Notes on Various Matters

^A when I had inspected them, I found this commentary also, which a certain Dionysius (a) had translated into the Latin tongue. I read his interpretation eagerly, for I had already resolved to refrain from my own labor. But reader, Dionysius is so far from having dissuaded me from my undertaking that, when I had progressed even a little, I perceived that I must labor all the more, lest students of literary wisdom should any longer lack a good treasure. For as that foremost philosopher used to say, there are his “published” lectures and his “unpublished” ones: so I saw that Gregory was translated and yet not translated, or rather, if I may speak the truth, was shamefully polluted by foul barbarism and was completely perverted. An epistle of John Conon was added, written (if I am not mistaken) sixty years ago, in which he professes to have corrected this translation somewhat in certain places, and concerning the Greek fragment, if you read it, you will easily understand that I am no unjust critic of another’s labor. ^B And that any person may get a certain taste of what sort this interpretation of Dionysius is, I shall touch very briefly upon one or two passages, whereby those who are even moderately learned in Greek letters may decide what sort of skill in the Greek language Dionysius possessed. For if the more learned inspect his translation, they will undoubtedly pronounce that, as the saying goes, all errors can be blotted out with one stroke of the pen. Not to go far, in the very lemma of the first chapter are the words of Gregory: *Διήγησις περὶ τῶν προγεγονότων τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου γενέσεως.* That in Latin, I think, you would say: *A narrative concerning those things which preceded the origin of man.* Dionysius: *An exposition of those things which are shown to have been performed before in the formation of man.* In chapter 15, Gregory says: *οἷα ἦν τὰ βασίλεια κατὰ τὴν τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων πόλιν.* How glorious were the palaces in the city of Jerusalem? Dionysius, who knew not what difference there was between *τὰ βασίλεια* and *τὰς βασιλείας*, translates: *What sort of kingdoms were in the city of Jerusalem?* Yet, lest anyone think that this perhaps crept in through the carelessness of the scribes, it is repeated twice thereafter, *ποῦ τοίνυν ἐκεῖνα τὰ βασίλεια;* Dionysius: *Where then is that kingdom?* And a little later, *τῇ τούτων καταστροφῇ συνερειπώθη καὶ τὰ βασίλεια*, which he likewise translates thus: *And with their subversion the kingdom also is destroyed.* Finally, not to make a long story of it, let the reader consider the interpretation of the final lemma. ^C For when its words are these: *θεωρία τις ἰατρικωτέρα περὶ τῆς τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν κατασκευῆς δι' ὀλίγων*, Dionysius expressed it thus, so that even from this one instance anyone may perceive what sort of labor his work must be considered, even after the file had been applied by Conon, a man otherwise learned, as it appears: *Concerning the good constitution or habit of the body, a medicinal contemplation.* But by that lemma Gregory signifies that he is about to set forth in his final book, briefly, a certain contemplation of the structure of the human body, repeated from medicine itself more profoundly. I wished to indicate these things, not so that I might disparage the old interpreter, according to the fashion now excessively adopted by some; but that I might candidly communicate with the readers, by what causes I have been led, not doubting to overhaul what he had finished over four centuries ago, while the densest shadows were obscuring all the elegance of learning. Yet I shall now set upon the matter itself; that is, I shall advise the readers regarding certain places in this Commentary. Gregory’s preface to his brother Peter has not hitherto been seen in Latin, so far as I know; for I have certainly seen no translation of it joined to the Dionysian interpretation. Of the epigrams there is nothing else to say, except that I wished only to translate the first two of the three that the Aldine exemplar contains, of which the first was written in iambic senarii (as the author indeed seems to have wished) but certainly ineptly, for the rhythm of the feet observed in them is null, as is clear to any learned person. Later Greeks frequently made poems of this sort, and I know not whether they are not *μισόβαρβαρα* [half-barbarous], the abundance of which, if anyone wishes, let him seek in Tzetzes in his exegesis of Lycophron’s Cassandra. The other writing of Nicetas is more elegant in verse. However, as for the distich that had been added, I omitted it entirely, although without doubt its author may have thought he had made a name for himself in finding a new genre of poem; but, in my own judgment, he would have done much better if he had composed some epigram adapted to the ancient rules of poetry. But this is the sort of thing it is: *Νυσσαέων ἀγακλειτοῖο τόδε πρήγμα,* *Ἀτρεκέως ἀγορεύον τὴν μερόπων τετρακτύν.* He wished to signify that this book was finished by Gregory, the most illustrious among the Nyssene, who splendidly narrates the quaternion of man. He called the verses themselves *ἐλεγειοηρώους* [elegiac-heroic] by reversal. And so he wished them to be read, starting from the last word, yet with the first two words transposed in the preceding arrangement: *Τετρακτύν μερόπων τὴν ἀτρεκέως ἀγορεύον,* *Πρῆγμα τόδε τοῖο Νυσσαίων ἀγακλεῖ.* But enough of these. ^D Yet lest nothing be put back in place of those removed, I substituted verses of Theodore Prodromus, by which, if I am not mistaken, fair readers will be more delighted, although they too were made at a time when the old elegance of learning had already degenerated to an astonishing degree in Greece. From these words it appears that this book, otherwise written in a continuous series, had indeed been divided into chapters by the author; but that they were put under the proemium as we have also done. But that those things were inserted as *lemmata* at certain places later by others, many things are proof. For even in the Greek exemplar they are arranged differently than in the Latin edition of Dionysius, who followed the division of the books which he himself used, and many things are placed wrongly which ought to have been referred to other places. In the lemma of chapter 24, I removed some things; for these words had been added, *ὡς ἄν τις καὶ τῶν ἔξωθεν προσαχθείη πιστεῦσαι τῇ Γραφῇ περὶ ἀναστάσεως διδασκούσῃ* – that is to say: *so that someone also who is alien to the teaching of the Church (for Greek theologians called these outsiders) might be brought to have faith in the Sacred Scriptures teaching about the resurrection.* I saw that nothing of the sort was proposed in this chapter, and that these things also were to be referred to the chapter which follows next. I then noticed that Dionysius had done the same thing as I had determined. In the lemma of chapter 29, which is said: *μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ψυχῇ τε καὶ σώματι τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς ὑπάρξεως εἶναι*: I thought that the word *αἰτίαν* was rightly and clearly rendered by that which in Greek is *ἀρχή*, in our language *principle*, for these are used indiscriminately by philosophers in discussions of this kind; our Gregory also, later in the discussion itself, says, *μίαν αὐτῷ καὶ κοινὴν τῆς συστάσεως τὴν ἀρχὴν ὑποτίθεσθαι*; if anyone will diligently consider the entire meaning of the passage, he will decide the same as I. Col. 159 B. But where we have *Anom.* for *Pro Anomœis*, in Dionysius *Eunomiani* is read, with both readings signifying the same thing. For the Eunomians were also called *Ἀνόμοιοι* [Anomoeans], because they taught that the Son is unlike the Father. The excellent interpreter of Gregory of Nazianzus, Elias, Metropolitan of Crete, hands this down in his exegesis of the oration against the Eunomians, which Gregory called *προδιάλεξιν* [pre-discourse]. But because that commentary of Elias has not yet been seen publicly (b), a work indeed useful and most elegant, whereby the sublime oration of Nazianzen is marvelously illustrated both in words and sentiments; it pleases me to set his words in this place, which (I think) will bring some light to those reading these things. He says, explaining the argument of the oration *πρὸς Εὐνομιανούς*: *ὁ λόγος, τοὺς τῆς αἱρέσεως Εὐνομίου, τοῦ δια*

δια*^A δεξαμένου τὴν αἵρεσιν Ἀετίου τοῦ Σύρου, καὶ προσθήκαις βλασφημίας ταύτην αὐξήσαντος, καὶ ἐν Κυζίκῳ ἐπισκοπήσαντος. Ἀρειανὸς δὲ ὁ Ἀέτιος· τούτους δὲ τοὺς Εὐνομιανοὺς καὶ Ἀνομοίους λέγουσι, καὶ Ἐξουκοντίους· διότι ἀνόμοιον τῷ Πατρὶ καὶ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων διαρρήδην ἐδογμάτιζον τὸν Υἱόν, that is, he says. By these words he meant to signify that Gregory wrote this oration against the Eunomians, that is to say, the followers of Eunomius. Now, Eunomius had been the successor of Aetius the Syrian in the propagation of an impious and absurd doctrine, which he even augmented with execrable opinions; he had been the bishop of the city of Cyzicus; and Aetius had been a disciple of Arius. And these Eunomians were also called Anomoeans and Exucontians, because they clearly taught that the Son is unlike the Father and from non-existence. That all these things are true is evident from the words of Gregory himself; for when reproving the Eunomians, who brought controversies about Church doctrine into judgment before the impious, he says: *Τί γέννησιν ἀκούει Θεοῦ, καὶ κτίσιν, καὶ Θεὸν ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, καὶ ἕτερα ὁ πικρὸς τῶν λεγομένων ἀκροατής;* Wherefore, he says, does the bitter listener to what is said hear of a generation of God, and a creation, and a God from non-existence, and other things? By these words, he signifies what the Eunomians used to say whenever they discussed the Son of God. You have, therefore, briefly indicated by us the reason, reader, why in both the Greek books it reads *Anomoeans*, and in the translation of Dionysius, it is correctly read *Eunomians*. Indeed, God willing, if life and resources permit, we shall also soon present the author himself along with Gregory—both of them speaking Latin by our study and industry—and we shall even bring forth some of Gregory's works hitherto unseen, for the sake of the public good.

Col. 143 D. *De his enim verbis.* For the word *ζωτικήν*, by which the power of life is signified, I noted that in the hand-written books there was placed *σωματικὴν δύναμιν*. I thought this should be indicated, although I myself preferred the former reading. Indeed, Gregory himself not long after says *τελείαν ἐν σώματι ζωήν*, which the written books seem to confirm as the reading.

Col. 146 A. *Ex quo illæ semper.* For *εἰς τὴν τῶν τρεφομένων*, the manuscript book held *εἰς τὴν διὰ τρεφομένων*, not inconveniently, since this can refer both to *τὸ κατάλληλον* and to *προσάγουσα*.

Ibid. *Sensus tamen.* For *καὶ τὸ κατ' αἴσθησιν οἰκονομῆσαι*, that same manuscript book had *οἰκονομεῖσθαι*.

Ibid. C. *Licet hæc de Apost.* As to his saying that these words of Paul exist in the Epistle to the Ephesians, if it is an advancement by Gregory himself, it must be considered a mnemonic slip (*μνημονικὸν σφάλμα*); if from the copyists, a graphic error (*γραφικόν*). For they are found in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, chapter five. Dionysius translates: *Nam et Apostolum tale aliquid cognoscimus intimare*, where, praying for the Thessalonians, he says:

Col. 150 C. *Tanquam plectrum.* To the words *πλήκτρον δίκην*, the word *ὀργανικοῦ* was added in the manuscript book. Whether correctly or otherwise, let him who wishes judge; for we have decided to add only certain notes, not complete explanations of all that occurs.

Ibid. *Ὥσπερ ἐν συνωδίᾳ τινί.* I translated this *mutuo consensu* [by mutual consent], following a reading different from the Aldine and also from the handwritten one; for these had *ὥσπερ ἐν συνόδῳ*: the Aldine, however, had *ἐν συνοδίᾳ*, for which *συνωδίᾳ* is restored, since the other words of Gregory declare it must be read thus, if one considers them more diligently.

Ibid. D. *Tibiæ similem.* I used the term "meatum tibiæ consimilem" [resembling the passage of a pipe], which in Greek is *αὐλοειδής*, a term I restored in this place, whereas in the Aldine edition *τὸν αὐλόν* was read, but the manuscript book confirmed my opinion. I retained *κυκλοτερῶς* immediately preceding this, although *κυκλοτερεῖς* was read in the manuscript, with the meaning exactly the same.

Col. 151 A. *Quod colum vocant.* For *ἰσθμόν*, which I translated as *colum* [neck/passage], it was written in the handwritten book *τοῖς περὶ τὸν ἰσθμὸν χόνδροις*, that is, *cartilaginibus quae sunt circa isthmum* [the cartilages which are around the isthmus]. The Greeks call the interior parts towards the fauces by this name, taking the word from those regions of land which have certain narrowings, projecting between two seas as a kind of neck of land: as happens in the Isthmus of Corinth. And thus there is an *ισθμός* between two seas, which is lands between a strait, such as the Sicilian, the Hellespontic, or the Bosphoran, and others. Whether the word is more correctly retained in this place, let those who wish to do so judge from the anatomists; for me it is enough to have indicated the ancient writing. Furthermore, regarding the fact that in this same place is read *γεγωνοτέραν τὴν ἠχὴν ἀπεργάζεται*, for *τὴν ἠχήν* there was read in the manuscript book *αὐτήν*, which seems to refer to *φωνήν*, with both readings signifying the same thing.

Col. 151 B. *Si grave molestumque.* In the Aldine edition, it was read *Εἰς τὸ βαρύ τε καὶ ἐπίπονον τῆς κατὰ τὴν βρῶσιν λατρείας τοῖς χείλεσι τὴν χρείαν τοῦ σώματος ἐπορίζομεν*, which seeing to be corrupt, for *εἰς* I substituted *ἐν* in our edition, and before *τὴν χρείαν* we added *πρός*: so that now the sentence is plain, as we expressed it in the translation.

Ibid. C. *Mentis oppidum.* Since it was read in the Aldine edition *κατὰ τὴν τοῦ νοῦ πόλιν*, for *κατά* I substituted *καί*, because I noted that in Greek writers the elegance of the letters has given occasion for many errors, where in a small space extra letters are sometimes included. Regarding this, the man of greatest learning and humanity, Guillaume Canter, whom I name with benevolence as a special friend, noted much at the end in his *Aristides*.

Col. 154 B. *Menti insinuata.* Since the Aldine copy had *Εἰσιοικιζόμενον, ἡ γεῦσις, ἡ ὄσφρησις, ἡ ἀκοὴ, πολλάκις δὲ ἡ ἀφὴ, καὶ ἡ ὄψις*, I did not hesitate to amend the depraved passage so as to read: *τῇ γεύσει, τῇ ὀσφρήσει, τῇ ἀκοῇ, πολλάκις δὲ καὶ τῇ ἀφῇ, καὶ τῇ ὄψει*: which I trust learned men will approve.

Ibid. D. *Per sensum divers.* It was read before, *ὅταν αἰσθητικαῖς δυνάμεσι*, for which I restored: *ὁ ἐν αἰσθητικαῖς δυνάμεσι*. For the very sense of the words demands this; Dionysius also reads it this way.

Col. 158 C. *Quem ab isthmi.* I restored this passage, led by both conjectures and reasonings, since it was previously read *ἐπὶ τὸν ἠθμοειδῆ*; for which I substituted *ἰσθμοειδῆ*. Mention has been made of this also a little before in the annotation to Col. 151 A, where for *ἰσθμόν* it was written in the handwritten book *ἰσθμὸν*, ch. 9. Wherefore I think the same happened in this place. For such is the meaning of the words of Gregory: that taste occurs through the filaments of the nerves, which, having proceeded from the meninges, are finally carried through the vertebrae of the neck to the bone. For how can it be that the sense of taste occurs in the *ἰσθμός* or *colum* [neck], where the muscles are around the *colum*? Which, if I am not greatly mistaken, the tongue is the organ of taste: and the roots of the tongue are in the *ἰσθμός*, for which reason it must be thought that nerve-filaments arising from the membrane of the brain are inserted into the muscles in the *ἰσθμός*, and thus that taste occurs. But I leave these things to physicians, especially those skilled in the discipline they call anatomy (*ἀνατομικήν*). Further down, I substituted *ὑγρὸν ἀτμόν* [moist vapor], from the handwritten book, for the word *νοερόν* [intellectual], which is in the printed editions. And not long after, for *βάσιν* [foundation], *μῦσιν* [closure] was read; which, however, I did not think should be changed.

Col. 166 C. *Somno laxatum.* For *λύσιν ποιεῖ διὰ τοῦ ὕπνου*, the manuscript book had *ἐπιρρεῖ*, which reading seemed to me not inconvenient, yet I retained the Aldine.

Ibid. *Cum sol radios.* For *ὅταν ἐπιλάμπῃ*, it was read in the manuscript book *ἐπιρρή*, which seems to me to have more effectiveness, if I may say so, than *ἐπιλάμπῃ*. And our Gregory in the final chapter, not far from the beginning, used the verb *διαπάλλειν*, when he says that there are three in the first place...

^A of our life as handmaids, the first of which warms all things with its heat, etc. *Ibid.* D. *Gradually evaporating*. I have retained the reading of the Aldine edition, *ἐξατμιζόμενοι διαφυροῦνται*, they mix themselves here and there; although I might decide that *διασκορπίζονται*, that is, they are scattered, is read more correctly in the hand-written book. A little later one reads *μηχανικῆς μολυβδίνης*, for which, from the manuscript book, I have restored *μηχανικῆς μολυβδίνης*.

*Ibid.* *By the sense in the body*. For *ἀτρεμούσης ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς αἰσθήσεως*, the manuscript book had *ἐρεμούσης*, with the same sense; and a little later *συνδιεξιούσης*, for *συνδιεξιούσης*, which I have followed.

*Col. 167 A.* *Let it be extended in a straight line*. For *ἐπ' εὐθείας ἀποτεῖναι*, that ancient book I mentioned had *ἀποκριθῆναι*. And a little later, for *ἀποληφθέντος*, *ἀπολειφθέντος*, which I intended to indicate, although I would not defend either.

*Ibid. C.* *Even this may be allowed*. Since previously it was read, *τεκμήριον δὲ τὸ, καὶ ἐν τόποις τε καὶ ἀμηχάνοις πολλάκις δοκεῖν εἶναι, καὶ ἕτερα*, I substituted the genuine reading, *τεκμήριον δὲ τὸ, καὶ ἐν ἀτόποις, καὶ ἐν ἀμηχάνοις πολλάκις*, etc., being aided in this by the clear writing of the old book.

*Ibid. D.* *Therefore to me*. Since the Aldine books had *φημὶ δὲ τῆς κατὰ τὸν νοῦν καὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐνεργείας*, the manuscript book advised me that it should be read, *ταῖς κατὰ τὸν νοῦν καὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν ἐνεργείαις*, from which a plain and perspicuous meaning is gathered, with the soul remaining at rest according to its most excellent faculties, namely, according to the actions of the mind and the senses, leaving only that part which possesses the nutritive power to perform the duty for us while we sleep. That this is indeed the case, as Gregory handed down, although it could be proven also from the books of the philosophers: yet, omitting their testimonies, I preferred to cite the most elegant verses of the ancient poet Petronius Arbiter, which were recently found in ancient papers and brought forth by G. Cantero.

*Dreams that play with the minds with flitting shadows,* *Do not send temples of the gods nor deities from the ether,* *But each makes them for himself: for when the limbs* *Languish prostrate in sleep, rest and the mind play without weight.* *Whatever was in the light, the darkness acts out: the town in war* *Which it shakes, and rages with flames against pitiable cities,* *It sees weapons, and turned battle-lines, and the deaths of kings,* *And plains overflowing with poured-out blood.* *Those who are accustomed to plead cases, and laws, and the forum,* *And see the tribunal enclosed in a frightened heart.* *The miser buries wealth, and finds buried gold.* *The hunter shakes the glades with dogs, snatches from the waves,* *Or the sailor, about to perish, pushes the overturned ship.* *The harlot writes to a lover: the adulteress gives a gift:* *And the dog in sleep barks at the tracks of a hare.* *In the space of night, the wounds of the wretched last.*

In these verses, reader, which are plainly smooth and excellently made, you see the same thing said which Gregory handed down. For what our author says, that the most excellent faculties of the soul rest during sleep, to which alone those actions of a sound mind are to be attributed which proceed from prudence, Petronius expressed thus, saying that the mind and rest play during sleep without weight. But for *perfuso* blood, I think *profuso* should be read. And the penultimate verse, *canis in somnis leporis vestigia latrat*, has a meaning not entirely different from that which is in the Theocritean verse, in the Idyll to Diophantus: *πᾶσα κύων ἄρεως μαντεύεται*. — Every little dog in its dreams as if prophesying promises itself loaves of bread. Whereby it is clear that insomnia is brought about in us by the part devoid of reason, otherwise these things would not be common to us with animals lacking reason.

*Ibid.* *By the power of the soul*. Since in the published books it was, *ἅπερ αὐτὴ διὰ τοῦ μνημονευτικοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς εἴδους ^B ἐνετυπώθη*, following the authority of the old manuscript book, for *αὐτῇ* I replaced *αὐτὸ*, which any man can easily understand to be referred to the nutritive power.

*Ibid.* *But with confused*. When in the Aldine books it was read, *ἀλλὰ πεφορημέναις τισὶ καὶ ἀκολούθοις ἀπάταις περιπλανώμενος*, and I saw that this was not free from error: consulting the manuscript book, I found that it should be read *πεφυρμέναις τισὶ καὶ ἀκολούθοις ἀπάταις*, etc. There is, however, an easy commutation of the letter *υ* into *ο*: as appears also regarding those things which I indicated above concerning this very word, and in chapter 2, not far from the end, the Aldine edition has *ὑποχεῖσθαι τὴν ὕλην*, when it should be read *τὴν ὕλην* entirely.

*Col. 170 C.* *Simultaneously the mind*. I have retained the Aldine reading, although for *ἠρεμοῦντος συγκαταπαύεσθαι*, it was read in the old book *ἠρεμοῦντι συγκαταπαύεσθαι*.

*Ibid.* *Not elegantly*. The Aldine books have, *οὐ κατ' ἀριθμὸν προάγει τὸ μέλος*· for which I substituted a word much more convenient to this place, which I found in the manuscript book, *οὐ κατὰ ῥυθμὸν προάγει*, etc.

*Ibid. D.* *By coverings*. I have retained the Aldine reading, *προκαλύμμασι τισὶν ἀμφιβόλοις ἐπινυστάζουσα*. The old book, however, had, *προκαλύμμασι τισὶν ἀναμφιβόλοις ἐπιδιστάζουσα*: which reading I wished to note, without indicating my opinion; Hesychius indeed interprets the word *διστάζειν* as *διχονοεῖν*, and to be in doubt and to waver.

*Col. 171 D.* *Agreeable*. *Καταλλήλως* was written in the old book: which I have retained. The published ones have *καταλήλλως*.

*Col. 174 A.* *What therefore*. *Ὅπερ ἀμβλυνθείσης ὑπὸ τῆς νόσου τῆς νήψεως ἡ φύσις ἔπασχεν*. In these words the noun *νήψεως* has the meaning of *συνέσεως*, or *νουνεχείας*, derived from the verb *νήφειν*. For we are most wise when sober: since *τὸ νήφειν* is the joint of the mind, according to that Epicharmian saying which Cicero cites to Quintus Frater. Therefore the passage sounds word for word thus: *Which therefore being dulled by the force of disease, the intelligence of nature suffers*, etc.

*Col. 178 A.* *Close to life*. I have retained the original reading, *ὡς οὐ πόῤῥω τῆς φυσικῆς ταύτης*, etc., which is that their nature is close to that life of natural things. However, I wished to indicate this, that I had noticed in this place, and above in chapter 8, that Dionysius had interpreted *φυσικὴν ζωήν*, which, as Gregory says, *περὶ τὰ αὐτὰ θεωρεῖται*, as "surcular," wherefore I began to think, perhaps he had read *φυτικὴν ζωήν*, life convenient to plants? Although I am not ignorant even of this, that the rest of the philosophers say that there is also a natural soul which exists in plants.

*Ibid. C.* *Also externally*. Since in the Aldine books it was read, *οὐ γὰρ περιλαμβάνεται τὰ ἀσώματα περιλαμβάνεται*, with which minimum change made, I did not doubt that it should be read thus.

*Ibid. D.* *Of these not being*. In the lemma, for *τούτῳ οὐκ ὄντων* I substituted, *τούτων οὐκ ὄντων* since these are not in the principal example, namely in God; the meaning of the words demands this.

*Col. 179 D.* *Therefore again*. For *ἥτις ἄρα γένοιτο χειραγωγία*, as it was read until now, I substituted *εἴ τις ἄρα*, with a plain meaning, and one perspicuous to anyone.

*Col. 182 A.* *We shall find*. For *εὑρίσκομεν*, I restored *εὑρήσομεν*. This is trifling, but I thought it should be indicated, however, so that the reader might understand that I did not move anything rashly in the place, however much it might seem to be of no great importance.

*Col. 186 C.* *Therefore by this*. So that the meaning of the speech might be somewhat more perspicuous to the reader, I translated this passage more freely, more clearly, *ὅ τις* indeed, which is placed here twice by Gregory, since it is demonstrative, is worth the same as *ἄτομόν τι*, just as the dialecticians speak. For when looking at someone, I say this human being, I do not understand the species, but the individual. Thus therefore our Gregory...

^A Col. 202 D. Of a round body. It pleases me at this point to bring before the eyes the distinctions of shadows which spherical or round bodies create, whereby the words of Gregory might be clearer to those who are less exercised in philosophy. Either a spherical body emitting light, with a solid spherical body placed opposite to it and not pellucid, or which is not diaphanous, is less; or it is equal, or greater. If it is less, it creates a shadow of such a kind that, due to the solid body, it will have a smaller diameter: and the further it recedes from it, so much the broader will become both the shadow of the orb and its measurement. If both bodies are equal, the shadow will also be equal to them. Finally, if the luminous body is greater, a shadow smaller even than the opaque body, so far as its diameter is concerned, will be cast. But indeed, before I declare these individual things with figures described on a plane, it will be worth the effort to demonstrate a certain theorem which we have as if posited, upon the perception of which the rest will thereafter be most easy. It is, however, of this kind: Every spherical body, from which light is scattered, illuminates an equally spherical body, by less than half its part, etc. The rest are omitted.

In that, indeed, which Gregory says *κατὰ νῶτον τὸ σκότος κωνοειδῶς κατακλείεσθαι*, that the darkness is enclosed behind like a cone: thus you shall understand *κατὰ νῶτον*, as if he were saying, on that part by which we are contained covered by the shadow. For as a man about to look at something turns to it the front part of his body: so conceive that the part of the earth which the sun shines upon is the front; the part turned away from the sun, however, is as if it were a sort of back of it.

Col. 203 A. As again in light. The Aldine edition is corrupt in this place, with the words neither correctly compared nor distinguished; for so it has: *Πάλιν ἐν φωτὶ βιοτεύσομεν κατὰ τὸ ἀπειροπλάσιον, ὡς πρὸς τὸ τῆς κακίας μέτρον*, etc. I, however, have arranged and distinguished them thus: *Πάλιν ἐν φωτὶ βιοτεύσομεν, ὡς κατὰ τὸ ἀπειροπλάσιον πρὸς τὸ τῆς κακίας μέτρον*, etc. And so I have also interpreted this passage. Dionysius indeed has monstrosities of words which I confess I do not understand. For thus he rendered it: We dwell again in light through ages encompassed by no boundaries, as if the substance excelling the measure of the shadow of goods. In the lemma of the following chapter, for *χρόνον τισὶ περιόδοις*, I have substituted *χρόνων*. At the beginning of the chapter, however, the particle *τὸ* from *ἀλλὰ τὸ τῆς ἀκολουθίας*, etc., I have removed as superfluous.

Ibid. D. For Adam. *Γήϊνον πλάσμα*, Adam from Adamah, earth, which they wish to be so called from redness; for it is red in the Orient. And indeed blood in the same language is called from the red color.

Col. 207 D. Deus es exercit. *‘Ο Θεὸς τῶν δυνάμεων*, I have gladly rendered, who art God of hosts. For in the primary language, from which these things have been translated, the word used, unless I am mistaken, signifies forces and armies, just as the Greek *δυνάμεις* is often taken for soldiers. Theodoret noted this not far from the beginning of his little book, which he entitled *θείων δογμάτων ἐπιτομήν*, where he treats of the Hebrew names of God. When I had translated that along with some other writings of Theodoret in the previous year, I lost it by the fate of I know not what, stolen by the theft of some scoundrel who had suspected there was some money in the carefully packed papers. There was present with me then the very learned man Theophilus Petri F. Dasypodius of Strasbourg, a bachelor of laws, who truly bore this misfortune most grievously. For by chance, at the time I was traveling to Basel, he was leading me for the sake of benevolence, when I was thinking about the edition of those books: which I had already promised before to the illustrious lord Georg Erpach, a count. But these things

Let us commit to the Cretan sea To be carried by the winds...

^A as the most elegant poet says; and let us rather apply ourselves to this, that with another meaning we may declare our study regarding a most wise companion, and one easily the prince of his own order, in erudition of doctrine as well; in which we petition the Best and Greatest God that the attempt of our mind may be fortunate, and we trust that it will be fortunate.

Col. 210 B. *Never appearing.* The Aldine book had,  εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων τὰ βλεπόμενα γεγονέναι, of course, corrupted. But the amendment is easy, both from the sense and from the words of the Apostle, for it should be read: Ἐκ τῶν μὴ φαινομένων τὰ βλεπόμ. γεγον., etc.

Col. 215 A. *And the elegance.* For that which is in the Aldine edition, τὸν ἐκφανισμὸν τοῦ κάλλους ἐκείνου, I preferred to read, τὸν ἀφανισμόν: the force of which word those learned in Greek understand. Not long after, at the beginning of the twenty-sixth chapter, it is again used by Gregory, when he says: Ἀρχαίων νεκρῶν τὸν ἀφανισμόν. And this is an elegant passage, in which the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth, which happened under the emperors Vespasian and Titus, is rightly brought forward to prove that there will be a resurrection from the dead. For the Lord himself immediately follows this with the prophecy of the destruction *in general*, with which the judgment concerning the human race, once raised from death, will be joined. But if the event has answered to them (and it has indeed answered, just as the monuments of history testify), then surely the following prophecy will also confirm the final outcome, but these things are, as they say, beside the olive trees. But the thought of the force of the word *aphanismos* led me further away, which most aptly corresponds to the declaration of the destruction of this nation. For for fifteen whole centuries not even a trace of their commonwealth has appeared, so much have all things been abolished and reduced to nothing.

Col. 222 A. *By a prodigy.* The Aldine books have, δι᾿ ἐνεργεστέρου θαύματος, *by a more effective miracle*. I do not doubt that Gregory wrote, δι᾿ ἐναργεστέρου θαύματος, *by a more visible miracle*: and so I wished this passage to be read in this edition. Indeed, Dionysius also reads it the same way; for he translates, *By a manifest miracle*. The same words are also swapped with one another later, as will be noted in its place.

Ibid. D. *Migrating.* Πρὸς τὴν ζωὴν ἀναλύοντας, *to convert*, *migrating back into life*. And at this place I cannot but show what the force of this word is; I think, however, that my labor will not be ungrateful to those who are diligent in the Greek language. There are two words among the Greeks, *katalyein* and *analyein*, of which the meaning is different. For *katalyein*, among other meanings, has the elegant one of *turning aside somewhere*. Plutarch in *Poplicola*, if I am not mistaken, ὅπου κατέλυον οἱ πρέσβεις, *where the ambassadors had turned aside*. The Plutarchian codex was not at hand, otherwise I would have sought out the passage; I think, however, that these are his very words in *Poplicola*, in the place where he tells about the servant Vindicius. Hence also *katalysis*, a military term, about which Hesychius speaks under the word *stathmoi*, and *katalyma* is used for *katagogion*, a lodging. Sacred history, in the commemoration of the birth of Christ according to human nature: *There was no room* ἐν τῷ καταλύματι, *in the inn* (Luke 2:7). *Analyein*, on the contrary, signifies to depart from a place in which you have been: or *anakamptein*, as Elias of Crete, the prelate, says, explaining this word in a certain place. Melanchthon used to interpret the Pauline words in Phil. in this way, ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων εἰς τὸ ἀναλῦσαι καὶ εἶναι σὺν Χριστῷ· *having a singular desire to depart, that I may be with Christ*. Elegant indeed: for this is how the Greeks speak. I will indicate only one passage, so as not to detain the reader too long. Athenaeus in his book, if I remember correctly, book II, said in this signification, ἀναλύειν ἐκ τοῦ δείπνου, *to depart from the banquet*. Our Gregory indeed took this word in the same way, not only in this place, but also in others. In chapter 14, toward the end: Εἰς φθορὰν ἀναλύσει τὴν κίνησιν, *the movement of it will turn toward destruction*. Indeed ^B even what he said in this place, πρὸς τὴν ζωὴν ἀναλύειν, he explains a little later as it were with the word ἐπανελθεῖν, which means to return, ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν ἐπὶ ζωὴν ἐξ ἀναστάσεως ἐπανελθόντων. We have learned this also from those, he says, who through the resurrection have returned into life. And in the following chapter, when he had said, τὴν γῆν πρὸς τὴν γῆν ἀναλύεσθαι, *earth is resolved into earth*: he added, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν ἀέρα προσχωρεῖν τῷ ὁμοφύλῳ; *but that the air also retires to what is akin to it*, in which words you see *analyesthai* explained by *proschorein* (to retire/repair to). Gregory also used *analyein* with the same meaning in chapter 27. And the name sprung from the word *analysis*, for a return or *anakampsis*, as Elias interprets, of the same things to their pristine state, in the chapter next following, and likewise 27. But let this be sufficient in these scholastic annotations.

Col. 223 A. *Bid farewell.* I think both are read correctly, either *errósthai phrasantes*, or *errósthe*; just as in the Latin language also, *valere jubere* (to bid farewell) and *valedicere* (to say goodbye).

Col. 226 C. *Who, I pray.* [With] these words, τίς πόνος τῇ θείᾳ δυνάμει κωλῦσαι τῶν οἰκείων τὴν συνδρομήν; that is, *What labor would it be for divine power to impede the concourse of those related?* I think a fault lies in these words. Dionysius certainly inserted the negative particle, *divina potestate non prohibente* (divine power not prohibiting). Although his own conversion is also so confused in this place that no sense can be gathered from it, which, had I not seen the word *prohibere* (to prohibit) in him, someone might have suspected that for *kōlysai*, one should read *anysai* with a sense not inconvenient. If the mind itself collects what is akin to it, how much more can God bring it about that in the resurrection everyone recovers what is his own? But I leave these things to be considered by others.

When he says, *Those who have written about the principles*, he understands Origen the son of Leonidas, whom most Greeks, and among them Nicephorus, commonly call *kakophrona* (evil-minded): I believe because he was the author of certain wicked and absurd opinions. Origen wrote the book *Peri Archōn*, *On the principles of the Christian religion*, as I myself understand this title; for I have not read the books, although they still exist. Among the other errors of this man was also that which our Gregory has here excellently refuted, *peri prousotaseōs tōn psychōn* (concerning the pre-existence of souls), which arose from Platonic schools and disputations. For thus wrote Elias the Cretan prelate, the interpreter of Nazianzen, whose words I am pleased to place here. *This man*, he says about Plato, *also strengthened the doctrine about the pre-existence of souls which had been babbled about before, dreaming that it migrates from this body into that, and again into another, and completes such periods according to the analogy of its own sins.* The same Plato confirmed an absurd doctrine, which teaches that souls exist before bodies, received from others. Souls, to be sure, migrate from other bodies into others, and according to the rational of their own sins and vices, complete circuits of this kind sooner or later. Thus far Elias: who said that Plato had received this doctrine from others, which is to be understood of Pythagoras and his followers, to listen to whom Plato is said to have sailed to Italy. I thought these things should be added for this reason, because I saw that Dionysius had not understood this passage, nay, not even what he was saying. For he rendered it thus: *Who before us disputing about the principles, brought forth as it were a certain pestilence, that they exist in their own conversation of soul.*

Col. 254 B. *But of those who.* It was read in this place in the books edited by Aldus, τῶν δὲ γεννεωτέραν τοῦ σώματος τὴν ψυχὴν εἶναι λεγόντων, which words, when I saw them to be corrupted, I thus restored. Τῶν δὲ νεωτέραν (although I would prefer simply the particle *ge* taken out, *tōn de neōteran*) τοῦ σώματος τὴν ψυχήν, etc., in which words the sentence is now open and plain, consonant also with the institute of Gregory; for with the Platonic and Origenist follies exploded, which taught that the soul is prior to the body, he says that he [had] a refutation of the other party also conceived in his mind ^C

^A Col. 235 B. *Prius reipsa*. I have retained the reading of the Aldine exemplar, *προϋπάρχειν ἢ προγένεσθαι*, although I have noticed that the ancients read it differently, namely, *προϋπάρχειν ἢ ἐπιγίνεσθαι*. The sense is such that neither of these exists prior in nature nor arises later, and this meaning does not displease me. I first observed this when I had examined the version of Dionysius. For his words are: "We say that nothing subsists before in the order of nature, or happens after."

Col. 235 C. *A natura insita*. The printed books have *τῆς ἐγκειμένης φυσικῶς πρὸς τὴν ἐνέργειαν, ταύτης μεθεστηκυίας*. Here I first removed the mark of distinction after *ἐνέργειαν*, then I changed *ταύτης* into *αὐτῆς*; thus the sense is rendered: "Not an external faculty enters, but a faculty implanted in the body by nature approaches its own actions."

Ibid. D. *Sed ab animato*. The Aldine edition has it thus: *ἀλλ' ἐξ ἐμψύχου καὶ ζῶντος, καὶ διὰ τοῦτό φαμεν εὔλογον εἶναι καὶ μὴ νεκρὸν καὶ ἄψυχον*, etc. You see four times the conjunction *καὶ* repeated within a short interval, twice correctly, twice incorrectly, and in a way entirely alien to the elegance of our Gregory. Wherefore I do not doubt that these things were written by him thus: *ἀλλ' ἐξ ἐμψύχου καὶ ζῶντος· διὰ τοῦτό φαμεν εὔλογον εἶναι, μὴ νεκρὸν καὶ ἄψυχον οἴεσθαι*, etc. If anyone examines each detail accurately, both regarding what precedes and what follows, he will reach the same conclusion as me.

Col. 238 D. *Oratione illust*. Since the books printed by the Aldine press have *λόγου παντὸς ἐναργέστερον*, I choose to read *ἐναργέστερον διηγεῖται*, "it explains more evidently, more splendidly, and more illustriously for you the variety of the soul’s effects in the body, than any speech could." I do not indeed deny that the word *ἐναργέστερον* can stand here. But I do not know how it happens that I would rather posit the other one used by Gregory. Orators—and among these Hermogenes—assert that there is no ornament in speech more illustrious than that there be a certain *ἐνάργεια* (vividness) in it. Our Gregory, however, says that no speech can be formed so vivid that nature does not excel it in demonstrating the variety of the soul’s effects. You have my opinion, reader: chose for yourself what pleases you, since to each his own bride, as the proverb says.

Col. 259 D. *Ne ulla in re*. Correctly, unless I am entirely mistaken, I have restored this passage. For when it was read in the Aldine books, *ὡς εἰς μηδὲν τῆς ἔξωθεν φωνῆς ἐπιδύσεσθαι, οὗτος γὰρ τῶν πνευματικῶν προβάτων ὁ νόμος καθώς φησιν ὁ Κύριος τό*, etc., I changed these as follows: *ὡς εἰς μηδὲν τῆς ἔξωθεν φωνῆς ἐπιδεῖσθαι* (this is for the spiritual sheep, etc., another note of parenthesis placed after the word *φωνῆς*, which follows). For *ἐπιδύσεσθαι* was not at all appropriate in this place, to which the word *ἐπιδεῖσθαι* is similar in letters, and *δεῖσθαι* even more similar, which signifies the same thing. The sense is indeed open, which we expressed in the translation, omitted by the ancient interpreter. As to what he says—that for this reason we ought not to desire the monuments of men, who were not truly grasped in the assembly of God on earth, because it is written, "My sheep hear my voice" (John 10:27): this can indeed be defended, but I think it was much more clearly said by a certain ecclesiastical writer: *τὸ καλὴν ὅπου ἄν ποθ' εὑρεθείη, τῆς ἀληθείας ἴδιον εἶναι*; "That which is good, wherever it may finally be found, ought to be considered the property of the truth." Galen certainly commented marvelously on these things, whose remark is excellent, that in this very commentary he was singing a hymn to God, the author of nature. Gregory, however, understands Galen when he says "some" had investigated and explained for what purpose the members of the body were created. For he preceded Gregory by not many years; for Galen lived while M. Antoninus Augustus was emperor, in that ^B century which had both a scholarly leader and a very great abundance of learned men in every type of discipline. Nazianzen mentions Galen in his funeral oration for his brother Caesarius; and Theodoret also, who was almost a contemporary of our Gregory.

Col. 243 A. *Instar marinor*. I do not understand who the *θαλάσσιοι πνεύμονες* (sea-lungs) are, unless I suspect them to be a type of fish.

Ibid. C. *Quæ cum nutu*. I retained the reading I found in the Aldine books, *ἅμα νεύματι γινομένη*, which happens with a nod. Dionysius, however, translates thus, so that it appears he undoubtedly read *ἅμα νοήματι*: for he expressed it, "Coming about with understanding." More correctly in Latin you would say, *ἅμα νοήματι γινομένη*, "which occurs with cognition," which I understand thus: that there is such great speed in the movement of the eyelids as there is of the mind in thinking. And that this is true is clear also from the words of Nazianzen, which stand in his *On Theology*, that long and admirable oration. *Μόνῳ τῷ βούλεσθαι ὁμοῦ κινεῖται ἡ ὄψις, καὶ ταὐτὸν πάσχει*.

Col. 246 C. *E vicino pulm*. *Ἐκ τοῦ παρακειμένου πνεύμονος*. For I preferred to read thus, rather than *ἐκ τοῦ παρακειμένου πνεύματος*.

Col. 247 B. *Præcipuum*. What I called *præcipuum* in Latin is *κυριώτατον* in Greek. For I preferred to read thus, the sense of the passage barely allowing for anything else. The Aldine edition, however, has *καίριον*: which clearly does not fit here. For *καίριον* is what we call lethal, such as *καίριος πληγή*, a lethal wound, etc.

Col. 247 D. *Quanto enim*. "By how much it ignites the more," is said in Greek: *ὅσῳ ἔμπυρον διὰ τῆς γειτνιάσεως γίνεται*, etc. The sense, reader, is open and clear, with the word *ἔμπυρον*, as if sent back into an ancient possession from where by the force of another it had been ejected. For in the Aldine edition is read *ἄπειρον* instead of *ἔμπυρον*. It is also not infrequent among the Greeks to use the position of the absolute for the comparative, as grammarians say; just as you see *ἔμπυρον* said here instead of *ὅσῳ ἐμπυρώτερον γίνεται*.

Col. 250 B. *Principium et radix*. *Ἀρχήν τινα καὶ ῥίζαν*, for thus I read, not *ἀρχικήν τινα*, as is the case in those books which are printed. The words immediately following declare this: *περὶ τὴν ἑτέραν ἀρχήν*. It was not appropriate for this principle to be joined to another principle of life in a place closer by proximity.

Ibid. D. *De terrea statua*. "Terrestrial statue," *τὸν γήινον ἡμῶν ἀνδριάντα*. The Aldine books have a manifest error, *τῶν γηίνων ἡμῶν*.

Col. 251 A. *Musculorum*. I retained what in the Aldine edition is *μυῶν ἀρχαῖς*, "by the principles of the muscles." Dionysius, however, translates, "By the principles of the medullae (marrows)." Therefore, it is necessary that he read *μυελῶν* instead of *μυῶν*, which is in our books. Whether that fits this place more correctly, let him who wishes discern. It is enough for me to have indicated this to the reader in passing.

Col. 251 C. *In junco odor*. *Ἐν σχοίνῳ*, for thus I think it ought to be read, not *ἐν σχίνῳ*, as is in the printed books. For I do not see why Gregory would join the lentisk (mastich-tree) with the laurel, and count it among the *εὐώδη*. But *σχοῖνος* is the sweet-smelling reed: concerning which, if you wish, consult Dioscorides, in the first chapter of his first book. A little later, when it had been written *καὶ ὁ τοῦ μήλου χυλός*, I restored it to *τοῦ μήλου*, for Gregory is speaking about the juice of the apple.

Ibid. *Purpureum*. *Τὸ πορφυροῦν τῆς ὑακίνθου βαφῆς*, for thus I read, or *τῆς ὑακινθίνης βαφῆς*. The Aldine edition has *ὑακίνθης βαφῆς*, incorrectly.

Col. 255 C. *Quasi perfecta*. It was read in the Aldine books, *ὅτι μὴ τελεία ἐν τούτοις*, etc., which, when I saw it was transposed, I changed the collocation so that it might be read *ὅτι μὴ τελεία ἐν τούτοις*, not that the soul is perfect in such things, etc.

I have had these things, reader, to communicate with you at this time. It will be yours to interpret my effort and study, such as it is, in the best possible light; I hope that you do so, and I am confident that you will.

ON THE SAME BOOK ON THE CREATION OF MAN

^A The work which the recent interpreter has undertaken in illustrating this book of Nyssen with a new translation is surely to be praised; but he would have earned greater favor from his readers if, in places where the Greek text seemed suspicious due to error or mutilated, he had not been reluctant to recur to an older interpreter, nor had desired to conceive such a sinister opinion of him. For it was not merely four hundred years ago, as he mistakenly wrote, that Dionysius the Roman, surnamed Exiguus, converted the author's book into the Latin tongue, but more than a thousand years ago—that is, in the second century after the death of Gregory, when, as Bede testifies in his book *On the Six Ages of the World*, he wrote his Paschal cycles in the year of the Lord’s incarnation 532, from which he started them. That was the 248th year of Diocletian, after the consulship of Lampadius and Orestes, at which time the code of Justinian was also promulgated to the world. And yet he was not so beset by the dark shadows of his own age that he did not sometimes grasp the sense of the holy Fathers more felicitously than the preachers or mystagogues of this new Gospel.

Therefore, such an old interpreter could have used a more emended Greek book, the reading of which the most distinguished Jacobus Billius justly admonishes us to investigate from the traces of the Latin translation in his book of *Observations* (bk. I, chap. 37), and that it ought to be a "second voyage" for us, so that we may studiously consult the older interpreters of this kind, who render word for word. Wherefore, lest the reader suffer any loss from this, and in order that those places where this new translation seemed to limp might be shored up by the supplement of the old, we have judged it necessary to admonish the reader about them, and about those sentences of Scripture whose source the interpreter had not specifically noted: such as the one in the beginning of the book on page 44, *Μικρὸς ὅλος ἂν ὁ κόσμος χρημάτων ἐφάνη* [The whole world would appear to be a small amount of wealth], taken from the 17th chapter of the Proverbs of Solomon, to whose verse 40 these words are added in the Complutensian and Plantin editions: *Τοῦ πιστοῦ ὅλος ὁ κόσμος τῶν χρημάτων, τοῦ δὲ ἀπίστου οὐδὲ ὀβολός* [To the faithful, the whole world is wealth, but to the faithless, not even an obol]. Jerome expressed this more aptly from the Greek in chapter 45 of Ezekiel: "For him who is faithful, the whole world is wealth; but for him who is faithless, not even an obol." And Ambrose in his book *On Jacob*, chap. 8: "To the faithful the whole world is wealth," and in his 48th Psalm: "The faithless have no wealth, no possession. For to the faithful the whole world is a possession."

^B Col. 123 C. Bishop of Nyssa. The first edition of the Latin translation of Dionysius, which was released in the year 1537, at Cologne from the shop of Melchior Novesianus, bore this title: *The Book of Gregory Bishop of Nyssa on the Creation of Man*. But in certain manuscripts, both at Paris and at Augsburg, the title of other works by the same author adds *ἀρχιεπισκόπου* [Archbishop]. Leuvenclaius, moreover, in the epitome of his *Life* which he prefixed to this work, handed down that the care of the church at the New Rome was decreed by the Constantinopolitan ecumenical council to be governed by Gregory, surnamed the Theologian, and the care of the church at Caesarea in Cappadocia to Nyssen, each with the title of Patriarch (a): which error Isaac Casaubon wished to confirm, imagining that the city of Nyssa had been decorated with the extraordinary honor of a metropolis, relying on the patronage of two places. The former is in the *Letter to Flavianus*, where toward the end he speaks thus: *Εἰ κατὰ τὴν ἱερωσύνην τὸ ἀξίωμα κρίνοιτο, ἴση παρὰ τῆς συνόδου καὶ μία γέγονεν ἀμφοτέρων ἡ προνομία, μᾶλλον δὲ ἡ φροντὶς τῆς τῶν κοινῶν διορθώσεως, ἐν τῷ ἴσῳ ἐστίν* [If the dignity should be judged according to the priesthood, the privilege of both has become equal and one by the synod, or rather the care for the correction of common matters is on an equal footing]. But if from the priesthood the dignity must be judged, the privilege granted by the synod to both is equal and the same, or rather it is a public care of correction, in that we have been ordered to be of equal right. But these things can be understood regarding a provincial synod, in which each had been ordained bishop, not regarding the second ecumenical one—which certainly, if it had bestowed any privilege upon the city of Nyssa, would have tempered it with this caution, which the first Nicene synod also expressed in canon 7, when it wished the Jerusalem see *τιμᾶσθαι σωζομένου τῇ μητροπόλει τοῦ ἀξιώματος* [to be honored, while the dignity of the metropolis is preserved]. Yet its metropolitan dignity remained safe, which certainly would not have been safe if it had been ordered that both sees of Nyssa and Caesarea should be of equal right.

The other passage is in Socrates, book V, chapter 8, where he discusses the bishops who had gathered at Constantinople: *καὶ πατριάρχας κατέστησαν διανειμάμενοι τὰς ἐπαρχίας, ὥστε τοὺς ὑπὲρ διοίκησιν ἐπισκόπους ταῖς ὑπερορίοις ἐκκλησίαις μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν* [and they established patriarchs, dividing the provinces, so that bishops should not overstep their administration into churches outside their territory]. They constitute patriarchs for the divided provinces, and decide that no bishop should move to external churches having left his own diocese; then he adds that the patriarchate of Thrace fell to Nectarius, the patriarchate of the Pontic diocese to Helladius of Caesarea in Cappadocia after the bishop Basil, and that it fell to Gregory the brother of Basil of Nyssa and Otreius of Melitine. ^C Obviously, Casaubon had not yet exercised himself so much in the ecclesiastical dust, so that he could have arrived at the reading of the 4th volume (b) of the most learned and illustrious Cardinal Baronius, from which he could have learned that Socrates was hallucinatory and, having wrongly understood the sanction of Emperor Theodosius which is exhibited in the title of the Theodosian Code (bk. 1, *De fide catholica*, 1. 3), had brought forth these statements about the established patriarchates. But Sozomen, more felicitously, regarding the intent of the same edict, judged that it was not for distinguishing provinces, but for recognizing the truly catholic ones that this was sanctioned by the emperor: *νόμον ἔθετο παραδοθῆναι τὰς πανταχοῦ Ἐκκλησίας τοῖς ἐν ὑποστάσεσι τριῶν προσώπων ἰσοτίμων καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ὁμολογοῦσι θεότητα, τούτοις δὲ εἶναι τοὺς κοινωνοῦντας τῷ Νεκταρίῳ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει* [he set a law that the churches everywhere should be handed over to those who confess the divinity in the substances of three equal persons, and he was to be in communion with Nectarius in Constantinople]. He published a law that churches collected everywhere in the world should be entrusted to those who, in the substances of the three persons endowed with the same dignity, would confess one and the same divinity; and that these, furthermore, were those who agreed in faith with Nectarius in Constantinople, in Egypt with Timothy of Alexandria, in the Oriental churches with Diodore of Tarsus and Pelagius of Laodicea, but in the cities of Pontus with Helladius of Caesarea, with Gregory of Nyssa, and with Otreius the bishop of Melitene.

But it is unheard of that there were several patriarchs in one and the same diocese; how could it be, then, that the patriarchate of one diocese of the Orient could fall to two bishops—Tarsus and Laodicea—skipping the Antiochene, and the patriarchate of the Pontic diocese to three bishops of Cappadocia—Caesarean, Nyssen, and Melitinan? Certainly, in the *Notitia* which Leuvenclaius himself published with the Greco-Roman Law, from the disposition of Emperor Leo the Philosopher, page 90, the *τάξις προκαθεδρίας τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν ἀποστολικὸν θρόνον Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τελούντων μητροπολιτῶν, καὶ τῶν ὑπ' αὐτοὺς ἐπισκόπων* [order of precedence of the metropolitans who are under the apostolic throne of Constantinople, and of the bishops under them] is thus brought forward: 1. *τῷ Καππαδοκίας, α'. ὁ Νύσσης, β'. ὁ Καμουλιανῶν, γ'. ὁ τῶν Βασιλικῶν θερμῶν, δ'. ὁ Κισσοῦ, ε'. ὁ Ἑαΐσσων, ς'. ὁ Σοριάδος, ζ'. ὁ Ἀραθίας, η'. ὁ τῶν Αἰπολίων* [1. Of Cappadocia: 1. Nyssa, 2. Camuliana, 3. Regiarum Thermarum, 4. Cissus, 5. Eaissum, 6. Soria, 7. Arathia, 8. Aipolia]. The order of precedence of the metropolitans who are under the apostolic throne of Constantinople, and of the bishops subject to them: 1. Nyssenus; 2. Camulianorum; 3. Regiarum Thermarum; [no further text provided on scan] ^D [marginal note omitted: index etc.]

of which the first is Tyre, the second Tarsus; it is therefore false that up to the times when these *Notitiae* were edited, either Nyssenus, or Melitene, or Tarsus had been decorated with the honor of a patriarchate, since this is not confirmed by the *Notitia* of Leo the Philosopher, nor by that which Theodore Balsamon produces in his *Nomocanon* as edited under the reign of Andronicus Palaeologus, nor is Nyssa found among them, which, according to the custom of the new and later age, are adorned with the title of archbishopric without any jurisdiction over bishops, as the Greco-Roman law itself shows.

Col. 160 C. *Scatters them warmer.* Dionysius [translates] otherwise, *when the earth had been infused with rain together with the rays of the sun*; he reads, of course, as another codex written by hand shows, which Leuvencl. testifies to, *diathalphē*, not *epilampē*. He uses the same word elsewhere, p. 128: *of which one warms all things with heat*. Of which the first, by its heat, fosters everything.

Col. 161 A. *And to the chin the uvula.* Dionysius translates *pharyngas* (throats), rendering this passage thus: *it draws the chin down towards the throat with a certain concavity*. Properly, however, *gargareōn* in Latin is the *gurgulio* (weasand), or a fleshy, oblong growth, hanging down from the palate next to the inward passage into the mouth, wider at the upper part, but in the lower part pointed in the manner of a pyramid, which makes for the modulation of the voice, whence it is also called *plēktron*, a plectrum. Pliny calls it the grape (*uva*) in book 11, chap. 37. That which hangs between them from the final palate is only for man. On which passage Dalecampius notes: That this part is rather to be called the *gurgulio*, but *uva* (grape) is the name of the disease. Julius Pollux, Book 2, num. 22: *When the gargareōn becomes diseased and inflamed and turns to a paleness, it is called staphylē.* If the *gurgulio* becomes swollen in the sick person and turns to a pale color, it is called *uva*. Aetius of Amida, a doctor himself, and famous, in book 8, chap. 40, teaches that the *gurgulio* is called both the *columella* and the *uva*, by which name a certain affection in it is to be understood, when in fact it appears the topmost part of the *gurgulio* similar to a grape berry. Although therefore among doctors *uva* signifies only an affection or disease born from the inflammation of the *gurgulio*, among other authors, however, it is recognized that this same part of the body, when it is in its natural state, is called *gurgulio*, *columella*, *uva*, and *uvula*, just as we read in Aristotle, Book 1 of *The History of Animals*, chap. 11, that the same *columella*, if it swells and becomes inflamed, is called *staphylē*, or *uva*, although Galen, in Book 5 of *On Diseases by Place*, refutes this as stated by Archigenes among the doctors, because he contends that not just any inflammation or affection, but that by which the *gurgulio*, having become looser from a flux, is thicker in its lower part, should be called *uva* by doctors.

Col. 191 A. *After the manner.* The Greek does not sound properly like this, but the word *rhoōdēs* signifies what the interpreter below expressed better: *that the flowing motion of time might cease.* He implies here that this generation too is flowing and fleeting, just as that flow of time would cease in motion. Dionysius wrote in this place: *For indeed he has become like a beast of burden, who received this animal generation in its own nature.* Yet Nyssenus said this also elsewhere, col. 203 B, where he makes mention of *the species of generation, through which the unreasoning creatures are born, of a more animal-like generation*.

Col. 194 D. *Therefore often.* These [words] are punctuated badly; for the distinction must be placed after the word *prestantia* (preeminence). Dionysius translates: *Therefore it often happens that our misery may be ignorant of divine gifts, dragging a most foul face of passion over a most beautiful image: for the perturbations of the mind or passions, which arise from the companionship of the body, he calls ta pathē sarkos.*

Ibid. *But if any.* *Apisteisthai poiei ton anthrōpon.* *But if anyone who is subject to the diseases of the mind and given to the flesh brings it about that you do not believe man has been adorned with divine beauty;* Dionysius expressed the mind of the author better than Leuvenclaius. For if any depraved person or one given to the flesh does not allow it to be believed about man that he is decorated with divine beauty, but he...

Col. 195 C. *Eat.* The passage is Proverb 9, 5: *Eat my bread, and drink the wine which I have mixed for you.* But in Isaiah I read only this: *Draw water with joy, chap. 12, 3.* But he said *to drink joy* elsewhere, chap. 25, 6: *upon this mountain they shall drink joy.* Here also, instead of *megalophōnias*, it would perhaps be more aptly read *megalophuias*, he exhorts those who might be able to hear the sublimity of his voice. For the Fathers are accustomed to call this prophet *megalophōnos*: Gregory Nazianzen, orat. 3, p. 50: *For it is time for me to speak the same things with Isaiah, the most loud-voiced of the prophets*, i.e., It is time that I use the same words with which Isaiah, excelling all the prophets in the sublimity of his voice. John Chrysostom, homil. on the passage of Acts 9: *Saul still breathing, for the most loud-voiced Isaiah, he who is the viewer of paradoxical visions.* For Isaiah, who excels others in the sublimity of his voice, who was a spectator of those miraculous visions.

Col. 198 B. *For both delights.* For *hēdonōn* Dionysius seems to have read *trophēs*, while he translates: *For both have professed one grace of this food.* For he had said earlier, *this fleeting food*. Thus, therefore, it should be interpreted: For each one thinks that the true good is the one benefit of the food granted, a little after, *Guide of life*, is in Greek *ho archēgos tēs zōēs*, which is converted into Latin by Dionysius with the words of the Vulgate edition, *author of life, Actor*, 3, 15: *You killed the author of life.*

Col. 207 D. *Which also in many.* Gregory does not mean that the patriarchs preceded us by many ages, but he uses the words of the Apostle to the Hebrews 11, 13, expressed thus by the author of the Vulgate, *but seeing them from afar, and saluting them, and confessing that they were strangers.*

Col. 210 A. *As if to grasp beforehand.* Dionysius translates, *we ought, adhering to the studies of the best preservation, equanimously to await the antiquity itself of the future grace.* But not even here did he express the force of the word *proemporeuesthai*, which is very powerful for defending the merits of our works, which Scripture is accustomed to compare with the art of merchants and moneychangers, who acquire some gain. Thus spoke Gregory Nazianzen, orat. 20, *On Basil*, p. 326: *He found the kingdom, trading the work of the secondary task for the primary.* He found the kingdom, and made more gain in that matter which he was doing incidentally than in that which was his primary care. Here therefore you can interpret it thus: to acquire for himself that future grace long before by a right way of living.

Col. 211 C. *Likewise eternal.* He did not say *aidion*, but *agennēton*, which in this place is worth the same as *agenēton*, uncreated, not formed. Dionysius had written: *Who contends that the material cause is to be equalized to the good nature according to the ratio of the unbegotten, for this must be corrected so.* This is, he wishes that material principle to be equally uncreated as the creator himself is uncreated. This passage, compared with its other twin in the discussion on the soul with his sister Macrina, will be not insignificantly illustrated, and will in turn help, if it is read there as well, especially with the support of the manuscript codex of the most illustrious Cardinal Bonzi, p. 671: *“Etis hylikē physis exō tēs theias ousias antexachthēsetai tō Theō kata to agennēton tē aidiotēti tou ontos paromoioumenē. Or will some material nature be introduced outside the divine essence, and be compared with God, so that it is equalized in the reason of the property of being unbegotten with the eternity of him who is?* The same Gregory Nazianzen also [mentions] the Manichaeans with the same mind, orat. 1, *On the Son*, p. 509: *They who introduce both matter and the idea as unbegotten, to be of God alone the unbegotten.* But of God alone

who is without beginning and uncreated, Nazianzen speaks, and in the *Cohortation to the Greeks*, p. 16, Justin uses the term for those who are born or created. Augustine, in his *De haeresibus* to Quodvultdeus, set forth that these hold two principles, diverse and contrary to one another, and both eternal and co-eternal—that is, that they have always existed—and he refutes this heresy, book 1, ch. 3, *Contra Julianum Pelagianum*, as does Epiphanius in heresy 66.

^B Col. 218 C, *In the public assembly*. Mark v, 22: *And there comes one of the rulers of the synagogue.* Beza rightly censures Seb. Castellio in Matthew 4, because he translates *synagoga* as "college," since it has a narrower meaning, and because this was a specific thing belonging to the Assemblies of the Jews. The same author, writing on Matthew 16, says that *ecclesia* is better rendered in Latin as "church," because the common habit of speech has made it taken for the assembly of those who profess Christ. In his response to this same Castellio, he argues that he profaned the Holy Scriptures with pagan vocabulary, and says that there is no man of judgment who would not have shuddered when he heard him call those blessed angels "genii." But he who finds fault with others for these things condemns himself by his own standard, since he not only frequently insults the author of the Latin Vulgate as someone little concerned with Latinity, but also departs as far as possible from the parlance of the Church and the holy Fathers, and, what is more capital, from their convictions and dogmas. Equally obscure and inept is that passage in col. 221 B, *In the voice of the archangel*. By "the voice of the prince of the divine heralds," cf. col. 221 C, *for the persuasion of the resurrection*, and below, *the church*, for the assembly of God—when the terms current among Christians, archangel, faith, and Church, should have been used, especially since even among pagans it was impious in sacred matters to depart from established formulas and the accepted words of the priests.

^C Col. 250 B, *They wrote concerning principles*. Dionysius Leunclavius finds fault with and censures this passage for having translated it in such a way that he does not seem to have understood what it meant; but his own lack of understanding would have been repressed if he had wanted to salute Origen’s own books, turned into Latin, from the threshold. For in his very preface he says: "You demand these things, that beyond—that is, *peri archon*, which can be said concerning either principles or powers—" and he should have been the less surprised that it was so written by the old interpreter, as they were disputing about principalities; although, when Pamphilus the martyr says in his *Apologeticus* that in those books are shown those things which have been manifesty taught by ecclesiastical preaching and those which are not clearly defined, it is more probable that it deals there with the principles of the Christian faith. For *pythmon* Dionysius reads *sophōn*, having happened upon a faulty codex, for which reason he translates it "pestilence," but by this word is understood a great multitude, which in the disputation on the resurrection with Macrina he called "certain nations of souls." And that place can be greatly illuminated, especially if one calls to counsel a third person who interpreted it, who translated the Emperor Justinian’s book or treatise, which is published among the epistles of the popes that precede the fifth general council, and is presented in both languages in the Roman edition, vol. 2, p. 635. In it, indeed, a large part of this chapter of Nyssen’s book is cited, and it is brought forward with many others for the refuting of Origen’s errors. And first, that *in a distraining state* Justinian’s book expressed otherwise; the interpreter said *a people in a distinct city*, as if a certain people had existed before in their own city—Leunclavius: *a certain nation to exist apart in some state*. But in the disputation with Macrina, *certain nations of souls in a distinct state*—living—Sifanus translates: *that they posit that certain nations of souls live in a certain peculiar city*.

^D Yet I think Dionysius stated it more correctly in this place, that souls exist in their own manner of life, that is, that they live separated from bodies, as he said a little after, col. 229 D, *in a certain peculiar state to live*, to live in a certain state peculiar to them, and col. 232 B, *the soul having been torn away from the higher state of life*, a soul cast down from a higher condition and state, and col. 233 B, *to live of themselves*, which Leunclavius wrongly translated as "to live among themselves," but Dionysius rightly as "by themselves," and Justinian’s interpreter best of all, who asserts that souls live separated before their bodily life. Jerome supports these, whose words in his epistle 61 to Pammachius against John of Jerusalem are these, while he is enumerating the errors of Origen: "That in this body, as if in a prison, souls are bound, and before man was made, they dwelt among the rational creatures in the heavens"; and again after a few pages, "We ask whether souls, before Adam was fashioned from the earth, had their own state, lived, died, and persisted." Moreover, as regards this *pre-existence* of souls, in the books which are now published only in Latin, we read only this in book 1 and 7: that the soul was not made with bodies, but is proven to be inserted from the outside, because, as Jerome says in epistle 54, many things were omitted by Rufinus the interpreter which could have shown his manifest impiety. But in that same treatise of Justinian they are brought forward in Greek, p. 655, *On the pre-existence of souls*, *from their own cause of those not paying attention to themselves wakefully, they become sooner or later the declensions*. By their own fault, of those who do not wakefully pay attention to themselves, the fallings occur sooner or later.

Col. 231 C. *For that at last*. Dionysius more aptly: "For the station of evil is the beginning of virtue." Justinian’s interpreter: "For where malice is halted, an impetus to virtue succeeds; yet virtue is nothing in irrational beings, or if you prefer, for the cessation of evil is the beginning of conversion to virtue." Since, as Horace says, book 1, ep. 1, lines 41, 42: Virtue is to flee vice, and wisdom the first Is to have lacked folly. Cleobulus’s apophthegm is: "It is characteristic of virtue to hate vice."

Col. 252 A. *On the transmigration of souls.* In the treatise of Justinian we read in the text *metempsychōseōs*, in the margin *metensōmatōseōs*. The old interpreter: "What has been handed down concerning the migration of souls from other bodies into others." Pamphilus used the former word in his *Apology for Origen*, writing that the ninth accusation among those brought against him was this, and the last, which is dispersed with all infamy, *metempsychōseōs*, that is, that he asserts human souls are transmuted through death into mute animals, or serpents, or cattle. Jerome uses the latter in epistle 39 to Avitus, where, having brought forward Origen’s words, he adds: "By saying these things he clearly defends the *metempsychosin* of Pythagoras and Plato." He calls the same transmigration of souls also *Pythagoras’ fables*. Aristotle, book 1 *De anima*, ch. 4. Ibid. for *thamnos esym*, it is read in Justinian as *thamnois ephōita*, interpreted as "and of having been a shrub." Moreover, in Justinian it is to be corrected from this place, *beside the eternal and incorporeal*, for *of the eternal and incorporeal*.

Col. 238 D. *Look to yourself.* Dionysius more faithfully expressed the words of Scripture: "Attend to yourself, as Moses says, and so as in a book you will read the history of the soul’s operation." In Deuteronomy 4:23, Moses says: *Attend to yourself, and guard your soul carefully, lest you forget all the words.* Attend to yourself, and guard your soul carefully: lest you forget all the words. Basil the Great also had a homily on these words of Moses, in which he also expounds them thus, as this our author, his brother, *attend to*

1365 VARIORUM NOTÆ 1366

^A "Attend to yourself," that is, scrutinize yourself from every side; keep the eye of your soul wakeful, and have a vigilant and sleepless guard over your own self. And after a little, "Attend to yourself," that is, to your soul; adorn it. Examine who you are. Know your own nature, that your body is mortal, but the soul is immortal.

Col. 245 A. *Of sea-lungs.* Leunclavius says he does not know what these sea-lungs are; he could have learned from Aristotle that they are animals of the testaceous kind; for thus in lib. v, cap. 15, *De historia animalium,* "and those called sea-lungs generate spontaneously." Pliny, lib. ix, c. 46, supports Gregory, treating of the same things; for he says as a witness that in some siliceous things there is no sense, and that many have the same nature as sea-fennel, such as the sea-lungs and star-fish; and lib. xviii, c. 35: "Sea-lungs in the open sea portend winter for many days." Finally, Dioscorides lib. ii, c. 36: "Fresh sea-lung, when crushed, is beneficial as a poultice for those suffering from gout and chilblains." A fresh sea-lung is usefully applied, minced, to gout and chilblains; regarding which passage the translator Marcellus Vergilius notes that they share more of the nature of plants than of fish, and in their lineage and order should be held rather as what the ancients of Greece called those occupying a middle state between plants and animals.

Col. 251 A. *In the bulrush.* There was no need, I think, to change the received reading, "in the laurel and in the bulrush," meaning the lentisk; for Gregory could have counted the lentisk among the aromatic trees, since Dioscorides himself, whom Leunclavius cites for the aromatic reed, lib. i, c. 77, mentions the lentisk, saying that "when chewed, it makes the breath of the mouth sweet," and that from the same tree is born a resin which is therefore called lentiscina and mastic, which is "fragile, and aromatic." See also Pliny, lib. xiii, cap. 20.

UPON THE BOOK OF THE LIFE OF MOSES

With what diligence and faith Georgius Trapezuntius, a man otherwise most learned and Greek by nationality, conducted himself in the interpretation of the holy Fathers, often reducing many periods into a compendium of one member, omitting others, or interpolating them with his own additions, I would have thought to indicate the lacunae in many places for the reader to fill, or that the reader's course was being interrupted by so many notes, so that it might appear insolent and importunate, had I not learned from the observations of the most eloquent Jacobus Billius on the Damascene, of Jacobus Grynaeus on Eusebius, and of others on Cyril and the rest of the doctors. We have not wished, however, for a work so excellent to lie mutilated of its splendid sentiments, but partly from the Lyons edition at the Batavians', and partly from a manuscript codex of the venerable Lord Joannes Vulcobius, Abbot of Bellopratensis, we have corrected what seemed to be of greater moment, and have illustrated with Greek words added ten years ago, when the Latin edition of this author was coming to light at Paris; and now we have attempted to revise those Notes to be added to the Greco-Latin [edition], although it was not permitted to preside over it at my leisure, and at the same time to complete the task undertaken of the Chrysostomian interpretation. It would indeed have been a long and superfluous labor to indicate all the places which have been emended to the faith of the Greek codex and are expressed in an integral interpretation, which will easily occur to anyone comparing this edition with the older ones; but wherever the cited words of Scripture do not agree well with the Septuagint Greek version, or seem to be in need of illustration by similar sentiments of other Fathers, we have thought that the zeal of the readers should be served by brief scholia for that purpose.

Col. 299 B. *As to modesty.* The interpreter had published, "That this old age may receive the mandates of your modesty, obedience will surely have greater strength in you, since your age will have been more strengthened by our example." He seems to have read with the Lyons edition: "Your youth having been trained," not as the manuscript of Vulcobius had, omitting "youth." Therefore it should be written here: *your youth will have been learned.*

Ibid. E. *It is clear I will do so.* Some things were submitted by the interpreter to these, whose meaning neither the edited book nor the manuscript of the Vulgate recognizes; for that reason we have removed them. When "perfect" is said, it is what has so followed its end and limit that nothing is lacking to it, nothing wanting. But in these things which are perceived by sense, all things are contained in certain definite limits, as, for example, in what is continuous as well as in what is discrete, every measure is concluded by certain proper limits.

Col. 303 A. *It will suffice that it be.* The interpreter strayed from the straight path because he did not see the torch, "the soul of the fire." For he did not translate those things which he appears to have read, and which he expressed by imitating Michael Psellus in the book *On the Operation of Demons*, page 92: "Do not explain the true path to me, as a torch appearing upon the darkened sea." For I think that place should be emended thus: "Unless you had reduced me to the true path, shining like a torch in a lighthouse to dispel the darkness of the sea at night."

Ibid. B. *Nor Sion as.* Trapezuntius, contrary to the mind of the author, "Nor that Sion," is a determined place, as the letter seems to sound. He asserts, of course, that Sion is the domicile of God, which Gregory denies, just as he also denied that God was known in Judea alone, David Psalm lxxv, 2: "God is known in Judea." *God is known in Judea,* and Psalm cxxxi, 13: "He delighted in it as a habitation for himself."

Col. 504 C. *Alien breast.* We have changed what Trapezuntius had written, completely disdaining "breast," and we have advised that it should be corrected to "nipple." For Josephus writes, lib. ii, cap. 5, that Moses the infant did not reject just any breast, but only that of Egyptian nurses, and therefore Miriam his sister advised the king's daughter to fetch some Hebrew woman, and then his mother was brought: "And when he would not accept the nipple, but turned away, and did this with many, she said: In vain, O queen, do you summon these women for the feeding of the child, who have nothing of himself related to him." As he was not admitting the breast, but turning away, and this when one after another was brought: "You do nothing, queen," he says, "while you apply nurses of alien race to the infant."

Col. 307 B. *But the fallacy.* The interpreter had reduced this to a compendium, not without the loss of the author's sense. "But he who was truly animated by the rod of Moses, easily devoured the rods of the magicians, which were wood, by the deception of sight, as dragons." Then they consent. But our interpretation expresses more clearly the prestiges and the appearance visible to the eyes, which Tertullian also supports in *De*

anima*, cap. 57. Demons are accustomed to perform phantasms, and to fashion bodies by which they circumvent the outer eyes. For bodies seemed to Pharaoh and to the Egyptians to be the dragons of the magic rods, but the truth of Moses devoured their lie; and in Justin, *Quaest. ad Orthodox.* 26: "The demons, having fantasized the vision of those who see, to cause them to see a serpent where there is no serpent." By the operation of demons deceiving the eyes of the spectators, so that they see as a serpent what was not a serpent.

^A Col. 510 A. *Ut specie*. The interpreter had omitted many things here, which nevertheless it would have been worth the effort to add, so that it might be consistent that Gregory thought the Jews were warned by Moses to take with them vessels from the Egyptians under the guise of a loan: which pertains to that question which St. Augustine treats in *lib. XXII, c. 72 contra Faustum*, whether God ordered the Hebrews to ask for vessels from the Egyptians as a loan. "And perhaps according to their own wishes," he says, "they were permitted to do these things more than commanded: but God wished His permission to be made known to them through His servant Moses, when He commanded him to say that they should ask for things from the Egyptians to be lent to them, which they would take away." Philo Judaeus explains the cause and equity of this precept in *lib. De vita Moysis*: "First, that they might receive the necessary compensation for long labor, and then, for the injuries which they had suffered by being enslaved for lesser and not equal things, they might receive compensation." First, that they might receive the necessary compensation for long labor; then, that for the injuries received during the time they served, if not according to merit, yet some damages might be repaid. And Nicetas in the *Scholia* to *Orat. 42 Nazianzeni De Paschate*: "Nor was it an unjust judgment, nor according to the history, to command those who had labored most to despoil the Egyptians, but it was also worthy of an impartial judge to decree that the laborer should enjoy his food." Nor indeed was it an unfair judgment, not even according to history, to command those who had been afflicted by long labors to despoil the Egyptians, but rather it is the pronouncement of an altogether upright and incorrupt judge that a worker should enjoy his food.

Col. 511 B. *Ablata amaritudine*. Trapezuntius had edited, "the putridity having been removed." The matter is narrated in Exodus xv, 23, ὕδωρ ἐκ Μεῤῥᾶς πικρόν, *water from Merrha bitter*. Tertullian *adversus Judaeos*, 13, "The wood, by which Moses sweetened the bitter water." The Hebrew word Meppá the LXX interpreted in Numbers xxxiii, 8, as *bitterness*.

Col. 512 D. *Ὁ ἀγροικικῶς*. The interpretation of Trapezuntius does not recognize these words, and they seem to savor of a gloss, and not placed in their proper location: for it would be more elegant, "according to the form of the coriander seed, which is called in rustic speech *koliandron*." But as some conjecture in Athenaeus, lib. II, that *kissybion* should be read, which is said of a rustic assembly, *Cissybium* is called in the assembly of rustics, because a wooden cup fits it; so this passage will indicate that the word τοῦ κολιάνδρου was used peculiarly among rustics, just as the scholiast of Aristophanes' *Knights* writes that in his time it was called *koliandron*, which is called *koriannon* by that poet. Galen likewise says that the older Greeks called it *koriannon*, which all the moderns call *korion*. Thus in Hippocrates we read in *lib. II De victus ratione*, *koriannon thermon kai statikon*, "Coriander, having a heating and stopping power." We see, however, among the LXX, authors ancient enough, in Exodus xvi, 14, the word *korion* being used: *leptòn oseì kórion leukón*, "fine as white coriander," and likewise Exodus xvi, 32, and Number xi, 7, *oseì spérma koríou estí*, "as the seed of coriander is." Dioscorides, lib. III, c. 64, reports that it is called *korion* or *koriannon* by the Greeks, *ochion* by the Egyptians, and *yolo* by the Africans, which supports and favors those who wish the Punic language to have originated from the Hebrew, which calls it coriander.

Col. 314 A. *Est in hac historia*. It was read previously, "was transformed, except on the Sabbath day." For when this day. It must be amended in the Greek from the variant reading of the margin, *tê perì tês trophês taútês*, it is in the history regarding this food some other wonderful thing: a little after, we substitute the profane name of the day of Venus, "of the Parasceve," which is retained both among the Greeks and in the Latin Vulgate. The interpreter had reduced many things to a compendium here, not without the loss of the author's meaning.

Ibid. D. *Cum autem eodem*. Here also many things had been omitted, such as that regarding the bread sent from heaven, regarding the ministry of the cloud exhibited by day and by night, and other things to which are akin those things in Gregory the Theologian, the companion of Basil the Great, who was the brother of the Nyssen, *Orat. 3, adversus Julianum*: *Stylos nephélēs episkiázōn hēmeras, stylos pyròs phōtízōn nyktós, kaì hodēgoûntes amphóteroi: ártos thrýmenos en erḗmō, ópson ex ouranoû pempómenon, ho mèn tê chreíą sýmmetros, tò dè kaì hypèr tèn chreían: hýdōr ek pétras tò mèn ekdidómenon, tò dè glykainómenon*. "A pillar of cloud overshadowing by day, a pillar of fire enlightening by night, and both acting as guides: bread crumbled in the desert, a side-dish sent from heaven, the one commensurate with the need, the other even beyond the need: water from the rock, partly flowing out, partly sweetened." Nubis columna interdiu obumbrans, ignis columna nocte splendorem afferens, atque ambae iter praemonstrantes: panis in deserto pluviae instar fusus, opsonium e coelo missum, ille necessitati correspondens, hoc etiam supra necessitatem impertitum : aqua e petra partim manans, partim edulcata.

Col. 315 B. *Cum coelitus*. Either the interpreter had read it otherwise, or he had misunderstood these things while editing, when the sound from above like a trumpet seemed to disrupt the spaces of the places below, and it is not aptly called an articulated sound, but a voice.

Ibid. D. *Nam divinae*. These things in the Greek edition of Raphelengius were inserted enclosed in brackets into the text from codex R., in which it must be amended from ms. V., *pros gàr tò ádyton, ei pareisdýs*: these were added also translated into Latin to the interpretation of Georgius Trapezuntius.

Col. 319 A. *Leges accipit*. Trapezuntius set down "laws," as if he had read *nomothetei*, and a little later he translates, "superhumerals with various colors, with which the tent was adorned, and additionally distinguished with gold." And yet not *tēn skēnēn*, or *tò epíspastron*, "tent," but *tò katapétasma*, "veil," with the superhumeral, about which Exodus xxviii, 8: *Kaì tò ýphasma tôn epōmídōn éstai ek chrysíou katharoû kaì hyakínthou kaì kokkínou dianenenysménou kaì býssou keklōsménēs*. "And the weaving of the superhumerals shall be of pure gold and hyacinth and scarlet twisted and byssus spun." As also of the veil in Exodus xxvi, 31: "And you shall make a veil of hyacinth, etc."

Ibid. D. *Uncinos quoque*. The interpreter had omitted "by which the superhumerals are connected," for *pórpas* [fibulas/clasps] he rightly conjectured should be read, not *pórtas* [doors]; Margunius, the Greek bishop: for thus this author calls them, which the Scripture calls *aspidískas* in Exodus xxviii, 13, *aspídas, kaì poiḗseis aspidískas ek chrysíou katharoû*. St. Augustine *Quaest. in Exod.* 115, "aspidiscas," others translate "uncinos" [hooks], the Vulgate "fibulas" [clasps]. 1 Machab. x, 89: *Apésteilen autō pórpēn chrysēn*, "He sent him a golden clasp." Pagninus "palas," but he admits that we can also interpret them as "fibulae" [clasps]. See below, col. 590 C. This interpreter added "and chains, emeralds," just as it follows in the place of Exodus, *kai poiēseis dýo krössōtà ek chrysíou*, "and you shall make two chains of gold," but in the text of Gregory there is no word that signifies chains.

Ibid. B. *Fimbriarum*. These things were added from the Greek: furthermore Hieronymus *epist.* 128 translates *subuculam*, and thus calls it a "tunic of hyacinth": mention of *kosýmiōn* is made in Exodus xxviii, 39, *kaì kósymbos chitōn ek býssou*, "and a nodi tunic of byssus," or as others translate, "and fimbria" [fringe], who understand it as *kosymbotos* or "fringed garments." St. Augustine *Quaest.* 114, testifies that some in Latin rendered Exodus xxviii, 4, *kosymbotón*, "tunic with horns," which they thought more honest than if they said "with cirri" [fringes], which, when well-arranged, are usually an ornament for garments. Nevertheless, these *cirri* could be referred to the fringes, by which the edges of the garments

^A are adorned; for Hesychius explains *krossōton* [fringe] as "fringed," and Pollux accepts *kosymbon* in place of a knot of hair, which the fringes relate to. See below col. 390 C. Furthermore, regarding what follows about the head-band, Trapezuntius had expressed it thus: "In these was the plate and the covering of the High Priest," where I do not see what he means by the name of a *covering*. Gregory wrote, *to petalōn* [the plate], a plate placed on the forehead, concerning which these things are commanded in Exodus xxviii, 36: *Kai poiēseis petalon chrysun katharon, kai estai epi tu metōpu Aarōn*, "And you shall make a pure golden plate, and it shall be upon the forehead of Aaron." Jerome, indeed, in Epistle 128, calls the *capitium* a part of the garment or tunic which is opened at the neck; but this is that which the LXX call *peristomion* in Exodus xxxix, 32. St. Augustine, in *Quaestiones* 118 on Exodus, called it a *peristomion*, that is, that through which the head is cast out. A *capitium* signifies something else in Varro, namely, a woman's covering, or that by which the breast was bound. Again, this interpreter had omitted the words that preceded, already noted: *hē te autēs kephalēs tainia hyakinthinē pasa*, "And the entire head-band, which was wholly hyacinthine": concerning which, of course, Exodus xxviii, 37 speaks, in the LXX: *Kai poiēseis auto epi hyakinthu keklōsmenēs*, "And you shall set it upon the hyacinthine covering." The Latin Vulgate and Jerome in the cited epistle call it a hyacinthine fillet, just as Gregory here calls it *tainia*, but by that word he seems to indicate the entire tiara itself.

Ibid. D. *Nor human.* In the Raphelengius edition, the reading was to be retracted from the margin, *Oudemias anthrōpinēs synergeias eis to men*. For all these things had been omitted by the interpreter.

Col. 322 A. *And when with his rage.* These things also had been omitted, the sense of which is expressed in Exodus xxxii, 14: *Kai orgistheis thymō Mōysēs erripse tas dyo plakas*, "And being angered with wrath, Moses cast down the two tablets." So Phinees in Numbers xxv, 11, because he was moved with zeal against the fornicator, is said to have turned away the anger of God from the sons of Israel. Ps. cv, 50, "Phinees stood, and appeased [it]."

Col. 323 A. *As Moses.* It was somewhat harsh which the interpreter had prefixed instead, "then Moses also seemed to have doubted because of perfidy": for it is one thing to be perfidious, another to be incredulous, Numbers xx, 12: "Because you did not believe me, to sanctify me before the sons of Israel." Whence Jerome in Zechariah ch. 14: "On account of the water of contradiction, Moses and Aaron were condemned, not to enter the land of promise," and St. Augustine in Ps. cv: "For he doubtingly struck the rock." Hence he offended, hence he deserved to hear that he would die, lest he should enter the land of promise. For he was disturbed by the murmuring of the unfaithful people, and did not hold the confidence which he should have.

Col. 326 A. *Of those who before.* These, omitted by Trapezuntius, we have restored: but in the Greek, *V.* read *proelakoton*, not *prolōlekotōn*.

Ibid. B. *Or on the contrary.* Trapezuntius had published, "By the power of which the divinations were revealed": but Gregory calls it prophecy, as the various readings of the margin of the Raphelengius edition suggest, *hōs prophēteias antikrys einai*. We have added from codex *V.* after *energeias* these words: *ek theias epipnoias*. So St. Augustine, *Quaestiones* 48 in Numbers, on this very Balaam: "Then he was permitted to speak, so that now through him the clearest prophecy might be brought forth. For he was not at all permitted to say what he wished, but what he was compelled to say by the virtue of the Spirit," and Tertullian, *Against Marcion* IV, 28: "The prophet Balaam was filled with the Spirit, not for the cursing to which he had come, but that which the Spirit itself at that hour suggested to him, he pronounced as a blessing."

Col. 329 A. *Biaseitai.* In the Greek Raphelengius edition, an asterisk was placed beneath to indicate that there was a lacuna here, which we have filled by adding from codex *V.* these words: *Kibōtō pros to mē genesthai bythion ton tō reithrō dothenta katasphalizontai*. We have also added to the Latin interpretation: "If at any time by the necessity of life good pledges are compelled to be exposed to the floods of this life, *kibōton*," but we have preferred to call it a little chest, rather than a basket, because he constructs it not from twigs, but from *sanidōn*, from boards, as in Exodus xxv, 10, *kai poiēseis kibōton martyriu*, they interpret, "and you shall make an ark of testimony." Furthermore, the LXX in Exodus ii, 3, call that vessel in which Moses was placed a *thēkēn*, that is, a repository or little chest, as is read in the Complutensian and Plantin editions: but in the Vatican it is *thibēn*, and in Cyril, *thēkēn*. The interpreter of Origen teaches that it is a type of covering woven from rods, or from papyrus, or even formed from tree bark. In the Greek Scholia in the *Notes* of Flaminius Nobilius, it is an ark made of papyrus. The Hebrew word *Tebah* in this only place of Exodus is translated into Greek as *thibē*, in many other places in Genesis as *kibōtos*, in which there is talk of the ark of Noah, which is also made from boards.

Col. 330 A. *Let him spare tears.* What follows up to the end of the period, we have added taken from the printed Greek, and a little later, by the name of "exterior doctrine," understand *tēn exōthen philosophian*, the pagan philosophy. Moreover, for "has adopted into a son," turn this better as *hypoballomenē ton hyion*, "having substituted a son for herself," that is, as *hypobolimaion*, "and wished a supposititious birth to be attributed to herself." For he who is acquired as a son through adoption or arrogation attains the rank of children when he is handed over by a parent in whose power he was, by law, or when he is of his own right, he hands himself over into another's power, born of another; but a supposititious or "subjected" son, as the Jurisconsult speaks in l. 11 *De Carbon*, is supposed as if generated by the same father, or produced from the womb by the mother, whence the crime of a supposed birth in l. x, *Codex Ad legem Corneliam De falsis*; Eusebius, *Preparation for the Gospel*, book IX, chapter 3. From the ancient historian Artapanus, he reports that Merrin, the daughter of the king of Palmanotha, *steiran hyparchousan hypobalesthai tinos tōn Ioudaiōn paidiōn; touto de Mōyson ōnomasai*, which Trapezuntius translates: "Having adopted a Hebrew boy, because she herself was not bearing, whom the Jews call Moses." But Grynæus, correcting the interpretation, published it thus: "This woman, being sterile, had substituted a certain infant of the Jews, and named him Moses." Philo Judæus, *On the Life of Moses*: *Hion poieitai, ta peri ton onkon tēs gastros technasata proteron, hina gnēsios, alla mē hypobolimaios nomisthē*, "She makes him a son, having fashioned the things about the swelling of the belly beforehand, that he might be deemed legitimate, and not supposititious." Thus, therefore, that which is in Justin, *Exhortation to the Greeks* p. 8, is to be understood: *Dia to hypo thygatros basileōs eis paidos oikeiōsasthai chōran*, "Because he was adopted into the place of a son by the daughter of the king," or rather, "assumed into the place of a son, and as Ezechiel the poet says in Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata* I, he was educated, *hōs apo splanchnōn ōn*, as if he had been produced from her own womb." From this, another passage of Nyssen also received light, col. 305 A: *euthys oikeiōsasthai eis hyiu taxin analēphthēnai*.

Ibid. B. *And useless things.* We have inserted these into this period, in which the interpreter had reduced to a summary the things which Gregory had expressed in three [parts], because of the things which follow in the Greek, col. 529 C: *Kai atelesphorētoi prin eis to phōs elthein tēs theognōsias ambliskontai*. Thus Clemens Alexandrinus feels about the philosophers, *Stromata* 8: "The philosophers of the Greeks naming God, do not know Him, nor worship Him, according to God the God."

Col. 350 D. *Which [are] Jewish.* These have been restored, having been subtracted by the interpreter, up to those words, "and imitates Moses." He is chastising those, surely, who, as Jerome says in Epistle 84, "Tullius entirely possesses, who take Plautus into their hands. And if at any time they begin to read the Prophets, their speech shudders because it is uncultivated; and they are to be called Ciceronians rather than Christians."

Col. 351 C. *But God is.* What follows up to those ["words"], "lest they flowed down from the stars," have been added to the words of the interpreter, in which there is an allusion to those places John xiv, 6: "I am the way, the truth, and the life"; John viii, 12: "I am the light of the world." Theodoret also, in *Question* 6 on Exodus, wishes for that vision to have signified the only-begotten Son of God assuming our humanity,

^A and inhabiting a virginal womb, to keep his mother's virginity unstained; the same Bernard, in his *Sermon on the Blessed Virgin*.

Col. 335 B. *To avavęs*. In the Greek Rapheleng edition it read *to avapepés*; we have restored what Codex V contained, and the learned man conjectured the interpreter had read *τὸ ἀναυξές, τὸ ἀμείωτον*. And so Justin, in *Question* 113 to the Orthodox, rightly says: *Teletov de axpws τὸ καθ' ὁτιοῦν προσθήκην ἢ αὔξησιν μὴ δεχόμενον*—that is, "Perfect is that which in no way whatever accepts any addition or increase."

Col. 334 A. *Pellium amictus* (Garment of skins). Where he often subtracted much elsewhere, here Trapezuntius had added something of his own: "a garment of skins, and the earthly and sordid heat of the passions"; however, perturbations can not unsuitably be designated by this garment of skins. Thus Ambrose, *On Isaac and the Soul*: "Such is Moses to whom it is said, 'Loose the sandal of your feet,' that he who is about to call the people to God's kingdom might first lay aside the exuviae of the flesh, and walk with naked spirit and the footprint of the mind"; and in his book *On the Flight of the World*, ch. 5: "Loose the bonds of the world, leave behind the sandal, which is earthly."

Col. 335 D. *Hoc est verbum*. The interpreter perhaps read something else when he wrote, "holding in his hand," namely, the sword of faith, concerning which he writes. These things seem to refer to that place of the Apostle in Rom. x, 8: *Τοῦτ' ἐστι τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως, ὃ κηρύσσομεν*, "This is the word of faith, which we preach," and I Tim. iv, 6: *Ἐντρεφόμενος τοῖς λόγοις τῆς πίστεως*, "Nourished by the words of faith." Shortly after, a mistake stuck fast from the manuscript from which the Rapheleng edition was printed, *xal ἀπόδυσον*; it should be corrected from V to *ἀκροβυστον*.

Col. 338 B. *Sed et materialem*. These were absent from that translation, which nevertheless are by no means contrary to the truth of the matter. For many among the ancient philosophers taught that God is corporeal, as Aristotle teaches in *Physics* 4, text 52, and Eusebius in *Evangelical Preparation* bk. iv, ch. 6; for instance Thales, who taught that the world is God, the Stoics who taught it is an artificial fire, Anaximenes who taught it is air, Xenocrates who taught it is a celestial body, and Epicurus who asserted it is endowed with a form similar to the human—concerning whom Cicero writes in *On the Nature of the Gods*.

Ibid. B. *Utpote horum*. What Trapezuntius read, I do not see, but he wandered far from the mind of the author, whose words in both the printed and handwritten books we have expressed in place of those he had edited, as if the birth of these dogmas were not divine and were an exile from the Christian Church.

Col. 339 A. *Horum autem*. Here, too, much had been omitted by the interpreter, which we have restored from the book printed by Rapheleng, in which, however, we corrected the passage *αἰσθήσεις τῶν αὐτοεστέρων* and substituted *αίσθ. ἀνεκτοτέρων* in its place.

Col. 342 A. *Fratres enim*. The former place is Prov. xvii, 17, which is to be understood of good brothers: *ἐπὶ τῶν χρηστοτέρων*; the latter is of bad ones: *ἐπὶ τῶν ἐναντίων*, concerning contraries, Jeremiah ix, 4: "Every brother will supplant with supplantation," as Jerome translates from the Greek: and thus the Hebraism is better expressed, from which the Vulgate says "supplanting will supplant"; for also in Suidas, *πτέρνα* is *ὁ δόλος καὶ ἡ ἐπιβουλή*. The Hebrew word *py* which Jeremiah used is not only turned as *πτέρνα* (heel), but also as *πτερνισμός*, Psalm XL, 10, "supplantation," and IV Kings x, 19, *Ἰηοῦ ἐποίησεν ἐν πτερνισμῷ*, "Jehu did it in supplantation," which the Latin Vulgate renders: "Jehu did it deceitfully."

Ibid. C. *Tanquam acie*, the interpreter says, "as gold by fire, so they were tested by sorrows." Yet the author takes the similitude or metaphor not from gold but from iron, while he uses the word *στομοῦσθαι*; for *στομῶσαι* is to plunge glowing iron into cold water and to strengthen it; *στόμωμα* is iron, the edge of which has been strengthened by steel: which word Scripture uses in Ecclesiasticus xxxi, 51: *Κάμινος δοκιμάζει στόμωμα ἐν βαφῇ*, "The furnace tests the edge of the iron in the tempering," ^B Vulgate: *ferrum durum*. Gregory Nazianzen wove a comparison from this metaphor in *Oration* 2 against Julian: *καὶ τῷ διωγμῷ ῥώσαντες τὰς ψυχὰς εἰς εὐσέβειαν, καὶ ὥσπερ σίδηρον θερμὸν ὕδατι τοῖς κινδύνοις στομώσαντες*, "Strengthening their souls for piety by persecution, and, as hot iron in water, hardening them by dangers."

Col. 343 B. *Utitur insidiis*. Not as before from Trapezuntius, "uses ways," as if it were *ὁδοῖς*. Thus also Augustine, bk. XXII, ch. 18 *Of the City of God*, expressed that passage in Ephes. iv, 14: *πρὸς τὴν μεθοδείαν τῆς πλάνης*, "to the machination of error"; the Vulgate says, "to the circumvention of error." Tertullian also translates the other passage cited here in *Against Marcion* V, 18: "In order that we may stand against the machinations of the devil," from the Apostle Ephes. vi, 1: *στῆναι πρὸς τὰς μεθοδείας τοῦ διαβόλου*, "to stand against the wiles of the devil."

Ibid. D. *Quod si falsum*. This whole period was added to the interpretation, the sense of which conforms to what he said a little before; then we shall easily observe individual points, which in Greek is *δυνατὸν τοῖς καθ' ἕκαστον ἐφαρμόσαι τὸ νόημα*. The sense can be accommodated to individuals, which has indeed been set forth generically.

Col. 347 A. *Quod autem ista*. Trapezuntius had edited: "But let it not disturb you that he is said to have been so hardened a tyrant, nor therefore think that he escaped the punishments of his wickedness, because he sinned as if forced by power: for it is similar." But it was of interest to the readers to know by what reasoning the author proved that Pharaoh did not sin by necessity. Jerome brings forward a similar case, *Epistle* 150, *Question* 10: "If this is so, and he has mercy on Israel according to his will, and hardens Pharaoh, then he complains and accuses us in vain for not having done good or for having done evil; since it is in his power and will to choose or to reject someone regardless of good or evil works." Likewise Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata* I: *Οὔθ' αἱ τιμαί, οὔθ' αἱ κολάσεις δίκαιαι, μὴ τῆς ψυχῆς ἐχούσης τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῆς ὁρμῆς καὶ ἀφορμῆς, ἀλλ' ἀκουσίου τῆς κακίας οὔσης*, "Neither honors nor punishments are just, if the soul does not have the free power of impulse and initiative, but vice is involuntary." Furthermore, at the beginning of the following page the interpreter had suppressed the exposition of the Apostle's place, which is Rom. i, 16, "God delivered them over to the passions of ignominy"; for he is wont to join these testimonies of Scripture elsewhere, as in *Homily* 11 on Ecclesiastes, p. 388, where there is discussion of this very liberty of the will.

Col. 350 B. *Quod si postquam*. In place of these, the interpreter had written other things: "But if after the Egyptians labored for three days in darkness, they saw immediately upon opening their eyes through repentance, it is not without reason, especially since those palpable darknesses correspond to the darkness of sin and ignorance in both word and sense." I would believe that this freedom of ours from sin made by the Crucified and the darkness of ignorance repulsed by His death and resurrection were signified by the history, especially since there Moses extended his hands for the Egyptians who were laboring in sensible darkness, and here Christ extended His for sinners who are obscured by the darkness of their transgressions. But Gregory says that the eyes of the Egyptians were not opened through repentance, but that it was a figure of those who receive the vision of the mind through repentance, having been led from vice to virtue by the acknowledgment of Christ. The remaining things concerning the comparison of Christ with Moses, that both extended their hands, were added by the interpreter, who was acting as a paraphraser rather than an interpreter. Wherefore one cannot safely rely on his credibility that anyone added to the margin of the Lugduno Batava edition the words *τουτέστι καθὼς πολλάκις εἴπαμεν τῶν κακῶς ζώντων καὶ τὴν ἔκτασιν τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ μὴ προσκυνούντων*, whence it later crept into the text, although it was absent from the manuscripts, and this seemed to be stitched on by the interpreter who was now mangling and now dilating the author's sentences. Here, however, one must add after those words, "palpable darkness," what was omitted by him, just as the history reports: *καθὼς φησιν ἱστορία*.

ἱστορία*.

VARIOUS NOTES

Col. 351 A. *By the art of those extracted.* Trapezuntius: "By the art of those drawn into the skin so that they might appear." He did not notice that the ancients usually called *emetic drugs* [ἐμετικὰ φάρμακα] those things which provoked vomiting, to relieve the stomach of sick persons burdened by foul accumulated humors. Pliny, lib. XXVI, cap. 3, condemned the then excessively frequent vomitings, and in cap. 8, discussing the juice of Tithymalus, [says] that they drink it to purge by vomiting, and with the bowels loosened, which is otherwise useless for the stomach. Whence in Cicero, lib. X, ep. 50 *ad Atticum*: "He was anointed, he reclined, he was practicing *emetics*." And it was customary in Hippocrates’ time to practice *emetics* every month, and by vomiting to relieve the stomach, for those who cared for their health, as his book *On Regimen in Health* indicates.

Ibid. D. *Of the right hand or.* Trapezuntius had written: "they do not know how to turn to the right or to the left": thinking perhaps that it alluded to that verse in Deuteronomy 11, 27: "We will not turn aside to the right hand or to the left," whereas the words of the prophet Jonah 3, 2 are rather used: *οἵτινες οὐκ ἔγνωσαν δεξιὰν αὐτῶν, οὐδὲ ἀριστεράν*, which the Vulgate rendered: "Who do not know what is between the right hand and the left."

Col. 355 C. *But as it happened to the fire.* Even though the translator was hurrying, he should not have passed over those things which were expressed by Gregory concerning the bones not being broken, and the speed to be employed, which are under discussion, and cap. XII, 46, of Exodus. A little later also, in place of those things which follow there regarding the dress of the stranger or traveler, he had substituted certain things about the name *Phase* or "passage," alien to the meaning of the author. Wherefore it is clear also from the name (for he called that eating a "passage") what in those riddles of things he wished to signify.

Col. 358 D. *This is the bones of the word.* For thus it must be corrected, as we once advised when we first edited these Notes; but Trapezuntius had written: "Do not seek higher things than yourself," that is, "do not crush the bones of Christ; for you do not need the knowledge of them." So indeed the Latin Vulgate, Ecclesiasticus 3, 22: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability"; the Vatican edition: *Χαλεπώτερά σου μὴ ζήτει, καὶ ἰσχυρότερά σου μὴ ἐξέταζε* — "Do not seek things more difficult than you, and do not examine things stronger than you." In Theodoret, lib. 1, cap. 4, Alexander the Bishop cites in his letter: *Καὶ ὑψηλότερά σου μὴ ἐξέταζε* — "And do not examine things higher than you." In Cyprian, lib. II, *Testimonia* 53: "Seek not things higher than yourself, and search not into things stronger than you." That which follows further, "for there is no need for you to see what is hidden," is from the same chapter, verse 23. But it was not necessary to use the words of the Latin Vulgate, since Trapezuntius was translating these from the Greek of Nyssenus.

Col. 359 A. *Because of the command of Moses.* The translator mutilated these things also, with many excellent sentiments, which we have restored from the Greek, and he had substituted several of entirely opposite meaning in their place. "Not because," he says, "he thought the rewards of a great and long servitude should be exacted; for they were not to be exacted in untruth. Rather he says it is reasonable to some that the work [should be done], that the wages from the Egyptians be exacted." Something of this kind Tertullian [says], *in Marcionem*, 20. "Let the Egyptians reclaim the gold and silver vessels from the Hebrews: the Hebrews on the contrary institute mutual petitions, alleging that wages should be restored to them also in the name of their own [people], for that operative servitude deduced for the brickworks, for the cities, and villages built." Augustine likewise *contra Faustum*, lib. XXII, cap. 7: "What is absurd if the Egyptians from the Hebrews, men unjustly ruling over free men, to whom they were indeed debtors of wages for their such hard and unjust labors, deserved to be deprived of earthly things?" The same [author] confirms in more detail that which concerns the doctrine of the Gentiles to be embraced by Christians, lib. II, *De doctrina Christiana*, c. 40, and Socrates, lib. 1, cap. 14.

Ibid. C. *We are commanded to transfer.* Here we could rightly exclaim that Virgilian line: "Do not desert a brother, brother." For when in Sozomen, lib. V, hist. cap. 17, in Nicephorus, lib. X, cap. 25, and in others, Basil is celebrated as a certain outstanding example among those who, having been educated in the disciplines of the Gentiles, conferred themselves toward the illumination of the Church, it was impious for him to be passed over by Gregory the brother. And indeed Sozomen says: *Ὅτι Βασίλειός τε καὶ Γρηγόριος οἱ Καππαδόκαι παρευδοκιμοῦντες τοὺς τότε ῥήτορας* — "Because Basil and Gregory the Cappadocians, surpassing the rhetoricians of that time, offended the mind of Emperor Julian," or rather, as the translator of Nicephorus better translates, "far surpassing the orators of his time, so that they might not appear to be preferred only to those who taught in the schools." Augustine, indeed, lib. II *De doctrina Christiana*, cap. 40, when comparing the disciplines of the Gentiles with the riches of the Egyptians, seems to have read these things which had been suppressed by the translator: "Do we not see with how much gold and silver and clothing the most sweet doctor and most blessed martyr Cyprian came out of Egypt, how much Lactantius, how much Victorinus, Optatus, Hilary?"

Col. 362 C. *The stone is not.* This stone had fallen from the translator's sling, or he had deliberately passed it over: for he had written: "Is not the impulse of anger like a trembling spear? Are they not like unbridled horses?" But the Greek, without a question mark, exhibits also the manuscript from which we have restored the word *θυμώδης*, which was missing from the Rapheleng edition. David Hoeschelius noted in this place that *σφενδονήταν* or *σφενδονήτην* is read in Lucian, and that [also] in Diodorus Siculus, Xiphilin, and Themistius; in Joan. Chrysost. also in the book *De sacerdotio*, *σφενδονήτην*. Mention of the *tristatæ* is made in Exodus 14, 7: *Καὶ ἔλαβεν ἑξακόσια ἅρματα ἐκλεκτὰ καὶ τριστάτας ἐπὶ πάντων* — "And he took six hundred chosen chariots and *tristatæ* over them all"; Vulgate Latin: "And the leaders of the whole army." And IV Kings 7, 2: *καὶ ἀπεκρίθη ὁ τριστάτης*, Vulgate: "and one of the leaders answered": and the Hebrew word sounds no different; Jerome in Ezekiel 23: "Leaders and magistrates, or *tristatæ*, whom we have interpreted as princes of princes." Concerning whom we also read in Exodus, "chosen riders, *tristatæ*." Exodus 15, 4. However, the Greek Scholiast explains the peculiar notion of the Greek word from Origen and Nyssenus, in the *Catena* on the Canticle of Moses, teaching that against the enemies [the Egyptians] had ancient large chariots, so that they took three men: *ὧν ὁ μὲν ἡνιόχει, ὁ δὲ ὑπερήσπιζεν, ὁ δὲ ἐμάχετο* — "Of whom one performed the office of charioteer, another shielded, the third fought," or indeed one was the driver, but the others fought. The translator of Origen in *Homily 6 in Exodum*, translating "chosen riders," seems to have read *ἀναβάτας*, where he also renders *τριστάτας* as "three-man protectors" in Exodus 15, 3, where they are joined with chariots, and it is more probable that they were riders of chariots rather than of individual horses.

Col. 366 A. *From these it is done.* It should be corrected, "from these we see it is done": for we had ordered [it] to be written so, with the interpretation of Trapezuntius expunged; which had severed this member from the preceding period in this way: "He obeys also Moses, a worshipper of divine majesty, which now also." The same words are read in Exodus 14, 31: *Ἐπίστευσαν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Μωϋσῇ τῷ θεράποντι αὐτοῦ* — "And they believed in God and in Moses his servant." This passage is cited to the same effect by Athanasius of Alexandria in his book to Serapion, *De Spiritu sancto*, p. 355: *Ἐὰν δὲ ἀκούσωσιν τῆς Γραφῆς λεγούσης ἐν τῇ Ἐξόδῳ, Καὶ ἐπίστευσαν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Μωϋσῇ τῷ θεράποντι αὐτοῦ, ἆρα συναριθμήσουσι τῷ Θεῷ τὸν Μωϋσῆν, καὶ μετὰ τὸν Θεὸν οὐ νοήσουσι τὸν Υἱὸν, ἀλλὰ μόνον τὸν Μωϋσῆν;* — "But if they hear the Scripture saying in Exodus, 'And they believed in God and in Moses his servant,' will they therefore count Moses together with God, and after God will they not understand the Son, but Moses alone?" I truly think this word should be supplied. A little later, it must be added to the translator's words, "they obey and are subject to their priests according to the saying of the Apostle." Hebr. 13, 17: "Obey your prelates and be subject to them."

VARIORUM NOTES.

Col. 367 A. *From sources of the Apostles.* We have added: "and rested under the shade of the palms," which now becomes suitable for receiving God. *For a stone.* This was expressed from the Greek text of Raph[ael], in which it used to be read erroneously as *anapausomenos* (resting), not as in the Vatican [manuscript] *anapausamene* (having rested), which are found in Elim, Exodus 15, 27.

Ibid. C. *For he knows.* Trapezuntius seems to have read *alla kai lymainesthai* (but also to injure), or something similar, while he was translating: "For when it is bread, he does not know it to be weakened, so as to be turned into flesh": or surely he wrote "he does not know it to be made into milk," so that, however it may be, Gregory alludes to that of the Apostle, Hebr. 5, 12: "You have become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food"; and Rom. 14, 2: "But he who is weak, eats herbs." It must be corrected in the Greek copies of Gregory from the traces of the interpretation *tō prospheromenō* (to that which is offered).

Col. 369 C. *But on the contrary.* In the printed [edition], I had previously observed in the Notes that some things were missing; they are thus to be restored from cod[ex] V: "But that which is understood from the contrary is neither preparation, nor is it so called; for one would not reasonably call the deprivation of good things a preparation, but rather a loss." Shortly after, we added these words omitted by the interpreter: "The army is prepared, the leader [gives the signal], and then he gives the battle-tessera." For thus they speak also in the LXX, Judges 20, 6: *eipate de synthema* (and say the signal), and 2 Machab. 8, 23: *kai dous synthema Theou boetheias* (and having given the signal of God’s help). 2 Machab. 15, 15: *dous de tois peri auton synthema Theou nikēs* (and having given to those with him the signal of God’s victory). Understand "sign" as "tessera," for as [it is] with the poet, Aen. 7, line 637: "...he gives the bellicose signal [tessera]."

Col. 371 B. *Truly indeed.* What Trapezuntius read, infer from these things which we have removed: "Truly indeed the priesthood, using the help of the grace granted to it, [having sensed] the meaning of the Law, etc." Furthermore, he seems shortly after to call an "apex" (an accent mark/serif) a transversal line attached to letters, similar to those which we call the titles of letters, just as Didymus teaches that an antenna is called a *keraia* (horn/point), and Plutarch in *Numa* [mentions] *keraias grammēs* (points of a line), because whatever projects like a horn in animals is called a *keraia*. Some think that the apices of letters in Gellius, book 11, cap. 29, are called notation marks of the accents, but they are mistaken: but although those [marks] were not among the Hebrews in the age of Christ, as neither were the vowel points, the Greek Fathers nevertheless understood the apices as certain transversal marks of the letters, whence Theophylact in Matthew 5, 18: "But others say *iota* and the apex denote the ten commandments of the Law, but others [say] the cross, for the *iota* of the cross is the upright wood, and the apex is the transversal."

Col. 375 A. *But if any Moses.* Trapez[untius] is concise: "But if any Moses there is, he will be able also to ascend to another [level], and to perceive the sounds of the trumpets more as he is ascending." In the ms. V it was read: *genoito an kai epipolē tēs anodou* (it might also be a high point of the ascent). Where it should perhaps be corrected to *epipolu*, as in Herodian lib. 7: *epi poly tēs poleōs diōkontes hoi stratiōtai proubēsan* (the soldiers, pursuing far into the city, advanced).

Col. 376 C. *They shall be stoned.* It must be corrected from ms. V: *kataleusthēsontai* (they shall be stoned). For in Exodus 19, 13 we read: *en gar lithois lithobolēthēsetai* (for he shall be stoned with stones). "Everyone who touches the mountain shall be stoned." Shortly after, for *engynetai* (it brings near), ms. V had *enginetai* (it comes to pass), and consistently with the printed [text] *gnōsis tēs eusebeias* (knowledge of piety), not *tēs alētheias* (of truth), as the vulgar interpretation pretended.

Col. 378 B. *Which he who entered.* I had ordered these words to be deleted, as what remains of this interpretation of Trapezuntius is mangy and obscure; "which he who entered, who through the darkness learned, that this sentiment might become firmer." Exo. 20, 21, it is written: *elthe eis ton gnophon* (he came into the darkness), and cap. 19, 9: *en stylō nephelēs* (in a column of cloud), where the Vulg[ata] Lat[in] [has] "in a cloud of cloud" [sic—in caligine nubis]. The Hebrew word, which he uses in this place, is here translated by the LXX as *nephelē* (cloud), and Exodi 24, 20 [as] *gnophos* (darkness/gloom). And again, that which is in cap. 24, 16: *ek mesou nephelēs* (from the midst of the cloud), the Vulg[ata] renders, "from the midst of the darkness."

Col. 379 A. *God [in] a trumpet.* Trapezuntius had written: "Heaven [in] a trumpet from above": and not otherwise [in] ms. V: *esalpisen ho ouranos anōthen* (the heaven sounded a trumpet from above), but in the printed book p. 10, it was thus, 14, *esalpisen ho Theos anōthen* (God sounded a trumpet from above), which approach more closely to the words of Zechariah ch. 9, 14: *Kai Kyrios ho Theos en salpiggi salpiei* (And the Lord God shall sound with a trumpet), and the Lord God will sound with a trumpet. Cf. also Psalm 16, 14, or Ecclesiasticus 46, 21: *Ebrontēsen ex ouranou ho Kyrios* (The Lord thundered from heaven). The Lord thundered from heaven.

Ibid. B. *Golden columns.* In ms. V these things were punctuated thus: *styloi chrysea baseis argyrais eresmenoi, kai kephalais hōsautōs argyrais epiprepontes palin heteroi*, "Golden columns resting on silver bases, and on the capitals likewise silver [ones] appearing beautiful, others again columns." Although, to tell the truth, there does not yet occur to us in this description of the tabernacle a golden column with a silver head and base, or a silver [one] with brazen head and base. You have indeed Exodus 26, 21: *baseis auton argyrai* (their silver bases), for the boards which the Vulg[ata] Lat[in] calls *stylous* (columns), the Septuagint [does], and again Exodi 26, 32, in the Vulgata we read: "Four columns gilded, had golden capitals and silver bases." Likewise among the LXX: *Epi tessarōn stylōn asēptōn kechrysomēnōn chrysiō, kai hai kephalides autōn chrysai kai baseis autōn argyrai*. "On four incorruptible columns gilded with gold, and their capitals golden, and their bases silver." And these are perhaps the columns which it does not call *kechrysomēnous stylous* (gilded columns), but *chrysous* (golden). There are besides in Exodus 26, 27 other columns which have brazen bases, but golden capitals, not brazen, etc. 27, 17, columns of the atrium are placed on brazen bases, but are decorated with silver, not brazen, capitals.

Col. 379 D. *Former part.* The interpreter had published: "To the former part were the Holy; but to the hidden and recondite part, the Holy of Holies." The former part of the tabernacle is called by the Septuagint *to hagion*, by the Vulg[ata] Lat[in] "the sanctuary," Exodus 26, 33; but the posterior [part is called] *to Hagion tōn hagiōn* (the Holy of Holies), and it is so called in the Pentateuch: but lib. III Regum 8, 6: *Eisagousin hoi hiereis tēn kibōton eis ton topon autēs eis ta Hagia tōn hagiōn*. "The priests bring the ark into its place, into the Holy of Holies." In both cases the Hebrew word *Codech*, which signifies holy or holiness, is turned to *to hagion*, or *ta Hagia*, and likewise 2 Paralipom. 4, 22, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews therefore we read, ch. 9, 3: *Hē legomenē Hagia tōn hagiōn* (that which is called the Holy of Holies). The Vulgata sometimes said "sanctuarium," and Pagninus from the Hebrew, "Holy and Holy of Holies"; but a faithful interpreter ought not, if he can, to confuse both appellations, or substitute one for the other; see below col. 387.

Col. 382 D. *Therefore that.* These things were missing from the interpretation, which agree with those which the Apostle teaches to the Hebrews 10, 20: *Dia tou parapetasmatos, tout' esti tēs sarkos autou* (Through the veil, that is to say, his flesh). And so the same rightly admonish that that quadruple material, from which the veil of the temple was woven, signified the four elements. Jerome epist. 128: "Four colors are referred to four elements, from which the universe consists: byssus is assigned to earth, because it is grown from the earth; purple to the sea, because it is dyed from its shells; hyacinth to the air on account of the similarity of the color; coccus to fire and the ether." See Origen homil. 13 in Exodus.

Col. 581 C. *John was.* Trapez[untius]: "Such was John, washing men in the Jordan for repentance." The baptism of John is called the baptism of repentance, so that it may be distinguished from the baptism of Christ, which is called the baptism of adoption. Basil in his exhortation to baptism: *Iōannēs ekērusse baptisma metanoias, kai exeporeueto pros auton pasa hē Ioudaia* (John was preaching a baptism of repentance, and all of Judea was going out to him).

The Lord preaches a baptism of adoption: and who of those who have hoped in Him will not obey? That baptism was introductory, this one is perfective. John Chrysostom, *Homily 1 on Matthew*, shows that his own baptism had nothing more than to lead them to repentance; for he did not say “with water of forgiveness,” but he puts “of repentance,” and adds his own, that which is full of unspeakable grace. Where he showed that he had nothing of his own beyond leading them to repentance; for he did not speak of the water of remission, but of repentance; then finally he places also the baptism of Christ, accumulated with the liberality of ineffable gifts.

*Ibid.* Aulæa *verò quæ*. Trapezuntius seems to have read *tās de aulās* when translating, “Atria *verò quæ* inter se complicata,” as in Exodus 27:9: *Kai poiēseis aulēn tē skēnē* (And you shall make an atrium for the tabernacle); but in the corrected and edited version it was *tās de aulaias, hai dia tēs met’ allēlōn symbolēs tēn skēnēn*. He alludes to that in Exodus 26:5: *Kai pente aulaiai esontai ex allēlōn synechomenai, hē hetera ex heteras* (And five curtains shall be connected one to another, one from the other), and verse 5, *kata symbolēn tēs deuteras* (according to the coupling of the second). We preferred to translate *aulaia* as “curtains” with Augustine, *Quaestiones in Exodum*, rather than as “tapestries,” as the Antwerp edition of the Latin Vulgate has it. For among Cato and Pliny and similar Latin authors, *cortinæ* properly sound more like leaden or brazen vessels, or even tripods, than veils or tapestries. Yet this usage of the word had grown strong even from the time of Augustine, whose words these are, *Quaest. 174 in Exodum*: “*Aulæas* which the Greeks call ^A *aulaia*, Latins call *aulæa*, which they commonly call *cortinæ*.” Therefore, He did not order ten atriums to be made, as certain negligent interpreters have interpreted; for He did not say *aulas* (atria), but *aulæas* (curtains). But these last Greek words should rather be written: not *aulas*, but *aulaias*. The interpreter of Origen, *Homily 9 in Exodus*, fell into this error along with Trapezuntius.

Col. 587 A. *Quæ carnem*. The interpreter had omitted these, by which is confirmed the opinion of those who explain that passage of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 9:27, in no other way, and contend that it persuades them to this very maceration of the body. For in certain ancient manuscripts one reads *hypopiēzō mou to sōma*, “I beat down my body,” while in others *hypo-piazō*, “I make livid.” But also in Clement, *Stromata 3*, and in Gregory Nazianzen, *Oration against the Eunomians*, and in our John Chrysostom, *Homily 6 to the Antiochians*, it is read, page 96 of the Morel edition: *Tous idrōtas tēs aretēs hypomenontes, kata ton Paulou logon, hypopiēzontes to sōma kai doulagōgountes*; “Enduring the sweats of virtue according to the word of Paul, beating down and enslaving the body.” Origen on these very goats' hairs and linen, *Homily 15 in Exodus*: “I macerate my body and bring it into slavery.” Thus, therefore, is it to offer, both twisted linen, *macerating the flesh with abstinence, vigils, and the labor of meditations*; goats' hair is also offered. But hair is a dead, bloodless, and lifeless species. He who offers this shows in himself the sense of sin already dead.

*Ibid. B*. Subucula. Trapezuntius had edited, “in quo est tunica et pectorale.” The word *hypodutēs* is found in Exodus 28:51 [28:39]: *Kai poiēseis hypodutēn podērē holon hyakinthinon* (And you shall make a tunic reaching to the feet, all of hyacinthine), which he also called *apoduma* alone in the same chapter, v. 4. However, what Gregory here calls *ependutēn* in Exodus, I think is said to be the *epōmis*, the other garment of the priest, or ephod. For Jerome testifies that Aquila and Theodotion called it *ependyma*, which the LXX called *epōmida* (superhumerale); but the passage must be corrected from the hand-written manuscripts which we have seen and cited in the ^B Notes to the letters of Jerome, Epistle 128: the Septuagint call it *epōmida*, that is, *superhumerale* (ephod), Aquila *ependyma*, that is, *supervestimentum* (over-garment); we put it by its own name, *ephod*. Theodoret also in 1 Chronicles and elsewhere warns that Aquila translated *to ephoud* as *ependyma*. The same word is found also in the same Jerome, *Epistle 30*, where falsely it is attributed to the inferior and reaching-to-the-feet tunic, which is rather to be called *endyma* simply, wherefore from the same manuscripts that passage should be restored, namely, that *endyma*, and what is called *Mail* in the Hebrew language, signifies the lower tunic, whereas *ependyma*, that is, *epōmis*, which is called *ephod* in Hebrew, signifies the upper cloak. Finally, Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata 5*, p. 235 of the Florentine edition: *Phasi de kai to endyma ton podērē tēn kata sarka prophēteuein oikonomian*; “They say, however, that the garment, that is, the tunic reaching to the feet, prophesies the dispensation of the flesh assumed.” However, Jerome there translates it *subucula* (undergarment), *Epistle 128*, which we have followed here; it can be called the under-tunic or inferior tunic.

*Ibid. Et vitta*. The interpreter, and the tiara with the plate upon it. But the hyacinthine *vitta* (ribbon) must be distinguished from the tiara, for we read in Exodus 28:37, concerning the command for the golden plate: *Ligabisque eam vitta hyacinthina, et erit super tiaram* (You shall bind it with a hyacinthine ribbon, and it shall be upon the tiara). Thus the Latin Vulgate indeed, but the LXX: *Kai epithēseis to petalon epi hyacinthou keklōsmēnēs, kai estai epi tēs mitras*; “And you shall place the plate upon the twisted hyacinth, and it shall be upon the *mitra*.” Therefore it surely can seem strange that which is in Theodoret, *Quaest. 60 in Exodum*, that a *kidaris*, that is an *infula* (headband), had been placed upon the head, which represented the heavens, and that he covered the forehead with a *tainia* (ribbon), which the Septuagint called a *mitra*. For the Hebrew word is translated by the Septuagint in Exodus now as *kidaris*, now as *mitra*, nowhere as *tainia* (vitta). To *kidaris* is not *vitta*, but a round skullcap bound with a *tainia* or ribbon. Jerome, *Epistle 28*: “The fourth species of garment is a round skullcap, as if a sphere were divided, and one part placed upon the head: this the ^C Greeks and our own call *tiara*, but some call it *galerus* (a kind of hat).” Furthermore, the same Jerome there teaches that in the breastplate itself there was *dēlōsis*, that is, manifestation, which perhaps Trapezuntius translated as *indicium* (sign), not *judicium* (judgment), but our Gregory here calls *tainia*, or *vitta*, the whole skullcap or *kidaris* itself, as before, col. 319 C.

Col. 394 A. *Atque ex ore*. We have expunged what the interpreter had added, since their sense was not found in the Greek. For all error concerning idols has been taken away from the life of men, nor do they any longer owe it, because of the piety of our princes, to the mouth of the believers, who, relying on the most praiseworthy profession, have destroyed the temples of the idols serving impiety. Gregory mystically explains in this place that of Exodus 32:20: “He crushed the calf even to dust, which he scattered into the water and gave the sons of Israel to drink.”

*Ibid. D. Si quis est*. Thus indeed the Latin Vulgate, but word-for-word from the Greek, it would be, “If anyone is to the Lord, let him come to me.” In the Complutensian and Plantinian edition, *ei tis pros Kyrion*, “If anyone is to the Lord”; but in the Vatican and Basilian, as Gregory has it, the conjunction is omitted, *tis pros Kyrion*; and there is no otherwise in Augustine, *in libro Locutionum de Exodo*: “Who to the Lord?” [Who is for the Lord?]

Col. 395 D. *Implevistis*. We have preferred this literally rather than, with Trapezuntius, *consecrastis manus vestras* (you have consecrated your hands), as the Vulgate also has it, Exodus 32:29 from the Hebrew; nor does the Hebrew word sound anything else, which is sometimes translated by the LXX as *plēroun*, as 2 Chronicles 29:31, where also the Vulgate: “You have filled your hands,” sometimes *teleioun*, as Exodus 29:10: *Teleiōseis tas cheiras Aarōn*. “You shall consecrate the hands of Aaron,” the Vulgate “Initiabis” (You shall initiate). But the Hebraism from the Greek interpreter had to be preserved, which Jerome also did while citing Scripture according to the LXX in *Epistula ad Geruntii filias*: “You have filled your hands today to the Lord.”

Col. 397 A. *Nam si rerum*. We add these to the interpretation, by which he alludes to that passage of Paul.

NOTES OF VARIOUS AUTHORS

I Cor. III, 3, *But on the fleshly tables of the heart*, and I Cor. II, 10, *The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God*. After a few words, we have supplied what was missing in the printed text, p. 125 of the Raphelengius edition. *ἐπεὶ δὲ προσέπεσε τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ ἦχος*, and for *ἐξ οἴνου ἀρχόντων* we have emended to *οἴνου ἀδόντων* from the manuscript codex V, just as the interpreter also seems to have read it. The other reading could have been retained, as if from the very text of Exodus XXXII, 17: *Φωνὴν ἐξαρχόντων οἴνου ἐγὼ ἀκούω· I hear the voice of those who strike up the wine.* For the word *ἐξάρχειν* is musical, as in I Kings XXIX, 5: *οἳ ἐξῆρχον ἐν χοροῖς, those who were beginning or leading the singing in the choruses*, so that for Gregory, *ἐξάρχειν οἴνου* is the same as *ἐξάρχειν οἴνῳ*. The Vulgate said: *I hear the voice of those who sing*.

Col. 402 A. *Let him rise to greater things.* So that it may appear to what these things should be referred, one must not depart from the very words of the Apostle, impelled by desire to extend oneself to those things that are before, as the Apostle says, and always to fly upward to higher things. Philippians III, 13, *τοῖς δὲ ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεκτεινόμενος, extending myself to those things that are before.*

Col. 405 C. *But fluctuating.* The place is Ephes. IV, 14, *κλυδωνιζόμενοι καὶ περιφερόμενοι παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας, fluctuating and being carried about by every wind of doctrine.* Trapezuntius had written: *but he is never mobile and fluctuating, oppressed and shaken by various thoughts*, etc.

Col. 407 C. *This is after the Lord.* This period was truncated, in which we have also emended that passage in Greek from codex V, *τόν ἐστι τῷ κατόπιν αὐτοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι*. The precept of the Law is conceived in the same words among the LXX: Deuteron. XIII, 4, *Ὀπίσω Κυρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑμῶν πορεύεσθε· Walk after the Lord your God*, which the Latin Vulgate renders: *Follow the Lord your God*. Furthermore, from this it can also be seen that the philosopher might have drawn that precept of which Clement of Alexandria speaks, *2 Strom.*, p. 168: *Ὁ Ἀβραὰμ ἐπορεύθη καθάπερ ἐλάλησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Κύριος. Ἐντεῦθεν ἀρυσάμενός τις τῶν παρ' Ἕλλησι σοφῶν, τὸ, Ἕπου Θεῷ, ἀπεφθέγξατο· Abraham walked just as the Lord spoke to him. From this, one of the wise men among the Greeks, having drawn the, “Follow God,” gave utterance to it.* Since someone from among the Greek sages had drawn from this, he brought forth that saying, *Follow God*. This place of Deuteronomy is cited for the same sentiment in *4 Strom.*, p. 253, but the chapter of Scripture is not noted by the interpreter: *Ἀκούω δ' οἶμαι καὶ θεραπευταὶ Θεοῦ πάντες οἱ ἐνάρετοι· They are, however, as I suppose, all those endowed with virtue who are followers and worshippers of God.*

Col. 410 C. *Vultures.* It was previously read: *They say that the kite feeds on carcasses, and dies from precious perfumes.* The kite is properly *ἴκτινος* to the Greeks, and the *γύψ* is the vulture: yet Clement of Alexandria also narrates this about vultures in *Paedag.*, ch. 8, that they hate perfumes: *Μὴ λάθωμεν, ὥσπερ οἱ γύπες τὰ μύρα βδελυττόμενοι, ἢ οἱ κάνθαροι. Τούτους γὰρ ῥοδίνῳ χρισθέντας μύρῳ τελευτᾶν λέγουσι· Lest we, like the vultures or the scarabs, should abhor perfumes. For they say that these, when anointed with rose-oil, die.* Which place supports their opinion, who among Pliny, *Hist.* lib. XI, ch. 53, read thus: *Vultures, which seek other odors, are killed by perfume, and scarabs by rose.* The same Aristotle in *Mirabilia auscultationes*; Theophrastus *De odoribus*; Palladius in *Vita Chrysostomi*, and Plutarch in the book *Against Epicurus*, *Μῦρα καὶ θυμιάματα δυσχεραίνειν ὡς κάνθαροι καὶ γῦπες, to dislike perfumes and incense in the manner of scarabs and vultures*, and in the *Compendium of Stoic Absurdities* he says of scarabs: *τὸ μῦρον ἀπολιπεῖν, τὰ δὲ δυσωδῆ διώκειν: abandoning perfumes, they pursue foul odors.*

Col. 411 D. *But a specimen.* We have added these to the words of the interpreter, who here also had translated, *hearing Jesus the cluster of grapes hanging from the wood, as if this were to be understood as concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, and not rather of Jesus Nave, that is Josue.* The history of the spies is read in Numbers XIII, 24, concerning the blood of the grape which is in the Latin Vulgate, Deut. XXXII, 14, among the LXX: *Καὶ αἷμα σταφυλῆς ἔπινον οἶνον· And they drank the blood of the grape, wine.*

Col. 414 A. *For he who after.* There were many disjointed things here in the interpretation of Trapezuntius, which we have restored: but nevertheless it was the usage of a more emended Greek codex when he wrote that they are condemned by the privation of goods and the endurance of pain in the desert, as if it were, *τῷ λιμῷ καὶ τῷ χωρισμῷ τῆς τῶν ἀγαθῶν μετουσίας, by famine and the separation from the participation in good things*, not as the Raphelengius edition has it, p. 138, and Ms. V, *τῷ λιμῷ καὶ τῶν λογισμῶν τῆς τῶν ἀγαθῶν*. Therefore the other reading is to be embraced in the other Greek edition.

*Ibid.* *For here indeed.* The negligence of the printers had so deformed the interpretation of Trapezuntius that it was read in his work: *For as history asserts, that shameful cupidity hung over the serpents themselves; for serpents were attacking men with a poisonous bite.* You have a similar sentiment under the end of the page: *Ἡ τῶν ἀτόπων ἐπιθυμία τοὺς θανατηφόρους ὄφεις ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐπισπᾶται· The desire for illicit things draws deadly serpents from the earth.*

Col. 415. *Therefore he teaches.* By the interpreter this much only has been expressed: *Therefore he teaches, in my judgment, by this history, the end of haughtiness and the definition of pride, to speak thus.* Nyssenus understands, and hints at the punishment of Dathan, Core, and Abiron, which is narrated in Numbers XVI, 31, *The earth was split under their feet.*

Col. 418. *Appended to the tabernacle.* *Προτίθησι τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ*. It was so in the printed text and Ms. V. *He placed before the altar*, or if inferior, *προστίθησι, he appended to the altar.* We read, however, in Numbers XVII, 4, that the rods were placed not on the altar, but in the tabernacle: *Καὶ θήσεις αὐτὰς ἐν τῇ σκηνῇ· And you shall place them in the tabernacle.* Ambrose in *Apocalyp.*, ch. 2: *The very rod also blossomed in the tabernacle and produced nuts: because the Old Testament afterwards brought forth the flowers of spiritual senses in the tabernacle of the Church.* It is therefore a mnemonic error of Nyssenus.

Col. 419. *Cauterized.* Trapezuntius, *His conscience is unjust.* We preferred to use the words of the Latin Vulgate, so that the reader might more quickly notice that Gregory is alluding to the place of the Apostle I Tim. IV, 2: *ψευδολόγων κεκαυτηριασμένων τὴν συνείδησιν, of those speaking lies, having their conscience cauterized*, which Novatian, an ancient author in Tertullian, *Lib. De Trinit.*, ch. 29, translates: *Of those speaking lies, having their own conscience cauterized.* Jerome in ch. XI of Zechariah: *Of those speaking lies, having their own conscience cauterized.* Ambrose in *Epist. I ad Timoth.*: *He says their conscience is cauterized, that is, corrupted by simulation; because, just as a cautery corrupts the skin and inflicts a mark, so also deceit marks the conscience, which through malevolent guile does one thing and professes another, unto perdition.* The ignorant Beza had not read these authors when he was criticizing the Vulgate and Erasmus, and preferred that the place of the Apostle be translated, *whose conscience is cut away with a cautery*, because indeed *καυτηριάζειν* is to amputate some rotten part with a cautery, but it might seem absurd that someone be said to have a conscience marked by a cautery, no less than if one were to say he has a head, to whom the head had been amputated by a sword. But since it is evident from the books of physicians that a cautery is applied not only to resect limbs, but also to intercept flows, to staunch the flow of blood, and for malignant ulcers, this Calvinist censor did naught else by his criticism than to betray his own ignorance, who could even have learned from Nonius Marcellus himself that *stigmatias* were called by the ancients famous and guilty slaves, upon whom some mark had been branded, so that it would always be apparent: whence among Seneca, *lib. De benefic.*, ch. 37, *King Philip orders stigmata to be inscribed on an ungrateful soldier, testifying to an ungrateful guest*: thus Theophylact explains this place of Paul, *Because they are conscious of much impurity within themselves, therefore their conscience has indelible branded marks of a sordid life.*

1381 ^A Ibid. "If to virtue." I think the interpreter wrote "trodden and smoothed white" (vir- tuti tritam albamque): and the manuscript V offered nothing other than what the Lyons edition reads, in the margin of which we read, whether by conjecture or from another codex, λεαι- νομένην, trodden and smoothed. But as for what we added a little later to the words of the interpreter, "hired for pay" (mercede con- ductus, καὶ μισθωθέντα παρὰ τοῦ κρατοῦντος), it must be referred to that chapter xxi, v. 7 of Numbers: "The elders of Moab went forth having the price of divination in their hands." But Nyssenus, with this word ^B μαντείων, seems to wish to signify not so much the price as the art or the instruments of divination, when he says regarding Balaam: "That he held the divinations in his hand and took counsel from the birds": which passage I had noted could be translated anew in the same place, D, are defended. Furthermore, history testifies that Balaam is mentioned as having professed the art of augury, when it says he had divinations in his hands, and that he sought counsel from birds, and so much so that he learned things unknown to others from the braying of an ass: whose voice, etc. To be sure, we read in Numbers xxii, 7, in the LXX: "And the senate of Moab went, and the divinations were in their hands." And the senate of Moab went forth, and the divinations in their hands, or, as others prefer, "divinatory objects": but these do not testify that Balaam himself held the divinations in his hands, but rather the legates of King Balak. Yet this passage is cited to the same effect by Basil, his brother, in Epistle 80 to Eustathius: "And Balaam was a certain augur and soothsayer, and carrying the divinations in his hand, as the Scripture says." Indeed, Balaam himself, since he was an augur and a diviner, brought his prophecies by hand, as Scripture reports. These are the words of Origen, Homily 13 on Numbers: "In those arts of divination which human curiosity has established, there are certain things which Scripture has indeed named divination-objects, but Gentile custom calls them tripods or curtains, or by other such names, which are accustomed to be moved and handled by them as if consecrated for this very thing." The same also says Augustine, Q. 74 on Numbers: "Did they themselves divine, or did they carry some things from which Balaam could divine, as if they were things that were burned in sacrifices, or how were they expended, and are they therefore called divinations because through these he could divine?" Finally, Vatablus allows the Hebrew word to signify either the prices of divinations, or the kinds of divinations, or those things which he needed in order to divine. But I do not see to what that other matter about consulting birds pertains, unless perhaps to that passage in Numbers xxiv, 1: "He did not go according to custom to meet the birds" (Oὐκ ἐπορεύθη κατὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς εἰς συνάντησιν τοῖς οἰωνοῖς).

Col. 424 B. ^C Διεξελθοῦσα. It was read in the Lyons edition διεξελθ.... τῆς θείας δίκης, and a learned man admonished in the margin that it seemed one should read with the interpreter, διεξελθοῦσα κατεπράΰνε τῆς θείας: but in the manuscript we find it written, διεξελθεῖν καὶ ἔστησε, whence we conjecture that one should read διεξῆλθε καὶ ἔστησε, "they appeased the divine wrath," Numbers xxv, 14: "And the plague ceased from the sons of Israel." And the plague ceased from the sons of Israel. Psalm cv, 30: "And the shaking ceased" (καὶ ἐκόπασεν ἡ θραύσις), and the destruction ceased. A little later we added to the interpretation, "and for the reason which followed them, they were afraid." There is indeed mention of Amalek fighting with the sons of Israel in Exodus xvii, 8, and subsequently the Canaanite King of Arad in Numbers xxi, 4, and Sihon King of the Amorites in Numbers xxi, 21, but that regarding a people terrified by the Israelites is peculiarly held regarding the Moabites in Numbers xxii, 3. "And Moab feared the people greatly" (Καὶ ἐφοβήθη Μωάβ τὸν λαὸν σφόδρα). And Moab feared the people greatly.

Col. 423. "As if in power." These words are added to the very end of the period of the interpreter, who had also translated the passage of Solomon thus: "Do not put hot coals in your bosom, nor put down fire in your robe," and someone added in the margin Prov. viii, but chapter vi, v. 27 is cited. "According to the intent, not according to the letter." For it is written thus: "Shall one bind fire in his bosom, and his garments shall he not burn? Or shall one walk upon coals of fire, and his feet shall he not burn?" (ἀποδήσει τις πῦρ ἐν κόλπῳ, τὰ δὲ ἱμάτια οὐ κατακαύσει, ἢ περιπατήσει τις ἐπ' ἀνθράκων πυρὸς, τοὺς δὲ πόδας οὐ κατακαύσει;).

Col. 426 C. "Leader of the way." The interpreter had omitted these, and had gathered what follows into a summary thus: "He is illuminated, he has prepared for himself a table from divine delights," and so it seems he read τρυφῆς, not τροφῆς. A little later, what is added regarding the famous deed of Phinees, we have represented having been suppressed by the same.

Col. 427 C. "As if of Circe." Trapezuntius had rather hidden this elegant comparison of the cave of the Circean cup as that of Calypso, and had involved it in silence, to which is similar that of Cicero in the Action against Verres: "So suddenly from a man, as if by some Circean cup, he became Verres, he returns to himself and his own morals." The story is known from Odyssey 10.

Col. 430 A. "For when to the image." We have restored here many things that were suppressed, and among others his name, to whom the book was sent by the author, who, whether he was that Caesar, the brother of Gregory of Nazianzus, or someone else, ought not to have been unknown to the reader, since the name also existed in the manuscript.

Ibid. C. "As if merchants." I had admonished in these Notes that some things should be added here, which have been added, and yet I know not by what chance the clause of the book was omitted, which I had transcribed from the Vulcobian codex to fill the lacuna of the Lyons edition, "the understanding being found ^D (τῆς διανοίας εὑρεθῇ). Many things, I well know, will be found; the profit will be common in any case. Whatever, however, you have discovered in your mind regarding the higher and more divine things — for I am sure many things will be found: the profit will undoubtedly be common in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and empire for ever. Amen."

UPON THE EXPOSITION OF ECCLESIASTES

We have compared this Latin interpretation with the manuscript Greek codex of the most learned man, Frederick Morel, the royal professor, which seems to have been more emended in certain places than the one which Gentian Hervet, canon of Reims, of happy memory, used, to whose diligence and assiduity we owe the works of many Doctors of the Church and Fathers rendered into Latin: soon also, having obtained a second manuscript codex from the royal library, we confirmed the various readings of the former with its suffrage. Now, however, while we are reviewing these Notes of ours in the second edition, we observe that most especially, whether out of the instruction of their emendations of the Greek text or [towards] the Latin interpretation, more faithful aids have been brought, which, with similar passages of Scripture or the Fathers subjoined, will soon also have to be supported or illustrated. And first of all that

^A we changed, col. 620 B, ὡς τὰ τῶν ἐν ψάμμῳ παιδίων, which the interpreter had rendered as if they were buildings in a sandy field, because he had perhaps read παιδίων τὰ ἐν πεδίῳ ψάμμου. The native sense of the passage confirms this emendation, col. 625 C, πᾶσα γὰρ καὶ ἀνθρώπων σπουδή νηπίων ἀντικρὺς ἐστι τὰ ἐπὶ ψάμμου ἀθύρματα, Chrysostom in Psal. CXLII, p. 575: Τὰ παιδία τὰ μικρὰ ἀστραγάλους καὶ τὰς σφαίρας καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα μεγάλα τίθενται: "Little children think talismans, balls, and such-like toys very important."

Col. 623 B. *Ex magnitudine*. Someone had noted in the margin Rom. 1, as if the author were alluding to that of the Apostle, Rom. 1, 20, *Invisibilia ipsius per ea quae facta sunt*, etc. But he is using the words of the Wisdom of Solomon, ch. xiii, 5: Ἐκ μεγέθους καλλονῆς κτισμάτων ἀναλόγως. Where it should be noted that this passage of Gregory conforms with the Vatican edition, not with the Plantinian or Complutensian, where one reads Ἐκ μεγέθους καὶ καλλονῆς καὶ κτισμάτων. If it is rendered *ἀναλόγως* by "according to analogy," what the Vatican (which we have followed) renders as "by proportion" is altogether more suitable than what this interpreter renders here as "conveniently," or what the interpreter of Chrysostom in *Homil. 4 in Genesin* renders as "decently," or Gregory the Great in *Moralium* XXVI, ch. 6, as "intelligibly," or the Vulgate Latin as "cognoscibly." Vatablus understands that God is known by being compared in a certain proportion with creatures, so that from this beauty of creatures which falls under the senses, our mind understands another, far more excellent beauty of the Creator.

Ibid. C. *Et quod videt*. Hervetus had written: *Et quod videt creat*. For of this the procreatrix is *cognitio* (knowledge), as if he thought he had read *κτίσις*, not *ἐκτήσατο*, and *ἀναλόγως κτίσις*, not *κτῆσις*. Furthermore, *εἴδησις* sounds like skill and knowledge; but if you prefer "vision" here, the word we have used designates both. Our Royal manuscript confirms this correction of ours.

Col. 625 A. *Διὰ τῆς προσθήκης*. We have amended it thus, since in ms. M. it read: *ἀναυξὴς διὰ τὸ προβεῖναι εἰσὶ δε διαμένουσα*. The interpreter had edited: "he receives the sea through the former, never receiving any increase," perhaps having read *διὰ τὸ προβεῖναι*. Thus the same Gregory, speaking of the same sea below, col. 628 B, *'Ἀλλ' ἐν τῷ ἴσῳ διαμένει πληρώματι, καθάπερ οὐδεμιᾶς αὐτῇ ἐξ ὑδάτων γινομένης προσθήκης*. In ms. R. I later discovered it written: *διὰ τῆς προσθήκης*.

Col. 626 C. *Nam cum passa*. The interpreter: *Nam cum vita nostra ingressa fuerit, fit etiam lux quoque nostra terrena*. As if it were *γηίνον*, not *ὑπόγειον*, and he speaks thus a little later, col. 625 C, *Ὑπόγειος δὲ κατὰ τὸ ἀντικείμενον τὸ βόρειον ὑπέρχεται μέρος*. "But when it is under the earth, it undergoes the northern part."

Col. 627 A. *Tempus certaminis*. Hervetus, "but to you the sense is a short time." He perhaps found written *ἀισθήσεως*, not *ἀθλήσεως*, as ms. M. had, or as ms. R. more correctly has, *ἀθλήσεως*, which we follow. From the same frame of mind is that of Chrysostom in his *Panegyric on S. Julian*, p. 606, Paris ed.: *Διὰ τοῦτο τοὺς μὲν πόνους συνεκλήρωσε τῷ βραχεῖ καὶ προσκαίρῳ αἰῶνι, τοὺς δὲ στεφάνους ἐταμιεύσατο τῷ ἀγήρῳ καὶ ἀθανάτῳ·* "Therefore he coupled labors with the short and temporary age: but he stored up the crowns for the ageless and immortal one." Our life is indeed circumscribed by short limits, nor are the sufferings of this present time worthy of the future glory. (Rom. VIII, 18.)

Ibid. C. *Res inutilis*. This is an inept reading, which both ms. H. and the one used by the interpreter exhibit, whence he had translated "either a foolish word or a useless thing of vanity," nicely turning it into "book." But we have advised that *ἀνόητον πρᾶγμα* should be written, our regional codex supporting our conjecture and interpretation. For thus, when defining vanity and explaining its types, he said before, col. 621 A: *Εἴ τινός ἐναντίου γεγεννημένου εἰς ἀνόητον περιέλθῃ ὁ πόνος*. Chrysostom in *those who keep the novilunia*, p. 296: *Καὶ ποτὲ μὲν ὡς ἀνόνητα πονῶν, ποτὲ δὲ ὡς περιττὰ ἐν ἀργίᾳ καὶ πονηρία βιώσεται·* "Sometimes laboring as if in vain things, sometimes as if in superfluous things in idleness and wickedness he will live." I thought at one time that *τὸ ἀνόνητον ῥῆμα* should be read in this place, or "useless word," but since he said earlier, col. 619 D: *Ψόφον ἀργὸν χωρὶς σημασίας ἐν σχήματι λέξεως*, "idle sound without any meaning in the form of a word," asserting it to be vanity, and *ib. d.*: *Ματαιότης ἐστὶν ἢ ῥῆμα ἀδιανόητον ἢ πρᾶγμα ἀνόνητον*, "vanity is either a word that does not fall under understanding or a useless thing," I now judge that nothing should be changed, and that it should be translated here also as "a word which signifies nothing, or lacks meaning."

Col. 630 A. *Fluctibus qui nos*. The interpreter: *fluctibus, qui nos exprimunt*. In the manuscript we also read *ἐκτυπούντων ἡμᾶς*, which Hervetus thought was derived from the verb *ἐκτυποῦν*, which means to express or to fashion; but *ἐκτυπέομαι* is cited in common lexicons, and is explained as to resound or to creak, if it lacks a mistake, as if it were a compound from *τυπέω*, signifying the same as *ψοφέω*. Thus perhaps here it would mean the same as *περικτυπεῖν*, to sound around, just as *περιβομβεῖν* means to roar around; it is even cited from Nazianzen: *περιβομβεῖσθαι τὴν ἀγοράν*, "to roar around the forum." Basil, *Epist. 79* to Eustathius: *Ἐπιστολαῖς αἷς συνέγραψαν καθ' ἡμῶν πᾶσαν περικτυπήσαντες τὴν ἀκοήν*, "having struck all hearing with the epistles which they wrote against us," and they have cast his famous epistles against [us] into the ears of all everywhere.

Ibid. D. *Sed adhuc vir*; the interpreter, "but he is still a man." He says he has passed the manly age, but it does not appear so, for, as the Wise Man says: "The hoary hairs are men's understanding." (Sapient. iv, 9.)

Col. 635 A. *Bonorum nobis*. Perhaps an erroneous reading deceived the interpreter, whose words were: "nature is converted, we turn ourselves in the oblivion of evils"; but in Greek it must be amended here: *ἐν λήθῃ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἐγενόμεθα*.

Ibid. A. *Non est memoria*. These things which had been mutilated and truncated, we restored from the Greek text of both codices R. and M., which subjoined the remaining words of Scripture from ch. 1, 2 of Ecclesiastes, so that they coincided with the Vatican Bibles, except that they had *μετὰ τῶν γενομένων* instead of *μετὰ τῶν γενησομένων*. And that future men are to be understood, not those things which have been done, is evident from the Vulgate Latin, *recordatio apud eos qui futuri sunt in novissimo* ("a remembrance among those who shall be in the latter end"). And from Symmachus: *παρὰ τοῖς ἐσομένοις μετὰ ταῦτα*, "among those who shall be after this." Hervetus, therefore, is wrong with "with those things which have been done last."

Ibid. C. *Nos igitur*. These had been omitted by the interpreter: but what follows concerning the leader of the chorus S. John Chrysostom seems to have imitated in the opening of the sermon which he delivered on the Kalends on the dictum of the Apostle, *All for the glory of God*: *Καθάπερ χορὸς τὸν κορυφαῖον ἐπιζητεῖ καὶ ναυτῶν πλήρωμα τὸν κυβερνήτην, οὕτω καὶ τῶν ἱερέων σύλλογος τὸν ἀρχιερέα καὶ κοινὸν πατέρα τήμερον*. "Just as a chorus seeks its leader, and a crew of sailors their captain, so also the assembly of priests desires its Pontiff and common father, Flavian, today."

Ibid. D. *An non omnino*. I had advised that it should be written: *when I was appointed king by him upon his holy mountain, preaching the commandment of the Lord*, not as his commandment was before, although this reading is bolstered by Hilary, in whom one reads "announcing his commandment," and in Cyprian *Testimon.* "announcing his empire," in Augustine "preaching his commandment," but the text of Nyssen agrees with the Greek LXX Vulgate, Ps. 11, 6.

Col. 638 A. *Neque eo qui med*. The interpreter had written: *Neque qui mederetur ei*, because he was laboring under a disease, and a little later, *propterea ei cor, ut quaereret et consideraret de omnibus*. We restored it as the Greek text required.

Col. 642 D. *Ut propterea*. In the Greek ms. M. it was *τὸ ἀξιόπιστον ἔχειν*. We changed what was with the interpreter, *ut propterea sit fide dignus*, and we advised that it should be corrected to *τὸ ἀξιόπιστον οὐκ ἔχειν*. For thus he clearly confesses that he is inexperienced, which he vituperates or

^A traduces. This conjecture of ours was later confirmed by a royal manuscript, in which we find written *τὸ ἀναξιόπιστον ἔχειν*.

Col. 643 B. *Ad incrementum*. We preferred this, rather than the previous [rendering], to the knowledge proposed to him; for thus he spoke a little later: *τὸν τῆς δυναστείας ὄγκον ηὔξησε τῇ τῆς δυναστείας προσθήκῃ*. From which we have purged another similar [rendering] earlier, in which it was read: *οἷκον τῆς βασιλ*.

Col. 646 C. *Sed cum in illis*. Previous editions had corrupted the translator's words, or he had used a corrupt copy of the Greek text; for it was thus: *sed cum in illis fuisset exercitatus, per se moribus prius recte præstitisset, et a risu alienum gravemque et constantem, per quæ a studiosis*, etc. But in the Greek it must be amended to *ἀνένδοτον*.

Ibid. D. *Ut qui sponte*. The interpreter [rendered it as] "as if he were even against his will indecorously," as if it were *ἀκουσίως*, not as in M. *ἀκουσίως ἀσχημόνων*. So too, Chrysostom, in his Sermon on Meekness, calls anger *ἑκούσιον δαίμονα*, a "voluntary demon."

Col. 647 A. *Vinum traheret*. In the MS. M. it was written *ἑλκύσει*, not as in German Bibles and other certain books, *ἐκχύσει* (he will dissolve); but the Vatican edition and the ancient Latin Vulgate maintain the other reading, from which Jerome [rendered], "that I might draw my flesh in wine."

Ibid. C. *Ut dominatum*. Hervetus had written only this: "he led me in wisdom, through which I obtained dominion into joy." In Greek it is *ἐπὶ εὐφροσύνην*, as in the common Greek Bibles; but in the Vatican we read *τοῦ κρατῆσαι ἐπ᾿ εὐφροσύνην* (to obtain joy). The paraphrase of Gregory Thaumaturgus confirms this reading: *Ἐγκράτεια δὲ δουλοῦται ἐπιθυμίαν* (But continence brings desire into servitude). Jerome, however, in the Latin text expressed from the Greek, edited it thus: "that I might obtain folly," so that it appears he had read *τὴν ἀφροσύνην*, and in the Vulgate from the Hebrew, "that I might transfer my mind to wisdom, and might avoid folly."

Col. 650 A. *Quæ cum aliqua*. The interpreter [rendered it]: "which happen with some circumstance." *Περιστάσεις* means not only circumstance, but also calamity and the accident of fortune, as Hervetus saw elsewhere in Clement, 1 *Strom.*, p. 148: *περιστάσει κέχρηται τοιαύτῃ* (he has used such a [circumstance/accident] of fortune) and in *Strom.* p. 216: *Τοῖς περιστατικοῖς περιπίπτειν ἡμᾶς τὸν Κύριον βουληθῆναι* (The Lord willed that we should fall into casuistries); [the author] could have added "adverse." For it had preceded: *διώκεσθε καὶ φονεύεσθε* (You are persecuted and put to death). Again, in this place, the phrase *κατά γε τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον* he had translated "as is the opinion of my author," less aptly, since Nyssen is not indicating the opinion of Ecclesiastes, but his own, as he will say later, col. 724 A: *Αὐλαὶ δ᾽ ἂν εἶεν τοῦ Κυρίου κατά γε τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον αἱ ἀρεταί* (The courts of the Lord would be, according to my opinion, the virtues).

Col. 654 A. *Qui purpuras*. The interpreter had published "from those who dive into the sea," but in this place it is not about just any divers, but only those who fish for purple-fish (murex), and in Pollux they are called *πορφυρευταὶ* and *σπογγοθήραι*. Clement of Alexandria, lib. 2 *Pædagog.* cap. 10: *Ἀνάγονται δὲ οἱ πορφυρευταὶ καὶ αὐτὰ τὰ κογχύλια*. Moreover, their dyers and purple-infectors, and the shells themselves are held in great price: I would prefer "dyers and purple-fishers, and the shells themselves are transported." Some call *πορφυρευτάς* purple-merchants and purple-dyers, or sponge-fishers; the jurists call them *murileguli* (lib. 11, *Cod.* 7, *De murilegulis et monetariis*).

Ibid. *Propterea quod ei*. It used to be read: "Because his is the highest power; for to that, which is permitted." But you will interpret it even more aptly thus: "Because that which he desires is proposed to him, that he may use it at his caprice." Thus in Zosimus, lib. 2: *Ἀλλ᾽ ἐνεδίδου τῷ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν ἅπαντα πράττειν*. But ^B indulging his soul's lust, he did everything by command. This is, of course, what that master of vanity among the poets says, lib. 2, *περὶ ματαιοτεχνίας*: *Nitimur in vetitum semper cupimusque negata*.

Ibid. D. *Niliaca*. The interpreter had read this place erroneously and translated it: "Nili and Numenian metals." In the MS. M. it is similarly corrupt: *καὶ τὰ τῆς Νουμηνείας ἀναζητεῖται*; but in the Royal Medicean codex it is *Νουμηδείας* for *Νουμηδίας*, whose region's mines and quarries sent precious marbles to Rome and the Orient. Pliny, lib. 4, cap. 3: "Tusca is the boundary of Numidia; nor, beyond the spoils of Numidian marble and wild beasts, is there any other thing remarkable." Likewise lib. 36, cap. 6: "Nepos is said to have had solid columns of Carystian or Lunense marble. M. Lepidus first laid thresholds of Numidian marble." We have also added the Latin words to Gregory's interpretation, in which he mentions Phrygian stone, just as also below, col. 658 B, and of the same thing Pliny also writes, lib. 36, cap. 17.

Col. 655 B. *Quod clavis*. Hervetus [wrote]: "Because the key is elided." MS. M. erroneously: *ὁ τὸν διὰ τῶν ἥλων ἐκκρούμενον ἄργυρον*. From which we conjectured that it should be corrected: *ἐκκρουόμενον* (silver hammered out through nails), or "that a nail is struck or affixed to the silver," as Clement of Alexandria said, lib. 2 *Pædagog.* cap. 11: *καὶ τοὺς ἥλους τοῖς καττύμασιν ἐγκατακρούειν ἀξιοῦσιν* (they deign to hammer nails into shoe-soles). The MS. R. later confirmed our suspicion. A little later, from conjecture, for "cupidity preceding through those who are senseless," we substituted "through those things that are useless," which is to be corrected as *ἀνονήτων* for *ἀνοήτων*. Ibid. *Non πρὸς κόμπον* Hervetus seems to have read, but *πρὸς σκοπόν*; they think it means "to the goal of the doors," but it is entirely erroneous. Similar is that [passage] in *Homil. 4, in Eccle.*: *τὸ γὰρ τοσοῦτον εἰς τύφον*; (For what does so much contribute to pride?).

Col. 658 A. *Eloquia igne*. The interpreter [renders it]: "glowing utterances," *πεπυρωμένα* (purified by fire) they are called, as Ps. 11, 7: "The utterances of the Lord are silver examined by fire," and Ps. 118, 140: "Thy utterance is greatly inflamed [igne purgatum], that is, *πεπυρωμένον* (purified by fire)." Where Jerome, from the Hebrew: "Thy speech is tested," not because it is glowing like fire or bright, but because it is pure and without dross, like silver refined and purified by fire.

Col. 658 D. *Suum exornat*. *Ἐξαστίνων εἰς κάλλος*, MS. M.; R. more correctly *ἐξασκῶν*, whence Hervetus expressed: "he exercises his own building." And *ἐξασκεῖν* (to exercise) means not only to practice, but also to adorn and to ornament. We added [this] a little later from the MS.

Col. 659 B. *dissolutionem articulorum*.

Col. 663 A. *Ut et natatus*. The interpreter seems to have read *νεανίαις* (for youths) instead of *νῆστις* (fasting/sober, or here *νῆσις*, a swimming); but from the Royal MS. it should be corrected to *νῆσις* (swimming), so that [it also] offers the pleasure of swimming to those who cleanse or bathe their bodies. For that is what *φαιδρύνεσθαι* signifies here, which [is used] in that verse of Hesiod in Clement, lib. 3 *Pæd.* cap. 5: *μηδὲ γυναικείῳ λουτρῷ χρόα φαιδρύνεσθαι* (nor to cleanse the skin with a woman’s bath); "not to refresh with a woman's bath," as Hervetus wrote. Ibid., and in this place, the verse is in Hesiod, at the end of *Works and Days*.

Col. 670 B. *Quod consilium*. These two limbs now reach the interpretation, as a little later: for *πόρται* (doors) we corrected *πόρπαι* (buckles), as in a similar place before in the book *De Vita Mosis*, p. 83, Lugd. ed. Clement also, lib. 2, cap. 42, *Pædag.*, enumerates among similar trifles of women's dress *περόνας, ἀμφιλίας, ὅρμους* (brooches, buckles, necklaces). And Daniel, ch. 5, v. 28: *τὸν μανιάκην τὸν χρυσοῦν περιέθηκαν περὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ* (they placed the golden collar around his neck): which place favors the opinion of those who think that by this word is designated a species of *περιτραχηλίων* and *περιδεράτων* (neck-ornaments), just as Polybius names the collars of the Gauls *μανιάκας*, and *ψέλλιον* is what they wear around the neck.

Col. 675 C. *Non ut Hervetus volebat*, "in the soul that which is of the pleasure of serpents." For what Dioscorides, lib. 1, cap. 45, and elsewhere calls *ἔρπητας* or *ἑρπηδόνας* (herpes/shingles), Pliny and the Latins call "spreading ulcers" and "creeping ulcers" or "putrescent" ones. Paul of Aegina...

takes the name *herpetis*: we have corrected this here to *καινῷ* (new), whereas the manuscript had written *τῷ καινῷ*.

Col. 678 A. *Sed pars possessionis*. The interpreter says "but there were part of the creature," and a little later, "that I might gather joy, because some of those things which exist are a creature." In the MS. M., it read *μερίδα κτίσεως*, but it must be corrected to *τήσεως*, as is evident from the two following words, *εἰς*, such as *ἀπό τινος κτήματος*, and I say *μερίδα τὴν κτῆσιν*. All the interpreters of Scripture agree that *μερίδα*, a part or portion, is called a lot or possession, inheritance, reward, or whatever falls to someone to be carried or possessed, by a Hebrew phrase, as in Ps. xv, 5, *Κύριος μερὶς τῆς κληρονομίας μου*, "The Lord is the portion of my inheritance"; and Num. xviii, 20: *Ὅτι ἐγὼ μερὶς σοῦ κληρονομία σου*, "For I am thy portion and thine inheritance"; and what the LXX said: *Ἰδοὺ δέδωκα πᾶν ἐπιδέκατον ἐν Ἰσραὴλ ἐν κλήρῳ*, "Behold I have given every tithe in Israel in inheritance or lot." Jerome translates, "all the tithes of the Israelites into a possession." The Royal MS. also approved this correction. Furthermore, at the end of the page, it should be written, "he says by every sense," or "devising, by which he says that he is possessed of all [things] by every sense (*διὰ πάσης αἰσθήσεως*)."

Col. 679 C. *Quis est homo qui*. Hervet had expressed these words of Scripture, chapter 2, 12, thus: "Who is the man who will come, after the plan, whatever things made him?" In the Roman edition, the Greek text is slightly different: *ὃς ἐλεύσεται ὀπίσω τῆς βουλῆς τὰ ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτήν*, "who will come after the plan, whatever things made it." In other books it is thus: *Πάντα ὅσα ἐποίησεν ἐν αὐτῇ*, "All things which he made in it," to which this reading of Nyssenus lends support; for he wishes to say that God made all things in wisdom, Ps. c, 24, and calls that wisdom a plan. Who, then, will attain to all things which the wisdom of God has made? which Jerome said from the Hebrew, so that he might follow the king his maker?

Col. 687 A. *Et electio*. Not, as Hervetus had written from the Vulgate Latin, "and the affliction of spirit": but the LXX edited in Greek *καὶ προαίρεσιν*, which in the Vatican is translated "and presumption of spirit," for others it is "election of spirit." Jerome, from an ancient interpretation of the Greek text, "All is vanity and a feeding on wind." So in many other places we substitute the word "election," which the interpreter also thought should be used by himself, as below [at] Col. 695 B, *ἐν τῇ προαιρέσει καρδίας αὐτοῦ*, "in the free choice of his heart."

Col. 690 B. *Non intueri*. The interpreter says otherwise, [by] a transposition of the negative particle, in order to persuade men to behold those things which do not appear; but to this sentiment of the author, which we have restored, is similar and akin that of his brother Basil, by which he persuades in a certain homily *μὴ προσηλοῦσθαι τοῖς βιωτικοῖς*, that we should not adhere to the things of this world, and again, *ποιεῖται ὁ ἀντιλέγων τὴν μάχην*, he stirs up the battle from those things which are seen. Ibid. C. *Cum stulto autem*. Gr. *συναπεσβέθη*. Hervetus [had], "but with the foolish is extinguished, yea, even a monument," but it must be corrected from R. *συναπεσβέθη*, "was extinguished with the foolish," and we have added those things which indicate the passage of David, Ps. lx, 7: *Ἀπώλετο τὸ μνημόσυνον αὐτῶν μετ' ἤχου*, "Their memory perished with a sound." For Chrysostom also explains the sense of this addition on the passage in his *Commentary*: *Καὶ τοῦτο δὴ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ κηδεμονίας τὸ μὴ λανθανόντως ταῦτα ποιεῖν. Τὸ περιφανὲς οὖν δηλοῖ τῆς ἀπωλείας*. "And this, indeed, belongs to the providential care of God, not to do these things secretly. The 'manifest,' therefore, declares [the nature] of the destruction." Furthermore, this also is of God's providence, that He does not do this secretly: it signifies, therefore, how manifest the sense of this addition is, which Chrysostom explains in his *Commentary*, *καὶ τοῦτο δὴ τοῖς τοῦ θεοῦ κηδεμονίας* [omitted clause]... and Theodoret [says], *Τὸ δὲ μετ' ἤχου τὸ ἔκδηλον τῆς ἀπωλείας σημαίνει ἀπὸ τῶν σεισμῷ πιπτουσῶν οἰκιῶν*. "But the 'with a sound' signifies the manifest [nature] of the destruction, from houses falling in an earthquake." For with a sound, he signifies this from the metaphor of houses, which being shaken by some earthquake, collapse.

Col. 691 B. *Et pulchras port*. The interpreter otherwise: "and towers and most beautiful things which works are awakened," as if it were *καὶ τὰ κάλλιστα ἀναστήματα*, and a little later, "It is uncertain, however, whether riches might create a source of evil," but Gregory does not intend that, but [rather] that it is uncertain whether the heir, having left the riches, is about to abuse them to satisfy his lusts: "The more worthy heir will consume the Caecuban, and will stain the pavement with proud wine." Horace, l. II, Ode 14, which those words of Solomon themselves hint at, Eccles. ii, 19: *Εἰ ἐξουσιάσεται ἐν παντὶ μόχθῳ μου*, which the interpreter translates here a little later, "And if he will exercise power in all my labor." In the Plantin edition, "and if he will be licentious in my labor," which the interpreter confirms with that [passage] of 1 Nehemiah v, 15: *Οἱ ἐκτετιναγμένοι αὐτῶν ἐξουσιάσονται ἐπὶ τὸν λαόν*, "Those who were shaken out will exercise power over the people": which the Latin Vulgate brought out thus, "and their ministers oppressed the people," and 1 Machab. x, 70, *Διὰ τί ἐξουσιάζεις ἐφ' ἡμᾶς τοῖς ὄρεσι*; "Why do you exercise power against us in the mountains?" Finally, it agrees with these things that they bring forth from Polybius, *ἐξουσιαστικώτερον τοῦ καθήκοντος*, "With greater license than was proper." Jerome reminds us that this happened to Solomon; for he did not have a son like himself, Rehoboam.

Col. 694 B. *Cognoscit*. To the word "he was," "since he knows." However, in all the manuscripts of the Old Testament, this passage is exhibited otherwise from chap. 2, v. 22; in the Plantin edition, *γίνεται τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ*, in the Vatican, *Ὅτι γίνεται ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐν παντὶ μόχθῳ αὐτοῦ*. "Because it happens in man in all his labor." Jerome, from the LXX: "For what happens to a man in all his labor?" Symmachus, *ὅτι γὰρ περιγέγονεν*; "For what more was there?" Best of all, the Vulgate Latin: "For what will it profit a man for all his labor?" But Nyssenus, instead of *γίνεται*, reads *γινώσκει* in some book; a little later, col. 693 D, instead of *παρ' αὐτοῦ*, "without him," [where] it had been written, perhaps the interpreter, having been offended, rendered it *παρ' ἑαυτοῦ*, "from himself." Jerome: "who eats and spares without him?" Ibid. *Sed justitia*. Thus indeed [it is in] MS. M., but among the Apostle it is read in another way at Rom. xiv, 17: *Δικαιοσύνη καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ χαρὰ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ*, "But righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Finally, the interpreter had written, "He has given affliction to the sinner," so that he adds, "and he shall gather to him, who is good in the sight of God": but *περισπασμός* does not mean "affliction," as the Latin Vulgate has it, but "occupation," as in c. i, 13: *περισπασμὸν πονηρὸν ἔδωκεν ὁ θεός*; Vulgate, "This worst occupation did God give." Symmachus also here edited *ἀσχολίαν*.

Col. 698 D. *Quod nimium*. In MS. M. it was thus, *τὸ τοῦ λαλεῖν*, and it could be seen that a Pythagorean precept of silence was hinted at, but another [manuscript] forbade [useless] speaking; but the collation with the royal codex removed the manifest error, *τὸ λίαν*; for it follows what was pronounced by Thales the philosopher, *μηδὲν ἄγαν*. "Nothing in excess," or as the author Diogenes Laertius is [the source], by Pythagoras, or as Aristotle in his *Rhetoric*, by Bias.

Col. 699 D. *Quod autem nondum*. Badly before, "which however is of constant age," for it indicates adolescence, which has not yet reached the strength and firmness of manly age.

Col. 702 D. *Cum quispiam*. The passage is from Isaiah xxvi, 18: *καὶ ἐτέκομεν πνεῦμα σωτηρίας σου*, "through thy fear we conceived in the womb, and we were in pain, and we brought forth the Spirit of thy salvation." The same passage is cited below in the book *De Virginit.*, c. 19, p. 598; a little later the interpreter had written "the time of children for life," as if he had read *καιρὸς τέκνων εἰς ζωήν*, "time of children for life," [or] *τικτόντων*, bearing, or bringing forth.

Col. 703 C. *Qui semper*. Hervet [had], "who altogether to be crucified"? neither are the words of Paul to the Corinthians cited or used, but [those] to the Galatians ii, 20: *Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι*, "I have been crucified with Christ," as Jerome translates in c. li of Isaiah.

Col. 706 A. *Sed ejus qui superseminat*. We have written from MS. M., *ἀλλὰ τοῦ παρασπείραντος*, which Hervetus had omitted. For just as *παραπρεσβεύειν* is to perform an embassy wrongly, so I understand *παρασπείρειν* to be the same, to sow wrongly, as if he were alluding to the parable, of which in Luke viii, 12: "But those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil and taketh away the word," or rather to the other [passage in] Matt. xiii, 25:

(this is the first page of the chain)

1389 VARIORUM NOTÆ

*Venit inimicus et superseminavit zizania.* I had written this before the royal manuscript codex came into our hands, in which this sentence was more emended and fuller: ἀλλὰ τοῦ παρασπείραντος τὰ ζιζάνια, ἢ τοῦ παραφυτεύοντος τῷ δεσποτικῷ ἀμπελῶνι τὴν Σοδομιτικὴν κληματίδα, all of which were missing from the interpreter’s book.

Col. 718 C. *Sion enim.* I had cautioned that the Greek sounded thus: "For Sion is a mountain which towers over or appears above the citadel of Jerusalem," not as Hervetus [has it]; for it is "Sion, by which the summit of Jerusalem is overtopped." For the word ἄκραν here, as in Plutarch’s *Coriolanus*, must be considered to mean the same thing, namely, "so that you reach that very citadel," that is, reach the very citadel of virtues; Psalm 11, 6, "upon the holy mount Sion."

Col. 723 C. *Non des.* These are cited differently by Nyssen and in the Vulgate Bible, Psalm 120:3, μὴ δῴης, and οὐ νυστάξει, the way it is also written in Chrysostom and Theodoret. Aquila, likewise, translated: Εἰς σφαλμὸν πόδας σου, "Let not your feet be given to slipping"; Symmachus, μὴ δῴης περιτραπῆναι: "Let not your feet be given to being overturned." But in the Plantin edition, μὴ δῴη εἰ μηδὲ νυστάξῃ is read, "let Him not give," and "let Him not slumber," which align more with Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew. Hervetus had published "and let Him not slumber," following the Latin Vulgate rather than any Greek codex.

Col. 727 B. *Ex ore vestro.* We preferred to agree with the Greek text here rather than retain the reading published by the translator, "from your mouth." For in the manuscript M. ὑμῶν, as in the royal [codex] and as in the Apostle, ὑμῶν is written, "Let no corrupt speech proceed from your mouth." For thus did they translate the epithet σαπρός; Cyprian, Epistle 42, and Jerome in his Commentary, whom Theod.—rather than Beza—ought to have followed in his judgment. But if he relies solely on the antithesis, he should have translated it, "let no ruinous speech [proceed]," not as he published, "let no putrid speech [proceed]," for in the antithesis mention is made of edification, not of fruit. Furthermore, it should be noted by the Catholic reader that the reading of the Nyssen text is confirmed by the Latin Vulgate phrase, "for the edification of faith," πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν, as it is also read in the codex which Beza calls the Claromontane, and in the letter of Cyprian and *Testimonia* III, 13; Jerome translates it "for the edification of opportunity," which the Greek text of the Apostle also currently exhibits, but it is suspected to have been altered by the Latin interpreter for the sake of euphony; indeed, it is established that it relied on the authority of certain codices which support that reading.

Col. 731 D. *Nondum enim.* It had been wrongly translated before, "Not yet does the creature know itself," as the sentence of our books carries it. But the sentence hangs 1390 until those final words of the period, in which he seems to speak with Socrates, "What is above us, is nothing to us"; see Lactantius, *Divinarum Institutionum* Lib. III, c. 20. We have added to the interpretation how that which is not receives substance, πῶς τὸ μὴ ὂν οὐσιοῦται, which can also be translated, "how that which is not is procreated"; for, as the very learned Billius advises in his *Observationes*, Lib. 1, c. 33, οὐσίωσις is rendered in Latin by Irenæus as "procreation," and Budé interprets τὸν Λόγον οὐσιωθῆναι ἐξ ἡμῶν as "the Word of God having taken substance from us." Thus in Justin, *Expositio Fidei*, p. 303, we read, τὴν σάρκα εἰς Λόγον οὐσιωθῆναι, "that the flesh passed into the substance of the Word," or "into the Word's substance," and in his *Ad Græcos Cohortatio*, p. 6, καὶ καθ᾿ ἑαυτὸ οὐσιῶσθαι, "and that it existed of itself," or "received substance from itself," that is, "was procreated."

Col. 747 C. *Sic igitur didicimus.* Hervetus added, "thus also undertake the struggle," as if he had misread ἀντιλαμβάνεσθε: but in manuscript M. the sentence is suspended until the end of the other period: ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι μαθεῖν προσήκει καὶ τὸ ἕτερον μέρος, which also supports book R. A little later, in the passage of the Apostle to the Romans 5:1, we have replaced it with, "let us have peace," which is how it is read in some Latin Vulgate exemplars and in the text of Origen, although in his Commentary it is "we have peace," which most Vulgate books present.

Col. 751 B. *Cochleari autem.* In Greek, ᾗ δὲ περόνῃ, which word denotes not a spoon properly, but a pin, as in Job 40:20, Symmachus translated, ἐν περόνῃ τρυπήσας τὴν ῥῖνα, "in the pin thou shalt pierce the nose," which the LXX [translated as] ἄξεις δὲ δράκοντα ἐν ἀγκίστρῳ, "but wilt thou lead a dragon with a hook?" Here, however, it seems to be indicated as some kind of iron instrument that the ancients used at table, such as those little forks which some in Italy and in Gaul use to handle food. But in the sections that follow, the faulty Greek book produced a flawed interpretation, which the editor of the banquet himself used correctly, "since he himself who had prepared the cause of those things which were about to happen, but [in the sense of] a bad use, etc." But we have advised that it seems it ought to be emended: εἰς κακὸν ἀπεχρήσατο αὐτοῦ τοῦ παρασκεύασαντος τὴν αἰτίαν τῶν ἐκβησομένων, οὐ προετοιμασάυτος. For this indicates that that pin or fork was prepared for catching food, not for pricking the eye. Finally, we removed the word "of good things," from this translator’s opinion below, col. 754 A. "But if He is good, who is the author and cause of good things, these things are altogether good," whereas the Greek is only, εἰ δὲ ἀγαθὸς ὁ τῶν πάντων αἴτιος. For as Tertullian says, *Against Marcion* 1, 13, "God created nothing unworthy of Himself; therefore also the world is not unworthy of God."

ON THE HOMILIES ON THE SONG OF SONGS — FRONTO DUCÆUS

The text of these Greek homilies had already begun to be printed, and the edition, brought forth from a copy, the abundance of which had been provided by a friend to Claudius Morellus, a citizen of Paris and printer, had already progressed toward the end of the second, when another exemplar of the most noble Franciscus Olivarius reached our hands, much more emended and indeed fuller than that which we shall call the Morellian, designated by the sign M., as the other by Ol. For in that former one, only the first eleven homilies were found, in the latter all fifteen, and almost all the lacunae and faults by which we conclude the codex that Hervetus the interpreter used had been corrupted, had disfigured it; the latter, however, was more similar to that which it is evident was obtained by Joann Leunclavius when he was preparing his own translation, published at Basel in the year of Christ 1570, which finally we have obtained in its absolute state, while we were knitting these notes together to assert the genuine reading from the corruption of the codices and the less accurate version of the interpreters. But because variant readings excerpted from the Morellian had been attached to the margin of the copy, it often happened that the typesetters followed the Morellian exemplar, not the Olivarian, and the corrector did not dare to make a choice among them at his own discretion.

^A Col. 756 B. *Παρίστασθαι (To stand by).* The typesetter embraced the variant reading of the Olivarian codex, and yet he retained the word *ἰέναι (to go)* from the Morellian. It should, however, be written thus: *παρίστασθαι τῇ λέξει τῶν ἁγίων γραφῶν δοκεῖ* (it seems to stand by the wording of the Holy Scriptures); in the other [codex] it was *παρίσταται εἰ διὰ πάντων ἰέναι δοκεῖ* (it stands by if it seems to go through all things). Leunclavius, convinced that one must remain attached to the diction of the Sacred Scriptures, omitted *διὰ πάντων (through all)* or *διὰ παντός (throughout),* i.e., perpetually or in all things.

Col. 758 D. *Filios procreet (May he beget sons).* The interpreter had published: "May the prophet be begotten," but *παιδοποιεῖσθαι* also bears the sense of the middle voice, as Leunclavius also admits: "He begets offspring from a harlot." And the commandment in Osee 1:2 is clear: "And make for yourselves sons of whoredoms." Therefore, one should not agree with those—as Cyril of Alexandria says—who *ἀναπείθουσι παραιτεῖσθαι τὸ γράμμα καὶ τῆς ἱστορίας τὸ εἰκαῖον καταψηφίζεσθαι* (persuade men to reject the letter and to condemn the historicity thereof as trifling). Nor, as Theodoret says, should one agree with those who do not fear to say that these words are destitute of reality, and that although God commanded them, the prophet did not perceive them; nor that this vision was imaginary, as if nothing had been actually performed according to the letter, as Jerome writes; rather, beyond the historical sense, in many places of Scripture, a mystical and allegorical sense is to be sought.

Col. 762 B. *Quo pacto dicit (In what way he says).* Not as it was before, "as the Theologian says," from the corrupt reading of Morell. We have added almost the entire clause—*Πῶς φησιν ὁ θεολόγος*—after those words, from the Olivarian, which Leunclavius also recognizes as genuine. As it is written in Genesis 1:31: "And God saw all that He had made, and they were very good."

Col. 771 A. *De gravi carne (Concerning heavy flesh).* A foul error in this place in Morell, and in the books written by his pen which the interpreter was using, produced an inept translation: *ἀντὶ σαρκὸς Μαρίας γενόμενον* (having become instead of the flesh of Mary) instead of *βαρείας* (heavy); "having become pure intelligence instead of the flesh of Mary." Leunclavius, having obtained a codex that was not in the least corrupt, renders: "for heavy flesh, a pure mind."

Col. 779 A. *Quia ergo (Because therefore).* The interpreter had expressed the contrary sentiment; one must add to the mouth the drink which is drawn from the fountain. Thus also it was corrupt in Morell: *παρεῖναι στόματι τὴν ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς* (to be present to the mouth that which is from the fountain). But the other is more complete and corrected: "Since, therefore, he who wishes to draw a drink from the fountain must needs apply his mouth to the water." Thus spoke that Virgilian shepherd in Eclogue II: "And I have not yet brought my lips to them, but keep them stored away." Shortly after, we restored the elegant phrase which had been omitted: *λέπρας ἐπιπροσθούσης* (with leprosy obscuring). Leunclavius: "with no carnal leprosy casting a darkness."

Ibid. C. *Sensum (The meaning).* He spoke of Proverbs 11:5, although it is slightly changed: *τότε συνήσεις φόβον Κυρίου, καὶ ἐπίγνωσιν Θεοῦ εὑρήσεις* (then you will understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God). In the clause that follows next, "For wine and milk," we restored its own meaning, which Hervetus had edited thus: "For that which is the taste is milk and wine; if those things are of such a kind that they fall under the understanding, which they are entirely, etc."

Col. 783 A. *Ut in vasis (As in vessels).* A corrupt reading had spoiled the fragrance of this sweet comparison of Scripture; for it was read in Morell *ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν ἁγίων* (as upon the saints) instead of *ἀγγείων* (vessels), whence the interpreter [rendered]: "As in the saints whose ointment has been poured out," and *ἀποληφθείσης ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων* (having been taken from the saints) instead of *ἀποληφθείσης ἐκ τῶν ἀγγείων* (having been taken from the vessels) except for the quality. But Leunclavius: "Just as is wont to be done in vessels, and [as] from a certain obscure quality of the odors remaining in the vessel." From these things the reader will be able to understand what this edition offers over the others. For in both interpreters we have supplied many defects.

^B Col. 787 B. *Αὐλαῖα (Curtain).* *Προπύλαια μὲν γὰρ ἐκ κλειτῶν ὑφασμάτων* (For the entrances [were] indeed made of famous-fabrics); this reading seems to have been corrupted in the codex which the interpreter used; "vestibules indeed were made of noble textures." Nor is that which the manuscript of Morell offers much sounder; but with the Olivarian manuscript Leunclavius agrees: *αὐλαῖαι μὲν γὰρ ἐκ λινῶν* (for the curtains indeed [were] of linen). For the external ornament of this tabernacle was of curtains which were common fabrics, and veils of goats' hair, unless perhaps he found *ἐκ λιτῶν* (from plain [things]) instead of *ἐκ λινῶν* (from linen); but it is written in Exodus 26:1: *Καὶ τῇ σκηνῇ ποιήσεις δέκα αὐλαίας ἐκ βύσσου κεκλωσμένης, καὶ ὑακίνθου καὶ πορφύρας* (And for the tabernacle thou shalt make ten curtains of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple). St. Augustine, in the last question on Exodus: *αὐλαίας*, which the Greeks call [by such a name], the Latins term *aulæa*, which they commonly call curtains. Pollux, lib. VII, c. 7: *βύσσος λίνου τι εἶδος παρ' Ἰνδοῖς* (Byssos is a certain species of linen among the Indians), and Pliny, lib. XIX, c. 1, writes that the foremost place in the whole world is given to *asbestos* linen, and that it is next to byssos. He also counts linen among those types of material from which the ornaments of the tabernacle were fashioned, in the book *On the Life of Moses*, col. 32 A: *ἑτέροις δὲ λίνον, καὶ ἄλλοις τρίχες πρὸς τὰς ὑφασμάτων χρείας* (and for others linen, and for others hair for the needs of the textures).

Col. 790 D. *Licet mea (Although my).* These were shorter and mutilated in Hervetus: "Now for me the beauty has been informed, because that which..." to Leunclavius: "Although indeed now beauty shines in me, which is imprinted upon me for this reason, that righteousness has loved me."

Col. 791 C. *Et virgo meretrix (And a virgin harlot).* We have added this to the interpretation, because it was missing also from the manuscript of Morell, as well as from the text of Leunclavius; and "the harlot becomes a virgin, and the Ethiopians [become] bright." Hervetus had written, "and radiant Ethiopians," neither having attained the genuine significance of the word *λαμπρόν*, which even boys know to signify whiteness or brightness conjoined with splendor; therefore the author of the Vulgate rightly, as in James 2:2, *ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρᾷ* (in bright clothing), translates it "in white clothing," not as Theodore Beza, "in splendid clothing"; and in Luke 23:11, where it is said that Christ was clothed in *ἐσθῆτα λαμπρὰν* (a bright garment) by Herod, he writes, "a splendid garment," and yet that inept censor of the ancients contends that Herod, being not ignorant of Roman custom, wished to mark him as a candidate for the empire: but it was not a "splendid" but a "white" garment that was called that which they were clothed in who were seeking a magistracy. Polybius certainly preferred to call a candidate's toga *λαμπράν* rather than *λευκήν*. Plutarch in *Conjugal Precepts*, p. 144: *Οἱ πριόντες ἐλέφασιν ἐσθῆτα λαμπρὰν οὐ λαμβάνουσιν, οὐδὲ φοινικίδας οἱ ταύροις* (Those who approach elephants do not put on a white garment, nor do those who approach bulls a crimson one). Male Xylander [translates it as] "splendid"; for it does not signify color, but brilliance, and a golden garment can be called "splendid," which is not, however, white.

Col. 799 A. *Quæ damnata est (Which has been condemned).* Hervetus, having obtained a corrupt reading, wandered off, and was not brought back onto the path from the vicinity of the cities; the manuscript of Morell has *συγκαταδικασθεῖσα τοῖς Δόμοις* (condemned along with the Sodomites), "Gomorrah which set condemnations in the houses"; but Leunclavius, "Gomorrah, condemned along with the Sodomites." Deuteronomy 32:33, "The poison of dragons [is] their wine, and the venom of asps [is] incurable," in Greek: *θυμὸς δρακόντων* (the anger of dragons); badly here Leunclavius, "the incurable mind of the dragons boiled up in the vile wine-presses of the Sodomites." For he uses a locution taken from Joel 2:24, *Καὶ ὑπερχυθήσονται αἱ ληνοὶ οἴνου* (And the wine-presses shall overflow with wine); then again [in] c. 3:13, *Πλήρης ἡ ληνὸς ὑπερχεῖται τὰ ὑπολήνια* (The wine-press is full, the vats overflow). Thus, therefore, you can interpret here: "The anger of the dragons, with incurable [fury], flooded the wine-presses of the Sodomites."

Ibid. B. *O quantos (O how many).* This clause was absent from the manuscript of Morell and from the interpretation of Hervetus, but it has been claimed and

reduced by Ol. and Leunclavius has expressed it; a little later also, both interpreters seem to have read, *ὡραῖος βότρυς ὁ ἡλιάζων τῷ εἴδει*, Hervetus: "A cluster that bears before it the form of the sun." Leunclavius: "Which by its appearance refers to the sun." But the common lexicons explain *ἡλιάζειν* in the context of the Heliæa, the outdoor assembly of the Athenians at which they judged, or to spread out to the sun, or to be exposed to the sun; *ἡλιάζεσθαι* is to be exposed to the sun; and so *ἡλιωμένος* here is rather to be called a cluster scorched by the sun, or *ἡλιῶν*, whitening like the sun; but the manuscript of Ol. has *ῐδιάζων* [singular]; let the reader judge which is more appropriate.

Col. 803 B. *Cum ergo ea (When therefore that).* M. ms.: *ἐπεὶ οὖν ἐν μόνον ἔχει ἡ νοητὴ καὶ ἄϋλος φύσις, ὡσαύτως ἡ δέ.* Hervetus, having followed a similar book: "When therefore the nature which is perceived by the intellect, and is devoid of matter, has one single thing, just as that which..." Nor is Leunclavius much better: "When therefore only one thing always conducts itself in the same way." But as for *ἔμμονον*, that we should retain what Ol. suggests, it is argued by what follows: *τοῦ ἑστῶτος σχιζόμενος, εἰ τὸ ἑστὸς καταλιπών* (being divided from that which stands, if it abandons that which stands).

Col. 810 C. *Equilatui (To my cavalry).* *Τῇ ἵππῳ μου*. Hervetus: "To my horses." Leunclavius: "To my mare." And Ambrose is not otherwise, lib. 1, *De Isaac*, and in Psalm CXVIII, serm. 8, although he says there that one should not take "a mare" [in the sense] of a rich king, but strictly for cavalry, and in the homily of Origen it is "to my cavalry," which the ambiguity of the Greek word easily allows, as Flaminius Nobilius observes, and it is confirmed in this place by Nyssenus, who recognizes *ἱππικὴν δύναμιν*, equestrian forces, and by the interpreter of the book of 1 Maccabees IV, 1: *Καὶ παρενέβαλε χιλίαν ἵππον ἐκλεκτήν* (And he pitched a thousand choice horsemen).

Col. 819 B. *Stratores (Grooms).* We have added this word, omitted by the interpreter, from both manuscripts, which Leunclavius also acknowledges, who [define them as] those who array the horse for the king by means of front ornaments. The ancient Greco-Latin Onomasticon, *strator*, *ἀναβολεύς*. Spartianus in *Antonino Caracalla*: "Finally, when his groom was lifting him onto the horse, he stabbed his side with a dagger." He who blankets the lord's horse with a saddle and lifts him onto the horse is called a *strator*. In the Glossary, *ἀναβολεύς* is translated as *Metator*, who is namely one who prepares or marks out a house; lib. XII, Cod. Justin. is title 24, *De stratoribus*, and the constitution of the emperors Valentinian and Valens.

Col. 822 C. *Per odorandi (By the sense of smelling).* The addition of this member also relies on the authority of both manuscripts, M. and Ol., and the Leunclavius codex, from which he hits upon what is sought by the sense of smell, as if perceiving the property of some body by the faculty of smelling; as Hervetus seems to have read *χρώματος* [of color], not *χρωτός* [of skin/body], unless perhaps he thought that the word *χρωτός* itself should be taken for color, as Budæus and others have noted it to be taken not only for the body in Aristotle and Xenophon; yet Leunclavius has more appropriately understood "body" here, from which odor, the proper object of the sense of smell, originates. Write, therefore, "as if perceived by the faculty of smelling from the property of some body."

Col. 823 A. *Qualecunque (Whatever kind).* Incorrectly in ms. M.: *ὅτε*, *ὅτε*. Whence the interpreter had published: "That that indeed when it is in essence, that of them, etc." We, with the support also of the other interpreter, have restored the true meaning.

Col. 829 A. *Διὰ τοῦ ἄνθους (Through the blossom).* He had said so before, col. 828 C. *Κυπρίζοντος, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀνθοῦντος* (Flowering, which is blooming). In Suidas we also read *κηριάζουσαι*, *ἀνθοῦσαι*, for which in Hesychius it is more correctly *κυπρίζουσαι*. For thus it is read in Cantic. II, 15: *Αἱ ἄμπελοι ἡμῶν κυπρίζουσαι* (Our vines are in blossom). The German Bible, *vineæ nostræ germinant* (our vines are budding), and the author of the Greek Index explains the Hebrew word *TOD* as [meaning] to germinate. Pagninus also teaches that most Hebrew verbs signify both to flower and to germinate, to arise and to sprout at the same time. The Latin Vulgate from the Hebrew translates there also, "our vine has blossomed." But I marvel that Leunclavius wrote here: "My cluster maturing with its flower." It would have been simpler: "Budding or germinating with its flower." He followed Hervetus, who [wrote]: "Which carried itself upon timbers," showing that he had read it erroneously, as M. has it: *ἐπὶ ξύλων ἀναφέρων*, [but] in Numbers III, 24 it is written: *Καὶ ἦραν αὐτὸν ἐπ' ἀναφορέων* (And they carried it upon staves/poles). Leunclavius, who shows [the word] in wooden supporters.

Col. 834 B. *Sive enim (For whether).* You will not be able to easily guess what the interpreter read, for whether it is colored to the appearance of gold, the same splendor of matter is also in M.: *εἴτε γὰρ πρὸς χρυσοῦ εἶδος χραίνεται κατὰ τάς*; Leunclavius, however: "For whether the mirror looks toward the gold, the gold appears." But a little later, for *τὴν κοινωνίαν τοῦ κάλλους* (the communion of beauty), he seems to have read, as Hervetus also does, as the same ms. M. has it: *τὴν οἰκονομίαν τοῦ κάλλους*, "the dispensation of beauty"; Leunclavius: "You have attracted the communion of beauty."

Col. 839 C. *Nata enim sum (For I am born).* A foul error had crept into this place, and had defiled the purest whiteness of the lilies, and it had been written: "For the lily is born from the valleys." But because the lily excels other flowers in both color and odor, for that reason *κρίνον βασιλικόν* is called by the Greeks "the royal flower" in Dioscorides lib. III, c. 107; Pliny lib. XXI, c. 5: "The lily is closest to the rose in nobility, nor is there any greater loftiness among flowers; its whiteness is distinguished."

Col. 843 A. *Nam lilium (For the lily).* This passage was mutilated in M., as it was in that which Hervetus used, [extending] even from the thorns, so that while it has also the delight of a good odor, *ἀκάνθας τὸ κρίνον μέχρι*. Leunclavius: "For the lily has some delight at least by reason of its appearance and fragrance." But it was not necessary for that "at least" to be added; for the lily surpasses the rest of the forest; but it is surpassed by the apple. In the following page we have added that whole passage, in which the words of David from Psalm CXVIII are cited.

Col. 847 B. *Fulciri quippe (For to be supported).* We have added this member from both Greek codices, which Leunclavius even now confirms as an addition, just as [he does] the other toward the end of this column D, as *domus tectum* (the roof of the house); but a little later, that [phrase] *τὸ συνεχὲς ἐφ' ὑπτίου τινός* when he interprets, "and placed tightly in a high place, it exhibits a certain variety to the sight," indicates that he perhaps read *ἐφ' ὑψηλοῦ τινος*, and *κατ' ὄψιν*, with Ol., not *κατὰ τὴν πέψιν* with M., from which Hervetus [translated]: "In some supine and smooth place, it is varied by cooking, joined to itself."

Col. 855 A. *Rejicit Eccles. (The Church rejects).* The interpreter had published: "It describes the opinion." He read, to be sure, as M. prefers: *καταγράφεται*; more correctly Ol. *παραγράφεται*, with which Leunclavius agrees: "He removes our opinion by a certain quasi-exception."

Col. 862 B. *Ejus qui omnia (Of Him who [sees] all things).* M.: *τούτου πᾶν ἐπιβλέψειε*; to which is similar the reading of the manuscript from which Hervetus [worked]: "Anyone may see this." But with the other ms. Ol., Leunclavius notes: "The acuteness of the sight of the roe in Him, who looks upon this universe." He perhaps alludes to that place in Ecclesiasticus XLII, 16: *Ἥλιος φωτίζων κατὰ πᾶν* (The sun shining upon all things). "And the sun illuminating looked upon all things." Attributing to God what Solomon [attributed] to the Sun, or surely expressing the sense of that saying of Job, who speaks of God, c. XXVII, 24: *Αὐτὸς γὰρ τὴν ὑπ᾽ οὐρανὸν πᾶσαν ἐφορᾷ* (For He Himself oversees all under heaven). The Vulgate [reads]: "And all things that are under heaven he beholds." Pliny, lib. XXVIII, c. 11, also confirms the etymology of *τῆς δορκάδος* (the gazelle), who denies that roes and gazelles are blear-eyed because they eat certain herbs. Etymologus: *δορκάς, παρὰ τὸ δέρκω, τὸ βλέπω, ὀξυδερκὲς γὰρ καὶ ζῶον εὐόμματον* (gazelle, from *derko*, to see, for it is a sharp-sighted and keen-eyed animal).

Col. 863 A. *Plantam (The sole).* M.: *ἐπιβάλλει τὸν χριστόν*. Hervetus, using a book equally faulty, "Christ puts on equally," but the other interpreter reads *ἴχνος* (footprint). He therefore also subjects all things to His footprints. But *ἴχνος*, as in profane authors, signifies not only that mark which the foot of one walking imprints on the ground, but also the bottom part of the foot itself; so in Scripture it is taken for the sole of the foot or the foot itself, and the same word

^A *calcaneus* (heel) and *planta* (sole) is used for "footprint." Whence Deuteronomy xi, 24: "Every place where the footprint (*ichnos*) of your foot shall tread." Vulgate: "Every place that your foot shall tread upon." Ezekiel xxxii, 15: "And the footprint (*ichnos*) of the beast shall not tread it." And "the footprint of the beast shall not tread it."

Ibid. D. *But it stands through.* We have added this clause from the *Codex Olomucensis* and Leunclavius, who, however, nodded off here and could not avoid the stumbling block of the manuscript's error which Hervetus leaped over. For in the manuscript it was read: *the Creator of the air depicts the grace of the air*, which he himself translated, *the author of the air depicts the grace of the air*, yet the text of David, which follows, prompted that it should be corrected to *of the spring*.

Col. 867 C. *Let there be an aspect.* *Opsis* signifies both "aspect" and "face": but here it is more appropriate to write with Leunclavius. For by what means can a beautiful face be seen in a mirror? A little further on, we have filled in the gap of the manuscript and the interpretation of Hervetus by adding these words: *since he arose and showed the good,* where, however, it should be corrected to *and the good*, as he had previously said, *and is becoming near*, and a short while later *by the light*—Leunclavius: *and he turns his face to the good, with vices placed behind.* Clemens Alexandrinus spoke thus in *Stromata* VII, p. 307: "That those standing with face turned to the images might be taught to turn toward the East," that is, *that those who stood with face turned to the images might be taught to turn toward the East*.

Col. 886 A. *As a trunk.* This is the reading of the standard Bibles, from which the text of the Canticles was copied, because the letters were fading in the book, and it was copied with a reed pen in the *Codex Olomucensis*; in other editions, such as the Vatican, it is: *as trunks of smoke being perfumed with myrrh and frankincense*, that is, *as trunks of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and incense*; but the true reading of Nyssen is later shown in the fragment omitted by the translator, and added by us in col. 895 B: *Perfumed myrrh and frankincense*. Hervetus had written in that place: *like a shrub of smoke from the suffumigations of myrrh and of frankincense and of all aromatic dust*; having followed the Latin Vulgate almost word for word; Leunclavius in both places: *Like stocks of smoke perfumed with aromatics, both with myrrh and frankincense and thus with aromatic dust.* Theodoret confesses that the composition is obscure in the Septuagint, because they may have served the Hebrew tongue less: therefore Aquila translated it with Symmachus: *as a likeness of smoke from a fumigation.* Smoke also mimics a small branch, often expressed as if in the air from a fumigation. Others translate from Symmachus: *as an evaporation of incense.*

Col. 887 D. *At the bed of life.* Hervetus had published: *shadowed by the material life in the human body*; but later we discovered that Leunclavius had translated from a book and Greek text similar to ours, and he wonders by what pact *covered by a shadow he descended to the couch of this nether life, the nature of the human body consisting of dense matter being as it were covered by a certain shadow*, instead of *eiskios* (in-shadowed) in the manuscript, *suskios* (shadowy) is more correct.

Col. 890 C. *Under the covering.* We preferred this to the translator's *upon the rock*; Leunclavius: *under the roof of the rock, near the front wall*: neither observed that the words of Scripture were used from chapter ii, v. 14 of the Canticles. See col. 858 C.

Ibid. *He deems it worthy.* The translator added this much, regarding the one who speaks. It is again; but Leunclavius recognizes the same sentiment subjoined by us in these words: *He desires to look clearly upon the face of the speaker himself, and to receive his discourse not through another speaking*; however, that *axioi* (he asks/demands) is more fitting than *desires*, or *deems worthy*. These agree with the words of the Apostle to the Hebrews 1.

Col. 891 B. *He who [has] the things on high.* We have changed the words of Hervetus: *let him be promoted to high mountains*, or *let him conduct himself thus toward those who have their mind on high*; it seems he had read *the high mountains*, not *reaching*. The manuscript had *of the high things*. And further down, *with exactness*. But Leunclavius supports our reading, who asks for those sublime things, so that he may not progress further; but he finishes the period erroneously here, and begins another from the following [words], although the sense is still suspended. A little later, we have inserted the verse of David from Psalm xvii, 12, omitted by the translator, where it is to be observed in other books that *round about him* is joined with the second part of the verse, *round about him is his tabernacle*, just as also in the Latin Vulgate.

Col. 894 B. *That solely toward it.* These were added by us, up to the words *of which every sign*, and that they were necessary, and were not supposititious, is indicated by the other translator, while he renders the Greek thus: *Nevertheless he recognizes that which he was seeking, to be this very thing, which is detected to exist from the sole fact that what it is cannot be perceived.* In the manuscript it was *to the in only*, correct to *the in only to*. Thus Chrysostom, *Homily 1, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God*, p. 352: "That He is without beginning and unbegotten and eternal I know, but the 'how', I do not know. For the mind does not admit how it is possible for a substance to be, having its existence neither from itself nor from another." *I am not ignorant that God is not initiated, not begotten, eternal, but in what manner this is so, I cannot understand.* And *Homily 5*, p. 387: "We are required to know only this much, that He is God, not to play the busybody about His substance." *It is required of us that we know that God is, not that we investigate what God is*, and our author in *Homily 7, On Ecclesiastes*, col. 732 A: *Desiring to know only this much about the Transcendent, that it is something other than the nature of known things.* See also *Homily 1*, on these words: "Let us make man."

Col. 895 A. *But let us proceed.* Here too a new addition of three or four periods was made, which were missing in the interpretation of Hervetus, and we discovered they were not omitted in the manuscript of Basel, p. 569. Therefore, let the discourse proceed to the next things following ours, if by any chance; and it confirms our emendation, by which we indicated that it should be read here *from glory to glory* from the Apostle, II Cor. iii, 18: *we are transformed from glory to glory, even as from the Spirit of the Lord.* Leunclavius wrote: *who are transformed from glory to glory through the desire for higher things.* A little later, for *errizontai* (are rooted), the manuscript has *enrizontai*, which should be corrected to *enrizontai*.

Col. 898 D. *Whoever receives which.* The translator edited the following thus: *he converses with him together full of the smoke of the divided spirit*. He may have read *with him together with the perfumed one*, instead of *in the breath of the perfumed one*; the manuscript is likewise corruptly *in the song of sleep is found the divided one*. But Leunclavius: *whom if anyone draws in through respiration, he gains a certain fragrance, being filled with every sweet odor from that abundant spirit.*

Col. 902 C. *But one to all.* These were missing from the translator up to *equal in number*, and from the manuscript, but not from Leunclavius. *Out of all these one extraordinary one was made, which alone germinated among the rest.* Again, that Jesus, son of Nave, takes so many stones from the Jordan: the history is referred to in Numbers xvii, 5, and Joshua iv, 1, and Hebrews ix, 4.

Col. 906 B. *For not.* This clause was added to the interpretation, which Leunclavius seems to admit: *For neither can these fall into that age*, in the manuscript it was likewise more briefly *for the passion does not hold the infancy*. *For infancy is not capable of perturbation.*

Col. 907 A. *For who.* The translator: *Who is this peaceable one?* He [is] the one who kills, as if he had read *the peaceable one*; but it agrees with the *Codex Olomucensis* and the manuscript. Leunclavius: *For who is so peaceable as He who destroyed all hostility?* Ephesians ii, 16: *killing the enmity in himself.* A little later we have added from

manuscript Ol.: *the stones of the sanctuary are rolled into his land.* Another interpreter said: *living stones, which of their own accord, as some wise man says, are rolled together for the harmony of the walls.* In manuscript M, it was read more correctly: *being rolled.*

Ibid. C. *Israel be the Lord.* In manuscript M, it was read exactly as in the codex used by the interpreter: *the Lord, and from his kingdom, because He himself is King.* Let Israel be the Lord from his kingdom also, because He himself is King. We accept the testimony of the Jews, but what we have inserted from manuscript Ol. is clearly genuine, as Leunclavius acknowledges. That the Lord is the Israelite King, his enemies themselves testified, who signed their confession at the cross, by which they attribute a kingdom to him.

Col. 941 C. *Truly wooden.* Hervetus had written otherwise, as he had perhaps obtained a manuscript corrupted by a lacuna and faulty punctuation, which also appeared in the Morellian edition: *perhaps by these we are wooden and earthen vessels, and those whom he made reprobate in disobedience, and he made sin earthen through wood, he made us wooden vessels for earthen ones.* But *for dignity’s sake*, he reads *rejected* [ἀπεδοκίμασε] for *turned into earth* [ἀπεγαίωσε]. Truly, in the Basilian edition, the Greek which we have published was rendered in Latin thus: *Truly some are wooden and earthen, perhaps denoting us by these, whom disobedience has also made earthen, like plaster, and just as the sin committed in the wood made us wooden vessels instead of golden ones.* But *ἀπογαιοῦν* does not mean to plaster, but to turn into earth or to render earthly, as even Artemidorus notes, as Budaeus points out; and Zosimus in Book V of his History said thus: *the Cimmerian Bosphorus turned into earth* [Κιμμέριον Βόσπορον ἀπογαιωθέντα], which Leunclavius similarly translates: *the Cimmerian Bosphorus reduced to the form of earth.*

Ibid. D. *Who might be hidden.* In manuscript M: *turning the substance of such cedars*, and from a similar Greek text Hervetus: *Lebanon, converting the material of such cedars, shall be brought to nothing*; but we stand by Leunclavius and read *turning back* [ὑποτρέφων] and *of trees* [δένδρων]. Lebanon, which provides nourishment for the substance of such trees.

Col. 922 C. *Nor if through some.* Manuscript Ol. alone suggested this clause; for it is not recognized by the other interpreter: *nor if she is adorned, does she perceive anything of those things which are happening.* Julius Pollux, Book VII, chap. 34: *of the art of adornment, to dress and comb the hair*; whence also Clement, Book III, chap. 2 of the *Paedagogus*: *and all day they spend time in adornment, staying inside,* they are occupied all day with the art of decoration, shut up in a room. Furthermore, he says again in Homily 15 that hair lacks sensation.

Col. 926 D. *The work of the Church.* We have presented the reading of manuscript Ol., which seemed more complete; in the other manuscript it was thus: *we have understood the need for teeth in the Church, fulfilling in the chewing.* Now, from a comparison of both, a truer reading can coalesce if it is written thus: *as the Church, needing teeth, fulfills its task in the chewing.* We observe that the one who would be in the place of teeth for the Church, while grinding, brings clarity to doctrines. See below concerning teeth in Homily 15.

Col. 930 B. *Who cheeks.* In manuscript Ol.: *were adorned with cheeks*; but the printer snatched a variant reading from the margin of manuscript M, which Hervetus also had expressed: *by the redness that aptly glows in the cheeks*; but Leunclavius praises very conveniently, by the redness in the cheeks, significant modesty.

Col. 934 D. *That tower.* Changed punctuation changes the sense: if, therefore, a comma is placed after the word *surrounded* [περιεστοιχεισμένης] as in manuscript M, the sense we have expressed emerges; if it is placed after the word *tower* [πύργον], as in manuscript Ol., you will interpret it more correctly with Leunclavius. And I indeed think that the guardianship of angels is signified for us by this multitude of shields, which encircles such a tower on all sides. Hervetus seems to have read *surrounded* [περιστοιχεισμένον] incorrectly. I think that tower signifies angelic protection, surrounded in a circle by a multitude of shields.

Col. 935 A. *Thousands abound.* In both manuscripts *abounding* [εὐθηνούντων] is read, but in the common Bibles *rejoicing* [εὐθυμούντων]. Jerome from the Hebrew [reads] *abounding*; from the opinion of others, the Hebrew word would properly demand *desiring* [ἐπιθυμούντων]. This variant reading of Psalm LXVII, 18, which the author of the Index of the Greek Old Testament also brings forward from certain books, is not noted by Flaminius Nobilius. The other place of David is Psalm CXVII, 72, which the interpreter had omitted. Leunclavius perhaps found written *rejoicing* [εὐθυμούντων], thousands of *those rejoicing*.

Ibid. B. *To whom the neck.* Erroneously in manuscript M: *does not grow upon the practical things* [οὓς ἐπιπέφυκε τὰς πρακτικάς], which faulty reading and punctuation led Leunclavius into error when he translated: *We understand the shoulders, upon which the studies of working effectively rest, and by which the arms perform our salvation.* Hervetus more aptly repeated the word *neck*, which Gregory says is attached to the shoulders, as Basil his brother [says] in Homily I *in Hexaem.*: *the neck of bears is very short and set upon the shoulder.* *Short, and the neck is dressed for the shoulders; the head is connected to the back by a few vertebrae.* The head is united to the backbone by very few neck vertebrae. Origen also, in Homily 4 on Numbers, teaches that those priests who carry open and veiled burdens on their shoulders signify that the sacred mysteries are to be known by the act of works rather than by the revelation of knowledge, and so works are indicated by the shoulders. Furthermore, in the three periods that follow, we have restored the true sense of the author which was unknown to the interpreter, whose words we omit here by design.

Ibid. D. *To those who know.* A faulty reading had produced a very alien version. Hervetus reads, as it is in manuscript M: *To those who arise God comes, and where do you go?* He brings forth: *God comes to those who rise, and whither do you recede?* But in manuscript Ol.: *to those who know, whence he comes*; and this passage is to be corrected thus: John iii, 8, it is written: *but you do not know from where he comes and where he goes.* But you do not know whence he comes, and whither he goes. Nyssen applies to the Holy Spirit what is said in the Gospel about the wind.

Col. 938 D. *Testifying of such a kind.* The ambiguity of the word was the cause for the interpreter to deviate from the mind of the author, writing: *testifying that for him there is the proof of the church.* By *such a member* [τοιοῦτον μέλος] he understands such a member of the body to which the ecclesiastical doctor is compared, namely, the breast. Mention is made a little later of *the members of the Church*; furthermore, from manuscript M it must be amended: *supplying* [ὑποτρέφουσα, likely emended from ὐποτρέφω], which of itself nurtures the breasts? And in the same it was read: *that the pure is well-guided towards that which...*; and perhaps *the test* [τὸ δοκίμιον] might be more conveniently written in this sense, that there is in a member of the Church the skill of examining, so that it retains purity with prosperous success, while it is grazed among pure lilies, discerning acutely; or certainly *the test* [τὸ δοκίμιον] will have the same meaning as *testing* [δοκιμασία], which word he uses in the *Epistle to Letoius*, can. 4: *So that by his own testing he may distinguish the condition of the one being healed*, so that by his own proof he may judge concerning the state of the one to whom medicine is applied.

Col. 942 B. *You, however.* Here an addition of two periods has been made, which the Basilian edition also approves, and what follows, *even if always the one of pure heart*, Hervetus had poorly expressed: *even if he is of pure heart, who can behold.* He touches upon two places of Scripture: I Cor. ii, 9; and Matt. v, 8.

Col. 946 A. *Had cast off.* It must be added, *like a nature devoid of reason, he became brutish, through evil studies.* For the Greek words of Gregory demand this, just as [those] which we added [at] col. 946 A, because *he is overcome by the belluine nature*, both of which additions Leunclavius approves, although he expresses the latter less aptly, after the nature of this beast of the world was posited. For he did not say *having overcome the nature* [κατακρατησάσης τῆς φύσεως], but *having overcome the beast* [κατακρατήσαντος τοῦ θηρίου].

θηρίου].

NOTES OF VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Col. 947 A. ^A Cor indidisti. The interpreter had rendered here and elsewhere "you have heart-ified us," in place of which unusual word St. Ambrose seems to have said in *Ps.* CXVIII, serm. 1, "You have taken us by the heart from one of your eyes," and in serm. 16, "You have taken my heart": but in the German Bibles it is not written ἐκαρδίωσας, but ἐκχαρδίωσας. You have stupefied us, when yet the rules of grammar would demand ἐξεκαρδίωσας, if ἐκκαρδιοῦν means to stupefy. In the Vatican and Plantin edition of the Scriptures, as here in Gregory, it is read ἐκαρδίωσας, which Leunclavius correctly translates "you have heart-ified" (cor indidisti), just as ἐψύχωσας means "you have enlivened," not "you have taken away the soul," so neither does ἐκαρδίωσας mean "you have taken away the heart." The Vulgate, however, from the Hebrew, has: "You have wounded my heart." V. Editio [has] ἐθάρσυνας, you have made [us] confident; Symmachus in Theodoret, you have excited, and explains the same, ἐκαρδίωσας, you have afflicted my heart with stupor, and three other Fathers, you have inflamed [us] with desire for you.

Col. 949 C. ^B Ἀργεῖ δὲ πάντως. The interpreter in the ms. read as it is in M, *ἀργεῖ δὲ*, but another gives it an imperative meaning. But MS Ol. reads *ἀργεῖ*, which Leunclavius supports, with the other entirely quiet. Toward the end of the homily, col. 952 C, we restored the true sense to that place, καὶ ἡ θέσις τοῦ τραχήλου, which Hervetus had rendered thus: *If the torques of your neck have the divine yoke, when you have taken up in yourself the perfection.* But Leunclavius: *And the condition of your neck has attained perfection, when it has received the divine yoke into itself.*

Col. 955 A. ^C Nisi ipsa primum. The interpreter [says] "unless she herself first were the sister of the Lord," but he said *ἑαυτὴν ἐποίησε*, which Leunclavius [renders]: "unless she had first made herself the sister of the Lord through good works," which can have no small weight in a discussion concerning the merits of works.

Col. 958 A. ^D Cultus exhibebatur. The printer adopted the reading of ms. M, which the interpreter had also found in his, [namely] all things that had an affinity with fire. But MS Ol. does not read *ἁγιαστεία*, but *ἁγιστεία*, and Leunclavius [notes] all other things whatsoever that were offered by fire. For *ἁγιστεία* is the cult of the gods in Suidas, in whom *ἁγιστεία* is written, and in the etymologist *ἁγιστεία*, just as here also in Gregory.

Ibid. D. Quae ei accedit. We have moved this member in the passage, lest it be able to be referred to praise, and not to the abundance of gifts, as the Greek sounds. Concerning the verb *προσφέρεσθαι* see what we shall annotate below in col. 1083, but we have also changed what the interpreter had written here; you understand from the disciplines, what the doctrine is: for the ms. M expresses the reading *νοεῖς δὲ πάντως ἐκ τῶν μαθημάτων τὴν διδασκαλίαν ἥτις ἐστί*. But Leunclavius reads *μαθημάτων*, and *διδάσκαλον*, and without doubt you perceive from the doctrine itself, what that mistress is. A little later the ms. Ol. exhibits *ὑπινάμενον*, "flying over the meadow," and Leunclavius "who flying into the meadow," not as ms. M *ἐφιστάμενον* and Hervetus, but "standing in the meadow," having been inspired by God.

Col. 966 C. Primum obvio. We have preferred this to [the reading] with Hervetus, *τῆς προχείρου λέξεως*, which we now have in our hands: for the Greek Fathers call *πρόχειρον* that which is easy to find, prompt, and obvious to all, which others [call] the literal or historical [sense], which surely depends upon the very first native meaning of the words. Leunclavius: *If anyone at least looks at the words themselves, bare and obvious to all.*

Col. 970 B. Et nutriat. *Ὑποτρέφουσα*, not *ὑποστρέφουσα*, as the interpreter had held before, "that it may contain and avert," yet each of our mss. defends the former reading, and Leuncl. [translates] "that it may contain and feed with bitter tasting." Toward the end of this page, for "in the first fruits and acorns" we have written what [is meant by] Damascene plums or acorns, Leunclavius [writes] "situated in the perception of brabyla (plums), or nuts, or similar fruits," but *βράβυλα* in Suidas [means] *τὰ καλούμενα Δαμασκηνά*. Clearchus in Athenaeus, Book 3, as he says, *Ροδίους καὶ Σικελιώτας βράβυλα καλεῖν τὰ κοκκύμηλα*, that the Rhodians and Sicilians call plums *brabyla*, but that the fruit is smaller in size than the common plum.

Col. 971 C. Sunt enim unum. The interpreter: "either the one or the other, whether of perfect virtue or of the acquisition of divinity." But these were mutilated and obscure. A little later for "Fistula" we have written "calamus" and "cinnamomum." For although *κάλαμος* may also signify the reed from which the pastoral pipe is made, which is also called *canna* because it is made from cane, yet by Latin authors it is called not *fistula*, but *calamus odoratus*, as by Pliny lib. XII, c. 22; some [call it] *caiamus aromaticus*, others *caiamus είοσμον*, or also *juncus odoratus*.

Ibid. D. Cinnamomum. Erroneously ms. M [reads] *ἐπαγάλλεσθαι* for *ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι*, which error had attached itself also to the book of the interpreter, but that the varied and manifold operation of cinnamon exults. Leuncl. supports the other ms. Ol. [in reading] "to promise manifold and varied efficacy." Furthermore, as our Delrius correctly admonishes, what is today called *canela* in the vernacular tongue is rather the *casia* of the ancients, even if some confuse these two.

Col. 974 D. De Amalthea. A faulty reading has deformed the fabulous narration; for *κρήτη* in ms. M it was *κριτοῦ*, as in the ms. book of Hervetus perhaps it was *κριτοῦ*: for which cause he had translated what he had fashioned about Amalthea as a fabulous Greek narration, which they fable to have been the nurse of that ram. It is, however, certain that the Cretan Jove is designated, as is evident from Leunclavius's book, than that they fable her to have been the nurse of that Cretan [ram], and Lactantius lib. I, c. 21, [says] "The sacred goat of that Cretan Jove is the Nymph Amalthea, who nourished the infant with her udders," of whom Germanicus Caesar in the Aratean poem: ... Si bene Jupiter infans: Ubera Cretaea mulsit fidissima caprae, Sidere qua claro gratum testatur alumnum. The same relates from Mnaseas, Hyginus lib. II, c. De Heniocho, but from Parmeniscus, that it was not a Nymph but a goat that had that name, when he adds that Jove was brought to the daughters of Melisseus, King of Crete, who, because they had no milk, admitted to him a goat named Amalthea. Diodorus Siculus writes lib. V that the Nymphs fed Jove, having been entrusted to them, with honey, *καὶ τῆς αἰγὸς τῆς ὀνομαζομένης Ἀμαλθαίας τὸν μαστὸν εἰς διατροφὴν παρείχοντο.* And they held out to him the udders of the goat Amalthea, as it is called, for more complete nourishment. A similar error had settled later in that place *ἃ οὖν ἐπίστευσε*, in whose place in ms. M was *ἃ οὖν ἐπίστασαι τοῖς περὶ τῆς*, and Hervetus as if it were *ἐφίστασαι*. Does the holy Scripture therefore stand in what is narrated?

Col. 978 D. Sicut fons. Previously erroneously, "as the Apostle says, I went out from God and I am coming," which fault the ms. M also suffers, *καθὼς φησίν ὁ Ἀπόστολος*. It is certain, however, that these are the Lord's words, *John* VIII, 42: "I proceeded and came from God," to which a similar one [exists] in *John* XVI, 27: "I came out from God," in both places is *ἐξῆλθον*.

Col. 983 A. In Proverbio. That is, in the book of Proverbs, which place Leunclavius did not consult when he translates, "he is called second in name only, when in truth he is second to none and prosperous," *Prov.* XXVII, 16. It is written thus: *Βορέας σκληρὸς ἄνεμος, ὀνόματι δὲ ἐπιδέξιος καλεῖται.* "Boreas is a harsh wind, but in name he is called dexter (right/favorable)." Therefore here the punctuation is to be corrected. A little later for those words, "so that it may obtain dominion against the perturbations of the soul and vices," we have substituted "those things which to ... will obtain dominion." We have added to the Greek text the word *κράτος* from M, which was missing in Ol., but in both it was written erroneously *ἀναδύσασθαι* for *ἀναδήσασθαι*. A similar expression [is found in] Gregory Nazianzen, orat. 20 *Εἰς Βασίλειον* p. 319, concerning the actions of Maximus, *θράσει τε πολλῷ ῥέων καὶ φιλονεικῶν τὸ τῆς ἀσεβείας κράτος ἀναδήσασθαι*. "Fuming with great audacity, and striving with maximum effort to obtain the principate of impiety." Leuncl. here translates, "which usurps for itself dominion against the vices of the soul."

^A Col. 987 A. *As to follow him.* This member, omitted by the interpreter, Leunclavius acknowledges as genuine, so that the inferior ones might follow him: but he does not notice that, a little later, the words "by the preparation of the heart" were borrowed by Gregory from David, Ps. IX, 41, *Thou hast heard the preparation of their heart with thy ear*; for he translates, *and with a ready heart he gratifies him.* Finally, Hervetus, who writes, *with a ready and prepared heart he anticipates him.* And yet this preparation of the heart is of the bride, who is anticipated, not of the bridegroom's heart. Whence Theodoret in Ps. IX: *And whereas Symmachus said "preparation," he meant "purpose." He knows, he says, accurately, what the poor desire, and what purpose they have.* Symmachus spoke of the preparation as a purpose. *You know,* he says, *diligently, of what thing the poor are desirous, and what purpose they have.*

^B Col. 987 D. *In the present.* In the manuscripts of M. there is an error, which had infected Hervetus's book, *that which is present is the foundation, but of itself the honey.* For in that which is present, there is the foundation, but from itself it makes honey, when there is fruit in its own honeycomb. Leunclavius departs somewhat from the author's meaning, although he obtained a reading of ours that is genuine, *the lettuce is bitter, but food for itself*; naturally, lettuce is used for fleeting things, but that honey might be used in the place of seasoning for bread, after it is in its own time, etc.; and yet the author wants this bread to be made honey for seasoning for himself, or to make honey seasoning for himself, or to apply honey in the place of seasoning just as a crater is later made for one who is thirsty. Perhaps these things might more conveniently be referred to the preceding period, so that the word *becomes* might be joined with the word *plants*, in this sense: namely, that the plants of these gardens produce fruits, and the plants become myrrh, become bread, become a crater; although this is understood more aptly of the fruits of plants. That which is *for the present* sounds the same as that which is from the present state of affairs, that is, while we are engaged in this life, lettuce becomes bitter: for the Lord wishes his own in this age to be tempted and afflicted.

^C Col. 990 D. *To the prayer.* The interpreter had published, *thou dispensest well the interpretation of ineffable prayers.* And a little later he had written, *what Agrippa was saying*, but we have restored the name of Festus; and it is certain that Leunclavius read no differently in his own book from the interpretation. Thus, therefore, Acts XXVI, 25, it is written: *I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but I speak words of truth and soberness*: but King Agrippa was nevertheless present and hearing these things with Festus.

^D Col. 994 C. *Because that.* We have wondered that this member, supplied by both manuscripts, was omitted by Hervetus, though not by Leunclavius, who spoke more richly. For usually that which is more excellent and better is, as it were, obscured by a certain mist by him, because it is worse. To which sentiment that of Philo is akin, in the book which he composed on this topic, *on the fact that the worse is wont to lie in wait for the better.*

Col. 1002 A. *There was once.* The interpreter: namely, that the bride was indeed black, and the beginning of the following period is likewise restored, which he had thus perverted. *Then when they who fought in it were overcome.* And yet she says that she herself was black, that she had not guarded the vineyard, and therefore had been overcome, not that she had conquered, as he had spoken before col. 797 B, *I did not guard the vineyard of the enemies.* So also Leunclavius: *at which time she was conquered by them who were fighting in her, she did not guard her own vineyard.* Toward the end of the page, for *blackness of ignorance*, we have written *agnoias*, not with Hervetus, *madness*, as if he had read *anoias*, in which manner it was written erroneously in MS M: but Leunclavius’s book supports the other MS Ol., *that which had already preceded by the blackness of ignorances having been washed away by water*, because *she was ignorant of herself.*

Col. 1005 C. *From this drop.* Hervetus: *the river itself, which is made through this drop.* He did not join those words *through the drop* with the verb *to consider*, but as if it were *him who was born through the drop*, but Leunclavius: *what one should consider to be the river of God itself can be gathered by reasoning from this very drop.*

Col. 1006 D. *Neither could it easily.* We have added here many things passed over by the interpreter from the recited Gospel. Matth. IX, 16, and Mark II, 21, up to the end of this period, the interpreter had only written: *the tear becomes worse, so that from it the deformity is open. Therefore he says.* Leunclavius, however, adds the same things, and thus translates the passage of Mark: *the supplement itself takes away the new from the old, and a worse tear is made.* But that *it takes away* is ambiguous: for it can be joined with the word *supplement* in the accusative case, as if man himself might take away the supplement of a garment, or that *the supplement* might be in the nominative, as if the supplement or fullness might take away, or might remove something from a worn-out garment, which had been added to fill and mend it. In the following period, the passage from Proverbs XXIII, 21, is cited: *For every drunkard and whoremonger shall be poor, and every sleeper shall be clothed with torn and ragged garments.* For *every drunkard and whoremonger shall beg, and every sleeper shall be clothed with torn and ragged things.* In the German Bibles, *whoremonger* is translated as *pimp*; but with Hesychius it is not only he who is the *companion-feeder*, or *pimp*, but also *the fornicator*, which word sounds everywhere in the New Testament *scortatorem* and *fornicator*, not *victualler*, as Leunclavius translates in this very place. Thus Ecclesiasticus XXIII, 22: *To a fornicating man all bread is sweet.* Vulgate Lat: *To the fornicating man all bread is sweet.*

Col. 1007 C. *That clay.* He did not say *the garment cast off*, as Hervetus and Leunclavius seem to have read, that she would take back that garment cast off, but *clay cast off*, as before, he had made mention of *clay, of mire*, and of *the clay of pleasure*.

Col. 1010 D. *That it is understood.* We have expunged the inept reading, by which those two periods had been coupled into one, *which is understood through works which perhaps may be in the future age*: as if God were not also understood to be from works in this age: but in the two following periods we have restored the changed meaning, which Leunclavius also exhibits, with this one word *figuratively* omitted.

Col. 1011 C. *What man is.* So indeed it is read in M., but the truer reading of Ol. is *what heaven is by its own substance*, from which Leunclavius, *what heaven in its own nature exists, or the sun, or what other thing from the number of wonderful things.* The variety seems to have been born from the similarity of abbreviated writing *ho ouanos* and *ho anos* among the antiquaries; and in the following period, which had been wrongly torn away from this, Hervetus reads *is not alarmed*, but *is contemplated*. For that reason the heart considers the divine operation, I say, it considers: nor was it written any less viciously in M., *it provides for the divine*, but the Ol. manuscript astipulates to Leunclavius. Deservedly the heart is dismayed at the consideration of divine affections, but we have departed from his interpretation a little later, where he had translated: *The pure and immaterial beauty of the bridegroom.* Purity and beauty of the bridegroom void of gross things: he used the verb *to be alarmed*: the Lord Matth. XXIV, 6, *See that ye be not alarmed.* See, lest ye be troubled, and the Apostle II Thessal. II, *Neither be alarmed by spirit.* Neither be terrified by spirit.

Col. 1016 B. *Toward the wealth.* The interpreter seems to have read *toward the wealth*, *is intent upon the navigation of the narration.* And this perhaps would be a more apt reading. It is wonderful, however, that when the *word* is called *gubernator* (helmsman), the interpreter substituted *proreta* (lookout) in the place of the helmsman, who is in charge of the prow, not the stern, which contains the rudder. We have also added the interpretation, omitted by the same, of those words *and may fill the sail*.

Col. 1015 D. *To be full.* We have preferred this, rather than with Leunclavius, *my fingers are intact as nothing but myrrh*: for *the fullness of the fingers* is that which the fingers contain, which completes them, as *becomes the fullness of the city* among Aristotle's Politics IV, which complete the state. So Psalm XXIII,

1403 ^A *The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof*, where Didymus in the *Catena* understands "all the nations that fill this (earth)," for they are all, which fill the earth; whence it is said here a little later, "my fingers are filled with this ointment."

^B Col. 1019 B. *Full of myrrh*. It should be emended, "my fingers are full of myrrh," and in the Greek *σμύρναν πλήρη*. For it is a mistake of the antiquarian, or of the one who transcribed the copy to be delivered to the press, and was deceived by the darker duct of the letters. Yet the Hebrew text tends toward this meaning, from which the author of the Vulgate drew, "and my fingers are of the purest myrrh." For the same Hebrew word *som-nosis* is translated in IV Kings xii, 4, *argyrion syntmeseos*, "silver of estimation," and xxiii, 16, *argyrion dokimon*, "silver that is approved."

^B Col. 1022 B. *Fruit*. He changed Paul's words, but not the meaning, at Romans vi, 23: * τὰ γὰρ ὀψώνια τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος*; "For the wages of sin is death." For Gregory Nazianzen expounds *opsōnia* (wages) in *Orat.* 9, *ad Julianum*, p. 155: *τὸ βασιλικὸν σιτηρέσιον καὶ τὰς ὑπαρχούσας ἐκ νόμων τοῖς ἀξιώμασι δωρεάς*; "Royal provision, and the gifts existing by law for those who hold dignities." And it had preceded in Paul at the same place, *ἔχετε τὸν καρπὸν ὑμῶν ὡς ἁγιασμόν*, "you have your fruit unto sanctification."

^D *Ibid.* *Between two*. The interpreter seems to have read *tōn dyo zōn*, instead of *tōn dyo zōōn*, while he translates it, "who is known to live between two," so that, having destroyed the former, he might attribute the victory to the latter. He did not see, clearly, that there is an allusion to that passage of the prophet Habakkuk iii, 2: *Ἐν μέσῳ δύο ζωῶν γνωσθήσῃ*; "In the midst of two lives you shall be known." And Eusebius teaches that it should be read so in *Evangel. Demonstr.* lib. v, cap. 15: "For there being one life according to God, and another according to man, and the one being mortal, but the other eternal, the Lord is with reason said to be known 'in the midst of two lives' after having experienced both, according to the interpretation of the Seventy." For when one life is according to God and the other according to man, and the former is mortal, but the latter everlasting, the Lord is rightly said to be known in the midst of two lives, having experienced both, and having come in that manner, according to the interpretation which the Septuagint gave. And Theodoret in *Habakkuk* iii: *Ἐμοὶ δὲ δοκεῖ μὴ ζῶα, ἀλλὰ ζωὰς εἰρηκέναι τὸν Προφήτην, τήν τε παροῦσαν καὶ τὴν μέλλουσαν, ὧν μέσος ὁ δίκαιος κριτής ἀναφαίνεται*; "But it seems to me that the prophet did not say 'living creatures,' but 'lives,' both the present and the future, in the midst of which the just judge appears."

^A Col. 1025 A. The interpreter added, "but by always progressing he may enter the higher things, and move forward beyond what has been perceived." Thus, he seems to have read *ἀλλὰ πάντοτε διὰ προκοπῆς*. Let the reader choose whichever he prefers: perhaps both will be more apt: *πάντως* means "altogether." A little later, for *καταπονοῦντος*, we preferred it to be translated "afflicting" rather than "overcoming"; for so it is written in Exodus ii, 11: *Κατανοήσας δὲ τὸν πόνον αὐτῶν ὁρᾷ ἄνθρωπον Αἰγύπτιον τύπτοντά τινα Ἑβραῖον*; "And looking upon their affliction, he sees an Egyptian man striking a certain Hebrew." The Vulgate likewise from the Hebrew said "striking."

^D Col. 1028 D. *Ὅσον ἐκεῖνό ἐστι*. It should be emended from the manuscript to *ἐκεῖνός ἐστι*. Leunclavius, in the Basle edition, had translated: "Therefore here also the soul calls the Word as much as it can, and cannot as much as it wills: for it wills more than it can, indeed it cannot even will as much as it wills; and therefore it wills as much as it can with the whole desire of its mind." Perhaps he had written *quantum ille vult*, as if he had read *ὅσον ἐκεῖνος βούλεται*, surely *λόγος* (Sermo), or "word." We have expressed the meaning of the manuscript text.

^D Col. 1031 D. *His hand*. The interpreter did not notice that the passage is from Psalm cxx, 7: *Κύριος φυλάξει σε, Κύριος σκέπη σοι, ἐπὶ χεῖρα δεξιάν σου*; "The Lord shall keep thee, the Lord is thy protection upon thy right hand." Chrysostom expounds, at 1404 *μεταφορᾶς δὲ τῶν ἐν παρατάξει ἑστώτων παρὰ τὴν χεῖρά σου στήσεται τὴν δεξιάν*; "From the metaphor of those standing in battle array, 'at thy right hand shall He stand'." Theodoret joins this with the other passage, Psalm xv, 8: *Προωρώμην τὸν Κύριον ἐνώπιον μου διὰ παντός, ὅτι ἐκ δεξιῶν μού ἐστιν ἵνα μὴ σαλευθῶ*; "I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for He is at my right hand, that I should not be moved." And in this place, therefore, he says, that He is standing near thy right hand to protect thee, and to guard thee, and to deem thee worthy of every aid. Not, therefore, his own, but God covers the right hand of His people: wherefore it must be written here: "who while He guards, protects the right hand."

^D Col. 1034 D. *Noted-one, the scourged*. Yet he did not say *mastigias*, which word sounds like a scourged person and a man worthy of stripes, but *stigmatias*, "branded," because he is a servant marked and punctured, whether by right or wrong.

^B Col. 1035 B. *Whom to follow*. *φωνεῖ τὸν ἀνέφικτον*. Leunclavius calls him "one who cannot be called." Yet the same locution he had expressed better before at col. 1029 A: *Ἐπεὶ οὖν ἀνέφικτός ἐστιν τῇ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὁρμῇ*; "Since, therefore, He is unattainable by the impulse of the caller." Therefore, when he who calls cannot attain the called with his effort.

^C Col. 1037 C. *Another*. It seems it should be emended: "of the good," in which way it is likely the interpreter read; likewise also toward the end of the homily *ἐν τῷ καιρίῳ* was interpreted as "at the opportune time," [sic] "with no fruitless darting of love, but having struck with a lethal wound."

^A Col. 1039 A. *Cursed perjuries*. Leunclavius wandered from the mind of the author, because he did not notice that the passage of Scripture was explained by him. For so it is written in Zechariah v, 3: *Αὕτη ἡ ἀρὰ καὶ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ κλέπτου, καὶ εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ ὀμνύοντος τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐπὶ ψεύδει*; "This is the curse, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him who swears in my name falsely." He says the flying sickle is the curse or malediction which avenges perjuries. Whence Cyril in the *Commentary*: *Ἀρὰ γὰρ θεία τοὺς ψευδορκεῖν εἰωθότας καὶ μονονουχὶ δρεπάνω τοὺς ὑβριστὰς ἀποκείρουσα χόρτον ἀποφανεῖ δωμάτων, καὶ πυρὶ δώσει τροφὴν καὶ εἰς οἶκον ἀνδρὸς εἰσελθοῦσα τοιούτου συντελέσει τε πάλιν αὐτὸν καὶ καταδονήσει γεννικῶς*; "For the divine curse will clearly occupy those accustomed to perjure themselves, and, as if with a sickle, mowing down the arrogant like the grass of the housetops, it will give them as food for fire, and having entered the house of such a man, it will finish him off and shake him thoroughly." Theodoret understands it in the same way: *Ἀρὰν τὴν τιμωρίαν ἐκάλεσε τὴν κατὰ πᾶσαν χωροῦσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην καὶ τοὺς τὴν ἀδικίαν ἐργασαμένους ἐπαγομένην*; "He called the punishment a curse, which spreads through the whole inhabited world and is brought upon those who have committed iniquity." Thus, therefore, interpret here: it casts out from life the curse which is brought on account of perjuries, while by the prohibition of the oath it binds the sickle.

^C *Ibid.* *Concerning the sentiment of Micah*. Memory has lapsed; for these things are not found in Micah, but in Zechariah ix: *Ὅτι εἴ τι ἀγαθὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἴ τι καλὸν παρ' αὐτοῦ*; "For if anything of His be good, and if anything be beautiful from Him." Thus it is read in the German Bibles *παρ' αὐτοῦ*, which reading Gregory confirms; in others it is only *καλὸν αὐτοῦ*. Just as if, truly, he wished [to say] what the apostle James [i, 17] says: "Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights." Cyril in the *Commentary* punctuates it no differently than the sense of Gregory requires: *Ὅτι εἴ τι ἀγαθὸν, αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἴ τι καλόν, παρ' αὐτοῦ δῆλον, καὶ ὅτι τοῦ πάντα ἡμῖν τὰ πρὸς εὐσέβειαν διανέμοντος Θεοῦ*; "That if anything be good, it is His, and if anything be beautiful, it is clearly from Him, and [that it is from] God, who distributes to us all things for piety." Theodoret, likewise reading *παρ' αὐτοῦ* in the text, explains it thus: *Αὐτὸς, φησὶ, καὶ οἶνον καὶ σῖτον χορηγεῖ· ὁ μὲν οὖν ἀληθὴς Θεὸς τοιαῦτα καὶ ἐργάζεται καὶ χαρίζεται*; "He Himself, he says, also provides wine and grain; the true God, therefore, both produces such things and bestows them." Finally, in the...

^A *VARIOUS NOTES*.

*Hieronymus in the text from the LXX: And if there is any good, from Him, grain for the young.*

*Col. 1042 C. Another translation.* The interpreter noted in this place that another version of these words was taken from the fifth edition of Origen’s Hexapla, which Flaminius Nobilius did not include among the other fragments of the ancient Greek interpreters collected by him. Shortly after, an error was removed by us, where in the manuscript *tā tō Theō dokounta* [the things that seem good to God] was read instead of *Theō oikeiounta* [appropriating to God]. Furthermore, above at 1041, the interpreter had translated *analōtikēn tōn thēriōn* as "the consuming of certain beasts," as if the word *thērion*, which among physicians and other authors is specifically understood as poisonous beasts that leave behind poison with a sting or bite, were unknown; hence what Dioscorides said in Book 1, c. 120, concerning the chaste-tree: *And the leaves, when fumigated and strewn beneath, drive away beasts. And when applied as a poultice on those bitten by beasts, it provides relief.* Pliny, Lib. xxiv, c. 9, translated it: *And both leaves are applied against spider bites, or when merely rubbed on by smoke or strewn beneath, they put poisonous creatures to flight.* The same thing is also reported about deer, which Gregory records here, Lib. II, c. 32: *There is a battle between the deer and the serpent; they search out the dens, and with the breath of their nostrils draw them out as they resist.* Therefore, the odor of burnt deer horn is excellent for driving away serpents. Hence that passage in Tertullian, *De pallio*, cap. 3: *I pass over the deer, which itself, the arbiter of its own age, feeds on serpent poison and languishes into youth.* Origen, *Homil. 3 in Canticum*: *We have spoken about the deer, which are accepted as all the saints, who came into the world for this reason, that they might destroy the poisons of the serpent.* And so it received its name, as the author Plutarch says in his book *On the Cleverness of Animals*: *Elaphō kai tounoma pepoītai parōnymon ou tēs elaphrotētos, alla tēs helxeōs tou opheōs.* [To the stag, the name is also created as a derivative not from "lightness" (elaphrotēs), but from the "drawing" (helxis) of the serpent]. *Cervo*—It is not from "running," but from the ease of attracting serpents that the name *elaphos* exists among the Greeks. Therefore, we rightly wrote here "to consume poisonous beasts": and in *Homil. 5 in Canticum* above, col. 861, *tō analōtikōn thēriōn* should be translated so that *they consume poisonous beasts*. Furthermore, what the LXX said, *en dynamei*, is "in powers or authorities." The fifth edition published *kata tōn dorkadōn*, because *tsabi* means gazelle, as in Cant. II, 9, *homoios tē dorkadi*, "like a gazelle," and *tsaba* means power and army, as in Gen. xxi, 27, *ho archistratēgos tēs dynameōs* is the leader of the army, or master of the soldiers.

*Col. 1051 C. In one way.* The interpreter seems to have stumbled upon the text *en tropē* [in change], not *heni tropō* [in one way], while he translates, "For since in change any flesh consists," but what he adds does not indicate that the human body consists in change.

*Col. 1054 C. Hail, full of grace.* Leunclavius, eager for change here, in the manner of the Protestants who are fond of new things, did not wish to use the words of the Latin Vulgate edition, *Ave, gratia plena*, but wrote, *Gaude, per gratiam dilecta* [Rejoice, beloved through grace], just as Erasmus wrote *gratiosa* [gracious], and Beza *gratis dilecta* [freely beloved], and Castellio *accepta* [favored]. But since Beza admits the passive participle *kecharitōmenē*, derived from the verb *charitoō*, which Paul uses in Eph. 1, 6, he cannot deny that *kecharitōmenē* there indicates not that God loved us freely, but that He rendered us lovable and worthy of love; just so, also, when the most holy Virgin is called *kecharitōmenē*, it is shown that she was not merely favored by God, or forestalled by God's favor, but that she was uniquely dear to God, and filled with grace as an inherent habit, and with the infused virtues and gifts which are wont to be given in justification. Thus the Apostle's text is explained by John Chrysostom, *Homil. 1 in cap. 1 ad Ephes.*: *Ouk eipen echarisato, all’ echaritōsen hēmas, tout’ estin ou monon hamartēmatōn apēllaxen, all’ kai epastous epoiēse.* [He did not say "he gave freely," but "he graced us," that is, he not only freed us from sins, but also made us lovely]; and he adds an example, as if someone were to take a man consumed by illness and old age and immediately make him a beautiful youth; and Theodoret: *The death of the Lord made us worthy to be loved; for through it ^B we received the character of the divine image with the stains of our sins removed.* Finally, Ecclesiasticus XVIII, 17: *Kai amphotera para andri kecharitōmenō* [And both are with a graced man]. The Vulgate translates it, *but both with a justified man*; others translate it literally, *with a gracious man*, since grace-rendering-one-pleasing and justification follow one another mutually.

*Col. 1055 C. With drops of water.* *Ydatos* [water] is read in manuscript O, not *nyktos* [of night], as the interpreter found the scripture, or he thought it should be corrected on his own, perhaps because above in the same text it preceded in col. 999 C. *Yekadōn nyktos*, "drops of the night." Thus shortly after, the same interpreter had omitted *hypo tou Theou Logou*, "by the Word of God," or from God the Word, as I suppose it signifies. Shortly after, Leunclavius had inverted the order, writing, *that publican, and the other robber and persecutor*.

*Col. 1058 C. Another, the seer.* We noted the passage from Book 1 of Kings, c. 9, 41, where the prophet is said to have long ago been called a seer. *Tade elegon hekastos en tō poreuesthai eperōtan ton Theon: Deuro, kai poreuthōmen pros ton bleponta.* [These things each one was saying when going to ask of God: "Come, and let us go to the seer"]. Symmachus, however, at that place translated into Greek: *Ton gar Prophētēn tote ekaloun, kata to archaion, Horōnta* [For the prophet they then called, according to the ancient way, a seer]. Therefore he rendered the same Hebrew word both as *blepōn* [one who sees] and *horōn* [seer] in Greek, but the same notion is used by the LXX themselves in I Paralipom. XXIX, 25: *Toutous ērithmēse, kai estēse Dabid kai Samouēl ho hōrōn.* [These David numbered, and Samuel the seer appointed]. In both places it is *ha-ro’eh*, which is also translated as *skepsomai* [I will examine] in Gen. XLI, 33.

*Col. 1083 A. It happens to the incredulous.* Leunclavius [wrote] *contingit incredulos* [it happens to the incredulous], as if it were written *tōn apistōn* [of the unbelievers] instead of *tōn aspidōn* [of the asps]; nor did it come into his mind to refer these things to the text of Isaiah, which he had noted here to be explained. For thus it is in cap. XI, 8: *Kai paidion mikron epi koitēn ekgonōn aspidōn tēn cheira epibalei, kai ou mē kakopoiēsousi.* [And a little child will put his hand on the den of the offspring of asps, and they will not harm]. Shortly after, the same interpreter had published: *And even together with this prince of beginnings [the] heights*. But he does not say that the heights fall with the prince of beginnings, but that they collapse with Lebanon, that is, the heights erected against the truth. For these things pertain to the end of the tenth chapter of Isaiah, v. 34: *Ho de Libanos syn tois hypsēlois peseitai* [But Lebanon with the lofty shall fall]. But the Apostle mentions the heights that raise themselves in I Cor. X, 5: *Kai pan hypsōma epairomenon kata tēs gnōseōs Theou* [And every height exalting itself against the knowledge of God]. Finally, it is said in Ecclesiastes X, 14: *Archē hyperēphania hamartias* [The beginning of sin is pride].

*Ibid. D. They use it healthfully.* He translated this verse of Solomon rightly, perhaps not thinking of that sentence in Proverbs, cap. VI, v. 6, whose words Gregory uses: *Poreuthēti pros tēn melissan, kai mathe hōs ergatis estin, hēs tous ponous basileis te kai idiōtai pros hygieian prospherontai.* [Go to the bee, and learn how it is a worker, whose labors both kings and private individuals take for their health]. For thus the Basilian editions of the Old Testament translate it into Latin, not noting the usage of the verb *prospherō*, which sometimes means the same as "to take food," as in Plutarch concerning Alexander, *ichthyas prospheresthai* means "to eat fish"; so also *ponous prospheresthai* means to eat the labors of the bee, or to take them as food; and in Nyssen, *meli, ho basileis prospherontai* [honey, which kings eat], honey which kings take as food. S. Ambrose cites this same passage in the same way, Lib. V *In Hexaemeron*, c. 21: *He works a labor which is also venerable, whose fruits kings and commoners take for their health*; and shortly after: *It becomes sweet with equal favor to kings and commoners alike.* Our author treats the same sentiment in his sermon *On the Deity of the Son and Spirit*, *eis hygieian epitēdeios* [fit for health], which although

absent from the Hebrew, is nevertheless frequently used by the Greek Fathers.

Col. 1086 B. *To those of any [nation] whatsoever.* I have restored this passage, unless I am mistaken, which had been rendered quite obscure by faulty punctuation and interpretation; for Leunclavius wrote thus: "Those, namely, who wrapped the whole human nature about Himself through the first-fruits of His mass, in which some part of any nation whatsoever was contained." But Gregory does not say that the mass was Christ's, but human nature, from which He took His flesh; nor should the relative *en hē* [in which] be referred to *anthropinē physis* [human nature], but to *aparchē* [first-fruits]: for human nature did not contain any part of the Jewish or Greek nation, but the whole Jewish nation and all others; therefore, he says the first-fruits, or the flesh of Christ, was a part of all individual nations, because it was a part of the whole mass, that is, of human nature. Related to this are other passages of our author, as in the *Catechetical Book*, ch. 32: "*Epeidē gar ouk allothen, all' ek tou hēmeterou phyramatos hē theodochos sarx ēn*; For since the flesh that had received God was from elsewhere than our own mass..." So too in the *Homily on the Meeting of the Lord*: "*Hagiazei de tō Theō kai Patri ou monon ta tōn anthrōpōn prōtotoka, all' ēdē kai pan to anthrōpinon phylon dia tēs en autō aparchēs tou hēmeterou phyramatos*; He sanctifies to God and the Father not only the first-born of men, but now also the whole human race through the first-fruits of our mass which He assumed into Himself."

Col. 1087 B. *I to my kinsman.* The interpreter had wrongly inverted the order: "You are mine, my kinsman, and I am his." For by this the spouse first says that she depends on the bridegroom. Thus Theodoret explains it: "I depend on him, and I have dedicated myself to him; for he preferred me to the world and joined me to himself." Justus of Urgel: "I [am] the kingdom of Christ, Christ [is] my king. I [am] his body, he [is] my head." In Hebrew, when mention is made of possession or dominion, the dative case often has the force of the genitive. For the same reason, in col. 1095, we have corrected what Leunclavius had written, and for that cause "Christ is life," which is in Greek *emoi to zēn*, and for that reason "for me to live is Christ," or, as the spouse speaks, "I [am] to my kinsman." These things are taken from the Apostle in Philippians 1:21, and they show the worthlessness of Theodore Beza's version, who, following Calvin—whom he calls a most learned interpreter—supposes in this passage of Paul, just as in the proposition, so also in the reason, that Christ is the subject of both members, as if it were understood *kata to zēn* [according to living] and *kata to apothanein* [according to dying], wherefore he translates: "For to me Christ is gain both in life and in death." But Gregory here quotes those words in such a way as to say that Christ is her *life*, not her *gain*.

Ibid. C. *That there may be splendor.* The interpreter [wrote]: "That the splendor of our God may reach us." We have substituted the words of the Vulgate Latin in their place and have annotated the place in David. A little later there was a lacuna in the manuscript; for the Greek words are missing by which those things are expressed, which are included in two marks, whatever, in any case, it may have been, or whether it was dirt. Again, we add those things which the interpreter had omitted, *ibid.* A, "He renders himself conspicuous by his own life."

Col. 1097 C. *Kai emperipatein.* The manuscript book had erroneously repeated *kai enoikein*; we have substituted the genuine reading from the Apostle in II Cor. vi, 16: *Enoikēsō en autois, kai emperipatēsō*; "I will dwell in them, and I will walk about." Levit. xxvi, 12: *Kai emperipatēsō en hymin, kai esomai hymōn Theos*; "And I will walk among you, and I will be your God." That *emperipatein*, therefore, is from Leviticus; but that *enoikein* [is] from the prophet Ezekiel, says Beza: although in him in Greek it is read only in chapter xxxvii, 27: *Kai kataskēnōsis mou en autois, kai esomai autois Theos, kai autoi esontai moi laos*; "And my tabernacle shall be in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people," and the word *enoikein* is not found in the whole prophecy of Ezekiel. The Apostle, therefore, quoted Scripture according to the sense, not word for word.

Col. 1106 A. *Which go well.* It would have been word for word: "Among those four things which proceed prosperously, this one also is numbered among those which walk well, a he-goat leading a flock of goats." The passage, however, is Prov. xxx, 29-31: *Tria de estin, ha eudōs poreuetai, kai to tetarton kalōs diabainei: skymnos leontos ischyroteros ktēnōn, hos apostrephetai, oude kataptēssei ktēnos, kai alektōr emperipatōn thēleiais eupsychōs, kai tragos hēgoumenos aitopoliou, kai basileus dēmēgorōn en ethnei*; "There are three things which go well, and a fourth which walks well: a lion's whelp, stronger than the herds, which does not turn back, nor fear any herd, and a cock walking about among the hens courageously, and a he-goat leading a flock of goats, and a king declaring to the people." A little before col. 1105, after the adverb *prosphuōs*, one must add *hēmos*, from the manuscript, which had been omitted by a copyist who was in too much of a hurry.

Col. 1111 C. *To bear in the womb.* He alludes to that of Isaiah xxvi, 18: *Dia ton phobon sou en gastri elabomen, kai ōdinēsamen, kai etekomen pneuma sōtērias*; "Because of thy fear we have conceived in the womb, and have been in pain, and have brought forth a spirit of salvation."

ON THE BOOK ON THE IMAGE OF GOD

NOTES OF FRONTO DUCÆUS

The most ancient codex of the Royal Library at the Medici [collection] vindicates this little book for Nyssen, and likewise another, which is preserved among the manuscripts of the Duke of Bavaria, as is clear from their Catalogue, number 40, to be Nyssen's book *On the Image or Creation of Man*. And although in one of the two homilies, which are wont to be joined to St. Basil's *Orations on the Hexaemeron*, but which are properly Nyssen's (for Suidas does not attribute more than nine to Basil), he discussed this question, this did not prevent it from being recognized as a true work of Nyssen, that *On the Creation of Man*; as neither will anything prevent us from reading this as his true offspring. For it is known that the holy Fathers were accustomed to have treatises or to write books on the same subject, and this very Gregory has discussed the love of the poor, the Christian profession, and the resurrection in several places. Furthermore, Gregory Nazianzen also uses that similitude taken from the eye in his *Tetrastichs*.

*The eye seeing other things, does not see itself.* *For this reason, [it should have] a monitor for all things.* *The eye watches the rest, but does not see itself:* *Therefore have a monitor in all matters.*

Cicero, *Tusc. Disp.* I, "As the eye, so the mind, not seeing itself, discerns other things." Philo Judæus, *On the Changing of Names*, not far from the beginning, "The mind that is in each one is unknown to us."

ORDER OF SUBJECTS CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME

^A Col. 1330 D. *It seemed to Methodius.* He cites this same Methodius later in his *Symposium*, whom Jerome also mentions in his *Catalogue of Writers* in these words: "Methodius, of Olympus in Lycia, and later bishop of Tyre, a man of polished and organized speech, wrote books against Porphyry, and the *Symposium* of ten virgins, and an excellent work on the resurrection, and many other things which are commonly read; and at the end of the most recent persecution—or as others affirm, under Decius and Valerian—he was crowned with martyrdom in Chalcis, Greece." And in Book 1 of *Apology against Rufinus*, he calls him a most celebrated and eloquent martyr; and in chapter 10 of Daniel, a most learned man. Epiphanius, in *Heresy* 64, presents a fragment of his from the book *On the Resurrection* against Origen, and calls him "a learned man and one who strove mightily for the truth," a man of learning, and one who struggled much for the truth.

Col. 1331 D. *As some stone.* Especially if it be struck against a stone, which Augustine calls "pyrites" in *City of God*, Book XXI, ch. 5, from Pliny, Book XXXVI, ch. 19. "The class of pyrites is a stone having much fire. In military scouts it is most necessary, for with a nail or another stone they strike sparks, which, received upon sulfurous material, or dry fungi, or leaves, produce fire more quickly than the aforementioned." Gregory Nazianzen used the same comparison, *Orat.* 31: *Λογισμὸν δὲ εἶναι τὸν ταύτην ἐκκαλούμενον, ἵνα ἡ φύσις εἰς ἔργον προέλθῃ, καθάπερ λίθος πυρίτης σιδήρῳ κρουσθείς, καὶ οὕτω σίδηρος γένηται*—that is, "Reason is that which summons this, so that nature may proceed to action, just as a flint stone struck by iron becomes iron." For he meant that reason is what stirs it, so that nature may act, just as a flint struck by iron—and so the iron becomes [fire]. But I suspect it should be corrected: *οὕτω σπινθήρ γένηται*, and so a spark is made, or a little fire is made, as he said in the same oration: *τὸν σπινθῆρα τοῦ καλοῦ διὰ τῆς προαιρέσεως ἀνάψας*, "kindling the spark of the good through the freedom of the will," and inciting the little fire of virtue. Thus Dioscorides, Book V, ch. 143, says *τὴν πυρίτην σπινθῆρας ἀφιέναι*, "that pyrites sends forth sparks," and *τὸ ἐκ πυρίτου φῶς*—not iron, but a flame or little fire is elicited.

Col. 1334 C. *It is not obscure to our...* You will find a similar illustration of the Trinity noted in our soul in Athanasius in his *Questions*: *Δεῖ δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου μία μέν, τρισυπόστατος δὲ, τρία πρόσωπα ἔχει ἡ ψυχή· καὶ πῶς ἄκουσον. Ἔστιν ἡ ψυχὴ ἓν πρόσωπον, ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ γεννᾷ τὸν λόγον, καὶ ἰδοὺ ὁ λόγος ἄλλο πρόσωπον· ἡ ψυχὴ ἐκπορεύει καὶ τὴν πνοὴν, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ πνοὴ ἄλλο πρόσωπον*—"The soul of man is one, yet three-subsistent; the soul has three persons. And how? Listen. The soul is one person, and the soul begets the Word, and behold the Word is another person; the soul sends forth also the breath, and behold the breath is another person." And so the soul of man is indeed one, but consists of three subsistences; the soul has three subsistences; and how? Hear. The soul is one subsistence, but the soul generates reason, and behold reason is another ^B subsistence; yet the soul sends forth the spirit, and behold the spirit is the third subsistence. Furthermore, I have rendered the word *ἀγέννητον* as *ingenitum* (unbegotten), which is used by the Latin Fathers in this sense, so that it may sound as "in no way begotten," as Hilary does in his 2nd book *On the Trinity*, and likewise in his 6th book, using the word *innascibilis* (unborn/ingenerable), and Augustine in Books 5 and 15 *On the Trinity*.

Col. 1335 B. *The Apostle man.* In what place the Apostle said this is not clear; to me, certainly, no other place occurs now except this, Colossians 1:15: *Ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως*—"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." Yet this is said of Christ, not of any man. We read indeed in 1 Corinthians 11:7 that a man is *εἰκόνα καὶ δόξαν Θεοῦ*, "the image and glory of God," and that Christ the Lord is *εἰκόνα Θεοῦ*, "the image of God," but we do not read *τὸν ἄνθρωπον εἶναι κατ' εἰκόνα Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου*—"that man is after the image of the invisible God": therefore the Nyssen seems to have lapsed here in memory.

Ibid. *Profane wise men.* Jerome, acting as interpreter for Gregory, writes in *Ezekiel*: "Most men, according to Plato, refer the rational of the soul, and the irascible, and the concupiscible—which he calls *λογικόν* and *θυμικόν* and *ἐπιθυμητικόν*: for so it must be corrected—to the man, and the lion, and the calf." In Plato, Book X *of the Republic*, I read *τὸ λογικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς*, which Cicero in his 1st book *On Divination* translates as "that part of the soul which is participant of mind and reason," and *τὸ ἐπιθυμητικόν*, "that part of the soul which is fed by pleasure," and *τὸ θυμοειδές*, "the third part of the soul, in which exists the heat of anger."

Col. 1339 A. *Neither adventitious.* In the manuscript it was read: *Οὐ κτιστῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεισάκτως*; we correct it to *οὐ κτιστῶς, οὐδ᾽ ἐπεισάκτως*. For *ἐπείσακτον* in Dionysius is something that is *ascititium* and *adventitium* (added or alien), as in Justin in his *Dialogue*, p. 286, *ἀπολιπεῖν ἐπείσαξιν*, "to leave behind an adventitious inheritance." And a little later, as *figuris quibusdam*, for *ὥσπερ τίνων*, we read *ὥσπερ τύπων τινῶν χαρακτηρίζεται*.

Ibid. B. *Neither Father, nor Son before.* We have added after *οὔτε Πατήρ*, the words *οὐδ᾽ Υἱός*, which the following plural verb *προϋπῆρχον* would seem to require, and the sense would seem to demand it.

Col. 1342 B. *As in a mirror.* It must be corrected in the Greek to *καθῶς ἐν ἐσόπτρῳ*, for *καθὼς ἐν ἐσόπτρῳ*; and again, *εἰ μὴ φοβερόν ἐστι*—it must perhaps be read *εἰ μὴ φορτικόν ἐστι*, or *σφαλερόν ἐστι*, "Unless perhaps it be insolent, or importunate, or dangerous"—or if you prefer to retain the reading of the manuscript, "unless perhaps it is to be feared to say so."

ORDER OF CONTENTS CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME

S. GREGORY, BISHOP OF NYSSA Notice from the Library of Fabricius. 9 Prolegomena of the Morellian edition. 43 Testimonies of the ancients. 55 Preface on St. Gregory of Nyssa, and his works. 62 IN HEXAEMERON, a book or apologetic explanation. 123 ON THE MAKING OF MAN. 125 CAPUT PRIMUM. — In which the world is discussed in detail, and those things which preceded the origin of man are pleasantly commemorated. 127 CAP. II. — For what reason man, of all created things, was created last. 131 CAP. III. — That the nature of man is more excellent than every created thing which we see. 134 CAP. IV. — That the work of man demonstrates a certain imperial authority in all things. 135 CAP. V. — That man exhibits the image of divine command. 138 CAP. VI. — An investigation into the connection which the mind has with nature; where also, incidentally, the doctrine of the heretics, who are called Anomoeans, is refuted. 138 CAP. VII. — For what reason man possesses a nature equipped with no weapons and no coverings. 139 CAP. VIII. — For what reason is the figure of man upright, and that his hands were also made for the sake of speech; finally, the distinction of souls is discussed. 143 CAP. IX. — That man was so created that he possesses the instruments necessary for speech. 150 CAP. X. — That the mind acts through the senses. 151 CAP. XI. — That the whole nature of man cannot be perceived by our consideration. 154 CAP. XII. — In what part the principal faculty of the soul (which the Greeks call ηγεμονικόν) is to be thought to be contained. The causes of tears and laughter are explained. Finally, a physical theorem concerning the mutual connection of matter, nature, and mind. 155 CAP. XIII. — The causes of sleep, yawning, and dreams are indicated. 166 CAP. XIV. — It is declared that the mind does not exist in a certain part of the body; furthermore, the distinction between the motions of the body and the soul is expounded. 174 CAP. XV. — That the soul is properly to be and to be called that which uses reason; to others, only the appellation is common with this. 175 CAP. XVI. — An accurate consideration of that divine saying, "Let us make man in our image and likeness." 178 CAP. XVII. — What is to be answered to those who doubt how souls would have originated if those first men had not polluted themselves with any stain of sin. 187 CAP. XVIII. — That the perturbations of the soul in us, foreign to reason, arise from this kinship with the nature of brute animals. 191 CAP. XIX. — Against those who affirm that the fruition of those blessings which we expect in the other life will be only in food and drink. 195 CAP. XX. — What life was like in paradise, and what the forbidden tree was. 198 CAP. XXI. — That the resurrection from the dead is to be expected, not so much on account of the prediction of the Sacred Scriptures, as by the necessary order of things. 202 CAP. XXII. — A refutation of those who object: Why has the human race not long since been aroused from death, or why is the resurrection awaited after certain intervals of time, if indeed it is a thing to be considered good. 203 CAP. XXIII. — That he who admits that the origin of the world is something, cannot but concede that its end will also be at some time. 210 CAP. XXIV. — A refutation of those who say that matter and God are co-eternal. 211 CAP. XXV. — In what way one, even if alien to the doctrine of the Church, may be led to have faith in the Sacred Scriptures affirming that there will be a resurrection from the dead. 212 CAP. XXVI. — That the resurrection will take place, not appearing to be far from the truth. 225 CAP. XXVII. — That it is possible that the body dispersed into the elements of the universe, which however is the proper one to each, may be restored from that collection. 226 CAP. XXVIII. — Against those who maintain that souls exist before bodies, or conversely, that bodies were created before souls. The doctrine concerning the migrations of souls, which is also consentaneous with fables, is overturned. 230 CAP. XXIX. — It is proved that the principle of existence is the same for the soul and the body. 234 A certain contemplation of the structure of the human body, more deeply repeated from medicine itself. 239 ON THESE WORDS: Let us make man in our image and likeness. CAP. XXX. 258 ON THE LIFE OF MOSES, or on the perfection of life instituted by the prescription of virtue. 298 TREATISE ON THE INSCRIPTIONS OF THE PSALMS. 454 EXPOSITION ON THE SIXTH PSALM. 607 EXPOSITION ON ECCLESIASTES OF SOLOMON. 615 COMMENTARY ON THE SONG OF SONGS. 755 ON THE LORD'S PRAYER. Five orations. 1119 ON THE BEATITUDES. Orations. 1194 ON THAT SAYING: When he shall have subjected all things to him, then the Son himself also shall be subject to him who subjected all things to him. 1303 WHAT IT IS: According to the image of God and likeness. 1527 VARIOUS NOTES. 1346 On the book on the making of man. 1346 On the Life of Moses. 1365 On Ecclesiastes. 1382 On the Song of Songs. 1390 On the Opusculum on the image of God. 1407

END OF THE FORTY-FOURTH VOLUME.