Nonnus of Panopolis

ANNO SAECULI V CONTROVERSO NONNUS PANOPOLITANUS NOTITIA

(Fabr., *Bibliotheca Græca*, ed. Harles, vol. VIII, p. 601.)

Nonnus ^A, an Egyptian from Panopolis, seems to have been a different person from Nonnus of Palestine ^B, a follower of Origen’s dogmas, whose mention is made by Cyril of Scythopolis and Simeon Metaphrastes in the *Lives of the Holy Saints Sabas and Cyriacus* (vol. III and IV of Cotelier’s *Monumenta*). It is uncertain whether he is the same as the Nonnus whose son, Sosena ^C, Synesius commends to his friends Anastasius and Pylæmenes; though it is credible that he was not much inferior in age to Synesius, since he is cited by Agathias ^D as one of the "new poets," which I interpret as meaning not that they were contemporaries of Agathias, but that they were famous at some time not long before his own age.

That other Nonnus was also different from ours, he whom Damascius in the *Life of Isidorus*, according to Suidas in the entry *Saloustios*, relates to have read through the entirety of Demosthenes six times, yet to have been unable to open his mouth to produce any fitting speech. Indeed, these two things do not conflict—to excel in poetry and to be destitute of the faculty of oratory—so that there is nothing rarer than for the same man to be both a good poet and a good orator, nor does the consideration of the times greatly conflict with this. But many things persuade us that the Nonnus of Damascius was a stranger to the sacred rites of Christ, whereas no one doubts that this Nonnus of ours was a Christian.

I omit that much younger Nonnus, a physician and likewise a Christian, whose *Iatrika Theōrēmata* (Medical Theories) addressed to Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus is extant. However, we must not pass over Nonnus the deacon, who is commemorated among the notaries at the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, nor Nonnus, Bishop of Edessa, whose mention occurs in Nicephorus, book XIV, 30, *Historia*; he is the same one who, at the Robber Synod of Ephesus in A.D. 449, was appointed in place of Ibas of Edessa, by...

the Eutychians, after he had been deposed. To Nonnus, Bishop of Heliopolis and eventually of Edessa, is also attributed the conversion of thirty thousand Saracens, which Nicolaus Abramus, beside the point, refers to our Nonnus, the Panopolitan.

Regarding his poems (for Agathias implies that he composed many, when, in citing the *Dionysiaca*, he praises Nonnus in one of his own poems), there exist forty-eight books in heroic verse, the *Dionysiaca*, or *Concerning the Affairs of Bacchus* ^A; I doubt whether it is necessary to affirm that these were written while he was still a pagan, nor would I assert that they were composed to the mockery and shame of pagan theology, since a poet, even though a Christian, could have undertaken to adorn a pagan subject for the sake of his own talent, just as we see happening every day in our theaters. Some express doubt whether this poem is the same as that *On the Giants*, in which these lines are read in the *Anthology*, book I, p. 140:

I, Nonnus, my city is Panopolis. In Pharia With a bloody spear I mowed down the offspring of the Giants.

But it certainly seems that these words refer to a part of the *Dionysiaca*, or, as it is called by some, the *Bassarica* ^B, which in the first and second books pursues the history of Typhoeus and his battle with Jupiter. For although the title of the work promises the affairs of Bacchus, yet the poet describes many other things quite diffusely and at length. "Wherefore he has left us not a work, but a chaos," says Heinsius ^C. For in order that Bacchus might conquer the Indians, Jupiter ravishes Europa: and he is transformed into a bull; Typhoeus assaults heaven; Cadmus seeks out and woos Harmonia, founds Thebes, and marries off his daughters; Actaeon is torn to pieces by dogs; Proserpina is loved by the gods; Zagreus is born; the world perishes in a flood. After all these things, Bacchus is finally born. Such a great task it was to give to the world a god who would dwell in an amphora. Wherefore, before he was born, whose deeds he was describing, he dissipated and consumed the subject matter of six or seven immense volumes, none of which has the same theme as the rest, but as many works as there are, they could be entire works themselves. The first would be *The Rape of Europa* or *Europa*, the second *The Battle of Typhoeus* or the *Gigantomachia*. The third, *The Wedding of Cadmus and Harmonia*. The fourth, *Cadmeia* or *The Deeds of Cadmus*. The fifth, *The Wooing or Wedding of Deo*. The sixth, *The Births of Zagreus*. The seventh, *The Births of Dionysus*. The following parts are no less intricate, so that in the twenty-third book he undertakes the Indian campaign, although in the thirteenth he had proposed a catalogue. Wherefore the whole work is an episode and lacks episodes: for there is nothing primary, no *katastasis* of the work, nothing redundant that holds together in such a way that, were it removed, the next part would necessarily follow. There is nothing of that sort which, if removed by the poet, could be added for the sake of extending and adorning the work while remaining suited to what preceded. Deceived by this, the ancients, because he did not treat one subject but mingled many, ascribed different works to him. Hence that remark of some ancient, as if he had written a *Gigantomachia*, a part of the work that deals with Typhoeus. Unless he meant the *Indica*, which seems to be the view of Falkenburg. Nonnus's *Dionysiaca* is cited by Eustathius to Homer more than once, and by the author of the *Etymologicum Magnum* at the word *Dionysus*. Politian also used his testimony quite often, before it was printed, in *Miscellanea* ch. 11, 12, 28, 80, and once by Natalis Comes in *Mythologia* V, 13, who through Demarchus seems to denote the author of the *Etymologicum Magnum* ^D. Tumid and almost

^A dithyrambic style of writing, certainly befitting Bacchus, has been noted by many in this work, by most in blame, by few in praise, or in such a way as to offer an excuse. Certainly, even those who more bitterly censure his thyrsi, his faults, and his ἁκυρολογία ^B grant him genius and store, erudition, and an abundance and affluence of epithets that are, at times, overly bold.

*Codices and editions of the Dionysiaca.*

[According to Nessel’s *Catalogue of the Imperial Viennese Codices*, part IV, there are 48 books of the *Dionysiaca* in codex XXVIII. In codex XLV, which Falkenburgius used when he first published the *Dionysiaca*, there is a second volume. In codex LII, [derived] from the Fugger codex at Augsburg, transcribed by Georg Wurffel in 1561, there are codices 206 and 209 in the Electoral Library at Munich, though not without lacunae, says the compiler of the *Catalogue of the Greek Codices of the Bavarian Library*, p. 76. At Venice, among the codices of Cardinal Grimani, witness Montfaucon in *Diarium Italicum*, p. 40. At Florence, in the Laurentian codices, XVI, n. 2, plut. 31. Cf. Bandini, *Catalogus codicum graecorum Bibliothecae Laurentianae*, I, p. 141. At Rome, in the Alexandrine Library, Petavius; in the Vatican, Nonnus’ collection of Greek histories and the *Dionysiaca*. In the Escorial library, there are two codices, of which one contains 48 books of the *Dionysiaca*, while the other contains 24 books. Cf. Montfaucon, *Bibliotheca bibliothecarum manuscriptorum*, I, p. 86 A, and p. 622 B. The same, vol. I, p. 287 E, thus records the Ottobonian codex at Rome: "Nonnus Panopolitanus, Greek codex, recent," but he does not add whether it contains the *Dionysiaca* or not. Regarding the Escorial codices, see also Plüer, *Itinerarium per Hispaniam*, p. 184. HARL.]

Since neither Aldus, to whom it had been recommended by Janus Lascaris, nor J. Oporinus, who had received a copy of them from Italy, had brought Nonnus’ *Dionysiaca* to light, Gerard Falkenburgius of Nijmegen was the first to publish them in Antwerp in 1569 (d), in the beautiful Greek type of Christophe Plantin, with his own learned corrections and a very copious index, along with the emendations of Willem Canter, all contained in a single folio volume. He worked from the manuscript codex of Joannes Sambucus, the Pannonian, which formerly belonged to Arsenius, Archbishop of Monemvasia, and had been purchased by Sambucus at Tarentum for 45 gold pieces; today, indeed, it is kept along with two or three other codices of the same work in the Imperial Library at Vienna. Meanwhile, at Paris, Carolus Utenhovius, son of Carolus, using four manuscript codices, undertook the task of correcting and translating Nonnus’ *Dionysiaca* into Latin; and Joannes Forestius, in letters sent to Elias Putchius on July 12, 1605, wrote to this effect: "We too, if it pleases the gods, while "γόνυ χλωρόν ἐστι" ("the knee is still green/strong"), attempt great things from modest ones: we translate Nonnus’ *Dionysiaca* into the Latin tongue, and we shall add certain brief annotations and our own conjectures; for it teems with a most foul flood of errors." In that very year, 1605, this work was printed in Hanau in Greek and Latin by the Wechel press, in the house of Claudius Marnius and the heirs of Joannes Aubrius, with a prose Latin version by Eilhard Lubinus and the index and corrections of Falkenburgius. To this edition, in 1610, a new title was prefixed, the name of the Latin translator was omitted, a preface by Petrus Cunaeus (e) was added, and a book of *Animadversiones* on Nonnus’ *Dionysiaca* by this same Cunaeus was appended, together with a dissertation by Daniel Heinsius and conjectures by Joseph Scaliger, from the Leiden edition of 1610 (f). There also exist the *Dionysiaca* of Nonnus with Lubinus’ version in the *Corpus poetarum Graecorum*...

of heroic verse, which Jacobus Lectius published at Geneva in 1606, in folio, after he had recensioned it with various readings and marginal notes. In the library of Petrus Francius there were the *Dionysiaca* of Nonnus with manuscript corrections by Joseph Scaliger, Daniel Heinsius, Claudius Salmasius, and Matthaeus Sladus.

Epic paraphrase of the Gospel of St. John

That the same Nonnus of Panopolis who composed the *Dionysiaca* also composed this *Metaphrasis*, the testimony of Suidas and Agathias, when compared, does not allow us to doubt; nor does the genius of the poet, which is identical in both works. Learned men admire the same virtues in this work and censure the same faults, noting other things besides, for which it has pleased them to subject this poet to their very sharp judgment and censure. I, however, would not deem those worthy of being heard who write that Nonnus in this *Metaphrasis* supported the heresies of the Manichaeans, Origenists, or Arians, or I know not whom else, since, for any such accusations to be cast at anyone, clearer and more manifest arguments are required. Having dismissed those, therefore, it is better to set forth the codes and editions of his Johannine *Metaphrasis*.

Greek Manuscripts and Editions

The first by Aldus Manutius, Venice, 1501, 8vo. FABR. — It is necessary that this year be indicated erroneously. For at the end of the poems of Gregory of Nazianzus, which he published in 1504, 8vo, Aldus finally promises an edition of Nonnus, as I myself have seen with my own eyes. HEUM. — Both the Venetian and the Roman editions seem doubtful and truly spurious. In Harwood’s *Prospetto di varie ediz. degli autori classici*, edited by Pinelli, Venice, 1780, 8vo, p. 158, there is no mention of either the Venetian or the Roman edition; but in the most recent edition of that book, inscribed *Degli autori classici—Bibliotheca portatile*, part 1, Venice, 1793, 8vo, both are mentioned thus: *Paraphrasis in Joannem, Gr. 4, Venet. Ald. sine anno.* ^B "Asserting that Aldus, in the index of the Greek verses of St. Gregory of Nazianzus printed by him in 1504, says he published Nonnus three years earlier, therefore the edition must be from 1501." And another: "Greek 4to. Aldus 1508. Fabricius cites another edition from Rome of this same year, but some believe he made an error with the Aldine." In *Serie dell' edizioni Aldine*, Padua, 1790, only one Aldine edition is commemorated; in the index indeed thus: *Nonni Paraphrasis, sine anno 1508*, and at *b. a.* or p. 29, simply indeed, but on p. 152 in the index of Aldine books without chronological notation, it is also referred to the Aldine index, with the added observation: "therefore this edition is known from 1501." Nor have I found the memory of those two raised by Maittaire and Panzer in *A. T.*, nor by Denis, nor by de Bure, and by Audiffredi, nor by Lair, nor in those library catalogues which I have indeed consulted, except the catalogue of the Leiden library, in which it is mentioned on p. 60 thus: *Ejusdem (Nonni) versio poetica Evangelii Joannis, Graece*; but it is added, expressed in letters commonly called italics: *Venetiis 1501*, as it was ascribed by Franciscus Nansius, who, as it seems, restored it in some places. Since these things are so, the Roman edition cited by Cave and Possevinus in the *Apparatus h. v.* seems indeed to be spurious, or confused with another Roman one, added to Harwood’s index by Pinelli, p. 158. And cited by Hamberger from the catalogue of the former Royal library of Paris, *Belles-Lettres*, vol. 1, p. 269, and *Theol.*, pp. 312 and 335: *Paraphrasis Evangelii secundum Joannem, Graeco carmine, studio Demetrii Ducae, Cretensis, edita Roma 1526, 4to*. And Hamberger judges that edition to be rightly the first. HARL.

Roman 1508, remembered by Cave. Haguenau, by Joannes Secerius, 1527, 8vo. FABR. With an epistle of Phil. Melanchthon, dedicated, from which it is evident that many places were corrected by him. In the copy which is in the public library at Leiden, a learned man wrote many things, according to the catalogue of that library, p. 60. HARL. Frankfurt, 1541, by Petrus Brubachius, 8vo. FABR. Paris, 1541, by Jacobus Bogardus. — Prefixed are the *Homerocentra*. ^C Paris, 1556, another by Martinus Juvenis, in some places more correct, but as Nansius notes, in not a few places more corrupt.

*Les Voyages, les Amours et les Conquestes de Bacchus aux Indes. Traduites du grec de Nonnus Panopol.* Paris, 1625, 8vo, was published. HARL. — The *Dionysiaca* were published anew in the year 1856, at Paris, by Firmin Didot brothers, in 4to, from the recension of the most famous man, the Count de Marcellus. The title is this: *Nonnos Les Dionysiaques, ou Bachus. Poëme en XLVIII chants, grec et français, rétabli, traduit et commenté par le comte de Marcellus, ancien ministre plénipotentiaire.* EDIT. PATA.

(a) Dan. Heinsius delivers a judgment on Nonnus in his *Prolegomena* to his *Aristarchus*, pp. 669-697, where he is copious regarding the faults of his poems and attributes to him the Arian heresy, and endeavors to prove it with many arguments. HEUM.

^A Coloniensis (a) 1566, at Maternus Cholinus, from the enlarged edition of Joan. Bordatus, and 1588, from the edition of Martin Juvenis. Goslariensis, in larger type with a copious Greek index of words, following the traces of Sylburg, 1616, in large octavo format.

*Latin Editions.* Christopher Hegendorph’s prose interpretation (a very unfortunate one) with Chrysostom’s homily on magistrates and powers, Hagenau, from the press of Joan. Secerius 1528, 8vo, and Paris 1542, at Jacob Bogardus. (Hall. Suev. 1540, 4to, in the Zurich library catalogue, vol. II, p. 186.) Erhard Hedeneccius, physician, an interpretation likewise in prose, in the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, vol. VI, part 1, Cologne edition, and the most recent Lyons edition, vol. IX, corrected in very many places from the interpretation of Joannes Bordatus and Hedeneccius by Franciscus Nansius. Ulrich Bollinger’s metrical paraphrase, from the review of Paul Melissus, Schedius, Speyer 1596, 8vo.

*Greek-Latin Editions.* 1. With the prose version of Jacob Bordatus, of Bourges, who in the MS codex of Jacob Salomon Interaquas testifies that he restored many verses previously omitted (b). Paris, 1561, 4to, from the press of Charles Perier, with a few various readings added at the end. To chapter 16, in particular, he added 38 verses, which, however, Frid. Sylburg denies he found in the Palatine [MS], nor does it seem to him that they refer to the style of Nonnus: Nansius himself, in his second annotations, also testified that many things therein were suspicious to him and did not sufficiently agree with the genius of Nonnus. 2. With the version likewise in prose of Erhard Hedeneccius, Basel, 1571 and 1577, at Petrus Perna and 1588. But also Paris, 1578, 8vo, at H. Stephanus, who corrected the version in several places. Then at Commelin, 1596, 8vo, with the addition of the notes and Greek index of Fridericus Sylburg (who collated the Palatine MS). This edition of Sylburg was reprinted at Leipzig [first at Leipzig, 1613, 8vo, which edition Baumgarten reviews briefly in *Nachrichten von merkw. Buch.*, vol. VII, p. 118 sqq., 1618, 8vo, in Menken. cat. I, p. 53 H.]—Leipzig 1629, 8vo, Fabr.—Sylburg, so as not to lose anything from the labors of Nansius, followed the edition as it was expressed by Perna and Stephanus, and entitled his own: *Nonni Panopolitani metaphrasis Evangelii secundum Joannem versibus heroicis cum ms. cod. Pal. collata; brevibus notis illustrata; verborum indice aucta; rectius aliquot in locis versa. Opera Frid. Sylburgii*, Veter. He placed among the notes both the various readings of the codex and his own conjectures, as well as those 38 verses which Bordatus had inserted into chapter VI, but Sylburg asserts that the Palatine codex does not have them, nor do they refer to the style of Nonnus. — Stephan. edition, by Maittaire A. III, p. 775, records it more fully by the title: *Homerici Centones et Probæ Falconiæ Centones Virgiliani, utrique in quædam historiæ sacræ capita scripti; Nonni paraphrasis Evangelii Joannis Græce et Latine; excud. Henr. Stephanus*, 1578, 12mo. In the dedicatory epistle, a part of which the same Maittaire had printed, in note d, Stephanus says that he had appended to the poem of Nonnus the interpretation of Erhard Ædeneccius (sic), perhaps made slightly better in some places. HARL.

3. With the version of Bordatus and Hedeneccius, but corrected by Franciscus Nansius, and ^B by a very useful plan adding, in the margin, the Greek words of the Evangelist John and the numbering of the verses, Leiden, 1589, 8vo, at Franciscus Raphelengius. Here Nansius, besides the 68 verses added by Bordatus, himself inserted by his own genius 369 verses, enclosed in brackets or expressed in smaller type. He also added learned notes and strictures, and in these, a few corrections of Hadrianus Junius, which he had inscribed with his own hand into the Hagenau edition in the year 1627. Nansius published his second thoughts on Nonnus when more than sixty years old, in 1593, 8vo. In the library of Petrus Francius, Esq., was the edition of Nansius with the manuscript corrections of Sop’ngius. Fabr. Nansius passed judgment in his preface on the antecedent editions, and prefixed a peculiar title to his own notes. Though he boasts in the title that the paraphrase, hitherto very corrupt and mutilated, now appears for the first time most correctly, perfectly, and integrally, and that many things not vulgar are treated in the notes and various passages of authors are corrected or illustrated, and vindicated from the *paradiorthoseis* of certain ones, and the edition itself is to be esteemed as of no small value: nevertheless, other critics found many things to be desired in it, and Nansius himself left many things in his second thoughts, in which, he says, some things unnoticed by anyone hitherto are noted regarding other authors as well (see Baumgart. *Nachricht. l. c.*, p. 115, sqq.) and left them in his desks. For in the Leiden library there is not only a copy of the 1589 edition complete with manuscripts—

(a) Sylburg, who in his dedicatory epistle was a great admirer of the genius and style of Nonnus, in his Preface diligently reviewed the previous editions, and noted that Martin Cholinus had in the prior edition expressed the edition of Bordatus, but had transmitted the Greek so negligently that he even left uncorrected the typographical errors which Bordatus had indicated in his own edition: however, in the year 1588, having dismissed the edition of Bordatus, he followed the Paris edition of 1556, having omitted up to chapter 16 all those verses which Bordatus had added, but had inserted the single verse added by Bordatus to the sixteenth chapter; see the following note. HARL. (b) Namely 80 verses: but, as Nansius and Sylburg note, if the total is computed more accurately, only 67 verses were added by Bordatus instead of 80. For to the sixth chapter, in one and the same place, 58 verses were added by him; to the seventh, one, namely the last; to the twelfth, ten; to the thirteenth, one; to the fourteenth, six; to the fifteenth, four; to the eighteenth, three; to the remaining ones absolutely nothing was added. HARL.

^A with the annotations of Ant. Æmilius, see the catalog, page 60, but also page 336; among the manuscripts, and compared with the Greek manuscripts, no. LIII, is enumerated a work consisting of eight volumes, in which are included: *The poetic version of the Gospel according to John by Nonnus of Panopolis*, in Greek and Latin, by J. Bordatus, Paris, 1561, which Fr. Nansius compared with other editions, corrected, and vehemently expanded. Another copy of the same edition and in the same handwriting. Likewise, the same paraphrase written by Fr. Nansius; notes of the same edited upon it, Leiden, 1589, but corrected and expanded by his own hand. Furthermore, another volume containing the *Second Cares* of Nansius, which he had printed. Likewise, things to be corrected, changed, and added in like manner. The same index in N. and notes in Greek and Latin. Likewise, Thomas Peotisius of Viana’s *Rhapsodies* on the first three chapters of the same Nonnus. Finally, a very thick volume, which is inscribed: *Fr. Nansius on the Paraphrase of the Gospel of John by Nonnus, now for the first time restored to its splendor and expanded by 369 verses.* — In the catalog of the Bern Library, volume I, it is cited; is this correct? I do not know, edition of the paraphrase in Greek and Latin, edited by Fr. Nansius, Plantin, 1599, 8. HARL. — [Paraphrase by Erh. Hedeneccius, Greek and Latin, Leipzig, 1604, 8. — The same in Greek and Latin, Lyon, 1620, 12, in the Pinelli catalog, II, p. 288, nos. 4305 and 4306. In the Askew catalog, p. 96, occurs: *Nonnus’ Paraphrase of the Gospel of John*, Greek and Latin, with the observations of P. Cunæus, D. Heinsius’ dissertation on the *Dionysiaca* of Nonnus, and J. Scaliger’s conjectures (sic), Hanau, 1610, 8. But I fear that the title has been confused with the edition of the *Dionysiaca* of that same year. HARL.]

^B ...videtur, acerbiori submisit. Leiden, 1627, 8. *Aristarchus sacer*, the Nonnus Metaphrase itself being omitted, is also found subject to the *Exercitations on the New Testament* of Heinsius, ibid., 1639, fol., from the Elzevir press. Caspar Ursinus, an Islebian, wrote an *Apology for the Nonnian Metaphrase against Heinsius* and attempted to briefly refute each point raised against it in his *Nonnus Redivivus*, Hamburg, 1667, 8, addition Baumgart. *Nachricht*, l. c., p. 119, ff. HARL.]

IX. That John the Grammarian of Gaza, in his *Ekphrasis* of the map of the universe, follows the footsteps of Nonnus, is observed by Janus Rutgersius, who edited it in Greek [from the Scaliger codex, which exists in the Leiden Library], lib. II, cap. 7, *Var. lect.* However, at what time he lived, I could divine by no arguments, unless the fact that he was later than Nonnus, whom it is established flourished not long after Theodosius, is proven by the very opening of the poem. For not only is the diction in it, and that which the Greeks call *ennoia*, entirely Nonnus’, but he could not even refrain from the actual familiar vocabulary of the same. Indeed, he sometimes takes whole verses from him, such as the one: *Puknon akontizōn autosyton ombron erōtōn.* Which Phalereus calls *metastasis*, a most graceful *hypokorismos* for too familiar a license. He is, however, more chaste and concise than Nonnus.

XV. There is also usually referred to this same Nonnus, as if he were the author, the *Commentary or collection and exposition of histories and fables* (Συναγωγὴ καὶ ἐξήγησις ἱστοριῶν) on the *Orations* or *Steliteutics* of Gregory of Nazianzus, two against Julian the Emperor, *ton parabolatēn*, already deceased (b). Rich. Montagu edited it in Greek from a codex of the Vienna Library, Eton, 1610, 4, as mentioned above regarding Gregory Nazianzen. In Latin, only from the version of Jac. Billius, who used a codex of the Library of Reims, it appeared in the *Latin Paris*, 1570, fol., and in the Greek-Latin editions of the works of Nazianzen, Paris, 1609 and 1630, and Leipzig, 1690, fol. Suidas frequently brings forward certain things verbatim from it, although he is not named, as in *Mageia*, *Mithrou*, and elsewhere, which Neocorus has aptly noted. Moreover, the most learned man Rich. Bentley judges that this commentary [is] by the father of Nonnus...

as Billius edited it, or by the Abbot Nonnus, as the Catalogue of the Escorial Library manuscripts displays in the appendix of the *Apparatus Sacri* of Possinus. Possinus, having fallen into error, owing to some hallucinations concerning matters which he teaches were most familiar to the poet Nonnus, [decides] it to be unworthy of him; especially since in the Vienna codex, as appears from the edition of Montacutius (p. 127) and Lambecius (Vol. III, *De biblioth. Vindob.*, p. 207; cf. p. 452 ff. and Kollar there), no name of the author exists, and this commentary seems to be referred to a certain Maximus by John Tzetzes in his *Chiliads* 15, v. 865:

Concerning the oracle mentioning the Thessalian mares, Maximus also makes mention in his stories, The histories of which Gregory the Great wrote. But he has not spoken a single word, nor even a syllable, of the oracle.

See the dissertation of the aforementioned Bentley on the Epistles of Phalaris, published in English in London in a.d. 1699, pp. 24, 26. As for the rest, in the commentary of Nonnus, I find indeed some mention of the Thessalian mares, but no mention of that oracle remembered by Tzetzes. And it is clear that, besides Nonnus, Maximus the Confessor took upon himself the task of illustrating the difficult passages of Nazianzen, as also did Elias of Crete, Basil of Caesarea (the younger, not that great one), Nicetas Serronius, Michael Psellus, and others. The scholia of Maximus on the difficult passages of Nazianzen were published with the Latin version of John Scotus Eriugena (Oxford, 1631, folio), and they are entirely different from the commentaries of Nonnus. Moreover, whoever that Nonnus may have been, whether he is our own or someone else distinct from our Panopolitan—a point I willingly concede to a most learned man—it will appear to fair-minded judges that he has annotated things worthy of note and not unpleasant to read for the sake of illustrating Nazianzen. He cites Dion, the commentator, the *hypomnematographos*, in *Hist.* 37. He mentions Aristaenetus, the rhetorician, in *Hist.* 32, on Oration 2. He testifies that he was in Alexandria in *Hist.* 33.