Against Claudius Salmasius

[... and so] can he urinate facing the sun? Was Hesiod so delirious as to write such things? The acute man did not see that those two verses are separated by their meaning and by their punctuation. They should therefore be read as follows:

Μηδ' ἄντ' ηελίοιο τετραμμένος ὀρθὸς ὀμιχεῖν. Αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ κε δύῃ μεμνημένος ἔστ᾽ ἀνιόντα, Μήτ' ἐν ὁδῷ, μήτ' ἐκτὸς ὁδοῦ προβάδην οὐρήσης, Μηδ' ἀπογυμνωθείς. Μακάρων τοι νύκτες ^B ἐάσσιν.

That is: Do not urinate standing, turned towards the sun. But when it has set, mindful of its rising, Urinate not on the road, nor off the road in passing, Nor unclothed: for the nights belong to the blessed.

There are two warnings in these verses. In the first verse, he enjoins that no one should urinate facing the sun, that is, by day and while the sun is shining. In the latter three, he exhorts one not to urinate while walking after the sun has set and at night, nor while unclothed: because a certain reverence should be applied even to the night. Although he is confident and scorns all mortals before him, I suspect that a man would be differently disposed when he reads these things, for he would surely be vehemently ashamed, and would show himself more equitable regarding the light faults of others when he realizes that such grave and intolerable things have proceeded from himself. But let us proceed. The same man ^C writes falsely (a), as noted in the remarks on Epiphanius, p. 37, that it was a characteristic of the Essenes that they poured forth prayers as the sun was rising. Here indeed the man’s Ἀκρισία (lack of judgment) is clearly held in check. For he has committed two things which he will be able to disguise with no quibble. The first is that what he thinks is false is in fact most true, and published by Philo in clear and plain words in the book *On the Contemplative Life*, page 612, where he writes at great length about the Essenes. His words are: "They are accustomed to pray each day, at dawn and at evening; when the sun is rising, seeking for the true prosperity of that day, that their thoughts might be filled with heavenly light." They are accustomed to pray twice every day, at dawn and evening: indeed, seeking true prosperity from the rising sun, no doubt so that their minds might be filled with celestial light. We thus interpret εὐημερίας εὐημερίαν, so that the former signifies a happy course of the day, while the latter signifies prosperity and happiness in an absolute sense. Is Salmasius ashamed of his levity, or is it false that the Essenes were accustomed to pray as the sun was rising? Although, in my *Epiphanian Animadversions*, I had not stated this on my own authority, but was ^D reporting the opinion of Joseph Scaliger, who, to prove that the Ossenes and Essenes were the same, compared the customs of each sect among themselves, and showed that this which I mentioned was a custom of the Essenes according to Philo. The passage is in *Trihaeresius*, ch. 27, p. 215, so that even from this it is clear that that blind man was carried away in his criticism, secure from neither the truth nor the public judgment of himself. But let us weave the rest of this kind: among which the palm belongs to this, that concerning the Essenes and their question he was utterly ignorant. There were two kinds of Essenes, one of the practical, the other of the contemplative. These were again divided in two ways; for some were unmarried and celibate, others involved in marriage. Philo alone remembers the Theoretics, in the book which is inscribed *On the Contemplative Life or the Suppliant Virtues*, while he speaks of the others briefly in the book *That Every Virtuous Man is Free*, and in the *Apology for the Jews*, the fragment of which survives in Eusebius, *Preparation for the Gospel*, bk. 8, ch. 12; but then Josephus in several places, but primarily in the *Discourse on the End*, ch. 6, and from him Porphyry in *On Abstinence*, bk. 4. It has been asked by learned men whether the Essenes were Christians: not indeed those practical ones of Josephus, but those contemplative ones, and those mentioned only by Philo. Eusebius, in *Ecclesiastical History*, bk. 2, ch. 17, believed they were Christians, and persuaded many, especially Jerome in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, under Mark and Philo. Others denied it, such as Philastrius. It is not our business here to settle this quarrel. Our friend Serrarius tried it long ago, against Joseph Scaliger and Drusius; whose huge books published on this sole controversy are in everyone's hands: so that to no one, unless he is unlearned in all literature, who knows anything about the Essenes, is it permitted to be ignorant of this; that what is in question, when asking whether the Essenes were Christians or not, concerns the Philonian Essenes and the Theoretics, not the others described by Josephus. But that man (Salmasius) had regard only for the Essenes as described by Josephus in his writings: he did not even remember a letter of Philo or the Theoretical Essenes: whom he had not even heard of by hearsay. Hence it is that he believed it was falsely written by me that the Essenes poured forth prayers as the sun was rising, because he says, "This is not the meaning of Josephus." But Josephus is mentioned nowhere there by us, but, as I said, he never read Philo, whom he did not even praise once in that great work of his. And yet, after he discoursed much about the Practical Essenes from Josephus, he thinks those who dare to assert that they were totally Christian are talking nonsense. As if they were asserting that of the Essenes of Josephus, and not rather of the Philonian and Theoretical ones, who differ most from those of Josephus.

CAPUT II

Concerning the same Essenes, Pliny writes in bk. 5, ch. 17, as follows: "The Essenes flee from the shore from the west, as far as they are harmful, a solitary race, and wonderful in all the world beyond all others, without any woman, having renounced all lust, without money, a companion of the palm trees, etc." To which kind of Essenes these things are to be understood, it may justly be asked, but it persuades me that they are the Theoretics, because...

what denotes the letter hardly implies that it is of one work. For they exercised various arts; ^A for at daybreak, "by those arts which each person knows, they are sent by the overseers," up to the fifth hour, by which they met together for a meal; from which again they were kept at work until evening. From these things it is evident either that these men did not have leisure for agriculture, or that they did not institute this single kind of art. But neither did they repudiate all commerce; for those who exercised the various arts, which each one knew, certainly made a profit, and either sold their own services or the products of their arts. Finally, Josephus does not write that the Essenes bought and sold nothing, but rather "nothing among themselves, neither do they buy nor sell." Among themselves, he says, not at all. Let him go now, and say that we are false conjecturers, when we have taught with Kerkoetius that the ancient writers, whom he cites, were read by him only in a hurried manner, and through indices or in the commentaries of others. This passage of Pliny is of such great value for increasing this suspicion: the meaning of which, indeed, is easy and explained, if one possesses a little taste in these letters. "From the west," says Pliny, "the Essenes avoid the shores, in as far as they are harmful." This must be understood concerning the Asphaltite Lake or the Dead Sea, which exhales lethal vapors and infects the surrounding air. "Pestiferous to the inhabitants by the weight of its odor," says Tacitus, lib. v, Hist., cap. 6, "neither is it moved by the wind, nor does it suffer fish or birds swimming in its waters." ^C These things are most apt for the mind of Pliny. For they contain the reason why those Essenes, inhabitants of the [δρυμῶν/deserts], and living among the palm groves, did not fix their dwellings closer to the Asphaltite Lake; but retreated from it only as far as the evil influence of that tract reached. This is that squalor of the Dead Sea and its surrounding land, and the pestilential habit, which Tertullian elegantly and concisely described in his book *De pallio*: "Thus far," he says (c), "Sodom, and no Gomorrah, and all is ash, and the proximity of the sea creates death with the soil." The sea, he says, being near, along with the whole coast, drinks in death and pestilence. This is the true meaning of this passage: in which Salmasius (d) was ridiculously struggling. He, who dared to write at "mortuum" [the dead], or "mortum," in his new edition, page 105, as if it were permitted to derive "mortum" from that which is "morior," or "mortuum" from "mortuu"; and so that "mortuum ire" is said, just as "reditum ire," and other things of this kind. A laughable crime; nay, rather a piacular crime of a grammarian; who certainly ought to have known this, that "mortuum" is a noun, not a verb, nor a supine or participle of a verb; just as "fatuus," "arduus," "conspicuus." St. Augustine teaches this accurately in lib. XIII, *De civit. Dei*, cap. 11, whose words might also well be read here: "Whence," he says, "I think it has happened not inopportunely nor incongruously, although not through human industry..."

stria, by divine judgment perhaps, so that this verb, which is *moritur* [dies], could not be declined in the Latin language by grammarians according to the rule by which other such things are declined. For from that which is *oritur* [arises], the verb of the past time *ortus est* is formed; and if there are any similar ones, they are declined through the participles of the past time. But from that which is *moritur*, if we seek a verb of the past time, it is customary to answer *mortuus est*, with a double letter: for thus *mortuus* is said, just like *fatuus*, *arduus*, *conspicuus*; and if there are any similar ones, which are not of the past time, but because they are nouns, they are declined without time. But that thing, as if it were being declined, which cannot be declined, the noun is placed in the stead of the participle of the past time. ^A Foolish, therefore, and contrary to grammatical rules, is the Salmasian correction: especially since in the principal edition of Rhenanus, just as in the common ones, *mortem bibit* exists. That edition, he himself confesses, was diligently exacted according to the faith of ancient codices, and corresponds precisely to the manuscript which it displayed.

But I return to Pliny (a): whose other correction, used by the same Salmasius, is worthy of laughter. Instead of *socia palmarum*, he bids *esu palmarum* to be written. Ignorantly, who would deny it? For thus an abrupt and unpolished reading is made, *sine pecunia, esu palmarum*. But the vulgate carries authority both from written codices and from the meaning. They lived in palm groves far from the noise and crowd of men: therefore, the tribe is called ^B *socia palmarum*. He who does not grasp this, or who otherwise strives to interpolate Pliny, I scarcely judge worthy of the name of grammarian. Which he so little deserves, that he violently dragged me by the neck for this reason, because I wrote concerning the formation of nouns in -ηνος, as is *'Eσσηνός*, *agens*, that such inflexions were peculiar to the Arabs and Asians, as if I should call them ethnic, not patronymic. Well done, man; worn out in grammar, you do not know that a patronymic may be called not only from fathers but also from places and cities. Cledonius, an ancient grammarian, says that there is this distinction between gentilic and patronymic names (b), that gentilic names come from provinces, patronymic also from cities. Therefore, by the authority of Cledonius, I ought not to have called this gentilic name of the Essenes, unless it were established that there was some province of the Essenes, ^C which I have not yet learned existed. While you conjecture that their town was in interior Judea, from which *'Eσσαῖοι* and *'Eσσηνοί* were called; although you do this absurdly and contrary to the express testimonies of Josephus and Philo, nevertheless you prove by your own judgment this very thing, for which you so atrociously attack me. For Cledonius teaches that patronymics are formed from cities, not gentilics. Consentius, another grammarian, says (d): that feminine patronymic names are made in *-is*, as *Lucanus* from *Hibera Hiberis*. But *Hiberis*, I think, is a name bestowed from a region. Thomas ^D Linacer, a learned grammarian, in book II: Patronymics of the Greeks, he says, are led from the form of places, *Sicelides*. Finally, the prince and master of your art, Despauterius, in the Preface to his art of versification, teaches (e) that patronymics are formed from the fatherland. And elsewhere, he calls *Pisidem*, which is a gentilic name, patronymic. These are unworthy, I confess, of the things we are wasting time on. But what are you to do? As a man is, so you must bear his manner.

CHAPTER III.

Now, to the passage of Epiphanius, which alone almost gave occasion for this debate, let us transfer the pen and the mind. Concerning the Ossenes, hær. 19, page 40, he writes thus: *They have set out, as the tradition that has come down to us contains, from the Nabataean region, and Ituraea, and Moabitis, and Arelitis, the parts beyond the valley of salt, thus called in the divine Scripture the "region above." It is this which is called the Dead Sea.* Which we have rendered into Latin in our edition thus: *They report that these drew their origin from Nabataea, Ituraea, Moabitis and Arelitis; which regions are situated beyond the valley of salt.* For by this name that upper tract is called in the sacred Letters, which is the same as the Dead sea. Upon this passage, the Plinian exercitator suddenly raises his ears with a great shout with all his might, so that nowhere else is he agitated by greater intemperance. But what has been observed in other places to be fatal to this man, that where he is most busy and striving, there he falls headlong in a most foul ruin and with his whole body, this happened to him in this place almost beyond belief. His first criticism is vain. For that all those skilled in Greek may bring their heads together into one, I dare to assert this: that they would not have expressed through their interpretation any other meaning of this passage than that which has been returned by us. Whether Epiphanius thought correctly or otherwise, it pertains nothing to the interpreter. But I return to Pliny (a): of whom also another correction used by the same Salmasius is worthy of laughter. He bids *esu palmarum* to be written for *socia palmarum*. Ignorantly, who would deny it? For thus an abrupt and unpolished reading would be made, *sine pecunia, esu palmarum*. But the vulgate carries authority both from written codices and from the meaning. In palm groves far from the noise and crowd of men they lived: therefore, the tribe is called *socia palmarum*. He who does not grasp this, or who otherwise strives to interpolate Pliny, I scarcely judge worthy of the name of grammarian. Which he so little deserves, that he violently dragged me by the neck for this reason, because I wrote concerning the formation of nouns in -ηνος, as is *'Eσσηνός*, *agens*, that such inflexions were peculiar to the Arabs and Asians, as if I should call them ethnic, not patronymic. Well done, man; worn out in grammar, you do not know that a patronymic may be called not only from fathers but also from places and cities. Cledonius, an ancient grammarian, says that there is this distinction between gentilic and patronymic names (b), that gentilic names come from provinces, patronymic also from cities. Therefore, by the authority of Cledonius, I ought not to have called this gentilic name of the Essenes, unless it were established that there was some province of the Essenes, which I have not yet learned existed. While you conjecture that their town was in interior Judea, from which *'Eσσαῖοι* and *'Eσσηνοί* were called; although you do this absurdly and contrary to the express testimonies of Josephus and Philo, nevertheless you prove by your own judgment this very thing, for which you so atrociously attack me. For Cledonius teaches that patronymics are formed from cities, not gentilics. Consentius, another grammarian, says (d): that feminine patronymic names are made in *-is*, as *Lucanus* from *Hibera Hiberis*. But *Hiberis*, I think, is a name bestowed from a region. Thomas

I will show shortly that the most holy Father is outside blame and the suspicion of error: and that he who affixed his own most stupid invention to him has acted quite shamelessly and most foolishly. Now, concerning the Latin interpretation, I will first join battle with him over a goat's wool. He asks where in the sacred Scripture that upper tract is called that region in the sacred Letters. Which is most alien. Epiphanius does not say this, O man, but he says that *κοιλάδα τὴν ἀλυχὴν* is called *τὴν ὑπερκειμένην χώραν*; which is also true; for *φάραγξ ἁλυκή* is called the valley of salt, Gen. xiv, 3, where the Asphaltite lake was later made. But indeed, *ὑπερκειμένη χώρα* is not rightly said of the Dead Sea, or the Asphaltite lake. Let him see who thus wrote in Greek: what is this to the interpreter? *ὑπερκειμένη χώρα*, whether you like it or not, is the "upper tract." Nor is Epiphanius in fault: nor you...

Strabo, lib. XII, speaking of Celaenae, a city and hill, says: *ὑπέρκειται δὲ καὶ λίμνη φύουσα κάλαμον*, "and above there is also a lake producing reeds." Does a swamp loom above a hill? Again, Strabo lib. XVI, speaking of this same tract with which we are concerned, says: *Ὑπέρκειται δὲ τῆς Ἰουδαίας, καὶ τῆς Κοίλης Συρίας, μέχρι Βαβυλωνίας, καὶ τῆς τοῦ Εὐφράτου ποταμίας, πρὸς νότον Ἀραβία πᾶσα, χωρὶς τῶν ἐν τῇ Μεσοποταμίᾳ Σκηνιτῶν*· "Above Judea and Coelesyria, as far as Babylonia and the river-region of the Euphrates, toward the south, lies all Arabia, except for the Scenitae who are in Mesopotamia." You see how he locates those regions *above* Judea, and says *ὑπερκειμένας* [are situated above], which is to say they are *superior* [upper]; which is the same as saying they are *ulterior* [further/beyond]. Therefore, in the same way, Epiphanius called that upper tract *τὴν ὑπερκειμένην χώραν* [the upper/lying-above region], which is the furthest part of Judea to the east and south, and *above* the rest of Palestine: which land was once the *κοιλὰς ἁλυκή* [the salt valley], but afterwards became a lake, after God overturned Sodom and Gomorrah.

As, therefore, Arabia is said by Strabo to be the *ὑπερκειμένη χώρα* of all Judea, because it is turned toward it on the south: so the rest of Judea is said to be *ὑπερκειμένη* [lying above/beyond] of that which was once a *χώρα* [land/region], but today is a lake. Indeed, that lake is often established in the Scriptures as the extreme border of Palestine to the east, as in Num. xxxiv, 3; Deut. iii, 17; Josue xv, 2. Nothing is more true. All of Salmasius’s effort in interpolating and vexing that passage is vain and empty. He commands Epiphanius’s words to be so arranged, as if it were written: ^C *τῶν ἐπέκεινα ὑπερκειμένης χώρας τῆς κοιλάδος τῆς ἁλυκῆς*, "of the regions situated beyond the region lying above the salt valley." For beyond the region of the Dead Sea adjacent to the shores was Nabatæa, Ituræa, and Moabitis. This correction is neither necessary, nor is it absurd and unlearned. That it is not necessary is proven by what has been argued for the received reading. The absurdity is evident from the fact that Epiphanius calls the Dead Sea the *salt valley*. Indeed, in Heresy 53, which is that of the Sampsaei, he says that those who are also called Escesaei dwell in Peraea: *Οὕτω καλουμένη χώρα, πέραν τῆς Ἁλυκῆς, ἤτοι Νεκρᾶς καλουμένης θαλάσσης ἐν τῇ Μοαβίτιδι χώρᾳ περὶ τὸν χειμάῤῥουν Ἀρνῶν, καὶ ἐπέκεινα ἐν τῇ Ἰτουραίᾳ καὶ Ναβαταίᾳ*· "Which is called Peraea; which is beyond the salt, or, as it is called, the Dead Sea, in the country of Moab about the torrent Arnon, and beyond in Ituraea and Nabatæa." ^D But Salmasius himself even confesses this, that *τὴν κοιλάδα τὴν Ἀλυκήν* [the salt valley] is taken by Epiphanius for the Dead Sea. From which that ludicrous reasoning of his correction is formed: that Moabitis, Ituræa, and the others are beyond the Dead Sea, which same Dead Sea is "above" the Dead Sea. For the *salt valley* is the Dead Sea, as Epiphanius pointedly writes, with the grammarian agreeing; furthermore, *ὑπερκειμένη χώρα* [the region lying above] to the same Epiphanius is nothing other than the Dead Sea itself. For he adds: *ἔστι δὲ αὕτη Νεκρὰ καλου- μένη θάλασσα*. Where the pronoun *αὕτη* refers to the closely preceding...

sea." Where the pronoun *this* refers to the "overlying land" placed immediately before it. Salmasius assumes it must be structured as if it were "the overlying land of the valley of the Salt [Alukē]." From this, that barbarian of whom I spoke creates a wretched and insipid sense: that these regions are situated beyond the Dead Sea, which is above the Dead Sea. For Epiphanius indeed wrote in the same way in *Heresy* 19, that the Essenes are "beyond the *Alukē*, so-called, the overlying land," which is the Dead Sea; whereby in *Heresy* 53 he said it is "beyond the *Alukē*, or the sea called Dead," and in *Heresy* 20: "beyond the Dead sea." Therefore, the "surrounding land" is the *Alukē*, or the Dead Sea.

These three passages of Epiphanius, when compared together regarding the same subject, refute the inanity of that invention; then they also strike at another capital piece of negligence. For he writes on page 615 that Epiphanius does not say that the Moabites live ^B "beyond the Dead sea," but "beyond the overlying land of the Dead sea," that is, beyond the region looming over the Dead Sea. That this is false is demonstrated from *Heresy* 20 and 53. For there it is "[beyond] the *Alukē*, or the sea called Dead," that the Moabites are, omitting the word "land," which that same critic asserts must be tacitly understood—than which nothing more stupid can be imagined.

CAPUT IV

It seemed too little for this importunate censor of crimes to corrupt the opinion and words of Epiphanius, unless he also dragged the innocent and unwilling Father into the fellowship of his own error. Epiphanius interprets "the valley of the *Alukē*," that is, the salt-marsh valley, as the Dead Sea; Salmasius thinks it is confused by him with the Valley of Salt, mention of which is made in 2 Kings, chap. viii, 13, and 1 Chronicles, chap. xviii. Under the name of David, when he was returning, having captured Syria, in the Valley of Salt, after eighteen thousand were slain. "And he put garrisons in Edom and established a guard." In Hebrew, *bēne melach* in the Valley of Salt. The LXX retained the Hebrew term, *en Gemelech*, as if it were a proper name; not, as Salmasius hallucinates, "the valley of the salts," by which name the LXX call it in the book of 2 Chronicles, when in Hebrew it is the same as the name in 2 Kings, "the Valley of Salt." In the title of Psalm ^C lix, the Septuagint render it: "the valley of the salts." That this is not the same valley of Salt as the Dead Sea does not even need proof; but that the blessed Epiphanius thought so is most false. Epiphanius consistently names it "the *Alukē* valley," or simply the "*Alukē*," or the "*Alukē* sea." If he had meant the Valley of Salt, he would have used the word which the LXX placed, *Gemelech*, or at least [the word] which the LXX used when they said "of the salts." In Genesis, chap. xiv, 8, the valley that was turned into the Dead Sea, where the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and the others entered into battle against four others, is called by the LXX *koilada tēn Alukēn*: and above in verse 3, "the *Alukē* ravine." There is no doubt that Epiphanius looked to this when he wrote: "The valley of the *Alukē*, as it is called in divine Scripture." For the "valley of the *Alukē*" is nowhere named except in this place. Yet it does not signify the valley of the Salts of Idumaea closest to it, but the region in which the Asphaltite lake later existed, at that very place. Therefore Salmasius slanders [him], while he attributes to Epiphanius that which is most insipid. For he brought forward no reason to show that Epiphanius had so thought: as if it were permitted to castigate and traduce the ancient Fathers with impunity according to one's whim. The valley which is called *melach* in Hebrew is called "The Woodland" [Silvestris] by our interpreter in Greek as *Alukē*. But Jerome in his *Traditions* calls it the Valley of Salt; Aquila, however, [calls it] *tōn Peripedinōn*, that is, "of the Plains": for he reads *melach*. Theodotion [calls it] *tōn Alsōn*, that is, of the "Groves": which approaches the Vulgate interpreter. The name *melach* is taken as much from cultivated land as from pasture and woodland: which the authority of Theodotion and the ancient interpreter confirms. The Greeks translated *Alukē* from the salts, as did Jerome in his *Traditions*. If anyone thinks that these men were so ignorant that they confused this valley with the other, of similar name, situated toward Idumaea, he acts not very prudently, nay, rather, rashly. For this latter seems to have been placed in the borders of Idumaea. Nor indeed is it necessary that it be located in Idumaea itself: which Salmasius divines (a), being led by a very slight argument, since the Idumaeans were also routed ^D there, in their own region. Excellent! As if the battle must have been fought in Idumaea itself. With the same manner of arguing you could conclude that Italy is in Africa, since the Africans, under Hannibal as leader, fought with the Romans in Italy. The other argument of Salmasius, because a garrison is mentioned as having been placed there, namely in Idumaea itself. Where do you read this, that the garrison was placed there, i.e., in the Valley of Salt? And I am debating this, not so that I may determine something certain about its location, but so that the *alogia* [irrationality] of the man may be chastised; who believed that it was necessarily proven from the sacred Scriptures, and as in most things, he is entirely inexperienced in the syllogistic method.

From the same inexperience in reasoning proceeded also that which follows immediately: he proves that this valley of Salt was further removed from the Dead Sea by the fact that it is in Idumaea. But Idumaea, he says (b), is far removed from the Dead Sea. Nor is that true. Yet let us see how beautifully he demonstrates it. For it began from the Egyptian Casius, and the emergence of the Sirbonian lake. Acute, indeed! Since Idumaea began from the borders of Egypt, therefore it was further away from the Dead Sea. Is this to reason, nay, rather to use reason? For he does the same as if someone were proving...

that Gallia is not contiguous to the Pyrenees, because it begins from the Rhine or the Alps. The lynx, a beast that is, is one which, having obtained its prey, even though it consumes it in hunger, if it looks elsewhere, it forgets the present prey and departs to seek another. Our same grammarian did this. When he was in the process of proving that Idumea is further away from the Dead Sea, and had come to that point where he was saying that it begins from Lake Sirbonis, the recollection of Strabo diverted his mind; for Strabo, deceived by Lake Sirbonis, took it for the Asphaltite [Lake]. Wherefore, presently forgetting the argument he had begun, he turned himself to Strabo and fixed his teeth into him.

^A Before I withdraw from the Asphaltite Lake and this entire discussion, it is pleasing to note the threefold error of this critic. He denies (a) that this lake, which is also called the Dead Sea, is salty. Most absurdly! First, in Genesis xiv, 3, it is called ἡ θάλασσα τῶν Ἁλῶν, the Sea of Salts, that is, the Salty Sea. Salt is not salt if that sea is not salty. Then Josephus, who both saw it and was able to taste it, in Book 5 of the *War*, chap. 27, says it is ἁλμυρώδη, that is, salty. But he objects: "Every sea is salty by its own nature, which everyone knows; nor would there need to be a true sea to be so named." Lead-weighted sagacity! It would be a wonder if he did not contend that Moses erred, who called it both sea and salty. But, my good man, it is established that every true sea is salty; however, this lake was not a true sea, but, as is the custom of the Hebrews to call every collection of waters thus, Scripture calls it the Salty Sea, so that we may understand it to differ from the other, the Lake of Gennesaret, ^C which, as Josephus narrates in the same place, is sweet. Furthermore, who does not know that one sea is saltier than another? The Euxine Sea is a true sea; yet it is nonetheless пóτιμος, fit for drinking, and has sweet waters, or is less salty than the other seas, so that cattle are even wont to be watered by it, as Arrian reports in his *Periplus*, and Aristotle affirms in *Hist. animal.*, book 11, ch. 13, regarding its sweetness. Wherefore, because the Asphaltite Lake is saltier than the rest, it is therefore called by our interpreter the Saltiest Sea everywhere, Num. xxxiv, 3; Deut. iii; Joshua xv. Tacitus, in *Hist.* book 5, makes this lake more corrupt in flavor than any sea. What then came into Salmasius's mind, that he should deny it to be salty? Assuredly, Bede, in his book *On the Holy Sites*, ch. 13, reports that this most salty lake casts out salt, and that this, dried by the sun, is taken up and would be useful to many nations everywhere.

The second head of his ignorance is that he says (b) that the Asphaltite lake is called "salty" in the same sense in which the same Hebrews name "land of salt" that which is desert and desolate. "Land of salt," or "salsuginous," is called ungrateful and unfruitful and unhappy for crops, since saltness is hostile to crops. It is the proper cause of sterility and unfruitfulness. In the sea, there is no fecundity of those things which, as on land, are harmed by the nature of salt. But those things which arise from there, or crawl, are helped by the saltness. Wherefore, salt sea cannot be said to stand for unfruitful and sterile, since fecundity itself ^D from the salt-brine is not. But why does the Asphaltite Lake produce nothing or give life, if not from the ἁλμυρώδει, which Josephus attributes to it, but from the ἀσφαλτώδει, to which its waters are corrupted, and to which it is deservedly attributed as from the salt-brine of the sea? Why, however, does the Asphaltite lake produce nothing or give life? It is not from the salt-brine ^B which Josephus attributes to it, but from the bitumen, to which its waters are corrupted, and to which it is deservedly attributed.

The third error of the critic is on the same page. He proves therefrom that it is not a salt lake, because bitumen is not salty, nor has it the nature of salt. But that lake is from sheer bitumen. Therefore, there are no waters in the Asphaltite lake, but as much as there is, it is nothing but bitumen. Josephus, in Book 5 of the *War*, chap. 5, describing the Asphaltite lake—such as he had often seen it, not such as he had learned from dictionaries—says: "By reason of its lightness, it bears up the heaviest things thrown into it; nor is it easy for one to dive to the bottom, even if he tries." "By excessive lightness," he says, "even what is most heavy, when cast into it, floats: and one cannot easily reach the bottom, even with intent." He adds that Vespasian, for the sake of experimenting, ordered some who were ignorant of swimming, with their hands bound behind their backs, to be thrown into the depths; and it happened for them all, as if by the power of some spirit, that they were repulsed and floated upwards. This Josephus [says] according to the interpretation of Rufinus. He adds that in many places the same lake casts up black clods of bitumen, but they float, similar in figure and size to bulls with their heads severed: "The bitumen, in truth, casts up black clods in many parts, and they float; and both in shape and size they are like decapitated bulls." Pliny, book xxxv, cap. 15, says the nature of bitumen is in one place silt, in another earth. The silt is coming forth from the lake of Judea, as we have said; the earth is in Syria around Sidon, a maritime town. If the Asphaltite lake is pure bitumen—that is, if it has no waters—how can anything be submerged in it, or, from the bottom, be repulsed upward by a hidden force of spirit? But how can it float and fluctuate in a perpetual clod, or in most thick mud? The passage of Strabo, book xvi, more clearly refutes the absurdity, where he treats of the Asphaltite lake under the name of Serbonis, wrongly, as Ortelius and Casaubon, and many others besides, noticed before Salmasius. Therefore, Strabo reports this lake to be ἀγχιβαθῆ, having most deep water, such that there is no place there for divers, but whoever proceeds into it as far as the navel, immediately begins to well up; for the gathering of which they have ready-made reed rafts: "Bitumen is a clod of earth moistened and dissolved, but again changing into a strong mass by the cold water, such as is the water of the lake, so that it needs cutting and hewing." That is, "Bitumen is a clod of earth, which, liquefied and flowing apart, coalesces again into a solid body, constricted by the coldness of the water; such is the water of that lake, so that it requires the knife and the axe." Tacitus, book v *Hist.*, ch. 6: "Uncertain waves are carried upon the solid [as if] it were solid. Skilled and unskilled swimmers are lifted up in the same way. At a certain time of year it casts up bitumen." Soon he says, "billowing with bitumen"

to be drawn by hand to the shore. ^A The Asphaltite [lake] then possesses waters, and it is not pure bitumen, but it spews this out at certain times—that is, annually, as Diodorus Siculus, Pliny (Book VII, chap. 15), and Tacitus relate; or, as others say, every three years. Whence the quibble is frivolous: that it is therefore not salty because it is pure bitumen, which is not salty. One should also read Vitruvius, who (Book VIII, chap. 3) says that this lake emits huge masses of bitumen, which those who live nearby carry away. That the saltiness of this lake is not impeded by bitumen is because it does not flow with pure bitumen; it has its own waters, upon the surface of which bitumen boils up at certain times. Thus, the reason why bodies immersed [in it] are repelled and float should not be attributed to the same bitumen, but rather to the nature of the water and that place; for a huge force of vapors and spirits is exhaled from hidden vents and occupies those waters, by which, as Josephus says, bodies are pushed back and carried upward. This is also the case elsewhere. For instance, in Sicily near Agrigentum there is a certain lake into which even those completely unskilled in swimming cannot sink, as Strabo (Book VI) and Aristotle (in his book *On Marvelous Things*) report. This cannot be attributed to bitumen, which they do not report to be bubbling up in that lake, although there is a certain spring in that region upon which liquid bitumen flows; concerning this, see Dioscorides (Book I) and Pliny (Book XXXV, chap. 15). See Cluverius (Book II, *Sicily*, chap. 2), from whom Salmasius transferred everything he argues about this spring and the Agrigentine lake into his *Exercitationes* on Solinus, with his name—as is his habit—suppressed, though this is where he had scraped it together. And yet, in that very place, he ignorantly appended that bodies immersed in that lake are repelled and float because bitumen floats upon it, since the same thing happens in the Asphaltite lake of Judea. This is not true. For both Greeks and Latins teach us otherwise about the Asphaltite lake, as we showed a little earlier, and in the Agrigentine lake there is no bitumen, as far as can be proven by qualified authors. For Solinus inscribed "lake" instead of "spring" out of carelessness, which its own commentator does not deny. See by all means Aristotle’s passage about the Agrigentine lake. You will truly understand that this power cannot be attributed simply to oil floating on the waters, so that it lifts up bodies pressed into the depths.

CHAPTER V Epiphanian remarks vindicated from the censure of Salmasius. What *hypethesis* and *superpositio* mean. The error of Salmasius. *Bios* for secular life and marriage-bound, as also *bioun*. The slip of Casaubon.

With no better success did he exercise the venom of his style against us in another place. Epiphanius, in his *Exposition of the Faith*, speaking of the fasting of Holy Week, says that some Christians pass two days, three days, or four days during that time without food: *and the zealous ones [pass] double, triple, and quadruple* ^B 363 We observe current usage of the verb *hypertithenai* and *hypertithesthai*, which is to defer food; for this is the proper and genuine meaning of the vocabulary, so that it means to postpone, to drag out, to defer. Thus, *hyperthesis* is a postponement, at least of the customary taking of food. Hesychius [defines] *hypertheseis* [as] delays, interruptions. Graeco-Latin glossaries [define] *hyperthesis* [as] delay, procrastination, frustration, waiting, lingering, hesitation. And *hypertheticos* [as] superlative, procrastinator, deferring. Likewise *hyperthou*, to postpone. For this reason, this verb is provided with two accusatives in its construction, of which one is expressed, another is tacitly understood. As if I should say, "he defers for two days" (*dyo hemeras hypertithetai*), besides the accusative of space and time, another is conceived referring to the matter or business which is deferred; for this "defers for two days" (*biduo prorogat*) is the meaning. This is evident in the passage of Dionysius of Alexandria which we adduced there: "Since not even the six days of the fast do all endure equally or in the same way, but some defer all of them, continuing without food; others two, others three, others four, others not one." Here the verb *hypertithenai* signifies to prolong and to defer; and in the same way it is said *hypertithenai* all, or two, or three days, meaning to endure the days. For in both cases *kata* is understood. Instead of "two, three, or four," Epiphanius preferred to say "double, triple, quadruple" days. We could also understand a second accusative, namely *hypertheseis*; for *hyperthesis* is taken for a fast and a superposition: thus it will be *hypertithenai hypertheseis*, just as if you were to say in Latin "to superimpose superpositions" (*superponere superpositiones*). Thus "to fight a fight" (*pugnare pugnam*) and other things of that kind. In Evagrius (Book I, *Hist. Eccl.*, chap. 21) there is a significant passage where he speaks about the institution of the monks who were living in Palestine, and especially about their marvelous abstinence: "Often they perform even the so-called *hyperthesmous*, completing their fasts for two or three days; and there are some who [do so] for five, or even more." There he used *hyperthesmous* in the same sense as he used *hypertheseis*; and I do not know if it is truly better to read *hypertheseis*. Nor would I change it rashly; for it is possible that they called, as *hyperthesmous*, fasts [extended] beyond the common law and custom, or the usual time for taking food. This interpretation of this verb and phrase is not worthy of having us look back on it with regret today. But besides this one, there are two others available, which I judge to be no less probable. First, that the verb *hypertithenai* may mean to transcend, to surpass. For the Greeks call the superlative degree *hyperthetikon*, and *hyperthesis* to Hesychius is *hyperbasis*. Whence *hypertithenai* is to go beyond (*hyperbainein*), to surpass (*hyperballein*). The second is that *hypertithenai* means to add, to impose, and to decree beyond common practice, which the Latins call *superponere*. Cassianus (*Collat.* I, chap. 21), regarding the Abbot John who, tricked by a demon, had destroyed himself with two days of fasting: In-

-^Atending to impose upon his exhausted body a fast so long that it brought about useless fatigue—or rather, a fatigue even harmful to the spirit—he added it to his exhaustion. The word *superponere* in this passage signifies nothing other than to impose or to add. Thus, in the Council of Aurelians (V, can. 12): "Let no bishop be superimposed or superordinated over a living bishop." In this way, fasts are said to be *superimposed*, because when the common life of men is passed in daily sustenance and food, certain laws of abstinence are imposed by which men are, as it were, burdened. Thus Tertullian (*Adv. Psych.*, chap. 2): "Thus also the apostles observed, imposing no other yoke of fasts to be observed commonly by all." This will be the *superimposing* of that yoke, and the ordaining of a law of fasts; whence the *superposition* of fasts is the same as imposition and injunction. Solinus (chap. 27) says that lions take drink on alternate days and food on alternate days; and frequently, if they have not yet digested, they *superimpose* a day onto their usual feeding. To *superimpose* is to add.

Since, therefore, they are accustomed to taking food every other day, when they are raw, they add one day to the one which it is their custom to intercalate. Thus they pass a full two days without food. I do not think that the word here is used in the same sense as it is by ecclesiastical authors when they call fasts *superpositions* or *superpositions of fasts*, which Greek Fathers have called ^B *hyperthesmous* or *hypertheseis*, in the sense which we have explained thus far. But whether the Greeks have brought this term into the matter of fasting by imitation of the Latins, or the Latins by imitation of the Greeks, can justly be doubted. And if the former alternative—which we embraced in our *Animadversions*—is preferred, and the former of the two interpretations given in this chapter is more pleasing, namely that *hyperthesis* means a delay or postponement, or *hyperbasis* (a passing over), it is credible that the Latins called it *superposition* after the example of the Greeks. For in this sense, its own native propriety is clear in the Greek word; whereas in Latin it is less clear, so that you recognize it as a translated and foreign word. But if it is preferred to speak of *superposition* as meaning an imposition or injunction, then indeed the words *hypertithenai* or *hypertithesthai* will appear less Greek in concept and thus to have flowed from the use and example of the Latins. In the *Lives of the Fathers*, book 5, libellus 10, numbers 33 and 44, there is a certain strange affectation of Greek in this or a similar word; number 33: "Another thought of mine is to fast by *levando* (removing/lifting) two days"; number 44: "Therefore, when you were young, you did not fast by *levando* two days." And the old man said to him: "Believe me, that I did so both for three days and for a week." He said *levare* for two days, just as Epiphanius says *triplas hypertithesthai*. I think that *levare* here corresponds to the third meaning: to impose or to ordain: a metaphor drawn from burdens, which, in order to be imposed, must be lifted. For it does not seem that *levare* two days means to break the fast with food, so that one must supply "abstinences," which cannot be supplied in the case of a week. ^C A word like *alpsein* could also have a place in such expressions, meaning to carry or to lift. However, although the Greeks, just like the Latins, use *hypertithenai* and *hyperthesis* for *superponere* and *superpositio*, the construction is not the same in both. For although in Latin one can say *superponere alicui biduanum vel triduanum jejunium* (to superimpose a two-day or three-day fast upon someone), or, as Solinus speaks, *solitæ cibationi diem unum superponere* (to superimpose a day upon the usual feeding), yet in Greek one is not permitted to use *hypertithesthai te trophe mian hemeran* in this way. For *hypertithesthai* is not joined with the dative. ^D In which matter the Plinian critic is greatly deceived (a); he who Hellenizes this Solinian locution as follows: *te synethe trophe hemeran hypertitheasin*. Yet *hypertithenai*, like the preposition *hyper*, is not accustomed to be joined with the dative. Away, then, with those dregs of speech, *hypertithenai tivi*, to superimpose upon someone. He should have said rather *epitithenai* or *prostitithenai*. The remainder of his exercise is entangled in even greater absurdities. Among which, the singular thing is that, while he set out to harass and revile our opinion, he falls into the very thing he reprehends: we said *hyperthesis* is a delay, and *hypertithenai* to defer; Salmasius likewise maintains just as we do that *superposition* and *hyperthesis* mean a delay. Whose delay, then, is it? Or what finally is said to be deferred? He denies it is food; he refers it to the day: For he says: "They did not say *hypertithesthai trophen*, but *hypertithesthai hemeran*." Therefore the day of the fast is deferred. But it is not deferred; rather, it is represented, since whoever passes it in fasting is dwelling within it. What could be more humorous than what follows from that, when Epiphanius writes that Christians *diplas* or *triplas hypertithesthai*, that this means to defer two or three days, not food, but these very two or three days themselves? What kind of speech is this, I ask: "He defers one, or two, or three days; or he undergoes a two or three-day delay," in place of saying, "he fasts for two or three days"? Unless, as we intended, and as Salmasius ignorantly denies, you understand "food" and *trophe*, a certain intolerable slovenliness of speech is created. Which he drinks in so deeply that he reasons from it thus: since *hyperthesis* signifies a delay, and *hypertithenai* to defer: the *superposition* of fasts cannot be said, as it is found in the common reading of the Council of Elvira; lest the delay of fasts be understood. Therefore, the absurdity of speech follows his interpretation, who accepts *hypertithenai* in the same sense and asserts that it pertains to the "day." But that he combats the idea that the *superposition* of fasts and *hyperthesis* should be said, because it would follow that the fasts were being deferred, is illiterate. Or when we speak like this: "The sacrifices or expiations of the Jews," do we understand that the Jews themselves are being sacrificed or expiated on those festival days? The *superpositions* of fasts, O you, are the delays of food which are undergone during fasts; just as if I were to call the feasts of certain days, I would signify those things which are [done] on those days.

affixed and bound, not as if festive banquets were being served upon them. ^A

Therefore, he was just as unfortunate in this place of Epiphanius, and in explaining this Epiphanian word, as he was in the other one that just came to mind. In the *Heresy of the Dositheans*, page 30, Epiphanius writes that they [text in Greek script] "must practice continence after having lived." We explained *biōsō* [having lived] as implying "in marriage." Salmasius, writing against Kerkoetius, calls this ridiculous (a) and reads *huiōsō* [having fathered sons]; it is a conjecture of Casaubon in his *Exercitationes I* on the *Annals of Baronius*. But that reading is quite false: neither of them noticed what *biōsō* meant in Epiphanius. In *Heresy 59*, number 4, page 496, the same Epiphanius, arguing against the Cathari (b)—whom Salmasius cleverly guessed wore rings on their feet and stockings and trousers on their hands—refers to the custom of the Catholic Church, which admits no one entangled in marriage to holy orders unless he refrains from his wife: "But even one who is still living and fathering children, and who is the husband of one wife, he does not accept, unless he has practiced continence from one wife." Who could convert *biōnta* [living] in this place into *huionta* [fathering sons]? For he immediately added "fathering children." This passage, therefore, demonstrates both the critic’s lack of insight and our detractor's rashness. Indeed, *bios* simply means to live in marriage and in the secular life, as they call it. Thus, Chrysostom everywhere uses *bios* for this way of life, and *biōtikos* for secular and married [life]. From an infinite abundance, here is one notable passage at hand from Vol. VI of the Savilian edition, homily 7, page 801, verse 35: *On Repentance and Prayer*. For be speaks as follows: "This discourse of mine is not only to those who are occupied in the *bios* (secular life), but also to those who have set up their huts in the mountains." Nor should the passage of Achilles Tatius regarding the Dog Star be omitted for the same matter: "We call the Dog Star, which is in the *bios* (life of men), a star." He says that the star known as Canicula is properly named an "astrum" in the *bios*, that is, in common and popular parlance. In other fragments which I believe are by the same Tatius: "But indeed, in the *bios* we say that Jove rains." By the common usage of men in speaking, we say that Jove rains. ^{B C}

CHAPTER VI.

So that you may perceive that not only judgment and erudition, but even fairness and civility, are absent from Salmasius’s writings, I will gather certain proofs of this malady in this chapter. He carps at our edition of Epiphanius in several places (c) in his book *On Gems*, such as in the chapter *On the Emerald*. There, because he found a variant reading in the margin, in which *micros* [small] was substituted for *picros* [bitter] by conjecture, he crushes us and reviles us impudently. Likewise in the chapter *On the Lyncurium*, because he found *lygkourion* [lynx-stone] noted in the margin instead of *lygourion* [amber], he pursues the same with the same modesty: which he also proceeds to do in other places. And yet, it was the duty of one who possessed any prudence to notice that these conjectures did not originate from the editor, but that the author was Conrad Gesner, who, sixty-two years ago, published that little book with a Latin translation and marginal notes, all of which the printer transferred to our edition in the very same words as they were. This I myself pointed out to the reader in the Preface to the second (now the third) volume. Let him consult, if he likes, the Tigurine edition of Gesner of the year 1568. There he will find all those things which he so bitterly criticizes, with that very caution prefixed at the beginning of the work: "In the margins (these are Gesner’s words, not ours) we have written certain things by way of conjecture; and we warn that no one should think this is a different reading of other manuscripts." Therefore, he heaps curses not on us, but on Gesner, from whose edition those things were translated. ^D

But he also briefly strikes at Kerkoetius regarding the emerald, whom he says (d) attributes a conchylian color to that stone. But this is a calumny. This writing is nowhere from him: but your error is justly rebuked by the same man, who interpreted the peacock so deftly, as described graphically by Tertullian in his book *De Pallio*, that you said its neck was tinted in purple—and, indeed, a saturated and pure purple, of the kind that is Tyrian and twice-dyed. Recall, my dear sir, what Kerkoetius replied to you in his third *Mastigophorus* (e); against which last book you have not yet dared to hiss a word. From it, you will know how sinisterly you interpreted Tertullian in your *Notes on his Pallium*, and these are his words: "Although also the peacock is a garment of feathers, and indeed of *cataclita*: nay, more refined than any conchylium, where the necks flourish and are more gilded than any embroidery, where the backs shine." Which you explain in the notes on page 450 in such a way that you assign a pure purple color and brilliance to the neck of the peacock. Your words are (f): "The *conchylium* in this place is rather to be taken as a *conchylia* or *conchyliata* garment, or *conchyliated* color, which authors always distinguished from purple. For *conchylium* is a type of color much paler and more diluted than purple." So that it is no wonder if Tertullian said that the necks of peacocks, which flourish with the light of pure purple, are more lively than any *conchylium*; since all *conchylia* do not have that saturation of flower and light, which purple has. Therefore, you feel that there is on the peacock’s neck not a conchyliated—that is, a diluted and paler—color, but a purple one from that pure and saturated purple. Nay, indeed, you demonstrate elsewhere (pag. 126, 127) (g) that this very purple is Tyrian and twice-dyed, when you argue that this flower, more pressed than the conchylium, is of the same color on the peacock’s neck.

^A Babylonic in dining-room couch-covers or cushions, which you indicate are Tyrian twice-dyed, according to Cornelius Nepos in Pliny, Book IX, ch. 39. In that interpretation there is a twofold stupidity. First, if for that reason Tertullian says the peacock’s neck is more lively than any conchylium, because pure purple, which is certainly more lively than the conchylium, excels it in this luster, you make him speak as if he were saying that Helen was whiter than snow, indeed than chalk or gypsum. For what is marvelous about pure and saturated purple being more brilliant and lively than the conchylium, which is of itself lighter and paler? Truly, a particle like "indeed" ought to increase a thing, and imply something greater and more vehement in the same genus. But in the very genus of conchylium, purple is far more vivid, and thus you think the peacock’s neck is stained with it. This collection is therefore most inept: just as if someone praising some poet were to assert that he is superior to Virgil, indeed even to Lucan. Second, that you wish the peacock’s neck to be tinted either with pure, saturated purple, or with the same Tyrian twice-dyed color, you err childishly. Who has ever seen a peacock with a purple neck, red like scarlet? The peacock's neck is conchyliate, and at the same time tempered with a green and emerald color, as that *Mastigophorus* taught from Phaedrus and Phile. Indeed, whoever has eyes and, for using them, has common sense, will judge so. Wherefore Kerkoetius did not say as you trifle that the emerald color is conchyliate, but that it is conchyliate mixed with an emerald green: which the authority of writers and the sense itself distinguishes.

In the same passage of Tertullian there is another trace of Salmasian rashness ^B. He denies that *cataclita* is used of dining-room coverings, and says that those who interpret it so display a great ignorance of the Greek language: namely, that *kataklita* are nothing other than *accubita*, or the couches themselves, and by no means the covers which are accustomed to be spread upon them. But that this is false is confirmed by the Greek reading of the Septuagint Interpreters, and by the authority of St. Basil. In Isaiah III, 23, *peristra kataklita* are spoken of; where *kataklita* must be taken as an adjective, and they are bedding. So Basil explains, who was not a little more skilled in Greek than Salmasius. "He calls *kataklita* now those things which, through excess of luxury, are spread upon the couches while reclining": he calls them *cataclita* which, because of excessive luxury, are spread on the beds in reclining. Let Salmasius see now how deservingly he boasts of his skill in the Greek language, and criticizes the interpreters of Tertullian, who took *cataclita* in the same sense as Basil.

It would have concerned a man more to bury the memory of that old dispute, and not to make his own blame more distinguished by an untimely recollection of it. But he cannot: for behold, he again refreshes the memory of his other error ^C, while he still ^D struggles to vex Kerkoetius. Most truly he writes that he was the first to reveal the significance of the word *pinos*, whatever others might bark against it. Come now, let us see how he can purge those things which Kerkoetius objects to him concerning this word in *Mastigophorus* 3. For Salmasius, in his *Confutation of the Animadversions of Kerkoetius*, judges that *pinos archaïkon*—or *chneous*—as used by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, is contrasted with the feeble and strengthless rhetoric of his own times. The latter, he says, he distinguishes from that *pinos* of ancient rhetoric, which was strong and masculine and owed much to art and practice, whereas the recent manner of speaking, which flourished in the time of Dionysius, consisted of no art, but of impulse alone; for they rejoiced most in the temporality of the moment, and thus they poured forth, they did not speak; *emountes, ouk akribountes*. When Salmasius wrote this, he certainly neither understood what he was writing, nor had he read Dionysius of Halicarnassus carefully enough. For nothing could be brought forward more contrary to the mind of that writer than what he discussed in that chapter. For Dionysius posits a threefold character of speaking: the first is *austeros*, austere, and archaic, which is also rough and unpolished: to which *pinos*, or the *chneous* of *archaiotetos*, that distinct quality of antiquity, is proper; the second is *glaphuros* or *anthēros*, polished and florid, from which *pinos* shrinks; the third is *koinos*, which contains the gifts of both in itself. To the first genus belong, of the poets, Pindar, Aeschylus; of the historians, Thucydides. To the second, Hesiod, Sappho, Anacreon, Simonides, Euripides of the poets; of the historians, Ephorus and Theopompus; of the orators, Isocrates; the third genus is occupied by poets such as Homer, Stesichorus, Alcaeus, Sophocles; of the historians, Herodotus; of the orators, Demosthenes. Writers of the second kind, from whom *pinos* is absent, are more ancient than the former, yet to them *pinos* is proper. For Hesiod long preceded the age of Pindar and Aeschylus. But Salmasius says that Dionysius attributes *pinos* to those much more ancient than those of the second kind, and affirms that these same ones were of Dionysius's own time. And so, in the age of Dionysius—that is, of Augustus—lived Hesiod, Sappho, Anacreon, Euripides. Furthermore, those who are considered in the latter group, and who lack *pinos*, he asserts to have spoken with no art, but by impulse alone and *ex tempore*. Wherefore Isocrates or Euripides contributed nothing of art, nor culture, nor time to their writing; to say nothing of the others, who it is agreed wrote most laboriously and diligently.

These are the portents of one writing not meditatively, but *emountes*, vomiting forth, Salmasius, of which he himself ought now to be ashamed; but to restore the memory, and to thrust it upon those who are unwilling and occupied with other things, is truly improper. But the Armoric Kerkoetius exposed these things more copiously in his third *Mastigophorus*: which were passed over and dissembled by Salmasius in a gentlemanly way.