that other more miserable fact, that he also lost eternal life, and did not even enjoy this present one, his flesh being dissolved immediately upon the approach of heat. And he indeed, a lover of life, fell having committed a crime in vain; but the executioner, etc. Behold one soldier, laden as it were with manifold justice, who had endured the force of torments, who had almost reached the point of death, who had almost been crowned, [once] denied, and perished for all eternity. Goods are not compared with evils, nor are they numbered; yet God, by a just and hidden judgment, sentenced the soldier who had fallen once to eternal punishments. How then could Basil, from whom we heard the history of this soldier, have been able to say what is read in this controversial oration: "However much the brave man may fall, he quickly rises again," when he himself demonstrated by this example of the soldier that a most strenuous man had fallen, yet had never risen again? How, conversely, could he have spoken thus: "For what do you wish, that one sin should be imputed to the saints, or much justice? He committed sin, but he also performed many acts of justice. What is just before a just God, to remember the few or to forget the many? ... If the sins are more, let him be a sinner; but if the acts of justice are more, let him be just," when he himself tells the just soldier (for if he had not been just, his example would not have been set before the just) that one sin was imputed, and not much justice? Again, how could he have written thus: "And when someone was being tortured, he often yielded, when he could not bear [it], not changing the intention of his will, but overcome by pain, as if it were a thing of naught if one should deny the faith because of pain," when he himself handed down that the soldier, who had yielded overcome by pain, nevertheless had lost eternal life? But let us return to the passage which we proposed in the last place. Thus, therefore, the author was speaking: *Πόσοι μάρτυρες πρῶτον ἀρνησάμενοι, τὸ δεύτερον ἀνεκαλέσαντο τὴν ἧτταν; Ἀλλ' ἀρνησάμενοι, οὐχὶ τῇ διανοίᾳ, ἀλλὰ τῇ γλώττῃ.* "How many martyrs, having first denied, later retrieved their defeat? But they denied, not in their mind, but with their tongue." As if it were a trivial thing to deny with the tongue, provided it was not denied in the mind. The doctrine of Basil is far different, whose words are these in the oration which he delivered concerning the martyr Gordius ^A: "Now, therefore, the friends who stood around this blessed man, hurrying from death to life, were embracing him with groans, and were saying their final farewells, and with poured-out, fervent tears, they were praying that he would not deliver himself to the fire, that he would not waste his youth, that he would not abandon this pleasant sun. Others were striving to deceive him with counsels suitable for persuasion: 'Deny with the word alone: but in your mind, as you wish, keep the faith. God, at any rate, does not attend to the tongue, but to the mind of the speaker. For thus it will be permitted you both to appease the judge and to render God propitious.' But he was inflexible and indomitable, nor could he be wounded by any impulse of temptations.... And indeed, when he saw the devil running around with spiritual eyes, inciting one to lament, helping another to persuade, to those weeping he indeed said that word of the Lord: 'Do not weep for me, but weep for the enemies of God, who dare such things against the worshippers of piety, and who, through this flame which they kindle to burn us, are preparing for themselves the fire of Gehenna....' But to others, who were persuading him to deny with his tongue, he replied that the tongue which was created by Christ could not speak anything against the Creator. 'For with the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth we confess unto salvation'; how then shall I deny my God whom I have worshipped from a boy? Will not heaven shudder from above? Will not the stars be obscured for my sake? Will the earth in any way sustain me? Do not err, God is not mocked. He judges us from our mouth, justifies us from our words, and from our words condemns us. Have you not read this tremendous threat of the Lord? 'Whoever shall deny me before men, I also will deny him before my Father, who is in heaven.' Why, however, do you persuade me to do these things? That I may acquire something for myself through such art? That I may gain a few days? Yet I would make a wreck of all eternity: that I may escape the pains of the flesh? ^B But I shall by no means see the good things of the just. To perish craftily, and astutely and deceitfully to summon for oneself eternal punishment, would be manifest dementia." These things, even if rather long, I have been pleased to record in this place, so that the doctrine of both, Basil and the author, may be compared one with the other more conveniently, and that from the diversity of the opinions it may be clearly evident that this oration, concerning which there is controversy, cannot deservedly be attributed to Basil. And indeed, how could Basil, who introduced Gordius saying those things which we have set forth, have spoken thus: "How many martyrs, who at first denied, later redeemed their defeat by renewed battle? They denied, however, not in mind, but in tongue," as if it were a light thing to deny with the tongue. Furthermore, I would gladly ask the author, if he were living, how many there are who, when they had once denied, never renewed the battle, nor ever redeemed their defeat. I would, however, have it noted most especially that the example of the soldier is proposed by Basil not to sinners, but to the just (a spectacle, he says, lamentable to the just): so that he might at once thoroughly overthrow that pernicious opinion of the author concerning "manifold justice," and warn the just to take heed to themselves, lest perhaps even they, on account of a single crime, be delivered to the eternal fire. But, as I have already said, if nothing else prevented this oration from being attributed to Basil, the very style of speaking by itself would be sufficient, which can be confirmed again from the last passage. For we have seen the author speaking thus, and while he was being tortured, many a time he gave way, not having been able to bear it, not changing the intention of his will, but overcome by pain, ^{C D}

^A in other orations of his, I do not believe he ever used. But the word [κτῆμα] (possession) is displeasing for this reason, because it seems not sufficiently adapted to this place. For whoever hears that "abundance of the possession of hatred," among those whom the possession of hatred abounds, if he is one who has been diligently versed in the reading of Basil’s books, will immediately, unless I am greatly mistaken, seem to himself to hear something new and foreign. ^B All that passage (ibid.): *“Who will give me a theater for the whole inhabited world, and a voice louder than a trumpet, and the lamentations of Jeremiah, and abundant tears, with which to burst asunder a heart crushed by pains, and to pour out upon us the dust now ignominiously scattered, and to deplore the common calamity? For charity, the root of the commandments, has failed.”* All that fragment, I say, might befit a grandiloquent man, not Basil the Great, who is accustomed to combine every ornament of eloquence with a certain wonderful simplicity most deftly. And that it may be better understood how alien a turgid and inflated style of speaking is from Basil’s character, I shall not be loath to bring forward one example from which as much can be judged regarding the others. Therefore, although Basil often mentions the dissensions and wrangling of Christians among themselves, yet in his book *On the Holy Spirit* he describes the miserable state of the Church ^C more fully and accurately than in other places. Wherefore, if anywhere, it became Basil to use that turgid style of speaking there; but yet not even there does his oration swell, but it is simple and most alien from every emphasis. For after he had recounted so many and so great evils, he speaks in this manner (b): *“For this reason I deemed silence more profitable than speech, as the voice of a man cannot be heard through such great tumults.”* For if the words of Ecclesiastes are true, that *the words of the wise are heard in quiet* 16, it is far from fitting to speak about these matters in the present state of affairs. ^D For this reason they devised these assemblies, that they might renew through the mingling of the times the alienation that had arisen over the course of time, and that those who dwell in foreign lands might, by occupying this one place, establish for themselves a beginning of friendship and love.

^A Nevertheless, you do not openly declare that we are the ones who anathematize those who call the Holy Spirit a creature. I accept this accusation, and for this, I endure the fire and the sharpened sword; and even if the wheel should crush me, and instruments of torture be moved against me, I accept the torments with the same assurance with which the martyrs lying here were deemed worthy of their crowns. I foresee, indeed, that there will be no lack of those to whom these words might seem very pleasing at first glance, and who might find them most worthy, as having been pronounced by Basil the Great—nor can it be denied that they were uttered by a man of noble and exalted spirit; yet those same people, if they consider the matter more attentively, will immediately, I think, perceive that these are the words of a man confident in his own constancy and fortitude, and who might appear somewhat boastful. And so that they may better understand that these remarks are far removed from the modesty of Basil—so far that they cannot justly be attributed to him—I would wish them to diligently compare what is said here with other passages where Basil has written on a similar subject. One may read that discourse which is entitled *Against the Sabellians and Arius and the Anomoeans* (a), in which the most serious man left behind certain specimens of his modesty. In this discourse, therefore, Basil likewise complains that a calumny is being fabricated against him, and in the same, he likewise professes that the Holy Spirit is not a creature, yet he does not boast anything more magnificent about himself, but speaks simply and modestly as follows (b): ^C “But for a long time now I see you are impatient toward the word, and I feel as though I hear you: that I am dwelling on acknowledged points, and not touching upon these much-discussed questions; for every ear now is aroused for the hearing of words concerning the Holy Spirit. But I, for my part, wished most of all to deliver to those who listen just as I received it simply, and just as I assented to it candidly and unpretentiously... But since you surround us, being judges rather than disciples, wishing to test us rather than seeking to learn anything... ^D I see that you are finding our discourse burdensome, and I think you can barely hear me, since I am lingering on acknowledged points, and I do not touch upon these much-discussed questions. For every ear now is alert to hear something about the Holy Spirit. I, however, would wish most of all, just as I received it simply as it was handed down, and just as I assented to it candidly and sincerely, so also to deliver it to the hearers... Since, however, you surround us, being judges more than disciples, who wish to test us, but do not seek to learn anything, lest...

you take the opportunity from what is said to say that we preach two gods. ^B Since you surround us, being judges rather than disciples, wishing to test us, not seeking to receive anything yourselves... Those who separate the Father and the Son, and count the Spirit among the creatures, make baptism incomplete, and make the confession of faith incomplete... Thus, therefore, I neither coin new words, nor do I set aside the dignity; but I sigh and mourn for those who dare to call Him a creature. For the most part ^D of those present are spies, rather spies of what is said than disciples of the teachings; and the word is sought not for the edification of those present, but for the entrapment of those lying in wait; and if something is said that happens to accord with the desires of those casting out the judgment, they went away having accepted it as if they had found their own thing at our hands... There will those who weave this entrapment be set against me... Why... do you make war on me?

PREFACE

^A ...to be answered, and always to be questioned, and always to report what we have received. One may see examples of the same humility in this oration, just as in many other places, in the case of the most holy Father. Wherefore it is most fully persuaded to me that Basil was so affected that he would have been prepared to endure all torments to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit: but I shall not easily be led to believe that a man of such modesty, as we have heard, spoke so boastfully of himself. Furthermore, among the other praises of his genius which the most learned Erasmus attributes to Basil, this one is also found: that he interweaves the testimonies of the Scriptures into his oration so neatly that you would say they were not stones sewn onto purple, but born there. How, therefore, could he have quoted so ineptly that passage of John, *When the Comforter shall come*, as it was being read? You, however... *When the Comforter shall come* 15, was then being read. You, etc. Some unskilled man could have quoted Scripture so preposterously, not that great Basil, who knew best how to place the words of Scripture more aptly. Nor will I omit that, where it is read a little later (page 611): *As there is not another unbegotten God, so, etc.*, something exotic appears to me to be present there. For Basil is not accustomed to use [the word] *en* for *uti*. Because if it were lawful for anyone to judge others according to his own sense, the testimony which I shall produce, even if single, would be enough to reject this oration. But the passage I speak of is of this kind (ibid.): *Because of the body, the Word took the cloud, the body namely, so that he might not burn up visible things.* Few indeed, if they were delivering a public oration to the people, would wish to speak thus: because of the body the Word took the cloud, the body namely, since there is something mystical in these words which does not befit an oratorical style of speaking: but no one, unless I am greatly mistaken, has said so far, nor will anyone seriously say in the future, that the body was assumed by the Lord so that he might not burn up visible things. And indeed the cause of the Incarnation of such a kind seems to me so foreign to the common sense of men that I do not think it ever entered the mind of any other. But, to be silent now about the rest, I would dare to affirm that Basil, a man endowed with the sharpest judgment, never even dreamt of such an inept reason. Perhaps the author ^D feared that the eternal Word, unless he clothed himself in flesh, would burn up the whole world by the example of Phaethon.

21. I think, therefore, that this sermon is not Basil's: but of someone who wished to imitate him. For it seems likely to me that its author, whoever he was, proposed for himself to imitate the oration which is entitled, *Against the Sabellians, and Arius and the Anomoeans*: concerning which matter I think that he who has carefully read these two orations (tom. II, 24) will scarcely doubt. I would, however, that the studious pay attention most especially to certain remarkable passages which I shall not regret to insert here. Basil therefore speaks thus (page 191 et seq.): *For it is a great wickedness not to accept the documents of the Lord, who clearly distinguishes for us one person from another. For if I go away, he says, I will ask the Father, and another Comforter he will send to you 16.* Therefore the Son is the one who asks, the Father is the one who is asked, but the Comforter is the one who is sent. Are you not therefore openly shameless, who, when you hear, "I" of the Son, "he" of the Father, "another" of the Holy Spirit, yet mix everything together?....... And do not, having run around me, as many as have either not perfectly followed what is said, or have surrounded us for the sake of entrapment, not seeking to receive anything useful from us, but watching to catch something of what we say, say: *He preaches two gods*..... Since, however, you surround us, being judges more than disciples, who wish to test us, but do not seek to learn anything... For those who separate from the Father and the Son, and number the Spirit among the creatures, as they make baptism incomplete, so they make the confession of faith incomplete..... Thus, therefore, I neither coin new words, nor do I set aside the dignity; but I sigh and weep for those who dare to call him a creature. But the author wrote thus (page 610, 612): [alt-version omitted]

^B "If I believe in the Father, if I confess the Son, if I do not set aside the Spirit. If he who confesses the Trinity names three gods, he sets aside baptism and fights against the faith... But you have laid a foundation for injury in your slanders... Do you, therefore, not accept the benefit of the Paraclete? Or did the Lord not lay it down that this title is suitable for him? 'I will send you another Paraclete.' When he said 'another,' did he not show himself before the other?... But if you do not want this, but are contentious, I laugh at your folly, or rather, I weep for your audacity. O child, mimic this. If you wish to learn why, having been created and placed in paradise, we were finally compared to the senseless beasts and were made like them, having fallen away from the immaculate glory, know that because through disobedience we became slaves of the flesh to the passions, we removed ourselves from the blessed land of the living, and having become captives, we still sit by the rivers of Babylon; and because we are still held in Egypt, we have not yet inherited the land of promise."

^A The little work is ascribed to him. *But this little lucubration, while it is placed among the homilies in the common editions, yet if any account is to be taken of the two manuscripts in which it is found, it is not a homily, but an ascetic prologue. I think it is of little importance whether this little work is called a homily or an ascetic prologue: it is of more importance to know whether it is Basil’s or not. When I consider the little work in itself, I believe it can truly be said to be neither a prologue nor a homily. For that (page 615), "Mimēsai tautēn, ō teknon, mimēsai" ("Imitate this, O child, imitate"), clearly shows that this little lucubration is not a homily, but a special booklet, which was written for the sake of one person. Moreover, Basil addresses the people in his orations with the word "adelphoi" [brothers], not with the word "teknon" [child]. The author had already spoken thus before: "Toigaroun spoudason amōmon teknon Theou genesthai" ("Therefore take care that you become an undefiled child of God"). The care, therefore, is placed in this, that you may become an undefiled child of God: by which testimony it is confirmed that we have said that the author, when he wrote these things, had regard for a single person. ^B Nor is it less manifest that this very little lucubration cannot deservedly be called an ascetic prologue, since nothing is found in it which ought to be referred specifically to that kind of life; and otherwise, I do not see to what work a prologue of this kind could be prefixed. But leaving these things aside, let the discourse hasten to that which is the head of this debate. The author, whoever he was, who wrote this little lucubration, seems to have set it before himself that he should dispute about free will: which they judged who edited that brief writing, when they gave it the title, *On Free Will*. Basil, however, as is known, proposes to himself some end in all his works, nor does he depart from it even by a hair's breadth, unless he has first achieved the proposed end by the gravity and multitude of his arguments: the author, however, whoever he is, after he has said a few things about the invincible power of divine aid, does something entirely different, and does it so confusedly that you do not know at what he aimed. Where, therefore, he spoke a few words about free will, he immediately treats of almost anything else. For he writes thus (page 615): "Toigaroun..." [See Greek column above]. ^C Which words the translator renders thus: "If, therefore, you desire to know for whose sake we were created, and placed in paradise, and were finally compared and made like to the senseless animals, having fallen from that immaculate glory, you must know that since by disobedience we became slaves of carnal concupiscence..."

^C ...but you are contentious, I deride your madness: or rather, I deplore your audacity. Whoever, therefore, will have compared these and similar places among themselves, will easily understand that the oration in question was expressed from another imitation: but yet so that the example differs from the archetype as far as possible. Wherefore, those things that are similar clearly show that one oration was deformed and fashioned from another: those things, however, that are dissimilar, since they are many and grave, manifestly prove that the author of each discourse is not the same. And truly in each oration the manner of writing is so diverse that he who does not see that discrepancy must necessarily close his eyes. However, it ought to move no one that this little lucubration bears the name of Basil in ancient books. For since the author, as much as in him lay, strove to be Basilian, and took some sentiments from him, it ought to seem nothing strange if it has been attributed to him. I shall now set about something else, but if I have first warned that many variant readings are found in ancient books, the cause of which affair we judge to be this, that the copyists, who saw that this little oration was not written sufficiently aptly, tried to correct it, some in one way, some in another.

VIII. On the homily on free will.

22. Since no one has hitherto proposed to himself with sufficient seriousness to separate the genuine works of Basil from the adulterous ones, there is no reason for anyone to be surprised if this one too...

^A is abused. And indeed, with what purpose he was able to write in this way: "For how are we not serpents, who crawl upon the earth, and mind the things of the earth, and do not have our citizenship in heaven; and how are we not offspring of vipers?" etc. How, indeed, are we not serpents who crawl upon the earth, and mind the things of the earth, and do not have our citizenship in heaven; how are we not offspring of vipers? etc. Perhaps, so that the need and help of divine assistance might be demonstrated (which is believed to have been the goal of this author): but how little all these things cohere with one another, everyone, I think, sees. On the point of imposing an end to his own lucubration, the author flees to his favorite habit, so that by repeating a certain word he might draw out his discourse. Therefore, contrary to expectation, he uses the word πῶς, and employs it fourteen times; and as elsewhere, so here too, it is not sufficiently understood to what he was looking when he wrote these things. I do not think, therefore, that this short writing ought to be rejected by any other name than that it appears to have had no goal at all for the author. It is words, and nothing besides: and not words simply, but words that cohere badly with one another.

23. Although it is sufficiently evident from what has been said that this little work cannot deservedly be attributed to Basil: yet I shall write down a few things to prove this same point. I confess, however, that the individual things I am about to say, if they are considered separately, will not have so much strength and weight; but if the reason for them all is taken together, I hope our opinion will be thereby most greatly confirmed. I shall take my beginning from these words (pag. 613): ^B "For it is impossible to step upon the asp and the basilisk, and to trample upon the lion and the dragon, without first, as far as is possible for man, having purified oneself, and been strengthened by Him who said to the apostles: 'Behold,'" etc. The interpreter translated these words into Latin thus: "For it is impossible to walk upon the asp and the basilisk, and to trample upon the lion and the dragon, before he, who not first himself, as far as is possible for man, has purified, that he may be able to be strengthened by Him who said to the apostles: 'Behold,'" etc. I would like, however, that clause, δυναμωθῆναι, "to be strengthened," to be weighed a little more attentively, as I suspect there is something of a defect in it. For I see nothing in the whole period by which that word can be governed or upon which it can depend: but it is as if suspended, and not sufficiently connected to the rest of the oration. It follows: ^C And he must with insatiable affection and an inexhaustible disposition of soul, from his whole heart and strength, by night and by day, seek the help of God in power; where that phrase, ἐν δυνάμει, "in power," is not well placed there; and I do not doubt very much that it would be better absent. For besides the fact that it is placed in such an ultimate position, it carries with it something unpleasant and unrefined, and furthermore it seems to me to be redundant. For after the author had written that God must be sought from the whole heart and strength, what, I ask, was the need to add, "in power"? A little later it is read thus (pag. 614): ^D "For our heart has not yet been sprinkled with the blood of the Lamb of God; for the snare of the devil and the hook of malice are still stuck in it." It is not humble in it...

^A even though a great and sublime style of speaking is always employed in the truly Basilian exordia. After the writer has begun coldly, he proceeds even more coldly (p. 617): *Τί εἴπω; πῶς ὑμᾶς προσφθέγξομαι; πῶς προκαταλήψομαι τὰ παρελθόντα; τῶν μελλόντων τὸ χρέος; Καὶ γὰρ παρελθόντων ὑπεύθυνος εἰμι, καὶ μελλόντων χρεώστης.* What am I to say? In what way shall I address you? How am I to anticipate the past? [Or] the debt of things to come? For I am responsible for what is past, and a debtor for what is to come. Let me say in turn that I do not know by what name to call these things. For what does that mean, "How am I to anticipate the past? [or] the debt of things to come?" I do not sufficiently understand [c]. How, therefore, these things are to be named or understood is for others to see. ^B Somewhat later the author writes as follows (p. 618): *Ἐπεὶ οὖν οἱ μὲν βαθεῖ κατέχονται ὕπνῳ, ληθαργήσαντες τῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ δωρεῶν· οἱ δὲ ἀναμίξ, ποτὲ μὲν ἐγρηγόρασιν, ποτὲ δὲ ὥσπερ ἐπινυστάζουσιν· οὔτε τὸν ἀλλότριον δέχονται, οὔτε τόν ποτε ἐπιστρέφοντα, οὔτε τὸν νοσοῦντα ὡς ὑγιαίνοντα. Ἵνα σώζῃ ὥσπερ δορκὰς ἐκ βροχῶν. Ἡ δορκὰς ζῶόν ἐστιν ὀξυδερκές, ἐπώνυμον τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ὀξυδορκίᾳ· οὐδὲν λανθάνει τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν τῆς δορκάδος, οἶδεν ὅ φυλάξεται, καὶ οἶδεν ὅπου τοῦ δρόμου τὸ κυβερνητικόν.* "Since therefore some are held fast by a deep sleep, being lethargic regarding the gifts of God; others, however, are mixed, at times waking, at times as if dozing; they neither admit the stranger, nor him who has at some point turned back, nor the sick man as healthy. 'That you may be saved like a gazelle from the snares.' The gazelle or doe is an animal keen of sight, which takes its name from its own keen-sightedness; nothing escapes the eye of the gazelle; it knows what it should guard against, and it knows where the rudder of its course is." ^C Thus a man of the lowest sort could write, not Basil, the best of orators. For what, I ask, is all that—"at times waking, at times dozing; they neither admit the stranger, nor him who has at some point turned back, nor the sick man as healthy"—if not a certain confused heap of words? I ask, was the author awake when he wrote this, or was he dozing? Was he sane or sick? Nor is what follows much better, "[the gazelle] knows where the rudder of its course is." Here it is helpful to point out that the writer borrowed several things from Basil's oration titled, *Attend to Yourself*: but he did so in such a way that he corrupted the Basilian thoughts with his own. For after he brought forward into the middle, following Basil's example, those very words of Scripture, *That you may be saved like a gazelle from the snares*, he immediately adds, *Μὴ ἔσο ἀργὸς περὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ Κυρίου· μὴ τὸ μὲν ποίει, τὸ δὲ ἀναβάλλου. Δανειστικόν τι ποιεῖς ἀφοσίωμα, ὡς τὸ ὅλον πληρώσας. Ἀλλὰ βούλεται*, etc. "Do not be idle concerning the commands of the Lord; do not do one thing and put off another. ^D You are performing a sort of interest-bearing satisfaction, as if you had fulfilled the whole. But [the Lord] wishes," etc.

^A You are performing a sort of interest-bearing satisfaction, that you might fulfill the whole as if it were a sort of enigma. [56(a)] And this, too, is especially to be noted: that Scripture is cited in this little nocturnal study under discussion in such a way that there is something strange and exotic in the very manner of the citation. And so that the matter may become clearer by an example, I will set forth the words of both, first those of Basil, then those of the anonymous author. Basil, therefore, speaks thus (Vol. II, Hom. 3, p. 18): "Look around, therefore, and survey all things, 'that thou mayest be saved as a doe from the snares'." But the words of the anonymous author, as we have already seen, are these: "They admit neither the stranger, nor him who has at some time been converted, nor the sick man as healthy. 'That thou mayest be saved as a doe from the snares'." Where Basil, as is his habit, fits the place of Scripture very aptly to the words that precede it; in the anonymous author, however, this same testimony from Proverbs is in no way connected ^B to the previous oration. Then, the other words from the same Proverbs, "Go to the ant, O sluggard," that same anonymous author, explaining them, writes thus (p. 619): "Why do you despise the great teacher? Let the ant stir you to activity. And learn from it. It acknowledges no teacher, it has not traveled abroad, it has not learned the arts of agriculture... None of these are present; but a certain natural necessity stirs the animal. Therefore, nature [is] then [the cause]; and to you [the cause] also comes—reason—which is the parent of nature." In which words I find nothing at all of the virtues of Basil. In "and learn from it," I do not perceive that wonderful art of Basil, by which he most skillfully connected the consequent discourse to the antecedent. In "and nature then," there is nothing that savors of the eloquence of this eminent man. In "and to you reason also comes, which is the parent of nature," there does not exist even a trace of that exquisite judgment in which Basil excelled. Nature is the parent of reason, reason is not the parent of nature. Reason is the rein of nature, and its governess, not its cause, not its origin. A little later the author speaks thus (p. 620): "Him indeed you have insulted a little, but you have destroyed yourself by disobedience to the commandment. To no man rendering evil for evil." You see how the bee leaves its life with its sting?

^C 25. I shall attempt to propose some examples by which I will prove that certain strange and foreign words are found in this discourse. Therefore, at the very beginning (p. 617) the author writes thus: "But I seek souls that are lovers of hearing, decently surrounding the spiritual auditorium." I do not disapprove of the rest: but I think the word *acroaterion* [auditorium] is unusual in Basil. If Basil were the author of these things, he would have composed his discourse such that he would rather have used the name *ecclesia* [church]. Immediately it follows (p. 618), "Thence let us begin this homily to you." I know, indeed, that as [it is with] the orations of other holy Fathers, so too the orations of Basil himself have for a long time been called "homilies": but where Basil himself ever used the name *homilia* in this sense, I do not know. In this very place it is read, "duicós," both of these show a dual discourse. The word *duikos* is that of grammarians, not orators. Indeed, I think not even grammarians use it in this sense, but, unless I am much mistaken, they only apply it when they want to signify the dual number. Basil, in a similar matter, does not use the word *duikos*, but the name *diplous*. For thus he speaks in a certain oration (Vol. II, Hom. 3, p. 18): "Since however, the attention is double; one [is], when visible things are considered with bodily eyes; the other, etc." And not much later in that same oration which I mentioned, the same Basil used the same word. These, however, are his words: "Examine yourself, who you are; know your own nature, that your body is indeed mortal, but your soul is immortal: and that our life is double." But where the word *duikos* is read in the writings of Basil, I do not yet know. Thus the author continues (p. 619): "How shall I be able to imitate those things which are of the magnitude of the body?" I will not indeed deny that the word *haplos* is read in the books of Basil: but where it might have been used in them to signify magnitude, I do not remember. And otherwise, that manner of speaking...

^A appears in itself unusual and new; and it seems quite likely to me that those who read these things will readily confess that they have read nothing of the kind in reputable authors. The word *strategarchas*, which follows somewhat later (page 620), does not seem to have been more familiar to good writers, who, when they wished to compound a noun or a verb from the words *stratos* (army) and *archē* (rule), did not insert the letter *gamma*. For we have seen it is customary to say *stratarchēs*, *stratarchoi*, *stratarchēō*, *stratarchia*, from all of which the letter *gamma* is absent, and ^B in them the letter *alpha* is found in the second syllable. Conversely, if at any time they wished to compound a noun or verb from the words *stratos* and *hēgeisthai* (to lead), then, as they placed the letter *gamma* in the second syllable, they inserted it, as can be observed in these words, *stratēgeomai*, *stratēgikos*, *stratēgos*, *stratēgētēs*, and many others, all of which it would be long and useless to recount. Wherefore the word *strategarchas* is to be rejected not only because it is new and unusual, but because it seems to be composed contrary to the custom of other nouns.

I have already warned that the writer had borrowed some things from that oration of Basil which is inscribed, *Attend to thyself*. But here it is worth warning again that he seems to have taken many things from the *Hexaëmeron* of Basil, where he proposed the example of the bee and the ant. And since a comparison of these passages between them may be of some use to us, I shall write out something from both authors in this place. Therefore, speaking of bees, Basil, in his 8th Homily on the *Hexaëmeron*, no. 4, speaks as follows (Vol. I, p. 74):

^C "These are certain unwritten laws of nature, that those who have been advanced to the greatest power should be slow to vengeance. But also, as for the bees, whenever they do not follow the example of their king, they quickly repent of their disobedience, because they die from the sting of their own goad. Let Christians listen, to whom the command is given to render evil to no one for evil, but to overcome evil with good... For it gathers the wax openly from the flowers, and the honey—that moisture scattered like dew upon the flowers—it draws up with its mouth and deposits into the cavities of the honeycombs. It has obtained noble and fitting praises from Proverb, being called wise and laborious. In this way, as it diligently gathers food ('Whose labors,' he says, 'kings and private men take for health' ^D), so it wisely and artfully builds the cells of honey. For having stretched the wax into a thin membrane, it builds thick and continuous cavities, one after another, so that that crowding and density, by which all the most minute things are bound together with one another, may be a support and firmament to the whole work. For each cell adheres to another, separated from it by a thin partition. Then these pipes are built one upon another, having two or three stories. For it has taken care not to make one continuous cavity, lest the moisture flow out due to its weight. Learn how the discoveries of geometry are an accessory to the work and labor which the most wise bee undertakes. For all the cavities of the honeycombs are hexagonal, and have equal sides: they do not lie directly one upon another, lest the bottoms resting on the empty spaces should wear out; but the angles of the hexagons below are a base and support for those which are situated above, so as to safely lift the weights above them, and specifically to keep the moisture contained in each cavity."

The author of this little work, which Cotelerius published in his *Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta*, also writes as follows concerning the bees (page 620): "The example of the bee is useful, to give the fruit, and to defend oneself. For the bee, when defending itself, dies from the sting. And the death of a Christian is the retribution of evil. You have reproached him a little, but you have slain yourself by the disobedience of the commandment. Rendering to no one evil for evil. Do you see how the bee lets go its life with its sting? So also the Christian, when defending himself against the enemy, loses his own life through the blow against the enemy... And he presents its activity for the enjoyment of kings and private men,"

both for those living in luxury and those afflicted by disease; and by its industry, its entire life is useful even unto its fragrance. The bee knows how to gather from the same flower a variety of products, storing one part as honey and another as wax, and it attaches the wax to the honey. Who taught that bee to make the ducts, or to weave the delicate membrane? Who among them, having attended the school of an ancient teacher, was taught to make six-sided and four-sided shapes? How did it set an angle with wax and make transparent walls? This was so that the angles might provide strength, while the walls might safeguard the honey. Why did it not make one single duct, but rather joined the storehouses of honey from one side and the other? By what reasoning does it put its own honey into each cavity? If it had constructed a single container, the base would have been broken by the weight; but it provides bottom supports, applies walls, and secures the angles. ^A *“Are there not also political aspects among the irrational animals, if indeed it is characteristic of a civil administration that the actions of individuals converge toward one common end? As one might see in the case of bees, for there is among them a common dwelling, a common flight, and the work of all is one... they do not deign to go to the meadows until they see their king leading the way for their flight.”* ^B It is a gregarious animal: neither the ant lives in isolation, nor the bee, but they live in flocks and fly in flocks. You have never seen a bee flying by itself, but they hold their flight in common. They do not begrudge one another the flowers; they set off to the meadows together.

*The utility of the example of the bee is twofold: for producing fruit and for the sake of retribution. For while the bee avenges itself, it dies by the wound; and the Christian’s death is the returning of evil. You have indeed brought a little reproach upon him, but you have destroyed yourself through the violation of the commandment: “Rendering to no man evil for evil.” [Rom. XII, 17.] Did you see how the bee casts away its life with its sting? So too the Christian, when taking revenge upon an enemy, loses his own life through the wound inflicted upon the foe... And it presents its own activity for the use of kings and private men, those living in luxury and those afflicted by disease; furthermore, it is useful by its industry and its entire life down to its very scent. The bee also knows how to gather honey from the same flower through a variety of skill: and one part it stores in the honey, another in the comb, and it joins the wax to the honey. Who taught that bee to make beehive ducts and to weave a thin membrane? Which of them, having had an ancient teacher as an instructor, was taught to construct buildings of six sides and four sides? In what manner did it construct an angle through wax, and weave the walls together? In order that the angles might ensure strength, and the walls might guard the honey. Why did it not make one duct, but here and there joined together the storehouses of honey? By what reason does it place its own honey into each cavity? If it had constructed a single receptacle, the base would have been broken by the weight: but it provides hollows, places walls beneath them, and reinforces the angles. Nor can it be deservedly doubted that those things which are read immediately in the author were either taken from Basil or imitated. His words are these (page 621):* ^C *“It is a gregarious animal: neither the ant lives singularly, nor the bee in solitude: they live in flocks, and fly in flocks. You never saw a bee flying separately, but they have their flight in common. They do not envy one another the flowers: they go to the meadows together.”* And Basil truly wrote in the place I mentioned (hom. ^D *in Hexaem., n. 4*): *“There are also some political aspects among the irrational animals, if indeed it is peculiar to a civil administration that the action of individuals should converge toward one common end; as one might see in the case of bees; for among them the dwelling is common, the flight common, and the work of all is one... not deigning to go to the meadows before they see their king leading the flight.”* I seem to hear those who complain that time was ill-spent in describing such long fragments: but I shall nevertheless consider it most usefully spent, if I can achieve what I proposed. I wished, therefore, by this example to place the cause of many errors, as it were, before the eyes. There are those who attribute certain spurious works to certain authors, relying on no other argument than that they have read such things in them as are found in those adulterine works. And once they have induced themselves to believe that there is great force in those arguments which are sought from the resemblance of things or words, if by chance they find in some old book an unpublished work in which the name of some author is prefixed, they immediately weigh it diligently: whether that writer, to whom such a work is ascribed in old books, has treated the same matters which are read in that new and unpublished work, and when they have observed it to be so, they pronounce without doubt: “It belongs to that writer: for he has treated elsewhere exactly the same things that are treated here.” But I—among other things—deny that this argument can be applied; yet I would wish that not so much weight be attributed to it as is wont to be attributed by some. For it does not necessarily follow, if the same or similar things are found in two works, that the author of both works is one and the same, since it may happen that one or the other was composed either by a plagiarist, or certainly by someone who imitated another writer, and expressed some things from him. And truly, if anyone wished to use the argument I have mentioned now, he would be allowed to use it especially if it were with someone. For there are so many things in the little discourse under discussion which are found alike in Basil’s writings, that if such arguments were valid, it could be certainly concluded that it truly belongs to Basil. For besides those longer fragments which we cited above for that purpose, so that they might be more easily compared among themselves, there are others which it is not obscure were also expressed from Basil. Such is what the author narrated concerning the doe and the bird (tom. II, hom. 5, p. 18), which Basil had said elsewhere. Again, such is what is found written by the anonymous author concerning the ant: which example and

^A of the same word repetition he so greatly affected.

Nor are the things that follow soon after (p. 622) much different: *Ἐκηρύχθη ἐν Νινευῇ τριήμερος καταστροφή· καὶ ἐνίκησεν ἡ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐπιστροφὴ τὴν καταστροφήν· ἡ γὰρ ἀπειλὴ τῆς καταστροφῆς διὰ τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν ἀνείθη.* "A subversion after three days was proclaimed in Nineveh; and the conversion toward God overcame the subversion: for the threat of subversion was relaxed because of the conversion"; where the author plays not obscurely upon these two words, *καταστροφή* and *ἐπιστροφή*, which fall similarly. But how alien that is to the character and genius of Basil can be perceived from the genuine orations of that most eminent man. Certainly, where Basil makes mention of the Ninevites in that most celebrated sermon which he gave *On Fasting*, he avoided such a manner of speaking. His words are these (tom. II, hom. 1, n. 9): *Τίς γὰρ ἐν τροφῇ δαψιλεῖ καὶ τρυφῇ διηνεκεῖ ἐδέξατό τινα κοινωνίαν χαρίσματος πνευματικοῦ; Μωϋσῆς δευτέραν λαμβάνων νομοθεσίαν, δευτέρας νηστείας προσεδεήθη. Νινευίταις εἰ μὴ καὶ τὰ ἄλογα συνενήστευσεν, οὐκ ἂν διέφυγον τὴν ἀπειλὴν τῆς καταστροφῆς. Τίνων ἔπεσε τὰ κῶλα ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ; Οὐ τῶν κρεωφαγίαν ἐπιζητούντων; Ἐκεῖνοι ἕως μὲν ἀρκοῦντο τῷ μάννα, καὶ τῷ ἐκ τῆς πέτρας ὕδατι, Αἰγυπτίους ἐνίκων, διὰ θαλάσσης ᾐεσαν, οὐκ ἦν ἐν ταῖς φυλαῖς αὐτῶν ὁ ἀσθενῶν.* "For who, while in abundant food and continuous luxury, has received any communion of spiritual gift? Moses, when receiving the second legislation, had need of a second fast. Had not even the brute animals fasted together with the Ninevites, they would not have escaped the threat of subversion. Whose limbs fell in the desert? Was it not of those desiring the eating of meat? Those, so long as they were content with the manna and the water flowing from the rock, were overcoming the Egyptians, were making their way through the sea, and there was no one infirm in their tribes." I have related these words of Basil at some length, so that from them, as from a certain specimen, it might be understood in some way that he sought ornaments for his orations ^C not from the repetition of one and the same word, nor from the antithesis of similar vocabulary, but from a variety of thoughts and gravity. And when I have asked quite often that controversial works be compared with those that are certain and confessed, here I will ask that this dubious little work *On Fasting* at least be compared with that certain one of Basil's, which I mentioned soon after. For I think there will be no one who does not see the discrepancy of style, and who does not judge immediately that it cannot be that any author is so unlike himself that he would write such disparate things. And truly, experience teaches that a learned writer always speaks learnedly, whether in long or in short writings; and an unlearned one, unlearnedly. Wherefore, if Basil were the legitimate parent of this brief oration, it cannot be doubted with good reason that it itself would be far more elegant, far more splendid, far more polished, far more ornate. There is a passage in this little oration ^D that nii monime...

^A I believe to be partly corrupt and partly faulty. It is read there as follows (p. 622): Τί οὖν ποιήσεις πρὸς τοὺς πολλοὺς τούτους πολεμίους; ἔχων; τάφον ὀρύξαι; Ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτον ὑπερβήσεται, Χάρακα προστῆσαι; Ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτον διαβήσεται: where the most learned Mr. Cotelerius suspected that for τάφον, one should read τάφρον, and thus he later translated it: "What then will you do, since you have to deal with many enemies of this sort? Will you dig a ditch? But he will cross this. Will you interpose a rampart? But he will surmount that also." For truly, at the very beginning, either the preposition πρός is redundant, or some word is missing in this place—such as the word πάλην, πόλεμος, or any other word of that kind. Therefore, one ought to have deleted the particle πρός, in this manner: ἔχων τοὺς πολλούς, etc. "What then will you do, having many enemies of this sort?" Or, if it is retained, it should be written thus: ἔχων πάλην πρὸς τοὺς πολλούς, etc. "What then will you do, having a struggle with many enemies of this sort?" Yet I have been unwilling to interpret this in a bad sense, lest I be thought to be shifting a scribe's error onto the author himself. So much for the first part: now I shall say a word or two about the second part of this place. That phrase, τάφον ὀρύξαι or χάρακα προστῆσαι, in whatever way it is taken, seems to me to have been spoken outside of usage and custom. Any other writer, I believe, would have written simply: τάφον ὀρύξεις;... χάρακα προστήσεις; "Will you dig a grave?... will you interpose a rampart?" And the author himself had written earlier, τί ποιήσεις, not ποιῆσαι.

§ XI. Concerning the Ascetica.

27. Many things are included today under the name of ^B Ascetica: certain special treatises, the Moralia, the Rules both longer and shorter, the Epitimia, and monastic constitutions; but that all these were formerly included in the Ascetica, I believe, can be considered certain. And indeed Photius, who speaks copiously about the Ascetica of Basil, discusses these in such a way that he includes, under their name, somewhat fewer items: the little book On the Judgment of God, the treatise On Faith, the Moralia, and the Rules both longer and shorter. Frequent mention of the Ascetica is made among the ancients. More famous are Jerome, Rufinus, and Cassian. And since their testimonies are going to be of great use to us in this discussion, it is worth the effort to bring them forward. Jerome, therefore (a), when he begins to speak of the writings of Basil, speaks thus: "Basil, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, which was formerly called Mazaca, worked out excellent books against Eunomius, and a volume On the Holy Spirit, and nine Homilies on the Hexaemeron, and the Ἀσκητικόν." Rufinus indeed (b), when he had said many things in praise of Basil and Gregory, then finally writes thus: "There exist also the magnificent monuments of the intellect of both, which they declaimed in the churches in their time. From these we have translated into Latin about ten of the short orations of each. Furthermore, Basil's Institutes of Monks: we desire, if we are able and God's favor assists, to translate more of them." Moreover, the words of Cassian (c) are these: "Added to this is the fact that men noble in life, and remarkable in speech and knowledge, have already labored on many such works—I speak of St. Basil and Jerome, and some others, the former of whom answered inquiring brothers regarding diverse institutions or questions not only with eloquent, but also with ample language from the testimonies of divine Scriptures." Besides those three most ancient writers, there are others who have made mention of the Ascetica of Basil. Worthy of note is what the Emperor Justinian wrote in his Epistle to Mennas. Thus he speaks (d): Βασίλειον ἐπίσκοπον Καισαρείας Καππαδοκίας, ἐκ τοῦ κανονικοῦ αὐτοῦ βιβλίου. Ἐρώτησις. Εἰ ὅπου μὲν λέγει, Δαρήσεται πολλὰ, ὅπου δὲ ὀλίγα, πῶς λέγουσι τινες μὴ εἶναι τέλος τῆς κολάσεως τοῖς κολαζομένοις; Ἀπόκρισις. Τὰ ἀμφίβολα καὶ ἐπικεκαλυμμένως εἰρῆσθαι δοκοῦντα ἔν τισι τόποις τῆς θεοπνεύστου Γραφῆς, ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἐν ἄλλοις ὁμολογουμένων σαφηνίζεται, etc. "Of Basil, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, from his book of Rules. Interrogatio (e). If he says at times, 'He shall be beaten with many,' and at times, 'with few': how do some claim that there will be no end of punishment for those who are punished? Responsio. Those things which are ambiguous and appear to be spoken obscurely in certain places of the divinely inspired Scripture are clarified elsewhere by others which are confessed and open, etc." Suidas makes Basil the author of the Ascetica with these words: Βασίλειος Καισαρείας τῆς Καππαδοκῶν ἐπίσκοπος.... ἔγραψε πλείστα, ἐν οἷς θαυμάζεται τὰ εἰς τὴν Ἑξαήμερον. Καὶ κατ' Εὐνομίου δὲ ἐξαιρέτους συνέταξε λόγους, καὶ Περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος τεῦχος, καὶ τὰς εἰς τὴν Ἑξαήμερον ὁμιλίας ἐννέα· ἕτερον τεῦχος ἀσκητικόν, etc. "Basil, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia... wrote many things, among which his Commentaries on the Hexaemeron are especially held in high esteem. He also composed excellent orations against Eunomius; likewise the book On the Holy Spirit, and the nine sermons on the Hexaemeron, and the book ascetical, etc." One must also listen to St. Benedict, who, lovingly calling Basil his Father, spoke thus in that most excellent Rule of his (f): "For what page or what sermon of divine authority of the Old and New Testament is not a most upright rule for human life? Or what book of the holy catholic Fathers does not resound with this, so that we may arrive by a straight path to our Creator? Likewise the conferences of the Fathers, and their institutes, and their life; but also the Rule of our holy Father Basil, what else are they but well¬

-ordered examples of living and obedient monks, and instruments of virtue? Concerning the most pious man Aredius, Gregory of Tours writes in this fashion: "He built temples of God in honor of the saints, and sought their relics, and from his own household he established tonsured monks, and founded a monastery, in which are celebrated the Rules not only of Cassian, but also of Basil and the other abbots who established the monastic life." The most holy and celebrated abbot Theodosius is said to have been uniquely delighted by the ascetic lucubrations of Basil. For thus it is written in his Life: "Most frequently recalling the salutary constitutions and discourses, which instruct unto exercise, of the Great Basil, I say, whose life he also imitated, and being captured by a great love for his prayer, he strove to adorn his soul with the former’s morals, and his tongue with the latter’s eloquence. Certainly, through it also he brought forth those things which are most beautiful among his works, by meditating, taking up, and preserving in his memory those things which could inject the study of a prompt mind even into the sluggish." That Saint Plato diligently read the constitutions of Basil, we learn from Theodore the Studite. Mention of them is made in the Life of the pious abbots Eugendus and Philibert. Now, that I may omit many others, I shall submit the words of Photius, who has spoken most honorably and most copiously concerning the Ascetica. His words are these: "The so-called Ascetica of Basil, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, in two books, was read. The book is useful, if anything else is." We read the two books of Saint Basil, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, which are called the Ascetica. This volume, if any other, is useful. But after he commended the utility, sweetness, style, and perspicuity of these two books, and warned that various questions and answers, which were taken from Holy Scripture, are contained in them, he confesses that some shade of emphasis is sprinkled upon certain questions; but what he understood by the name of emphasis can scarcely be known from his own words. And lest anyone, taking something else for the Ascetica of Basil, might err, he describes those Ascetica so distinctly that no one, unless he wishes, can err. Thus, therefore, he proceeds: "He does not run to emphasis in the two books. For the first book immediately shows nothing of the sort, except once somewhere by reticence avoiding an ill omen. For in what pertains to the rest, he is there very firm, and equally pure and lucid; and through these two books runs a certain simpler and more familiar discourse and composition, prepared and lowered to the ears of the common people, and intended at last solely for the salvation of the hearers. The first of his books, therefore, goes through what is the cause, and how great is the danger, of the dissension and discord of such a kind, both of the Churches of God and of individual men among themselves; that the transgression of every divine commandment is severely and terribly punished, and this is demonstrated from the Holy Scriptures; [and] third, concerning our Catholic faith, namely our pure and sincere confession of the most holy Trinity. The second book, however, proposes a certain description of the Christian man, as it were, through head-points and briefly; and again a similar description of those who are appointed to teach the Gospel. Then he sets forth certain ascetic rules, as it were, proposed by asking and answering, in the number of fifty-five; and again, more briefly, other three hundred and thirteen." In these two books, however, he does not always recur to emphasis. For the first book immediately bears nothing of the sort, except that once somewhere by reticence he averts an ill omen. For as to what pertains to the rest, it is very firm there, and equally pure and lucid; and through these two books runs a certain simpler and more familiar discourse and composition, prepared and lowered to the ears of the multitude, and intended finally for the sole salvation of the hearers. Therefore his first book contains: what is the cause and the danger of such dissension and discord, both of the Churches of God and of individual men among themselves. Next, that the transgression of every divine commandment is vehemently and terribly punished, and this is demonstrated from the sacred Scriptures. Thirdly, concerning our Catholic faith, or our pure and sincere confession of the most holy Trinity. The second book, however, proposes a certain description of the Christian man as if by head-points and cursorily; and again a similar description of those who are assigned to teach the Gospel. Then he sets forth certain ascetic rules, as it were, proposed by asking and answering, numbering fifty-five: and again, other three hundred and thirteen more brief ones. Perhaps these will seem to some a little too long: but they are so pertinent to the matter that it has not been a burden to transcribe them in their entirety. I will note, as if in passing, that I suspect the word "five" should be deleted from the Greek copies. The cause for this suspicion is that that word is enclosed by two brackets in the printed copies: which brackets seem to have been added so that those who were reading would be warned that the word "five" is missing in the ancient books. Nor should this seem marvelous to anyone, since even today the same number of rules is not altogether noted in ancient books: which we judge to have happened from the fact that copyists sometimes made two out of one, or one out of two. Nor should that which Gregory Nazianzen wrote about his intimate friend Basil be passed over in silence. His words, however, go like this: "Treatises on virginity, legislations for monks, both written and unwritten, the study of caring for virgins, the institutions of monastic laws, partly in writing, partly handed down by voice." Many other testimonies of later writers could be gathered here; but, lest I seem too long, I will desist. Truly you might believe, after so many testimonies, that opinion,

^A which makes Basil the author of the Ascetica, is so firmly corroborated that no room for suspicion remains. But it is otherwise. For see, Sozomen puts before you a matter that seemed to be the most certain of all, in a state of uncertainty. He writes in this manner [(a)]: "Among the Armenians and Paphlagonians and those who dwell near the Pontus, Eustathius—who presided over the Church in Sebastia of Armenia—is said to have initiated the monastic life, and to have been the introducer of the earnest discipline in it, of the foods of which one must partake and from which one must abstain, of the clothing that must be worn, and of customs and a strict lifestyle; so that some even maintain that the book inscribed as the *Ascetic* of Basil the Cappadocian is his work." Among the Armenians, indeed, and the Paphlagonians and the inhabitants of the Pontus, Eustathius, bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, is said to have been the author of the monastic discipline: and that he handed down precepts concerning the discipline of a more rigorous life, concerning the foods that were to be used or from which one was to abstain, concerning the garments that were to be worn, and finally concerning morals and an exact manner of living, to such an extent that some affirm the *Ascetic* book, which is inscribed under the name of Basil the Cappadocian, to have been written by him. There is no need, I think, to transcribe the words of Nicephorus here; it will suffice to point out that he agrees with Sozomen in all things [(b)], except that in one place he says the ascetic book of Basil is attributed by many to Eustathius of Sebastia. Moreover, the authority of Nicephorus ought not to move anyone, since it is clearly established that his opinion, and that of his contemporaries, relied solely on the testimony of Sozomen. For no other ancient writer recounted any such thing about Eustathius. Wherefore, if there is any blame, it must be transferred entirely to Sozomen, who preceded the others who doubted concerning the Ascetica.

28. Thus far we have recounted the opinions of the ancients: now it remains for us to speak of the opinions of the moderns. The words of Sozomen which we have just quoted may appear ambiguous; and for that reason, it should not seem strange if learned men in our times have been distracted into various parts. And truly, as anyone can see in the passage I have just transcribed, Sozomen used such words that it is doubtful whether all the Ascetica which were circulated under Basil's name were said by some to be Eustathius', or whether only some part of them was attributed to that same Eustathius. Hence, therefore, it seems to have happened that others, interpreting Sozomen's passage differently, have departed into various opinions. Scultetus rejects all the Ascetica not obscurely. But it is better to hear him. Thus, therefore, he speaks [(c)]: "Antonius Possevinus, the Jesuit, saw that the disputation of Baronius against Sozomen was too weak to vindicate the *Ascetica* for Basil. And so, having entered upon another path, he takes away the *Short Questions*, or *Shorter Rules*, counted among the Ascetica, from Basil on the authority of Sozomen, and attributes them to Eustathius." But for the same reason, and indeed much more correctly, ^B he would have ascribed all things to Eustathius, since Sozomen does not mention those questions specifically, but mentions the *Ascetic* in general. Scultetus says that Possevinus held this opinion, and it may be believed that the most learned Bellarmine, a man of the same society, embraced it. For he writes thus [(d)]: "In the third volume there are the *Short Questions*, which are not beyond doubt.... The author seems to condemn traditions which Basil keenly defends in the book *On the Holy Spirit*, chapter 27. Likewise, question 4 and 293 seems to remove the distinction between mortal and venial sin: which certainly cannot be attributed to Saint Basil." Combefisius dared greater things, judging Basil to be the author not only of the shorter, but even of the longer Rules, besides the *Morals* and the little books *On the Judgment of God* and *On Faith*. For after he had published a short dissertation in favor of new works from two ancient books, he added these things in his reviewed Basil [(e)]: "The author could not have delineated his *Ascetica* and *Ethica* more clearly here, nor declared his mind and purpose; and because he thus punishes every transgression alike, and admits no excuse of ignorance whereby a sin might become venial, and other things not sufficiently in accord with the ecclesiastical rule, which are to be noted in their places, he reveals himself to be Eustathius of Sebastia rather than Basil of Caesarea: which, however, does not touch the books of the *Constitutions*, whatever Scultetus may grumble, in which Basil instructs each class of ascetics separately with a truly Basilian and Christian spirit." What this most learned man, Combefisius, says here—that in that great part of the Ascetica Eustathius of Sebastia is revealed rather than Basil of Caesarea—is said quite modestly: but in his notes he not infrequently pronounces with assurance that that principal part of the Ascetica is Eustathius', not Basil's; and he is copious in proving this, having used almost this only argument, that in both sets of *Rules* I know not what greater severity is sprinkled. Very learned men—Ducæus, Natalis Alexander, Tillemontius, Ludovicus Dupinus, and many others, whom it would be too long to recount—attribute all the Ascetica to Basil, namely the first three treatises, the *Morals*, the little books *On the Judgment of God* and *On Faith*, both sets of *Rules*, and the monastic *Constitutions*. Concerning the *Penitentials*, and concerning the two short dissertations which Combefisius edited not long ago, we shall dispute in their proper place. From all of which it is possible to see that the question concerning the Ascetica is manifold, and indeed very intricate. Wherefore, ^D so that we may treat in order a subject in itself sufficiently difficult, we shall divide this paragraph into nine parts: in the first of which we shall endeavor to prove that the three preceding treatises pertain to Basil: in the second, that they judge rightly who ascribe the *Morals* to Basil, just as they do the little books *On the Judgment* and *On Faith*: in the third, that one will not err who places among the number of spurious works the two short little books which are located after the *Morals*: in the fourth, that both of the *Rules*, both the shorter

^A and the longer, are not to be attributed to one and the same author: in the sixth, that they judge soundly and truly who make Basil the author of both *Rules*: in the seventh, that the *Monastic Constitutions* can be adjudicated to Eustathius of Sebaste: in the eighth, that the *Epitimia* (Penances) should be placed among the spurious works: in the ninth, that the two short exercises which Combefisius published as new are not worthy to be numbered among the works of Basil.

§ XI. PART ONE, ON THE THREE PRELIMINARY ASCETIC TREATISES.

29. These three preliminary treatises, which are enumerated among the ascetic works, bear the name of Basil in all books, both the common and the ancient. The same, unless by chance you except Scultetus, are by no one, so far as I know, called into doubt. Combefisius, who otherwise held the best part of the *Ascetica* to be spurious, nevertheless did not doubt that Basil was the author even of these preliminary exercises. The first treatise is thus inscribed: *A Preliminary Ascetic Institution*; the second: *An Ascetic Sermon, and an Exhortation on the Renunciation of the World, and on Spiritual Perfection*; the third: *A Sermon on Ascetic Discipline, how a monk ought to be adorned*. I have read and re-read these short exercises, in which I have found nothing at all that would be unworthy of our Basil. All things are sufficiently accommodated to his style, to his method of writing, and to his temperament. For although these little books are inferior in eloquence to the panegyrical orations of Basil, or to writings of that same genre, yet if anyone reads them attentively, he will immediately, I think, recognize the hand of a skilled master. For nothing is found in the words, nothing in the sentiments, nothing in the construction of the periods, that would be unbecoming to a ^B man most skilled in writing. Furthermore, it is evident from reading these exercises that the author understood the Holy Scriptures excellently well and cited them most aptly; it is known that these gifts are in a certain way proper to Basil. Let these things be said in general about those three little works: now I shall bring forward a certain peculiar point regarding the second. I have noticed, therefore, that the word πληροφορεῖσθαι occurs twice in the little book I just mentioned, in such a way that it signifies a certain persuasion. For thus it is written in one place (t. II, p. 204): "When you make a deposit of the things that belong to you, be unyielding, to send them forth into heaven, being fully persuaded^C that this itself is a scandal." But where you abandon things that pertain to you, be inflexible and constant, and know for certain that you are sending them before you into heaven. In the other (p. 207), in this manner, "being fully persuaded." But Basil often uses this same word in this very sense (a). Indeed, even when I read these things in that same little work (p. 208), I seem to hear Basil. ^D And truly, those who have even just barely touched upon Basil, as they say, know well that it is said from his habit: to cite a few examples of which will not seem alien. Therefore, Basil, interpreting the sixty-first psalm, writes thus (t. I, p. 196): "I have seen physicians who did not provide healing medicines until they had evacuated through vomiting the morbid matter, which the intemperate had stored up for themselves from an evil diet." In another place he speaks thus (t. II, in Jul. Mart., n. 4): "And at one time I saw an ox at a manger lamenting, its yoke-fellow and companion having died." Indeed, I myself once saw an ox weeping at the manger, its pasture and yoke-fellow having been snatched away by death. Again, in this very oration which I just cited, he wrote thus (ibid., n. 9): "I have seen some who are pleasure-lovers, who, because of an excess of daintiness, under the pretext of grief, turn themselves towards drunkenness and debauchery, and try to soothe their incontinence with the words of Solomon who says, 'Give wine to those who are in sorrows.'" Not long ago I saw certain voluptuaries who, driven by an immoderate love of pleasure, under the guise of dispelling sadness, turn themselves to excess and drunkenness; and they attempt to excuse their intemperance with the words of Solomon, who says, "Give wine to those who are in sorrow" (Prov. XXXI, 6). The example which I shall soon bring forward does not differ much from the above. It is of this kind (t. II, hom. in div., p. 54): "I know many who are fasting, praying, sighing, showing all piety that can be practiced without expense, yet not bestowing even one obol upon the afflicted." I could bring forward other places in the middle, by which it would be clear that the formula of speaking which I mentioned was most familiar to Basil; but, lest I cause weariness, I did not want to. But yet, if anyone is delighted by examples of this kind, I shall advise him that Basil used the same type of speaking in that oration which the most holy Father delivered to the rich (t. II, pag. 63): likewise one can read that oration which is inscribed, *Exhortatory Homily to Holy Baptism* (t. II, pag. 120). It is also pleasing to add something specifically about the third short exercise. In it, therefore, we find it thus written (t. II, p. 212): "Not to argue about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but to speak and think of the uncreated and consubstantial Trinity with boldness, and to say to those who ask that one must be baptized as we have received…"

to believe as we have been baptized; and to glorify as we have believed. I ask now, to whom does this doctrine better apply than to Basil the Great, who always believed and taught that the Trinity is consubstantial? Moreover, Basil elsewhere in another ascetic treatise (vol. II, p. 228) spoke in the same way, only more briefly, saying: οὕτω φρονοῦμεν, καὶ οὕτω βαπτιζόμενοι εἰς Τριάδα ὁμοούσιον, thus we think, and thus we baptize into the consubstantial Trinity. And certainly from these things it can be concluded for certain that one must not listen to Scultetus, who attributed all the ascetic works to Eustathius. For it is not credible that Eustathius, who was as it were a leader among the Macedonians, should have issued those short professions of faith which I have cited. Indeed, so far were the Macedonians from saying the Holy Spirit is consubstantial, that they even vomited up impious words against Him. ^B Here, however, one may inquire whether these little discourses were written or spoken. For we heard earlier from Gregory of Nazianzus that Basil handed down instructions of both kinds to the monks. I myself believe they were recited, and those who read them with a little more attention will judge no otherwise, unless I am greatly mistaken. Nor were the monks the only ones present for these exhortations, but it seems most probable that some women were also in attendance. For that which Basil says in the first little discourse, that the address does not concern men only, since women themselves also fight for Christ, I believe can be referred to certain women who were present. Indeed, it can hardly be doubted that there were also some present who were joined in marriage, since in the second little work it is written (no. 2, p. 203): Μὴ τοίνυν ἀναπέσῃς, ὦ οὗτος, ὁ πρὸς κοινωνίαν γυναικὸς προῃρημένος, ὡς ἐπ’ ἐξουσίας ἔχων τὸν κόσμον περιβαλέσθαι· πλειόνων γάρ σοι πόνων καὶ φυλακῆς χρεία πρὸς τὴν τῆς σωτηρίας ἐπιτυχίαν. Do not therefore despair, O you who have chosen the companionship of a wife, as if it were in your power to cast off the world: for you have need of more labors and greater watchfulness to obtain salvation.

§ XI. The second part, concerning the author of the little works "On the Judgment of God" and "On Faith," and also concerning the writer of the "Moralia."

The treatises mentioned earlier, concerning which we have just discoursed, do not properly pertain to the Ascetica: but the most informative author Photius (a) teaches that two little works—in one of which the subject was *On the Judgment of God*, and in the other *On Faith*—pertained to these. But I do not know how it happened that the order of these treatises in the Parisian edition should have been changed. For Photius had recorded that these two little works were ordered in his time such that the work *On the Judgment of God* preceded, and the work *On Faith* followed; yet in that edition I mentioned, the treatise *On Faith* precedes, and the treatise *On the Judgment of God* follows. I believe there is no other reason for this state of affairs than that the printers, having other concerns, carelessly exchanged the true and ancient order. For as in the time of Photius, so still today in the Venetian edition and in the old books, the first is the work *On the Judgment of God*, and the second is the work *On Faith*. ^C But who the author of these little works is, anyone who wishes to read them diligently will easily judge. The author, whoever he was, who wrote them, knew the Holy Scriptures of both the New and Old Testaments extremely well, and he uses them industriously: he was most expert in the Greek language: in his discourse, richness, variety, and abundance shine forth: in his teaching on morals he was severe, but in such a way that he did not exceed the severity of the Gospel: finally, there is nothing in his words or in his sentiments that is unworthy of a man who is both learned and upright: all of which leading us to believe that Basil is the true parent of these little works. It also adds to this that in these little works are found certain formulas of speech which Basil gladly uses in his other works. For example, it is read thus in the work *On the Judgment of God* (p. 214): Ἐγὼ δὲ εἶδόν ποτε καὶ μελισσῶν πλῆθος νόμῳ φύσεως στρατηγούμενον, καὶ κατακολουθοῦν εὐτάκτως ἰδίῳ βασιλεῖ. Καὶ πολλὰ μὲν ἐγὼ τοιαῦτα εἶδον, πολλὰ δὲ ἤκουσα. I have seen, however, at some time a swarm of bees conducted by a certain natural law, and following their own king in an orderly fashion. And I indeed saw many such things, and heard many. That Basil was especially pleased with this kind of expression is clearly shown by the examples which we cited some time ago (b). Where it may be noted that the writer sometimes brings forward testimonies from the Scriptures, adding certain adverbs to stir the reader. But, so that these things may be better understood, the author himself must be heard. Thus, therefore, he speaks in the little work *On the Judgment of God* (p. 216): Ἁπλῆς δὲ διανοίας μετὰ παῤῥησίας εἰπεῖν, ὅτι κρατεῖ ἐκεῖ καὶ βασιλεύει τὸ τῆς σαρκὸς φρόνημα, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Ἀποστόλου φωνήν, λέγοντος μὲν ὁριστικῶς, ὅτι ᾧ παριστάνετε ἑαυτοὺς δούλους εἰς ὑπακοὴν, δοῦλοι ἐστε ᾧ ὑπακούετε, διεξιόντος σαφῶς τοῦ τοιούτου φρονήματος τὰ ἰδιώματα.... διδάσκοντος δὲ ἅμα ἀποφαντικῶς τό τε χαλεπὸν αὐτῶν τῆς ἐκβάσεως, καὶ τὸ ἀκοινώνητον πρὸς θεοσέβειαν. ^D But it would be the mark of a noble mind to affirm confidently that the affect of the flesh dominates and reigns there, according to this voice of the Apostle, who indeed says in a definitive manner, "To whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey" (Rom. VI, 16), but he clearly recounts the properties of such an affect... and at the same time the difficulty of their outcome... and their incompatibility with godliness.

[LATIN COLUMN]

73 teaches that it is a serious evil, and that they have nothing in common with piety. To the same purpose pertains what is found written in the treatise *De fide* (p. 224): "And the Apostle in a human example strongly forbids adding anything to, or taking anything away from, the divinely inspired Scriptures." And when the Apostle, taking an example from among men, strongly forbids adding anything to, or taking anything away from, the divine Scriptures. I also deem that series of genitives worthy of note (ibid.), "saying indeed... explaining further... teaching further... then the only-begotten Son of God himself, our Lord and God Jesus Christ, crying out": which I have noted for this reason, that Basil is accustomed to speak in this way in his *Ascetica*. For the use of these adverbs, "definitively," "declaratively," "more strongly," and of these genitives, "saying," "explaining," "teaching," "crying out," is so frequent in the *Rules* that examples of this occur throughout. Furthermore, when the writer wishes to signify the most complete persuasion, he uses the words "to be fully persuaded" and "full persuasion" six times in these booklets, twice in the first, four times in the second; which words themselves are used throughout the *Rules* to signify the same thing. Since, therefore, Basil is—as we shall soon prove (a)—the author of the *Rules*, it cannot fittingly be doubted that those booklets, too, which are being discussed, pertain to him, insofar as the same modes of speaking are employed in them. I will, indeed, willingly admit that arguments which are sought from any similarity of style have no force if the style agrees in some respects but disagrees in more; but when everything squares, then no one, I think, will deny that arguments of this kind have the greatest weight. And since the style of the *Rules* so agrees with the style of these booklets that it does not dissent at all, it is therefore just that both these and those be attributed to Basil. And not only are the modes of speaking similar, but also the sentiments, and the order of sentiments. For if anyone recalls that which is read in the booklet *De judicio Dei* (p. 217, n. 4): "Having therefore read through the divine Scriptures, I find in the Old and New Testament, not in the multitude, nor in the magnitude of sins, but in the single violation of any precept whatsoever, that contumacy against God is clearly judged, and that a common sentence is brought by God upon all disobedience": if anyone, therefore, shall have compared these with those things which are written in the two hundred and ninety-third *Rule*, he will find the teaching so similar to the teaching that he will easily be ready to confess that the documents delivered in both places proceeded from the same workshop. We have already warned that these two disputed booklets are attributed by all to either Basil or Eustathius: but that they cannot be attributed to the bishop of Sebaste is clearly certain. For thus it is read in the booklet *De fide* (p. 228): *Οὕτω φρονοῦμεν, καὶ οὕτω βαπτίζομεν εἰς Τριάδα ὁμοούσιον*. "Thus we think, and thus we baptize into the consubstantial Trinity": which place, when it had been cited by the most learned man ^A Tillemont (b), he confidently pronounced that such a thing could never have been written by Eustathius, nor by any other Macedonian, without any controversy. And truly, since the Macedonians openly denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, it could not come to pass that they professed the Trinity to be consubstantial.

31. That which we have said, that the booklets *De judicio Dei* and *De fide* agree in style as well as in sentiments with both *Rules*, the most learned man Combefis does not deny to be so: but yet he concludes something entirely different from these principles. Therefore, he reasons for the most part thus: The style of these booklets and of both classes of *Rules* is the same, the sentiments are the same, the doctrine is the same: but a certain Stoic severity openly shows Eustathius to be the author of both *Rules*: there is no doubt, therefore, that the same Eustathius is also the author of these booklets. But what is to be thought of that empty severity, I will discuss later with sufficient fullness (c): for now I shall only say in general that neither Rufinus, nor Cassian, nor Photius, nor Fronton du Duc, nor Natalis Alexander—a colleague of Combefis—nor Tillemont, nor Dupin, nor very many other most learned men of every age have seen such severity in the *Rules*. But there are two things in the booklets of which I spoke which that most expert man whom I just named, ^B Combefis (d), specifically blames: the inconstancy of faith, and the malice of the author in concealing some catholic expression: concerning which I have decided to speak in this place. Therefore, what he says, that the author was inconstant in faith, is neither true nor firm. For that doubt, in which the author confesses himself to have labored, does not fall upon the faith, but upon the cause of the dissension of the Churches, as is evident from the series of the discourse. And indeed, in the booklet *De judicio Dei*, the writer has spoken thus in the place of which we are treating (p. 214, n. 2): *Ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ὁρῶν, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἐπαπορῶν, τίς, καὶ πόθεν ἡ αἰτία τοῦ τοσούτου κακοῦ.... τοῦτο δὲ λογισάμενος, καὶ πρὸς τὸ ὑπερβάλλον τῆς ἀσεβείας ἐπτοημένος, ἐπὶ πλεῖόν τε ἐρευνῶν, ἐπειθόμην οὐδὲν ἧττον, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐν τῷ βίῳ πραγμάτων ἀληθῆ εἶναι τὴν προειρημένην αἰτίαν. Ἑώρων γὰρ πᾶσαν μὲν πλήθους εὐταξίαν τε καὶ συμφωνίαν ἄχρι τότε κατορθουμένην, ἄχρις ἂν ἡ πρὸς ἕνα τινὰ τὸν ἄρχοντα σώζηται κοινή τῶν ἄλλων εὐπείθεια· πᾶσαν δὲ διαφωνίαν καὶ διάστασιν, ἔτι τε πολυαρχίαν, ἐξ ἀναρχίας ὁδοποιουμένην*. "Viewing these and suchlike things, and being in doubt besides these, who and whence is the cause of such great evil... this having reasoned, and being struck by the excess of impiety, and inquiring further, I was persuaded nevertheless, even from the things that happen in life, that the aforementioned cause was true and genuine. For I used to see all the order and harmony of the multitude accomplished up to that time, as long as the common obedience of the others to some one ruler is preserved; but all disagreement and dissension, and furthermore the rule of many, being paved from the lack of a ruler." When I viewed these and other things of the same kind, and furthermore doubted what and whence was the cause of such great evil [in the Churches]... when I had therefore pondered this with myself, and when, struck by the magnitude of the impiety, I had investigated further, I nevertheless persuaded myself, even from those things which occur in life, that that cause which I mentioned above was true and genuine. For I saw that all the discipline and concord of peoples persisted as long as all obeyed one ruler in common: but all—

^A —as if upon a scale, would sway at one moment this way, at another that way; now drawn by one person in one direction or drawing me towards himself, due to the long-standing habit of men, or again thrust in another direction due to the truth known through the divine Scriptures. At first, indeed, I lived as if in deep darkness, and as one set upon a balance, I would sway now hither, now thither, because one person or another was drawing me toward himself, due to the long-standing custom of men, or was pushing me back again, due to that truth which I had recognized in the divine Scriptures; yet even this place is not difficult to resolve. For it cannot be gathered from thence that Basil ever inclined toward heresy, but only that he inclined in some measure to take part with certain men who were so cunning and artful that, while they opposed the true faith, they nevertheless appeared to defend it with specious words. And those cunning men can be believed to be no others than Eustathius himself and his disciples. These words, due to ^B the long-standing custom of men, cause me to suspect that this passage is to be understood in this way. For it is unknown to no one who has been even slightly versed in ecclesiastical history that Basil was long on familiar terms with Eustathius. But what I said, that Basil never inclined toward heresy, but was only, as it were, slightly moved to take up the parts of certain cunning men, will seem no otherwise to him who wishes to read what precedes. They are of this kind: "I beheld great and surpassing disagreement among many, both regarding one another and regarding the divine Scriptures, and—most horrifying—the very leaders of the Church established in such great opposition of mind and opinion, and employing such opposition toward the commandments of our Lord Jesus Christ, and rending asunder pitilessly the Church of God, and scattering unsparingly His flock; so that in them is now fulfilled, if ever, that which was said of the Anomoeans who had sprung up: 'From among yourselves men will rise up speaking perverse things, so as to lead away disciples after them.'" ^C I saw many differing very greatly both among themselves and in the understanding of the divine letters. And what is most horrible, I saw the very prefects of the Church established in such great diversity of sentiment and opinion among themselves, and thus opposing the commandments of our Lord Jesus Christ, and scattering the flock of God so pitilessly; so that, now that the Anomoeans have sprung up, the saying is fulfilled, if ever it was: "From among yourselves men will rise up speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" ^D (Acts xx, 30). For who can be persuaded that Basil inclined to the opinion of those whom he saw at once opposing the mandates of our Lord Jesus Christ, and pitilessly tearing apart the Church of God, and cruelly troubling His flock? These are the very words of Basil. It remains, therefore, that Basil felt himself in some way inclined to embrace the cause of certain men who, by the simulation and name of piety, were thought to follow the true faith. Now, what that voice is which the author is said to have deliberately suppressed, let us hear from Combefis himself (a). Thus, therefore, he speaks in his reviewed Basil: "That which he says, at the beginning of the page, could refer to the times of Theodosius, when the Anomoean and Arian heresy was for the most part suppressed, so that he might thus openly profess the faith of the holy Trinity, who had thus wavered in it at other times. Furthermore, he deliberately and with set purpose suppressed the word *homoousion* in this whole explanation of his faith, to avoid the invidiousness of the milder Arians." The most learned man, Combefis, therefore believes that Eustathius for this reason deliberately passed over the word *homoousios* in silence throughout his entire profession of faith, in order to win for himself the favor of the milder Arians; but it must seem very strange that a man otherwise most diligent in such matters should have been so blinded by a prejudiced opinion that he did not see what he was reading. For, as I have already warned, it is written thus in this profession of faith: "Thus we think, and thus we baptize into the consubstantial Trinity." But let us grant that the word *homoousios* was omitted by the author in this profession of faith. What then? That Basil is not its author? But that does not follow at all. For the writer, whoever he is, speaks of the Trinity in such a way (tom. II, new ed., p. 228), that he recognizes nothing different in it as far as nature pertains; but admits therein only certain properties, which he says belong to each person separately. But he himself must be heard. Therefore these are his words: "Each name clearly defines for us the property of the one named, and regarding each of the things named, certain exceptional properties are piously considered: that of the Father in the property of the Father, that of the Son in the property of the Son, and that of the Holy Spirit in the property of his own proper property." Moreover, any name whatsoever manifestly explains to us a certain property of him who is named; and in each of those named, certain wholly pious and peculiar properties are considered: the Father indeed in the property of the Father, the Son truly in the property of the Son, and the Holy Spirit—

^A—in his own proper state. Combefis—let him consider—how a profession of faith, which in the Trinity distinguishes not nature, but only certain properties, can be attributed to Eustathius, who, in imitation of the other Macedonians, would deny the identity of nature in the Trinity. But when Combefis had once brought his mind to the conviction that the word Ὁμοούσιος was missing from this scroll [i]*De fide*[/i] (vol. II, p. 129), he added this: "They themselves [the milder Arians] were thus adorning their various professions with pure, unadulterated words of Scripture, while rejecting the term approved by the Nicene Fathers, by which all their [j]*homonymy*[/j] in the mystery of the Trinity was refuted, and with this device they threw dust in the eyes of the simple-minded: but when they see that the word Ὁμοούσιος is found in this profession of faith, everyone, I think, sees that the entire argument of Combefis collapses of itself." Finally, when Combefis had shortly thereafter come upon those other words of the same scroll (vol. II, new ed., p. 228): ^B *Διόπερ παρακαλῶ καὶ δέομαι, παυσαμένους τῆς περιέργου ζητήσεως καὶ ἀπρεποῦς λογομαχίας, ἀρκεῖσθαι τοῖς ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου εἰρημένοις*—"Wherefore I exhort and beseech you that, having dismissed curious inquiry and having abandoned indecorous contention over words, you be content with what has been said by the saints and by the Lord himself"—he followed it up ^C thus: "He wishes for the canonical writers and the apostles, to whom alone he appeals, while giving nothing to the authority of either the Church or those Fathers who followed." First, since the writer himself has used the word Ὁμοούσιος, it is evident that he does not appeal to canonical writers alone. Otherwise, he would be contradicting himself, since he uses the word Ὁμοούσιος, which nevertheless nowhere occurs in the Scriptures. Second, the fact that he says we ought to be content with what has been said by the saints and by the Lord himself must be accepted in such a way that nothing is rashly added in the explanation of the faith to the words of either the Lord or the canonical writers. ^D And lest anyone think this explanation belongs not to the writer, but to me, I shall set forth his own words. Thus, therefore, he speaks (ibid., p. 224): "As long as it was necessary to struggle against the heresies arising from time to time, following the examples of our predecessors, I considered it consistent to forestall or even overturn the blasphemies being introduced by counter-terms, having regard for the impiety sown by the devil; and to use other and various words, as the need of the ailing compelled, which, although they might not often be found written, yet did not depart from the pious sense of Scripture—a thing which the Apostle also did not rarely, who was not loath to use Greek words appropriately and conveniently for his own purpose. But now, I judged it necessary for our common purpose—both ours and yours—to fulfill the command of your charity in Christ in the simplicity of sound faith by saying that which I have been taught by the divinely inspired Scripture, being sparing of those names which are not contained in the words of the holy Scripture itself, though they guard the meaning that lies within the Scripture—knowing that those things which are extraneous and alien to the pious faith to be utterly avoided. Since therefore there was a need—and I beseech you, cease from curious inquiry and indecorous word-battles, and be content with the things said by the saints and the Lord himself. For so long as it was necessary to struggle against the heresies rising up from time to time, following those who preceded, I considered it consistent with the difference of the impiety sown by the devil, to restrain or even to overturn the blasphemies being brought forward by opposite terms, and at other times by others, as the need of the ailing compelled; and these were often unwritten, but yet they were not alienated from the pious thought according to Scripture; because the Apostle also often did not decline to use Greek words for his own purpose. But now I have considered it fitting for our common goal—ours and yours—to fulfill the injunction of your love in Christ, in the simplicity of the healthy faith, by saying what I have been taught by the God-inspired Scripture, being sparing moreover of those names, [78 ] which indeed are not found in the very words of holy Scripture, yet contain the meaning that lies therein." While therefore it was necessary to struggle against the heresies arising at various times, following the examples of our ancestors, I believed it was proper that, having regard for the impiety being sown by the devil, I should restrain or even overturn the blasphemies being introduced by contradictory terms, and use different words as the need of the ailing compelled; and these, although they were often not found written, still did not clash with the pious sense of Scripture: which the Apostle also did not rarely do, who did not disdain to use Greek words consistently and conveniently for his own purpose. But now I have thought it fits our common purpose, as well as yours, if in the simplicity of the sound faith I followed the command of your love in Christ, and said those things which I had received from holy Scripture; but in such a way that I am sparing in using those names and words which are not found in the actual letters and syllables of divine Scripture, even though they preserve the sentiment that Scripture proffers: but those things which, besides the novelty of the diction, offer to us also a new and strange meaning, and which are not found used by the saints, these I utterly avoid as foreign and alien to the pious faith. Basil, therefore, as if he had foreseen that there would not be lacking those who would interpret some words of his profession in a bad sense, opened his mind in this place so clearly and so lucidly that he anticipated all the arguments of those who interpret things maliciously. For he says that, when the need of the ailing compelled him, he used various words, yet not indiscriminately for everything, but only those which, although often not found written, still did not clash with the pious sense of Scripture. The writer, therefore, was not one who—as Combefis falsely thought—wished to adorn his professions of faith solely with the pure, unadulterated words of Scripture after the example of the milder Arians, since he himself did not hesitate to use at times certain words which were often not found in Scripture. It is also evident from the words I have just cited that the author did not entirely reject those words which might not be read in the Scriptures, but was sparing in employing them; from which it comes about that he did not appeal to the canonical writers alone, as Combefis had falsely persuaded himself. Nor is it true, what Combefis said, that the writer had given nothing to authority, neither that of the Church nor of the Fathers who followed. For he who rejects only those words which, besides the novelty of diction, also bring forward a new and strange meaning, he is certainly prepared to follow the authority of both the Church and the Fathers. If I add one thing more, I shall proceed to the rest. The most learned Tillemont (a) doubts whether the profession of faith in question is indeed the one that Basil wrote, or another that was substituted in its place. The reason, however, why he doubted so, is no other than that this profession of faith is rather a peculiar

^A composition, than that it should appear to be part of a continuous work and series. I concede that this profession of Faith is a peculiar work: but I deny that it can be concluded from this that it does not pertain to the Ascetica. For it is not obscure that parts of the Ascetica are peculiar works, which have been written at different times. Indeed, when at the end of the little book *On the Judgment of God* he had related certain words of the Apostle, he wrote as follows: "I deemed it consequent and necessary to set forth first the sound faith and pious view concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and thus to append the moral matters." I deemed it at once consequent and necessary that I should first set forth a sound faith and pious sentiment concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and only then append the moral matters. And indeed, it can be perceived from these words that the little book *On Faith* can be said to be a peculiar work by the same right as the *Moralia*, which Basil himself also says he appended. Since, therefore, the *Moralia* are said by everyone to be a peculiar work, I do not see why this little book *On Faith* cannot be considered a peculiar work. And from that same place it is evident that Basil, when he was writing these things, had not yet composed the *Rules*, inasmuch as he makes no mention of them. Wherefore, as I said, parts of the Ascetica are peculiar works, not written at one time, but of which one was finished after another, as the occasion offered itself. Furthermore, since this profession of Faith is found even today, both in the Venetian edition and in ancient books, in the same order as Photius had seen it, there does not seem to be any reason why it should not be numbered among the Ascetica. For since some of these ancient books in which it is found are such that, if they do not altogether reach the age of Photius in antiquity, they nevertheless approach it quite closely, it cannot worthily be doubted but that such a profession of Faith is the very one which Photius both saw and recounted among the Ascetica: but that which was regarded as a part of the Ascetica by Photius, the best judge of these matters, should not easily be placed among alien works today. The last thing to be considered in this question concerns the author of the *Moralia*: but certainly there is no need for many words, nor great labor, for their true author to be recognized. For he who knows the author of the little books *On the Judgment of God* and *On Faith*, knows the author of the *Moralia* at the same time. For the things which are read at the end of the little book *On the Judgment of God* manifestly show that these three writings have one and the same author: and since I have related these words a little before, there is no need to relate them again in this place. Furthermore, whoever wrote the little book *On Faith* openly declares himself to be the author of the *Moralia*. For near the end he speaks thus (num. 6, p. 229): "Deeming that the things concerning sound faith have been sufficiently expressed in the matters preceding these for the present, let us hasten from here to fulfill the promise concerning moral matters in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, whatever we find in the New Testament scattered as either forbidden or approved, these—in accordance with our ability—we have endeavored to gather into certain compendious rules, for the sake of their being more easily understood by anyone, etc."

XI. The third part, whether Basil is the author of two brief treatises, which are placed after the Moralia.

32. The brief treatises, which share the same title, *His own ascetic discourse* (*Τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγος ἀσκητικός*), in no way pertain to the Ascetica. For, as is found in Photius (a), the little books *On the Judgment of God* and *On Faith*, the *Moralia*, and the *Rules* (both the longer and the shorter) constituted the Ascetica ^B properly so-called. However, although these two discourses cannot be referred to the "ascetic" work, so-called, one is not therefore permitted to pass over them in silence. Let us see, therefore, whether they are Basil’s, or not. Certainly, if account is taken of either the ancient books or the consensus of learned men, no one will doubt that these little orations pertain to Basil the Great. For they not only bear the name of Basil in all ancient books, but are held by all the learned—if perhaps Schultetus be excepted—to be the genuine offspring of the same. Yet it is worth noting that among those learned men whom I have mentioned, there is found no ancient writer who either ever praised these two little works, or excerpted anything from them: this I have noted, not to lessen the authority of more recent men, but that no one might falsely suppose that these little books with which we are dealing are attributed to Basil by any of the ancients as well. But it ought to seem wonderful to no one if, in these times, every very learned man has adjudged these little orations to Basil. For, to tell the truth, when they are read for the first time, nothing appears in the words nor in the sentiments whence any suspicion might arise: but if they are examined with the eyes once and ^C again, I believe one will judge differently of them. For in them are found certain words, which—whoever he is—when he wishes to signify an assembly of brothers, uses these terms: *synodia* (σύνοδος), *syskēnia* (συσκηνία), *plērōma* (πλήρωμα): which, however, Basil, when signifying the very same thing, never, so far as I know, used. And it is not to be thought that such vocabulary is used rarely in these two little lucubrations, and placed in them as if incidentally: but rather the writer was so delighted with those words that he used them quite frequently. For, to say nothing of the words *syskēnia* and *plērōma*, which he used a few times in such short little works, he repeats the word *synodia* ten times. From which it is clear that this word *synodia* [is used by the author of the little works] above others.

^A For this reason, if Basil were the author of these little works, how would he never have used them, especially since he has written so copiously on ascetic matters? Nor is it enough to say that Basil wrote most copiously on ascetic matters; it must be added that that supreme man hundreds of times designated the gathering of the brethren by certain proper names, and yet not even once used the word *synodia*, which he would not have done had he been the author of these booklets. For words that have once pleased a writer often occur in his books, as experience teaches, especially if the occasion to use them is offered everywhere. Furthermore, where the discourse in these booklets is about the superior of the brethren, I have found those words, *kathēgoumenos*, *proēgoumenos*, *prokathēgoumenos*, used very frequently, so that they are read nine or ten times: of which matter it is pleasing to offer one or two examples. Thus, therefore, it is read in the first booklet (vol. II, p. 324): 'H δὲ ἀληθὴς καὶ τελεία ὑπακοὴ τῶν ὑποχειρίων πρὸς τὸν καθηγούμενον, etc. *The true and perfect obedience of subordinates toward the superior*, etc. In the second, however (p. 322), thus: Ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τοῦ καθηγουμένου ἡ χρῆσις ἔστω, ἐκ τῶν κοινῶν τὸ κατάλληλον ἑκάστῳ χρησιμεύειν, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ προηγουμένου ὑφήγησιν. *But let the use be in the power of the superior, so that what is appropriate for each may be distributed from the common goods according to the director's command.* In the genuine Ascetic works of Basil, however, although in them there is mention hundreds of times of superiors of monasteries, yet to designate them, the words I have mentioned are never used (a). ^B It is also not insignificant that the author calls the manner of life of monks the "philosophical life." For at the very beginning of the second sermon (p. 323) it is written thus: Οὕτω καὶ τοὺς τῇ ἀσκητικῇ προσερχομένους ζωῇ, πάσης ὕλης βιωτικῆς γυμνωθέντας, ἐντὸς τοῦ κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν γενέσθαι βίου. *So that even those who approach the ascetic life, stripped of every worldly material, may enter into the philosophical life.* Basil, however, although he speaks of the monastic life in very many places, yet never, as I shall also note elsewhere (b), used that formula of speech. I believe, therefore, that these little lucubrations are spurious and adulterated, and that they were placed among Basil's *Ascetica* by librarians for no other reason than that they pertained to the same subject.

§ XI. The fourth part, where it is shown that the *Longer* and *Shorter Rules* have one and the same author.

^C 33. There have been those who have handed down that they are indeed Basil’s, but that the *Shorter Rules* ought to be attributed to another; if they did not say so, they may nevertheless be believed to have thought so. The primary reason, however, why they considered them suspect is this, that they seemed to them more severe and more alien to moderation. But if the *Shorter Rules* are once condemned in the name of greater severity, itit will follow that the Longer Rules should also be rejected shortly on the same pretext.ort. For in both Rules, as well the shorter as the longer, there is the same character, the same nature, the same precepts of morals, the same love of true piety, the same hatred of vice and sin: in a word, there is in both not perhaps greater severity, since there cannot be greater than the severity of the Gospel, but a certain shadow, as it were, of greater severity. And indeed, Combefis rejects the *Fusior* [Longer] and *Minor* [Shorter] *Rules* for no other reason than that both alike offer something Stoic; and in this I think him less to be blamed, since in reality both seem equally severe. Certainly, if anyone today felt that, while acknowledging Basil as the author of the *Great Rules*, he contended that Eustathius was the parent of the *Small*, he would be very surprised to find Stoic dogmas in the Great Rules discovered by Combefis, since he himself would see nothing of the kind in them. And we too have the same to say to him who approves the *Longer Rules* in such a way as to reject the *Shorter* because of their more austere doctrine, namely, that we are greatly surprised that he himself finds something Stoic in the *Shorter Rules*, when we see that they are far removed from Stoic severity. But from what we have said thus far, if nothing else, this is certainly shown: that the only argument that can properly be brought forward to discredit the *Shorter Rules* is futile and vain. But, to tell the truth, it does not necessarily follow that because both the *Greater* and *Shorter Rules* are equally severe, they were published by one and the same author. Wherefore, if we wish to achieve our purpose, we must use other arguments. First, therefore, if any account is to be taken of the consensus of all mankind, of which the greatest must be taken, it will be clearly established that all the *Rules* have one and the same author. For before our times you will find no one who has ever distinguished the *Longer* from the *Shorter Rules*. All who have written on the entire *Ascetic* work, which—according to Photius's opinion—embraces both *Rules*, have always made them the work of one and the same author. Such are Jerome, Rufinus, Cassius, Sozomen, Justinian, Photius, Suidas, Nicephorus, and the Combefisian author (c), who claims the *Shorter Rules* for himself just as he does the *Longer*. This same thing recent authors have also performed. For although they differ among themselves in their opinions, yet they all agree in this, that they ascribe both *Rules* to one and the same author. And, to omit many others for the present, I will name Scultetus, Combefis, Natalis Alexander, Tillemont, and Louis Dupin. But if the testimonies of so many men do not seem to suffice, I will introduce the author of the *Rules* himself as a witness to the same matter. I will begin with that rule which is the second among the *Shorter*, where it is read thus: Τούτων δὲ ἕκαστον οἵαν ἔχει δύναμιν εἴρηται ἐν τῷ περὶ αὐτοῦ ἐρωτήματι. What power, however, each of these has...

has been stated in the question concerning it. ^A Obscurity, however, is not present, as Tillemont has already observed, that in this place the eighth rule among the *Larger* [Rules] is indicated, since the argument of that second *Shorter* rule is copiously treated therein. Now I shall bring forward three other places, which are not at all doubtful, the first of which has already been brought forward by that very learned man whom I just mentioned, Tillemont. Now this first place is found in the seventy-fourth *Shorter* rule, where it is written thus: Πληρέστερον δὲ περὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἐν τοῖς κατὰ πλάτος εἰρημένοις ἀπεκριváμεθα. But concerning such matters, we have answered more fully in what has been stated in the *Larger* [Rules]: in which place those who are not blind see that some great rule is being cited. ^B Now that great rule which is cited here occupies the seventh place among the *Larger* [Rules], and in it is explained at length what is touched upon briefly in the *Shorter* [Rule]. I shall propose two other most evident examples. I shall take one from the one hundred and third rule, in which the author answers the question proposed to him thus: Περὶ τούτων εἴρηται σαφῶς ἐν τῇ πλατυτέρᾳ ἀποκρίσει. Concerning these, it has been stated clearly in the *Larger* answer. Now this *Larger* answer is the twenty-seventh rule among the *Larger* [Rules]. The two hundred and twentieth *Shorter* rule will provide another example, which begins thus: Περὶ τούτων εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς κατὰ πλάτος. Concerning these, it has been stated in the *Larger* [Rules]. Now, to one reading the *Larger* Rules, the thirty-third will occur, in which what has been stated briefly in this *Shorter* rule is declared in many words. After tokens so certain and so indubitable, I do not believe it is necessary ^C that our opinion be further confirmed: but I still think it not unworthy to be noted that the same modes of speaking, which are found in the *Larger* Rules, are also encountered in the *Shorter* ones. Such is that [mode] by which the writer cites Scripture thus, in such a way that he puts certain adverbs before it: Τοῦ Κυρίου ὁριστι- κῶς εἰπόντος, etc., when the Lord has spoken with decretory words, etc. Again, of this sort is that [mode] which is in use with the writer, when some sort of office of superiorship is expressed: "Ὥστε τὸν μέν τινα ὀφθαλμοῦ ἐπέχειν δύναμιν, τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν τὴν κοινὴν πεπιστευμένον; so that one, like the eye, may hold the power, to whom, that is, the common care of things has been entrusted: where it is not stated simply, τὸν προεστότα, the superior, that is, but by periphrasis, τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν τὴν κοινὴν πεπιστευμένον. ^D There may be enumerated with these also that [practice], by which the verbs πληροφορεῖν and πληροφορία are used in the sense of persuasion, τὸν μὲν πληροφορήσας, ὅτι ὁ, etc., so that he has persuaded another, as if, etc. And that too may be added, that certain terms, accepted in a certain set way, which are nowhere found in the *Larger* Rules, are also nowhere used in the *Shorter* [Rules]. To this class these three terms are referred: φιλοσοφεῖν, φιλοσοφία, φιλόσοφος. To the same applies the verb ποιεῖσθαι, when it is used in the passive [sense] and yet retains an active meaning. Of the same kind are certain other terms, which it is permitted for anyone to read in another place.

§ XI. The fifth part, in which it is shown that both the Rules and the Monastic Constitutions ought not to be attributed to one and the same author.

34. The most learned man Combefis, when he had said that both the Rules and the Monastic Constitutions ought not to be ascribed to one and the same author, seemed to many to bring forward something like a paradox: in which I partly approve of him, and partly disapprove. For it seems to me that he judged rightly and truly that such writings ought not to be attributed to one and the same man: but that he erred in this, that he did not assign the true author of either work. But of these things later. I have already noted that the most learned man, whom I just mentioned, defended his opinion in such a way that he draws almost all his arguments from the excessive severity of the rules: but these perhaps will seem to him alone to have some firmness. And indeed, whoever has read both the *Larger* and the *Shorter* Rules with a balanced mind, they certainly, the more perceptive they are, will the less see those Stoic dogmas which Combeifis falsely thought he had detected in both. More on that Stoic or rather Combefisian severity in its own place: now let us speak about another argument of the very learned man. Thus, therefore, he speaks in his reviewed Basil (vol. II, p. 234): "From the title and argument of the *Monastic Constitutions* immediately, the author reveals himself to be different from him whose all previous [writings] (if perhaps you exclude some preface and a small book instructing one more lightly toward asceticism and a holier institute), and the true Basil, who instructs both those who live in society with others, and those who lead a solitary life by themselves; as both forms of militia are approved by the Church, and [as] it had leaders and prelates and cultivators [who were] men clearly illustrious; whereas that former author seems thus to persecute the solitaries perpetually, and to ascribe to those alone who lead a common life whatever is of Christian piety." I confess that what Combefis says here, that the author of the Rules is most hostile to the anchorites, but the writer of the *Monastic Constitutions* favors them, and approves of their way of life, appears to me firmer and graver than is all that Stoic severity so often harped upon by that same Combefis. For the author of the Rules inveighs so vehemently against the anchorites, that you would scarcely believe he had ever favored them: but yet I do not think this argument has much force for persuasion either. For it is not rare that a man, at different times, both approves and disapproves the same things. It could therefore have happened that the writer of the Rules, whoever he is, heavily criticized the way of life of the anchorites, which, however, he had previously praised much. Since, however, I think the greatest force lies in this very argument, if from elsewhere...

it might be considered, I shall not depart from it so quickly. It must be known, therefore, that the author of the ^A monastic Constitutions is to be regarded as having not just incidentally praised the state of anchorites, but as having discussed it copiously and abundantly. For he does not approve of this way of life in one or two places, but has himself recorded that he spent the entire middle part of his work in instructing on it. For thus he speaks at the beginning of chapter 18 (page 360): "Concerning the particulars of the ascetic and him who has embraced the solitary life, we have indicated in what precedes, as far as was possible, how, by training the soul toward the good and regulating the body as is fitting, he might be able to characterize for us the exact philosopher. But since the majority of the ascetics live in communities, sharpening their minds toward virtue for one another, and by the comparison of their achievements urging themselves on toward growth in the good, we have thought it right to introduce to them also the exhortation through our words." And concerning the ascetic, indeed, who acts apart and has embraced the solitary life, we have discussed above, as far as was within us, clearly, how he can express the perfect philosopher for us, both by exercising the mind toward the good, and by composing the body fittingly and rightly. But since very many of the ascetics live together in a community, sharpening their minds mutually toward virtue, and by the comparison of right actions inciting themselves to make progress in the good, we have thought it right to exhort them also by our words. From which it can be perceived that the author has divided his work in such a way that its entire middle part ^B would look to the anchorites, the other to the cenobites. But indeed, it is so far from the case that the author of the Rules said a single word in praise of this state, that he even attacks it in every way. The entire seventh chapter of the Greater Rules can be read, in which nothing has been omitted of those things by which the dangers and inconveniences of this institute might be shown. Here I shall transcribe one passage which may serve in place of all. Since, therefore, he had brought up certain inconveniences which accompany this mode of life, he follows up thus (page 345): "Apart from this, the law of the love of Christ does not allow each one to look to his own interest. For love, he says, does not seek its own. Now the life of the individual has one aim: the curing of the needs of each one. But this is clearly fighting against the law of love, which the Apostle fulfilled, not seeking his own advantage, but that of the many, that they might be saved, etc." But besides this, the reason and mode of loving Christ does not allow each one to look to what may be his own. "For charity," he says, "does not seek those things which are hers." ^C But the solitary life, and that which is carried out apart from all others, has a unique aim: that each one may serve his own advantages. This, however, is openly opposed to the law of charity, which the Apostle fulfilled, who would seek the advantages of many, not his own, so that they might be saved, etc. Nor, indeed, should it be thought that the author, in the Shorter Rules, was more indulgent toward the anchorites, since in those very rules he cites the seventh major rule, which everyone ought to follow (a). Now I ask how it could have happened that one and the same man in one work refuted what he had written in another. But perhaps it will come into someone’s mind what we said some time ago, namely, that it happens not rarely that one might think differently at different times. Nothing, therefore, prevents, one might say, the belief that the author first published the monastic Constitutions, but afterwards the Rules, in which, having become more learned through experience, he had changed his opinion. I, indeed, will confess ^D that it seemed so to me at first sight: but, having considered the matter more carefully, I judged otherwise. For I could not persuade myself that the author could write such contradictory things, and yet not have rendered any account for the change of opinion. Certainly, if someone today were to publish some book on regularizing the morals of anchorites, he would never in another book fundamentally tear down their institute, unless he had first admonished that he had departed from his opinion for grave causes: since this has not been done in the writings of which we are speaking, it seems to be inferred from this that such writings ought to be attributed not to one, but to two writers. That which I shall bring forward soon does not differ much from the argument which I have just proposed. It is helpful, therefore, to warn that there are many things common to the Rules and the monastic Constitutions. Such as what is said both in the Rules and in the Constitutions concerning conversation with women; concerning choosing those works which are fitting for the state of monks; concerning obedience; concerning the office of a superior; concerning garments, and concerning many other things of the same kind. Therefore, if the same author were of the Rules and the Constitutions, he either would have mentioned the Constitutions in the Rules, or he would have made mention of the Rules in the Constitutions. And this is the more so because the author of whom we are speaking, whoever he was, had been accustomed to do so, as can be seen in the Shorter Rules, in which he himself not rarely cites what he had written elsewhere on the same subject. Since we have brought forward some examples of this thing above, we have not thought it necessary to dwell on them further.

35. Although many think that those who are found in the Rules [are the same], nevertheless their author appeared to me more severe than that he should be the same as the one who wrote the Constitutions. This one, for the sake of greater perfection, preaches severity everywhere: that one proposes a certain way of life both milder and more comfortable. This one always fears to widen at all that narrow way which leads to true life: that one shows himself a more kindly interpreter of the Scriptures, and, if he does not widen this way, he nevertheless makes it easier and flatter. Although I could bring forward many places by which what I have just said could be proven, I have nevertheless decided that only a few should be brought into the middle: the more so

^A because if anyone desires more, it is easy to find very many in the fountains themselves. Thus, therefore, it is read in the Constitutions (p. 553, c. 7, n. 2): It is right, therefore, to remain quiet for the most part, and for each one to endure in his own dwelling so that he may have this as a testimony of the stability of his ways. Yet, it is not to be confined in every way, but to make necessary departures with freedom, in matters where the conscience does not rebuke, and to visit the best and most useful of the brothers through the precision of their way of life, taking examples of virtues from useful association, making departures that are moderate, as we have said, and blameless. For often, the departure, having dissolved the tedium that has arisen in the soul, provides it with a small, as it were, refreshment and breath of air, and allows one to approach with eagerness the struggles for piety. But if someone, having firmly established goodness in his soul, and having gained experience in the control ^B of the passions through lasting exercise, and having tamed bodily lack of restraint and bridled the disorders of the soul, and being confident in the bridle of reason, should wish to make more frequent departures for the edification and visitation of the brothers, such a one, the word will even urge on to departure, so that, by placing his lamp upon the lampstand, he may provide the light of the teaching of good things to all; only if he is confident that he will be able to provide himself as a school of virtues to those he meets in both word and deed. (a) ^A (a) Let him permit travel to him who is able to carry it out without harm to his own soul and with benefit to those whom he meets. For if the suitable person is not present, it is better in the lack of necessities to endure every affliction and anguish even to death than, for the sake of bodily comfort, to overlook the admitted harm of the soul. ^B The power of traveling let be given to him who can complete the journey without detriment to his own soul and with the utility of those with whom he travels. For if no suitable person is present, it is better, in the dearth of necessary things, to endure every affliction and anguish even to death, than to overlook the acknowledged harm of the soul for the sake of bodily comfort. ^C But if one, after he has firmly established the good in his spirit, and has achieved experience in governing the affections through long exercise, and has curbed the animal tumults by subduing the bodily lusts, then at last, trusting in the bridle of reason, he wishes to go out frequently and often to edify and visit the brothers; reason will rather induce such a man as this to go out, so that, having placed his lamp upon its stand, he may impart the light of good doctrine to all: provided only that he is confident he can exhibit himself, in both word and deed, to those whom he meets as a kind of school of virtues, etc. The writer, somewhat earlier, when he gave the monks the, opportunity of going out for the sake of relieving boredom, showed no small ease; here he is so easy that he seems to overstep all measure. For any monk, who has once convinced himself that he is now perfect, according to the author's opinion, cannot only—if he wishes—go abroad more frequently and often to build up and visit the brothers, but reason actually demands that he undertake the journey. He gives this beautiful reason for this matter: that, having placed his lamp upon its stand, he may impart the light of good doctrine to all; which, however, must happen on the condition that he is confident he can exhibit himself, in both word and deed, to those whom he meets, as a kind of school of virtues. Certainly, this is not indulgence, but the total overthrow of good discipline. The first bridle of reason, with which alone the writer is satisfied, how weak and infirm it is, everyone knows. Next, if it is permitted to any monk at all, when it pleases him, to go out frequently and often to edify and visit the brothers, the author does not institute an anchorite, whom he had nonetheless proposed to himself to institute, but as it were some traveler wandering here and there, never resting, though leading a life, rather, than a solitary one, which he had nevertheless undertaken to lead. Lastly, ^D what is added, that reason will rather induce him to go out so that, having placed his lamp upon its stand, he may impart the light of good doctrine to all, provided he is confident he can exhibit himself, in both word and deed, to those whom he meets, as a kind of school of virtues, seems to give a most ample place to pretexts, since it may easily happen that everyone quickly persuades himself that he is such as he ought to be, so as to carry a torch before all toward good doctrine, and for that reason is confident that he will offer examples of all virtues to those he meets. From which it is clearly evident that the author of the Constitutions was so indulgent that he even exceeded the bounds of reason. Now let us report what is in the Rules. These are, however, as follows: The power of traveling is to be given to him who can complete the journey without detriment to his own soul and with the utility of those with whom he travels. For if no one suitable is present, it is better in the dearth of necessary things

^A to suffer every affliction and distress even to the point of death, than to neglect the most certain detriment of the soul for the sake of bodily relief. Concerning these, it is worthy of note that in the author’s opinion all ought to perish rather from a lack of things than that one person, on account of a journey undertaken, should suffer any certain detriment to his soul; which opinion is full of just severity and is most alien to the character of him who published the book of the Constitutions. For how could he have said that, if no one suitable is found, all ought rather to die of hunger than that one should go abroad at the cost of his own soul, when he himself has taught that those are suitable for traveling who are confident that they will be examples on the journey to those with whom they associate? Indeed, if there were such a dearth of items that all the brothers should come into danger of life, there is no doubt that in any given convent there would always be found some monk who, in undertaking the journey, would be confident that he would provide to all a pattern of every virtue; and therefore there was no reason why the writer should sing that famous chant, that if a suitable person is not found, it is better that death should be endured than that some certain damage to the soul should be neglected, when, as we have seen, a suitable person would never be lacking. I would like to add another passage. Since, therefore, the author was asked whether one must listen to those who wish to lead us back to our own [monasteries], he replies (a): ^B ‹If it be for the sake of the edification of the faith, let him who is able to leave in such a way be sent off after an examination.› If this is done for the edification of the faith, he who is able to leave in this way may be sent off with a prior examination: where it is not permitted to a monk that he should leave if he wills, but he must first be tested to see whether he is suitable. In a word, that which we noted in the Constitutions as something to be read—that it is permitted to anyone to leave if he wishes under the pretext of some vain confidence—whoever might look for this or anything similar in the Rules would be wasting his effort. Wherefore, if the author of the Rules had ever set his mind to instructing anchorites, had he wished to be consistent with himself, he would not have permitted them to wander here and there as often as they liked; but he would have ordered them to take counsel from a wise man, and from him to seek whether it was expedient for them to leave or not. It is possible, therefore, to see in the Rules a severity—not indeed of the Stoics, but such as befits a skilled master and looks best to the proper order—but in the Constitutions, a certain softer discipline, which if it held sway, the proper order could not long stand.

36. I subjoin another argument, which also proves that ^C it is not the same author who wrote the Rules and the Constitutions; but this has the additional advantage that it requires no apparatus of words, only the use of one’s own eyes. I would wish, therefore, that the Rules and the Constitutions be examined with the eyes and compared with one another. See how these are filled with testimonies of Scripture: but in such places there are very few such testimonies. Writers, however, are not accustomed to be so unlike themselves that when they treat of the same matters, they use different kinds of writing. Since, therefore, it is certain that discourse is instituted on the same subjects in the Rules and in the Constitutions, and that in them there is a different method of citing Scriptures—since their testimonies are frequently brought forward in the Rules, but rarely in the Constitutions—it seems necessary that two authors be distinguished, of whom one wrote in one way, the other in another. And since I have once begun to draw an argument from the variety of citing Scripture, I will proceed. Therefore it is worth noting that that saying of Luke, ‹Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: but one thing is necessary,› is found both in the Rules and in the Constitutions: but so differently, that it seems impossible that it should be otherwise than that two authors are recognized for these works. I will bring the passages themselves into the middle in my own way; and I do so the more willingly because there seems to be something in them worthy of the curiosity of scholars. Thus, therefore, it is found written in the Rules (b): ^D ‹The Lord did not praise Martha as distracted by much service, but, ‹Thou art careful,› he says, ‹and troubled about many things: but few things are needed, or one; few, that is, for the preparation; but one, that is, the goal, so that the need may be fulfilled.› By no means did the Lord praise Martha [as one] distracted by manifold ministry; but, ‹Thou art careful,› he says, ‹and troubled about many things. But there is need of few, or of one:› of few, indeed, as regards the equipment, but of one, namely the very end [itself], so that, clearly, it may suffice for necessity. [C in Latin column: Et enim...] Indeed, I have reported these things a little more fully, that those who read may understand that the word ‹one› is not accepted here in the vulgar sense, but for one dish. In the Constitutions, however (cap. 1), it is read thus: ‹Say to her, he says, that she may arise and serve with me. But the Lord to her: Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things; but one thing is necessary. For Mary,› etc. ‹Say to her, he says, that she may arise and serve with me.› To whom the Lord: ‹Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things. But one thing is necessary. For Mary 30,› etc. Nor shall anyone say that the passage in the Rules is corrupted: which vice, like many others of the same kind, may have crept in either through the negligence of scribes or by some other chance. For if this were read thus only in this one place, perhaps such things could be said: but since it is found written in the same way elsewhere, it cannot deservedly be doubted that the author himself wrote it so. However, I wish everyone to remember that scholars are in agreement among themselves on this, that with one consent they attribute the Morals and the Rules to one and the same author. Let us see, therefore, how the author of the Morals, who is the same as that of the Rules, reported that testimony of Luke which I mentioned. He speaks thus, however, in Rule 38 (page 263): ‹Say therefore to her, that she may help me. But answering he said...›

Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, yet there is need of few, or of one:› where it is not read otherwise than in the Rules themselves; from which it happens that, since it is consistently read in the same way in two places, the author himself, whoever he is, must be thought to have written it so. Furthermore, I think that this reading, ‹there is need of few, or of one,› is so new and unusual that it would not even have entered the minds of the scribes unless they had found it in the copies they possessed; and because of this, it is more understood that the scribes cannot justly be called the authors of its variety, as I have reported. From all of which it must be concluded that the writer of the Rules is someone other than the one who brought the *Constitutions* to light, since he cited the words of Luke differently twice. But what I said, that the word ‹one› in Luke was taken by the author not in a mystical sense, but in a proper and natural one, namely for a dish, is wondrously confirmed by the place in the *Moralia* which I just cited. For since that rule of the *Moralia*, in which these things are read, ‹there is need of few, or of one,› is written regarding frugality, certainly that testimony of Luke, if the word ‹one› were not taken there for food, would make nothing at all to the point.

37. The arguments which I have proposed up to this point may perhaps seem to some a little too remote: now I shall propose others, which I shall draw from the very manner of the style. When, therefore, I was carefully reading the *Rules* and the *Constitutions*, and comparing them with one another, I seemed to see two authors, of whom one delighted greatly in one kind of speech, and the other in another. And because those things which are placed before one's very eyes move one, I know not how, more deeply, I shall bring forward a few examples of each. I shall take my beginning from three words, ^A *philosophia* (philosophy), *philosophus* (philosopher), and *philosophare* (to philosophize), which, although they are often used in the *Constitutions*, cannot be found anywhere in the *Rules*. The author of the *Constitutions* speaks thus, therefore, at the very beginning of his preface: ‹Choosing for oneself the philosophy according to Christ, and having lifted the mind above worldly desires and pleasures and cares, etc.› From which you have embraced the philosophy of Christ, and have lifted your mind above worldly cupidities and pleasures and cares, etc. These are his words in another place (chap. 4, num. 3, p. 546): ‹For what is better, tell me, than to imitate the fruit-bearing trees... and to practice philosophy by halves, with the soul alone, and not also with the body?› Is it, I ask, more excellent to imitate fruit-bearing trees... and not also with the body to give attention to philosophy [by half, and with the soul alone]? In that same chapter (n. 4) he writes thus: ‹For this disposition having been produced in the soul, he who partakes of food will appear in no way inferior to the one who does not partake, regarding philosophy.› For whoever, with a mind so affected, takes food, will be seen to be in no way inferior to one not taking it, so far as concerns philosophy. The fifth chapter, even if it is very brief, will supply three examples of this matter. In it, therefore, it is read thus (page 550): ‹But if there should be need, on account of necessary need and outdoor work, to perform some work, not even this will hinder philosophy. For the exact philosopher, having his body as a place of study and a safe lodging for his soul, even if he happens to be in the marketplace, or in a public assembly, or on a mountain, or in a field, or in the midst of a great crowd, is seated in his natural monastery, gathering his mind within and philosophizing upon things befitting him.› But if it should be necessary on account of some inevitable necessity for some work to be performed even under the open sky, not even this will be an impediment to philosophy. For to him who is truly a philosopher, since his body is in the place of a school and gymnasium, and is the most firm seat of his mind: even if he be in the marketplace, or in an assembly, ^B or on a mountain, or in the middle of a crowd of people, he dwells as if in a natural monastery: since he gathers his mind within himself, and philosophizes on the things which are convenient to him. I shall bring forward the last place from chap. 18, where it is read thus (page 560): ‹We have explained how... he might be able to characterize for us the exact philosopher,› we have explained how... he might be able to depict for us a perfect philosopher. From which it can be seen that those words which I have mentioned were not a little familiar to the author of the *Constitutions*—words which nevertheless did not enter the mind of the writer of the *Rules*, while he was saying and explaining the same things, or if they did enter, he nevertheless did not wish to use them.

This same thing, which we have proposed to ourselves, we shall endeavor to follow up by another way. One must therefore note that the verb *poiesthai* (to perform/do) is so used in the *Constitutions* that, even in those places where it is placed in the passive tense, it nevertheless retains an active signification. The matter will become clearer by examples. Thus, therefore, it is read in the very preface of the *Constitutions*: ‹You have often spoken many words to us, asking in what way it might be necessary to complete the trial of the struggle.› You have held frequent conversation with us, and have asked how the struggle undertaken ought to be completed. Somewhat later the author writes thus (chap. 4, page 548): ‹Which [obligations] we have contracted with the father of sin, the devil.› In that same chapter it is found written thus (page 549): ‹Thus they illuminated the virtues of the soul by the cooperation of the body, offering the practical life as a seal and ^C perfection of the spiritual ^D life.› Thus they have illuminated the virtues of the soul by the help of the body, presenting the active life as a seal and perfection of the spiritual life. Similar to these are those which are read in chap. 20 (num. 2): ‹To our relatives, therefore, we pray for the best things, justice, I say, and piety, and those things which we have considered precious.› We pray therefore for the best things for our relatives, justice, I say, and piety, and the things which we have made great. Nor are those which follow soon after different (chap. 21, n. 2): ‹For they have not entered into the society for the sake of evil,› if indeed they did not contract the society with an evil intention. One can also note that (chap. 22, page 571): ‹For not having started from myself, but from those very divine Scriptures, have I made this conjecture.› For not by my own might, but from those very divine Scrip-

Scriptures, I was induced to employ this comparison. ^A However, this manner of expression, by which the word *poieisthai* is placed in the passive voice but holds an active meaning—he who seeks it in the Rules, I think I can safely say, will seek in vain, since I am fresh from reading them. And if the word *pepoiemenos* occurs anywhere in the Rules, as it does in fact appear in rule 198, it then presents a passive meaning. For in the place I have noted, it is written thus: ‹The question does not seem to me to have been put appropriately.› This question does not seem to me to have been proposed rightly. I will proceed to confirm what I have proposed by this argument: whoever is the author of the *Constitutions*, when he wishes to indicate a monastic superior, uses these words throughout: *hēgoumenos*, *aphēgoumenos*, *kathēgoumenos*, *hyphēgoumenos*, of which thing I will offer some examples in my own way. Thus, therefore, he writes in chapter 22 (no. 2, page 570): «Καὶ μηδεὶς οἰέσθω με, κρατύνειν ἐθέλοντα τὴν περὶ τοὺς ἡγουμένους εὐπείθειαν, ὑπέρογκα παράγειν τὰ ὑποδείγματα.» ^B Nor indeed should anyone think that I, wishing to establish the obedience due to superiors, am offering too exalted examples. Not far from there he speaks again thus (no. 4, page 575): «Ταύτην τὴν εὐπείθειαν ἀπαιτεῖται ὁ κατὰ Θεὸν ἀσκητὴς τῷ ἡγουμένῳ εἰσφέρεσθαι.» It is required of him who is an ascetic according to God, that he should offer this obedience to his superior. In the twenty-first chapter (no. 4, page 569) it is written thus: «Ὅτι δὲ ὁ ἀφηγούμενος οὐκ ἂν ἔλοιτο τὸν αὐτῷ μαθητευόμενον πρὸς πονηρίαν ἐναγαγεῖν... οὕτως, εἰ δοκεῖ, σκεψώμεθα.» That a mentor would not wish to lead his disciple into wickedness... let us consider it in this way, if it pleases you. In another place we find it written thus (cap. 22, p. 573): «Οἶδε γὰρ ὅ γε συνετῶς ἀφηγούμενος ἑκάστου καὶ ἤθη, καὶ πάθη, καὶ ψυχικὰς ὁρμᾶς ἀκριβῶς ἐξετάζειν.» For he who prudenly leads knows how to examine accurately the character, the passions, and the impulses of the soul of each one. And it is further clear that the word *kathēgoumenos* is used in the same sense from the words I shall presently subjoin (cap. 19, p. 565): «Πολλῷ μᾶλλον οἱ πρὸς τὴν μάθησιν τῆς εὐσεβείας καὶ τῆς ὁσιότητος ἀφικνούμενοι, ἅπαξ πεπεικότες ἑαυτοὺς, ὅτι δυνήσονται παρὰ τοῦ καθηγουμένου τὴν τοιαύτην ἐπιστήμην λαβεῖν, etc.» Much more those who approach to learn the discipline of piety and holiness, when once they have persuaded themselves that they can learn such knowledge from the superior, etc. It follows (cap. 20, n. 1): «Πατὴρ γάρ ἐστιν ἀληθέστατος, πρῶτος μὲν ὁ τῶν ἁπάντων Πατήρ· ὁ δεύτερος δὲ μετ' ἐκεῖνον, ὁ τῆς πνευματικῆς καθηγούμενος πολιτείας.» For he is a most true father, first indeed the Father of all; but the second after Him, is the one who leads in the institute of spiritual life. These are the author’s words in another place (cap. 21, n. 5): «Καὶ ἕτερον δὲ σκοπῶμεν, ὡς εἰ φαῦλος ὁ μαθητὴς γένοιτο παρὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ ἀγωγὴν, αἰσχύνην ἀπαρηγόρητον ἕξει ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκουμενικῆς κατὰ τὸν τῆς κρίσεως καιρὸν πανηγύρεως ὁ ὑφηγούμενος.» ^C But let us consider also another thing, that if the disciple has become bad due to his training, the mentor will have to bear inextinguishable ignominy before the public assembly of the world at the time of judgment. I could add more things of the same kind if I wished: but since it is possible for everyone to see the rest in the very source itself, I did not wish to dwell longer on these; all the more so, because the things which I have brought forward prove sufficiently and more than sufficiently that the author of the *Constitutions* has most willingly used the words I have mentioned, which, however, the writer of the *Rules*, when he wishes to denote a monastery superior, never uses. What I shall transcribe does not differ much from these. Since, therefore, I read the book of the *Constitutions* attentively, I noticed in them that the word *systēma* is very frequently used to signify a society of brothers: that this is so, the examples I shall provide will show. ^D Immediately there comes to mind that which is read at the beginning of chapter 18: «Ἐπεὶ δὲ οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἀσκητῶν κατὰ συστήματα πολιτεύονται, etc.» But since very many of the ascetics dwell together in a community, etc. Toward the end of chapter 21 it is read thus (page 570): «Ἅπασα τοίνυν πρόφασις εὔλογος τῷ βουλομένῳ χωρίζεσθαι πνευματικοῦ συστήματος περιήρηται, etc.» Therefore, every reasonable pretext is removed from him who wishes to be separated from a spiritual society, etc. And chapter 22 begins thus: «Ὅπως μὲν οὖν προσήκει τὸν ἅπαξ ἑνωθέντα πνευματικῷ συστήματι φυλάττειν τὴν ἔνωσιν ἀδιάλυτον, κατὰ τὸ ἐνὸν ὑπεθέμεθα.» We have set forth, as far as we were able, how an indissoluble union should be kept by him who has once joined himself to a spiritual society. In that same chapter (no. 5, page 575) it is written again thus: «Ταύτης γὰρ τῆς συμφωνίας ἐν ἀσκητικῷ συστήματι καθεστώσης, ῥᾳδίως ἤ τε εἰρήνη ἐν αὐτοῖς πολιτεύσεται, etc.» For with this consensus of wills established in an ascetic society, peace will easily dwell among them, etc. And not much further below it is read thus (cap. 25, n. 1): «Καὶ τοῦ οὐαὶ κληρονόμος γίνεται, ὁ ἐν συστήματι ἀσκητικῷ τοιαύτας αἰτίας ταραχῆς ἐνδιδούς;» and he becomes an heir of that woe who sows such causes of unrest in an ascetic society. One place provides two examples of the same thing. Thus, therefore, does the author speak in chapter 26 (page 576): «Προσήκει τοίνυν καὶ τὸν ἐγκαταλεγόμενον πνευματικῷ συστήματι μὴ ἐκείνους πρὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ τρόπον μεθαρμόζειν ἐθέλειν, ἀλλὰ τὸν οἰκεῖον τρόπον τοῖς ἐν τῷ συστήματι ἔθεσί τε καὶ τύποις ἐξομοιοῦν.» It will therefore be proper for him who has been chosen into a spiritual society not to wish to accommodate them to his own ways, but to conform his own ways to the customs and patterns of those in the society. Whoever wishes to read the twenty-ninth chapter will also find this word, which is under discussion, used four times in it. Let us begin with the title itself, where it is read thus: «Ὅτι οὐ χρὴ ἑταιρίας δύο ἢ τριῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐν συστήματι ἀσκητικῷ γενέσθαι.» That it does not befit an ascetic institute for there to be a certain peculiar friendship between two or three brothers. It follows: «Εἰ δὲ ἀποτεμόντες καὶ διορίσαντες ἑαυτοὺς, σύστημα ἐν συστήματι γίνονται, πονηρὰ ἡ τῆς τοιαύτης φιλίας συναγωγή... Προσήκει τοίνυν μήτε τὰς τοιαύτας ἑταιρίας συγχωρεῖσθαι ἐν τοῖς συστήμασι, μήτε, etc.» If, however, cutting off and separating themselves, they become a society within a society, evil is the gathering of such a friendship... It is proper, therefore, that such associations should neither be permitted in the societies, nor, etc. If, indeed, cutting and separating themselves, they should be formed from the community...

it will be manifest that we are truly the body of Christ, etc. If this discipline be observed in the spiritual convent, it will be manifest that we are truly the body of Christ, etc. Another indeed (cap. 33, p. 579) begins thus: ^A *It is necessary, however, that those who preside over spiritual societies cultivate benevolence toward one another... and not destroy each other's efforts.* It is necessary, moreover, that the prefects of spiritual communities, while exercising mutual benevolence... and not destroy the efforts of another. And a little after it is read thus: *If, therefore, the more indolent person sees that it is permitted to him with liberty to avoid the labors in a society once chosen,* etc. If, therefore, anyone who is more negligent perceives that it is permitted to him to avoid with impunity the labors of the society once chosen, etc. Anyone who reads the title of the last chapter will find written in it: *That one who is behaving as an ascetic in a society should not.* That an ascetic dwelling in any convent should not, etc. Not far from the title occurs that [phrase]: *For when the rule of life holds, that one should not even separate from the society to which we were joined, nor,* etc. For when our rule of life is that we should neither separate from that group to which we have been joined, nor, etc. If, indeed, the same person were said to be the author of the Constitutions and the Rules, it would occur to one to marvel that the word *systema*, which was more familiar to the author of the Constitutions than any other, does not exist leaving even a trace in the Rules. For experience teaches that authors who treat or interpret the same matters in two works, if they have used one word very often to signify some thing in one [work], are accustomed to use the same in the other work, especially if it should be necessary for this same thing to be expressed everywhere. But the author of the Rules, whoever he is, has expressed the convent of brothers a hundred times indeed with other names: but yet it is clearly evident from the reading of the work that he always abstained from the word *systema*. How then can there be one and the same author of the Rules and the Constitutions, when we see one word used very frequently in the latter to express a certain thing, which word, however, is never used in the former to signify the same thing? I do not think that there are examples where a writer was ever so unlike himself that, when he had expressed some thing very often in one work by a certain name, he never expressed the same thing in another book by that same name, especially, as we have said, if an occasion for expressing that thing should present itself everywhere. From which I judge it to be a consequence that two authors are to be distinguished, of whom one wrote the Rules, the other the Constitutions. I indeed consider these things to be certain; but, lest any scruple remain for anyone, I have decided to confirm this same thing more [strongly]. Therefore, there are two things that I wish to note. First, that the author of the Constitutions [uses] words that, although they are most familiar to the author of the Constitutions, are yet nowhere used in the Rules; now let us speak of other words or methods of writing that, although they are no less familiar to the author of the Rules, you will never find used in the Constitutions. To which class belong those two, *plerophorein* and *plerophoresthai*: which words, although they are most frequent in the Rules, are yet nowhere read in the Constitutions. Let us now, according to our custom, set before our eyes some examples of this matter. So, therefore, it is written in the Greater Rules (reg. 11): *Having persuaded the one, that...,* as if he had indeed persuaded another, that if, etc. Elsewhere in those same Rules (reg. 27 maj.) it is read thus: *Being fully persuaded through the manifestation of those things which were suspected not with truth, they are released from the discernment [made] concerning him.* They themselves, having learned those things which had been falsely suspected, are finally thus made more certain, and are freed from that suspicion which they had conceived about him. Nor does the author speak otherwise in the Lesser Rules, where these words are found (reg. 11 brev.): *If, therefore, anyone is fully persuaded of how many and how great evils sins are the cause,* etc. If, therefore, anyone is persuaded of what and how great evils sins are the cause, etc. Other

^B examples for those who wish may be read in rules 132, 174, 199, 219, 233, 261, 272, 296, and 306. Now, I would like learned men to consider with themselves whether it is probable that one and the same author would use one verb to signify a certain thing repeatedly in one work, and yet never use that same verb in another book to express the same thing, especially if the matter needed to be expressed quite frequently. In the *Constitutions*, however, the verb πληροφορεῖν ^C is never found, although their author has used another verb more frequently to signify the same thing. And so that no one may think this was said rashly, I shall bring forward certain passages by which all doubt may be removed. Thus, the author of the *Constitutions* speaks as follows (cap. 9): Γνόντες οὖν τὴν ζημίαν, φύγωμεν τῆς ἐπιθυμίας τὸ ἄτοπον. "Having therefore recognized the loss, let us flee the absurdity of desire." And not much further on he writes thus (cap. 16): Μηδὲν ὅλως κατορθοῦν ἐξ οἰκείας λογιζομένη δυνάμεως, "deeming that one performs nothing at all rightly by one’s own power." Similar are the things that are read shortly after (cap. 17, p. 560): Ἀλλὰ λογισαμένη τῇ ἀναιδείᾳ τοῦ τῆς πονηρίας εὑρετοῦ τὴν τῶν ἀτόπων ἐννοιῶν φαντασίαν γενέσθαι, etc. "But reflecting upon this, [that] by the shamelessness of that inventor of wickedness the appearance of absurd thoughts is brought about," etc. Most notable is that which follows (cap. 19, p. 563): Πολλῷ μᾶλλον οἱ πρὸς τὴν μάθησιν τῆς εὐσεβείας καὶ τῆς ὁσιότητος ἀφικνούμενοι, ἅπαξ πεπεικότες ἑαυτοὺς ὅτι δυνήσονται, etc. "Much more those who approach the learning of piety and holiness, when they have once persuaded themselves that they will be able," etc. The first words of chapter 21 are these: Χρὴ μέντοι καὶ τοῦτο πεπεῖσθαι σαφῶς, ὅτι, etc. "It behooves one, however, to be also clearly persuaded of this, that," etc. Now this also must be held as certain, etc. Of the same kind are the things which I shall ascribe from chapter 22 (p. 573): Διά τοι τοῦτο προσήκει μηδαμῶς ἐναντιοῦσθαι ταῖς αὐτοῦ διατάξεσιν, ἀλλὰ ^D etc. "For this reason it is fitting in no way to oppose his decrees, but to hold [it] as certain," etc. Certainly, if he who wrote the *Rules* had also written the *Constitutions*, he would have sometimes used, in the places I have just cited, the verb πληροφορεῖσθαι, a term most familiar to him of all; inasmuch as he did not do so, he is rightly to be deemed another person than he who issued the book of the *Constitutions*. And I think it even more likely that the author of the *Rules* would have used it in the places of the *Constitutions*, because he is not accustomed to using the verb πείθεσθαι for that which means to believe certainly, or to be persuaded. Therefore, two authors seem that they must be distinguished, one of whom took unique delight in the verb πληροφορεῖσθαι to signify a certain persuasion, whereas the other preferred to use some other verb to express the same thing. Where it may also be noted that the word πληροφορία is very often read in the *Rules*, both longer and shorter: which nevertheless is found only once in the *Constitutions*; from which it comes to pass that two authors must be distinguished, one of whom the word πληροφορία so pleased that he used it throughout, whereas the other used the same but once, and as if by chance. I omit many things knowingly; for not everything could be noted without causing weariness and satiety. But yet I cannot pass over in silence that certain adverbs in the *Rules* not rarely precede the testimonies of the Scriptures, which use of adverbs is null in the *Constitutions*. The matter will be better understood if some examples are proposed. The first that occurs is that in the *Greater Rules* (reg. 5, no. 2): Τοῦ Κυρίου ὁριστικῶς εἰπόντος, ὅτι Οὕτω πᾶς ἐξ ὑμῶν, etc. "When the Lord has said in definitive words, 'So [will] every one of you,'" etc. In this very place it is read thus: Καὶ ἔτι δυσωπητικώτερον, Καλῶς ἐγὼ τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ Πατρός μου τετήρηκα, etc. "And what is still more moving, 'Just as I have kept the commandments of my Father,'" etc. That which I mentioned agrees with these things (reg. 37, no. 2), τοῦ Ἀποστόλου φανερῶς παραγγέλλοντος, τὸν μὴ ἐργαζόμενον, μηδὲ ἐσθίειν, "when the Apostle clearly commands that he who does not work, neither let him eat." The author, having followed the same method of writing in the *Shorter Rules*, wrote thus (reg. 47): Ἡλίκον δέ ἐστι τὸ κρίμα τοῦ ἁμαρτήματος τούτου, ἔξεστι γνῶναι πρῶτον μὲν ἐξ ἀποφάσεως τοῦ Κυρίου καθολικῶς εἰπόντος, Ὁ ἀπειθῶν τῷ Υἱῷ, etc. "Furthermore, how grave is the judgment of this sin, it is possible to understand first indeed from the sentence of the Lord, who in general said: 'He who does not obey the Son,'" etc. Immediately it is found written thus (reg. 48): Οἷς ἐπιφέρει καθολικώτερον, Οὕτως ὁ θησαυρίζων ἑαυτῷ, etc. "To which he adds more generally: 'Thus [is] he who lays up treasure for himself,'" etc. With not a few things interjected, the author spoke thus (reg. 115): Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, etc. "The Son of man," etc. To which he adds these things, more effective and apt for persuasion: "Just as the Son of man," etc. Those who are curious about these things will be able to see similar examples in rules 125, 131, 138, 212, 221, and 269. But such adverbs, the use of which is frequent in the *Rules*, nowhere occur in the *Constitutions*. What I have decided to propose in the last place, I do not know how, moves me more: whether deservedly or undeservedly, others shall judge. We have proved that the superior of a monastery is indicated in the *Constitutions* by various names which are absent from the *Rules*: now him by a certain other manner,

^A for the sake of revealing this very rationale to those in charge of the common state, for which he thinks a greater severity is required. The *Rules* themselves will exhibit two examples of this (reg. 235), in which one reads thus: “There being two more general orders, both of those entrusted with the oversight, and of those who are assigned for readiness and obedience, in various gifts, I consider that he who is entrusted with the oversight and care of the many ought to know and learn thoroughly the things of all,” etc. Since there are two more general classes, both of those who are set over others, and of those whose duty it is to behave properly and to obey, according to various gifts, I believe that he to whom the prefecture and care of many is entrusted, ought to know and learn those things which are suitable for all, etc. Although I have now noted many things, I will nevertheless add two other passages. The first is (reg. 252): “But he intercedes with God about this. And having revealed to him the necessity of the need, he thus eats that which is given by the one who has been tasked with the testing to do it—the thing [that was done] each day: *It was distributed to each as anyone had need*.” But he asks for [the bread] from God. And, having placed before his eyes the necessity of his own need, he thus eats what is given by him to whom that care with testing has been entrusted, so that he may do daily that which is written: “It was divided to each according as anyone had need.” The second (reg. 284): “But the one who has been entrusted with the common care ^B ought to test from whom it is fitting to receive, and when, and how.” But he to whom the common care has been entrusted ought to test from whom it is fitting to receive, and when, and how he ought to expend it. Such a circumlocution, with which the author of the *Rules* was wonderfully pleased, is nowhere found used in the *Constitutions*. To whom, then, could it be persuaded that there is one and the same author of the *Rules* and the *Constitutions*, when both works are written so differently? I, for my part, would not think it necessary to insist so much if the controversy were concerning some matter which rarely occurred in both the *Rules* and the *Constitutions*: but since in both works there is frequent discussion of the superior of the monks, I do not see how it could have happened that the prefect of the brethren would not have been designated in the *Constitutions* at least a few times by the circumlocution of words that I mentioned, if their author were the same as that of the *Rules*. For authors who have been accustomed to use certain formulas of speaking to express some matter, if they have occasion to often express that same ^C matter in other works, use them at least at times, even if unconsciously. And what ought to move us more and more: this circumlocution of words that I have noted was so familiar to the writer of the *Rules* that he would not only use it when he wished to indicate the superior of the whole monastery, but would also use it when the discussion was about certain private monks who were set over any matters whatsoever. These are examples of this matter (reg. 87): “To give or to receive, even if according to a command, is not for everyone, but for the one who has been entrusted with the administration with testing.” To give or to receive even according to a command is not for everyone, but for him who has been entrusted with the administration with testing.

Likewise, it is written somewhat later (reg. 141): “Except for the one who has been entrusted with the inspection of the workers, or the administration of the works, he,” etc. Except for him who has been placed in charge of overseeing the workers and administering the works, whoever, etc. I could add similar passages, but it will suffice to point to these. I would therefore wish for rules 148, 152, 187, and 288 to be read. I thought it worthy of note to point out these many things, so that it might be better understood that the Rules and the Constitutions do not have one and the same author, since it is not natural for one and the same writer to think and write so differently.

XI. The sixth part, in which it is proven by many arguments that Basil is the author of the Rules.

39. We have seen that there is not a single opinion concerning the Ascetica. Combefis makes Basil the author of the monastic Constitutions, but denies that the Rules are his. Tillemont, Dupin, Natalis Alexander, and almost all others attribute both the Rules and the monastic Constitutions to Basil. However that may be, it cannot be rightfully doubted that Basil composed some volume on monastic matters. For those testimonies of the ancients, which we have cited (a), openly show that Basil wrote not some brief work, but a large and principal work on the institutions of monks. Wherefore, it is necessary that either the Rules or certainly the monastic Constitutions be adjudged to him. It must be noted, however, that no testimony of ancient writers has been brought forward up to this point, neither by Combefis nor by anyone else, from which it would be certain that the monastic Constitutions were once attributed to Basil by any ancient writer. And indeed, as it seems to me, it was not easy to produce such certain and undoubted testimonies, since if any appear to exist, they may be interpreted in the opposite sense. For because it has been handed down in literary records that the most pious men, Theodosius, Philibert, and Plato, studied the Constitutiones of Basil (b), nothing certain can be concluded from this. And indeed, the name of "Constitutions," like many other things, is also ambiguous in itself; nor does it, by itself, signify the monastic Constitutions that are found in the editions of Basil any more than it signifies his Rules. For all these names—book, institutes, rule, constitutions, and others of the same kind, which ancient writers used to signify the Ascetica of Basil—in themselves mean exactly the same thing, and by their very nature signify nothing other than the certain works which Basil published concerning monastic matters. I have noted these things, however, to show that from such testimonies ^A no judgment should be formed regarding the opinion of those who attribute to Basil what they call the monastic Constitutions, since, as I said, the name of "constitutions" is by itself uncertain and ambiguous. I indeed confess that the monastic Constitutions can be aptly and properly signified by the name of "constitutions," but I deny that they are necessarily indicated by this name, since it is also permitted to call the Rules themselves by this same name. For since the rules are nothing other than certain monastic constitutions, there is no doubt that nothing prevents the name of "constitutions" from being given to the rules themselves. Wherefore, it follows only from such testimonies, in which some ancient writers mention the Constitutions of Basil, that Basil published certain writings pertaining to monastic matters; but from these, nothing more can be gathered. Since, therefore, the matter is as it is (c), we must now see what those ascetic writings are which so many ancient and most ancient witnesses have reported that Basil composed. But since I have said above (d) that the Rules and the monastic Constitutions should not be ascribed to one and the same writer, I, therefore, in order to deal most liberally with Basil, can do nothing more than to attribute one or the other of these works to him. Again, since I have already affirmed that no testimonies of ancient writers can be brought forward from which it would be certain that the monastic Constitutions were once attributed to Basil, I would hardly be tolerable if I were to adjudge them to that great man. Wherefore, I have judged that the Rules should be ascribed to him: the more so, because both authority, and reason, and the very style of writing recommend this. And indeed, that Basil composed either an Asceticum simply, or an Ascetic Book, or a Rule, or Constitutions, or something similar, witnesses are Jerome, Suidas, Gregory of Tours, Benedict, Theodosius, Plato, Philibert, Eugendus, and Gregory Nazianzen (e). But because these names, which these writers used to indicate the ascetic studies of Basil, are ambiguous in themselves, and do not by themselves signify the rules any more than they signify the monastic constitutions, it has been well and happily provided that they were clearly and openly explained by other most ancient and most generous authors. Let the testimony of Rufinus go first, who in his Preface to the Rule of Saint Basil to Abbot Urseius speaks thus (f): "To these I have added, lest I might appear to you to explain something less worthily, I do not say than how it is handled, but than how it ought to be handled, the Institutes of the monks of St. Basil, bishop of Cappadocia, a man sufficiently famous in faith, works, and every holiness, which he established as responses to a certain holy law for the monks who were questioning him." Therefore, according to the opinion of Rufinus, the Institutes of the monks are nothing other than those responses which Basil gave to the monks who were questioning him: that is, they are the very Rules, in which Basil learnedly and clearly solves many and various ^D questions of monks. Therefore, by the same witness, the legitimacy of the Rules

^A is established, if we should consider whose authority—which must be valued most highly in these matters—should be invoked; one ought to attribute to Basil not the "Constitutions," of which there is not even a clear mention among the ancients, but the "Rules," as these are something which Basil was mentioned by ancient writers, who were his contemporaries or nearly so, to have been the author.

40. If we have established as a certain principle that the Rules and the Constitutions do not have one and the same author, it follows, if we wish to follow reason, that we should say Basil did not write the Constitutions, but the Rules. Indeed, if anyone compares the monastic Constitutions with the Rules, he will immediately notice that the former differ from the latter as much as a most excellent work differs from a work that is—if not bad—at least among the mediocre. And indeed, the Rules are filled with most salutary and useful precepts, by which not only the lives and morals of monks, but even those of Christians, can be most holily ordered. In them, many difficult passages of Scripture are explained most learnedly and most clearly. You may see a man always ready to solve infinite and serious questions of any kind, and responding so aptly to each point that nothing better or more convenient could be brought forward. Surely so complete a work does not befit just anyone, but a man who was equipped with as keen a judgment as he was with the entire store of ecclesiastical knowledge. Therefore, such a work ought to be attributed to the most learned and grave writer Basil, rather than the book of Constitutions, in which nothing is so great, nothing so useful, nothing so excellent is contained. For, as they say, great things befit great men, and small ^C things befit small men. Wherefore I think that he who attributes the Rules as most excellent to the most excellent writer Basil, but the monastic Constitutions as mediocre to just any mediocre author, will not be in error. And lest anyone think that the Rules are falsely called excellent, nor that the monastic Constitutions are more truly called mediocre, it is worth remembering that monastic Constitutions are nowhere cited among the ancients with certainty and without doubt. Truly, Rufinus and Cassian, who clearly praised the Rules, nevertheless remained entirely silent concerning the Constitutions. And what you will wonder at more, Photius, who otherwise spoke so copiously about the Ascetic writings, nevertheless did not add even one word concerning the book of Constitutions, so that he appears either not to have known that work, or to have held it in no esteem. Nor indeed do I find that monastic Constitutions were praised any more among later writers, when the Rules, however, are often cited. Certainly, if theologians, if other ecclesiastical writers had found anything in the Constitutions which could have been of any use to them, they would have cited them often: since they did not do so, they sufficiently declared that they found nothing of the sort in them. Wherefore, as ^D I have said, it is consistent with reason that the Rules, as being excellent, are attributed to the most learned writer Basil, while the Constitutions...

...as those who are far inferior to a man of far inferior rank. But I am more and more confirmed in this opinion of mine, as often as I think of the Rules being stuffed with testimonies of the Scriptures, even though such testimonies are rarely used in the monastic Constitutions. For a work in which the Scriptures are cited throughout ought to have an author who is most expert in the Scriptures, such as we know Basil to have been—if not from ancient testimonies, then certainly from the undoubted writings of Basil himself. But it is fair to say that the author of the Constitutions is a man who, as far as can be conjectured from his work, was not so very well versed in the Scriptures. What is also very much to the point is what is read in Basil’s epistle: ^A *For this reason I sent our most beloved brother, that he might both recognize the eager, and stir up the sluggish, and make clear to us the contrary.* For there is a great desire to see you gathered together, and to hear concerning you that you do not love a life without witnesses, but rather that you all accept and are watchers of one another’s exactness, and witnesses of things accomplished. For in this way each one shall receive both his own full reward, and that which comes from the brother’s progress: which we ought to procure for one another as much by word as by deed, through constant conversation and consolation. ^B For that the precious pearl is used to represent the heavenly kingdom, which the Word of the Lord shows us is impossible for us to attain unless we have given up all things that we possess at once—wealth, glory, lineage, and whatever else many are most eager for—in exchange for it. The command, *Give to everyone who asks you, and do not turn away the one who wants to borrow from you*, has the place of a test, as the sequence of the things joined to it shows. And it is for the wicked that what is commanded is intended, etc. That, *From all good works, if one is lacking in someone, does he therefore not attain salvation?* The author, responding to such a question, ^C wrote thus: *That he might seem to disobey in one thing alone, and this neither through sloth nor through contempt, but through reverence and honor for the Lord, for this alone he hears, "If I do not wash you, you have no part with me."* What is said here, that one would not attain salvation if he has omitted even one right action—unless you interpret it—is more severe than is just, and can lead to despair. Being asked, furthermore, how one should deal with those who avoid graver sins but commit lesser ones indiscriminately, the writer responds in such a way that he seems to make all sins equal; which, as it is false, no one will deny is also harsh. ^D Moreover, these are his words (reg. 263): *First, one must know that it is not possible to learn this distinction (of sins) in the New Testament. For one judgment stands against all sins, the Lord having said, "Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin."* 41. It is true that, from what has been said, the author of the Rules sometimes appears a little more severe: but still, because it is expedient, I shall again bring forward a few examples of this matter in this place. Since, therefore, in the Greater Rules he had brought forward that passage of Matthew: *The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant, seeking good pearls; and having found one precious pearl, he went away*, etc., he thus proceeds (reg. 8, n. 2): For, that the precious pearl is used to represent the likeness of the heavenly kingdom, which the Word of the Lord shows is impossible for us to attain, unless we have given up together all the things that belong to us—wealth, and glory, and lineage, and whatever else many are most eager for—to exchange for it.

The interpretation of the passage on the merchant and the pearls.

And what will seem more burdensome is that it can hardly be believed that the author wrote so imprudently, since he had already said similar things in the fourth Rule. From all of which it can be gathered that the author, if his words are not rightly understood, might deservedly appear more severe. Therefore, if you should read certain difficult passages of the Rules incautiously, you might easily believe, following the example of Combefis, that any other person was their author rather than Basil. But if any one has duly examined and grasped the meaning of such passages, he will find nothing harsher or more severe in them, and will plainly assure himself that such severity is more fitting to no one than to Basil, who was of such a nature that when he had not proposed to himself to explain some dogma, he would sometimes speak more freely and severely. For in matters pertaining to morals, he sometimes paid less attention, if I may say so, to the words he used than to the salvation of his hearers, to which he strove to lead each one by whatever means he could. Now I shall provide some examples from Basil’s orations, so that they may be compared with the passages of the Rules I have cited. Basil, therefore, when he was explaining that passage of Luke, *I will pull down my barns and build greater ones,* spoke thus (tom. II, p. 50): *Who is the covetous person? He who is not content with what is sufficient.* Which he expressed so briefly and simply. For if this is so, there will be few who are not covetous. But what follows is far more serious. For when Basil had begun a discourse in a certain oration about that young man to whom, as is written in Matthew, the Lord had said: *Sell what you have, and give to the poor,* then he addresses him in this way (tom. II, p. 51): *For if you have not killed, as you say, nor committed adultery, nor stolen, nor borne false witness against anyone, you make your zeal in these matters fruitless for yourself, by not adding what is lacking, by which alone you will be able to enter into the kingdom of God.* Indeed, if you have not killed, as you say, nor committed adultery, nor stolen, nor borne false witness against anyone: nevertheless, you render the diligence you have applied in doing these things fruitless for yourself, because you do not add what is left, by which alone you can enter into God's kingdom. And indeed, whoever hears that: *Nevertheless, you render the diligence applied in these things fruitless for yourself, because you do not add what is left, by which alone you can enter into God's kingdom,* immediately, unless he be more attentive, ^B persuades himself that Basil meant to say that it is impossible for anyone to enter into the kingdom of heaven unless he has done what this young man lacked, that is, unless he has sold everything he owned and given it to the poor, which everyone sees to be too austere. I shall add a certain passage from the discourse *On reading pagan books* (tom. II, p. 181), where it is read thus: ^A *For to the one who sins unintentionally against what is proper, there might perhaps be some pardon from God; but to the one who has deliberately chosen worse things, there is no excuse to prevent him from suffering a far greater punishment.* And truly, he who has wandered from what is right and proper not voluntarily will perhaps obtain some pardon from God; but he who has deliberately embraced evil things will suffer far greater torments implacably. To those who read these things, unless they are cautious, it will easily come to mind that the meaning of these words is that he who has not sinned voluntarily will perhaps obtain pardon, but to him who has done so deliberately and voluntarily, no hope is left, but every place for repentance is entirely taken away: which is not only more severe than is just, but false, and very far from Basil’s mind. From that same little book I shall again subjoin a few things. They are of this kind (ibid.): ^B *Thus, I say that it is necessary to consider such people as ornament-seekers and to name them [as such], being equally shameful as it is to be a debaucher or to plot against others' marriages.* Therefore, I say that to be and to be called a fop ought to be judged as equally shameful as to be a fornicator or to lay snares for another's marriage. Certainly, when Basil has spoken in this way, it can deservedly be said that he has exaggerated the matter. For it is one thing by far to be called a fop, and another to be a fornicator or to lay snares for another's marriage. From all of which it is clear that Basil, when the salvation of souls was at stake, carried away as if by a certain natural impulse, rarely indeed, but sometimes nevertheless said some things which, unless they are explained, either are or can appear more severe. Therefore, whoever wishes to follow reason will attribute the Rules to Basil rather than the monastic Constitutions, in which a greater severity appears in some ^C than in those, where not even a trace of such severity exists. For thus it will be established that Basil, when he held a discourse on morals, was always like himself, who indeed everywhere, both in the Rules and in his other writings, sometimes showed himself a little too severe. Nor yet for that reason is the supreme man immediately to be blamed, since anyone who is even a little perceptive can easily interpret his words in a good sense. 42. As for the manner of writing itself, I will candidly confess that the Rules, if eloquence is considered, differ somewhat from Basil’s other works: but this diversity, when the subject matter of the thing so demanded it, ought to move no one. For it was not fitting in writing the monastic Rules to use a grander ^D style, but a simpler one, and one that was more suited and accommodated to the things being treated. I, therefore, do not deny that the Rules, if compared with the rest of Basil's writings, are less elegant: but yet I contend that they are not unworthy of being attributed to a most eloquent and most fluent writer. And indeed, I do not see what could displease even the fussy in the style of the Rules. The discourse flows everywhere freely and smoothly. Just as the abundance of words openly shows the writer to have been most copious, so the...

choice and construction of them do not allow one to doubt that he was also most eloquent. What more? Photius, the best judge of such matters, supports us. Where he speaks of the Ascetic writings of Basil, he writes thus (a): “In these two books, however, he does not always recur to emphasis. For the first book immediately bears nothing of that sort, except where he once averts an evil omen by a reticence. But as for the rest, he is very firm there, and equally pure and clear; and throughout these ^A two books runs a simpler and more familiar form of speech and composition, suited to the ears of the common people, and indeed leveled and intended solely for the salvation of the hearers.” Those who wish to see the Greek can read it above (no. 27). But these things have been said generally: now let us discuss certain specific marks from which it may be recognized that Basil is the author of the Rules. I have already noted (b) that this formula of speech, “I have seen” or “I have known,” was very familiar to Basil. Moreover, this same method of writing is found in the Rules; and for this reason Basil must rightly be thought the legitimate parent of them. Thus, then, it is written in the Rule 254: “Just as money is usually given to money-changers for profit—for there are, as I learned in Alexandria, those who receive and perform this task—so, etc.” Just as therefore money is accustomed to be given to money-changers for profit (for there are, as I know from Alexandria, those who receive and perform the same), so, etc. And elsewhere, when he had made mention of certain things which come about by the nature of things, he pursued it in this manner (reg. 309): “Ego autem novi haec Christi gratia completa fuisse tam in viris tum in feminis, per genuinam in Dominum fidem” (c). When we were discussing in the first volume concerning the last two books Against Eunomius, we noted that Basil, if he had proved, or refuted, or explained anything, was accustomed to conclude his discourse with “τοσοῦτον,” or some other similar manner. But we find the same things in the Rules, in which it is read thus (reg. fus., n. 4): “Sed hactenus de dilectione Dei.” But when I have once used Basil in his books Against Eunomius, I shall draw another argument from these. Therefore, when at the beginning of the third book he wished to signify the Holy Scripture, he spoke thus: “Dignitate quidem [Spiritum] secundum esse a Filio tradit fortasse pietatis sermo.” But conversely, in the ninth major rule, it is not read so, where it is written thus (pag. 351): “Δικάζεσθαι δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ δικαστηρίων ἐξωτικῶν ἀπηγόρευσεν ὁ τῆς θεοσεβείας λόγος, δι’ ὧν φησι· Τῷ ^B βουλομένῳ σοι κριθῆναι, etc.” But when the discourse of piety forbids litigating before an external tribunal, with these words: “Ei qui vult tecum in judicio contendere,” etc.

Basil frequently warns that certain passages of Scripture have been translated differently by interpreters. For example, it is found written thus in his work on the Six Days (hom. in Hex., n. 5): “Πρόσκειται δὲ ἐν πολλοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων, Καὶ συνήχθη τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν, καὶ ὤφθη ἡ ξηρά· ἅπερ οὔτε τινὲς τῶν λοιπῶν ἐκδεδώκασιν ἑρμηνέων.... τὰ τοίνυν ἀκριβῆ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ὠβέλισται.” It is added, however, in many copies: “Et congregata est aqua, quae sub caelo erat, in congregationes suas, et apparuit arida.” Which words, indeed, none of the other interpreters have handed down. Therefore, the more accurate copies have been marked with an obelus. Basil, when he was explaining the twenty-eighth Psalm before the people (tom. I, pag. 114), spoke in the same manner: “Ἐν πολλοῖς μέντοι τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐπίκειται τὸ, etc.” In many copies, however, we find that added, etc. I shall bring forward another notable example from the second book Against Eunomius (num. 20), where it is read thus: “Τέως γε μὴν μηδὲ ἐκεῖνο ἀπαρασήμαντον καταλίπωμεν, ὅτι ἄλλοι τῶν ἑρμηνέων, οἱ καιριώτερον τῆς σημασίας τῶν Ἑβραϊκῶν καθικόμενοι, Ἐκτήσατό με, ἀντὶ τοῦ, Ἔκτισεν, ἐκδεδώκασιν.” Interim tamen neque illud silentio praetereamus, interpretes alios, qui convenientius Hebraicarum vocum sententiam assecuti sunt, pro “creavit,” edidisse “possedit me.” And not to be long, I omit knowingly what is read in the first homily on the Hexaemeron, num. 6; likewise what is written in the homily on the forty-fourth Psalm, num. 4. ^C There occurs also in the Rules a mention of that variety in the interpretation of the Scriptures. For in them it is written thus (reg. 251): “Ὡς μὴ εἶναι πρόσταγμα, Ἀλλὰ νῦν ὁ ἔχων βαλάντιον, ἀράτω, ἤτοι ἀρεῖ (οὕτω γὰρ καὶ τὰ πολλὰ τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἔχει), ἀλλὰ προφητείαν προλέγοντος τοῦ Κυρίου, etc.” So that that “Sed nunc qui habet sacculum, tollat,” or “tollet” (for so many copies also have it), is not a commandment, but a prophecy of the Lord, who was announcing the future, etc. We showed a little before (d) that these formulas of speech and others of that kind occur more often in the Rules. Basil, explaining the beginning of the Proverbs, used the same mode of speaking, in this way (pag. 106): “Οἷον πορνεία καὶ σωφροσύνη παρὰ σοὶ κρίνεται, καὶ ὑψηλὸς προκαθέζεταί σου ὁ νοῦς πεπιστευμένος τὸ δικαστήριον.” Exempli causa, scortatio et pudicitia apud te judicantur, et excelsa tua mens ejusmodi judicio sibi commisso praesidet. It is fitting, therefore, that not the Constitutions, but the Rules should be attributed to Basil the Great, since in them many monuments of the Basilian style exist, while in the former nothing of the kind appears at all. Nor do I ask that this be believed by me, but that the book of Constitutions be attentively ^D and diligently read: whoever does so, in such a way, just as...

I have said, will see the matter with his own eyes.

43. I know that the most learned Combefis holds a different view; but as for what he has brought forward as a firm argument—that the Constitutions sometimes seem rather severe—I judge that this favors our opinion more than it hinders it. For Basil, as is clear from what has been said (a), showed himself in his other writings also to be one who could sometimes be thought to have been rather severe: but in such a way, however, that if the true meaning of his words is understood, it is clear that nothing at all—neither in the Constitutions, nor in his other works—is harsh or Stoic. I admit, therefore, that there are to be found certain difficult passages not only in the Constitutions, but also in some other of Basil’s writings: but I will not, for that reason, be easily led to think them spurious. For why, I ask, would the Constitutions be placed among ^B the spurious works under the name of some greater severity, while those other writings of Basil, in which no fewer difficulties occur, are held to be genuine? And why, again, would the Constitutions of Basil be suspicious on account of certain difficult passages, while the books of other holy Fathers, in which passages just as difficult, or even more so, are to be found, are free from suspicion? And besides, the objections raised by the very learned Combefis are trivial, and such as are wont to be proposed daily in public schools, and are solved by adolescents with the same ease with which they are presented. Wherefore, when the most erudite Tillemont (b) had read Combefis’s arguments, he decided to reply to them in such a way that he ^C often signified his wonder that such trivial points could be seriously proposed by a learned man. And although Tillemont’s books are not rare, yet because they may perhaps not be close at hand for everyone, it has seemed good to me to reply briefly in this place to the more specious arguments of Combefis: which I shall do the more willingly, because in various replies something new is usually discovered. But before I proceed further, I would like to note that Combefis, once he had falsely persuaded himself that Eustathius of Sebaste was the author of the Constitutions, similarly persuaded himself—no less falsely—that this same Eustathius had been condemned in the Council of Gangra for the perverse doctrine of those Constitutions: but what that very ^D learned man held for certain is very uncertain. For there are those who say that the discourse at the Council of Gangra concerns another Eustathius, the leaders of whom are the most erudite men Baronius, Blondel, and Dupin. But since this question is not of this place, I have deemed it sufficient if I have warned of the matter. Now, therefore, I return to my purpose; and I shall not regret writing out here the very words of Combefis by which he attacks the eighth Major Constitution. I shall submit, then, first the words of Basil, and then those of Combefis. Basil therefore speaks as follows (page 350): ^A *For it is clear that the precious pearl is considered as the likeness of the kingdom of heaven, which the Word of the Lord shows it is impossible for us to attain, unless we have cast away, in exchange for it, all the things that belong to us—wealth, and glory, and lineage, and whatever else is much sought after by many.* For it is plain that the heavenly kingdom is shadowed forth by the *precious pearl*: which the Lord’s words declare we cannot attain unless we abandon all at once what we have—wealth, and glory, and lineage, and if there is anything else by the pursuit and desire of which many are held—in order to obtain it. Combefis, however, [comments] in this way (c): *It seems that the author quite clearly excludes from the kingdom of heaven those who do not renounce all, nor embrace evangelical poverty, which the Fathers of Gangra rightly condemned.* That *precious stone* is therefore to be bought by all—that perfection proposed under the counsel of Christ, just as virginity is; it is not, strictly speaking, eternal life or Christian piety itself. But I think that if Combefis had remembered what he had said before, he would not have written such things. For when he had read something similar in that sermon which Basil delivered to the rich, he replied in such a way that his answer could be most aptly applied to this passage of the Constitutions. However, I have judged that the words of Basil, which I have already cited before, should be published here again. Wherefore, when the excellent orator Basil speaks of that young man to whom it had been said by the Lord, *Sell what thou hast, and give to the poor* (Matt. xix. 21), he writes thus (tom. II, page 51): *For if you have not murdered, as you say, nor committed adultery, nor stolen, nor borne false witness against anyone, you make your zeal in these things useless to yourself, by not adding that which is lacking, through which alone you will be able to enter into the kingdom of God.* For indeed, if you have not killed, as you say, nor committed adultery, nor stolen, nor borne false witness against anyone, you nevertheless render the diligence you have applied in these actions fruitless, since you do not add what is remaining, by which alone you can enter into the kingdom of God. Upon which passage the most learned man Combefis (t. I, page 115) noted these things: *A rather harsh proposition, he says, if you understand it of eternal salvation, and do not interpret it as a preparation of the soul.* I, therefore, also say that the things Basil wrote in the eighth Major Constitution are harsher if you understand them of eternal salvation and do not interpret them as a preparation of the soul; but if you interpret his words as a preparation of the soul, I affirm that they are not harsh. Combefis also criticizes what is read in the thirty-second Constitution concerning parents and relatives. But there it is written thus (page 375): *Εἰ δὲ ἐμπεπλεγμένοι εἰσὶ τῷ κοινῷ βίῳ· οὐδεὶς ἡμῖν κοινὸς πρὸς αὐτοὺς λόγος, τοῖς τὸ εὔσχημον καὶ εὐπάρεδρον τῷ Κυρίῳ ἀπερισπάστως κατορθοῦν ἐσπουδακόσι.* That is: If they are entangled in the common life, there is no common discourse between us and them—we who have striven to attain what is honorable and becoming—undistractedly for the Lord, without any

deviation of mind: words which are strongly disapproved of by that most learned man, Combefis, as I have often said (a). Furthermore, he says that this instruction concerning parents who are enmeshed, so to speak, in the common life (that is, who live in worldly service), and who are not to be visited, nor received, nor aided, as if they no longer had any relation to their children living the monastic life in a cenobium, appears to be one of the greatest of the errors condemned in the Council of Gangra. Parents are always to be honored, and when they are in need, they are to be provided for by those who are able; whether in the life ^A *kata theon*—as the author of the monks calls it—or in the common and secular life, and even if that life itself be not entirely laudable; provided, however, that one's own status allows it. One may also read the note of Combefis on rule 190, where the learned man inveighs much more vehemently against the author of the Rules. But Tillemont, that most learned man, has rightly and truly noted that similar or even more severe sentences are found in the twentieth chapter of the Constitutions, which did not escape the notice of Combefis himself. For when he arrived at that chapter, and saw that no account was taken there of parents or kinsmen, he wrote as follows: "I do not know whether such a great renunciation of parents is sufficiently consistent with the Gospel, if a monk might be able to offer any help to those suffering extreme distress." Now, therefore, if he were alive, I would gladly ask Combefis why this apparent contempt for parents prevented him from making Basil the author of the Rules, yet did not prevent him from attributing to him the book of the Constitutions, when in both works the rights of parents appear to be equally violated. And besides, there is no need to fear that the love of parents will ever be ^B buried deep in the hearts of children, since, like the phoenix, it always regenerates from itself. That in the hundred-and-first rule those are vituperated and called "wicked" who have not sold all their goods, that is of little consequence and of no significance. For they are called "wicked"—not in the proper sense, but because they are less virtuous and less perfect. I have omitted, which was not the least bit appropriate, another argument of Combefis. The learned man complains, therefore, that the holier laws of marriage are thoroughly abrogated in the longer twelfth rule. These are his own words: "Nothing can be said more clearly concerning that violence which the Eustathians applied to marriages, so that they forced the husband or wife to consent to renounce the other against their will, or even received one renouncing marriage against the will ^C of the other; which is nothing more pre-eminent in subjection to God and obedience; and the Fathers of Gangra deservedly condemned it." Surely, for a man not to leave his wife is a command of God; to prefer chastity against the will of the other spouse is not to obey the commands of God and be subject to Him, but to fight openly: unless the marriage is only ratified and the mutual service of the spouses has not been fully consummated: of which matter the author did not think, but he admits that violence must be applied to marriages as if God were commanding divorce under the pretext of asceticism. We have heard Combefis: now let us hear Basil, who speaks as follows (reg. 12 fus.): *And those in the marriage bond who approach this life must be interrogated as to whether they do this by mutual agreement according to the Apostle's command.* For he says, *He does not have authority over his own body,* and thus in the presence of many witnesses one must receive the person who approaches. ^D And even those who are joined in marriage, as they draw near to this kind of life, must be asked if they do this by mutual consent, according to the Apostle's precept: "For," he says, "he does not have power over his own body," and thus he who approaches is to be received in the presence of many witnesses; which words we have repeated, not because there is any controversy about them, but because they seem necessary for the answer. The things that follow are grave and difficult. So, therefore, Basil pursues the rest: *But if the other party should dissent and struggle, caring less for what is pleasing to God, let the Apostle be called to mind, who says, "God has called us in peace." And let the precept of the Lord be fulfilled, who says, "If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and the rest, he cannot be my disciple."* But if the other party dissents and resists, and because they are less solicitous of how they might please God, let there come into the mind the words of the Apostle, who says: "But God has called us in peace"; and let the precept of the Lord be fulfilled, who said: "If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, etc., he cannot be my disciple." From which it can be perceived that, according to Basil's opinion, all are indeed to be received into the monastery, as well those who approach with the consent of their wives, as those whose wives resist: but not in the same manner. For the former were received in such a way that Basil wished witnesses to be present: but for the latter, when they were received, there was no need for witnesses to be present, precisely because Basil makes no mention of them. But why is this? Is it not because the former were admitted to profession, so that it would no longer be permitted for them to leave the monastery; and for that reason witnesses were present, so that if at any time they wanted to make their vows void, they might be restrained by the testimony of the men who had been present: but Basil did not order others to be received before witnesses, because they were not being admitted to profession, but to exercise. But it is one thing to be admitted to profession, and another to exercise. For he who has once professed is no longer his own master: but he who has entered the monastery for the sake of exercise does not for that reason cease to be his own master, but, if he so wishes, he can depart. That this was Basil's opinion, I do not believe any man who has read his words attentively will deny. For why, I ask, would he have wished it to be asked whether they do this by mutual consent if he had believed that all ought to be received on equal terms? But they were interrogated so that, if it were clear that the wives consented, they could make their profession; if not, they would indeed be admitted to exercise.

for some time, but never to profession, unless the consent of the wives should finally be added. That this is so, they clearly show, which follow. They are of this sort (p. 354): ^A *We have known in many cases, and often through intense prayer and unremitting fasting, that the purpose of a life of chastity prevailed, with the Lord often leading those who were entirely obstinate to approve of sound judgment even through bodily necessity.* The reason, therefore, why Basil wished some to be introduced into monasteries for exercise against the will of their wives was this: because he knew that a counsel of a life of chastity of this kind had often prevailed in many cases through prayers and fasts. Regarding what Combefis adds, that the doctrine handed down in this rule had been condemned by the Fathers of Gangra: the most distinguished Tillemont has long since warned that this is irrelevant. For in that council (a) those women are condemned who abandoned their husbands because they detested marriage; a horror of wedlock which is so far from being urged by the author of the Rules that he expressly declares that nuptials are both permitted and honored by [God’s] blessing (reg. fus.). What Combefis objects to in the last place, this seemed so grave to Tillemont that he did not hesitate to abandon Basil. Wherefore, ^B that it may be permitted to anyone to better estimate this matter, I shall relate the words of Basil and Combefis. Basil (reg. 293): *First of all, one must know that this difference (of sins) is not to be found in the New Testament. For there is one sentence laid down against all sins, as the Lord says: "Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin" (John VIII, 34)... likewise when John cries out: "He who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God will remain upon him" (John III, 36); it is not in the difference of sins, but in disobedience that he provides a place for commination.* Combefis (b): He asserts a Stoic equality of sins, and (adduces) other veins, which Hermantius, as if they were akin or even more rigid than his own Basil, cites as Fathers. I, in this matter, dissent greatly from Tillemont (c), who says that this whole rule, ^C except for the first three verses, is true, holy, and wonderful. And I also dissent greatly from Combefis, who finds a Stoic element in the passage itself. For I do not think that anything is to be excepted in the words of Basil, nor do I find any Stoic dogma in them. I would wish, therefore, that the scope and proposed intention of the most holy Father be looked to. Basil had been interrogated on how one should deal with those who avoid more serious sins but indiscriminately commit lighter ones; to which interrogation he had to reply in such a way that he proposed to himself before all else that he should deter those monks from that evil custom. Nothing, therefore, could be better said by him, since that sentence of the Lord, which places no distinction in sins, is the most apt and suitable of all for terrifying souls. Therefore, if account is taken of the end which Basil proposed to himself, there is nothing in this rule which could justly be criticized by Combefis, or which deserved to be excepted against by Tillemont. Basil, however, as if he had foreseen that there would not be lacking those who would take his words in a bad sense, explained his own opinion regarding the distinction of sins most clearly ^D when he added this (pag. 518): "In general, if we are allowed to speak of a small and a great sin, it has an irrefutable proof: that to each man, great is that which masters each one, and small is that which each one masters... One must therefore, in the case of everyone committing any sin whatsoever, observe the judgment of the Lord who said: 'If your brother sins against you, go, reprove him between you and him alone'" (Matt. XVIII, 15), etc. In a word, if it is permissible for us to speak of a small and a great sin, it cannot be denied without controversy that to each man, great is that to whose dominion each is subject: but small is that which each masters. Wherefore, regarding whoever of any sort commits a sin, the precept of the Lord must be observed, who said: "If your brother sins against you, go, reprove him between you and him alone," etc. First, indeed, as if he had doubted, he spoke thus, "if it is permitted to us to speak of small and great," but immediately he clearly shows that small and great sins ought to be distinguished in reality, when he wrote thus: "It cannot be denied without controversy, that to each man, great is that to whose dominion each is subject: but small is that which each masters." Behold, for you two kinds of sins clearly distinct. Some subject us to their dominion: others we master; that is, some are great, others are small. Nay, this distinction of sins appears even more clearly from the words that follow: "Wherefore, regarding whoever of any sort commits a sin, the precept of the Lord must be observed, who, etc." For he who speaks in this way does not think that all sins are of one and the same kind, but of multiple ones: since the word "whatsoever" of itself signifies something multiple and varied. Furthermore…

^A there are many and certain and undoubted monuments of Basil’s style in the Rules (c), so that because of a slight dissimilarity in one thing, it is not fair that they should be held in suspicion, when reason demands that the similarity of the many should be judged more important than the dissimilarity of one—and that a very slight one at that. The other point is that adverbs of this kind are not so frequent that an suspicion of any kind could rightly arise on that account. For since, in both sets of Rules, they are used no more than fifteen times, I think, there will be no one who, if he considers the prolixity of the work, will not judge them to be few. I shall sum up everything in one word. Even if—as we saw just now—the matter were to be reduced to style alone, the Rules ought nevertheless to be attributed to Basil, since some small discrepancy in one matter should yield to the great agreement in others. But now, since beyond that great agreement of style in other matters, many other arguments are forthcoming, partly from reason and partly sought from the authority of ancient writers, from which it is not obscurely shown that Basil is the true parent of the Rules, no person can have any cause to ascribe that work to another (d). From all of which it is permissible to understand that the †Asceticum, as they call it, belongs entirely to Basil—that is, the little books *On the Judgment of God* and *On Faith*, the *Morals*, and the *Rules*, both the shorter and the longer ones. And since I have begun to gather together once and for all many arguments which might seem to oppose our opinion, I shall also put forward another one, which some might think has very much weight and strength. Perhaps, therefore, someone will say that Basil, as Gregory Nazianzen is the author (e), took care to build gymnasia and monasteries in which anchorites might dwell; and that for this reason it can by no means be said that he is the author of the Rules, in which that institution of living is most greatly censured. I would indeed confess that this argument would have much weight if the writer of the Rules had judged that all anchorites without exception should be reproved; but we learn from the Rules themselves that this is not so. For when the author had said that it is rarely found in solitude that anyone is corrected, since there is no one to correct him, he wrote as follows (Reg. 7, Major, n. 1): "To find one in the solitary [life] who is capable of being corrected, [having] not previously been joined in the life, is difficult, so that it happens to him as it is said, 'Woe to the one, because if he falls, there is no one to raise him up.'" Such a one [who is, of course, capable of being corrected] is most difficult to find in solitude, unless he has first been joined into the society of life. Wherefore it happens to him as it is said: "Woe to the one, because if he falls, there is not one to raise him up." ^D From which it is clear that not all anchorites were censured by the author of the Rules, but only those who had not first exercised themselves unto virtue in a fellowship. Therefore, what Gregory Nazianzen says, that Basil built certain gymnasia of piety for the sake of anchorites, in no way conflicts with the Rules, since in them some kind of anchorites is clearly...

^A commended. Now, it is not difficult to find the reason why Basil wished for those who had decided to lead a private and solitary life first to be trained in some community. For it so happens that if a person sins in solitude, he may remember that either he himself or others had been rebuked long ago by their superior for a similar deed; and in this way, he is admonished by his own conscience not to commit such a thing again. On the other hand, it can easily happen that if someone has not lived in a community at the start, even when he sins most gravely, he may not know he is sinning due to his inexperience. This declaration of ours is reinforced in the highest degree by the words of Gregory Nazianzen himself. For he writes thus (a): "The life of the hermit and that of the cenobite were at variance with one another for the most part, and held apart... but he excellently reconciled them to one another and blended them; having built hermitages and monasteries, not far from the communal and cenobitic dwellings, nor separating them as if by some intervening wall, and dividing them from one another, but joining them near, and..." Therefore, since the solitary life and the kind that rejoices in society for the most part differed and conflicted with each other... he nevertheless reconciled them and blended them excellently, building, as it were, gymnasia and monasteries of piety, yet not far removed from those who live in a community, nor distinguishing them by any wall thrown between them and separating them from one another, but joining them near, and dividing them, etc. For it is easy for anyone to conjecture that Basil arranged such monasteries with the intention that those who desired to embrace the anchorite's mode of life should first be trained in piety in some nearby community. Although Basil praised a certain type of anchorite, he was able in his Rules to inveigh so vehemently against anchorites in general, the greatest part of whom, as it happens, chose that kind of life without that previous training. And lest anyone should perhaps think these things conflict with the above, it is worth noting that Basil and the author of the Monastic Constitutions differ most of all in this, that the latter would approve the institution of anchorites in general, while the former would disapprove of the same in general. Moreover, that great leader and master of monks, Benedict, ^D also approved those anchorites who, having lived for a long time in a community, finally decided to live a solitary life. For thus he writes in the first chapter of his Rule: "It is manifest that there are four kinds of monks... The second kind is that of the anchorites, that is, of the hermits: those who, not by the novice fervor of their conversion, but by long probation in the monastery, have learned, having already been taught by the comfort of many, to fight against the devil," etc.

§ XI. The seventh part, from which it will be able to be known that the Monastic Constitutions ought to be attributed to Eustathius of Sebaste.

Confident, as he is, the very learned Combefis says that Basil is the author of the Monastic Constitutions: but as if it had been sufficient for him to have declared his opinion, he nowhere proved it with any arguments. Yet I would not wish for such a learned man to be accused of any negligence. For no one who performs what he can is to be blamed for what he cannot do. But I believe that neither by Combefis, nor by anyone else, can any firm argument be brought forward by which it is made, I will not say certain, but even probable, that Basil is the legitimate parent of the Monastic Constitutions. For whence, I ask, would such arguments be sought? From the testimonies of ancient writers? But all the testimonies that could be brought forward are ambiguous, and no more signify the Constitutions in themselves than they do the Rules. From reason? But whom, I ask, could Combefis have persuaded that it is consistent with reason for the Monastic Constitutions to be ascribed to Basil the Great, which no ancient writer with certainty attributes to him? When he himself was unwilling for the Rules to be adjudicated to Basil—which, however, many ancient authors attributed to him in express words: Rufinus, Cassianus, the Emperor Justinian, Photius (b). From the style? But what consistency can be found where there is none? Nay, it is not enough to say that there is no consistency in style, when the discrepancy is at its greatest. Although Combefis did not confirm his opinion with any arguments, yet I do not think it was done rashly that he attributed the Monastic Constitutions to Basil. For when he had once induced his mind to believe that the Rules were unworthy to be called Basil's, it was logical that, with the Rules removed, he should at least give him the Monastic Constitutions. And indeed, so many testimonies of the ancients, who manifestly make Basil the author of some larger ascetic work, do not allow the Rules and the Constitutions to be taken away from him at the same time. But no one, as far as I know, has embraced this opinion of Combefis. It is not unknown to me that Scultetus seems to have entirely removed all the ascetical works from the catalog of Basilian writings; but I know no one who, following Combefis's example, puts the Rules among the spurious, yet holds the Constitutions to be the genuine offspring of Basil. The contrary opinion therefore has entirely prevailed among those who, as they ascribe the Rules to Basil, so too do they ascribe the Monastic Constitutions. But if I wish to stand by the principles I have laid down—that as I stand with Combefis, so I must also differ from the others: but yet in such a way that, if it is very difficult for me to be reconciled with Combefis, I may hope to be reconciled very easily with the others, provided they understand that I only differ from them on a minor point. For I am in agreement with them that whatever is distinguished and excellent in the Ascetica, all of it belongs to Basil the Great: but I deny that the Monastic Constitutions alone are his, which certainly, if they are compared with the Rules, will appear to contain nothing great or excellent. For, as I have warned (c), the Monastic Constitutions perhaps never even among the ancient...

or recent writers are cited; whereas it is established that the Rules are cited frequently: which is an indication that the Rules were always held in the highest esteem, but the Constitutions not so. Wherefore I cannot sufficiently marvel at Combefis, who, when he should have brought forward some testimony of the ancients or the recent authors for the purpose of commending the Monastic Constitutions, believed it sufficient for himself if he should himself praise them excessively. But the reason why I make Eustathius of Sebaste the author of the Monastic Constitutions is, I think, evident to all. For since I have previously determined as certain and explored (a), that the Monastic Constitutions and the Rules cannot be attributed to one and the same writer, and in the same place have affirmed that Basil is the legitimate parent of the Rules, it follows, if I am to be consistent with myself, that I must look for some author of the Constitutions who is not Basil. Who, however, I ask, can more reasonably be called their author than Eustathius of Sebaste, who, as is found in Sozomen (b), was believed by some to have published an ascetic book which was inscribed with the name of Basil the Cappadocian? For we do not consider it permissible for us to hold as false the testimonies of the ancients, unless their falsity can be proved manifest from elsewhere. Since, therefore, as Sozomen reports, there were those who affirmed that a certain ascetic book, which bore the name of Basil, was written by Eustathius of Sebaste: it follows that if there be any book among the Ascetica which cannot be attributed to Basil, it ought to be ascribed to Eustathius. It is not obscure, moreover, that the book of the Constitutions is such a one. For, as I have often said (c), the author of the Constitutions is not the same as that of the Rules. Since, therefore, Basil is the author of the Rules, he himself cannot be the author of the Constitutions. It remains, therefore, that we must say the book of the Constitutions pertains either to Eustathius or to an unknown author. But no one until now, so far as I know, has attributed either the Monastic Constitutions or any other part of the Ascetica to an unknown author. For all, following the authority of Sozomen, have always ascribed the Ascetica either to Basil or to Eustathius. And indeed, even if the learned disagree wondrously among themselves concerning the Ascetica, in this, however, they all completely agree, that they make either Basil or Eustathius their author; so that if anyone has taken anything away from Basil, he has bestowed it upon Eustathius. But if some other works of Eustathius were in our hands, perhaps from the similarity of style it could be shown that the Monastic Constitutions pertain to him: but since there are none, we cannot use this kind of argument. Nevertheless, it is permitted to employ others of no less weight or moment. For since it is agreed among all that the Ascetica, or parts of the Ascetica, are either Basil's or Eustathius's, if we have proven that the Monastic Constitutions do not have Basil as their author, we will at the same time have proven that they are to be attributed to Eustathius. 45. To prove further that the Monastic Constitutions ought to be adjudged to Eustathius of Sebaste is properly to do the work at hand. For all the arguments which we have used (d), on the one hand, to show that the writer of the Rules is other than he who published the Monastic Constitutions; and on the other hand, to make it plain (e) that there can in no way be doubt that Basil is the legitimate parent of the Rules—if they prove anything, they also prove by a certain necessary consequence that Eustathius of Sebaste is the author of the Monastic Constitutions. For indeed, if it is true that Basil is the maker of the Rules, it follows that he did not publish the Monastic Constitutions, since, as I have said, the author of the Rules and of the Constitutions is not one and the same. To whom, however, I ask, could the Monastic Constitutions be better ascribed than to Eustathius, to whom by the consensus of all must be attributed whatever in the Ascetica is not Basilian? From which it can be perceived that the question which we propose here to be solved rests entirely on those points where, as it seems to me at least, I have quite clearly proven both that Basil is the legitimate parent of the Rules, and that the author of the Monastic Constitutions is someone other than he who wrote the Rules (f); and for that reason I would wish greatly that that part of the Preface be read with a little more attention. In the meantime, in order that it may be better understood that the Monastic Constitutions are not undeservedly attributed by us to Eustathius of Sebaste, I have judged it necessary to place before the eyes, as it were, an epitome of those same arguments which I have already brought forward (g). Others before us have noted (h) that the author of the Rules was most hostile to anchorites, and that he seemed to have exaggerated the dangers and inconveniences of this way of life in such a way that he appears to exceed moderation, while nevertheless the writer of the Constitutions favored them so much that he composed the middle part of his entire work for their sake. It is clear, however, from the Letters of Basil (epist. 293), that this great man did not approve of the anchorites' way of life, and for that reason it must be said by right and merit that he is the author of the Rules. For in this way it will be established that he proved himself the same both in the Rules and in the Letters—that is, a persecutor and hater of anchorites. How, indeed, could it have happened that Basil, to whom the institute of anchorites certainly did not please, wrote a book of Constitutions in which that way of life is most highly approved? It remains, therefore, that this book be returned to its author, Eustathius, who, whatever in the Ascetica is not Basil's, has always been regarded by everyone as its author. There are sprinkled throughout the Rules some things which smack of a certain severity (h), not otherwise than in certain of Basil's writings: from which severity the author of the Constitutions is very far removed; therefore the writer of the Rules and of the Constitutions is not one and the same, but two, of whom one could be seen to be a little more severe, the other a little more lenient. Therefore Basil

^A will not deny [it]. It can be said generally that the Rules are so written that the very manner of writing thoroughly savors of Basil’s phrasing. Nor do I wish faith to be placed in me regarding this, but in the serious and learned writer Photius [(f)], who testified that he recognized the style and hand of Basil in the Rules. There are, moreover, in the Rules certain peculiar marks of the Basilian style, which whoever considers seriously will easily confess him to be their author. Such is this formula of speech, *I have seen*, or, *I have known*: which we have noted as being familiar to Basil [(g)]. Likewise, in its proper place, we have warned [(h)] that Basil, when he had discoursed on some matter, took the greatest pleasure in this way of concluding: *καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον*, or, *τὰ μὲν οὖν περὶ τοσοῦτον*, or in another similar manner. This way of speaking is also used in the Rules. Not dissimilar is that which I shall add. Wishing to signify the Holy Scripture, Basil spoke thus [(i)]: *παραδίδωσιν ἴσως ὁ τῆς εὐσεβείας λόγος*, perhaps the word of piety hands down. It is certain that the author of the Rules also speaks in this way [(j)] to signify the same thing. Basil in his books not rarely warns that other interpreters interpret certain places of Scripture differently: which he who published the Rules also did [(k)]. That these formulas of speech, *τὸν ἐπιμέλειαν τὴν κοινὴν πεπιστευμένον*, *οἱ τὴν ὁδηγίαν τῶν πολλῶν πεπιστευμένοι*, and others of the same kind, are found more often in the Rules, I have shown some time ago with many examples [(l)]. But in that same place it was shown that Basil, when he was explaining the beginning of Proverbs, had spoken in no other way. From all of which it can be perceived that the Rules, in which many marks of the Basilian style exist, are to be attributed to Basil, but not the monastic Constitutions, in which not even one vestige of it is found. But if the Rules are once assigned to Basil, it remains that Eustathius should be called the author of the monastic Constitutions for the reason which I have often adduced. Furthermore, it is known and confessed that Basil, an excellent writer, would so treat an argument he had once undertaken to investigate that he would never do anything else, never stray from his purpose, never omit anything of those things which pertain to the matter. But the book of Constitutions is written in such a way that its author did something else, strayed from his purpose, and said nothing of those things which ^D pertain to the matter. And indeed, unless he himself had taught us (chap. 18) that he had written the first part of his work for the instruction of anchorites, we would be entirely ignorant of it. For whatever is read in that first part of the monastic Constitutions—that is, in the first seventeen full chapters—does not pertain more to anchorites than to cenobites: indeed, there are more things which can be referred to all Christians. To whom, therefore, will it be possible to be persuaded that Basil, who from his purpose decli-

declined ^A to be the architect of a book of this kind, in which nothing is found that is proper to those for whose sake it is said to have been written? Certainly, as much as I conjecture, if Basil were the author of the *Monastic Constitutions*, he would have handed down many warnings, counsels, and precepts by which anchorites would be partly incited to cultivate the virtues proper to his state, and partly admonished so that they might avoid the dangers of this institution, which are great and many; since this has not been done, it must be inferred from this that this book cannot be attributed to Basil, who was most diligent in discussing any subject whatsoever, but to another author who did not employ such diligence in writing. We shall have acted rightly if we adjudge the *Monastic Constitutions* to Eustathius, and imitate the most learned men of all ages who, if they thought anything in the Ascetical works was not Basil’s, declared that it ought to be ascribed to the Bishop of Sebaste.

47. I should like to propose certain other passages, by which anyone can easily understand that Basil cannot truly be called the author of the *Monastic Constitutions*. First I shall transcribe what is read in the proem (p. 533): "The inducement, for the most part, to men ^B regarding worldly desires, pleasures, and cares is marriage; for no one could find a desire for the female in men, or for the male in women, implanted more strongly and violently in the nature of the body—and with good reason, as it is naturally constituted for the sprouting of offspring, etc." But marriage, for the most part, is the cause to men and the occasion of that cupidity that turns toward worldly pleasures and cares; neither can any cupidity, implanted in the nature of the body, ever be found more vehement and violent than that by which men desire women, or women desire men; and that is not surprising, since by its very nature it tends toward the procreation of children, etc. What, I pray, was the point of a founder of monks prefacing his work in such a way? Basil, in my judgment, would have been ashamed to write such things. The author in the first chapter speaks thus: "Wherefore He also took upon Himself human nature... so that each man and each woman, looking to that, might according to their ability imitate the archetype and exemplar." But that "each man and each woman" is not Basilian. For although he is an excellent orator and uses the word "each" in very many places, yet never, if I remember correctly, has he added the word "woman"; in which he followed the most excellent writers, who are not accustomed to join the word "woman," which is clearly redundant, to the word "each." Again, a little later it is read (cap. 4, n. 4): ^C "...likewise partook of that suffering. That, however, which is said to those who descended from Adam, is said to all who originate from him, hence it is clear. For God indeed consigned him to death, saying, 'You are earth, and to earth you shall return,' but all as many as drew their origin from him, not otherwise than he himself, became participants in this calamity." When you read this, it is clear from this that you might believe the discourse is being held about something that had been explained before: but it is otherwise. For what is said to be clear here is afterward proven to be such. A slightly more skilled author, as it seems to me, would have omitted the word *ἐντεῦθεν* (hence), which is poorly heard in this place, and thus all things would have harmonized quite sufficiently, and it would have been permissible to interpret it thus: "But that the things which were said to Adam were said to all who originate from him is clear. For that one, etc."; or if he wished to use the word *ἐντεῦθεν*, he ought to have connected the words among themselves in this way, *ἐντεῦθεν δῆλον, ὅτι τὸν θάνατον*, etc. (*hence it is clear that death, etc.*). The old interpreter, when he saw that the Greek words did not hang together well, had translated it as if he had in fact read it as I said it ought to have been written. For he had interpreted it thus: "But that the things which were then said to Adam were also said to all who are descended from him can be clearly perceived from this, in that when he, etc." Nor, indeed, is the word "saying" placed harmoniously, nor can it deservedly be believed that Basil used this formula for citing Scripture, who, as others have already noted, would have cited it most aptly of all.

So again, in the thirteenth chapter, it is found written (p. 558), "But that it is appropriate also for those who cultivate meekness to have a timely indignation, is clear from hence. ^D For Moses, who is reported to have been the meekest of all men, etc." Thus, as I have already noted, the unlearned Eustathius could speak, not Basil, the most excellent of orators. It is something significant that the author, when about to speak of the apostle Paul, wrote thus (p. 545): "And I shall provide you with a most trustworthy witness of this thing, the holy Paul." For although Basil, as I have already noted elsewhere (b), very frequently names the apostle Paul, nowhere, however, to my knowledge, does he use that epithet, "holy." And since I have made mention of that passage, I will note, as if in passing, that I detected a certain negligence in the words I have reported, which, little as it is, can in no way be attributed to the most diligent writer Basil. Since, therefore, the author had written thus, he continued in this way, you expect him to say *δέ* (but), but in vain. Where you ought to have found *δέ* written, it has come about through the negligence of this author (cap. 20, n. 5) that

you find it written *μάν*. When I read elsewhere, 'We shall provide a short answer, because the divine Apostle,' etc., I shall answer in a few words that I cannot again but note that this word ^A *θεῖος* (divine) seems to me unusual in the genuine works of Basil. Nor do I consider it unworthy of note that many words ending in *-μα* are quite often used in the book of *Constitutions*, which seems to me to have given the author no small pleasure. Such are these words: *σπούδασμα*, *ἄσχημα*, *ἐμπόρευμα*, *θησαύρισμα*, *ἀτόπημα*, words which, however, I do not see Basil using willingly. I have also noticed that these words—*ἐσπουδακώς*, *ἐσπούδακε*, *διεσπούδακε*—which are very rarely found in Basil, are used very frequently in the monastic *Constitutions*.

Finally, I shall say in general that if the book of *Constitutions* belonged to Basil, it would happen that in it at least some trace of Basilian eloquence and learning would exist. For Basil, even when reluctant, wrote eloquently and skillfully. That the monastic *Constitutions* are not such is understood from this alone, that no one before Combefis has praised them for either eloquence or learning. Indeed, not even Combefis himself ever praised them for their style. Furthermore, who besides Combefis could easily persuade himself that a work of this kind is learned, from which the learned, when they wrote on morals or any other subjects, have never excerpted anything to illustrate their own arguments? And so that what I say may be confirmed by some example, I would wish that excellent work to be read which that man of outstanding learning, Matthäus Petitdidier, wrote against many of the errors of Louis Dupin (a). Since, therefore, that very learned man whom I have mentioned noted many of Basil’s sentences—which are highly worthy of knowledge—just as he cited other writings of Basil, so also he frequently cited his genuine *Ascetica*, the discourse *On the Judgment of God*, the short treatise *On the Renunciation of Possessions*, and the *Rules*, both the Longer and the Shorter, yet in that place he is completely silent about the monastic *Constitutions*.

^B 47*. I wish to propose another argument. When Rufinus had translated the *Rules* and had decided to dedicate them to Abbot Urseius, he addresses him in his preface (b) as follows: "It should certainly be your duty also to provide copies to other monasteries, so that, following the model of Cappadocia, all monasteries may live by the same and not different institutes or observances." From which it is clear that the monks of those times in Cappadocia used rules for the establishment of their life. For those institutes and observances, of which mention is made in that place, are nothing other than the *Rules* themselves, as is established by the preface of Rufinus which I have just cited. How, I ask, would the monks of Cappadocia, and indeed of the very diocese of Caesarea, have proposed to themselves to follow these rules in the age of Basil himself, if Eustathius had been their author? How would they not rather have detested such rules, knowing them to have been the work of a man who was as closely joined and friendly to the Arians as he was hostile and antagonistic to Basil? I think it would have happened that those monks, who had Eustathius as their leader, would have been stoned by the people ^C in other parts of Cappadocia, and especially in the diocese of Caesarea. I admit, indeed, that nothing prevents Eustathius, who himself also imitated the life of the monks, from having had a few companions of the monastic life among his disciples, who from the beginning deceived the people with their feigned faith and piety; but that an order of monks was established by him in Cappadocia, and that the same could have persisted there after the inconstancy of Eustathius in the faith was once known, and after his open alienation from Basil, does not seem credible. It is therefore right that the rules by which, as Rufinus testifies, the monks in Cappadocia were governed, be attributed not to Eustathius, but to Basil: for if Basil is once said to be their creator, he cannot be called the father of the monastic *Constitutions*, since, as is sufficiently clear from the things said, the writer of either work is not the same. Therefore, no one should wonder if we attribute the book of *Constitutions* to Eustathius, since we have done nothing that others have not done, who also ascribed to Eustathius whatever in the *Ascetica* seemed to them not to be Basilian.

48. In the last place, I shall make use of the argument of Combefis against Combefis himself. That most learned man, since he wished to prove that Basil was not the author of the *Rules*, argued as follows: "The author of the little books *On the Judgment of God* and *On the Faith* is the same as the author of the *Rules*. But he who wrote the little book *On the Faith* deliberately omitted in his explanation of the faith the word *ὁμοούσιος* in order to gain for himself the favor of the milder Arians: which silence, since it cannot fall upon Basil, who always openly defends the faith of consubstantiality and the word, must necessarily fall upon Eustathius, who, since he was a Macedonian, refused to use that word *ὁμοούσιος*." Therefore, says he—the most learned man whom I just mentioned—"there can be no doubt that Eustathius is the legitimate parent of the *Rules* as well as of the little books *On the Judgment of God* and *On the Faith*." ^D I, however, will indeed easily admit that he who composed the little books *On the Judgment of God* and *On the Faith* (c) is not different from him who published the *Rules*, and I think that all others will equally confess this: but I conclude something entirely different. And so it is possible to argue against Combefis as follows: The author of the little books *On the Judgment of God* and *On the Faith* is the same as the author of the *Rules*: but the one who composed the little book *On the Faith* used the word *ὁμοούσιος* in his explanation of the faith (tom. II, n. 4): therefore this exposition of the faith cannot be attributed to Eustathius, who, because he stood with Macedonius, did not use that word *ὁμοούσιος* at all: but this very exposition of the faith, in which the word *ὁμοούσιος* is read, fits perfectly for Basil the Great, who always gloried in defending the word *ὁμοούσιος* privately and publicly with zeal. Again against...

the same Combefis we can argue thus: ^A The Rules have the same author as the treatises *On the Judgment of God* and *On the Faith*; but this treatise *On the Faith* cannot be attributed to Eustathius for the reason I have already stated; therefore, the Rules cannot be ascribed to him either, ^B since the same author, by Combefis's own admission, published both the Rules and this treatise *On the Faith*. But if neither the treatise *On the Faith* nor the Rules can be ascribed to Eustathius, it follows that they should be attributed to Basil, since Basil and Eustathius divide the Ascetic works between them in such a way that whatever among the Ascetic works does not belong to one is universally agreed to belong to the other.

Let us now return to our proposal, so that we may show in a few words that Eustathius is the author of the *Monastic Constitutions*: which is easy to do. For if Basil is said to be the author of the Rules, just as he is of the treatise *On the Faith*, it is necessary that someone else wrote the book of *Constitutions*, since, as I have often said and proved with many arguments, the Rules and the *Constitutions* do not have one author, ^C but two. However, it is clear from what has been said that Basil wrote the treatise *On the Faith* as well as the Rules: therefore, it is not Basil, but someone else, who must be called the author of the *Monastic Constitutions*. Now, Eustathius is the only one to whom they could deservedly be attributed: he, of course, whom all scholars have hitherto made the author of those things which in Basil’s Ascetic works have been held to be spurious and adulterine. And whenever, by means of Combefis’s own argument, I have begun to grasp something to establish my own opinion, I shall proceed to confirm it from the same [argument]. For if it was permissible for Combefis, who had wrongly thought that the word *ὁμοούσιος* was missing from that treatise *On the Faith*, to argue thus: "A work in which the word *ὁμοούσιος* is silent fits Eustathius more than Basil," I do not see why it is not permissible for us also to argue in this way: "A work in which the name *ὁμοούσιος* is omitted ought to be attributed to Eustathius rather than to Basil"; yet there is not even a trace of the word *ὁμοούσιος* in the entire book of *Constitutions*; therefore, it is fairer that a book of this kind be adjudicated to Eustathius than to Basil.

And so that the force of this argument may be better understood, I shall not regret transcribing here three passages which are highly relevant to the matter. First, I will bring forward [a passage] from the treatise *On the Faith*, in which it is read as follows (page 228): *Οὕτω φρονοῦμεν, καὶ οὕτω βαπτίζομεν εἰς Τριάδα ὁμοούσιον*. "Thus we think, and thus we baptize into a consubstantial Trinity." I will borrow two other [passages] from the *Monastic Constitutions* (cap. 2, page 541), in which we find it written thus: *Ἡνίκα μὲν γὰρ ἡ ψυχὴ τὸ ἑαυτῆς ἀνακινοῦσα νοερόν, τὸ φυσικῶς ἐγκατεσπαρμένον αὐτῇ παρὰ τῆς πεποιηκυίας αὐτὴν ἁγίας Τριάδος, βουλεύεται τά*, etc. "For when the soul, stirring up its own intellectual faculty, which was naturally sown in it by the holy Trinity that created it, deliberates on matters," etc. And after a few words it continues thus: *Τοῦτο μὲν εἰς ἁγίαν καὶ προσκυνητὴν Τριάδα, κατὰ τὸ ἐνὸν, ἀτενὲς ἐνορῶσα*, etc. "This, to the extent that it is possible, contemplating with the eyes of the mind intent upon the holy and adorable Trinity," etc. We see the word *ὁμοούσιος* used in the treatise *On the Faith*, when mention is made of the most holy ^D Trinity: but in the *Monastic Constitutions* the most holy Trinity is indeed named, yet in both places the word *ὁμοούσιος* is omitted. That varying manner of writing can deservedly be seen to indicate a different author: the first of whom will be Basil, who delighted uniquely in the word *ὁμοούσιος*; the other will be Eustathius, who, following the example of the other Macedonians, carefully avoided the word I have mentioned.

I shall now hasten to the remaining points, but only if I first attempt to explain the famous passage of Sozomen, which gave substance to these discussions: and in order for this to succeed more happily, it seemed appropriate to subject that passage to our eyes again, yet in such a way that I omit the Greek words, which I reported earlier (num. 27). Thus, therefore, Sozomen speaks, Lib. III, cap. 14: "Among the Armenians and Paphlagonians, and those dwelling around Pontus, Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste in Armenia, is said to have been the author of the monastic life: and he is said to have handed down precepts concerning the discipline of a more intense life, concerning the foods that were to be used or from which one ought to abstain, concerning the clothing that one ought to use, and finally concerning customs and an exact manner of living; so much so that some affirm the ascetic book, which is inscribed under the name of Basil the Cappadocian, to have been written by him." Sozomen, therefore, was a witness that there were formerly those in whose judgment a certain ascetic book, which was written under the name of Basil the Cappadocian, pertained to Eustathius of Sebaste. But I believe Sozomen intended to indicate nothing else but the book of *Monastic Constitutions*. Nor will it seem a wonder to anyone that a book which belonged to Eustathius was inscribed with the name of Basil, if he remembers that many writings exist which are inscribed with the names of holy Fathers, both in common and in ancient books, which, however, we see today placed by learned men among the spurious and adulterine. Since, therefore, the book of *Monastic Constitutions*, which belonged to Eustathius, was inscribed with the name of Basil, nothing new happened to it: but it had the same lot as many other writings, which, though they belonged to others, were yet falsely inscribed with the names of others. It does not pertain to me to seek the causes of that matter: it is enough for me if the case is so, and it cannot be denied. But I seem to hear those complaining that I have lingered in proving a matter not in doubt, when I ought to have shown that Sozomen, in speaking thus: "So much so that some affirm the ascetic book, which is inscribed under the name of Basil the Cappadocian, to have been written by him [Eustathius]," intended to signify nothing else by these words than just the book of *Monastic Constitutions*, which as it is highly doubtful, so it might seem most difficult to prove. But I feel otherwise, and I think it will not be obscure if those words of Sozomen which I just recalled are read a little more carefully. For in that place there is mention only of the discipline of a more intense life, of the foods to be used or from which to abstain, of the clothing to be used, and finally of customs and an exact manner of living: by which words the book of *Monastic Constitutions* is indicated so clearly that it seems almost to be named. For everything which is read in that passage of Sozomen...

is uniquely suited to the book of *Constitutions*, and not to the *Rules*, which if Sozomen had wished to signify, he should certainly have noted what is primary and singular in them: which, since he did not do, he is not to be thought to have even considered them. Now, no one is ignorant that if there is anything excellent and peculiar in the *Rules*, it lies in that remarkable collection of countless testimonies of Scripture; which testimonies are brought forward so aptly and so concisely that many most weighty questions of every kind are solved most learnedly and most clearly, the most difficult passages of Scripture are explained briefly yet diligently, and everywhere most health-giving and useful precepts for the ordering of conduct are passed down. ^B Rufinus, Cassian, and Photius, when they spoke about the *Rules*, made mention of these Scriptural passages; and not without merit, since the *Rules* of Basil are distinguished from the ascetic works of others by nothing more than those very testimonies. (See below, no. 62, near the end.) By what reasoning, therefore, could Sozomen have been silent about these testimonies, and not have made any mention of those things which are specific to the *Rules*, if he had intended to indicate the *Rules* themselves in the passage I have transcribed? Therefore, the words of Sozomen are not to be taken as referring to the *Rules*, to which they cannot aptly be applied, but to the book of *Monastic Constitutions*, to which everything that Sozomen wrote in this passage is most becomingly accommodated.

But now, it may rightly be asked who those people might have been who would affirm that that ascetic book inscribed with the name of Basil ought to be adjudged to Eustathius. I suspect they were the most learned and studious men of that age, who, as they were assiduous in thumbing through the books of authors, had perhaps encountered some ancient copies of the *Monastic Constitutions* in which the name of Eustathius had been placed in for the name of Basil: or, certainly, those who, from the dissimilarity of style, had recognized that a book of that kind could not belong to Basil; and on that account had judged that it ought to be ascribed to Eustathius, whom they had known from elsewhere to have published some ascetic writing. For such a thing could not have been asserted without cause. Others, however, who were less versed in reading ancient authors, being deceived by the false inscription of the book, easily ascribed purely Eustathian works to Basil the Great. But perhaps someone will say: If there existed at one time copies in which the name of Eustathius was written instead of the name of Basil, why are no copies of that kind found today in libraries? ^D To me it seems probable that, if such books once existed, the librarians, seeing that Eustathius was ill-regarded, and fearing that if his name were seen in the copies they were transcribing, they would sell their books for a lesser price, therefore industriously obliterated completely a name of such ill omen.

What, then, I feel about those first words of Sozomen, *Among the Armenians and Paphlagonians, and the dwellers of Pontus, Eustathius, bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, is said to have been the author of the monastic life*, I shall now disclose. It seems to me sufficiently probable that certain few monasteries were founded by Eustathius in Armenia, and, if one wishes, in Paphlagonia, in which the Eustathian norm of life did not flourish for long on account of the man's bad reputation, and into which the Basilian institute was shortly introduced in place of the Eustathian, on account of – namely – the great esteem in which the most holy and learned Father was held by all. But as for what is added concerning the inhabitants of Pontus, Rufinus, who was a contemporary of Basil, teaches that this is false. For he speaks thus in book II, cap. 9: *Basil, traversing the cities and rural districts of Pontus, stirred up the idle souls of that nation, and those little concerned for their future hope; he inflamed them with his words and preaching, and began to remove from them the callousness of long negligence, and compelled them, having cast aside the cares of empty and worldly things, to receive knowledge of themselves; and [he taught them] to gather into one, to build monasteries, and to find leisure for psalms and hymns and prayers; to care for the poor, and to provide them [both] with honorable dwellings and with things necessary for sustenance; to establish virgins, and to make a modest and chaste life desirable to almost everyone. Thus, in a short time, the face of the whole province was changed, as if a fertile crop and a joyful vineyard had risen up in an arid and squalid field.* The same was confirmed by Socrates, who wrote as follows in book V, cap. 26: *For fear lest the Arian innovation should spread through the provinces by the Pontus, he [Basil] traveled quickly to those parts; and having established monasteries there, and having instructed all by his preachings, he confirmed their wavering minds.* Moreover, if one wishes to say that some few monasteries were also established in Pontus by Eustathius, of which he himself may rightfully be called the author, I shall not fight this; for I do not see what harm can be done to our opinion thereby. For I do not deny that Eustathius could have founded some monasteries here and there at the beginning: but I say, if the situation is so, it seems most certain to me that that Eustathian norm of living did not flourish in those monasteries for long, on account of the man's odious name, and that the Basilian [norm] was immediately substituted for it, on account of the fame of the most pious and learned writer.

§ XI. The eighth part, in which the *Penitentials* are discussed.

49. The *Penitentials*, concerning which I now gather to discuss, are not read in the same place in the Parisian edition: for it happened that those things which were thought to be true and genuine were separated from the false and adulterated. But I, who have held the same judgment regarding all of them, have decided that all ought to be published together: all the more because they are read continuously in one Royal codex. The order indeed demanded that I should treat of the *Penitentials* before the *Monastic Constitutions*, since I placed them before those [Constitutions]: but since the arguments which I used, partly in proving the...

Constitutions*, were of such a kind that some depended upon others, I decided to present them in a continuous discourse; for I feared that if they were torn from one another, their force and weight would be diminished. This, therefore, was the reason why I relegated the *Penitentials* to this place. Now, the most learned M. Combefis [(a)] is of the opinion that all these *Penitentials* are rather the work of Basil than of anyone else: but others attribute only a part of them to Basil. ^B I will not omit, however, to declare what I myself think of the *Penitentials*. But before I approach the subject, I thought it best, lest any confusion should arise, to divide those *Penitentials* into three classes. The first will comprise the eleven earlier *Penitentials* of our edition: the second, all the rest up to the sixtieth: the third will contain *Penitentials* of another kind, which have been inscribed by I know not whom, *Penitentials for the Canonesses* [Επιτίμια εἰς τὰς κανονικάς]. The *Penitentials* of the first and third class were placed in the Paris edition as genuine before the *Monastic Constitutions*: but the *Penitentials* of the second class were rejected after them as spurious. Having said this, let us enter upon the discussion. I truly believe that all the *Penitentials* are supposititious and spurious, yet in such a way that some are worse than others, and bear greater and more evident marks of being foreign. To which class I think those should be referred which we have placed in the second class: yet the *Penitentials* of the first and third class are themselves also, in my judgment, spurious and foreign: but, as I said, they bear smaller marks of forgery. I shall begin with the *Penitentials* of the first and third class; afterwards I will discuss the second class. First, no ancient writer ever made mention of *Penitentials* of this kind: secondly, they are found in only one or two old books. It is added that many things are either expressed in a novel way, or are accepted in a new manner. I will bring forward examples as they occur. Thus, then, in the fourth *Penitential* of the first class it is found written (p. 527): *If anyone speaks ill of [another] and contradicts... with all the joy in Christ, as one giving assurance to him*, where the word *plērophorein* [πληροφορεῖν] seems to be used for that which is, to be too confident in oneself, and to abound in one's own sense, when, however, with Basil it is accustomed to be used for *to persuade*, or *to make more certain* [(b)]. The words which I shall presently transcribe are taken from the eighth *Penitential*. There, however, it is read thus: *If, these things happening, he should neglect his own salvation, let such a one be separated from the community entirely; for a little leaven leavens the whole lump, according to him who said "the holy one."* That is to say, if by these deeds he should neglect his own salvation, let him who is of such a kind be separated entirely from the community, for *a little leaven corrupts the whole mass*, as the saint said: where two things do not seem to me to be Basilian. For although Basil everywhere institutes discourse about the community, or about the assembly of the brothers itself, nowhere, as I have already warned [(c)], has he used the word *synodia* in his genuine *Ascetics*. That phrase also, *kat' ton eiponta hagion* [κατὰ τὸν εἰπόντα ἅγιον], seems to me to be adulterate. For Basil, whenever he cites the apostle Paul, and he cites him very often, yet in no place did he simply say "the holy one." Indeed, even that epithet, *ho hagios* [ὁ ἅγιος], is nowhere found at all to have been used in Basil where there is discourse concerning the apostle Paul. And I could add that, when Basil brings forward certain testimonies from Scripture, he is not accustomed to name the sacred writers at the end of the period. Therefore, if he were the author of these *Penitentials*, omitting the word "holy," which he did not use when speaking of Paul, he would rather have written: *let such a one be separated from the community [synodia] entirely, according to him who said, "A little leaven," etc.*, let him be separated entirely who is of such a kind from the community, according to him who said, *“a little ferment,” etc.* Neither must we pass over in silence that the word *synodia* is repeated in the eleventh *penitential*: which repetition of an unusual word indicates the foreignness of these *Penitentials* more and more.

50. So far concerning the first class of *Penitentials*: now it remains to discourse of the third ^C class. And here too I shall finish in a few words. Truly I do not see any reason why the *Penitentials* of this class should be considered genuine, since the former have already been repudiated; for of all of them alike the ancients are silent. They are all found in only one or two old books. Furthermore, when I cast my eyes upon the second *penitential*, I cannot persuade myself that *Penitentials* of this kind are by Basil the Great. For in that one it is read thus (page 530): *She who has spoken blasphemy against one of the elder women who are entrusted to set in order the things in the nunnery [askētērion], let her be separated for one week.* That is: *If she has spoken evil against one of the sisters who are appointed to regulate the affairs of the nunnery, she shall be deprived of the fellowship of the others for one week.* For that word *askētērion* is said unusually, nor anywhere, I believe, has Basil used that word in his genuine *Ascetics*. So the thirteenth *penitential* is written, in such a way that the order of the words displeases not a little. Thus, however, it is read: *She who contemptuously, without [or: "pretending"] quietness does not fulfill the command, let her be separated*, etc., word for word: *She who contemptuously, with quietness as it were, does not fulfill the command*, etc. Where the little word *mē* [μὴ] is placed in a place not its own. For it would have been better to write thus: *She who contemptuously, not, as it were, with quietness, fulfills the command*, etc., which word for word could have been interpreted thus: *She who contemptuously, and not with quietness and silence, fulfills the command*, etc.; and in this way every word, both in Greek and in Latin, would have obtained its place. Nor does it please me any more what is read in the seventeenth *penitential*, in which it is ^D so

^A written: *If anyone after the dismissal of the meetings speaks to one of the women outside, let him be excommunicated*, etc. *She who, after the synaxes are finished, chats with some outside woman, let her be separated*, etc. That word, *synaxes*, is used contrary to Basil's custom: for even if he makes frequent mention of the holy communion, yet nowhere, so far as I know, does he use the word *synaxis*.

51. Now as to what pertains to the second class of *Epitimia* (penitentials), these are such that it is surprising that the most learned man Combefis should have recognized such *Epitimia* as true and genuine, or at any rate that he should have inclined very much to that opinion. For when he had said that the *Epitimia*, which are placed in various locations in the Paris edition, are read continuously in his old book, he speaks thus (a): *The Mazarin codex has included everything together, and has ascribed it to the same person, or to one who was thought to be Basil: or rather, to the true one, subjoining to them those opuscula which are commonly numbered among the genuine works of Basil the Great*. And in truth, as many words as there are in this class of *Epitimia*, almost as many are the marks of foreignness: which can easily be known by anyone from reading them. Here I wish to note that the first *epitimium* of this second class is the twelfth in our edition. In it, however, it is read thus (pag. 527): *If anyone should go out from the monastery, not having received a blessing, or having been dismissed by the archimandrite without a prayer, let him be excommunicated.* Surely I might dare to assert that these two words, *monastèrion* and *archimandritès*, which are read often not only here but also in other *epitimia*, are nowhere to be found in Basil. I could add that not a few other words occur here and there in those same *Epitimia*, which, if not all, at least most will still seem to be less Basiliano. Such are these: *archikounitis, kounion, apeu- logias, maphorion, erdinos, hèsychastès, ostiarion, archiebdomadarios*, which words, since they are either Latin, or very unusual, manifest a novelty and at the same time something foreign. And indeed if the Greek Glossary of Carolus Du Fresne du Cange is read, one will be able to see there that no small part of these *Epitimia* is quoted from a certain old Greek Penitential. I shall offer two examples of the thing I have mentioned from the word *hèsychastès*: if anyone desires to see more, he will be able to seek in the Glossary itself the other words I have just noted; and by this short and easy way he will find what he is looking for. In that Glossary, therefore, it is written thus, where an explanation of the word *hèsychastès* is given: *If anyone be found speaking in the cells, except for those who inhabit them, or the hesychasts, let him be deprived of the blessing*. Again: *If anyone excessively, after the visit following the morning prayers, enters the hospital, except for the hesychasts and those entrusted with the care, let him be deprived of the blessing*. But the first of these *Epitimia*, in our edition, is the ^B forty-fourth; the second, the forty-fourth and forty-fifth. From which it is sufficiently understood that *Epitimia* of this kind are to be attributed not to Basil, but to some more recent writer.

§ XI. The ninth part, where are weighed two opuscula, which Combefis not so long ago published in his revised Basil as new and genuine.

52. The first of these opuscula begins as follows: *Our Lord Jesus Christ commanding: "What I say to you in the darkness, say in the light; and what you heard in the ear, preach upon the housetops"; and the Apostle, showing the terrible judgment of silence, etc.,* etc. Thus it ends: *"That there may be fulfilled in you that which was said by the Apostle, that 'These things commend to faithful men, who shall be competent also to teach others'*." Here the question is whether this opusculum was written by him who edited the so-called *Ascetic*, or by someone who wished to be falsely held as the author of the *Ascetic*. It is helpful to remember, however, that the name *Ascetic* does not properly designate all ascetic writings, but only the booklets *On Judgment* and *On Faith*, the *Moralia*, and the *Rules*, both the shorter and the longer. From which it happens that if this little lucubration is true and genuine, it must necessarily be attributed either to Basil, or to Eustathius, since either the one or the other is believed by all to have published the *Ascetic* in the way I have mentioned. Combefis in no way doubts that this little lucubration is true and genuine: but Tillemont (c) indeed held it for true, though in such a way that he did not obscurely indicate that he was not far from the opinion of those who thought otherwise. For he says that he had seen in it little of the sparks and elegance of Basil. I, however, will not say that I see little of the Basilian style in this opusculum: but I will rather affirm that I find nothing at all in it which might smack even a little of the phrasing of such a great man. The discourse is humble and ^C base, and abject: the construction of words in some places is nil: the sentences are obscure. That the discourse is abject and humble, no man, I think, who has read this little epistle will deny. Nay, even that it is so, will easily be able to be understood by anyone from the fragments which I shall presently transcribe. I shall now set forth one or two places, to prove that the construction of the words is nowhere of any quality. So, therefore, did the author write: *"But there shall be added to me the judgment, first indeed for the cause and the danger of such great of the Churches ^D of God and for each one toward*..."

...to write to your common love in Christ, etc. I am willing, therefore, if anyone remains doubtful and hesitant, that he should compare this epistle with the genuine Epistles of Basil, and immediately, unless I am very much mistaken, he will notice that it differs entirely from them in clarity, elegance, refinement, and, to use one word, in its whole style of writing. Certainly, when I read it at the very beginning: "Our Lord Jesus Christ commanding: 'The things I say to you...' and the Apostle showing the fearful judgment of silence, through the things he says to the Ephesian presbyters: 'I testify to you this day,' etc." When our Lord Jesus Christ commands: "What I say to you..." and the Apostle shows the fearful judgment of silence, as he addresses the Ephesian presbyters thus, "I testify to you this day," etc.; I, for my part, easily persuade myself that this little epistle was written by someone who had diligently read the Rules of Basil (for in them Basil sometimes speaks in this way), but I think this man, whoever he is, never read the Epistles of the same Basil, or at any rate could not imitate them. For I would venture to affirm that there is no epistle of Basil's which begins in this or a similar manner: "Our Lord Jesus Christ commanding," and "the Apostle," etc. And indeed, in the Greek index of the Basilian Epistles which is placed at the end of the Paris edition, I find nothing of the sort.

53. Now it is my pleasure to propose a certain conjecture of my own regarding this ^B epistle, but if I may first note, this same little epistle, which Combefisius published as new, had long ago been published in the Venetian edition. I suspect, therefore, that these little letters are not ancient, but were devised and expressed long after the age of Basil from Photius' *Bibliotheca*. Regarding which matter, so that each person may form their own opinion, I shall submit the words of both writers. Thus, therefore, Photius speaks [(b)]: "Now his first discourse sets forth what is the cause and the danger of such great discord and dissension among the Churches of God and of each person toward another; second, that every transgression of a command of God is severely and fearfully punished, and the proof from the Scriptures; third, concerning our pious faith, that is, our pure and sincere confession toward the Most Holy Trinity." The second [discourse], for instance, sets forth a short summary of the Christian character, ^C and ^D again a character similar to those preceding the discourse. Then, etc. Therefore, his first book contains what the cause is, and how great is the danger of such dissension and discord, both among the Churches of God and among individual men themselves: then, that every transgression of a divine commandment is vehemently and terribly punished, and this is demonstrated from the holy Scriptures: thirdly, concerning our catholic faith, or our pure and sincere confession of the most holy Trinity. But the second book, [discusses] the Christian

^A way of life, and sets forth in summary and briefly a sort of description of man; and again, a similar description of those who are set over the teaching of the Gospel. Then, etc. Now it is written in the little epistle: "And there shall be added to me the judgment, firstly [concerning] the cause and the danger of such great discord and dissension among the Churches of God, and of each one towards another; secondly, the proofs from the divinely inspired Scripture concerning Him who severely avenges every transgression of God’s command..." After these things, it will contain the pious confession of God and the Father, and of His only-begotten Son and God, and of the Holy Spirit... upon these points, the discourse will attempt to give us, as it were, a summary and concise character of a Christian, having a form of definition from the holy Scriptures, and again a character similar to those who are set over the word, etc. Hence, truly, I shall add, according to the reasoning of this matter; first indeed what is the cause, and what the danger of such great dissension and discord of the Churches of God, and of one with another; then next, certain proofs and reasons from divine Scripture, by which it is concluded that He severely punishes with terrible strictness every transgression of the command of God.... To these, the book will embrace pious confession concerning God and the Father, and His only-begotten Son and God, and also the Holy Spirit... and besides, it will attempt to give in a form of definition from the holy Scriptures a compendious and brief character, as it were, of a Christian man; and again, a character akin to the leaders of the discourse, etc. I would wish, therefore, that the words of both writers be compared ^B between themselves: and if anyone shall have done this, he will notice the same words employed in both places, here and there, such as *aitia* (cause), *kindynos* (danger), *graphe* (Scripture), *apodeixis* (proof), *parabasis* (transgression), *entole* (command), *sphodros* (severely), *phoberos* (terribly), *ekdikein* (to avenge), and on account of this, perhaps, he will begin to suspect that this or that writer was a plagiarist. But if he shall have considered a little more attentively both that phrase, "of such great discord and dissension of the Churches of God, and of each one towards another" (for thus it must plainly be read, as in the Venetian edition, and not "towards the work" as in Combefis), and that other, "as it were a summary and concise character of a Christian... and again a character similar to those who are set over the word," he will easily, I think, persuade himself that one has openly taken some things word for word from the other. But to whom will it seem likely that the most learned man Photius, and he a man most skilled in writing, had borrowed not a few things word for word from I know not whom? Which will seem the less probable because this little epistle is very poorly written. It remains, therefore, that the writer of the little epistle be called ^C a plagiarist. But perhaps someone will ask with what intention this little epistle was written. I think the man, being otherwise simple and good, who saw that the *Asceticism* was attributed by some, on account of the passage in Sozomen, to Eustathius, wished to attempt whether his epistle could be taken for a true epistle of Basil, and so it would follow that all, at length, would with one accord confess Basil to be the author of the writing of which I have just spoken. A few words, unless I wish to do work already done, I shall say concerning the other little work of Combefis. For this also has long since been published in the Parisian edition, but, however, in such a way that it is inscribed differently there, [and] differently in Combefis. For thus it is inscribed in the Parisian edition: Ὁμιλία ΛΑ'. Λόγος περὶ τοῦ αὐτεξουσίου. "Homily XXXI. A discourse on free will": but in Combefis ^D (b), in this way, Τοῦ αὐτοῦ πρόλογος ἀσκητικός. "The ascetic prologue of the same." The variety of the inscription could have deceived Combefis, who, as he had amended other homilies in his edited Basil, had also amended this very thirty-first homily in certain places: however these things may be, we judge that nothing need be said here concerning this little Combefisian work, since we have already in advance, when we were discussing that same thirty-first discourse, placed it among the spurious and adulterated works (c). Here, at last, I shall set a seal upon these ascetic disputes, if I first add this one thing, that the first little book was published by Combefis from two old Royal manuscripts, and the second from one similarly Royal manuscript (d).

§ XII. Whether two books *On Baptism* should be attributed to Basil, or not.

54. [Regarding that which] the most learned man Ludovicus Dupinus (e) [says], that these two books *On Baptism* are nowhere praised among the ancients, nothing truer could have been said; but that which he added, that they are called into question by no one, it is certain was not said truly. For Combefis held them himself to be suspect: whose ^C words I shall not regret to relate (f). Therefore, the most learned man, having noticed in these books certain adverbs, such as *horistikōs* (definitively), *polytropōs* (in many ways), *entreptikōteron* (more persuasively), *phanerōs* (manifestly), and many others of the same kind, spoke thus: "Basil is more affected by these adverbs in this whole work than he is wont to be, nor is he most like himself, and pleasing in his native purity; and, can any suspicion arise from these [adverbs] to trouble the mind regarding the *Asceticism*? Let the reader see, and let him draw a conjecture from the whole character of the speech and the more austere doctrine." Tillemont, a man most skilled and also most diligent, had indeed seen this passage of Combefis: but he did not for that reason reject the common opinion. Nay, he even says that he is more and more confirmed in his own opinion by those critical notes of Combefis. But that these things may be better understood, I shall seek the matter from deeper down. It is helpful to remember, therefore, that Combefis attributes the so-called *Asceticism* not to Basil, but to Eustathius of Sebaste, and among other arguments which the learned man uses to defend his opinion, this also is found, that the writer of the *Asceticism* cites Scripture in such a way that he prefixes certain adverbs, such as *horistikōs*, *saphōs* (clearly), *apophantikōs* (declaratively), ^D and others of the same genus: which use of adverbs is null in other writings of Basil. Since

^A in this way Combefisis [a] observed identical adverbs scattered both in the *Ascetic* work and in these books *On Baptism*, he suspected that both works pertained to the same author, that is, to Eustathius of Sebaste, whom, as I just said, he makes the author of the *Ascetic* work. Tillemont, however, who himself also noticed the adverbs in question both in the *Ascetic* work and in those two books *On Baptism*, concluded from this likewise that the author of both works was the same: but since he had once attributed the *Ascetic* work to Basil, he necessarily had to assign these books *On Baptism* to him as well. Nor will I deny that those most learned men, Combefisis and Tillemont, judged in a way consistent and appropriate to their own principles, and that at first glance they seem to rely on an argument sufficiently probable to defend their opinion. For since it is certain that not a few adverbs of the same genus are found both in the *Ascetic* work and in these controversial books *On Baptism*; certainly, unless we are more attentive, our mind will incline toward attributing both works to one and the same writer. ^B Yet, if anyone reads the writings under discussion a little more attentively, he will, I think, easily confess that the argument I mentioned is of no moment or weight. For all those adverbs are not always accepted in the same sense in both works. For while that word, *horistikōs*, is always taken in the *Ascetic* work for that which is "speaking in a decretory way," yet in these books *On Baptism* it is sometimes used so differently that the very diversity gives no obscure indication of a different author. Surely, there it is sometimes taken for that which is "to speak strictly and more concisely." And I am not the author of that interpretation, but Combefisis himself [b], who, speaking about those books which now are being called into controversy and about their author, wrote thus: "He calls it *horistikōs* everywhere, as if by indicating and strictly commanding. And thus what he says, *horistikōs kai polytropos* [strictly and in many ways], refers now to indicating and strictly handing down doctrine, now to explaining in various ways." Moreover, I have warned somewhere that such adverbs, which are read in the *Ascetic* work, are not all that frequent, if the length of the work is considered, although they are used so frequently ^C in these books *On Baptism* that often one can be moved to nausea not less by their abundance than by the novelty and unusualness of the words. Therefore, what those most learned men whom I mentioned brought forward as a firm argument is worth nothing or little for defending their opinion. But lest I seem to pass over anything, I will frankly admit that another argument can be proposed, to which it would be very difficult to respond, and of such a kind that it might seem very strong to those who are content with some similarity of style in judging. It is clear that this formula of speech, *hē pros Theon euarestēsis* (the pleasing of God), is not a little familiar to the author of the *Ascetic* work: of which thing I will bring forward two or three examples, intending to bring forth more if I wished to follow the opinion of those who attribute the *Ascetic* work and these two books *On Baptism* to the same writer. Thus, therefore, it is written in the *Shorter Rules* (reg. 175): «Καὶ ἐὰν δοξάζηται ἓν μέλος, κατὰ σκοπὸν, δηλονότι τῆς πρὸς Θεὸν εὐαρεστήσεως, συγχαίρει πάντα τὰ μέλη,» *And if one member is glorified, for the purpose, clearly, of the pleasing of God, all the members rejoice together*. ^D And a little later the writer spoke thus (reg. 179): «Ἐὰν ἄρα δυσωπηθεὶς τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ χρηστότητα, προτραπῇ εἰς ἐπιμέλειαν τῆς πρὸς αὐτὴν εὐαρεστήσεως,» etc. *If perhaps, having been moved by the kindness of God, and stimulated thereby, he strives to please Him*, etc. And not long after it is read thus (reg. 187): «Ὃταν ἀμετεωρίστως καὶ τεταμένῃ ἐπιθυμίᾳ τῆς πρὸς Θεὸν εὐαρεστήσεως,» etc. *Then with assiduous and vehement desire of pleasing God*, etc. Now I shall subjoin just as many examples from the two books *On Baptism*. These, therefore, are the writer's words (lib. 1, c. 1, n. 1): «Κατὰ σκοπὸν τῆς πρὸς Θεὸν εὐαρεστήσεως,» *according to the purpose of pleasing God*. Again he speaks thus (lib. 1, c. 2, n. 17): «Δύναμις τῆς πρὸς Θεὸν εὐαρεστήσεως, δικαιοσύνης δωρεά,» etc. *A power by which we are made acceptable to God and welcome, a gift of righteousness*, etc. And in another place it is found written thus: «Τὰ μὲν νόσον θεραπεύοντα, τὰ δὲ προκοπὴν ἐμποιοῦντα πρὸς τελείωσιν ἄγουσαν τῆς πρὸς Θεὸν εὐαρεστήσεως,» etc. *Partly curing a disease, partly bringing about such a progress as leads us to perfectly pleasing God*, etc. Certainly from these and similar places, which can be read in the very sources, it seems to be proven with sufficient probability that the *Ascetic* work and these controversial books *On Baptism* pertain to the same author. Since, however, this will perhaps seem slight to some, I will bring forward another example, which may be held as demonstrative by men who otherwise might not be so very credulous. It is evident from what has been said that the author of the *Ascetic* work is so delighted by this formula of speech, in which the words *plērophoria* or *plērophorein* are used to signify some entire persuasion, that he is not more delighted by any other; nor is it necessary to put here any example of this thing, since we have referred to many above [d]. It is certain that the same kind of speaking is found used so frequently in the two books *On Baptism* also, that it occurs passim even in them. But lest it seem that what was said was false, I will either bring forward many examples, or at least point them out. Thus, therefore, the author wrote (lib. 1, c. 1, n. 5): «Στοχοζόμενος δὲ τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀσθενείας, καὶ δι' ὑποδειγμάτων ηὐδόκησε βεβαιῶσαι καὶ ἡμῶν τὰς καρδίας ἐν πληροφορίᾳ τῆς ἀληθείας.» *But considering our weakness, he willed to confirm even our hearts through examples in the certain persuasion of the truth.* Not far off he spoke thus (lib. 1, c. 2, n. 1): «Πλὴν δὲ καὶ βεβαιότερον ἐκ τῆς περὶ τῶν ἱερέων καὶ τῶν προσφερομένων ζώων εἰς

εἰς θυσίαν ἀκριβολείας ἔστι πληροφορηθῆναι. Yet we can be even more firmly convinced on this matter by an accurate consideration of the priests and the animals to be sacrificed. He wrote again in this way (lib. 1, c. 2, n. 10): Ἐν πληροφορίᾳ τῆς ἀληθείας, etc., “in the indubitable persuasion of the truth,” etc. It is read in the same way in another place (lib. 1, c. 2, n. 13): Ὅπερ ἐν πληροφορίᾳ ἀληθείας δι' ἐπιμελείας σπουδαιοτέρας φυλάσσοντες, etc. But if we have kept these things more diligently in the certain persuasion of the truth, etc. Those who wish for more may read chapter 2 of book 1, numbers 14 and 15, where two examples of the words I have mentioned are found; likewise chapter 3 of the same book, number 1, as well as question 6 of book 2, number 1, and question 8, numbers 1 and 9. Now, one may argue as follows: If it happens that certain forms of expression, which in some way may seem singular, are found quite often in two works, it almost always follows that both works are attributed to the same writer. Since, therefore, that mode of speaking by which the words *plerophorein* or *plerophoria* are used in the signification of some complete persuasion is in a certain way singular, and it occurs throughout both the *Asceticon* and the two books *On Baptism*, it seems to follow that the same person should be called the author of both works. But, as I have already warned (a), arguments of this kind drawn from a certain similarity of style are not as valid as they are commonly thought to be. For unless other things also agree and support them, there is nothing at all of moment or strength in them: which we shall now attempt to show. For even though we might see that the *Asceticon*, of which Basil is the rightful parent, agrees in some similarity of style with the two books *On Baptism* (b), we believe that it can in no way be doubted that these books have been falsely attributed to the most holy Father up to now. And indeed, either it has never been permissible—though it is so very often—to count some work among the spurious and adulterine ones because of a difference in style, or else the books we are discussing can deservedly be held as foreign. I am mistaken if the whole work does not differ in its entire manner of speaking from the Basilian style. Indeed, wherever some word is found that may seem to have some similarity to the Basilian style, there are other words joined to it in the same place by which its foreign nature is openly declared.

55. Nor are arguments for ^D spuriousness rare, but common everywhere. For in these books a certain general fault can be noted, of which no page is free. This fault, which I mention, is a certain continuous repetition of the same words or phrases, which is least of all becoming to an orator as copious as Basil. And indeed, whenever there is mention of either the apostle Paul, or John the Baptist, or the Lord himself, or God, you find there very often the addition: τοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ λαλοῦντος, “who spoke in Christ.” [Or:] Οὗ μείζων ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν οὐδείς, “than whom there is no one greater among those born of women.” [Or:] Τοῦ ὑπὲρ ^A ἡμῶν ἀποθανόντος καὶ ἐγερθέντος· τοῦ μονογενοῦς Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος, “who died and rose again for us; of the only-begotten Son of the living God,” who for us died and rose again: who is the only-begotten Son of the Living God. [Or:] Καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ, “and of his Christ” (p. 651). I would not wish what I have said, or what I am about to say, to be taken in a bad sense. The words Ἰησοῦς Χριστός are also repeated everywhere, sometimes both together, sometimes one of them. Basil knew, nor are we ignorant of it, that there is nothing better or holier than the words I have reviewed: but yet he restrained himself from too frequent a repetition of them, because, I think, the continuous repetition of such words would contribute nothing to instruction: a thing which the most pious Father, whenever he was writing, proposed to himself above all else. To this same *tautology* belongs that manner of writing, by which the word *anankaion* is placed here and there in these books. Thus, therefore, in a very short space we find (p. 633): Καὶ ὥσπερ δι' ἐσόπτρου καὶ ἐν αἰνίγματι ὁδηγούμενοι εἰπεῖν ἀναγκαῖον, “And as if by a mirror and in an enigma, being led to say it is necessary,” etc. And immediately: Ἀναγκαῖον δὲ λογίζομαι, etc., “but I think it is necessary,” etc. And not much later: Ἀναγκαῖον καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐξητασμένως καὶ ἐπιτετηρημένως προσέχειν ἑκάστῳ ῥητῷ, “it is necessary that we also pay attention carefully and diligently to each saying,” and in the same way most other things. Frequent indeed in that work is the manner of writing I have just mentioned, but more frequent still in the same work is that type of speaking (pag. 656), καὶ πολλὰ τοιαῦτα, “and many such things,” or, which is the same, καὶ πολλὰ ἄλλα ὁμοίως, “and many other things likewise,” or some similar expressions. Therefore, when the writer had quoted some words from holy Scripture at any point, he continues thus: καὶ πολλὰ τοιαῦτα, “and many such things.” And with a few words interposed, he spoke thus: καὶ πολλὰ τοιαῦτα εὕροις ἂν παρὰ τοῖς εὐαγγελισταῖς, etc., “and you might find many of that kind even among the evangelists,” etc., where it can be noted in passing that four equivalent examples can be found in the three pages that follow immediately. An immoderate use of the word *paideuein* can be referred to the same fault: which I also wish to be said of the word *phylassein*. The use of prepositions, too, is so frequent (c) that it could in no way be suitable to the most excellent orator Basil, whose speech was as admirable to all for the variety of its phrasing as it was for its subject matter. I would wish that each person might test for himself whether what I have said is true. I hope that such a number of examples of the matters I have noted will be found that there will be no one who will not willingly admit that a work of this kind, in which the same words are perpetually repeated, in no way befits the most skilled master of eloquence, Basil. To the same point returns that sort of forest of genitives, such that in this work nothing but a certain jumbled heap of the case I mentioned is seen. And indeed, the participles in these books *On Baptism* are adapted to the rest of the discourse in such a way that in almost every verse a genitive oc-

-^B currence of transition is frequently used. But nothing has seemed to me more novel or unusual than the constant and perpetual repetition of these words. I can affirm that the words I have noted are not infrequently found twice, three, four, or even five times on one and the same page. This frequent iteration of the same words makes it seem to you that you are reading not a standard book, but a kind of litany in which the same thing is repeated six hundred times, or—if I may be permitted to speak so of serious matters—to hear some parish priest who continuously drones into the ear of a dying man, "Our Lord Jesus Christ." Indeed, I know and confess that the names I have pointed out are all the best and most holy; but it is not for that reason forbidden for one to say that such frequent repetition is unusual in Basil, and that from it one may deservedly conclude that these books *On Baptism* do not pertain to him. And since, perhaps, unless some example were placed before the eyes, it would seem incredible to many how frequently those words are repeated in a short space, I have decided to transcribe one or another passage in its entirety, so that from these, judgment may be passed upon the others. Therefore, the author wrote somewhere (p. 629) as follows: "...for the sake of the hope of eternal life and the heavenly kingdom, and the judgments of just recompense for those who either commit what is forbidden or reject what is approved, unto eternal punishment, as well as for those who have lived worthily ^C of the Gospel of God in the sound faith which works through the love of Christ, for the sake of the hope of eternal life and the heavenly kingdom, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Chapter II. How one is baptized with that baptism which is commended in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ

When our Lord Jesus Christ commanded us to love one another as He Himself loved us, and taught us through the Apostle Paul that we should bear with one another in love—this precept of your piety in Christ concerning the most glorious baptism according to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, I received with a ready mind, etc. Let those who are experienced in handling the volumes of Basil say, I ask, whether they have ever read anything of this kind in his genuine writings. And yet, not content with these, the author immediately continued on this same page (p. 629) as follows: "For so the Lord Himself and our God Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the living God, commanded His disciples..." But to be silent now about that repetition of certain words, who does not see that the discourse is disjointed and does not flow smoothly, where *in love, in hope, by love, in hope*, etc., is repeated? Furthermore, when the writer had already written a little before, what, I ask, was the point of repeating the same words immediately? But I return to my purpose. ^D Another passage, therefore, which I would like to transcribe in full, is this (p. 646): "For then, as one having put on the Son of God, he is deemed worthy of the perfect degree, and is baptized into the name of the Father of Him—our Lord Jesus Christ—who, according to the testimony of John, gave the power to become children of God, God saying: *Go out from their midst, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing: and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters*, saith the Lord Almighty, by the grace of Him—our Lord Jesus Christ—the only-begotten Son of the living God, in whom neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love, as it is written: by which is successfully accomplished in us what was brought forward in connection with the commandment of baptism by the same Lord of ours Jesus Christ, who says..."

^A Son of the living God, etc. In another place (p. 646): "By the grace of the same Lord of ours Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the living God, etc." [Aliquando post (p. 654)]: "Namely, unto the indelible memory of Jesus Christ our Lord, who died for us and rose again, etc." [Ibidem]: "In that he, not through the memory of Jesus Christ our Lord who for us died and rose again, preserves what was said, etc." [Nec ita multo infra (p. 635)]: "As the truthful Lord and our God Jesus Christ promised, etc." In this very place: "The inquiry, even if it is altogether unworthy of anyone who has undertaken to confess our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the living God, through whom all things were made, both visible and invisible, etc." This question, although it is altogether unworthy of anyone who does not refuse to confess our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, through whom all things both visible and invisible were made, etc. Toward the end (p. 672): "If our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the living God, through whom all things were made, both visible and invisible, having life, etc." ^C Si Dominus noster, Jesus Christus unigenitus Filius Dei viventis, per quem omnia tum visibilia tum invisibilia facta sunt, qui vitam habet, etc. In the very end (p. 673): "As the truthful Lord and our God Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the living God, promised, etc." But Basil, if ever (which he did more sparingly) he used these words, "Our Lord Jesus Christ," nowhere, so far as I know, conjoined to them the additions which we have just seen.

56. Now I shall propose other things which do not diverge much from the preceding. When the author wishes to bring forward any testimony of Holy Scripture, he uses such a circuit of words that in this too I seem to myself to see a new mark of strangeness. And that I may place the matter before your own eyes, I take refuge in examples. So therefore the author writes (p. 660): "As our Lord Jesus Christ himself, the only-begotten Son of the living God, said: Blessed are those who hunger, etc." Again (p. 671): "It is manifest that we are instructed much more securely, remembering the same Lord of ours Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the living God, when John the Baptist said to him: I have need to be baptized by you, and you come to me; and he answered: Suffer it to be so now, etc." It is clear that all things are learned by us more certainly if we [consider] the Lord himself...

the only-begotten Son of the living God, through whom all things were made, both visible and invisible, confessing, "I am not sent," etc. Nor does the writer only use a greater apparatus of words when he introduces Christ the Lord speaking, than Basil is accustomed to do; but he does the same thing when he praises the apostle Paul. And because there are few who seek such passages in the very sources, I judged that they should be written down here. Thus, therefore, it is read somewhere in these books (p. 625): "He who does sin," etc. Paul, who speaks in Christ, also testifies to this, writing: "The servant," etc. Somewhat later (p. 631): "Paul, the apostle... who speaks in Christ, testifies... sometimes saying determinately that the one speaking in Christ delivers dogmatically," saying: "Paul the apostle, who speaks in Christ, saying: If with tongues," etc. And Paul the apostle, who speaks in Christ, says: "Whether you eat," etc. Paul speaks determinately, saying: "Do not communicate," etc. The author somewhere (p. 639) wrote "in Christ speaking," "in Christ prophesying." I would wish the longer as well as the shorter Rules of Basil to be read diligently: in which, unless I am much mistaken, this longer method of citing is found only once (reg. 20, n. 2); though it is certain that six hundred testimonies from the Epistles of Paul are brought forward in the Rules. Certainly, if the same author had written all the Rules and the two books *On Baptism*, I think it would follow, having considered the relative length of both works, that the method of citing I mentioned would be found fifty times in the Rules. Nor would I easily believe that the same kind of expression would be found more frequently in other books of Basil. I could indeed indicate other places where I might show that the writer, when he made mention of John the Baptist, used an equal circumlocution of words (pp. 632, 638, 658); but lest I seem longer, I omitted them knowingly. From all of which it is sufficiently clear that the perpetual repetition of these expressions in these books is a fault; which, if anyone does not wish to blame in the writer, he will not, I hope, deny—if he reads the genuine writings of Basil a little more attentively—that this was done contrary to his custom. When I was reading these books, it came into my mind that the writer feared that the fault of tautology might be objected to him, and for that reason wished to excuse himself by the example of the Apostle. For he writes thus (p. 639): "But since the Apostle did not ignore that repetition is useful to the hearers for ^B complete confirmation, he even stabilizes more the persuasion of truth by the repetition of the same things." Let the learned see if an excuse of this kind is to be accepted.

57. There remains another argument, which also pertains to the manner of citing the Scriptures. It is therefore worth the effort to point out that this formula for citing Scripture, *in the saying*, *in the writing*, or certain similar ones, were the most familiar of all to the author of these books, and they pleased him greatly, if anything else did. I will indeed bring forward many examples of this matter into the midst, but yet in such a way that I will relate them as briefly as I can. Thus, therefore, the author writes somewhere (p. 625): "In the saying," etc., when he says: "He who does sin," etc. He continues thus (p. 626): "In the saying, Wretched man that I am," etc., when he says: "Wretched man," etc. In another place (p. 630 bis) he speaks in this way: "In these words, There is something here greater than the temple," etc. In the same place: "In the saying," where he said: "For they commended much," etc. Again (p. 635): "In the saying," etc., when he says: "He who knew the will," etc. Then (p. 639): "In the saying," etc., when he says: "Whoever ministers to me," etc. A little later (p. 640): "In the saying," etc., when he says: "For if we have been planted together," etc. Then (p. 642): "In the saying, For the wages of sin," etc., in these words: "For the wages of sin," etc. Nor much later (p. 645): "In the saying," etc., while he says: "For he himself is our peace," etc. Somewhat lower (p. 649 bis): "In the saying, In whom we have redemption," etc., where he says: "In whom we have redemption," etc. Soon (p. 649 bis): "In the saying," etc., in these words: "Do all things without murmurings," etc. In this very place: "In the saying," etc., in these words: "My food is," etc. Immediately (p. 650): "In the saying, For the love of Christ constrains us," etc. Lower down (p. 657): "In the saying, that Everyone who sees," etc., when he says: "Everyone who sees," etc. Not far off (p. 661 bis): "In the saying, Blessed is that servant," etc., in these words: "Blessed is that servant," etc. On the same page: "In the saying, Hear," etc.

^A And the nature itself, when it says, "Annon natura ipsa [Is nature itself not...]," etc. In the following (p. 662 bis): "In saying, Neither in Jerusalem, nor in this mountain," etc., with these words: "Neither in Jerusalem, nor in this mountain," etc. Ibidem (p. 666): "In saying to all, 'But I beseech you'," etc., as it says to all indeed: "But I beseech you," etc. In this very place: "In saying, 'For I say through grace'," etc., where it says: "For I say through grace," etc. Finally: "In not saying 'this', but 'such a one'," when it did not say "with this," but "with such a one." From which it may be understood by anyone that what I said was not spoken rashly: but that the very method of citing Scripture, which I pointed out, greatly pleased the writer. Basil, moreover, was so little delighted by that same kind of discourse, that he (Reg. 207) used it only once, and no more, as far as I know. Behold, therefore, you have two writers, of whom one had become accustomed to use a certain formula of speaking familiarly; but the other, contrary to his custom, for some unknown reason, once usurped this particular mode of speaking. Certainly, if Basil were the author of those books, in which the Scriptures are cited here and there as I said above, he would not even have thought of citing them in the same way thousands of times in his other writings. For writers, if they are delighted by any kind of discourse, are accustomed to use it when the occasion arises. And I could also add many other things to the examples I have produced, from which it would plainly appear that the author, even while not citing the words of Scripture, often used a similar mode of speaking in his books. For he speaks thus not far from the beginning (p. 625): "While being liberated from the dominion of sins." And not long after (p. 626): "In saying he had done all things which had been said by the Lord," and not a few others of that kind (a); whereas Basil either never or very rarely wrote in this way. But lest the very abundance of examples be troublesome and disagreeable, I decided that such places should be omitted.

58. Here I can collect a few things from many, by which it can be confirmed that the two books *On Baptism* ought not to be attributed to Basil the Great. Immediately that statement occurs (p. 632): "As much as the Holy Spirit differs from water, so much does he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit excel, clearly, the one who baptizes in water, and the baptism itself; so that," etc. Literally: "How much more excellent is the Holy Spirit than water, by that much clearly does he excel who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, him who baptizes in water, and the baptism itself; so that," etc. That "and the baptism itself," placed in this way, does not please; another, more skillful writer would have explained the matter in more words. A little later (p. 635): ^B "In hope of eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom, just as through one, he says, trespass into all men unto condemnation, so also through one unto justification of life," which words the ancient interpreter, having believed them to be perturbed, translated this passage in such a way that he completely changed the order of the Greek words. For he interpreted it thus: "In hope of eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord, by whose one justification into all men unto justification of life, just as through one trespass into all men unto condemnation." In which I do not reproach the interpreter, but the author rather, who himself first could rightly be believed to have perturbed something in this place. Ibidem (no. 10): "And as it was said before, let us be led by more familiar sayings and things to the understanding ^C of the saving (doctrine), and the doctrine in baptism": of the saving (doctrine) and the doctrine in baptism, "Now indeed according to the measure of the incarnation, conforming the inner man in the newness of life, and in obedience unto death in sure persuasion of the truth of his words: so that," etc. Literally: "Now indeed conformable to the measure of the incarnation, keeping the inner man in newness of life, and in obedience unto death, in full persuasion of the truth of his own words, that," etc. Here, besides the fact that the sentence is not completed, that phrase, "according to the measure of the incarnation," does not seem to be said very fittingly. You would say most excellently "the measure of faith": perhaps not item "the measure of the incarnation." The rest belongs to a man who does not know how to connect words with words elegantly. Nor here alone, but in the whole work the parts of a sentence are almost never joined together except by the aid of prepositions. Perhaps ^D those things which we find written a little later (p. 641) will seem somewhat worse: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, becoming for us a curse." The old interpreter, to whose mind an inept ratio of speaking had cast shadows, had translated: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become for us a curse." But since the *much* of sin had preceded, it is manifest that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ has accomplished this, as is written. I should prefer it to be written thus, and in this way all obscurity would be avoided: "But we are liberated with far greater right from sin, namely by grace, etc." Nor does the author, who wrote as follows (p. 662), seem to have spoken fittingly in the place which I shall soon transcribe: "Of the Apostle instructing us... and through the orderly arrangement enforced in the members of the body one toward another for the comely and safe (purpose), ordering in us our (state) of being well-pleasing to God one toward another in love."

^A of Christ Jesus for good order in the diversity of gifts." He says, etc., which words I have cited to make it more evident how the discourse is both perplexed and intricate, and how it redundantly overflows with an excessive and inept abundance of prepositions. Not far from the end, it is written thus (p. 672): "He calls, when it is (a matter of) love for God and His Christ, to fulfill the commandment of the Lord, who said: 'A new commandment,' etc." What is, I ask, that "it is love to fulfill"? What is that, "for God and His Christ," placed thus without any conjunction? At the very least, an article should have been added, in this manner: *for God* ... *love*. I shall note here, as if in passing, that almost the entire fragment, which we have added in the Appendix from a single Royal codex to a certain oration, is taken from the third chapter of the first book *On Baptism*. The beginning of the oration of which I spoke is (in App. p. 583): "He who is baptized is baptized into the Trinity, into the Father and Son and Holy Spirit." He who is baptized is baptized into the Trinity, into the Father and into the Son and into the Holy Spirit: but of the fragment (p. 585): "Since by the grace of God the good, by the remembrance of the words of the only-begotten Son of the living God," etc. But indeed, from the grace of the best God, the remembrance of the words of the only-begotten Son of the living God, etc. As here, so also elsewhere, God is often named "living" in these books; I see no reason for this very frequent repetition, unless perhaps the writer feared that some might think God to be dead; and on that account, he judged it necessary to affirm more often that He lives.

§ XIII. *On the Liturgy of Basil, and on three Latin opuscula, and on a certain ancient interpretation of Rufinus of certain prayers.*

59. Many have written so much concerning the Liturgy of Basil, that if I wished to add anything new, I would seem to myself to be misusing my time. However, all readily admit that a certain Liturgy of Basil once existed. Witnesses of this fact, both ancient and modern, are cited: Proclus, Peter the Deacon, Leontius of Byzantium, the bishops gathered in Trullo, the Fathers of the seventh council, Cabasilas, Marcus of Ephesus. I see, therefore, that it is sufficiently agreed upon among the learned today that some Liturgy was written by Basil the Great: but it is equally agreed among them that it has not reached us intact and pure, but rather that it is in some places either mutilated, or expanded, or finally changed in various ways. And indeed, Peter the Deacon mentions a certain prayer which, it is established, does not exist in our copies. ^B Among others, however, who in our age have discussed the Liturgy of Basil, there may be listed William Cave, Tillemont, Louis Ellies Dupin, Johann Albert Fabrici, Casimir Oudin, and that most illustrious and also most learned man, Eusebius Renaudot: whose writings, for those who are curious about liturgical matters, can be read.

60. To speak of the three Latin opuscula—here is the first title: *A Treatise of St. Basil on consolation in adversities*, by an uncertain but ancient translator: of the second, *A salutary and erudite work of the same St. Father Basil, on the praise of the solitary life*, by an uncertain translator: of the third, *An admonition of St. Basil, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, to his spiritual son*, by an uncertain translator. That which is read in the inscription of any opusculum, "by an uncertain translator," is not from us, but from those who prepared the ancient editions. For we judge that it can be rightly doubted whether any of these short compositions ever existed in Greek: nay rather, unless we are very much mistaken, it can be held as certain that these three opuscula were composed by Latins. Mentioning the first opusculum, the most learned Johann Albert Fabrici writes thus (1): "It is not Basil's, nor is it translated from the Greek, but was written in Latin by Victor, who, after Rusticus, was bishop of Cartenna in Mauretania in Africa around 460 A.D., and who wrote this consolatory little book, which is also read among the works of St. Eucherius, to some Basil on the death of a son, according to Gennadius, ch. 67, *On Ecclesiastical Writers*." The same was noted by the most learned Casimir Oudin, whose words are these (vol. 1, p. 572): "The consolatory epistle in adversities in no way pertains to St. Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea, or to any other Greek author: but is the work of a Latin man, Victor, Bishop of Cartenna in Africa, who wrote it to a certain friend of his by the name of Basil, as we shall say below." But in that other place, the same Oudin, citing the writings of Victor of Cartenna, speaks thus (ibid. p. 1282): "Item, the book *On consolation in adversities to Basil*, among the works of St. Basil the Great: which no one has noted." But now it is worth the effort to relate the words of Gennadius himself (a). These are they: "Victor, bishop of the city of Cartenna in Mauretania, wrote one long book against the Arians... and a consolatory book to a certain Basil upon the death of a son, fortified with the hope of the resurrection, in perfect instruction." And William Cave feels nothing different about that little book. I for my part will not deny that the opinion of these most learned men seems true: but I will not easily confess it to be true itself. For to whom will it ever be possible to persuade that a little book, in which not even one word is read concerning the loss of children, is that same work of Victor of Cartenna which Gennadius says was written by Victor for the purpose of consoling a certain friend of his on the death of a son? Certainly, it is not in the nature of things that such a thing ever happened. Whoever, therefore, has read the consolatory little book that is found among the works of Basil (p. 697), will immediately notice that it was composed, not for the sake of a father whose son had died, but for the sake of the miserable, whatever calamity or hardship they might be suffering: but so that the writer, meanwhile, while he might wish to console all the calamitous, especially those in need of solace...

should have attempted to bring comfort to those who were afflicted with the disease of leprosy. For at the very beginning, the author speaks as follows: "Just as a ship, when it is tossed by the tempest of the waves, unless it has a most experienced pilot, is quickly broken by the waves of the sea: so also a person, when he has been placed in certain adversities, unless he has had a mind trained in the divine utterances, his spirit is quickly broken, and he suffers the loss of his own salvation. Whoever you are, therefore, who have been placed in adversity, I beg you for a little while to incline your ear diligently to my words, so that, insofar as I am able, I may bring forth consolation for you from the fountains of the Scriptures." ^B It was the author's intention, therefore, not to console privately a father bereaved of his son—a matter concerning which he nowhere speaks explicitly—but rather to console anyone at all in a general way who is experiencing adverse fortune. And after intervening many things, he wrote thus (p. 701): "I know indeed certain ones, especially those who have been sprinkled on the body with the spot of leprosy, who come to such despair because of this affliction that they think they are altogether forsaken by the Lord." And immediately speaking about that same disease, he proceeds thus: "And you, when you have been established in wounds and pains, and excluded from this muddy city, if you bear these things wisely and humbly serve your God, you will be made an inhabitant of that very city and of paradise. For you have not withdrawn from the companionship of the people because of the execration ^C of your soul, but because of the nature of the malady, since the disease of that kind (as some choose to assert) is accustomed to pollute with its touch." Nor is it read much further down thus (p. 702): "But since I now understand your soul to be ailing in this part, when you say this: 'He who has departed from the world with the plague of leprosy, he thus rises again after death,' etc." From which it may be perceived that the author, when he was writing, had regard especially for lepers. I cannot but note that the condition of writers is most miserable, who are often forced to argue seriously about things that are either trivial or of no importance; and on the other hand, to whom it is not permitted to speak about the most serious matters. Would it be worth so much, I ask, to know the author of a speech that can justly seem to many to be unworthy of the light? Now I will communicate to the studious a certain conjecture from a very learned man which, I think, will not be displeasing to them. That man, therefore, endowed with judgment no less sharp than his intellect, ^D thinks that this little composition was produced by a Gaul, namely at a time when the plague of leprosy was infecting those regions most severely. Moreover, others have already noted that the second little speech is the nineteenth chapter of a certain booklet of Peter Damian, *On God be with you*. Finally, I would venture to assert that the third little work is certainly not by Basil; but by whom it was produced, or at what time, I am plainly ignorant.

61. There follows a certain ancient interpretation of the discourses of Basil (p. 713): of which Rufinus is the author. I shall do something pleasing to learned men ^A by hoping, for my part, that I might see to the editing of the work of that ancient interpreter: and all the more so because, since the Greek texts still exist, the Latin can be compared with them by anyone, and thus it will be permitted to understand more clearly how much license that same most ancient interpreter Rufinus, whom I have mentioned, allowed himself in translating the writings of the Greeks. Furthermore, we have used two ancient books, one a Royal, the other a Colbertine: in the first of which there are found only five discourses, but in the other eight. A question can arise here, how many of Basil's discourses Rufinus interpreted, eight or ten. But the cause for doubting is that Rufinus, where he signifies that he has translated ten discourses of Basil, has spoken ambiguously: though he says distinctly elsewhere that he had rendered into Latin only eight of Basil's sermons. Therefore, in the first place, he used these words (a): "There exist also magnificent monuments ^B of the genius of both [Basil and Gregory], of the treatises which they declaimed extemporaneously in the churches. From which we have translated into Latin about ten little discourses of each." For he does not say assertively that he translated ten discourses, but about ten. Yet in the other place (b), Rufinus addressed Apronianus, to whom he was dedicating his interpretation, as follows: "You had asked long ago, my dearest son Apronianus, that I should translate some things into Latin for you: which I have done in part at present while I was in the City, but now I have also added somewhat. Therefore, I have translated these eight short homiletic booklets of the blessed Basil." That which the most learned man Tillemontius says (c), therefore, that ten of Basil's discourses were rendered into Latin by Rufinus, does not altogether agree with me with him. For the little word, "about," which Rufinus uses, makes me suspect that he translated no more than eight discourses; all the more so, because he sent ^C not more, but exactly that many, to Apronianus. But if anyone should wish to contend otherwise, I will not oppose them: I think it is enough to have left the conjecture, which has seemed most probable to me, to the judgment of the learned. Nor perhaps did Rufinus translate more of Gregory Nazianzen's discourses into the Latin tongue. For today neither in printed nor in ancient books are more than seven or eight found (d).

§ XIV. Concerning certain of my errors, and concerning various matters.

62. I have noted some things in Ambrose: concerning one of which I was hallucinated (e). Nor is this error indeed light, but of such a kind that it cannot easily be pardoned even to a boy. For even little children can at least lift their eyes a little: which if anyone does, he will immediately understand from those things which immediately precede in the words of Ambrose (f), that in that place should be read, not, as I led, *Noli ergo Deo non credere* ["Do not therefore not believe in God"], but so, as it is read in the common editions, *Noli ergo Deum credere* ["Do not therefore believe the sun to be God"], that is, beware of believing the sun to be God. To say more on this matter is...

^A a task I had set for myself: but there is a reason why I am willing to have it put off until another time. When the interpreter of Psalm xxvii wrote (page 355): *Καὶ ἡ ἐκ τοῦ μαμωνᾶ τῆς ἀδικίας γινομένη φιλία κατασκηνοῖ*, he seemed to me to have spoken ineptly and foolishly (a): and yet, from the words which I have cited, a fit and suitable meaning, and one not obscure, is made out. For the interpreter meant that the friendship which is gained from the mammon of iniquity gives us access to a blessed rest. When I said (b) regarding that Psalm cxv: *᾿Αλλ’ εἴθε κἀμοὶ γένοιτο πιστεῦσαι ἀξίως ἵνα λαλήσω νῦν τῇ ᾿Εκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῇ μεγάλη ταύτῃ λόγους ἐν τῷ νοί μου ἀποτηγανίζεσθαι*, but would that it might be granted to me to believe worthily, so that I might now speak to this great Church of God five words in my own mind, when therefore I said that these words displeased me, I did not warn—as I ought to have done—that the same words are indeed found in Paul, but in a different sense. For with the Apostle, the discourse is not about faith, but about a simple knowledge of some language. Among other words which I thought were unusual in Basil, the verb *ἀποτηγανίζεσθαι* is also found (c): which, however, the excellent orator used in his first homily *On Fasting*. Similarly, when I noted that (d), *εἶναι τὰ ἔθνη συκληρονόμα καὶ σύσσωμα*, should not have been written so simply, but that *εἰς τό* should have been added, so that it might be *εἰς τὸ εἶναι τά*, etc., I was wrong in my opinion. For that *εἰς τό* is not read in the Apostle Paul, nor ought it to have been added by the Greek interpreter. When I had begun my discussion concerning the interpreters of Basil (e), I treated Adam Fumanus, who translated the *Ascetica*, without any distinction: even though, when I was reviewing the *Ascetica*, I realized that he far excelled the common run of interpreters. I praised Janus Cornarius, whom I still consider worthy of praise: but yet, to me, Fumanus seems to be preferred to him. Cornarius translated more faithfully than was customary in those times: but besides the fact that his interpretation is harsh and rough and less Latinate, he himself also often failed to grasp the author's meaning. But Fumanus was as learned in Latin as he was in Greek: and although he wandered more frequently from the author's sense, he compensated for that flaw with a more accurate Latin style. Nor will I hide that Fumanus fell into another great flaw, to which Cornarius was most alien. For he so rendered the Greek into Latin that it was more like reading a paraphrase than an interpretation to you ^B to appear: but nevertheless, as I said, all things considered, I believe he should be preferred to Cornarius. I will not fail to praise our colleague, Jean-Jacques Raverdy, a man of much labor, and born to assist in good studies: who has devoted all his care and effort to ensuring that the new Basil be read in a more elegant and corrected form. Another of our colleagues compiled the index with the utmost diligence. A most distinguished and learned man complained that I had produced no argument from which it could be proven that Basil was the author of the third book *Against Eunomius*: which is, however, something I had promised. I would here fulfill that promise, if I did not judge that I would speak much more conveniently on that matter when I seek out the legitimate parent of that excellent book *On the Holy Spirit* in the third volume. When, a little earlier (num. 48), I attempted to prove that the passage of Sozomen, in which Basil’s *Ascetica* are said to have been attributed by some to Eustathius of Sebaste, should be understood not as the *Rules* but as the monastic *Constitutions*, I used this argument: that if Sozomen had wished to indicate the *Rules*, he would have made mention of them in such a way that he would have praised the scriptural testimonies with which they are replete: which scriptural passages Rufinus, Cassian, and Photius (f) did mention. However, I do not want this to be understood in the same way. For although Cassian and Photius specifically mentioned these testimonies, Rufinus was content merely to note them clearly: he who, of course, spoke of Basil’s *Responses* (g), in which such scriptural passages are contained. Regarding the panegyric oration which was delivered on the martyr Barlaam, it was indeed discussed at length: but yet I omitted that which was not unworthy of note (h), namely, that in a very ancient book it is found written thus: *Εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Βαρλαὰμ τὸν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ μαρτυρήσαντα*, In St. Barlaam, who suffered at Antioch: by which note our opinion is not a little confirmed. For although such testimonies of librarians are not of such a kind that anything can be certainly concluded from them, yet it is evident that they are not to be entirely despised. The most distinguished man, Joannes Baptista Coignard, royal architypographer, has often asked me to advise that, if the third volume does not come to light so quickly, it should not be attributed to his negligence, but to my own poor health. I will strive, God helping, that we may pursue the begun work before the end of the following year.

LIST OF ANCIENT BOOKS

The homilies on various topics have been reviewed according to those manuscripts which are noted below. Royal codex 1906, which we call the first; and so on for the rest in order, such that the one placed in the first position is called the first, the one in the second, the second, etc. This book is of parchment, ancient, and elegantly written. Royal codex 1907, parchment, written in the tenth century. Royal codex 2287 ter, parchment, and most ancient and of the best quality. Colbert codex 457, parchment, written in the eleventh century. Colbert codex 499, parchment, written in the tenth century. Colbert codex 1934, of the best quality, written in the tenth century, parchment. Coislin codex 230, of the ninth century: which we have used more sparingly, because it is not a little faulty. Ducaeani codices, which are noted thus: Oliv., Anglic. There are, however, two Oliv. Combefisian codices, the variant readings of which are read in the reviewed Basil.

For the Ascetic works. Royal codex 1908, parchment, and ancient, which had already been collated previously by Combefis, but in such a way that he had omitted the greatest part of the variant readings. Royal codex 2288, parchment, and ancient, collated in the same way already by Combefis. Royal codex 2895, parchment, and ancient. Colbert 3063, parchment, written in the tenth century. Coislin 231, parchment, written in the eleventh century. Coislin codex 233, parchment, and ancient. We have used these two latter codices repeatedly. Vossian codex, collated by the most learned man Andreas Schottus, parchment, and most ancient. Venetian Edition, for the adornment of which four old books were employed: on the margin of which many variant readings are found, which we have carefully noted.

For the Monastic Constitutions. Royal codex 1824, parchment, which we call the first. From which it happens that Royal codex 1908, which is the first for the aforementioned Ascetic works, is the second for the Monastic Constitutions. For the same reason Royal codex 2288 is the third for the Monastic Constitutions. Likewise, Royal codex 2895 is the fourth for the same Monastic Constitutions.

For the books On Baptism. Royal codex 1908, parchment, and ancient. Royal codex 2288, parchment, and ancient. Royal codex 2895, parchment, and ancient.

NOTICE

We have arranged the contents of this volume such that the genuine Orations occupy the first place, the Ascetica the second, other spurious discourses the third, two short works of Cotelier and another of Combefis the fourth, the two books On Baptism the fifth, the Liturgy the sixth, and certain others written in Latin the last. This volume, therefore, just as the first, is divided into two parts: in the first, the genuine works are contained; in the second, the spurious. But so that the arrangement of materials which I have mentioned may not present an error to anyone, it will not be useless to warn that certain foreign elements are mixed with the genuine and sincere. Therefore, immediately among the certain and indu-

indubitable is found the second discourse *On Fasting*, not because I think it certain and undoubted, but because it is believed to be such by very learned men. Again, I have placed the panegyrical discourse which was delivered on the martyr Barlaam among the genuine and sincere, although I judge it to be foreign. But this discourse, even if in my judgment it is alien, is nevertheless so elegant and ornate that it seemed to me to deserve a place among the genuine.

However, all the remaining discourses, which are read in the first part of the volume, I hold to be true and certain; and I am the more confirmed in this opinion of mine, because I see that none of them has hitherto been called into doubt by the learned. Nor indeed ought this to seem strange to anyone, since there is nothing in them from which even the slightest suspicion could arise. For, to pass over for the moment certain orations of which the ancients made mention, I hope no one will deny that in all of them alike, all those virtues of eloquence for which the ancients praised Basil shine and sparkle. And truly, those wondrous gifts of genius, in which Basil is said by the ancients to have excelled, may be seen by anyone in the orations I have mentioned: incredible eloquence, a wealth of matter and words, the highest knowledge of worldly wisdom—most remote from all ostentation—learning, piety, all the ornaments of art without any indication of art, the greatest diligence in explaining mysteries and handing down the precepts of morals, perspicuity, the most perfect understanding of the liberal disciplines, a singular power of persuasion, and, to use a word for it, a certain felicitous nature, most adapted both to other things and to the panegyrical genus of speaking.

Nor do I ask that this be believed of me; indeed, I would be loath for my words to be too readily credited. For I believe this: the more attentively and diligently these discourses are read, the less suspect they will be. Moreover, they are most worthy to be read by everyone more often, since their reading will be both most useful and most pleasant to anyone. The most learned men will admire these orations in which nothing idle, nothing redundant is found; in which all things are dense and compact, filled with strength and power, seasoned with all the delights of rhetoric, and most replete with the most excellent and wholesome precepts.

The Ascetic works have caused me more trouble. At one time I was putting some of them back into the second part of the volume; at another, I was recalling them to the first. But since I considered that the same subject matter is treated in all the Ascetic works, I decided they should not be separated from one another. Therefore, lest the true be incautiously confounded with the false, it will not be tedious to review each one briefly here. Genuine and germane, as it seems to us, are the three introductory Ascetic booklets, the treatises *On the Judgment of God* and *On Faith*, the *Moralia*, and the *Rules*, both the longer and the shorter. Among the spurious, however, we count the rest, namely the two short booklets which are placed after the *Moralia*, the *Monastic Constitutions*, the *Penitential Canons*, and the two minor lucubrations which Combefis published. I have brought forward in the Preface arguments of every kind by which I believed it could be proven whether each treatise is genuine or adulterine. Therefore, I do not think it necessary to add anything here concerning those matters, since I should rather fear that I might appear to have lingered too long in explaining each one.

The second part of the volume differs from the first in this: that whatever is found in it is either spurious, or certainly seems to me to be spurious. This, however, I wish to be understood in such a way that the Rufinian translation of certain of Basil’s orations is not placed among the supposititious works. Since, however, I have performed in the Preface whatever a man of my station could perform, and have arranged everything therein in its own order and place, nor omitted anything by which I thought my opinion could be defended, I would cause weariness if I were to try to explain here more fully things already explained at length. It will therefore be enough for me to seek and request this one thing from learned men: that, in accordance with their kindness and benevolence, they may read and interpret our Preface with favor.