Ancient Version of the Book on the Twelve Gems

THE BOOKS OF THE TWELVE GEMS: ANCIENT VERSION. - PREFACE.

(From the edition of P. Francesco Foggini, which bears this title: *The Book of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, on the Twelve Gems of the Rational of the High Priest of the Hebrews, addressed to Diodorus.* It is now published for the first time from an ancient Latin version, by the work of P. Francesco Foggini, who also added the notes. Rome, at the Zempellian press, in the year 1743.)

TO BENEDICT XIV, SUPREME PONTIFF, AUGUST PRINCE, PETRUS FRANCISCUS FOGGINIUS D. D. D.

May it be happy, auspicious, and fortunate; I throw myself again at your feet, most blessed Father, to dedicate my little book to your divinity and majesty. This work contains the not inelegant little treatise of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, on the Twelve Gems of the Aaronical Rational, which is being published now for the first time—not only through my efforts, but is also illustrated with my own annotations and a varied commentary. Furthermore, although I feared that it might seem rash to approach you with this little gift, nevertheless your clemency, with which you received my *Exercises on the Roman Journey and Episcopacy of St. Peter*, and that truly singular kindness of yours, by which you deigned not to consider my trifles as insignificant, encouraged me in my fear and did not allow me to omit giving you this sign of my veneration and respect. Moreover, I come to you with more confidence because I think that in presenting this little book to you—even if, from the things I have written, it might perhaps not be commendable in any way—I am certainly bringing you something not unworthy of you, since it presents the work of a Father of the Church, equally holy and learned, celebrated by ancient writers, and especially by St. Jerome, with no ordinary commendation. And what of the fact that it was unearthed from the Vatican Library? Finally, since I had determined to bring to light a collection of unpublished works and to distribute the various books to be dedicated to various illustrious men, whom should I have consecrated this one—which I desired to hold the first place—if not to you, the greatest of all mortals in dignity and authority? Therefore, since these things are so, I believe that by such a dedication I am performing a sufficiently approved duty, and I do not doubt that you will take it in good part and look upon it with favorable eyes. May God, who preserves you, preserve you more and more; so may you seem ever more august in these most difficult times; so may you return late to heaven, and long remain glad in the service of the people of Quirinus, ^A so that here, and throughout the whole Christian commonwealth—under your auspices, leadership, and guidance, you who have always applied much study and time to the pursuit of wisdom in doctrine, virtue, and humanity—it may experience and realize, at long last, that the great philosopher Plato rightly and truly pronounced that states would be happy only if learned and wise men began to rule them, or if those who ruled had devoted all their study to doctrine and wisdom. These things I pray for you, as one well-deserving, duly and willingly.

PREFACE.

233 § I. *St. Jerome is our witness that St. Epiphanius wrote the book on the Twelve Gems of the Rational of the High Priest of the Hebrews.*

[1-I*] St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia, or Salamis in Cyprus, a man most distinguished in every kind of virtue and manifold learning, a great stronghold and ornament of the Greek Church in the fourth century of the Christian era, is witnessed to us by a man of the highest authority, religion, and faith, St. Jerome, as having written a book on the Twelve Gems of the Rational of the High Priest of the Hebrews. St. Jerome, in his Epistle to Fabiola, from whom he had been requested to write about the priesthood and vestments of Aaron, after he had commented somewhat on the Rational, adds: "Let it suffice that holy father Epiphanius also published an excellent work on this subject, which if you wish to read, you will acquire the fullest knowledge." Nor does St. Jerome provide testimony for this book written by Epiphanius only in this place, but elsewhere as well. In Book XV of his Commentaries on chapter LIV of Isaiah, he says: "But it is not the time to speak of the nature of the twelve stones and gems, since many of the Greeks and Latins have written of them; among whom I shall name only two: the bishop Epiphanius, a man of holy and venerable memory, who left us a distinguished volume of his genius and learning, which he entitled *On Gems*, and Pliny, etc." Finally, in Book IX of his Commentaries on chapter XXVIII of Ezekiel, he also mentions that very work, namely, the book he received as a gift from Epiphanius himself: "Concerning which (he speaks of the gems of the Rational), the holy man, Bishop Epiphanius, also handed me his own volume in person."

(*) Let the reader note that the numbers enclosed in brackets refer to the special index of this version, while the larger numbers refer to the index of the volume.

§ II. THAT FRAGMENTS OF THE BOOKS ON THE TWELVE GEMS WRITTEN BY EPIPHANIUS EXIST IN FACUNDUS HERMIANENSIS AND ANASTASIUS SINAITA.

Furthermore, there is no lack of other ancient writers who have used Epiphanius’s book ^A *On Gems*, and I have no doubt that it is fair and good to review them, not only so that the value of that book may appear more and more, but also so that the times in which it was in the hands of learned men may become known. Therefore, Facundus Hermianensis in Africa, in chapter 2 of book V of those twelve chapters which he offered to the Emperor Justinian around the middle of the sixth century of the Church for the defense of the Three Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon (which we have in print, produced through the care and industry of Sirmond), renders into Latin an epistle in which this book is dedicated by Epiphanius to Diodorus the bishop, as having been conceived and written at the request of the same Diodorus.

Almost contemporary with Facundus was that Anastasius Sinaita, who attained the see of Antioch in A.D. 561, and he too, in *Question* 40, where he treats of the garments of the high priest of the Hebrews, summarizes all those things which Epiphanius narrates in the book *On Gems* under this title: *Of Saint Epiphanius on the twelve stones fixed in the breastplate of the priest 11*. And again, in *Question* 45, speaking of the Samaritans, he describes further things from the same book: yet here he praises him under this other title: *Of Epiphanius from the work to Diodorus*.

§ III. THAT ANDREAS AND ARETHAS, ARCHBISHOPS OF CAESAREA, USED EPIPHANIUS’S BOOK ON THE TWELVE GEMS IN THEIR COMMENTARIES ON THE APOCALYPSE.

Furthermore, I have found ^B Epiphanius *On Gems* cited twice while reading those commentaries on the Apocalypse which, although (as Lambecius attests in Book IV of the *Commentarii Bibliothecae Caesareae Vindobonensis*, etc.) they are attributed to Origen in codex 173, and to a certain monk Methodius in codex 174, and there is even a codex mentioned by Montfaucon (*Diar. Ital.* p. 221) that assigns them to Andrew of Crete, yet, as Oudin rightly warns in his *Commentarius de scriptoribus et scriptis ecclesiasticis*, etc., vol. II, p. 94, the greater and better part of the codices assigns them to Andreas, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, under whose name they were first published by Peltanus; and among those codices (not mentioning others already known through the efforts of others) is the one in my possession, a codex neatly written on papyrus, number 828 of the Corsini Library of manuscripts. It begins thus: *Of our Holy Father Andreas, Archbishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia, interpretation on the Apocalypse of the holy apostle and evangelist John the Theologian*. The age of Andreas of Caesarea is uncertain; however, I believe it is far more probable, from the conjectures which Oudin has gathered, that he wrote in the ninth century. The passage in which he praises Epiphanius’s book *On Gems* is chapter 10, where, speaking of the Sardius stone, he says: *For the great Epiphanius says that this stone, when applied, heals swellings and wounds inflicted by iron*. Truly, as the great Epiphanius says 12, it heals not only tumors, if applied appropriately, but also wounds inflicted by iron. And in chapter 67, after he has adapted the twelve stones which Saint John names (Apoc. chap. xxi) to individual apostles according to their varied colors, he adds: *These things from the holy Epiphanius on stones*.

^C Furthermore, what we have related first from chapter 10 of the commentaries of Andreas, another Caesarean archbishop, illustrious at the beginning of the tenth century of the Church, named Arethas, repeats in chapter 10 of his own commentaries on the same book of the Apocalypse of Saint John, which he compiled, of course, in such a way that he transcribes not only the thoughts but often the very words of Andreas, to which—if the calligrapher of the Armenian interpretation of Andreas’s commentaries (which exists in the Royal Library, as I have discovered from the catalog of his ms. codices, vol. I, p. 77) is to be believed—he had already added the final touch when the author had left them imperfect. Also in chapter 77, Arethas makes use of those things which Andreas had received from the erudition of Epiphanius, but not as the former does in that chapter, where he actually names him.

And at this place it does not seem inappropriate not to pass over the Latin version of Andreas’s commentaries made by Peltanus, which we possess. In chapter 10, he attributes virtues to the sardius which, the Greek text not unwilling, he might have much more fittingly attributed to the jasper. In the Apocalypse, chapter IV, verse 3, God is compared to jasper and sardius: *He who sat was like in appearance to a stone of jasper and sardius*. Andreas well remarks: *Since jasper signifies the green, it is at once the evergreen and life-bearing, and the supplier of nourishment for the divine nature, because it wears green for every seed. Moreover, it is also fearful to the enemy. For they say that jasper is fearful to beasts and phantoms. After this, also [a healer] for those admitting of psychic healing, a therapeutic agent. For the great Epiphanius says that this stone heals swellings and wounds from iron* 13—[which he translated, as Peltanus renders it]: *Jasper indeed, because it is green, holds before it the symbol of the divine nature in its greenness. For this always blooms, and is green, and provides life and food to all living things. But truly every seed of the earth is wont to pour forth green herbs. In addition to this, it is assimilated to the sardius, on account of the terror which it is born to strike into enemies. For they say that the sardius is seen to be terrible to wild beasts and specters, and besides its power which nature has inherent in it, it is accustomed to heal sick bodies. Truly, as pleases the great Epiphanius, it heals not only tumors, if applied appropriately, but also wounds inflicted by iron.* Therefore I think it was said too boldly by Peltanus: *it is assimilated to this sardius, etc.*, since in the Greek the word "sardius" is not there; and contrary to the veracity of the Greek text are those words: *for they say the sardius, etc.* For the Greek text has: *for they say jasper...* De sardio, Andreas seems to speak first when he says: *After this*, etc. And if anyone wishes that something be missing after these, I do not argue. But the method of amendment consists mainly from Epiphanius, whom Andreas follows in that place. He by no means proclaims of the sardius—to which alone he attributes the virtue of healing and chasing away evils—that it is seen to be terrible to beasts and specters, but of the jasper, writing: *This, as they say who relate fables, beasts in the field fear, and other portents*. Wherefore the mind of Andreas, as regards the comparison which the apostle John uses, seems to be that the jasper is a symbol of both nature and power and justice, but the sardius is a symbol of the mercy of God, who is always the same, who strongly and sweetly disposes all things, and pours out anger just as he pours out mercy.

Furthermore, we wish what we have said about the commentaries of Andreas to apply also to the emendation of the commentaries of Arethas, so that we may note that either their Greek text is to be reformed with the Latin version, or Arethas, while praising Epiphanius, confused—to his shame—things which Epiphanius distinguishes.

§ IV. [XIV] Procopius of Gaza from the book of Epiphanius *On the XII Gems*, which he described as concerning the mountains of Garizim and Gebal: but Theophanes Cerameus, what he recounts concerning the Samaritans.

But to return to that from which we have not rashly departed: Jerome, Facundus of Hermiane, Anastasius Sinaita, and the archbishops Andreas and Arethas of Caesarea are all the writers among the ancients whom I have been able to find up to this time clearly praising the book of St. Epiphanius *On Gems*. But indeed, I believe I have also found two others who made use of it, even though the name of Epiphanius was left unmentioned: I speak of Procopius of Gaza and Theophanes Cerameus, Archbishop of Tauromenium.

Procopius, a Gazaean by race but a sophist by profession, flourished under the emperor Justin the Thracian around the year of Christ 520, and among his other writings there still exists a most brilliant *Commentary on the Octateuch*, selected with singular discernment from the writings of the orthodox Fathers and with the greatest industry of structure, which is praised by Photius in his *Bibliotheca*, cod. 206, and was published in Latin at Zurich in the year 1555. It ought certainly to be counted among the other so-called Greek and Latin *Catenae*, namely those commentaries on the Holy Scriptures collected from the writings of various authors; and although such commentaries are usually accustomed to ascribe the name of each author to his own authority—a thing which does not at all appear in the *Commentary* of Procopius—nevertheless, the honest Procopius admits that he collected it from the books of the ancients; and perhaps he omitted the names of the authors because he used their authorities in such a way that he felt no scruple either at times to shorten a thought or at others to interweave the facts derived from them, as can be observed on page 439, where, illustrating Deuteronomy at verse 29, chapter XI, he adapts many things from the epitomes and in many places describes the original text; [XV] whatever Epiphanius discusses in this book about the site of the mountains of Garizim and Gebal: yet interweaving the number of the priests who were hiding the idols—which he reports to have been seventy—into the material taken from elsewhere; and where Epiphanius says that Garizim had very many steps, and as some say, one thousand five hundred and more, he writes that these steps were one thousand six hundred and one. Furthermore, he teaches that Somoron was the ancient name of that mountain, at the roots of which was Sichem; but perhaps he thought that could be gathered from Epiphanius himself; however, what he writes about the interval from Galgal to Jericho does not appear in the book we are editing, but it seems to have been omitted in that one codex, which was the only one we had to use, through the negligence of a copyist.

There are, however, in this *Commentary* of Procopius some other things which, if anyone conjectures were accepted from the book of Epiphanius *On Gems*, I would not wish to contest; namely those things which are brought forward by Procopius on Exodus, page 502, and explain what the Aaronic Breastplate signified mystically. These things do not at all disgrace the genius of Epiphanius, and it is undoubted that in that book Epiphanius pursued the mystical signification of the Breastplate and its precious stones, since in the letter prefixed to the book he proposes this very thing to himself to be treated. The book itself could make us more certain of the matter, but we have found it incomplete. If it should ever be found complete, perhaps it will be understood that even what Jerome wrote concerning the mysteries of the Breastplate was borrowed from there. I pass over the sentences of Jerome collected from various places on this subject, because Lipomannus has already collected them in his *Catena on Exodus*, page 287. But let us omit these things.

I come now to Theophanes Cerameus, Archbishop of Tauromenium, and famous while Roger II held Sicily, as Oudin proves in his *Commentary*, etc., vol. II, col. 1185. He wrote many *Homilies*, which were published in Greek and Latin at Paris in the year 1644 by Franciscus Scorsus, S.J., and among these is the thirtieth, in which, where the subject of the Samaritans is treated, many things seem to have been compiled from the book of Epiphanius *On Gems*. [XVI] Certainly, the things which Theophanes recounts agree entirely with those which he [Epiphanius] narrates, if you except the fact that the former, in the manner of orators, expresses the matter more verbosely and in more ornate language.

But to be sure, provided that I have not guessed in vain concerning what I have said about Theophanes: Theophanes is therefore a more recent author, whom I know to have used the book of Epiphanius *On Gems*. But I believe that it had already become rare by that time, since not even Photius mentions it, and for a long time it had been so unknown that the most learned critics lamented it as lost, almost like that book which Septimius Tertullianus wrote on the same subject according to the index of his works, where Jerome records having found it noted in his *Letter to Fabiola*, also cited above, which in the Verona edition, etc., is 64.

§ V. *On the Epitome of the book of St. Epiphanius On the XII Gems published by Gesner, and on another transcribed by Anastasius Sinaita.*

Conrad Gesner did indeed publish, in his collection of books *Dealing with Every Kind of Fossil*, at Zurich in the year 1585, a certain opusculum *On the XII Gems of the Breastplate*, and attributed it to Epiphanius. But although that was reprinted many times afterward under the same name, it was in reality nothing other than an Epitome of the book written by Epiphanius on that subject; even though another Epitome, somewhat longer than the one which Torrianus received with his translation from Schott and which Petavius published in his edition of the works of St. Epiphanius, vol. II, page 233, and then discovered to be merely an Epitome by Anastasius Sinaita—which is read described outside the body of the work of Anastasius and in some Vatican codices—was perhaps held in higher value because the book of Epiphanius itself had become very rare; unless one might prefer to think that either the Epitome of Anastasius or that other one published by Gesner, whose author we do not know, brought destruction upon the book [XVII] of Epiphanius [235], just as writings of this kind are accustomed to bring upon original books.

Therefore Joannes Albertus Fabricius, although second to none in the knowledge of books, *Bibliotheca Graeca*, lib. V, cap. 41, § 4, n. 7, unjustly pronounces that Cave brought the book on stones into the unpublished works of Epiphanius, and he himself is rather to be reproached, who, receiving an Epitome less cautiously as the book of Epiphanius itself, asserts that it was published by Petavius in vol. II of the works of St. Epiphanius, and by Matthias Hiller in his book *On the XII Gems in the Breastplate of the High Priest*, and also in his *Hermeneutics*. Furthermore, he also teaches wrongly that Gesner published the Epitome compiled by Anastasius Sinaita, and also published by Petavius in vol. II, page 233, whereas Gesner published that other one, which exists in Petavius on page 225. Finally, Fabricius also adds that those are mistaken who deny the book *On Gems* to Epiphanius, and indeed he judges correctly about this, if there happen to be any who deny that Epiphanius wrote anything on this matter; but those who deny to Epiphanius what he himself is persuaded is Epiphanius's own are certainly not mistaken.

The opusculum *On Gems* published by Gesner and others had surely for a long time revealed by its brevity that it was something different from that book which Jerome called a distinguished volume, and a most suitable one from which Fabiola could have obtained the fullest knowledge concerning the Aaronic Breastplate. What of the fact that it does not begin at all with the letter from which the original writing of Epiphanius began, as Facundus of Hermiane was a witness? But these things are such that no man of refined taste, approaching the matter more closely, could have doubted that it is justly and deservedly denied to Epiphanius, the opusculum *On Gems* which was circulated under his name and made common by Gesner; things...

however, which lettered men could not have learned more clearly than if the original book of St. Epiphanius itself were placed before their eyes, where it happened, as has just been done, to find it.

^A § VI. [XVIII] *Concerning the manuscript codices from which the Latin version of St. Epiphanius’s book On Gems was extracted; and what has been accomplished in this edition.*

The place where I first found it is a paper codex in folio, from the manuscript codices of the Corsini library, numbered 817. Considering it worth examining—not indeed for its age, which seemed to me barely able to exceed a hundred years, but for the matter which I understood at the very first glance it contained—I diligently unfolded it, nor did I feel deceived that it was a copy of some very ancient original codex. Relying on this opinion, I consulted the Vatican library, that most rich treasury of ancient manuscripts, and found preserved there a truly precious codex, from which the Corsinian and others similar to it, which I saw in that same Vatican library, originated.

This is on parchment in folio, and is noted by the number 4961. Besides that opusculum which we are editing, it contains many epistles of Roman pontiffs and emperors, the series of which it does not repent me to have diligently unfolded; for I discovered with my own pleasure—and a good one, I think, not mine alone, but common to all—that it is the very Vatican codex from which Baronius derived the most beautiful monuments of Christian antiquity for illustrating the history of the third and fourth-century Church into his *Annals*, often calling it the "Vatican codex," and sometimes indeed "a very ancient Vatican codex in which the epistles of various Roman pontiffs are written," as at the year of Christ 368, § 2, and again "that codex where many epistles of Roman pontiffs are described," as at the year 381, § 1, and 385, § 5. Now what it exhibits first is the booklet of the schismatics Marcellinus and Faustinus, which Sirmondus now indeed seems to have published after transcribing it; and here it is certain that Baronius indeed saw it, who at the year 365, § 19, says: "This indeed is gathered from the very booklet of the schismatics Marcellinus and Faustinus [XIX], which the Vatican library presented to us, written in ancient times."

Formerly this codex belonged to the most celebrated Cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto, according to a certain note that occurs on the first page: "Bought from the books of Cardinal Sirleto." On the last page, however, it is noted that it had already belonged to the monastery of the Holy Cross of Avellana, and that Damianus had acquired it: for underneath one column of this page, as they say, it is written: *The book is of the monastery of the Holy Cross of the Fountain of Avellana of the Gubbio diocese*; underneath the other: *Don Damianus acquired this book*. ^B Furthermore, this last note, written in very ancient letters, certainly greatly increases both the value and the dignity of the codex—which is, among those things it contains, by far the most precious—since it makes it of certain antiquity; for even though it immediately smells of an age of more than seven hundred years, yet by such a note we know with certain judgment that the matter is so. As soon as one has learned that such a codex was acquired for the monastery of the Holy Cross of Avellana by Damianus, does not that Peter Damianus immediately come to mind, most famous for the sanctity of his life, his offices, and his writings, who began his monastic life in that monastery and presided over it for about the middle of the eleventh century of the Church?

But truly the evils that befell it are those: that not the entire book of Epiphanius, but a part of it, is exhibited in the Vatican codex; furthermore, not the Greek context, but only the Latin version, and this often less fortunate, so that it betrays its barbarism not only in the words, but sometimes also seems to sin against the laws of Latin grammar. But since I would have thought this not rarely happened more by the fault of the author than of the translator, I did not allow myself by any means to commit the grosser solecisms to print, and as regards orthography, which is more common among learned men nowadays, I used it here and there, preserving that of the codex only in those few places where it seemed to me not unworthy of the observation of philologists. Furthermore, the corrupt places, which it was not difficult to restore [XX], I did indeed restore, but those which I judged could not be restored without some addition, and those which either did not exist or offered no means of restoring, I left lying in their fault, sometimes warning in the *Notes* that they were corrupt, but sometimes not even doing this, as I was less anxious about that, knowing it to be such that a fair reader would neither wish it nor wish otherwise.

As concerns the Greek context, I did not fail to inquire about it, yet it has been done in vain until now. Since I had read in Montfaucon’s *Diar. Ital.* p. 215, where he describes the library of the monks of St. Basil in Rome, enriched by the study of Petrus Mennitus with a most delightful abundance of Greek manuscript codices: "Epiphanius’s epistle to Diodorus," I had come with great hope of finding it, but that hope was vain, because in truth it is not possible to find it among those codices, but codices 20 and 99 exhibit that epistle to Diodorus of Tarsus, which discourses on marriage with the sister of a deceased wife, and in the newest edition of the works of St. Basil, who is its author, it is found in vol. III, page 249. Meanwhile, however, I will not fail to advise that if anyone ever applies his mind and hands to preparing a new Greek and Latin edition of Epiphanius’s works—which I do not doubt will happen, since it escapes no one that Petavius’s edition was done more negligently—where the entire Greek context of the book *On Gems* has not yet been found, he will often be able to append Greek words to the Latin version which we are editing, if he consults both *Epitomes*, and the Sacred Scriptures turned into Greek by the LXX, and lastly those Greek writers whom I said used that book.

^C § VII. *Concerning the value and use of the Fragment of the book On Gems of Epiphanius, which the Vatican codex exhibits.*

But truly, the greatest disadvantage that has followed is that the book of Epiphanius in the Vatican codex is exhibited mutilated. [XXI] Yet what was I to do? I edited it as I found it, and I truly think there will be no one who would wish that on that account an *anecdoton* should be held in disdain because I edited it. That I edit a fragment of a longer work, and not the entire work, the reason is by no means such that anyone can deservedly calumniate and condemn me and this little book of mine. For besides the fact that by the authority of this fragment we are made more certain that the book *On the XII Gems of the Rational of Aaron*, which was published under his name by Gesner and others, is by no means the work of Epiphanius—which one thing easily protects me and commends my care, such as it has been—in truth, the writings of the Holy Fathers are such that not only any significant fragment of them, such as the one edited by me, but any fragment whatsoever deserves both our labor and the public light. ^D But if most grave men have thought their labor worthy to collect and publish fragments of ancient poets and other profane writers, who is there—not endowed with a weak, not to say an excellent and most splendid wit—who would not judge it to be more excellently commendable to strive that the remnants, whatever they may be, of those things which the Holy Fathers committed to writing so that they might hand them down as monuments, should not lie hidden; especially if we speak of those Fathers who are celebrated with a larger praise of erudition and doctrine, such as Epiphanius certainly is?

What? Shall not that very book *On the XII Gems* be held in special honor, which has merited to be called an excellent and distinguished volume of the wit and erudition of Epiphanius?

^A

Preface

What? Are there not in this fragment of that book also many things treated quite diligently and subtly? And is there not something perhaps accepted by no one else until now, such as that which seems to be the one regarding the name by which the Samaritan letters and those of the Hebrews were called? Finally, we know that many once wrote *On Gems*, a long series of whom exists in Hiller, but time has now carried away almost all of them; for which reason the Commentary of St. Epiphanius is to be valued even more, wherein he discourses copiously upon the twelve more precious gems. Nor do I wish to withhold the fact that the most holy man not only clearly displayed his erudition in this work, but his prudence as well; for when he relates the wondrous virtues asserted of each individual gem, he ingenuously calls the stories fabulous throughout, so that one may from this conjecture with no slight reason that whatever less truthful things he brings forward, he drew from apocryphal books, to which, since they seemed to foster piety, much authority still attached, nor was it easy or safe to oppose them, their bad faith not yet being sufficiently discovered and proven. Those books imposed upon many other most learned men of the early Church as well; for a lie well conceived and craftily spread sometimes deceives even sharper men, and it is usually not understood at the beginning, but only as time goes on. Furthermore, since those books were commonly trusted by the heretics, it was perhaps believed that one ought to make use of them also in disputes against the heretics. I mention these things not without reflection. There will not be lacking men inquiring into the errors of authors, not that they may be on their guard, but that they may disparage them—men of vain talk, chasing after fame and the favor of the idle by slandering, who might despise this book upon hearing the name of Epiphanius; but if we judge correctly, Epiphanius did indeed sin more than once in chronological matters, and sometimes trusted too much in less certain narratives; nevertheless, these things—from which almost no one who has written much has been entirely exempt—do not in the least merit the taking away of any part of his reputation and authority; and we must confess nonetheless that his writings are a very rich mine, so to speak, of the monuments of the Church, and clearly worthy that their author be reckoned among the great ones among the Greeks, as indeed he was considered, according to the testimony of Augustine in the book *On Heresies* to Quodvultdeus, ch. 57, and it should not have caused shame to a man learned in Hebrew, Syriac, ^B Greek, Latin, and Egyptian literature, as was Epiphanius, who was therefore famously called "pentaglottos" by Jerome in *Apol. 1 against Rufinus*.

§ VIII. *On the notes added to the book of Epiphanius On Gems.*

It is now by no means alien to the place to speak a few words also concerning my own animadversions on the book of Epiphanius. I have therefore appended those which I deemed either necessary or very useful for understanding the meaning, or at least such as would not be unwelcome, whether because I might correct some ancient or recent writer in them, or because it happened that I inserted into them something rare, or something that, so far as I knew, had been treated by no one else with sufficient clarity. Moreover, I could have brought forward many more, had I wished to discourse upon the colors, species, true and fictitious virtues of each stone, and other matters of this kind; but I refrained purposely, so as not to seem to have done a superfluous thing, and to have affected a certain hypocrisy of knowledge, when nevertheless every suspicion of ostentation is to be avoided by any ingenuous man: namely, learned men have already illustrated the epitome of this book of Epiphanius, Conrad Gesner with a corollary added after it, and Matthäus Hiller adorning it with perpetual notes, and placing all those things which Salmasius notes in his *Plinian Exercises* about it in their proper places; but regarding the gems which adorn the breastplate of Aaron, ^C all interpreters of the Sacred Scriptures and writers treating of Hebrew antiquities deal with them, and Braunius discussed each in a separate chapter so subtly and copiously in his book of most learned work, which he wrote *On the garments of the Hebrew priests*, that nothing more exquisite could be desired.

But indeed, it was said in a jejune and too meager manner in the notes concerning that Diodorus to whom Epiphanius dedicated the book *On Gems*. It was surely believed that the time would come for us to treat of him more conveniently and a little more freely; for the subject of the dispute does not seem to be light or unrefined.

§ IX. *To which Diodorus, bishop, Epiphanius dedicated his book On Gems.*

We have as our authority Facundus of Hermiane that that Diodorus is none other than the most celebrated bishop of Tarsus, whose pupil was Theodore of Mopsuestia, and St. John Chrysostom; but the title of the Epitome edited by Gesner refers to him as bishop of Tyre: *Epiphanii episcopi Cypri ad Diodorum episcopum Tyri de duodecim lapidibus*, etc. Nor indeed is it permitted to doubt lest either the writer of the Gesnerian codex, or Gesner himself, received *Tyri* for *Tarsi*, deceived by the similarity of the writing. There are many manuscripts in the Vatican library which contain various epitomes of the book of Epiphanius *On Gems*, but only two name Diodorus in the title, namely codex 74 among those which belonged to Christina, queen of the Swedes, p. 82, and codex 39 among those which belonged to Pius II, p. 227, and both have *Tyri*. Also in the Catalogue of MS codices of the Royal Library, vol. II, p. 302, among other things which are indicated to be in codex 1782, it is mentioned: *Epiphanius bishop of Cyprus to Diodorus bishop of Tyre concerning the twelve stones in the garments of Aaron*. And so the state of this question arises: whether Facundus erred, or the author of the Epitome.

But so that we may settle this more easily, diligently, and distinctly, it will first of all be very good to note that the ancients, when they wrote to bishops, for the most part were not accustomed to express the place of their bishopric; of which fact the books are full of examples. That the letter also with which Epiphanius sent the book *On Gems* to bishop Diodorus was of such a kind, not only does that custom persuade, but I judge that it is confirmed by the fact ^D that it is such in Facundus, and such also in the Vatican codex, from which I received it; nor is it to be omitted that Anastasius Sinaita also, praising the book *On Gems* under the name of the book of Epiphanius to Diodorus, has only these words: *Epiphanii ad Diodorum*. Given this, it is not undeservedly believed that both Facundus and the author of the Epitome borrowed the name of Diodorus’s bishopric from elsewhere rather than from the title of the letter of Epiphanius itself. But since the authority of Facundus does not appear to be comparable to the authority of an anonymous writer, the more so because Facundus flourished not long after the age of Epiphanius, and had been conversant for a long time among the Greeks, and had inserted that opinion in his book to the emperor Justinian, and indeed purposely, so that he might demonstrate that Diodorus of Tarsus had been praised by the holy Fathers—does it not easily come into the mind at first glance, and is it not easily held to be fair and safe, that one should stand by Facundus? But Tillemont thinks otherwise, who contends so passionately that Facundus falsely attributed other letters also (to be described below, two especially, with which the rest certainly agree, paving the way for detecting the fraud, and of which one is by Athanasius, the other by certain bishops of Egypt) to Diodorus of Tarsus, that he thinks he has demonstrated it. Indeed, the arguments which he gathers for this are very weighty, note 98 and 99 *On St. Athanasius*, etc. A part of them he repeats

^A in Dupin, *Biblioth. auct. eccl.*, vol. II, part 1, p. 231.

Therefore, whether Facundus erred through negligence or by design, certainly a great deal of his authority is detracted from here, whence he is more than once convicted of being lacking in either judgment or faith in matters concerning Diodorus of Tarsus. What of the fact that, while dealing with Theodore of Mopsuestia, he confuses him with Theodore of Tyana in his *Book VI*, chapter 7, as Sirmond rightly noted? So therefore there is no cause for us to wonder that he also said the letter of Epiphanius sent to Diodorus of Tarsus had been sent, when it was, in fact, sent to Diodorus of Tyre.

And indeed, when we weigh the matter more diligently, even if the age of the author of the *Epitome* is not known, nor his people, nor his erudition, does not the fact that there is no reason for him to substitute Diodorus of Tyre for Diodorus of Tarsus greatly commend his authority in this matter? Facundus, on the contrary, in the eagerness with which he was moved to find those who might commend Diodorus of Tarsus, could easily have slipped into that error into which we know many other writers, carried away by a similar zeal, have fallen—namely, attributing to the one he was eager to commend whatever he found written in praise of a bishop who was called Diodorus. The danger for Facundus seems to have been that, in his age, Diodorus of Tyre was perhaps less well known, while Diodorus of Tarsus hovered on the lips of men with the greatest celebrity, with some proclaiming him both learned and pious, while others strove for the condemnation of his name, because they believed he had provided a torch for the errors of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius.

^B That the error is Facundus's, and not Epiphanius's, is shown first of all by this: when Jerome wrote his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, I conjecture that Epiphanius had not yet written his *On Gems*, and I maintain that Diodorus of Tarsus had already died. As for that first point: since we know that this book was given as a gift to Jerome by Epiphanius, and it is easy to think that this happened not long after the publication of that same book; and furthermore, since it is certain that it was valued highly by Jerome, so that he celebrated it more than once with highest praises when given the opportunity to mention it: who could deny that it is most likely that it had not yet been written in the year of Christ 392, when Jerome wrote his *Catalogue*, since he does not mention it there, where he deliberately lists the works of ecclesiastical writers, among which are also those of Epiphanius? Indeed, when Jerome, speaking of Epiphanius in chapter 114, after he has commemorated his work *On Heresies*, adds: "He survives to this day, and in his extreme old age he continues to craft various works"—or, as it is read elsewhere, "opuscula"—I do not doubt that the book *On Gems* is to be understood among these very works.

Nor let anyone think that I have imprudently passed over without reflection the fact that this conjecture might lose much of its strength if it is not certain that Jerome and Epiphanius met after he had written the book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, and before he wrote it—since we know he received the book *On Gems* as a gift from Epiphanius when the latter was present with him. I have indeed noted this too, but I have felt that my conjecture becomes more, not less, probable from it: for we know they met more than once; for they met in the year of Christ 382, when Epiphanius came to Rome, and they met in 385 when Jerome visited Epiphanius in Cyprus. Afterwards, ^C they met in 394, and they met in Bethlehem, which I declare knowing full well—for it is truly noteworthy, for Jerome’s phrase squares with the matter in a wonderful way, who, when he was writing, "Concerning which also the holy man, Bishop Epiphanius, handed his own volume to me in person," was certainly in Bethlehem.

But that Facundus could have erred in these things, and indeed easily, but did not actually do so, is proven. When these facts are placed here, it is evidenced by the authority of the manuscripts containing the *Epitome* of Epiphanius’s book *On Gems*, which unanimously teach us that it was sent to Diodorus of Tyre. Furthermore, it is most fully confirmed—which one may conjecture, and with the added authority of the *Epitome* it is almost evident, as Tillemont believes—that the letter of Epiphanius was sent to the same Diodorus to whom those other two letters pertain, namely those of Athanasius and the bishops of Egypt, regarding which it is certainly sufficiently clear that they pertain to Diodorus of Tyre. The harmony of these letters and the letter of Epiphanius consists in this, that in the letter of the bishops of Egypt, as well as in another of Peter of Alexandria, both Athanasius and Epiphanius are joined together with that Diodorus whom we grant for certain to be the bishop of Tyre, where those bishops are listed against whom Apollinarius dared to threaten anathema. Therefore, from this we understand that Diodorus of Tyre and Epiphanius were friends, and joined in the same faction, and subject to the same dangers.

To me, however, this bond of spirit between Diodorus, bishop of Tyre, and Epiphanius recalls something to mind, which I suppose might perhaps not be very germane to the matter, but nonetheless nothing hinders me from saying it. It is agreed concerning the friendship of Epiphanius with Diodorus, bishop of Tyre: but do we think it is also agreed concerning the friendship with Diodorus of Tarsus? When the Church of Antioch was divided at that time, with two bishops claiming it for themselves—Flavian and Paulinus—of whom each had his own patrons and followers, Diodorus of Tarsus favored Flavian intensely, while Epiphanius favored Paulinus: and furthermore, Diodorus of Tarsus was the teacher of John Chrysostom, between whom and Epiphanius it is not hidden that enmities flared, though they were stirred up on both sides with a holy intention.

§ X. *The time at which Epiphanius wrote the book On Gems is investigated, and from this it is confirmed that it was not dedicated to Diodorus of Tarsus.*

But even the time itself, at which the book *On Gems* ^D was written, greatly favors my conjecture, because Jerome praises Epiphanius’s *On Gems* in three books, and it has been discovered that each of them was written long after the year of Christ 392. The letter to Fabiola was given in the year 397, or earlier: the Commentaries on Isaiah were written in the year 408, or 410, and the Commentaries on Ezekiel are said in their own Preface to have been written after the Commentaries on Isaiah.

Now, I maintain no less boldly and probably that when Jerome wrote his *Catalogue*, Diodorus of Tarsus had already passed away. This is suggested, as Tillemont also notices in note 4 *On Diodorus of Tarsus, etc.*, from the *Catalogue* itself, in which Jerome does not mention that he was still among the living, as he is accustomed to do regarding all the others; indeed, he speaks of him with such freedom that he would hardly have dared to speak so if he were alive: for he writes that he was ignorant of secular letters, that he followed Eusebius of Emesa less happily, and finally that he did flourish with a great reputation for learning, but more while he was a presbyter than when he was a bishop. Jerome’s words in chapter 119 are these: "Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, was more renowned while he was a presbyter at Antioch. There exist his Commentaries on the Apostle, and many other things pertaining more to the character of Eusebius of Emesa: whose sense he followed, but could not imitate his eloquence, on account of his ignorance of secular letters."

But, it is not so concerning Diodorus, bishop of Tyre. There is nothing by which we might prove that he departed from this life in the year of Christ 392. The Acts of the Council of Antioch, which

Constantinople, which ^A was celebrated in the year 381, do indeed count among the Fathers the bishop of Tyre, Zeno by name; but we have long known that at that time there were two bishops in the city of Tyre; for Rufinus, who flourished in the same age, after he had mentioned in Hist. lib. II, c. 21, that the Church of Antioch was divided by an infamous schism, with Flavian and Paulinus both sitting as bishops there at the same time, proceeds as follows: "The same thing happened at Tyre: where, when Diodorus, a man who was indeed one of the ancient Catholics, and proven by the testimony of trials, had been made bishop by the confessors through the witness of Athanasius, another was ordained from the parties of Meletius, his modesty being disregarded." [x] From this authority of Rufinus, I see that not only the schism of Tyre, but also this can be most opportunely gathered: that Diodorus of Tyre could have counted thirty years of episcopate at most by the year of Christ 392; for those confessors, from whom, by the testimony of Rufinus, he received that order, as Tillemont rightly reckons in Art. 110 Concerning St. Athanasius, either appear to have been among those bishops who were recalled from exile under the Emperor Julian in the year of Christ 362, or among those who were recalled in the year of Christ 363, when Jovian was reigning and the opportunity of caring for the Churches was granted to them. By my own hand, I have a testimony ready with which I may show that, certainly in the year of Christ 559, another bishop sat at Tyre, Uranius by name, since I find him subscribing to the book De fide [On the Faith], which Acacius of Caesarea recited in the synod of Seleucia held in this same year. Furthermore, the letter of Athanasius to Diodorus of Tyre, which shall presently be mentioned, perhaps reveals not only that it was given around the beginnings of the episcopate of Diodorus, as we shall observe, but also when peace had already been restored to the Church, which is evident from it, that Diodorus had acted so freely and strenuously against the heretics that he had broken them, and restored the true faith in the city of Tyre. Wherefore, if we remember the age at which bishops were chosen at that time, truly this also becomes clear, and the years of age which it is fitting to attribute to Diodorus of Tyre, when we wish to say he did not receive the book De gemmis [On Gems] from Epiphanius before the year of Christ 392, invalidate the things which we have argued so far.

§ XI. The praises which Epiphanius attributes to that Diodorus, to whom he inscribed the book De gemmis, apply most excellently to Diodorus of Tyre. But there remains another thing to be gathered from the recorded words of Rufinus: that this estimation, with which Epiphanius pursues the Diodorus to whom he inscribed the book De gemmis, applies most excellently to Diodorus of Tyre. For since [x] as famous as the name of Diodorus of Tarsus is, so unknown is that of Diodorus of Tyre, whom more diligent lovers of ecclesiastical history would scarcely know, had not Tillemont raised him to some fame; therefore, this likewise should not be passed over in silence, which indeed is most excellently said of Diodorus of Tyre by Epiphanius: "[He is the] son of Elijah and other prophets, a disciple and successor of the venerable [one], and because it is most excellent that he hopes to be enriched with the gifts of divine grace through the prayers of the Diodorus of Tyre; for he was indeed one of the ancient Catholics, proven by the testimony of trials, having been made bishop through the witness of Athanasius by the confessors, and endowed with singular modesty, as we learn from Rufinus. Moreover, the other testimonies which we have concerning him also harmonize with these. Athanasius wrote to him in such a way, when he had recently obtained the episcopate, as I am persuaded from the context of the letter itself, in which he asks for frequent letters from him, and laments that he has not yet received any, so that he learned from elsewhere of the grace that occurred through him at Tyre, and that Tyre through him learned the ^B true word of piety, or has renounced, as I interpret, the Arian heresy, which, under Uranius, who judged that the Nicene faith should be abolished, it could easily have drunk in [as its own]: "To my lord, my son, and most beloved fellow-presbyter Diodorus, Athanasius sends greetings in the Lord. I give thanks to my Lord, who everywhere spreads His doctrine, and especially through His own sons, as the matter itself demonstrates that you yourself are. For even before your reverence wrote, we knew how great grace was wrought in Tyre through your perseverance; and we rejoice with you, because through you Tyre also has learned the true word of piety. And I, indeed, taking the opportunity, wrote to you, most beloved and most affectionate. But as for you, I was amazed that you did not write back to me as I was writing. Therefore, do not be sluggish in writing continuously, knowing that just as you make me, the father, find rest as a son, and just as a herald of truth you fill me with excessive joy. And do not contend with the heretics, but overcome their verbosity with silence, and their malice with gentleness. For thus your word, seasoned with salt, will have grace, ^C but they will be condemned in the conscience of all." So far Athanasius: and it is certainly clear from Rufinus, who declares him to have been distinguished by the praise of modesty, how remarkably Diodorus made use of his excellent warning to overcome the malice of heretics with gentleness and their verbosity with silence. Those who succeeded Athanasius as archbishops of Alexandria, Peter and Timothy, preserved veneration and respect for Diodorus of Tyre. Peter, writing to bishops, priests, and deacons who were in exile for the true faith, says: "I use you, therefore, as counselors in these things which are happening; and what am I to do, being always so disturbed, with Timothy defaming himself as being bishop, so that he may, through this, perjure himself more confidently, and infringe upon paternal laws? For he wished to anathematize me, and Basil of Caesarea, and Paulinus, and Epiphanius, and Diodorus the bishops, and to communicate only with Vitalis." But the letter of Timothy given to the same man is most beautiful, where, being called blessed since he is not only clear in faith, but also in the hardships which he endured for Christ, it is fitting to remember the trials by which he is said by Rufinus to have been proven, and the injury by which he had been affected by another bishop of Tyre having been made against him, who stood on the side of Meletius. It is as follows: "To my lord, and most holy bishop, and fellow-presbyter Diodorus, Timothy sends greetings in Christ. I shall by no means be able to proclaim your virtue, and the perfection of your life, and the zeal of your true and apostolic faith according to its dignity, even if I were to hasten too much; for words and facts are not equal. It has been granted to you from on high not only to believe in Christ Jesus, but also to suffer for Him. ^D That this right and blessed will of yours towards God, and your unwavering conscience concerning the mystery of piety, was long ago in you, both our divine pope Athanasius testified to your religiosity, and he led us, his disciples, to love your perfection, and to pray to God that your life be preserved for many cycles of years for the benefit of the Churches of Christ." [XXXIII] 239 Finally, certain Egyptian bishops who were in exile at Diocaesarea write against Apollinarius, among other things having this: "In addition to this and other letters, in which he accused the venerable archbishop of Cyprus, Epiphanius, the orthodox and one who communicates always with our most blessed pope Athanasius: he has furthermore also unjustly pronounced judgment, through his own letters, against the most holy Tarsian, and one who communicates similarly with our blessed pope Athanasius, our own bishop Diodorus, if he would not abstain from the communion of the aforementioned orthodox bishops, Paulinus and Epiphanius." That these four letters pertain to one and the same Diodorus is so clearly evident from their context that there is no room for doubt; per-

^A it is understood that they pertain to Diodorus of Tyre, and not to the one of Tarsus, as Facundus refers them, both from the letter of Athanasius and from that of the Egyptian bishops, as we have also advised earlier. For when the bishops of Egypt, while they were in exile near Caesarea by order of the one harassing the Church of Valens, wrote that letter—and it is certain that Athanasius at least was already dead in the year of Christ 374—the Bishop Diodorus praised by them can by no means be Diodorus of Tarsus, concerning whom Theodoret (Hist. lib. v, cap. 4) clearly states that he attained the episcopate after peace had been restored to the Church by Valens, which happened around the year of Christ 378, and this is further proven by many other very weighty conjectures, which can be seen in Tillemont, note 11, *De Diodoro Tarsi*, etc. And so, it is in vain that the word "of Tarsus" is added after the word "con-brother" in the title of the letter of Athanasius which we have brought forward—a word which alone is enough to indicate the episcopal rank of Diodorus, to whom the letter was written—and the word "Tarsian" is altogether a fabrication in the letter of the exiled bishops of Egypt; ^B if the consideration of the times did not show this, it would certainly be clear from the fact that it could by no means be said that Apollinaris [xxxiv] had threatened Diodorus of Tarsus that he would strike him with anathema unless he refrained from the communion of Paulinus, since this Diodorus never held the party of Paulinus, but always those of Meletius and Flavian. Furthermore, that phrase "our own bishop" could by no means be applied as easily to Diodorus, the bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia, as it is easily applied to the Tyrian. The authors of the letters were living in Caesarea, a city of Phoenicia, and the metropolitan of this province was the bishop of Tyre. Moreover, what if one were to suspect that they were among those confessors who initiated Diodorus into the order of the episcopate at Tyre? To this, who could prove false the claim that the bishop of Tyre could have been numbered among the Egyptian bishops at that time? Phoenicia once extended up to Pelusium. The name of Egypt has sometimes encompassed much wider borders in the past. ^C But it is not the place to pursue more things which confirm that the letters, once transcribed, no less than that of Epiphanius, commend Diodorus of Tyre, and not, as Facundus maintains, Diodorus of Tarsus, since the evidence we have brought forward proves this plainly and clearly. Therefore, we refer studious readers, who may perhaps desire more, to the volumes of Tillemont. Whether Facundus was the inventor of the trick, or whether he first drank in the trick himself and then later unwittingly served it to us, is difficult to judge, although I have my own opinion as to where conjecture leads me. He reports in book VIII, chapter 5, the synodical letter of the Antiochenes, by which he says Eutyches was first opposed, in book XI, under the end of which he deals with Diodorus of Tarsus in these words: *And the most sacred Diodorus indeed flourished with Athanasius the Great, and Peter, and Timothy. But Theodore, with Theophilus, men who lit up the world in the place of luminaries, and who graced the see of Alexandria. But these men were indeed their admirers throughout their whole life.* Have you noticed? To whom would it not occur, reading these words: *But these men were indeed their admirers throughout their whole life*, that they refer to the very letters of Athanasius, Peter, and Timothy, which we have described? [xxxv] Indeed, even when in lib. VII, cap. 8, he attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia a letter of Gregory Nazianzen which, since it was inscribed to Theodore, he referred to the former but should have referred to the one of Tyana, he defended an error common with others, as is gathered from the edict of Justinian and from the 5th collation of the Fifth Synod, where this error is refuted. See Concil. Hard. vol. III, col. 411 and 318, ed. Paris., etc.

^D It is therefore easy to believe that the Greeks, with whom he lived for a long time at Constantinople, imposed upon Facundus, even regarding the letters to Diodorus; the Greeks, I say, a race of men remarkably bold in history, for which name they have always fared ill, and for which "Greek faith" has long since become a proverb. But if anyone wishes that this should at least be conceded, that Facundus was deceived not without fault, I would not dare to oppose it, not only because he seems to me to have been a man tenacious of his preconceived opinion and an impotent defender of it, when I read his book against Mutianus the scholastic, but also because in his writings such errors are detected, by which he is convicted of being guilty either of negligence, because he neglected to consult more codices; or of credulity, because he rashly used whatever authorities he accepted from Greeks of his own party; or of ignorance, because he himself did not know how to translate Greek into Latin and procured versions for himself from biased men, as when he refers to the opinion of Cyril of Alexandria concerning the books of Theodore from the 5th collation of the Fifth Synod in lib. [blank], cap. 3, which in Greek sounds thus: *Which labors anyone would be unwilling to criticize, but would rather honor, if there were in them a rectitude of dogmas*; yet he renders it in this way: *No one has dared to criticize the very labors, but to honor with sound decree the study of the right dogmas which is in them.* And when in lib. XI, cap. 1, he attributes to Athanasius a book which was by Serapion, bishop of Thmuis, and furthermore, copying its beginning, he weaves the name of Jesus into his words, whence an impious error is imputed to the supposed author, Athanasius. Facundus wrote more than once in defense of the Three Chapters [xxxvi]. The books edited by Sirmond are later under his care, but although in their Preface he says that he had removed from them what he had previously reported less correctly on account of the corruption of the codices or the carelessness of translators, yet he did not fully cleanse them from these stains, nor did he polish that work of his with sufficient diligence. And let this be enough said about these matters.

Now, however, I make an end to my Preface, and I take upon myself the task that, where strength allows, other similar little books will follow this one, presenting a series of anecdotes not to be despised, so that common utility may be served. This kind of study is by no means light, to be sure, but is one of great judgment and art, and sometimes even of arduous and troublesome labor; but nevertheless, it is my intention to engage myself in it, and to test what I can do in it, since it is of the greatest use; whence most learned men have deemed it a glory to themselves to devote their labor to it, among whom, not to mention foreigners or those who have met their fate, there shine now in our Italy the brightest lights of this age, most excellent men,

*Whom no day will ever remove from the mindful age,*

Ludovico Antonio Muratori, Giovanni Lami, and the Bishop of Brescia, Angelo Maria Quirini, Cardinal of the S.R.C. and librarian, by whose care and study the most complete collection of the letters of Cardinal Reginald Pole is now about to be produced. I cannot refrain, the occasion being well given, from congratulating and applauding the republic of letters, and indeed the entire Christian republic. For it is not to be doubted that just as, when he edited the letters of Francesco Barbaro, he added a volume of his own annotations—learned indeed and laborious, where a treasure of the most beautiful things, which illuminate the history of the resurgent letters, is unlocked—so now, not only to those very most desired letters, but also by his own Commentary, he is about to bring a great deal of light to the very grave history of the Anglican schism.

OF SAINT EPIPHANIUS, BISHOP, ON THE TWELVE GEMS OF THE BREASTPLATE OF THE HIGH PRIEST OF THE HEBREWS

BOOK.

EPISTLE OF EPIPHANIUS TO DIODORUS. Translated by Facundus of Hermiane.

To my honorable brother and fellow priest Diodorus, a beloved bishop, Epiphanius sends greeting in the Lord.

[1] Showing grace greater than that which he received, the Lord asked the Samaritan woman to give him water to drink: he who was himself the fountain, sat beside the well, and was found fatigued from his journey, so that subsequently, in the present discourse, he might not exceed the truth of his incarnation. (And a little later.) But even his disciples and servants, from whom they asked something, were giving to them rather than receiving from them, and Elias, who was a figure properly representing the Lord, was speaking, and he was requiring a measure of necessary things as much as was needed: yet he was superabundantly filling the one providing him the blessing, as the widow ^A seeking bread, but by the occasion of that petition providing an abundance of blessing; thus also your honorable self, seeking from our meager condition, give more than you receive: your petition directed to God indeed provides an indeficiency to our small vessel, and bestows a constant outpouring from a very small measure. You ask, therefore, in the beginning of your epistle, honorable one, concerning the stones in the breastplate on the shoulders of the priest, which were disposed and inserted upon the breast of Aaron, and their names, and colors, and species, and places, and the contemplations of those stones that lead to piety, and for which tribe each stone was ordained, and from where it was found, and from what fatherland. And, as I said, for us indeed the discovery of these things was altogether difficult, just like it was for that widow, on account of poverty; but just as to her, through ^B something, they were giving to these rather than receiving. This same thing Elias also prefigured, going before in the form of his Lord. Properly requiring the mode of a necessary thing, but above that which was necessary, he was insinuating the generosity of the blessing for him who remained in him. He who was indeed asking for the bread of the widow, but by the occasion of this petition was granting an opulence of blessing: thus also your venerability, while asking something from our smallness, is proven to give more than you accept. [4] For with your prayer constantly working with God, an unfailing supply of oil will be provided from a small vessel. And the jar of flour will be granted from a small amount in a measure of abundance beyond measure. You have asked, therefore, in the beginning of your epistle, venerable one, concerning the ^C pebbles in the breastplate of the High Priest of the Hebrews.

EPISTLE OF EPIPHANIUS TO DIODORUS. Anonymous translation.

^A And for us, as I have recalled regarding the aforementioned widow, the discovery of these was entirely difficult because of their scarcity. But just as the miraculous thing occurred to her through the blessing, and the gift of the Lord’s mysteries was shown to the Samaritan woman in place of sensible water: so also to us, who are destitute of wisdom, and knowledge, and discourse, the ability has been granted from every side, as if by many rains diffused in fertile abundance, through the prayers of Elijah and the other prophets, whose honorable son, disciple, and successor you are proven to be, receiving it as they did from the Lord, and bestowing it upon us through your prayers.

Wherefore now I shall begin to speak of these: first, asking for pardon, and revealing the zeal of my intended task, although I may only be able to provide the discourse of a feeble dissertation. It is therefore written first in four rows, for they were divided fourfold, and the Rational of the priest was itself quadrilateral, having as much in its length as ^B in its breadth one span. The order of the rows then is: the first stone is the sardius, then the topaz, then the smaragdus; the first stone of the second row is the carbunculus, then the sapphire, then the jasper; the first stone of the third row is the ligyrium, then the agate, then the amethyst; likewise of the fourth and last row, the first stone is the chrysolite, then the beryl, then the onyx. These indeed are the twelve stones which it is certain were inserted into the Rational, which was placed upon the superhumeral of the priest, the differences and places of which we shall describe.

The sardius, which is also called the Babylonian, is spoken of thus: it indeed has a species like fire and a bloody color, similar to the sard fish, whence it is also called sardius, receiving its name from its species. In Babylon, which is among the Assyrians, it is generated, and the stone itself is transparent, having a medicinal power; the juice of which, when applied over tumors and putrifying sores, alleviates them, and also other wounds which result from the incision of iron. ^C There is also another sardonyx, which is called molochas, which knows how to attenuate fatness; its form is somewhat greenish, and it is more potent around the beginning of the spring season, when the Pascha is celebrated; and there is another, the sardachate, around which a certain white circle appears on the stone, just as in the agate, which those who invent fables declare can put evil to flight, and they call it the peaceful stone.

CONCERNING THE TOPAZ STONE

The red topaz is a species after the stone which is called carbunculus. It was found in the city of Topaze in India, in the heart of the stone by those who were cutting stones there at that time. The stone-cutters, beholding it as most splendid and being delighted by its beauty, showed it to certain Alabastris merchants, and sold it for a small price.

^A The Thebans, nevertheless, offered it to the queen who was reigning at that time. Taking it, she placed it in her diadem in the middle of her forehead. Now this stone has this efficacy: when it is rubbed on a medicated whetstone, it does not emit a red juice in accordance with the mode of its color, but rather emits it in the manner of milk. For they fill as many cups as those who are doing the rubbing wish to fill, and after this the dimension of the stone is the same, being neither diminished in weight nor changed in its rotundity of measure in the slightest. Furthermore, the juice extracted from it wonderfully heals diseases of the eyes; and likewise, when it is drunk, it greatly heals those who are held by the aqueous rabies, and those who [suffer] from the sea-grape.

CONCERNING THE EMERALD STONE

[Note: regarding the text on the oil, Suetonius (*in Jul. Caesar*, cap. 55) contrasts green oil with stored oil, that is, according to the different manner of speaking, old or medicated, not pure. The Latins called oil "green" when it was pressed from unripe olives, as Cato (cap. 65), Columella (cap. 50), Palladius (lib. 1, tit. 10), and Servius (ad v. 86, lib. *Georgicorum*) teach. It was considered the best oil; hence "green oil" is the same as "excellent oil." The Greeks called it *omphakinon*. See *Geoponica*, lib. x, cap. 26 and 27, *elaion omphakinon, e allos kalon*.]

^D Regarding the term "libertine" oil, which was new to me, I was anxious as to how I should correct it, and I pondered much in my mind whether perhaps it should be restored to "Liburnian"; for such oil, also called Istrian—as is explicitly taught in *Geoponica*, lib. ix, cap. 27, because Liburnia adhered to Istria—Apicius greatly praises (lib. 1, cap. 5), and it vied as an equal with the Baetic [oil], as Pliny testifies in the place cited above. Furthermore, when I encountered the same Pliny as an appraiser of African oil, and recalled the inscriptions from Gruter, page 426: MERCATORES OLEARI AFRARI. I immediately remembered that there were Libertinenses in Africa, and it did not escape me that Suidas had mentioned a certain tribe of Libertini. But at length, since from the *to* [in the Greek text] the word *Libertino* seemed placed as a synonym, as they say, for the word *Spano*, that is, *Hispano*, I was first in doubt whether it should be replaced with *Libertino*—for there existed a famous city in Spain named Illiberis, from which Pliny (lib. iii, cap. 3) [speaks of] *Illiberi*, which is *Liberini*. But afterwards, being not unaware that it often happens through the error of scribes that the last letter of a preceding word is sometimes repeated at the beginning of the following word in manuscripts, and moreover seeing that the interpreter had not reached the meaning of the Greek in more than one place, I thought it should be corrected, as far as conjecture allows: perhaps to *Ibero*, but that in the Greek there had been *ho Iber or*, which last word is not infrequently added among the Greeks for the sake of ornament alone.

[Note: they say "iris" oil, made from lilies, which Hippocrates mentions in many places, and others, etc.]

[Note: Epitome Gesneri has *en skeuesi balei hikanois*, which Jolas translates...]

which verdigris from the copper itself causes to turn green, and in this way to irrigate the mountain; and the stone receiving this oil becomes more brilliant in its verdure and transparency. Others, however, do not think this, but relate that a certain ancient artisan of the art of gem-making 34, most skilled and very clever in the knowledge of such stones, discovered this necessary variety of emerald, and that it was first called Neronian after him. Now, in the same way that we spoke of the Neronian, we must take note of the Domitian. For Domitian was emperor after Vespasian and his brother Titus, who devastated 35 Jerusalem. And those princes were lovers of vain things—Nero, that is, and Domitian. There are also other emeralds; one in India 36 which is highly similar to the Neronian, and another in Ethiopia, which is also found in the river Phison. Whence divine Scripture also agrees with our account, saying: "Phison itself is that which encompasses the whole land of Evilat... there is found the green stone." [1 Gen. 11, 12, according to the LXX.] ^A And it bears witness that the carbuncle is there too. But the river called by the Greeks the Indus is called by the barbarians and the Evilæans "Barimanasi" 37, and by the Indians and Bugeis 38 it is called the Ganges, and many writers of the Greeks call the river the Ganges by that name 39, which flows through the whole land of Evilat. And they call the interior Indians the Ejulæans. It also encompasses Ethiopia, which 243 13 is called Western and Great Ethiopia, and from there it flows into the Ocean 40: because of this, the carbuncle stone is also carried along by the course of this river and cast onto the places which are around Libya, where the aforementioned Ethiopians dwell 41. But Aquila 14, the interpreter in Genesis, did not translate it as "green stone" nor as "emerald," but used the Hebrew interpretation on the surface, and finding in the Hebrew the name of the stone "bodallin" 42—which the Septuagint said was where the green stone is found. Aquila 43 said that "bdellium" is found there. Now, bdellium 44 is a certain ointment, or incense ^B or gum of a kind, which the black tree ^C exuding through that region flows to the south, and erupts into the huge Ocean within Gades. ^D There was Ethiopia in Asia and another in Africa: and this division perhaps provided the handle for Epiphanius to err; which indeed is rendered the more probable because many—as Homer (Odyssey A, v. 23), Pliny (book v, chapter 8), and Strabo (book i)—have divided African Ethiopia into eastern and western, while yet others have called Asian Ethiopia the eastern Ethiopia. See Herodotus (book v, chapter 70). However, St. Epiphanius seems to speak not at all inappropriately in the *Ancoratus*, accepting the great Ethiopia—which he places on account of the Ganges—as the Asian one, but the lesser—which he writes the Geon flows—as the African one. These things, at least, are not in the least inconsistent with one another.

^A of these things, eight kinds of emerald are reported, as much as each could find; and although its nature is greener and intense, yet those which are from Ethiopia, or India, show the likeness of the liver, that is, of the hepatites. It remains, therefore, for us now to expound concerning that mountain which was irrigated at times either by Nero, as is commonly said in conversation, or by Domitian, in which fatherland it is situated. For it is inside the Red Sea, which is so called, at the very passage of the region of the Indians, whose nations are very numerous, for in time past the Indians had been divided into nine kingdoms, just as fame celebr^B ates them under the same common name. ^C Homerites 15 (47): that is, of the Alabastri (48), of the Azomites (50), with the Dulites (51), the Bugaei (52), the Tajani (53), the Isabeni, the Liberii, the Diberii with the Ichthyophagi (54), and the Sirindibenians with the Evilaei: 244 17 but now there are many more, since they have been divided from the society which they previously had among themselves, the Dibeni (55) from the Ichthyophagi, and the Sirindibeni from the Evilaei. But concerning these, when one returns to their lands, we shall convey it in a historical narrative. But the mountain of which we speak now was then subject to the Romans. The Smaragdine ^D mountain, indeed, is so called naturally—

^A from the goods [20] of the fire it emits in sparkles, and at one hour it is kindled like a live coal, and at another hour it ceases, so that those who seek this stone, looking at it from afar, discern it to be the stone by the very fact that it appears at intervals and is extinguished again; and journeying toward its splendor, they find it. But he who carries it cannot conceal it, for though he cover it with any garments whatsoever, its radiance shines through the garments: hence it is also called a carbuncle, for this very reason. A stone called the ^B ceraunius, moreover, seems to be slightly similar to this; and some call that which is like yellow wine a "vinarius" [65]. Furthermore, there is also the chalcedonius [66], as they call it, which is likewise very close in appearance to these stones, which is found in the same parts of that place. Nor is it strange that Holy Scripture pronounces it to be in the river Phison, since it can also be found in Africa. For the Phison flows into the sea near the southern and western regions of the Ocean. The Ocean encircles the entire orb of the lands, ^C and therefore there were Blemyes, some closer to Egypt, others more remote: from Procopius, however, I gather that the proper region of the Blemmyes was further inland, beneath the Nubians, and that they led their colonies from thence into the regions near Egypt by force of arms. See Procopius, lib. I, *De bello Persico*, cap. 19.

CONCERNING THE CARBUNCLE STONE

Carbunculus has the appearance of a very sharp red [64] color. It is born near Carthage of Libya, which is called Africa. Others, however, say that this stone is found thus: it is not seen by day, but by night: from far off, however, after the manner of a stone... ^D as for those who fashion fables, it is claimed to be prescient of future events.

[Regarding the geographical and scholarly apparatus provided in the notes on this page, the editor remarks that] The Blemyes, a people whom Olympiodorus, as has been said, places near Talmis. Furthermore, in *Anc.* § 58, Epiphanius writes that the Nile washes the Blemmyan region; but if it is gathered from Strabo, lib. xv, p. 786, that the Blemyes inhabited both parts of the Nile, many more certainly inhabited the eastern part, and indeed they were dispersed in various places; for there are those who place them at Talmis, and those who place them at the Catadupa, as Dionysius, Eustathius p. 107, and Ammianus lib. xiv, cap. 4, and those who place them below Meroe as Strabo (with whom you might say Claudian agrees), and Zosimus lib. I, cap. 71, who makes them allies of the city of Ptolemais against the Romans; Ptolemy, however, places them under the Molibis, Agathemerus in *Geog.* lib. II, cap. 5 under the Nubians, and Procopius. Indeed, these Blemyes [are called by various names]... others are called Blemmyes by Agathemerus, which is most of all to be considered; for many Greek and Latin writers, especially those of the Middle Ages, called that region "Barbary," which is why it is not at all strange that the region of the Blemyes is called Barbary by Epiphanius. But if anyone prefers to have Epiphanius refer the Blemmyan region to that region of Africa which is called by the peculiar name of Barbary, it is necessary that he also assert that Epiphanius has confused two peoples of the same name living in different places; for only the Blemyes living in Barbary seem capable of being named, whom Ptolemy places under the Molibis, since the region of Barbary was stretched out between the Barbarian Gulf itself and the Nile, as is evident from Ptolemy, who makes Rapta its metropolis, and also from Agathemerus lib. II, cap. 11 and 14, and Marcianus of Heraclea in the *Periplus*, etc., lib. I, § 2, or that Epiphanius extended the borders of Barbary much further, and indeed Anastasius Sinaita in his *Anagoge on the Six Days' Work*, lib. I, places the Pentapolis in it, the region, namely, which Pliny teaches in lib. V, cap. 5, is made illustrious by five cities: Berenice, Arsinoe, Ptolemais, Apollonia, Cyrene, and Stephen also teaches that it is near the Arabic Gulf. Clearly, the name of one region not infrequently passed to neighboring ones as well.

(62) Heliodorus in his *Aethiopica*, lib. lxxviii, etc., describes the war fought by Hydaspes, king of the Ethiopians, with the Persians over the emerald mines, τὰ σμαράγδεια μέταλλα.

(64) The Latin "rubrica" [red] is suitable for tinting. Gesner's epitome had "Λίθος ἄνθραξ οὗτος εἶδος ξυφοίνικον ἔχει". Gesner, however, thought it should be emended to "φοίνικον", or "ἐξυφοίνικος". The epitome of Anastasius reads: "Ἄνθραξ ὀξυφοίνιστος μέν ἐστι τῷ εἴδει." Carbunculus is of a vehement Phoenician (red) color.

(66) Also, the epitome of Gesner has the reading "χαλκηδόνιος", from which it is evident that this reading was wrongly tampered with by Gesner by adding the word "καρχηδόνιος".

"καρχηδόνιος". ^A but flows into its western part, the Phison (67), as we said, and therefore this stone is carried into the parts of Libya; but Holy Scripture says: A river goes out from the same to irrigate paradise, which is then divided into four headwaters. The name of one is Phison: this is the one that circles all the land of Evilat, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is best; there is the carbuncle and the prasinus stone.

CONCERNING THE SAPPHIRE STONE

The sapphire stone is spoken of in the manner of purple (68), which they call "blatta" (69), the species of which is more intense: indeed there are many kinds of this stone; for it is shimmering with spots of regal gold, which is not as marvelous as that pure stone which shines everywhere with the appearance of purple, and this perhaps is said to be in India and in Ethiopia, on account of the festival of Father Liber among the Indians, which is said to have, although it may seem incredible, three hundred and sixty-five degrees, all of sapphire stone. Moreover, kings use it most especially in their ornaments and necklaces, because it is marvelous, and most beautiful and graceful: whence some have called it a necklace ornament [22]. It also drives away pains, for if it is rubbed with milk, a remedy for scabby and ulcerous conditions is produced, smeared over those places which have been roughened by wounds. It is also written in the Law (70) that the vision was seen by Moses on the mountain upon a sapphire stone, as it has been declared.

CONCERNING THE JASPER STONE

Jasper is a stone as it were reflecting the appearance of an emerald, which is found near the mouths of the river Thermodon, and near Amathus (71), not that which is in Cyprus [23]: but a manifold generation of the Amathusians (72) is naturally held. But this stone has this appearance: under the emerald it is greenish, but duller and darker, and its inner body has a green color like the verdigris of copper. But they claim that phantasms, that is, speculations, reside in it, just as those who recount ^B fabulous things assert (73). There is also another jasper, whiter than the sea; but in flower and tincture it is more intense (74): yet another is in the caves of Mount Ida, which is in Phrygia, and is found similar to the blood of a snail, but more shining, and as it were more similar to wine and more reddish than amethyst; for they are not of one color and the same power, but one is rarer and whiter, shining too brightly like the air of smoke, nor is it unequal, either, to the blue vibration (75), just as if in the time of winter a vapor or fog [24] should arise from the earth when the south wind ceases; another, which is similar to ice, by those who invent fabulous things, is said to be a remedy for phantasms. It was, however, found by the Iberians (76) and ^C what else was carelessly omitted. Perhaps St. Epiphanius had written that emeralds were found near Amathus, not that which is across the Jordan, but that which is in Cyprus: for Amathus was the greatest and most fortified city of all those which were across the Jordan, as recorded by Josephus, *Antiquities* book XIII, chapter 43, and *On the Jewish War* book I, chapter 8, and also by the author of *On the Places of Holy Scripture*, etc. But concerning the city of Amathus, most celebrated on the island of Cyprus, whence the name Amathusian was also given to the whole island of Cyprus, as Pliny testifies, it is of no interest to speak, and it is sufficient to remember that it is said by Ovid, *Metamorphoses* book X, v. 220, and v. 530, to be rich in metal, and pregnant with metal.

(67) Epiphanius comments again on the river Phison, in order to reconcile how the carbuncle can be found both in Carthage and in the Phison. (68) Supply "to shine," "to gleam." In the *Epitome of Gesner*: *Λίθος σάπφειρος πορφυρίζων, ὡς βλάττης πορφύρας τῆς μελαίνης τὸ εἶδος*. The sapphire stone turns purple, like a species of "blatta," that is, dark purple. (69) "Purpura," of course, is the best: the "blatta" was formerly called a vermilion worm, from "nocendo" [harming], from *βλάπτειν*, it is said, because when caught it stains the hand of man. Egnatius, on that passage of Lampridius in the *Life of Heliogabalus*: "He had therefore prepared ropes woven with blatta and silk and scarlet," notes that the blatta is purple made from Indian shellfish; but it cannot be doubted that the Tyrian purple itself held the same name, as Sidonius sings in *Panegyric on Majorian* v. 43: "Pontus [provides] castoreum, Tyre [provides] the blatta, Corinth [provides] bronze," etc. (70) Namely, insinuating that even the tablets of the Law were of sapphire, the true opinion of Epiphanius, as is clear from this, he presents it as corrupted, and weaves into it an injury, a fiction which Lyranus attributes to the Hebrews, and it is also found in Suidas under the word *Μωϋσῆς*. Abulensis refutes the Jews also because they said that Moses, after he had broken the tablets on account of the sin of the people, had gathered the fragments and by this had enriched himself. However, I do not doubt ^D that this story, or rather fable, arose from the fact that God, when about to give the Law to Moses, appeared in such a way that he had, as it were, the work of a sapphire stone under his feet, as it is read in Exodus ch. XXIV, 10. Indeed, the Rabbis openly stated that the sapphire of the tablets was cut from the sapphire throne of God, and they made their weight forty "sata." See the greater notes of Drusius, vol. I, *Critica Sacra*, etc. (71) Both epitomes have that jasper is found near Amathus in Cyprus. Therefore, either the "not" was added carelessly, or something else was carelessly omitted. (72) Cod.: "but the nature of the Amathusian." I considered it restored as it had been written by the interpreter. (73) Jerome borrowed from this source, who has in book XV of his *Commentaries* on Isaiah, ch. LIV: "There are many kinds of jasper: for one has the likeness of emerald, which is found in the springs of the river Thermodon, and is called 'grammatias,' by which they claim all phantasms are put to flight; another is greener than the sea, and tinged as if with flowers: they report that this is born in the Phrygian Mount Ida, and in its deepest caves; another, however, is found near the Iberians and Hyrcanians and the Caspian Sea, and especially near the grove of Nausin." Thus far St. Jerome. But Vallarsius notes that in the Ambrosian codex he did not find "grammatias," but written in Greek letters ΑΜΑΘΟΥΣΙΟC, whence he rightly conjectures that perhaps the true name of the stone had been "Amathusios," since Epiphanius taught that it is found around "Amathus," which is in Cyprus. (74) Eustathius calls it, and they also call it Asiatic, so that it may be distinguished from European Iberia, namely Spain. Now we know them under the name of Georgians.

^A shepherds of the Hyrcanians, who dwell around the Caspian Sea and the lake (77). There is also another jasper, which is called *appalius* (78), similar to snows, or to the foam of the sea, or as if blood were mixed with milk, as the Massagetae are accustomed to drink (79): this, as those who relate fabulous things say, the beasts in the field fear, along with other portents (80).

ON THE LIGURIAN STONE

^B Nor are we by any means acquainted with the discovery of the *ligyrius*, neither by physiologists, that is, those who investigate the nature of things, nor by certain ancients who are reported to have concerned themselves with these matters (81). ^C But I have lately found a *laugurinum* (82), a stone so called, which some, in a more precise (83) locution (27), call *ligguriorum* (84), and perhaps…

I imagine this to be the ligyrium, since many names in divine Scripture have been altered, just as they called the emerald *prasinum* [leek-green], and gave it other names. And the *liggurus*, or even *laggurus* ^A, if it be the same as *ligyrium*, is of unknown origin to us. However, some have supposed it to be from the upper Thebaid, because they claim that certain stones are found in the Egyptian Memphis, in the temple of Asclepius, which is so called: within which are, as it were, shimmering marks, not like in the *ophite*, but having spots near the stone called *cerinum*. The spots are greenish, so that we may understand that in the depth of this stone there is a most choice vein. But this stone seems to have taken its name even more clearly and elegantly. For *liggurus* is explained by a certain animal, which is called *liggium*, having the color of a young buffalo or a reddish heifer, whose tail is small, and it has certain greenish spots, for which reason the *ligurus* stone is also called the tail of the *liggium*. But I am vehemently astonished why divine Scripture, caring for the ornament and beauty of royal thrones and pontifical vestments, would use such precious stones ^B, and of those, who were already manifest and well-known, mentioning the carbuncle, I say, and the emerald, the amethyst and the agate, the beryl and the chrysolite, it does not mention the hyacinth in this enumeration of stones? For that stone is most bright, and so precious and marvelous, that we might notice whether perhaps divine Scripture characterizes it by the name *ligyrium*.

The hyacinth has diverse species; for the deeper one is found in color, the more necessary it is than the others. Now, a purple color is somewhat similar to the hyacinth or the *callainus*. Whence divine Scripture also says that pontifical vestments are adorned with blue and purple. And the principal hyacinth stone is called *thalassites*, because it recalls the likeness of a calm sea. There is also another, which is called *rhodiæus*; another, *oppalius*. Again, another, *perileutius*. Now these stones are found in the inner barbarity of the Scythians. For the ancients were accustomed to call the whole northern region Scythia, where the Goths and Dauni, the Venni also and Arii are, as far as the region of the Germans and Amazons. There, therefore, in the inner desert of this great Scythia ^D [remainder of column omitted].

^A [32] Scythias is found. Among these stones is the achates of a tawny color, which, when ground with water and applied to places that have been bitten, repels the venoms of vipers or scorpions and other serpents. I refer, however, to the achates which presents the appearance of a lion.

OF THE AMETHYST STONE

OF THE CHRYSOLITH STONE

OF THE BERYL STONE

ON THE ONYX STONE

The onyx is a yellow stone that exhibits a very bright color. It is said that the wives of kings and the wealthy take pleasure in this stone, and they use it by transferring it into their drinking vessels. There are also other "onychites" that are so named equivocally—that is, not truthfully—which are similar to wax, which is honey-colored. Some say these are solidified from drops of water. However, the onychites are naturally named for the fact that they resemble the fingernails of refined men, and they manifest a certain marble-like quality that blushes with a mixture of blood ^A. Hence, some people falsely call a marble stone that comes from the place called Docimium (for the sake of the purity of its whiteness) an "onychite."

Therefore, the discovery of these twelve stones, which were ordered to be attached to the high priest’s superhumerale, consists of various authors who spoke of the natures of these stones. As we have been able to investigate, we have briefly noted their species, their locations, and the powers of their appearance, and we have subsequently expressed the names of each stone. Now, the question arises as to what methods of sequence for their order we may approve as being most certain and consistent. For the twelve stones were ordered to be set according to the twelve tribes, in such a way that one stone was matched to one tribe, and individual stones were assigned to individual names. And if the commandment had declared to which tribe each stone was suited, no investigation at all would remain for inquiring into the ^B divinely ordained definition; but only a diligent intention would be left to explain to us the power of the stones. But now, it is not determined; rather, we simply acknowledge that the sequence of these stones and the manner of their composition are assigned in two places: as in the breastplate, which was placed over the high priest’s chest, and in the superhumerale by the two gold rings on it, which contained the ring in the middle, again attached to the upper rings, which were fastened on either side of the high priest’s shoulder. For the superhumerale, being one, was closed in a circuit with a single opening, having a hyacinthine ribbon bound in gold, and from here on the right, one ring, and on the left, another, protruding on either side of the shoulder, connecting the rings to the high priest’s throat, which again were seen to be placed on ^C either side of the breastplate, so that they might be connected and matched to one another—namely, by the two rings of the breastplate and the two rings of the superhumerale, where golden chains were seen overhanging from above.

This breastplate, as I have said, had twelve stones inserted into it appropriately, and composed in a square order, which are shown to be intertwined as follows. The first order, and the upper one from the left side of the high priest towards the right, had these stones placed: sardius, topaz, emerald. For it is necessary to note this more diligently—namely, where the composition began and where it ended. It should be known that such compositions were made according to the elements of Hebrew letters. For the Hebrews write from the left to the right, leading the subject order of any matter. They themselves, however, appear to move the hand following the letters from the right to the left. Therefore, the orders on the high priest’s breast were, from his left, leading to the ^D right.

The first order, as I have said: sardius, topaz, emerald; the second, however, carbuncle, sapphire, jasper; the third, ligurian, agate, amethyst; the fourth, which is also the last, chrysolite, beryl, onychinus (Exod. xxix, 10–13).

[38] Again, we find those same stones placed in the two parts of the superhumerale, in which two stones were seen to be inserted with golden chains.

^A At the side of the shoulders, they were no longer made of different stones, but of emerald alone; and again, the names of the sons of Israel were set down and engraved upon these two stones according to the command of the Lord. It is not, however, clearly shown what name should be inscribed on the right side of the green stone, or what on the left side, as He himself decreed to be noted likewise; unless it is understood that six names of the sons of Israel were certainly written on the left side, and six on the right. For one stone could not hold the names of the twelve tribes because of its roundness. Nor, however, did the Lord command that the twelve tribes be inscribed doubly—twelve on the right side and twelve on the left—but He says simply "in the setting of the signet of the sons of Israel," as the very circumstance of the reading—which we have now taken pains to express word for word, in which the office of the pontificate itself is also commanded to be ordered—has it. Thus it says (19): *And they made (20) the superhumerale out of gold, and hyacinth, and purple, and scarlet with twisted linen, etc.* [39] *They made it a textile work; the superhumerale contained itself on both sides, a textile work folding together in a circuit. Out of it they made, according to its fashion, of gold, and hyacinth, and purple, and scarlet, and twisted linen, as the Lord commanded Moses. They made both stones of emerald, fastened and enclosed in gold, engraved in the setting of the signet with the names of the sons of Israel. And they placed them on the shoulders of the superhumerale as stones of remembrance of the sons of Israel, as Moses commanded (21).* These are the two places for these stones, and their designations, which were commanded to be noted according to the tribe. For one place is in this rational [breastplate], and the other in ^B those (22) which are called in the hippodrome of Chabratha (23).

[40] It is necessary, therefore, first to know this division and the sequence of order, which is according to the age of each individual: that is, Ruben, Simeon, Levi, Judas. But because of the strife of Rachel, the maid-servant Balla, who was given to Jacob, was born after Judas according to the order of age: Dan; and immediately from the same maid-servant, the second is produced, Neptalim (24). Then, out of rivalry, Lia gave her maid-servant Zelpha to her husband, who, conceiving, bore Gad; then Aser. Again, the wife Lia added to conceive: who, according to conscience, bore Issachar, and then Zabulon. Finally, from Rachel, Joseph is born, and then Benjamin. And this is that sequence: Ruben, Simeon, Levi, Judas, Dan, and Neptalim, Gad, and Aser, Issachar, and Zabulon, Joseph, 250 [41] and Benjamin. This indeed is the first composition according to the sequence of age.

When, however, upon returning from Mesopotamia, Jacob arrived in the land of Chanaan, a second enumeration of the division is made. For Jacob made three groups, distinguishing his own sons, and he placed Zelpha and Balla—the two maid-servants—making one group first with their four sons, that is, Dan and Neptalim, Gad and Aser. In the second group, however, he ordered Lia with her six sons, no longer according to age, but according to the mother's affection: Ruben, I say, and Simeon, Levi and Judas, Issachar and Zabulon; he himself, however, remained last with Rachel and Joseph, who was very small. Benjamin, meanwhile, was still being carried in his mother's womb; and this second discretion of the composition of the same number is confirmed.

The third number, however, is according to another composition of the division.

^A It begins with Jacob’s entry into Egypt, as it is annexed above; with the sons of Leah collected into the same, and those of her handmaid Zilpah, consequently, as being born from the same mistress, they are enumerated thus: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zabulon; and from Zilpah, Gad and Asher. Then the sons of Rachel, Joseph and Benjamin; and those who are from her handmaid, Dan and Naphtali.

[42] The fourth division is of composition and number, when Jacob blessed his sons as he was dying; for it is necessary to annex them according to time and according to the numbers themselves. This number, therefore, follows that time when Jacob blessed them, that is: Reuben, then Simeon with Levi, and Judah, and Zabulon, and Issachar, Dan and Gad, Asher and Naphtali, Joseph and Benjamin.

Then follows the fifth division, from Exodus, when the sons of Israel went out of Egypt; for the divine Discourse enumerated them, saying: These are the names of the sons of Israel, who entered into Egypt with Jacob their father; everyone entered with his whole house: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zabulon, (then of Rachel) Benjamin, (then of Bilhah) Dan, and Naphtali, (and of Zilpah) Gad, and Asher. But Joseph was in Egypt.

Then afterward is the sixth division of number according to the arrangement of the camps of the sons of Israel, as it is written in the book of Numbers by the commandment of the Lord: in the first arrangement, Judah, Issachar, Zabulon; in the second, Reuben, Simeon, Gad; in the third, Ephraim ^B and Manasseh and Benjamin; in the fourth, Dan and Asher and Naphtali.

Again, the seventh division of number is from the book of Numbers itself [43], when, according to the commandment of the Lord, those who ought to be princes to offer gifts to the Lord are declared. And he said: Of Reuben, Helisur son of Sediur; of Simeon, Salamiel son of Surisaddai; of Judah, Naason son of Aminadab; of Issachar, Nathanael son of Sogar; of Zabulon, Eliab son of Chælon; of Ephraim, Melcham son of Eniud; of Manasseh, Gamaliel son of Phadassur; of Benjamin, Abida son of Gedeon; of the tribe of Dan, Achiezer son of Amisadai; of Asher, Phaltiel son of Ecchra; of Gad, Eliasaph son of Raguhel; of Naphtali, Achire son of Enan.

And likewise after this follows the eighth division from the book of Numbers itself, when the Lord commanded and Moses sent the princes of the tribes of Israel to spy out the land of promise. And so he said: Of [44] Reuben, Sammua son of Zaccur; of Simeon, Saphat son of Suri; of Judah, Caleb son of Jephonne; of Issachar, Igal son of Joseph; of Ephraim, Osee son of Nave; of Benjamin, Phalti son of Raphu; of Zabulon, Gaddihel son of Suri; of the sons of Joseph, of Manasseh, Gaddi son of Susi; of Dan, Ammiel son of Gemalli; of Asher, Sethur son of Michahel; of Naphtali, Nahbi son of Vapsi; of Gad, Guel son of Machi.

The ninth division of number also, by the commandment of the Lord, is given from the book of Numbers itself, when the land is distributed by lot to the sons of Israel. Of Judah, he says, Caleb son of Jephonne; and afterward the princes of the tribes are enumerated: Of Simeon, of Benjamin, of Dan, of Manasseh, of Ephraim, of Zabulon, of Issachar, of Asher, of Naphtali.

Then again the tenth division of number is when ^C [45] Moses blessed the sons of Israel, placing Reuben first, and then annexing Judah, Levi, Benjamin, Joseph, Zabulon, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Naphtali, and Asher; and at the very end he repeats the discourse.

of Joseph: these are the thousands of Ephraim, and these are the thousands of Manasseh.

The eleventh division of the number is proven when they are commanded, before they enter into the land of Israel, to stand—immediately upon crossing the Jordan—upon the two mountains, Gerizim and Ebal, six on one side and six on the other, to bless those who keep the law, and to curse those who have neglected to observe the precepts of the law; and this is that collocation of the number: for those who followed upon the blessings are Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin; but upon the curses [are] these: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zabulon, Dan, and Naphtali.

The twelfth division of the number again is when they are cast for the land of their possession ^A, and to Reuben falls by lot, beyond the Jordan, before crossing into the land of Israel, and this is that distribution: Reuben, and next to him Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh. Then, crossing the Jordan, Judah receives the first [portion], then Benjamin, then Joseph—from Manasseh—then Simeon, located between Benjamin and Judah, and, so to speak, constrained because there were no spaces for them. Then Zabulon obtains the land, and Issachar, and Asher, and Naphtali, and Dan. Levi, to be sure, was scattered among all the tribes, receiving only cities and suburbs. ^B

Perhaps, however, the numbers might be found written differently in other places. We, however, have been able to discover these, and these are indeed the divisions which are composed in a different manner according to the number, sometimes according to the commandment of the Lord, sometimes according to the will of the individual princes—I mean Moses and Joshua and their successors who deserved to exist thereafter. Nor was this done without the Spirit; but as He willed, the same Holy Spirit enumerated and arranged each series according to His own will. Returning, I shall myself briefly and consecutively explain these same fourteen divisions in one place, and their selections. I shall not do this in vain, nor to be troublesome to your reverence as you review these things; but so that you may know that it is now the task of God to assist, that we may be able to truly adapt the mentioned stones to each tribe. ^C

Therefore, from a mind thinking much and dealing with the experience of this election, our spirit suggests, as does the very sequence of the reading, how the rational square order might be perceived from the affixed stones according to the aforementioned names. Let it now be requested regarding the individual numbers, just as each division is distinct, what sort is congruent to the account and reading of the same stones; and wherever we have inspected the state of the enumerated tribes in individual places, we perceive in our mind that it cannot naturally be that the number of any of them, who are enumerated in each division, having one name less among the tribes, can be adapted to the naming of these stones. And therefore, we have immediately dismissed the second division, inasmuch as it cannot have a consonance with these stones, because it places first Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher—that is, the sons of the handmaids—when Jacob, sending gifts to Esau, divided them into the first group. After these, he made another group of the sons of Leah. Then, a third group of the sons of Rachel. For since the more precious stones are at the beginning of the breastplate, furthermore, the sons of the handmaids are held to be inferior, and they are placed here first, it is impossible that they should be congruent to the cause of the breastplate in this part of the number, because it cannot be so. ^D Next, we examined that fourth division, the blessing of Jacob, when he blessed his sons as he was dying.

The thirteenth division of the number occurs again from the prophet Zacharias, just as he says: *On that day, all the tribes of the land shall mourn: the tribe of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the tribe of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; the tribe of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the tribe of the house of Simeon by itself, and their wives by themselves.* And all the remaining tribes shall mourn, and he did not name them; which we, however, because of the situation of the description of the land, have perceived to be that sequence, so that it is the tribe of Benjamin, then Joseph, Reuben, Gad, Zabulon, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan.

The fourteenth division of the number exists from the revelation of St. John, who enumerated twelve thousand from each tribe of those who were sanctified in virginity; for he says: *Of Judah twelve thousand, of Reuben likewise, thence of Gad, of Asher, of Naphtali, of Manasseh, of Simeon, of Levi, of Issachar, of Zabulon, of Joseph, of Benjamin.* But in this place he mentions Dan nowhere.

^A

We have examined therefore the fifth division, which contains the beginning of the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt, and we find it placing the sons of the free women and of the handmaids according to the order of the composition, and placing the latter as the last; and because Joseph, established in Egypt, is named last, we observe again that these stones cannot be fitted to the names of the aforementioned tribes; and that naturally the onyx stone cannot be interpreted in the person of Joseph, nor again ought Joseph to be inserted as the last according to the composition of the breastplate, unless he be preemptively placed only by necessity, so that when he is held to be the eleventh, he may here be numbered the twelfth, according to the compelling necessity of the composition of this number, which we have found ordered. For in the Greek speech, which is translated from the Hebrew, we find the onyx stone placed twelfth, and last, so that it draws Benjamin into its contemplation in every way. We find the beryl [to be] the eleventh, which we consistently applied to Joseph, both according to the number and according to the contemplation. Inspecting also the Hebrew Exodus, ^B in which the law is also proven to be written, and reading about this breastplate, in which these stones were enclosed, we find the onyx stone ordered differently. It was placed as the eleventh; the beryl [was] the twelfth and last. Whence an ambiguity almost arose for us, creating an impediment to understanding, as if a feigned contemplation of ours had been brought to these two, I mean the beryl and the onyx stones, and I used to say: how could error arise in supplications and in constant prayer? And I understood that God, dispensing it, ordained it thus: so that the same Joseph, being the eleventh among his brothers, might be found the twelfth according to the composition of this number which declared him to be the twelfth, when it said, *Joseph however was in Egypt.* Knowing therefore by divine dispensation, due to the contemplations of truth of the beryl stone, which are fulfilled in Joseph himself, [that they] are to be fitted, it was so arranged that the beryl stone should be placed twelfth and last; for although Joseph was the eleventh among his brothers, in this composition of the number of the departure of the children of Israel he is nevertheless remembered as the twelfth, and is written as the last. And so, purely by divine illumination ^C and dispensation, the onyx stone was very fittingly referred back to Benjamin, who in this arrangement before Joseph is numbered; the beryl stone, however, [is] fitted to Joseph for the sake of the contemplations consonant to it, although the stone itself is numbered last, because it happened so, and Joseph is written last, as I have frequently asserted.

We have passed over this division also, and have looked at the sixth disposition according to the sequence of the numbered tribes, and we find according to the camping of the tents of Israel that the order of the square army ought more to correspond to the rational [breastplate] according to three and three tribes, just as it was permitted to see in the same rational, which is proven to exist in a square order; and this was very plain, and symbolic, that is, significative, on account of the dispositions of the orders and the consonancy of the camping, but in these the separated tribe, the tribe of Levi, stood against us. For Judah was established, having with him Issachar and Zabulon, in one camp of the encampment; and he was established first at the eastern side on account of the significance, as I suppose, of regal power, and because Reuben retreated from his own glory, because he defiled the bed of his father, ^D as is proven to be inserted in the divine Scriptures. In the second encampment, however, of the camps, Reuben is ordered with Simeon and Gad towards the sea, and from the west Ephraim with Manasseh and Benjamin, who are all placed out of Rachel in one camp of the tents: but on account of Manasseh, Levi seems to be excluded. Then toward the north [it] contains the fourth encampment, first Dan, then Asher, then Naphtali, and we find no mixing of Levi among them, [and] we recognized that neither could this description be accommodated to the composition of the stones, lest it appear that one name of the sons of Israel is missing from it. Wherefore, omitting this also, we turn our attention to the seventh division, which we have immediately removed, because we did not see it as agreeing with the composition of the stones. For these are established to have been numbered according to the princes of the tribes at the command of the Lord, in which Reuben is ordered first, then Issachar and those who follow. Joseph however is numbered second because Ephraim is located in one number, Manasseh in another; and since Levi is again excepted, we could not fit the number to the stones on account of the change of Levi, and on account of the addition of one tribe, which is proven to be divided in two.

We have diligently examined also the eighth division, from the book of Numbers, where God commanded, and Moses sent the princes of the tribes of Israel to inspect the land of promise, and we do not find this one either consonant to the composition of the mentioned stones, because of the fact that Reuben is numbered among the first, then Simeon, then Judah, then Issachar,

then Joseph, and then Benjamin; then also Dan and Manasseh, as well as Ephraim and Zebulun, and next Issachar, then Asher, and finally Naphtali; and again finding the tribe of Levi omitted, and Joseph counted twice in Ephraim and Manasseh, we have also passed over this one, and we gave attention of mind to the tenth division ^B, nor were we able to find it consistent with the stones; for when Moses blessed the sons of Israel, proposing Benjamin fourth after Levi, then Joseph, and with no mention made of Simeon, it was impossible to make it fit the stones. It is arranged as follows: Reuben, Judah, Levi, Benjamin; then Joseph, Zebulun, and Issachar; then Gad, who is the son of the second handmaid, placed out of sequence; then Dan and Naphtali; then Asher, the last of all, who himself is also found to be the son of the second handmaid. Since here also the number is diminished, with Simeon 54 being passed over, it was not possible for this division to be in accord with the rational stones.

Again, passing over this one also, we reached the eleventh ^C with careful intention, and we found where Moses commanded the twelve tribes to stand for blessing and cursing, six on Mount Garizim and six on Mount Gebal, as it is proven written in Deuteronomy, the division of which is thus: "They shall stand," he says, "on Mount Garizim to bless: Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin; and these shall stand to curse on Mount Gebal: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali." The sons of the free women are proven here to be preferred, and since this division also seems inconsistent, it did not seem to be taken for the rational order of the square. Nevertheless, studying this same eleventh division carefully, which seems to be distinguished into two parts, six on one mountain and six on the other, we have judged this to correspond to the numbers of the composition of the emerald stones, which were joined by little chains, arranged through each of the shoulders of the high priest, fastened with gold and a hyacinth ribbon, so that in these two emeralds the names of the sons of Israel were inscribed, for the reason that one emerald could not hold the twelve names because of its roundness. It was necessary, however—and even if it could have held them, it was necessary to distinguish the right from the left—and therefore on each stone, placed on the right and on the left, the names were written, just as 55 in each of the mountains, Garizim and Gebal, the tribes of the sons of Israel were ordered. These mountains are seen placed opposite to each other in the eastern part, where Jericho is situated 56, beyond the place of Galgala, and there it is reported ^D that these bestowed the blessing on Israel, which is now called Neapolis, and it is constructed from the side of Mount Garizim. However, so that no one may wonder why Epiphanius held a contrary opinion, it is believed that the occasion for the error was given by verse 30 of chapter xi of Deuteronomy, which we shall describe and explain below. For indeed, in the *Panarion*, St. Epiphanius also defends himself with the authority of Deuteronomy, yet not omitting the authority of the Book of Joshua, about which one must likewise speak elsewhere, where he certainly urges it on his own behalf. But he adds here, moreover, that Mounts Garizim and Gebal, between which was Neapolis, were so high as to be entirely unsuited for the people who were at the base to be able to respond to the six men shouting from the summit. Furthermore, since this booklet of Epiphanius fails in this very discussion about the site of Mounts Garizim and Gebal, it is not even clear whether the holy Doctor proposed other arguments for his opinion in the parts that are missing and to be desired. But since in the *Panarion* he proposes that one thing—namely, that it is so written in Deuteronomy and the book of Joshua—it is fair and just to conjecture that he held this for his most powerful argument. But his opinion might still be able to seem probable where someone could probably and legitimately testify that there were two mountains of Garizim and two of Gebal in Palestine, for then we would judge that the others were so called by their own name near Jericho, but the others were near Shechem, and thus called so by the error of the Samaritans: but who has ever handed this down? What of the fact that a certain mountain from the region of Jericho is called Abaris by Josephus in book iv, chapter 8, § 45? Gerhard Mercator thought both opinions could be reconciled, as he judged it easily possible, if Garizim was a stretch of mountains extending to the city of Hai and also to Jericho itself from the city of Shechem. But this, as it is supported by no legitimate testimony, is easily rejected. Furthermore, Ro-

Ruben and Gad and the others with them, standing on Mount Gebal, were saying: Cursed is he who does not do all the things that are written in this book, and all the people answered: Amen. ^A Now, "Amen" is the interpretation of "fiat"; for these voices were resounding from the two mountains. Garizim is also interpreted 52 as "mount of liberation" and "cutting off of their" settlement. But some who have not diligently scrutinized the Divine Scriptures, especially those who originate from the Samaritans 53, have thought that Garizim might not be the one that lies adjacent to Sicima—which is also called Sichar 54 and Sichem—the city of the Samaritans into which the Lord entered, from whence that Samaritan woman came out and found Him sitting by the well 55. Now, Shechem is called Neapolis 56, 58 a most opulent city of the Palestinians. But at that time it was called Samaria, and also Judea. Now, it was called Samaria because the mountain itself was naturally called by the name of a certain Somer; this man had a son, Samoron, and the mountain was called Somar, and from this the appellation of this name was derived, but it was especially reinforced by the arrival of those whom the Assyrian king appointed to cultivate those lands 58. For when the captivity of the Jews occurred, the elders of Israel, who were then in Babylon with Esdras the priest, and who were called councilors, and other old men, besought the Assyrian king to send inhabitants into Judea, lest 59 the fertile land should perish without a cultivator. He, receiving their wholesome advice 59, directed them to inhabit those places. ^{B C D}

^A Four nations, that is, the Cudaeans [60] and the Cuthaeans (60), and the Seppharaeans (61), and the Anagogavaeans (62), carrying their own idols with them—which each nation had previously worshipped among themselves—brought them along. But when they had arrived and settled in the land of Israel, they were called Samaritans, because "Samaritan" is interpreted as "guardian," for they were guarding the land of Israel. And later, lions, leopards, and bears set upon them and were destroying the multitude, 255 [61] so that they were being consumed by them (63); for which reason messengers were sent day by day by the inhabitants and dwellers to the king of Assyria, insofar as he might grant them leave to depart from those very places, because of such savagery of the beasts. But the king of the Assyrians marveled ^B how Israel could have remained in that same place. Having investigated this, the king of the Assyrians (64) summoned the Jewish elders and inquired of them how they might be able to remain in the place to which he had long ago directed them. They, giving the right counsel without delay, said that no nation could reside there unless it kept the law of the Lord God (65). And when he asked for the law from them, they immediately offered it to him. But he, while returning the authentic copies of the law, kept some for himself [62] (66), which he directed to the inhabitants and dwellers of the land, the Cudaeans and Cuthaeans, and the rest, together with Ezra the priest (67), not that Ezra who is called Salathiel, whose father was Zorobabel, who Zorobabel was the son of Jechonia (68). This Ezra, therefore, [63] ^C placed them in the cities of Samaria in place of the sons of Israel, who had possessed Samaria and dwelt in its cities. Sulpicius Severus, *Hist. sacræ*, lib. 1, in the ed. of Hornius, c. 86, narrates that Shalmaneser placed the Assyrians on hostile soil, namely Samaria, for its defense. Others, both among Latin and Greek writers, use the same phrase. It was indeed the same thing to send a colony of barbarians to inhabit Samaria as to send them for its defense.

(60) Petavius thinks that the Cuthaeans and Cudaeans were one and the same nation in Epiphanius, who also distinguishes them in the *Panarion*. Anastasius the Sinaite also distinguishes them in *Quæst.* 45, but he certainly had our book before his eyes. Furthermore, the Greek text of Anastasius, according to the edition of Gretser, has *Kudtaious*, *Kouttious*. But Hervetus, who was the first to edit Anastasius, though only in Latin, has *Cutthiaeos*, *Catthiaeos*, which I would have thought he did on the authority of some codex, had that version not also teemed with many other errors, if it were derived from a Greek codex, it was certainly from a codex that was particularly corrupt. ^D

(61) In the Greek text of the edition of Anastasius, Gretser has *Sepphasaious*. But Gretser added *Sepharonaious* in the margin, and Hervetus edited *Sepharnaous*. In the *Panarion* it is *Seppharouraious*, and Nicetas, *Thes. orth. fidei* lib. 1, cap. 33, who certainly had that place in the *Panarion* before his eyes, wrote *Sepharuer aeos*, if we trust the version which is in the *Bibl. PP.* of Lyons, etc. Our codex, however, has *Seppharaeos*. There is no doubt that these peoples are those whom the LXX, *IV Reg.* cap. XVII, 25, say were brought from *Seppharouaim*, as it is edited from the Vat. codex, and *Seppharouaim*, as they say exists in the Alexandrine codex. But the Vat. codex is not consistent with itself: verse 31 has *Sepphaouraim*.

(62) In the *Panarion*, according to the edition of Petavius, *Anagogan aeos* is read, in which place Scaliger thought it should be read *Anagnous Panaious*; but Petavius wants *Aguanaious* to be restored instead, and for that reason he thinks they were called Hovaeans, since the LXX write *Aouan*. But I find in Walton the LXX writing *Aia*, not *Aouan*. Nicetas, in the cited place, reads *Anegoganaeos*. Here, according to what the MS has, I have edited *Anagoganaeos*. Hervetus also wrote it this way in his version of Anastasius. Gretser found *Anagogaiou*, but in the margin he himself replaces it with *Anagogauaious*, I do not know if from the Vat. codex 425 itself, which he himself consulted, where on page 270 he has *Koudiaious*, and *Kouthiaious*, and *Sepharousious*, and *Anagoga-uaious*.

(64) That it is worth noting here in what way this is to be taken is that it was not the same king of the Assyrians who led the Cuthaeans into Samaria and who sought to free them from the lions; although the Holy Scriptures relate the matter in such a way that both seem to have happened under the same king: namely, in one place they refer to all those things that pertained to the colony of the Cuthaeans brought into Samaria. From the book of *I Esdræ* c. iv, 2, it is evident that under King Esarhaddon, the Cuthaean Samaritans were increased by a new colony and taught the law of Moses.

(65) That God sent lions against the new inhabitants of Samaria, St. John Chrysostom brings forward this reason in his lauded homily, namely, in order to show his power, and that he had not delivered the Jews over because of his own weakness, but because of the sins of the inhabitants. Theophylact repeats this in *cap. iv Joan.*, where he pilfers from Chrysostom.

(66) V. infra p. 66. For the rest, Epiphanius in the *Panarion* only hands down these things: that a copy of the Law was given to the king, that Ezra the priest was sent by the king with it to the Cuthaeans, and that the Cuthaeans received the Law: he passes over in silence all the other things that are narrated here.

(67) The same historian keeps silent about the priest who brought the copies of the law to the Cuthaeans. St. John Chrysostom also keeps silent about this history when referring to it in his lauded homily on *John*; but St. Epiphanius named Ezra not only here, but also in b. 8, § 8, and repeats it in the *Anacephalaeosis*. Damascene also in *lib. De hæresib.*, § 9, and Nicetas *Thes.*, etc., *lib.* 1, *c.* 33, have the same name: it is hardly surprising, however, when both are copying Epiphanius. To these must be added Cedrenus in *Comp. hist.*, etc., and Theophanes Cerameus *homil.* 30, where, speaking about the Samaritans, he seems to have had the book of Epiphanius, which we are editing, at his hands, and acting as an orator, he decorates this Ezra with his own eulogy, calling him *ta theia sophon, ton tropon chreston, ten areten aparamillon*, etc.: Most wise in divine things, endowed with good morals and incomparable virtue, etc. But there were some who called Lun, not Ezra, the priest sent into Samaria by the Assyrian king, and who, against the faith of the Holy Scriptures, invented that two priests were sent, a certain Eleazar (Tanchum fol. 17, 4, substituted R. Sabia) and a son of Jannaeus by the name of Dositheus. Dositheus, the son of Jannaeus, is also mentioned by Jerome in his *lib. adv. Luciferianos*, etc., and he calls him the author of the Sadducees, but he lived long after the times of Esarhaddon.

(68) Petavius, finding that Ezra is said to have been the priest sent to the Cuthaeans, in *Animadv.* p. 21, writes these things: It does not appear that he understood any other than that Ezra who is called the scribe of the law, the son of Hecaeli.

^A exactly as it is engraved. This form, therefore, which the Jews now hold is called Samahirenus (70). The Samaritans, however, preserve the *deessenon*, which form—as we have said—was formerly impressed upon stone tablets. But Ezra, wishing to distinguish Israel from the other nations so that the race of Abraham might not appear to be mingled with the inhabitants of the land, who indeed hold the Law but not the Prophets, changed the pristine form, leaving the *deessenon* ^B and intending, so that he might not be mixed with the Samaritans, to have changed the Jewish letters. We know from Walton, *Proleg.* 3, § 32, that many of the Talmudic writers confirm this very fact; but I shall only relate from it here what is read in the Babylonian Talmud, in the tract *Sanhedrin*, section 2: "In the beginning, the Law was given in Hebrew script and the holy tongue; later, the Assyrian script and the Aramaic language were given to them in the days of Ezra; afterwards the Israelites chose the Assyrian script and the holy tongue, and left the Hebrew script and the Chaldean language to the unlearned." Who are those unlearned? R. Chasda answers: The Cuthaeans. What is the Hebrew script? Chasda answers again: The Libonaean script. Furthermore, I do not wish to leave unmentioned in that book of the Mischnic laws, which is inscribed *Order of Purities*, in the tract *On the Washing of Hands* chap. 4, § 5, in Surenhusius' edition, part VI, p. 490, this notice that I found: "The Targum on Ezra and Daniel defiles the hands; the Targum written in Hebrew does not. Conversely, the Hebrew script also does not defile the hands, but they never defile them unless we should write in Assyrian on parchment and with ink." R. Mosche, son of Maimon, explaining these things, notes that both the script in which they wrote their Law and that in which God ^C wrote the Law are called Assyrian; this is so called, however, on account of its own excellence from *be'atitudines* (blessings), so that to call this writing "Assyrian" is the same as calling it "blessed." It is clear, therefore, that R. Mosche also thought that the Jews were accustomed to write the Law in his own time in letters other than those in which God wrote the Law. Indeed, it seems to me that the same thing can be understood from the very words of the *Monitum* described. No doubt would have arisen as to whether the Hebrew script defiled the hands if the Hebrews had not repudiated it. The Talmudic writers call that script "Hebrew" which we call "Samaritan," as the authority from *Sanhedrin* teaches us. Furthermore, as is also clear from the same authority, one must distinguish between the language and the script in which the Law was written; and with this posited, we ought to observe that there is no room for doubt that Ezra wrote the Law in the holy tongue, but only that critics dispute concerning the form of the letters by which Ezra expressed the words of the holy tongue. The matter is sub judice, nor am I so great that I am able to reconcile it. That which I ought not to pass over in silence is that those who hold that Ezra used new letters not only act upon conjectures, but also upon the authority of ancient writers, whereas those who stand on the opposite side act only upon conjectures. However, to weigh on which side those conjectures are held to be more probable is a matter of deeper investigation, and it would be a matter full of dangerous risk to judge. Furthermore, it is worth noting that those who defend the first opinion have gained not merely one new champion in this book of Epiphanius, namely Epiphanius himself, but very many; for he records that the Samaritan letters were also called by various names of the Hebrews, and the very names, as the note records, indeed respond perfectly to their opinion and clearly prove and confirm it.

(71) Ezra, who returned to Palestine, restored the divine books of the Law that had been lost, or at least corrupted, or—if you prefer to say—confused and disturbed.

^A for this form had already been anticipated by the Samaritans (72), so that through this the seed of Abraham might be distinguished from the remaining nations. But coming to these places, we have been forced by the nature of the case to extend our discourse.

There were, therefore, those who remained of the nations in the land of Israel, called Samaritans for various reasons (73): Primarily from the sons of the Canaanites and Perizzites (74), before Abraham the patriarch came to that same land by divine ordinance, and as well the mountain as all things that were seen to be near the mountain were called Somer and Somoron. Again, the aforementioned nations, sent by the king of the Assyrians, were called Samaritans, which is interpreted as "guards." The intent of this name, however, possesses another contemplation (75): because ^B they were thought to guard the commands of the Law, namely, to [guard] the Law, for Scripture says of them: "For they remained doing the Law of God, and worshipping their own idols." But since the Law in no way commands idols to be worshipped, how could the Law be kept by them? Nevertheless, this cause insinuates a mode of understanding [68] here. As the most profane priests (76) of the aforementioned four (77) nations knew, when Ezra the priest arrived—sent, he who abhorred idols according to the divine precepts, and whoever was found serving stone idols was quickly killed by the command of the Law—they removed their own idols from their high summits and hid them on Mount Gerizim in a place most remote and secret. There were, moreover, 257 [69] idols to the number of four (78), just as ancient tradition holds. [IV Reg. XVII, 23].

^A For the Babylonian men worshipped the goddess Sochoth Benith, the men of Cuth the goddess Nerigel, and the men of Etham the goddess Asimath, and the Gevites the goddess Nebaztharchar, and Sapharium; and they turned the heart of the Samaritans, teaching them to worship on Mount Gerizim; wherefore, wherever they may be, they turn themselves toward the mountain [70] to pray. Those who are in the east look toward the west, and those who are in the west toward the east, and those who are in the north likewise direct themselves toward the south, and those who are in the south look toward the north of the mountain, so that the Scripture may be fulfilled which says: *They remained doing the law of God, and worshipping their own idols.* For although those who worship may be ignorant of the idols hidden in the secret part of the mountain [79'], it is impossible that divine Scripture should lie according to the sense of this matter.

[...][79] The Sacred Letters, as we see, have *Nebaztharchar*; but Epiphanius makes it one and the same divinity, and *Nebahaz* and *Tharthac*, and calls it a goddess. Indeed, Marsham also judged the deity *Tharthac* to be in no wise different from *Nebahaz*. Furthermore, the author of the Book of Kings narrates that the Sepharvites also had their own divinities, namely Adramelech and Anamelech, and here Epiphanius says that the Gevites worshipped the goddess *Nebaztharchar* and *Sapharium*; provided that perhaps after the word *Sapharium* something is not missing due to the carelessness of a scribe. However, ^B where I might be more certain that Epiphanius, in what he asserts in this place, had written thus deliberately, so that he might have taken note of all things, and not merely relying on his own memory, I would resolve his disagreement with the Sacred Letters by noting that perhaps some gods, who seem to be enumerated as distinct among themselves in the Sacred Letters, were held by him to be one and the same divinity, which indeed one and the same divinity might be called by various names peculiar to each nation according to the various nations.

Certainly, it would be by no means difficult to prove by conjecture that under the names *Nebahaz* and *Tharthac*, just as under the names *Adramelech* and *Anamelech*, the moon and sun lie hidden. But if *Nebahaz* and *Tharthac* are one and the same divinity, nor would there be lacking conjectures by which I might persuade that *Adramalech* and *Anamelech* also signify the same divinity, called by a various name according to various power. Thus, among the Greeks and Latins, Hecate was triple, whence Virgil, *Aen.* lib. iv, v. 510: *Tergeminamque Hecaten, tria virginis ora Dianae.*

[...][80] The interpretation of this passage offers itself to us on account of the twelve tribes, which are arranged on Mount Gerizim and on Mount Gebal, just as the very distinction of the numbered order holds. Those, therefore, are deceived who, not understanding Deuteronomy (80), advert to making for themselves another scripture [71]; for they thought that the mountain which is contiguous to Neapolis, as we related above, is this Garizin, which is exceedingly high, to which also the one located opposite, which they surmise to be Gebal, is himself also vehemently lofty; for indeed Sicima is situated between two mountains in a valley (81), closed in on this side and that by the objection of the mountains. [72] The Samaritans, moreover, who dwell in the city itself, have made steps on the mountain, and built a temple on a certain raised place.

^C [...] ^D [...] [The author continues by discussing the geography of Jordan, Jericho, and Galgal, citing Deuteronomy 11:30 and the interpretations of the LXX and the Vulgate.]

[81] So also Benjamin of Tudela testifies that Sichem lies in a valley between Mount Gerizim and Gebal. Phocas also agrees, who traveled through Palestine in the twelfth century, nor does Theodotus dissent in Eusebius, *Praep. evang.* lib. ix, 22. Furthermore, Sichem is said to be from the shoulder, that is, a gentle acclivity, says Cellarius, *Geog. ant.* l. iii, c. 13. Indeed, that it was so placed at the roots of Garizin that, nevertheless, a part of it extended over the ridge of the mountain, seems to be able to be gathered from the cited Theodotus and Phocas, and perhaps also from Jerome, who, in the *Epitaphium Paulae*, etc., says it was built from the side of Garizin. Nor, indeed, will I pass by that the valley lying between the mountains of Gebal and Garizin was very narrow, by the same witness of Theodotus, so that the vertices of either mountain seemed almost joined; for I see that this can be opportunely put back to that which the author of *De loc. sac. Scripturae descriptus* p. 57, n. 1 has: namely, that the mountains, between which was Neapolis, were far distant from each other, so that they could not be the mountains Garizin and Gebal, upon which the Israelites blessed and cursed in an alternating chant, since they could not have heard one another.

.... Οὐδέ ποτε δριὰ λαχνήεντα πονεῦσιν. Ἐξ αὐτῆς δὲ μάλ' ἄγχι δύ' οὔρεα φαίνετ' ἐρυμνά, Ποίης τε πλήθοντα καὶ ὕλης· τῶν δὲ μεσηγύ, Ἀτραπιτὸς τέ μητ', ἀραὴ αὐλῶπις. .... Tecti juncto prope vertice montes Hinc gemini excipiunt, herbasque nemusque ministrant. Quos inter raro angustus discrimine callis Rumpit iter.

The authority of Theodotus concerning the narrowness of the valley lying between Garizim and Gebal can be proven by the authority of a recent writer; for this very thing is narrated by the eyewitness Morison, *Voyage, etc.*, l. ii, c. 10, p. 238.

Amen. For the altitude of the mountain is more than a thousand paces ^A (83), and it has very many steps, and, as some say, fifteen hundred and more (84). By this fact, therefore, that it is not possible that the voice of those who are above should be heard below, those mountains are immediately refuted as not being the ones which divine Scripture signifies. Then the sequence of the book of Joshua makes it manifest when ^B it commemorates that those two mountains were at the eastern side of Jericho (85), that is, Garizim and Gebal; and the eastern side of Jericho is situated thus.

It is clear that he sought an observation according to that which we have explained. But from Deut. chap. xi, verse 30, only this is proven, that Garizim and Gebal were in the region of the Gilgal of Jericho, and in no way that they were near to it; or certainly the Gilgal about which there is mention there is another place than that which was between the Jordan and Jericho. Whoever wishes for more may consult Masius and Reland: here I will only offer my own conjectures. It is certain from Deut. chap. xi, verse 31, that Moses commanded that the Israelites, when they should have entered into the promised land, should place the blessing upon Mount Garizim and the curse upon Mount Gebal; and it is not at all likely that Joshua would not have fulfilled this commandment when he first could. What, therefore, did he do when the cities of Jericho and Hai were destroyed (Jos. vi)? If the mountains Garizim and Gebal were at the Gilgal at the east of Jericho, why, as soon as he came to the Gilgal (Jos. v), did he not do it? Certainly, from the city of Jericho, which was the nearest of all, there was nothing to be feared; for the city itself was full of fear, and therefore closed and fortified (Jos. chap. vi). And that Joshua feared nothing from it, the fact that he circumcised the people there and kept the Passover makes us certain (Jos. v, v. 8 and 10). What then? What? Clearly that the mountains Garizim and Gebal were beyond Jericho and Hai, and therefore only when these were destroyed could Joshua proceed as far as that (for they were near) and perform there the commands of Moses. ^C Yet he seems to have retreated immediately from there to Gilgal; for when the other kings beyond the Jordan called to arms, and the Gibeonites wished to strike a league with the Hebrews, these went to Joshua who, at that time—the words of Joshua himself are—was staying in the camp of Gilgal. Naturally, as a good commander, he had pitched his camp at Gilgal; for this place was near the Jordan, beyond which were staying the tribes in the fortified cities of Gad, Reuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh, whom he could call to himself, or to whom he could betake himself where the Canaanites pressed him. Indeed, when he came to help the Gibeonites, against whom the five kings of Canaan were fighting, he proceeded from Gilgal (Jos. x, v. 7); and he returned thence to the place of the camps in Gilgal (v. 43). And even when later he had waged many other wars, and had already struck down thirty-one kings, and had already subdued Canaan, and was distributing that which was to be subdued, he was at Gilgal (Jos. xiv, v. 6). ^D Furthermore, the very short interval that exists between Gilgal and Jericho is perhaps not to be ignored as an argument for refuting the opinion of Epiphanius about which we are speaking. To wit, Gilgal was to the east of Jericho (Jos. iv, v. 19), and lay in its plains (Jos. v, v. 11), so that it was distant from it only two thousand paces, as witnessed by St. Jerome in the entry *Galgal*, and Procopius of Gaza in *Deut.*, etc. How then could Epiphanius not at least fall into suspicion, lest perhaps he might be erring in thinking that Garizim and Gebal were between Jericho and Gilgal, especially since he was not ignorant that they were very high mountains? It is all the more surprising that sacred Scripture openly says that Gilgal was in the plains. Finally, how could Epiphanius not have observed that the valley was wide enough on both sides of the Jordan, especially since he had traveled through those places? See *Panar.* p. 133.

near Galgal, which is the site of Galgala (86). Sicima verges ^A toward the west, standing fifty-two miles from Jericho (87)... The rest is wanting.

(86) ...near Galgal, which is the site of Galgala, and that it [the city and the province by the name of Galgal] was to the east of the city of Jericho? Truly, I believe his opinion was corrupted either by the interpreter or by a scribe. Procopius of Gaza, who certainly borrowed all he has about the mountains of Garizim and Gebal from this book, at one time abridging Saint Epiphanius’s opinion, at another time quoting it in the very words, seems to describe this same place when he says: "The series of the book of Joshua has it, moreover, that these two mountains were situated to the east of Jericho, where the place Galgala also is, which stands two miles from the city. But Sichima lies rather to the north and west of Jericho, and stands fifty-two miles from it."

(87) Thus far the Vatican codex, and those which are described from it. The epitome published by Gesner, as soon as it gives a summary of what Saint Epiphanius commented on concerning the nature, color, virtues, etc., of the twelve stones of the high priest's breastplate, adds a certain commentary about the adamant, which, as the title of the writing has it, the high priest of the Hebrews wore entering three times a year into the Holy of Holies: and afterwards he returns to the stones of the breastplate, matching the individual stones to the individual sons of Jacob, thus: ^B Children of Leah four: Reuben, sardius; Simeon, topaz; Levi, emerald; Judah, carbuncle. Children of Balla two: Balla was the maid of Rachel. And since she was not bearing, she gave her to Jacob as a wife, so that she might receive sons by her: and born of her were: Dan, sapphire; Nephthalim, jasper. Children of Zelpha two: Zelpha was the maid of Leah, and she gave her to Jacob as a wife, that she might beget sons by her; and these are they: Gad, ligyrium; Aser, agate. Children of Leah two: Issachar, amethyst; Zabulon, chrysolite. Children of Rachel two: Joseph, beryl; Benjamin, onyx. And so this perhaps was the method by which Saint Epiphanius had at last matched each stone of the breastplate to each tribe; but whether that commentary on the adamant is also by Saint Epiphanius, or whether the author of the epitome transferred it from elsewhere, we cannot know for certain; I would prefer, however, that it be not Epiphanius’s, since it teems with many errors, which Braunius did not fail to note in *De vestitu sacerdotum Hebraeorum*, lib. II, c. 20, § 628. Furthermore, the things we know for certain to be missing are these. The opinion of the holy Doctor is missing concerning the better reason for matching the stones of the breastplate to the twelve tribes, ^C and the observations to be had from the contemplation of the stones themselves for the fostering of piety are missing; for both are promised in the letter, as they say, dedicatory to Diodorus.

INDEX RERUM

A Abu, 50. Achaemenes, father of King Cyrus, was not, but his grandfather, 33. Achaemenii, why the Persians were called, 35. Achates, 51. Its color, 31. Where it is found, 32. Its virtues, 32. It bears the likeness of a lion, 32. Adramalech, 69. Adricomius, 55. Aelianus, 25 and elsewhere. Aesculapius. See Asclepius. Aethiopia double, African and Asian, 13. African Aethiopia is divided into Eastern and Western parts, 13. Aethiopia, the name given to all of Africa, 16. Agathemerus, 13 and elsewhere. Agathias, 30. Agguem, for anguem, the Romans wrote, 27. Alabastra, city, 7. Stephanus calls it a Phrygian city, 8. Alabastri, 7, 15. Amathus, 22. Amathusia, called Cyprus island, 22. Amazonum history, 30. Ambrosius (S.), 67. Amethystus, what gem, 52. Concerning the place where it is born, 32. Similar to hyacinth, 52. Its virtues, 32. Amos. Liber Amos, 59. Anagogavai, who [they are], 60. Anamalech, 69. Anastasius Sinaita, at what time he attained the Antiochene cathedra, X. His *Questions*, etc. Hervet first published in Latin, 60. He praises Epiphanius’s *Book of the XII Gems*, X, 8 and elsewhere. Andreas Caesareensis, age uncertain, XI. His commentaries on the Apocalypse, I. Their Latin version made by Pelianus is corrected, XIII, ib. Their Greek codex in the Corsinian library, XI. Andreas Cretensis, XI. Apicius, 10. Appalius, what [it is], 24. Aquila, 14, 39. Archelaus, 7 and elsewhere. Arethas, XII. When he flourished and his writings, XII. He praises Epiphanius *De gemmis*, XII. Noted, XIII. Arii, 30. Aristoteles, 25. Arrianus, 15. Ars pinaria, 11. Artemidorus, 28. Asclepius, called Aesculapius, 28. Assyrian, to say Scripture is the same as to say blessed, 64. Athanasius (S.), wrote a letter to Diodorus, bishop of Tyre, XXXI. Praised, 16. Auctor of the ancient Jerusalem Itinerary, 73. Augustinus (S.), 67. Azomitae, 16. Axume, 16.

B Babylon in Egypt, 6. Babylonii overthrew the Samaritans, 69. Bacchus, see Templum Liberi. Barbaria, 18. Barimanasi, 12. Baronius, XVIII. Bdellium, what it may be, 14. Bejetus, 69. Bellum, waged on account of emerald mines, 18.

Index of Matters

Benjamin of Tudela, 71. Beninius (Anthony Maria), 30. Beronice, 17. Beryllus, 33. Its color, 33. Where it is produced, 34. Various kinds of beryl, ^A and why [so named], 51. Placed in the eleventh position in the breastplate, 49. Bibliotheca Corsiniana, XI and XVIII. Vaticana, ibid. and 60. Bdellium, 14. Blatta, why purple is so called, 21. Blemmyes, what people, 18. Where situated, 18. Bochart, 7 and elsewhere. Braunius, XXII, 7 and elsewhere. Brocardus, 55. Buzei, 72.

C Cæsarius, 12 and elsewhere. Chalcedonius stone, why so called, 20. Of what color it is, 20. Where it may be found, 20. Cullainus stone, 29. Calmet, 70. Capella (Martianus), 18. Carbunculus (Carbuncle). Its color, 19. Where it is kindled, 19. How it is found, 19. Those who carry it cannot remain hidden, 20. Carchedon, 17. Cato, 10. Cedrenus, 62. Cellarius, 16 and elsewhere. Cerinus stone, 28. Cerites, 28. Chabratha, what it is, 39. Chibrath, occurs three times in the Holy Scriptures, 39. The meaning of this word, 39, 40. Chrysopasus, 33. Its virtues, 33. Chrysoprasus, 33. Chrysolithus, called by some chrysoberyllus, 32. Where it is produced, 33. Claudianus, 28. Codices (manuscripts). Whence the Latin version of St. Epiphanius’ *On Gems* was unearthed, XVIII. In which libraries they are preserved, XVII and XIX. The history of the Vatican Codex is described, XX and XXI, ibid. Various codices exhibiting the epitome of the book of Epiphanius *On Gems* are enumerated, XXIV. Codices of the commentaries of Andrew of Caesarea on the Apocalypse, XI, XII. Codex of the Questions of Anastasius of Sinai, 60. Various codices of the LXX Interpreters, 43 and elsewhere. Columella, 10. Crenius, 37. Ctesias, 15. Cudæi. See Cuthæi. Cunaeus, 69. Cuthæi, who they are, 60. Called lion proselytes, 61. It is handed down that Samaria was to be inhabited by them, 59. See also 61, 68, etc.

D Δάαι (Daai), 50. Dallæus, 15 and elsewhere. Damascenus (St. John), 62. Inhabitants of Damascus sent into Iberia, 59. Damianus (St. Peter), XIX. Δάσαι (Dasai), 30. Dauni, 30. Deession, what it is, 63. Demogeron, 9. Demonstratus, 25. Deuteronomy, book of, 55. Dibeni, or Diberii, 17. Dickinson (Edmund), 37. Diodorus of Tarsus, who he was, 2. Praised by Facundus of Hermiane, 2. When he was made bishop, XXXIII. When he died, XIX. Diodorus, to whom Epiphanius dedicated his book *On Gems*, who he was, XXIV and seq. Diodorus, Bishop of Tyre, XXIV. His age, XXX and seq. His praises, XXX and seq. Diodorus Siculus, 7 and elsewhere. Dionysius Periegetes, 7 and elsewhere. Dioscorides, 14, 25 and elsewhere. Diospolis, 8. Divisions of the children of Israel, Epiphanius recounts fourteen, 40 and seq. But there are also others in the Holy Scriptures, 46. Docimium, 35. Domitian the Emperor, 11. Dositheus, son of Jannæus, 62. Δουλόπολις (Doulopolis), 16. Dounatin Gothi, they call it Phison, 12. Δοῦλος (Doulos), 16. Drusius, 22, 39. Dulitæ, who they are, 36. Dupinius, XXV.

E Egnatius, 21. Ejulæi are called the interior Indians, 12. Elephantina, a region, 18. Elimæi, 3. Elias was a type of Christ the Lord, 2. He demanded, 2. Epiphanius (St.) wrote the book *On Gems* in XII [books], IX. He gave it as a gift to St. Jerome, X. It appears he wrote it in the year of Christ 392, XXIII. He is praised by St. Augustine, XXII. By St. Jerome he is called πεντάγλωστος (five-tongued), XXIII. Sometimes too credulous, XXII. He is defended, XXII. He is emended, 12, 13, 33, 46, 56. He is illustrated, 13, 39, 40, 62, 64, 73 and elsewhere passim. Whether a certain commentary on the diamond, edited by Gesner, is his, 76. Esdras the priest, sent to the Cuthæi by the king of the Assyrians, 62. His eulogy according to Theophanes Cerameus, 62. When Esdras restored the law, he used new letters, 64. Esychius, 25. Eusebius, 15 and elsewhere. Eustathius, scholiast of Dionysius, 7 and elsewhere. Evilath, a province of the Elimæi, 13. Exodus, book of, 38 and elsewhere. Ezechiel the prophet, 46. Ezechiel the tragedian, 15.

F Fabricius (Johann Albert) is praised, XVII. Emended, XVII. Facundus of Hermiane, a bishop, X. His books, X. He translated the Epistle of Epiphanius into Latin, X. He asserts it was written to Diodorus of Tarsus, XXIV and 1. But incorrectly, XXV and seq. Judgment concerning his writings, XXXV and 5. Form of the letters in which the law was on the tablets of stone, what they were, and by what name they were called, 63.

G Galen, 9. Gandara, Gandarii, Gandri, 13. Ganges. Its mouths, 13. It casts the carbuncle into the regions around Libya, 13. Garizin, Mount. Its situation, 55, 57, 70, etc. The Samaritan rabbis invent that it was not submerged by the waters of the flood, 75. One ascends to its summit by many steps, 75. Its name signifies what it does, 56. Gebal, Mount, where situated, 55 and elsewhere. Concerning gems, very many have written, XXI. Genesis, book of, 12 and elsewhere. Nations sent by the king of Assyria into Samaria, how many, 68. Geoponica, 9. Georgians, 24. Gerhard Mercator, 55. Emended, 56. Gesner edited an epitome of the book of St. Epiphanius *On Gems*, XVI, and elsewhere. Golgul, or Galgal, how manifold, 70. Gorius, 37. Grammatias, 23. Gregory the Great (St.), 67. Greiser, 61 and elsewhere. Gruter, 10 and elsewhere.

H Harduin, 17. Hebrews say they enriched themselves with the fragments of the tables which Moses broke because of the sin of the Israelites, 22. Whence this story takes its origin, 22. Whether the Hebrews use the same elements of letters as they used in antiquity, 64. They write from left to right, 37. Hebrew Scripture, what it is [according to] the Talmudic [tradition], 64. Heliodorus, 19. Herodotus, 7 and elsewhere. Hervetus was the first to edit Anastasius of Sinai in Latin, 60. Jerusalem devastated by Titus, 11. Hieronymus (St.) praises the book of Epiphanius *On Gems*, IX. He accepted it as a gift, XII. When he wrote the Catalogue, XXVI. His text is emended, 23, 25. Hiller (Matthias), XVII. Hippocrates, 10. Hippodrome, Chabratha, 39. Holmius, 37. Homer, 13. Homeritæ, 16. Hugo (Hermann), noted, 37. Huns, 30. Hyginus, 15.

^A

Iaspopallios, 24. Iberi, 24. They discovered jasper, 24. Ichthyophagi, who they are, 24. Indi (Indians), formerly divided into nine kingdoms, 14. All less well-known peoples were called Indians, 14. India, name given to various regions, 7. Ethiopia, 15. Indian matters, unknown to the ancients, 15. Indus river, rises from Mount Paropamisus, 12. Itinerary of Jerusalem, 73. Isis, coin of, 7. Isidorus, 7 and elsewhere. Ismael R., 61. Jasper stone, 22. Its color, 22. Where it is found, 22. Its various kinds, 23. Jericho, where it is situated, 74. John (St.) the Evangelist, 57 and elsewhere. John Chrysostom (St.), was a hearer of Theodore of Tarsus, xx. Opposed St. Epiphanius, xx. Praised, 59 and elsewhere. Job, Book of Job, 7. Jolas Hierotarantinus, interpreter of the abridgment of Epiphanius' book on the twelve gems, 11. Emended, 11 and elsewhere. Joseph, why placed in the last position in the breastplate, 49. Joseph, twofold tribe, 44. Josephus Flavius, 22 and elsewhere. Joshua, Book of Joshua, 45 and elsewhere. Juba, 7 and elsewhere. Judas, why appointed first on the eastern side in the arrangement of the camps, 51. Julius Pollux, 9. Juvenal, 8.

L Lac (milk), drunk by the Massagetae, 24. Lambecius, xi. Lamius (Jo.), xxxvi. Lampridius, 21. Lapides (stones), twelve, placed in the breastplate for the twelve tribes, 52. Laugurinum, 26. Laws, Mishnaic, 64. Lions, slay the inhabitants of Samaria, 61. Law, in what characters written on the tables, 64. Requested by the King of Assyria, 61. Sent to the Cuthæans, 61. In what characters written by Ezra, 64. Levi, excluded on account of Manasseh, 52. Libri (books) on the XII gems, epitome reprinted many times, xvi. Multiplex, xvi and xxiv. Lightfoot, 57 and elsewhere. Liggium, 28. Liggurus, 27. Ligorius, 7. Ligyrius stone, 24. Unknown to the physiologists, 25. Whether it is different from the lyncurium, 24. Lipomannus, xv, § iv. Letters, Hebrew, twofold kind of, 66. Ludolphus Job, 15, and elsewhere. Lun, who it is, 62. Lyngurium or lyncurium, whether it is electrum, 25. Found in Liguria, 25. Lynx, 28. Whether the lyncurium is made from its urine, 28. Lyranus, 22.

M Machabæorum liber (Book of Maccabees), 55. Marcellus Ancyranus, 13. Marcianus Heracleota, 18. Mare Rubrum (Red Sea), called Ethiopian and Arabian, 7. Marshamus, 69. Martianus Capella, 28. Masius (Andreas), 77, and elsewhere. Massagetae, their drink, 24. Maussacus, 25. Megasthenes, 15. Noted, 15. Mela, 12, and elsewhere. Mennilius (Petrus), xx. Mercator (Gerhardus), 55. Merchants of Spanish oil, 9. Minatio (threat) of deportation frequent among the prophets, 39. Molochas, 6. Montfaucon, xi. Noted, xx. Morison, 71. Mosche R., 64. Moyses (Moses), whether he enriched himself from the fragments of the tables which he broke, 22. Muratorius (Ludovicus Ant.), xxxvi.

N Nabuchodonosor, name common to Assyrian kings, 58. Nebahaz, 69. Nero and Domitian, lovers of vain things, 11. Neusin, 24. Nicephorus, 68. Nicetas, 60, and elsewhere. Nicolaus (Jo.), 69. Names of the sons of Israel inscribed on two emeralds, 54. On the various order in which they are recounted in the Holy Scriptures, 38, 40, 44, 46. Nonius, 9. Nonnosus, 16. Numerorum liber (Book of Numbers), 42, and elsewhere.

O Olearii (oil merchants), 9. Oleum (oil), Liburnian, 10. Libertinian, 10. Istrian, 10. Bætic, 10. Onychium, 34. Multiplex, 34. Why in the eleventh position in the breastplate, 50. Benjamin cannot be adapted, 49. Ophites, 28. Oppallius, 29. Origenes (Origen), 67, and elsewhere. Oseas (Hosea), 58. Otacilia Severa and her coin, 73. Oudinus, xi, and elsewhere. Ovidius (Ovid), 22, and elsewhere.

P Pæderos, 34. Palladius, 10. Paralipomenon (Chronicles), 48, and elsewhere. Paropamisus mount, 12. Also called Parapanisus, and Parpanisus, etc., 12. Patres (SS.) (Holy Fathers), whether they can err in those things that pertain to faith and morals, 15. Peltanus, xi, § iii. Noted, xiii. Perileucus, 31. Perileutius, 29. Persæ (Persians), called Achæmenian, 33. Petavius, xvi, xx, etc., 13, and elsewhere. Noted, 62. Petit (Petrus), 30. Philippus senior, 73. His coin, 73. Philo, 56. Philostorgius, 16. Phison river, called Indus by the Greeks, 12. Ganges by the Barbarians, Evilaeans, Indians, and Bugeans, ibid. Its other names, 12. Phocas, 71. Photius, xvi, 16. Pikros, 9. Plinius (Pliny), 7, and elsewhere. Emended, 17. Plutarchus, 27, and elsewhere. Politi (Alexander), 7. Priscianus, 27. Procopius Cæsareensis, 16. Procopius Gazæus, xiv. When he flourished, xiv. His writings, xiv. He excerpted many things from Epiphanius De XII gemmis, xiv. Praised, 55, and elsewhere. Noted, 72. Psellus, 25. Ptolemæus (Ptolemy), 7, and elsewhere. Pullus (dark), color, 9. Purpura (purple). See Blatta.

Q Quirinus (Angelus Maria), Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, librarian, xxxvi. Edited the epistles of Franciscus Barbarus, xxxvi. Prepares an edition of the epistles of Reginald Pole, xxxvi.

R Regum liber (Book of Kings), 39, and elsewhere. Reinesius, 9. Rolandus, 55, and elsewhere. Rubrica, was called by the Latins [earth] of a red color, 19. Rufinus, xxix. Rutilius, 9.

S Sabinæ Tranquillinæ, coin, 7. Sacerdotum (of the priests) who hid idols on Mount Garizim, number, 68. Salathiel, who he is, 62. Salmanasar, gives Samaria over to be inhabited by the Cuthæans, 59. Deported the Samaritans into his own lands, 59. Salmasius, xxi, 8, and elsewhere. Noted, 25. Samaria, 58. Inhabited by the Cuthæans, 59. Samaritans, who they are, 66. Various significations of their name, 66 and 67. Samoron, 58. Sappharai, who they are, 60. Sapphirus (sapphire) stone, 21. Its color, 21. Kings wear it, 20. Its virtues, 22. Whether the law of Moses was written on this stone, 22. Sardachates, 6. Sardium (sard), called Babylonian, 6. Where it is produced, 6. Its virtues with [the following]

[Index: entries preserved]

NOTICE ON THE SUBSEQUENT FRAGMENT

In Coislin manuscript no. 224, fol. 14, there are read concerning the diamond, the gem of the Jewish high priest, those very things which Petavius published in the writings of Epiphanius, and those genuine ones, at the end of the booklet *On the XII Gems*. I shall transcribe, however, from the Coislin codex only those things which differ in some way from the published text.

The diamond stone is similar to the air. ^A But as for the one obtained from it that is polished (sic, *forma epica*), the high priest wore it when... of the Passover and on the 50th day... and at the Feast of Tabernacles... the ephod. And the ephod began lower down... and of half [a measure] above the breasts, in which two shields... was sewn together... the diamond, being airy in nature. And above the shoulders the 12 stones, whose names are these: Sardius, Topaz. And the topaz (1) is red in (2) appearance, more so than the stone called carbuncle, being found in a place in India, located in the heart of the quarried stone. And this stone has such a test: when rubbed on a medical whetstone, it does not yield a red juice or pigment, but a milky one; and it fills many vessels. And the same [stone] is found to be equal in circumference and in weight. It is useful for those suffering from ophthalmia and dropsy and for those made mad by the sea-grape (3). Emerald; ligure (4); agate; amethyst; chrysolite; beryl; onyx; jasper; carbuncle; sapphire. And three times (5) as it has been said... of the plate; if they were found in sins, if in the commandments, and if God had given, he says, a judgment, the color of the stone changed and it became black... it became blood-red... this people and let them go out... and as many as to the sword... like snow shining... has redeemed you... you shall not see... the stone became shining... when also [he was] delaying... let it not be... and out [of] his knowing that... glorified [the] plate appeared.