A *For this is the limit of peace.* Zinus had written: "For the discord of the peace is the limit." But this is indeed to depart from the author’s mind. Margunius, however, [translates]: "For the definition of peace is the harmony of those things which are at variance." It is said elsewhere: "love towards those who are of one mind," Orat. VII *On the Beatitudes*. Jerome says something similar about the peace of [the] perturbations in chapter V to the Galatians: "Then the peace of Christ, that is, our inheritance, is with us, if the tranquil mind is not disturbed by any passions." Shortly after, we have added, "not by words, but by the actions of our life," from the Greek; which addition Margunius also acknowledges as legitimate: "If we confess the very power of sanctification in life not by works, but by words." Thus Christ, Matt. v, 16: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works."
Col. 266 A. *Natural.* We have added this word to express *to symphyes*, which implies not just any union—though Margunius said nothing else—showing the conjunction itself indeed by the splendor: unless one prefers to write here, "conjunction of nature." Thus Athanasius, from the word *apaugasma* (splendor), argues in Orat. 4 *Against the Arians*, p. 299, Commelin edition: "For the Apostle proclaims the Lord not as a product of will, but as the proper splendor and character of the Father’s very essence." Since indeed the Apostle does not proclaim the Son as the proper splendor and image of the will, but of the very paternal substance, and in Orat. 2, he proves from this that the Son is coeternal with the Father, p. 144.
Ibid. B. *May it declare the beauty.* It seems the interpreter was offended [by the text] *ho mē tēn hōraiotēta tou Monogenous epangelletai*. The Greek words printed in the Leyden edition mean this: "that it does not promise [or proclaim] the beauty of the Only-Begotten," but the former will be judged more true, if these things are compared with those that follow, and with the edition of Margunius. For there is nothing formless or deformed which does not promise the beauty of the Only-Begotten.
Col. 267 B. *And in the aforementioned.* The interpreter seemed wrongly to confuse the things which are said here concerning the Word of God with those regarding the sacrament of the body of Christ: "And in this signification, to all, that they may be partakers of it, the power is given: for this very communication of such food and drink becomes the food and drink of those receiving it." That phrase *epi de tēs heteras ennoias* was missing in the autograph of the interpreter, though not in that which Margunius used at Venice, which we later saw supporting our correction.
Col. 274 C. *For through the Son.* We have expressed word-for-word the Greek edition of Raphelingius: for Zinus had written: "For while these are seen in the members, they testify that they are kin to the head, and cohere to it by natural necessity." Having afterwards reached the version of Margunius, which has it thus: "For by this, that these are shown in the members, they are declared to have coherence with the head": we suspect that he read, and that it should be corrected here in the Greek: *dia gar tou tauta kai ta toiauta en tois melesi deiknusthai tō symphyōs echein*; "for while these things are shown in the members, they are proven to cohere with the head by natural conjunction." We added the words of the Latin Vulgate, Ephes. iv, 16, since Nyssenus uses the words of the Apostle's Greek text.
Ibid. D. *Insofar as.* In place of these, the interpreter had published: "whose wickedness from the aforesaid words, which do nothing for them, took the occasion to establish the dogma: then which to us, etc." To be sure, heretics abused this passage, and from it they argued, yet they did not contend that their error was based upon this as a foundation, as is clear from Athanasius, lib. III *Against the Arians*, p. 235: "The impious go about saying, If he is the firstborn of every creature, it is clear that he too is one of the creatures." The impious go about and say: "If he is the firstborn of every creature, it is certain that he is one of the creatures." But he replies that he is called the firstborn among many brethren, *dia tēn homoiotēta tēs sarkos*, "by reason of the likeness of the flesh," and *dia tēn tēs sarkos syngeneian*, "by reason of the kinship of our flesh." But [he] is the firstborn from the dead, *dia to ex autou kai met' auton einai tēn tōn nekrōn anastasin*, "because through him the resurrection of the dead is brought about." For it is not Greek [*meta autou*], "with him," as the interpreter Nannius seems to have read: for even thus the only Son is called the firstborn, because others are born after him, and because, as Nyssenus says, he is the *aparchē genomenos tōn kekoimēmenōn*, "the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep, that he might prepare the resurrection for the flesh." Margunius here strayed from the author’s mind, or used a faulty book: as if their malice had no defense from the aforementioned [words], but [instead] held to the tradition of the dogma.
Col. 275 C. *Since therefore.* This indeed signifies *to parelthein*, which Zinus had written, surely meaning "to progress" or "to enter in": "The old creature entered in through sin, and having been rendered useless, of necessity the new creature of life underwent the way of the perishing"; but here it means the same as "to pass away" or "to perish," as Matt. xxiv, 35: *Ho ouranos kai hē gē pareleusontai*, "Heaven and earth will pass away"; for these are taken from II Cor. v, 17: *ta archaia parēlthen, idou gegone kaina ta panta*, "the old things have passed away, behold, all things have become new." Margunius agrees with our emendation; he only dissents in that he seems to have read *tēs kainēs zōēs ktisis*, "creature of new life." Shortly after, when he treats of Ruben, by the "sign" understand *ton charaktēra*, the figure, the appearance of the mouth and face. Athanasius also uses the example of Ruben in the cited place.
Col. 278 D. *Redemption.* We have added this word from the Greek, and from I Cor. i, 30, *kai hagiasmos, kai apolytrōsis*. In the following period, Zinus had wandered far from the author’s sentiment; but lest any traces of a possibly different reading lying hidden in his words perish, they are brought forth. "For he who opened to us the path to the resurrection, and for that reason became the first-fruits of those who sleep, that we might all rise again in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet, [it] is he who presented [it] to all, as many as were standing by himself, as well as those struck by death." He did not note that this is the phrase of the Apostle Peter, Acts ii, 24: *Lysas tas ōdinas tou thanatou, kathoti ouk ēn dynaton krateisthai auton hyp' autou*, "Having loosed the pangs of death, inasmuch as it was impossible for him to be held by it." Margunius, who renders it "the initiation of those who sleep," and "in those who were dominated by death," while he abstains from the words of the Vulgate, does not direct his finger to the source of the locution.
Ibid. C. *With the firstborn.* Perhaps Zinus read *tēn pros to prōtotypon anchisteian*, "the affinity with the exemplar." But here Christ is understood as the firstborn of the dead, as he said before of Ruben, *tēn pros auton syngeneian, ē tēn pros auton anchisteian*. We have also restored the sense of the following period, which was perturbed and imperfect in both interpreters; for Margunius had also written, "let him deny the kinship to the exemplar." But the Mediator of God and men, who through himself joins to God whatever is worthy of divine conjunction, etc.
Ibid. D. *Through Mary.* We have amended the corrupt reading *dia tēs martyrias*, and the codex of Margunius supports us, as does the gospel history itself: for this was said to Mary Magdalene, John xx, 17.
Col. 279 A. *Between the Father and the rejected.* Error had settled into this passage from the negligence of both interpreters, which could have been brought back to the path—and the corrupt reading corrected—even from a comparison of it with what immediately follows. Zinus [wrote]: "Between the Father and his heralds": but he did not say *metaxy kēryxōn*, but *metaxy tou Patros kai tōn apokēryktōn*. Margunius: "Between the Father and his own preachers." And yet shortly after, *kai prosdēxētai tous apokēryktous eis huiothesian*, both correctly interpreted [it]: "that he might receive into sonship those who had been rejected and cast off." *Apokēryktos* are called those sons who are cast out from the paternal house because of offenses. Clement of Alexandria
cient. Shortly after, we have substituted the words of the Latin Vulgate, so that the reader might more easily observe that the words of David are being used from Psalm 57:4.
VARIOUS NOTES ON THE BOOK ON VIRGINITY
This book was brought to light by Petrus Galesinius, translated into Latin at Rome in the year of Christ 1565, along with five homilies of the same author *On the Lord's Prayer*, and eight *On the Beatitudes*. There followed a Greco-Latin edition by Johannes Livineius of Ghent in the year 1574, published by Plantin; it was illustrated with notes based on the authority of two manuscript codices, one Vatican, and the other which he had obtained from the Bircmann printer in Cologne, though it contained only a fragment and lacked the first five chapters. We shall confirm the readings, both now Vatican and now Bircmannic, by the authority of the manuscript of the most learned royal professor Federicus Morellus, and we shall restore what is missing in both editions. Finally, in this current revision of the Notes, which is added to all of Nyssen’s works published in Greek and Latin, we shall corroborate the royal codex’s authority with various readings, conjectures, and emendations.
*Col. 318 A. For very many.* The most learned Livineius notes on this passage that he had not yet found these things in B. Paul, nor could he say with certainty what ought to be thought of it; but he advised me that the adverb *ἀπερισπάστως* [without distraction], which our author uses a little later, alludes to that passage in 1 Cor. 7:35: *ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ εὔσχημον καὶ εὐπρόσεδρον τῷ Κυρίῳ ἀπερισπάστως* [but for what is seemly and fitting for the Lord without distraction], which words Jerome renders thus in Book 1 *Against Jovinian*: "But that I may exhort you to that which is honest and intent, that you serve the Lord without any distraction." Certainly, in the whole Greek Index of the New Testament, which they call Concordances, the word *περισπασμός* is not found. Therefore, that *ἀπερισπάστως*, which the Latin Vulgate renders as "without impediment," and Jerome as "without distraction"—from which he seems to have interpreted *περισπασμός* as "distraction," as in Ecclesiastes 1:15: *Ὅτι περισπασμὸν πονηρὸν ἔδωκεν ὁ Θεός*, "For God hath given a sore distraction"—which, as the same man notes in his Commentary, the ancient Latin interpreter translates as "distension," for the reason that the mind of man is torn while distracted by various anxieties. Symmachus translated it *ἀσχολίαν*, "occupation," as did Jerome himself from the Hebrew.
*Ibid. He honors.* Livineius corrects this passage and writes *ἀποσεμνύνειεν ἐκεῖνο*, and interprets it, unless you first amplify it. The royal codex confirms his emendation, in which we read *ἀποσεμνύνειν ἐκεῖνο*, as below, *χάριν ἀποσεμνύναι*. The same also supports that same corrector in *προευδοκιμήσαντας*, which was written in the Plantin edition as *προσευδοκιμήσαντας*.
*Col. 319 B. Most religious bishop.* Who this prelate is, says Livineius, the author has described not with clear enough marks so that he can be recognized with certainty by us, who follow him at such a great interval. It was when I suspected that Gregory Thaumaturgus was being designated, whose praise he also pursued in his oration: but the most learned Canterus advised me that Basil the Great was rather indicated, whom it is established was both a student of virginity and also wrote on virginity.
*Ibid. C. In the same place.* A more elegant and sound reading from the royal ms.: *αὐτόθεν μὲν ἔχει τὸν πρέποντα, ἀπὸ τῆς συνονομαζομένης αὐτῇ προσηγορίας*. Furthermore, the beginning of this chapter and a good large part is expressed rather from the interpretation of Livineius than from that of Galesinius, which here agreed less with the Greek text.
*Col. 322 B. Therefore this praise.* We had advised that the interrogation mark should be removed, which neither the royal book recognizes nor the interpretation of Livineius. For truly that is the praise of virginity, to judge it a virtue superior to all praise, and thus to esteem chastity more than words.
*Col. 321 A. To entice.* Livineius used to emend by conjecture *δέξασθαι*, and interpreted that he might show that chastity alone is that which admits the intimacy and entrance of God: the royal codex has confirmed this emendation with its own suffrage. Hence Sedulius: "The temple of the modest breast suddenly becomes the temple of God." Ambrose, epistle 25: "Why do I speak of how great the glory of virginity is, which merited to be chosen by Christ, so that it might even be the corporeal temple of God, in which corporally, as we read, dwelt the fullness of the divinity?"
*Col. 326 A. So that as.* *Κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον*, according to what is written, clearly 1 Cor. 9:10, he who plows must plow in hope, and chapter 9:9, "You shall not muzzle the ox that treads the grain," Gregory said, *μετὰ κημῶν*, with muzzles or bridles, literally it would be, "he who is occupied in the threshing floor with his mouth impeded by muzzles," Livineius, "like an ox muzzled, traveling through the threshing floor." Here for it can be seen that the expression *ἐπιστρέφεσθαι τὴν ἅλωνα* is used, as in Hesiod in the *Theogony* *γαῖαν ἐπιστρέφεσθαι*, to turn over the earth. Shortly after, the royal ms. had written *τῆς ἑτέρων μακαριότητος*, as Livineius suspected should be read instead of *ἑκατέρων*, or "witnesses of another's happiness."
*Ibid. D. What is above.* It has been emended as Livineius had advised, suspecting that it was written thus of old, but that an unskilled scribe, deceived by the similarity of the letters *τ* and *υ*, which in ancient books is certainly extreme, had written *τῶν ἄλων*, which another, wishing to emend, changed into *τῶν ἄλλων*. In the Royal book we find written *τῶν ἄλων*. Galesinius is wrong, as if it is understood in both minds that he prides himself over the others.
*Col. 327 B. How many.* Livineius translates, "to whom it may go well over the others, and he may avoid envy," and adds a similar sentiment from Pindar, *Pythian Odes* 7: *Τὸ δ' ἄχνυμαι φθόνον ἀμειβόμενον τὰ καλὰ ἔργα*.
*Col. 330 D. Insane in these.* Livineius notes that he was advised concerning this passage to reflect more diligently, when he found a mark in the margin of the manuscript which is usually inscribed elsewhere in corrupt places: therefore for *τούτων* by a minimal mutation one must read *τούτοις*, and he interprets, "There follow a useless recall, a vain clapping of hands"; but more apt is the expression which Galesinius used, for here *ἀνάκλησις* signifies a lamentation.
*Col. 331 D. New things.* Livineius, "even before anything adverse is reported," and notes that this word is used in Euripides in *Hecuba* in such a way that it sounds of some adverse *νεώτερον*, "new thing": to which add in Thucydides Book II, *εἰς οὐδένα οὐδὲν ἐνεωτέριζον*, which is translated, "they admitted nothing against anyone," and from Zosimus Book 1 *History*, page 658, it is said that certain *πράγματα Ῥωμαίοις νεώτερα μηχανήσασθαι*, to cause new troubles for the Romans: whence also *νεωτερίζειν* is *τοῖς ἐν τέλει ἐπιτίθεσθαι*, to insurgent against the magistrate.
*Col. 334 C. For when it is dissolved.* This passage, as Livineius advises, Tertullian, Book *On Patience*, ch. 9, has correctly interpreted thus, "I desire to be received now,"
and to be with Christ. For *analyein*, which the old interpreter has rendered rather unfaithfully as "to be dissolved," means to migrate or to depart. This is what he who translated it in this place says, For where he has migrated, he is with Christ. Beza, however, admits that the metaphorical sense of this word is taken from those who, traveling by chariot, are said to *katalyein* when they have arrived at their destination, because they are accustomed to loosen the reins and bonds of the horses. Therefore, he prefers to translate it into Latin for Philippians 1:23, *ten epithymian echon analysai*, as "stretching with desire toward my release." Others explain *analysai* as "to loosen" in the way that sailors, when they depart from port, are said to "set sail." Chrysostom, on this passage, says, "Why are you pained by death? It was much better to have departed long ago." Why does death bring you grief? It would have been much better to have passed away long ago. Since, therefore, death itself is a dissolving and a separation of the soul from the body, the author of the Vulgate has not wrongly interpreted it here as "to be dissolved." In Jerome’s Commentary on the Psalms, the same is read concerning that verse of Psalm 119: "Woe is me, that my sojourning is prolonged! I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ," and in Ambrose, Book *On Paradise*, ch. 9, and Jerome, Epist. 22.
A *Col. 335 C. And to him who is dead.* In the Plantin edition, *tethnēken ho kathēmenos pais*, Livineius interpreted it, "For to him the son—*navus*—is dead," then he adds in the notes: "I do not remember reading this word in any author, but in Pollux's *Onomasticon*, book III, ch. 24, *kathēmenos* signifies 'sluggish,' as if saying 'sedentary and little diligent'; whence I render *kathēmenos* as 'sluggish'." We formerly suspected it should be amended to *agapēmenos*, "beloved," as in the LXX, Genesis 22:2: *Labe ton huion sou ton agapēton, hon ēgapēsas*. "Take your son, whom you have loved." Suidas explains *agapēton* as "that which is loved or the only-begotten." But now looking at the Royal codex, we find it written, *tethnēken ho kathathymios pais*, "the son who is beloved from the heart is dead," and the frequent use of this expression and its familiarity to Gregory proves it to be the true and genuine reading. Thus elsewhere *anaireisthai to kathathymion*, and in the Epistle to Eustathia, "the meeting together of good and beloved things." Livineius translates *ton asōton* better as "prodigal" than Galesinius, who says "lost": in the same way below, "and when they are born in turn," we have expressed the passage from the Plantin edition.
B *Col. 341 D. But also the.* Here Livineius placed an asterisk and noted that this adversative *alla* seems to refer to that phrase above, "and nothing is more preferable than the other." Galesinius, using a better book, prefixed two members, the Greek of which was missing in the Plantin edition and were later supplied by the Royal codex: *diexerchomenos oude hypo tōn hēdeōn thryptomenos, oute hypo tōn austērōn tapeinoumenos, alla kata*. "Since he is neither softened by the allurements of pleasures, nor cast down by grave and troublesome matters: but contrariwise..." Below, col. 543 D, the printed copy of Livineius adds what was missing from the translation of Galesinius, "nor that he who has gone out from Sodom and turns back again to the destruction of the city, does not stiffen into a pillar of salt."
C *Col. 342 B. Tenebris porro (Darkness further).* As if it had been written *katoikias* (of sojourning), because David had said, "My sojourning has been prolonged," the printed Greek book has *tēn aitian tēs katēpheias*, but the Latin renders it "Darkness as the cause of this grief": for Nyssenus had already said of the Prophet *stenaxai*, that he had groaned, and the manuscripts offer nothing else.
D *Col. 344 A. Covenant.* Some Latin and Greek codices add punctuation after *diathēkōn*, says Livineius: but the author cites it differently, and Theophylact disagrees. This is no doubt what Livineius intends: that this passage of the Apostle from the Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 2:12, is set forth by some in such a way that they separate the word *diathēkōn* from the word *tēs epangelias* and join it with the subsequent words, *elpida mē echontes* (having no hope), which Nyssenus opposes. From the same Epistle, ch. 4:18, is that phrase, *apallotriōmenos tēs zōēs tou Theou*; for this is how the Royal codex exhibits this member of the text, and *tois meta gastera zōn* (living after the belly), not *meta gasteros* (with the belly). Similar is that in Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 16, page 250, *Ei mē kakoi nomizoimetha, kai douloi gastros, kai tōn hypo gastera*. "Lest we be considered wicked, and slaves of the belly, and of those things which are beneath the belly." The same is also in Jerome, Epist. 22, to Eustochium, "They have no care except for the belly, and what is closest to the belly." Likewise in Isaiah, ch. 44, "And after the abundance of food and the gluttony of the throat and belly, they seek those things which are beneath the belly," and book 1, in the Epistle to the Galatians, "He is delighted with feasting, gluttony, the belly, and those things which are beneath the belly." He says "beneath the belly," as Nyssenus *meta tēn gastera*, "after the belly," or "beneath the belly." Eusebius, Book VII of *History*, ch. 20: *en toutois oneiropolein esesthai gastros kai tōn hypo gastera plēsmonais*. "They dreamed that they would be in the fullnesses of the belly and those things beneath the belly." He means not only in those things which serve the belly and the parts which pertain to the fulfillment of lust.
*Col. 346 A. Any river.* *Potamos cheimerios*, "wintry river," Livineius translates, and notes that this comparison is partly in Homer's *Iliad*, book E, where he compares Diomedes to a wintry river: *thēne gar ampedion potamō plēthonti eoikōs cheimarrō, host' ōka reōn ekedasse gephyras*. "For he rushed onto the plain like to a river in flood, a winter torrent, which flowing swiftly destroys bridges." Just as he rushes into the midst, like a turbid river onto the field in winter, and rushes with all his force.
*Ibid. C. And nothing.* The interpreter translates as if it were *estēke*, not as the printed and Royal manuscripts have it, *hestēke tōn en autō*, "And nothing of the things that are contained therein consists," and nothing of the things that encompass it. This he explains at more length afterwards and shows that all things flow away, and that nothing in this age remains perpetual.
*Col. 350 B. As also ears.* The translation of Galesinius agreed with the reading of the Vatican codex, which Livineius mentions in his Notes, and which the Royal also follows, in this manner, *aperiēgēton kai ametewriston autois phylachthēnai kai tēn opsin kai tēn geusin haplēn te kai*. "That their sight and taste both be kept for them un-wandering and un-elevated, and that they should have neither blocked ears, nor ears placed in a lofty position, and should be simple in the gaze of their eyes and in their taste." Livineius renders *ametewriston* as "composed": but the manuscripts support the reading edited by the Plantin press.
*Ibid. D. And of garments.* Galesinius had translated, "And when they showed themselves better by a certain grave harshness of garments, from anyone they might meet, they would ask for necessary things on the spot." *Semnotēs* is sometimes called a certain "gravity," but by no means "harshness": here, however, it sounds rather like "magnificence," just as *semnon* is said, which is "magnificent." This, therefore, is what the author means, that they held the magnificence of garments as nothing, and were not liable to the desire for that ornamentation.
*Col. 354 A. When pleasure.* More aptly, word for word, Livineius says, "with pleasure as an unassailable patron brought into the midst." Nor is it read otherwise in our two manuscripts and in the printed version, except that the Royal had *tēn hēdonēn*, as does the Vatican codex. A little later, we have restored from the Plantin edition, "detesting things created by God," not as Galesinius, "detesting the precepts of God."
*Ibid. B. To his will.* The interpreter omitted the word *ezōgrēmenoi*, and did not notice that Paul's Second Epistle to Timothy 2:26 is quoted: *ezōgrēmenoi hyp' autou eis to ekeinou thelēma*; "captured by him to his will." Write here, therefore, "captured by the devil to his will."
*Ibid. C. Into contrary.* Livineius expressed this more faithfully; for Nyssenus did not say *antikeimena* (contrary), but *parakeimena* (adjacent): virtue, indeed, is placed between two extremes, which lie adjacent to it on either side. Thus, therefore, he says, that to digress to those things which cling on either side is a vice. For who is it? Jerome, Epistle 5 to Demetriades: "It is also the opinion of the philosophers that *mesotētas aretas, hypobolas kakias einai*, that virtues are moderate, and that things exceeding the mode and measure are to be reckoned among the vices," and book 1 *Against the Pelagians*: "especially since vices are neighbors to virtues, and if you deviate even a little, you must either go wrong or fall headlong." Aristotle, *Ethics*, book 2, ch. 5, of the...
excess and defect of vice, is the mediocrity of virtue.
A Col. 353 C. *Διαχεῖσθαι*. The common reading and the Morel manuscript are truer than the other reading of the Vatican and Royal manuscripts, *διαχεῖσθαι*. It says earlier towards the end of chapter 6, "pouring itself out into many things in the mind," meaning to pour the mind into many things. Indeed, they usually say *διασκορπίζειν*, and "the prodigal dissipate their goods," Luke 15:13, "and there he wasted his substance with riotous living."
Col. 356 A. *Δένδρον κακόν*. In Matthew, ch. 7:18, it is read: "Neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit," and in Luke 6:43, "good fruit." Wherefore, note that Nyssen here confirms the interpretation of the author of the Latin Vulgate and Galesinius, who translate *καρπὸν κακόν* as "evil fruit," more correctly than Livineius's "vicious," or Beza's "rotten," as we noted above on the passage in Ephesians 4:29. Moreover, a little later Galesinius edited it more correctly, "he casts reproaches upon marriage," than Livineius, "the ignominy of marriage redounds upon him who procreates," as if *ὁ προφέρων* were God or man who procreates; whereas properly *ὀνείδη προφέρειν* is to make an objection, as Ulysses says to Thersites in Homer’s *Iliad*, book 2: "And you cast reproaches at them, and keep back their return."
Col. 355 B. *Ad unum*. We added the word "one," which pertains to indicating continence: whence also the Apostle to the Romans 9:10: "But when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac." In the same way, our author in chapter 9 (col. 357 C), *ἐκ μιᾶς ὠδῖνος ἀδελφούς*, he called them "brothers born at one birth," twins, whom Galesinius wrongly called "full brothers" (*germani*); for they can be *germani* who are not born at one birth or twins. Livineius adds the example of Zethus and Amphion in Horace, and in Genesis 25, Esau and Jacob.
Col. 358 A. *Melius*. We preferred "Better" thus with Livineius, rather than what Galesinius had before. It makes a stronger sense, if he keeps himself far away from these things, when he descends into the struggle with his full strength. A little later, he had written "that they be impelled into the matter of the deep," but Livineius cleverly emended *εἰς ἰλὺν* for *ὕλην*, from the passage in Psalm 69:2: "I stick fast in the mire of the deep," and it must be written again from the same, so that an entrance is not opened for the vices of the soul by the occasion of things that are permitted.
Ibid. B. *Nihil reipsa*. Neither interpreter grasped the author's mind, but the most learned Jac. Billius reviewed this passage in book 1 of his *Sacred Observations*, ch. 1: Nyssen, speaking of the force and power of habit, uses these words: *Οὐδὲν οὕτω τῇ φύσει φευκτόν ἐστιν ὡς ἐν συνηθείᾳ γενόμενον...*. Livineius translates these words in this way: "Nothing is so much to be shunned by nature as what has passed into habit, so that it does not seem worthy of study and to be embraced." I, however, would have translated it more willingly thus: "Nothing is by nature so base and to be shunned, but that if it passes into habit, it seems excellent and desirable." Thus Billius; but Galesinius had written: "So it is to be shunned, just as if he might think that what is compared by continuous use is not all worthy of study and to be sought," and he is the witness of this sentiment, etc.
Col. 359 A. *Peneque illarum*. Gregory does not wish to say that those were dried up by the ardor of affections or vices, but rather that the desire for celestial things was dried up and extinguished in them. For Livineius teaches that it is a metaphor taken from rivers, whose former stream must necessarily dry up when they are diverted elsewhere. Thus, therefore, he interprets, "they opened." And so all their desire was repressed from its sublime impetus and dried up: since it was entirely transferred to lust. The Royal codex is better, *ἐπὶ τὰ ἄνω φοράς*, "Desire has been revoked from the appetition of celestial things and dried up."
B Col. 360 A. *Καὶ κινδυνεύειν*. Livineius noted that *καί* is absent in the Vatican manuscript, and that after *σπουδαζομένων*, *φροντίζοντες* is added, that is, "anxious that they might not come into danger." But the Royal codex is more correct with *φροντίζοντας*, as was said before, *καταφεύγων κατιόντας*. A little later we corrected "the unmarried man is anxious" (*ὁ γὰρ ἄγαμος μεριμνᾷ*), which Galesinius had edited as "marriage for these things of God cares": he had not noticed that Paul's words were being used from 1 Cor. 7:32: "He who is without a wife is anxious for the things of the Lord."
Col. 359 B. *Ut vel in iis quæ diff.* We followed Livineius, who referred these things to matters, not to persons, as Galesinius did, so that "they might show pleasure even to those who show themselves most difficult." However, this version can be borne, so that we may understand men who are fastidious and morose.
Ibid. D. *Perinde est*. Galesinius wrongly said, "Since wonderful things are settled in the similarity of those things which are not perceived by sense by the force of speech, to diminish and to amplify." A little later, understand "from birth" as "from his first nativity." Livineius rightly removed the error, which was also in the manuscript M, reading *ἀναισθήτως* instead of *ἀναισθήτων ἐχόντων*, and the Royal codex supports that emendation.
Col. 362 A. *Quæ sub aspectum*. I had warned that it ought to be restored from Livineius, which it cannot attain with words, for that is *ἄφραστον*, not *ἀόρατον*. Thus, a little later he said *τὴν τοῦ ἀφράστου φωτὸς ἑρμηνείαν*, "the interpretation of the ineffable light."
Ibid. C. *Οὐχὶ τῷ μισεῖν*. In the Vatican it is *οὐχὶ τῷ μίσει τῆς ἀληθείας, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ τῆς διηγήσεως*. The sense is that he is a liar, not indeed for that reason as if he hates the truth—who is truly a liar in the end—but because by speaking he cannot attain the explanation of that beauty which he has begun. This is Livineius, to which I add that the Royal codex agrees with the Roman.
Col. 363 A. *Qui exteriores*. It was in the printed text, as also in the Morel manuscript, *οἱ ἐπιπολεώτερον*; in the Vatican *ἐπιπεδαιότερον*. Livineius rightly emended it, as the Royal codex exhibited it written for us, *ἐπιπολαιότερον*, and interpreted it as we have edited. Galesinius translates as if he had read *οἱ ἐπὶ πόλεων*, or *ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι*, "Who in cities look at things without any judgment of the mind." Moreover, this ninth chapter was beginning in the same Royal codex, as in the Plantin edition, already from the words *δεῖ τοίνυν τῆς ἀσθενείας ἕνεκεν* at the end of the previous one. Again, Livineius warns in the margin that a certain fragment of this book begins this chapter in this way, *οἱ ἐπιπελαιότερον*, with *ὥσπερ τοίνυν* and *μέν* omitted, nor is the Morel manuscript otherwise.
Col. 366 B. *Cum enim animus*. We have expunged this version of Galesinius, "For when the mind so relaxes itself, and leaves behind all things whatsoever it has occupied, as if they were less than that which is sought, then it exercises itself in the contemplation of that magnificence, which is borne even to the highest heavens." This is the place of David desiring the wings of a dove, in Psalm 55:7, concerning which the Commentator apud Jerome says: "The dove is a simple animal, without gall, and alien to the malice of gall." Augustine, tract 6 in John, says: "The dove has no gall; Simon had it: therefore he was separated from the bowels of the dove." Cyprian, book *On the Unity of the Church*, says: "It is a simple and joyful animal, not bitter with gall, not savage with bites, not violent with the laceration of claws." The same is also handed down by Bede and Horapollo; but Aristotle, book 2 of *The History of Animals*, ch. 15, and Pliny, book 10, ch. 48, nevertheless attribute gall to the same, and that joined to the intestine. Galen also calls those ridiculous who dare to assert this, although he himself meanwhile denies that it has that bladder wherein bile is contained, in his book *On Black Bile*, towards the end.
Ibid. D. *Quos micantes*. It was read before *διαττάττοντες* in the Plantin and the Morel manuscript; but Livineius saw it should be emended to *διαΐττοντας*, which Aristotle, book 1 of *Meteorology*, ch. 4, calls "shooting stars."
"»
A *And cœnosam* ("and muddy"). It seems Galesinius used a Vatican exemplar in which, as in the Royal copy, *αὐχμώδη* was read, which Livineius translates into Latin as *tenebricosum* ("dark/gloomy"), just as in I Kings xxii, 14, *ἐν τῷ ὄρει αὐχμώδει* is rendered by some as "in the dark mountain," a reading which stuck from the Old Latin interpretation of the LXX and the Latin Vulgate edition: and similar to this is that "shadowy mountain" in Habakkuk III, 3, *ἐξ ὄρους κατασκίου*: but in the Morel manuscript and the printed Plantin text of Nyssen we find *καὶ ἰλυώδη βίον*, which we accept as "turbulent and muddy life."
*Ibid. D. "Which in heaven."* B In the Plantin edition and the fragment of Livineius, it is *τὰ ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ* ("those in the holy place"); but that same author notes his suspicion that it should be corrected to *ἡλίῳ* ("sun"), which approaches the Scripture more closely, or certainly *ἀέρι* ("air"), which later emendation is confirmed by the Vatican and Royal codices, namely "those which are in the air," while the Morel manuscript has *τὰ ἐν ἀγγείῳ* ("those in a vessel"). Similar to the reading of Galesinius, *ἐν οὐρανῷ*, is that passage in Dio Chrysostom, *Orat. De regno et tyran.*: "For just as the eye sees nothing of things that are darkened, nor even of those closest by, but when it is healthy it reaches to the heaven and the stars." And just as a corrupted vision does not see even the nearest things, but a healthy one reaches even to heaven and the stars. However, I cannot agree with Livineius, who reads *ἀποῤῥιψαμένῳ* for *ἀποῤῥυψαμένῳ*, even though the Royal book exhibits this reading: for *ἀποῤῥύπτεσθαι* is used of that which is washed away and cleansed from filth, but F. Morelli's manuscript codex also supports this reading.
C *Col. 371 A. "For evil."* The interpreter had expressed an entirely contrary meaning: "For evil is placed outside the deliberation of purpose, and if its status is considered, it is nothing in the nature of the things that exist." And yet, Livineius warns us that a similar sentiment of our author is found in almost the same words in Greek in the *Melissa* of Antonius the monk, Book II, Sermon 88: "Therefore evil is nowhere found existing or subsisting of itself according to its own essence outside of purpose; rather, it is brought into birth only when we choose it."
*Ibid. B. "Therefore a great..."* Here the interpreter had forged an unheard-of etymology for us, writing: "Whence this great and noble animal, man, as if he took his name from a painting, fell from his dignity." This is what usually happens to those who have been rescued from some fall. He did not see that Gregory was using the words of Scripture from Proverbs ch. XX, v. 6: *Μέγα ἄνθρωπος, καὶ τίμιον ἀνὴρ ἐλεήμων*. "A great thing is man, and precious is a merciful man." St. Ambrose, *De obitu Theodosii*: "Great and honorable is a merciful man," and in Psalm CXVIII, octonary 10: "A great man, and precious is a merciful man; and he is truly great who is an interpreter of the divine work and an imitator of God." The interpreter of Blessed John Chrysostom, *Homil. IV in Epist. ad Philippens.*, also correctly rendered it: "A great thing is man, and a remarkable thing is a merciful man." Nor was this passage expressed differently in Greek in two manuscripts and in the printed Plantin edition. Livineius thought Gregory was alluding to the last verse of Psalm XLVIII: *ἄνθρωπος ἐν τιμῇ ὢν οὐ συνῆκε*. That is: "Man, being in honor, did not understand."
*Ibid. D. "I think."* D Galesinius, "For it is demonstrated, I think, by reason of the fact that the divine good is not defined by our nature." However, this *λόγος* denotes here not "reason" but the book which is being discussed, or the words of Scripture, as elsewhere it often does in the *Canticles* and *Orat. II De resurrect.*, where *δηλοῦντος τοῦ λόγου σαφῶς* ("the Word/Scripture clearly signifying") makes this plain. Clement of Alexandria even calls *τὸ λόγιον* an oracle, as in *Strom. I*: *Ὁποῖα δὲ ἐπιτηδευτέον δείκνυσιν ἡμῖν τὸ Λόγιον.* "The oracle shows us which things are to be practiced." Furthermore, in the fragment of Livineius and in the Morel manuscript, the inscription had been conflated from that saying of the Lord in Luke ch. XVII, but the discourse seemed to need to be continued as in the Vatican and Royal manuscripts.
*Col. 374 C. "With good reason female friends."* The interpreter had omitted these words, although they are suggested in the Plantin edition and in the Morel manuscript *εἰκότως ἂν θεῖαι νομίζονται*, and from the Vatican, from which Livineius emends *ἂν καὶ φίλαι νομίζονται*—we would have followed the Royal manuscript too, if we had been able to call it into counsel before revising these Notes: for it reads *ἂν γείτονες καὶ φίλαι εἶναι νομίζοιντο* ("if they are considered neighbors and friends"); they are believed with good reason to be neighbors and friends. Luke XV, 9: "And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying." Again we have changed those words, and "surrounded by the arms of sin" does not make sense. For it is not the faculties of the soul that are said to be surrounded by the arms of sin here, but that members become arms of sin, that is, instruments which we use for sinning, as in *Epist. ad Rom.* VI, 13: "Neither present your members to sin as arms of iniquity."
*Ibid. "As a divine..."* We preferred it this way, rather than what the interpreter had written, "or if this is a restoration of the divine image." He had clearly read *τῆς θείας*, which the Royal book also shows; but the Morel manuscript reads *εἰς θείας*, and the printed text rightly has *τῆς*, just as what is a little later, *τῆς περὶ τὴν γῆν ταλαιπωρίας*, along with manuscripts M. and the Royal, not as the interpreter seems to have read *τῆς περὶ τὴν ζωὴν ταλαιπωρίας*; then, "segregated from those miseries and difficulties of life, and casting off all garments of shame." But we have deemed it better to retain the words of the Latin Vulgate than to strive for the elegance of Latin phrasing, so that it would be clear that Gregory was using the words of Scripture, II Corinth. IV, 2, *πάντα ἀπειπαμένους τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς αἰσχύνης*, for which reason we also said "garments of skin" rather than, with Livineius, "leathern clothes," and to recoil from "clandestine filth," even though he brings forward that passage from Book II of Tertullian, *Contra Marcionem*: "Thence man in leathern garments, but before that, without shame, naked."
*Col. 375 D. "And mortal."* Plantin: *πεπραμένοι τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ*, and not otherwise in R. and M. Livineius: "sold to sin." Vatican: *ὑπὸ τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ*; perhaps it should be restored from the Apostle, Rom. VII, 14, *ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν*, "sold under sin," that is, delivered over to serve sin.
*Col. 377 D. "Through the middle."* Edit. Plantin: *διὰ μέσου καὶ γέγονεν*, and the same in ms. M.; but R. and Vatican: *διὰ μέσου οὐ γέγονεν*. Livineius translates "which is interposed between the first parent and the life of a virgin," and in the *Notes* warns that *καὶ* should be deleted, and *οὐ*, which is in the Vatican, is manifestly corrupt, left as a fragment from the preceding word *μέσου*: a fault of this kind was committed also in the next chapter, where it is written in the Vatican *ἐπικλιθείσης εἰς πονηρόν*, etc., whereas *εἰς* undoubtedly is redundant.
*Col. 579 A. "If however you doubt."* Manuscripts R. and M. consistently read with the Plantin edition *ὅσα ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου ἐπάγεται*—whence Galesinius had edited: "If however you embrace marriage, I would have you note whence proceed the names of calamities which are imposed on men as the cause of death." Nor should one agree with Livineius, who thinks it should be corrected to *ὅσα ἐκ τοῦ γάμου*, "what things marriage might bring to men." For it is manifest that here marriage is proved to supply material for death: therefore, widowhoods or the bereavement of children caused by death would not happen to men, and other
misfortunes as well.
Ibid. C. *Non matrum*. Galesinius writes: "not the anxieties and perturbations of mothers are increased." He alludes to that passage, Gen. iii, 16, and Isa. xxv, 8: Ἀφεῖλεν ὁ Θεὸς πᾶν δάκρυον ἀπὸ παντὸς προσώπου· *God has taken away every tear from every face*. And from that same prophet’s prophecy is then cited the passage as it is brought forward by the Apostle in 1 Cor. xv, 54: Κατεπόθη ὁ θάνατος εἰς νίκος · *Death is swallowed up in victory*, not, as among the LXX in Isa. xxv, 8, Κατέπιεν ὁ θάνατος ἰσχύσας· *Death having prevailed has swallowed up*. But in Livineius's Greco-Latin edition, it must be corrected to κατεπόθη ἐν ἐκείνοις ὁ θάνατος; and in Galesinius, for *mortalitas a vita absorpta est* ("mortality is swallowed up by life"), it should be written: *revera in illis a vita mors est absorpta* ("in truth, in them death is swallowed up by life").
Col. 382 A. *Cumque vitæ*. We have added this to Galesinius’s version from the Plantin and two manuscript copies, and shortly after we have expunged what Galesinius had edited, as if Gregory had said *τελείαν παιδείαν* ("perfect education") rather than *συντέλειαν τῆς κατὰ σάρκα ζωῆς* ("the consummation of life according to the flesh"), just as it is written in Matt. xiii, 39, *συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐστι* ("it is the consummation of the age"), and in Heb. ix, 15, *ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τοῦ αἰῶνος* ("to the consummation of the age"). Thus, therefore, he said "consummation of life which is according to the flesh," whereas Galesinius, having himself established it as a perfect instruction, so far as in him lies, surely expects to be in that blessed hope so that he may behold the face of the great God. Nor does he notice that here again the words of the Apostle are usurped from the Epistle to Titus ii, 13, concerning the appearing of the glory of the great God.
Ibid. B. *Ut alicui*. In the printed text it read, *ὡς ἄν τινες οἰηθεῖεν*. Livineius amends it as *ὡς ἄν τις οἰηθείη* ("as one might think"), and the R. and M. manuscripts support this correction; nor does Galesinius’s interpretation differ, although one might perhaps have thought it simple. Not far from this place, Livineius warned that the author's words were in part mutilated and in part corruptly written, and that he had followed the Vatican exemplar in his interpretation, which we append here, having restored the passage with the help of the Royal codex: *τῆς τῶν μιασμάτων κοινότητος, καὶ εἰ δι᾽ ἑνός τινος μολυνθείη, μηκέτι τὸ ἄσπιλον ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῇ δύναται* ("the common nature of pollutions, and if it should be defiled by one, it can no longer have that which is spotless within itself"), *communitas, et si uno aliquo contaminetur non jam possit integritatem in se continere* ("communion, and if it is contaminated by any one thing, it can no longer contain integrity in itself"). Again, in manuscript M., I read as in Livineius’s fragment, *λίθου δέ τινος ἐμπεσόντος ὅλον κύκλῳ συνεκλινήθη τῷ μέρει*, not as in the Royal and Plantin editions, *ὅλον ἐν κύκλῳ συνεκλονήθη τῷ μερικῷ σάλῳ συγχυματούμενον· ὁ μὲν γάρ*. B
Col. 383 A. *Ut apud Apostolum*. And yet in Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians, xii, 26, it is written, *εἴ τε πάσχει ἓν μέλος*, as in Livineius’s Greek text; not as Galesinius seems to have read, *ἓν μέρος*, while he translates: *Vereque, ut est apud Apostolum, e partibus totum compactum est: sive enim una pars patitur, totum simul dolet* ("And truly, as it is with the Apostle, the whole is compacted from parts: for if one part suffers, the whole suffers together").
Ibid. B. *Multi bellum*. Livineius notes that this member is missing in the Vatican manuscript: not so, however, in our manuscripts, but those words suggest it from Psalm lv, 3, according to the LXX in the Plantinian Bibles and in many Greek codices, as Flaminio Nobili warns, *Multi bellantes adversum me ex altitudine* ("Many warring against me from on high"); others join it with what follows, *Ἀπὸ ὕψους ἡμέρας οὐ φοβηθήσομαι* ("From the height of the day I will not fear"), as in Jerome’s Epistle 125. Aquila out of the Hebrew said, *Οἱ πολλοὶ πολεμοῦσί με, Ὕψιστε* ("Many fight against me, O Most High"), nor did Jerome otherwise in his Psalter.
Col. 384 D. *Ἀρεθήσεται*. M. *ἀρηθήσεται*, erroneously; but in the Vatican, according to Livineius, it is *ἀραθήσεται*, but the *οὐδενί* resists this, for the Greeks would not have compounded *ἔραμαι* with the dative case. It must be seen, therefore, whether *προσθοῖτο* should be restored—*nihil rerum pulchrarum, quæ dolo malo objiciantur, prosequetur* ("he will not pursue any of the beautiful things, which might be objected with evil intent"). For so the author said a little before, *εἰ δέ τινι πρόσθοιτο*. That passage in the Royal codex we found written as *ἀρεθήσεται* D from *ἀρέσκομαι*, as *ἀρεστός*, and so Galesinius’s book carried it, from which he took delight.
Col. 386 C. *Cum non ratio*. Galesinius: "Since reason is not at all consonant with virtue, but some affection of the soul directs the course of life." For the command of the Lord, etc., when it teaches us that we should cling to God alone. He cites two places of Scripture; the former is Psalm xviii, 9, the latter Psalm lxxiii, 28: which should have been distinguished by either interpreter, and not confused: for the command of the Lord does not say that it is good to cling to God, but the Scripture itself, and one must add from the margin that which Livineius adds from the Vatican, *τηλαυγής, καθώς φησιν ἡ Γραφή* ("shining from afar, as the Scripture says"), to which the Royal also agrees. For the command of the Lord is very clear, as the Scripture says, even to infants.
Col. 387 B. *Velut agnos*. Not that they have anything in common with lambs turned into wolves, which is posited in the manners of the serpent, as Galesinius had translated it, whose interpretation we have entirely changed to the very end of the chapter, following Livineius, who also notes that this reading is miserably corrupted, and in the Vatican it is written thus: *τοῦτο δέ ἐστι τὸ μὴ κατὰ τὴν ἁπλότητα δοκοῦν ἐπαινετόν*, etc. ("and this is that which does not seem praiseworthy according to simplicity"), but neither is it perfectly whole even then: he amends it, therefore, *τοῦτο δέ ἐστι, μήτε τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἁπλότητα δοκοῦν ἐπαινετόν*, etc., which is finally the genuine reading. The Royal codex agrees entirely with the Vatican. Moreover, to the disciples in Luke x, 3, the Lord says, *Ecce mitto vos sicut agnos inter lupos* ("Behold, I send you as lambs among wolves"), and Matt. x, 16, *Mitto vos sicut oves in medio luporum: estote ergo prudentes sicut serpentes* ("I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves: be therefore wise as serpents").
Ibid. G. *Omnes animi*. Livineius notes that he found another inscription in his fragment, which both the R. and M. manuscripts display: *ὅτι οὐδὲν ὀνίνησι τῶν μὴ διὰ πάντων τὴν ἀρετὴν ἀσκοῦντα, ἕν τι μόνον τῶν ἀγαθῶν κατορθοῦμενων* ("that it profits nothing for those who do not practice virtue through all things, to successfully accomplish one single good thing alone"), that is, it is of no use to perform one good thing splendidly, unless you exercise virtue in all things. That material, however, from the Vatican, and which we have published, is inserted a little later at those words, *ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων τοσαῦτα*. Moreover, the interpreter had strayed from the mind of the author a little later in writing, "What profit is there from a part of the body being armed, if it will show an opening to the adversary from the naked parts?" For Nyssenus here understands not *εὐκαιρίαν* ("opportunity"), but *κακοπραγίαν* ("misfortune"), namely, the wound.
Ibid. *Quis formosum*. This passage is expressed by Livineius from the fragment; for in the Vatican it was thus, *ἐκεῖνον ὃ τὸν εἰς εὐμορφίαν τῶν συντελούντων αὐτῷ ἔκ τινος συμφορᾶς [τι] περικέκοπται·* which reading, he says, is much more monstrous than our own: I restore, therefore, from the comparison of both exemplars this, which in my judgment is genuine: *ἐκεῖνο ὃ τῶν εἰς εὐμορφίαν τι συντελούντων αὐτῷ ἔκ τινος συμφορᾶς τι περικέκοπται*. This is his view; but our manuscript codices maintain the edited reading, except that the Royal reads *ἐκεῖνον*, in which way Galesinius also met with the writing. Again, he had edited in the same place: *Turpitudo enim ac deformitas reliquarum partium, venustatem ejus, qui firmo est corpore, corrumpit* ("For the foulness and deformity of the remaining parts corrupts the beauty of one who has a firm body"). And yet Gregory did not say *τῶν λοιπῶν* ("of the remaining parts"), but *περὶ τὸ λεῖπον* ("concerning that which is lacking").
Col. 390 A. *Propositum studium*. We have restored this place from Livineius, who also warns that the saying about gold in his nostrils is from Proverbs xi, 22, and concerning the pearls from Matthew vii, 6.
Ibid. C. *At vero jam*. We have restored these two periods from Livineius: for Galesinius had not here grasped the mind of the author, and had translated *φλυαρίαν καταγινώσκειν τοῦ λόγου* ("the babbling to condemn the word"), and he does not understand what is perhaps said ineptly by us, *et ἀνάθημα, rem detestabilem* ("a detestable thing"), which sounds more like a "votive offering" here. But in the following period, the Royal codex completes the lacuna of the Plantinian edition just as the Vatican does, by inserting the word *ἐγρηγορέναι*.
Col. 391 A. *Illic vim*. So we preferred, rather than with Galesinius, *cum eam illuc impellat, quo impelli laudabile est* ("when he drives it thither, whither it is praiseworthy to be driven"). Livineius, *Vim molliens ubi præclarum sit vim moliri* ("Softening force/violence where it is noble to soften force/violence"); and he notes that Gregory seems to allude to that passage in Matthew, c. xi, v. 12, *ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν βιάζεται, καὶ βιασταὶ ἁρπάζουσιν αὐτήν* ("the kingdom of heaven is taken by force, and the violent take it by force"). A
").
A Ibid. D. *In vain he received*. We have used the words of the Vulgate Latin, so that both the Hebraism might be retained, and it might be apparent from which passage of Scripture this was taken. Wherefore I cannot sufficiently wonder how it happened that Galesinius not only translated it, *unless someone should receive his soul in vain*, but also Livineius, who had noted that this was the 4th verse of Psalm xxiii, wrote, *who does not apply his mind to empty things*. But it will now be possible to be clear how Nyssenus understands that passage of David.
Col. 394 B. *And if from any*. Livineius says the Vatican manuscript dissents from this reading of our fragment from *et ex ullis*, as they say; for in place of all these, *εἰ δὲ χρή*, etc., it has: *οὕτω καὶ ἡ ἁλιευτική τέχνη ποιεῖ, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου παραβολήν, τοὺς ἐδωδίμους καὶ χρηστοὺς τῶν ἰχθύων ἀπὸ τῶν πονηρῶν τε καὶ δηλητηρίων διαχωρίζουσα, ὡς ἂν μὴ τινός*. Indeed, I cannot by thinking arrive at the cause of such great diversity. So much for him: we have discovered that R. and M. agree with the published reading. Furthermore, these things are to be referred to that passage of John xiv, 6, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life."
Col. 395 A. *As a cloud*. *Κατὰ τὸν Ἠσαΐαν* does not signify, as happened for Isaiah, what Galesinius had translated; but that his statement relies on his authority, and is drawn from his prophecy. Isa. lx, 8: *Τίνες οἵδε ὡς νεφέλαι πέτανται, καὶ ὡσεὶ περιστεραὶ σὺν νεοσσοῖς;* ("Who are these that fly as clouds, and as doves with their young?") Nor did Nyssenus say *peccatum vero grave, et quasi plumbi talentum deorsum fertur* ("but sin is heavy, and is carried downward like a talent of lead"), but rather that it sits upon a talent of lead, *ἐπὶ τάλαντον μολίβδου καθεζομένη*, which let the reader note is not read in the prophet Zach. v, 7, but only this: *καὶ ἰδοὺ τάλαντον μολίβδου ἐξαιρόμενον, καὶ ἰδοὺ γυνὴ μία ἐκάθητο εἰς μέσον τοῦ μέτρου* ("And behold, a talent of lead lifted up, and behold, one woman sat in the midst of the measure"). Since, therefore, the woman is said to sit in the midst of the amphora, our Ribera wonders that Origen, Homily 6 on Exodus, writes that iniquity sits upon a talent of lead according to Zechariah; Jerome also says the same in Nahum iii, "And Nineveh is like a pool of water." Iniquity sits upon a talent of lead in Zechariah, and the Egyptians who were heavy with sins were submerged in the sea like lead, and he asserts the same in Isa. xxiv, Ezek. xxi, Eccles. ix, Micah vii, and Malach. iii. Finally, Nyssenus has slipped in memory in the same way, unless one prefers to imagine that these Fathers understood, as Vatablus also explains, that a talent or mass of lead was carried in that amphora or measure, and consequently that the woman sitting on the amphora was also sitting on the talent.
Ibid. B. *Through whom I believe*. We have added this clause to Galesinius’s translation, because it was absent from his Greek manuscript, as it was from M., but not from the Regius and Vatican manuscripts. Furthermore, Ambrose, in his Epist. 25, where he treats of the glory of virginity, adds these things about Mary: "What shall I say of Mary, the other sister of Moses, who as leader of the female host crossed the straits of the sea on foot?" Ambrose, therefore, may seem to be one of those learned men whom Nyssenus mentions as having pronounced Mary to have been a virgin; for we have restored what follows from Livineius in this way, not as before, although many who have noted these things have clearly shown her to have been a virgin.
Col. 396 C. *Τῶν θείων εὐλογιῶν*. Livineius had noted here that something was missing, and if anything is to be conjectured in such an obscure and almost desperate matter, he thinks *κρίνοντες* should be added, just as in John viii, Christ addresses the Pharisees: *Ὑμεῖς κατὰ σάρκα κρίνετε* ("You judge according to the flesh"), and it is our author's custom to freely take certain passages, as it were flowers, both from all of Holy Scripture, and indeed from the New Testament, and especially from St. Paul. But we have restored the passage with the aid of the manuscript codices and filled the lacuna, which the book used by Galesinius in translating seems to support, as to how we who are bound by the chains of the flesh should not hear the divine blessings, but it is fitting that we should be occupied in this. Furthermore, it was read in the Regius codex, *τῶν θείων εὐλογιῶν, ἀλλὰ πνευματικῶς ἐξακούοντας* ("we do not hear the divine blessings, but it is fitting that we should be spiritually affected towards it"). For the interrogation mark, so that it might be added, makes for a variable reading of both our codices, which in place of those words of the Plantin edition, p. 146, *ἐκ πολλοῦ περιόντος ἡμεῖς ταύτην τὴν σπουδὴν ἀσπασώμεθα*, inserts after *παρθενίας* ("virginity"), *χάρισμα πῶς ἡμᾶς προσήκει καὶ περὶ ταύτην ἔχειν τοὺς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα*.
Col. 396 D. *From fear*. The translator had usurped the words of the Vulgate Latin: *Sic facti sumus a facie tua, Domine concepimus, et quasi parturivimus* ("So have we been before thy face, O Lord; we have conceived, and as it were brought forth"): Isa. xxvi, 17; we have substituted the translation of the Greek text of the LXX, which agrees with the words of Nyssenus, and those things which follow a little later pertain to the same passage: *Cum enim spiritus salutis nascitur* ("For when the spirit of salvation is born"), v. 18, *καὶ ὠδινήσαμεν καὶ ἐτέκομεν πνεῦμα σωτηρίας σου* ("and we have been in labor and have brought forth the spirit of thy salvation").
Col. 397 A. *Πάντων δέ*. It seems to me he looks to that passage of Paul, 1 Cor. xiii, *δοκιμὴν ζητεῖτε τοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ λαλοῦντος Χριστοῦ* ("do you seek proof of Christ speaking in me?"): that is, proof of the veracity of Christ speaking in me? For Christ is the truth. But he said *πάντων* in the same way he does in the *Catechetical Orations* for *ἀναγκαίων*, in place of *πάντως εἰ ἀναγκαίως*. This is Livineius; we have shown that in both the R. and M. manuscripts *πάντως* is written, so that it is more probable that the other reading is corrupt.
Col. 399 B. *And from the rising of the sun*. Galesinius, *and illustrious from the rising of the sun*, renders it due to their most famous deeds. We have followed Livineius, who warns that an allusion is made here to that passage in Matt. viii, 11, and Luke xiii, 29: "Many will come from the east and the west, and will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." But as to what he said a little before, *νέον ἑαυτὸν καὶ πάσης παλαιότητος κεχωρισμένον* ("himself new and separated from all ancientness"), he thinks it alludes to that passage of Paul, Eph. iv, 22: *Ἀπόθεσθε τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀνανεοῖσθε δὲ τῷ πνεύματι* ("Put off the old man, and be renewed in spirit").
Ibid. *But which of these*. Livineius notes here that *ἔδνον* properly signifies that dowry which is conferred by the husband. The jurists call it, he says, a donation on account of marriage, and sometimes simply a donation: which term we have followed. Yet he seems to have used that word because wisdom, which is female, is betrothed to man or his mind as to a man and husband. For although he thinks this wisdom is Christ: yet because he teaches from the beginning that man has contracted this marriage with wisdom, he does not judge it absurd if we also are called husbands of wisdom, just as, conversely, Christ, when he is compared to the soul, is called her spouse in this same chapter.
Col. 402 C. *But although*. These were absent from the Plantin edition up to the end of the chapter, but were supplied by the R. and M. manuscripts. Galesinius had not translated it very happily: *quoniam condimentum omne novit indulgentia, quæ vehementi appetitione id, quod ad cibi usum compertum est, suavitate condit* ("since indulgence knows every seasoning, which with vehement appetite seasons with sweetness that which is discovered for the use of food"). Cicero, lib. *De finibus bonorum*: "I hear Socrates saying that hunger is the seasoning of food, thirst of drink." Seneca, ep. 123: "You ask, is the bread bad? Wait, it will become good; hunger will make even that tender and fine to you." Therefore, one should not eat before hunger commands it. Antiphanes in Stobaeus: *"Aπανθ' ὁ λιμὸς γλυκέα πλὴν αὐτοῦ ποιεῖ"* ("Hunger makes everything sweet except itself"). Furthermore, that *κατὰ προηγούμενον*, he had expressed worse as *propter ipsam necessitatem* ("on account of necessity itself"); we have said *principally*, the word which Seneca used, and the translator of Clement of Alexandria, viii. Strom.: *Τὰ ὀνόματα σύμβολα τῶν νοημάτων κατὰ τὸ προηγούμενον, κατὰ ἐπακολούθημα δὲ καὶ τῶν ὑποκειμένων* ("Names are signs of those things which are thought of principally in the mind, but by consequence also of the subjects").
"). *Ibid. D.* "Let him object" (*Bardis objiciat*). I should prefer this with Livineius, rather than "to the beasts" (*ad bestias*) with Galesinius, since he signifies men who are less obedient to the light of reason, and he uses the words of the Apostle in Hebr. vi, 8, the completion of which is unto burning. Furthermore, Nyssenus could have drawn the same doctrine concerning pleasure from the books of Clement, for example from book 2 of the *Paedagogue*, c. 1: "For neither is our work nourishment, nor is our aim pleasure" (*οὔτε γὰρ ἔργον ἡμῖν ἡ τροφή, οὔτε σκοπὸς ἡδονή*); for our work is not nutrition, nor is our institution or goal pleasure; and in *Stromata* 1: "For generally the passion of pleasure is not necessary, but is a consequence of certain natural needs—hunger, thirst, cold, marriage." Pleasure is not an entirely necessary affection but a certain accession, an appendix joined to certain natural uses: for hunger, thirst, cold, and marriage.
*Col. 404 A.* "Those from each" (*Τὰς ἐξ ἑκατέρων*). In the Plantin edition it read *ἑτέρων*, but Livineius thinks it should be corrected to *ἑκατέρων*, because the manuscript copies of these editions sometimes interchange them. For example, in book 1 of Basil’s *Adversus Eunomium* these are the words: "Through images is the knowledge of the archetype attained, provided we compare the identity in each" (*δι' εἰκόνες ἡ γνῶσις τοῦ ἀρχετύπου γίνεται, συγκρινόντων ἡμῶν δηλονότι τὴν ἐν ἑκατέρῳ ταυτότητα*), whereas the codex which we once used, written by hand, has *ἑτέρῳ* incorrectly, though it is otherwise more corrected in infinite places. So he says. But in this passage of Nyssenus, both the R. and M. manuscripts consistently have *ἑκατέρων*. From the same, you have many things taken that were missing in the Plantin edition, such as "by some such ministry" (*καί τινι λειτουργίᾳ τοιαύτῃ*), etc., although Galesinius translated them, but those things had to be changed in him so that they might cohere with humor and ardor: for *ardor* comes not from *arendo* (drying), but from *ardendo* (burning).
*Ibid. D.* "He speeds" (*Ἐπισπέρχει*). The Plantin edition has *ἐπισπέριει* incorrectly, and Livineius notes that the word is corrupt; I think it should be read thus, since it does not occur better: *ἐπιστρέφει* (he turns), nor does a whip chastise a sharp one. Jacob Billius, in *Observat. sacrat.*, book 1, cap. 1, adds this to Livineius's notes: The interpreter correctly determined that there was an error; but as to his substituting *ἐπιστρέφει* for *ἐπισπέριει*, I do not think much of it, and I would have preferred to read *ἐπισπέρχει*, that is, *ἐπιταχύνει* (he quickens), *κατεπείγει* (he urges). For he is speaking of a charioteer, who is not accustomed to press a swift horse with a whip. Codex M. confirms the conjecture of the most learned Billius, as it had *ἐπισπέρχει* written for *ἐπισπέριει*, and the version of Galesinius, "nor does he incite the swift with blows." The Regius edition, however, reads *ἐπισπεύδει*, with the same sense.
*Col. 406 A.* "Lest any one much" (*Ne qui multum*). Livineius published *μήτε ὁ τὸ ὀλίγον ἐλαττώσῃ*, which was the reading in both our manuscripts; but he translated, "Neither shall any one add to the abundant, nor take away from the meager." Less aptly, for there is an allusion to that passage in Exodus xvi, 18: "He that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack" (*οὐκ ἐπλεόνασεν ὁ τὸ πολὺ, καὶ τὸ ἔλαττον οὐκ ἠλαττόνησεν ἕκαστος*). The Apostle, however, quoting the same in II Corinthians viii, 15, writes: "And he that had gathered little had no lack" (*καὶ ὁ τὸ ὀλίγον οὐκ ἠλαττόνησε*), and perhaps Nyssenus's text ought to be corrected from both, in the Latin interpretation as well as in the Greek, and it should be written: *μήτε ὁ τὸ ὀλίγον ἐλαττονήσῃ*, "nor the one of little [much] should have less." Since *ἐλαττονεῖν* means to diminish, not "to bear less," as in Ecclesiasticus xxxix, 23, "There is none who will diminish his salvation" (*οὐκ ἔστιν ὃς ἐλαττώσει τὸ σωτήριον αὐτοῦ*), etc., and xliii, 29, "neither was it added to, nor was it diminished" (*οὔτε προσετέθη, οὔτε ἠλαττώθη*).
*Ibid. C.* "And in the present" (*Et in præsenti*). Livineius translated word for word, but he says, "The Apostle says, it is near you, and as it were a domestic task." But in the Epistle to the Romans x, 8, and Deuteronomy xxx, 14, the author of the Vulgate translates: "The word is near you in your mouth, and in your heart" (*Ἐγγύς σου τὸ ῥῆμά ἐστι τῷ στόματί σου, καὶ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου*); "Near is the word in your mouth, and in your heart, and near is the speech."
*Ibid. "Insignis"*. One must add from the Plantin edition, "and effective, and endowed with motion" (*καὶ ἐνεργές, καὶ κίνησιν ἔχον*). Galesinius had translated these thus: "Distinguished by beauty, who may live, act, and be moved, who and out of the speech which speaks, will flourish in virginity." We have expressed what follows in the words of Livineius, who calls these letters "Scripture," and notes that it should be understood regarding that which is in Proverbs 4, 13: "Do not let her go, and she shall apprehend you" (*Μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃς αὐτὴν, καὶ ἀνθέξεταί σου*). In the R. and M. manuscripts I read not *τὸν μέλλοντα*, but *τῷ μέλλοντι* according to one saying, or "taking up the word" (*αἱροῦντα λόγον*). Gregory spoke of this later (col. 408 D), "that virgins may take hold of this, this must be practiced by them before all things." I indeed would have preferred to draw this type of locution from Proverbs iii, 18: "It is a tree of life to all who lay hold of it" (*ξύλον ζωῆς ἐστι πᾶσι τοῖς ἀντεχομένοις αὐτῆς*); since Gregory makes these words concerning him who lays hold of Solomon's wisdom, concerning him who lays hold of virginity.
*Col. 408 Α.* "For it is not evident" (*Οὐ γὰρ ἐναργές*). The passage was obscure and mutilated in both texts, and Galesinius's codex labored under the same fault as the manuscript M., in which it is thus rendered: "For this practice is not in the beginnings, by necessity to themselves" (*Οὐ γὰρ ἐν ἀρχαῖς ἐστι τὸ ἐπιτήδευμα τοῦτο, ἀνάγκη ἑαυτοῖς*); "For the institution is not in the first fruits, so that one might delegate to his own judgment whether things are useful or not." But in the Plantin edition: "For the practice is not evident" (*οὐ γὰρ ἐναργές ἐστι τὸ ἐπιτήδευμα*). Regarding the sense of these words, Jacob Billius says in *Observationum* book 1, cap. 1, that the negative particle *οὐ*, which the interpreter thinks ought to be added, corrupts it entirely. For he translates thus: "For where this zeal is not illustrious and placed as it were in the middle, it is necessary to permit the judgment of it to what is expedient for us." But Gregory wills the exact opposite, namely, that a leader and guide should be employed in difficult matters. I surely think this passage can be restored if for *τοῦτο* we read *τότε*, so that the sense is: "When that practice which we follow is clear, then indeed we ought to permit to ourselves the judgment of those things which are to be concerning the matter. And when the experience of unknown things is not without danger, then indeed it is convenient to employ a leader and guide." These latter words are either missing in the Greek or certainly the same figure is understood, by which after these words of Luke, "and if it should bear fruit," "you shall leave it" is understood. So the most learned Billius. But I think there is no need to resort to that silence, if only we expunge *ἐν ἀρχαῖς* from the Regius codex, and substitute *ἐναργές* from the Plantinian, for thus it exhibits the whole passage: "For this practice is not evident, so that one must by necessity delegate it to oneself" (*Οὐ γὰρ ἐναργές ἐστι τὸ ἐπιτήδευμα τοῦτο, ὥστε κατὰ ἀνάγκην ἑαυτοῖς ἐπιτρέπειν*). And we have adapted our version to this correction.
*Ibid. B.* "For it is indeed" (*Ἔστι μὲν γάρ*). This place also was partly mutilated, says Livineius, and partly corrupt: but I will indicate from where I restored it. I found it thus cited in the *Sentences* of Anthony the Monk, sermon 20: "In every matter, youth is for the most part an unsure counselor, and one would not easily find, in one who has succeeded, among things worthy of study, one to whom old age has not also been joined for the communion of consultation" (*Ἐπὶ παντὸς, ὡς ἐπὶ πολὺ, πράγματος ἐπισφαλής σύμβουλος ἡ νεότης, καὶ οὐκ ἄν τις εὕροι κατορθωθέντι ῥᾳδίως τῶν σπουδῆς ἀξίων, ᾧ μὴ καὶ πολιὰ συμπαρελήφθη πρὸς κοινωνίαν τοῦ σκέμματος*). But in the chapters of Abba Maximus, ser. xli, it is slightly different: "In every matter, youth is for the most part an unsure counselor, and one would not easily have succeeded in things worthy of study." Elegantly in Homer, *Iliad* γ, Menelaus, which illustrates this place not a little: "The minds of younger men are ever fickle. But when an old man is present, he looks both forward and backward, How it may be best for both parties." I translated the most beautiful verses thus: "Whatever minds of youths are turned by doubtful winds, Can-a (hoary) old age foresees what is present and what is beyond, And consults for the middle of both things with equal Jove." So Livineius. Our codices R. and M. confirm the conjecture, and read *κατορθωθέντι* with Anthony.
*Col. 410 A.* "Who Dei via" (*Qui Dei via*). Livineius more faithfully: "Who holds the sacred way with snares, or evil things, who infects God's ways with snares." That item, "Woe to him who is alone when he falls," etc., will be word for word: "Woe to the one, when he shall fall, and he has not him who may raise him up," which is Ecclesiastes iv, 10: "And woe to him who is one, when he shall fall, and the second has not..."
variorum notæ. A ...to raise him up." (Ps. CXVII, 20). "If they are alone, when he has fallen, and there is no second, who may raise him up." The Nyssen here seconds the Latin Vulgate's scribe, because when he has fallen he has no one to lift him up. Shortly after, we wrote: "they have strewn their ways with thorns," not as Galesinius has it, "they pervert their ways with their own thorns"; for he did not say στρέψαντες, but, τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτῶν (or, as our two manuscripts have it, ἑαυτῶν) στρώσαντες. For this alludes to that passage in Proverbs xv, 19: "The ways of the slothful are strewn with thorns."
Ibid. B. "Who of dreams." There was an error in the Plantin edition, p. 168: τὰς ἐκ τῶν θηρίων ἀπάτας; whence Livineius, "Hence dreamers, who in the mockeries of wild beasts place more faith than in the doctrine of the Gospel." And indeed, it occurred quite happily to the most learned Billius, in lib. 1, c. 1, to observe that we should substitute ἐξ ονείρων for θηρίων — a reading which Theodoret, in *Compendium Hæreticarum Fabularum*, lib. iv, when dealing with the Messalians, confirms; for he says that they were accustomed, after spending the greater part of the day in prayer, to surrender themselves entirely to sleep, and then at last, deluded by the demon, to declare that they had seen certain revelations and to attempt to foretell the future. And in lib. iv, *Hist.*, c. 16: "Surrendering themselves to sleep, they pronounce the phantasies of dreams to be prophecies." Two of our manuscripts, written out by hand, confirm this correction along with Galesinius's codex. Toward the end of the chapter, the author inveighs not only against monks but also against clerics who, under the guise of some spiritual covenant, did not shrink from familiarity and cohabitation with women, whom they called συνεισάκτους, adoptive sisters, and *agapetae*, and "subintroduced" women, as we have taught at greater length in our Notes to Chrysostom's book, *Adversus eos, qui subintroductas habent*. Lastly, as to *παρὰ τῶν ἔξωθεν* which Galesinius had translated, he is censured by others; Livineius has a very bad reputation among foreigners. We, however, have thought that a mode of expression is being used here similar to that in Romans ii, 24: "Τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ δι' ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι — For the name of God is blasphemed among the nations because of you."
Ibid. C. "Not to prescribe." I had pointed out that the negation, which the Plantin edition and our two manuscripts insert, is absent from Galesinius's interpretation, and that we can easily do without it, since it follows in our author a little later: "Ἐν οἷς πολλοὶ ταῖς B ἡλικίαις νεάζοντες, ἐν τῷ καθαρῷ τῆς σωφροσύνης, C ἐπολιώθησαν — Many adolescents grew old in the purity of continence." Therefore, it should be written here: *ἂν εἴη νομοθετεῖν* (if it should be to prescribe) a rule of life for oneself. But the same manuscripts read *ἐν*, as the most learned Livineius correctly thought should be amended, instead of *ἐξ*, who also in his Notes brings forward a similar passage of Ennius from Cicero, *De Officiis* I: "The man who kindly shows the way to one who wanders, / As if lighting a lamp from his own light, does so; / It shines no less for him, once he has lit the other's."
Col. 411 A. "And that on both sides." In this place, two manuscripts and the Galesinian edition depart from Livineius's text and interpretation, and it would be too long and laborious to note their variant readings; it will suffice for us to have advised that in the Royal [manuscript] it is read specifically: ἑστῶτα καὶ τὸ ἑκατέρωθεν, εἴ τῇ περὶ τὰς θείας ἐντολὰς προθυμία (standing, and on both sides, if in the zeal concerning divine commandments) of fulfilling divine mandates. In other respects, it agrees with M, but the Plantin edition, *ἐν μέσῳ θανάτου καὶ ζωῆς ἐνδεικνύμενον, μήτε παντελῶς πρὸς τὸν θάνατον τεθραμμένον*, etc.
Ibid. D. "Who rightly said." Thus also the manuscript finds *καλῶς* after *εἰπόντος*, not simply as it is printed and in the Royal, *καλῶς ἤκουσαν* (they heard rightly), but "that they might hear him rightly who says: Temperance is a vital tree to those who hold it," as Livineius translates, who also suggests that what is said in Proverbs iii, 18, regarding wisdom is adapted by the Nyssen. Again, in the same manuscripts we find written, which confirms Livineius's conjecture, *ἐπὶ σχεδίας τινός*, or *πυρσούς τινας*, or *πρὸς ὃν ἀποβλέποντες*, not as in the Plantin edition: *πρὸς θεὸν ἀποβλέποντες*. Wherefore in Galesinius's version it should be written: "they extend certain torches from a certain high watchtower," and a little later: "and for this reason do you ignore this," *καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀπογινώσκεις*, "and for that reason do you despair in your mind, as if the thing could not be done."
Col. 414 B. "How he who lives." The interpreter used a manuscript which agrees with our M: *Πῶς ἀκούσεται τοῦ ἐσταυρωμένου;*—"How shall he who thus lives, and who is strong in sin, hear him who is both crucified and dead to sin?" But the Royal, along with the Plantin edition, has *πῶς ἀκούῃς*, or *ἀκούεις*, and then *πῶς πείθη*, *πῶς ἱερατεύεις*, and Livineius warns that Gregory is alluding to that passage in Apoc. i, 6: "Ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλεῖς καὶ ἱερεῖς τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ αὐτοῦ — Christ has made us kings and priests to God and His Father."
IN ORATIONE DE PAUPERIBUS AMANDIS
When Peter Francis Zinus of Verona brought to light this homily in 1574, translated by him into Latin, he prefixed this title: *On the duty of loving and embracing the poor*; but in the Greek Augustan edition published by Manger in 1527, and in the manuscript codex of Theodorus Canterus, it was only entitled: *Λόγος εἰς ῥητὸν τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου* (A discourse on a passage of the Gospel). And in this indeed both books agreed, just as in the reading of that place, col. 473 A, *ὥστε νῦν μὴ παρεῖναι*; but Zinus's interpretation did not agree with the Greeks: "But if we deny that he is now present in the things which he himself holds and restrains within himself, how can we hope that he will ever be present later?"
Col. 473 A. "For blessed is." The interpreter had placed below the Latin Vulgate's words, *Beatus vir qui semper est pavidus* (Blessed is the man who is always fearful); but that did not translate the Proverbs from the Greek, but from the Hebrew; we did not express the meaning in the words of St. Cyprian, who translates this place in Prov. xxviii, 14, in this way in *Testimonia* 20. In the same way he had brought out the following place: "He who despises shall be despised," whereas the LXX said *Ὁ δὲ καταφρονῶν πράγμα...* (He who despises a matter...).
Col. 478 A. "You see the man." We have changed the interpretation, because the author does not mean that these poor people look for fodder for their own flocks, since they lack flocks entirely, but that they wander here and there like gregarious cattle, seeking food. Zinus had published: "You see men wandering like those of nomad stock, scattered to obtain those things which are necessary for the flocks and for themselves." Similar is that: *κατὰ πάντας ἀλῶνται τοὺς τόπους καθάπερ τὰ ἄλογα* (they wander through all places like brute animals).
Ibid. C. "To those gathering," *συνιοῦσι*, not as Zinus seems to have read, *ἀπιοῦσι*, "going away"; for they are accustomed to keep the populace astonished in circles and crossroads with those marvelous gestures and motions of the body. A little later, D, that "as dogs" is not recognized in either Greek codex and can be expunged.
Col. 482 D. "Concerning the member." The interpreter had omitted this, yet *περὶ τὸ μέρος* is in two manuscripts and the printed editions, and it is evident that it is necessary from those things which follow: *τῆς σαρκὸς μέρει*. But in Morellus's manuscript, instead of *τῆς ὑγρασίας*, which is a term more common among physicians than among scribes, it was written *τῆς ὑγρασίας οὐσίας*, or *πυελώδη φθορὰν παθούσης*, in the Augustan, and...
1201 NOTES ON VARIOUS READINGS. 1202
[Cant.] πτυαλώδη διαφθοράν. Col. 483 A. *Non igitur*. Ms. Morel.: οὐκ οὖν τὸ πάθος. Zinus translates: "Not therefore for this reason do we despise men, because the disease appears detestable." The printed reading is defended by the Augustana edition and the Cantabrigian manuscript.
Col. 487 A. *But the common*. These words had been so separated from the preceding by faulty punctuation that they started a new period; it provides a similitude: "When, therefore, contagions of this kind spread, may the excuse avail that the disease spreads from those suffering from it to others." But the Augustana edition and two manuscripts agree with the received reading: only in Morel was there νόσος ἐκ τῶν προσβαλόντων.
Col. 489 B. *Such as*. Ms. Cant. and the Augustana edition have δείξεις τῷ δυστυχήσαντι, but Morel [has] τῷ ναυαγήσαντι, which reading better suits the rest of the oration.
IN TEN SYLLOGISMS AGAINST THE MANICHAEANS
Col. 541 C. *If evil is unbegotten*. These words in Greek must be punctuated as follows and the lacuna filled, which followed τὸ ἄρα in the manuscript: Εἰ ἀγένητον τὸ κακὸν, κατὰ φύσιν αὐτῷ ὑπάρχει τὸ κακὸν εἶναι· οὐδεὶς δὲ κατὰ φύσιν ἐνεργῶν ἁμαρτάνει· τὸ ἄρα ἀγένητον οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει· τὸ μὴ ἁμαρτάνον· "If evil is unbegotten, it exists in it according to nature that it is evil; but no one acting according to nature sins; therefore that which is unbegotten does not sin; [therefore] it is that which does not sin." If evil is unbegotten, it is inherent in it according to nature to be evil; but since no one acting according to nature is guilty... In the Bavarian codex it was read: κατὰ φύσιν αὐτὸ ὑπάρχει, τὸ μὴ ἁμαρτάνειν οὐχ ὑπαίτιον. Augustine teaches similar things regarding the nature of evil in *De Genesi contra Manichaeos*, lib. II, cap. 29: "We say that no evil is of nature, but that all natures are good, and that God Himself is the supreme nature, and that others are natures from Him, and all are good in so far as they exist"; and in lib. II, cap. 4, *De moribus Manichaeorum*: "Evil is most correctly called not according to substance, but according to privation."
ON THE ORATION ON HIS OWN ORDINATION
The manuscript codex of Egidius Davidis, J.C., of Paris, has preserved this oration attributed to Nyssen, which is also asserted to be in another old book at Venice in the library of the most reverend Bishop Lullinus. Its exordium, taken from feasts, uses a pleasant and elegant allegory and shows a wonderful modesty, such as John Chrysostom frequently used in his openings and digressions, as did Basil, the brother of Nyssen himself.
Col. 546 D. *Naked of speech*. There was a lacuna here in the manuscript which indicated a lack of an epithet, so that it seems the author wrote ἄνθρωπον τῇ ψιλῇ περιβολῇ τοῦ λόγου or ἐπὶ τῇ περιβολῇ; for the word περιβολή, which sounds like "comprehension," here signifies to me a "capture" or "net" (ἄγρα), as Luke 5:9 speaks: μόνῃ τῇ ἄγρᾳ τῶν ἰχθύων ᾗ συνέλαβον, "in the capture of the fishes which they had taken." Thus also Ambrose mystically explains the nets of the Apostles in his commentary on Luke: "What are the nets of the Apostles which are ordered to be let down, if not the complexions of words, and as it were certain folds of speech, and retreats of disputations, which do not release those whom they have captured?"
Col. 547 A. *That which is lacking*. It was in Greek τὸ ἐκλεῖπον ἐκλείπει, and so the rest in the manner of an index, which are uttered slightly differently in Jeremiah 8:4 [LXX/Vulg.]: τὸ ἀποθνῆσκον ἀποθνησκέτω, καὶ τὸ ἐκλεῖπον ἐκλειπέτω· "Let that which is dying die, and let that which is lacking be lacking." The Vulgate Latin: "and let that which is cut off be cut off." Jerome explains it thus: "Let all bodies fall in the wilderness, and having turned into sedition, let them be torn by mutual bites like beasts: and let no one enter the land of promise." But indeed, *that which has strayed, does not return*, τὸ πλανώμενον οὐκ ἐπιστρέφει, seems taken from Chapter 34 [31]:4 of Ezekiel: καὶ τὸ πλανώμενον οὐκ ἐπεστρέψατε, "and that which was wandering you did not cause to return," or certainly from Jeremiah 8:4, "Ἢ ἀποστρέφων οὐκ ἐπιστρέφει;" "Or does he who turns away, not return?" The metaphor is drawn from negligent shepherds, who abandon and betray their sheep, and do not free them from the danger of death or disease.
Col. 547 D. *When three hundred*. [The author] supports Hilary in his book *Contra Constantium*, who testifies that three hundred and eighteen bishops met at Nicaea, as do Epiphanius, *Haeres.* 69, Rufinus lib. I, c. 1, Theodoret lib. I, c. 7, *Hist.*, who also in the following chapter brings forward a letter of Eustathius of Antioch counting only two hundred and seventy, but who afterwards adds that he could not write anything certain because of their huge multitude, nor had he investigated it curiously. Socrates however, lib. I, c. 5, citing Eusebius, *De vita Constantini* lib. III, cap. 9, writes thus: Ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς παρούσης χορείας ἐπισκόπων μὲν πλῆθος ἦν (leg. πληθὺς ἦν) τριακοσίων ἀριθμὸν ὑπερακοντίζουσα, "But in this present chorus there was a multitude of bishops to the number of three hundred and more." Yet in Eusebius himself it is read: πεντήκοντα καὶ διακοσίων ἀριθμόν, "there was a multitude to the number of two hundred and fifty and more." Finally, Sozomen reports that they were in number about three hundred and twenty: ἦσαν ἐπίσκοποι ὑπὲρ ἀμφιτριακόσιοι εἴκοσι, lib. I, cap. 16. In the Acts of the synod published by Gelasius of Cyzicus, they are reported to have been three hundred and eighteen.
Col. 550 A. *John the Evangelist*. [The author] recognizes the Apostle John as the author of the book of the Apocalypse and calls it apocryphal; but Dionysius of Alexandria, although he asserts it to be a divine and canonical book, nevertheless doubts whether it is of the Apostle John or of another John, refuting the opinion of a certain Gaius who attributed that book to the heretic Cerinthus, apud Eusebius, lib. VII, cap. 2. Jerome however, epist. 129: "For if the custom of the Latins does not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews among the canonical Scriptures, neither indeed do the Churches of the Greeks [receive] the Apocalypse of John..."
they receive it with the same liberty, and yet we receive both. Others of the Fathers accept the same book, such as Justin, in his *Dialogue*; Tertullian, in his *Adversus Marcionem*; Irenæus in book V, at the end of the chapter; and the rest of the commentators on the Apocalypse enumerated by our Ribera and Viega, among whom Nyssenus is not included.
Ibid. B. *Miracles from works.* We have decided that what was lacking in the Greek manuscript should be supplied: *τῶν ἔργων θαύματα*, and also, a little later, *τὸ πείθειν τὸ πᾶν*.
Ibid. D. *What then is, what shall I suffer (τί πάθω),* may also be translated: *but what then shall I do?* or *what then shall become of me?*
Col. 551 D. *Vapor, namely.* In the manuscript, I read *ἐγκατεσπαμένη τῷ πάθει τῆς γῆς*, but it must be corrected to *ἐγκατεσπαρμένη τῷ βάθει* or certainly *ἐγκατεσπαμένη*, meaning "attracted, diffused, and compressed"; for Aristotle also thought that the water of rivers and springs was produced within the recesses of the earth from air and vapors resolved into water: in such a way that air and vapors are perpetually changed into water, and those substances and their heat, being overcome by the coldness of the place, are condensed and grow together, *Meteor.* book I, ch. 13: *εἴπερ κἀκεῖ διὰ ψυχρότητα συνίσταται ὁ ἀτμίζων ἀὴρ εἰς ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ ὑπὸ τῆς ἐν τῇ γῇ ψυχρότητος τὸ αὐτὸ δεῖ νομίζειν συμβαίνειν.* If air approaching the nature of vapor descends upon the earth due to the cold, the same thing must also be thought to happen and come to pass from the cold which is within the earth.
Col. 554 A. *Open thy mouth.* These things are written somewhat otherwise in Psalm cxviii, 131: *I opened my mouth, and drew in the spirit,* and likewise that other passage from Psalm lxxxi, 11: *Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it*, which the LXX rendered: *Πλάτυνον τὸ στόμα σου, καὶ πληρώσω αὐτό.* Jerome translates from the Hebrew, *Open thy mouth, and I will fill it*, and in his Commentary on the first chapter of Micah, he understands the passage with the instinct of the Holy Spirit and with the help of the study of the Scriptures, translating, *Open thy mouth, and I will fill it*; and in the same way Chrysostom, in Psalm cxviii.
ON THE ORATION ON HOLY BAPTISM.
The inscription of this oration in the Augustan edition of 1587 and in the manuscript of Canisius was this: *Λόγος εἰς τὸ ἅγιον βάπτισμα* — *Oratio in sanctum baptisma*; but in the manuscript copy of the most learned royal professor Fed. Morelli, it read: *Εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τῶν Φώτων, ἐν ᾗ ἐβαπτίσθη ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν* — *On the Day of Lights, in which our Lord was baptized.* That the day of the Epiphany was called the Day of Lights, and that *φωτίζεσθαι* means the same as *to be baptized*, was taught by the most celebrated Jac. Billius, book I, ch. 20: hence the oration of Gregory Nazianzen, *Εἰς τὰ ἅγια Φῶτα*.
Col. 579 B. *In the banquets.* Previously it was read *in votis* (in wishes/in prayers), and the Augustan edition and the Cantabrigian manuscript read no differently, *ἐν εὐχαῖς*; but the most learned Morelli’s codex more correctly has *ἐν εὐωχίαις*, "in banquets": for in them the mind is relaxed, not in wishes, nor in prayers; for which reason in his *Homily on the Ascension*, he calls the hilarity of banquets *ἐπιτραπέζιος εὐφροσύνη* ("table-cheer"). Clement of Alexandria, *Paedagogus*, book II, ch. 4, teaches Christians *πῶς χρὴ περὶ τὰς ἑστιάσεις ἀνίεσθαι*, how they ought to relax and refresh themselves at banquets.
Ibid. *Therefore is Christ as it were.* We have substituted these words in the place of the interpreter's, *He was born, therefore, as if a few days ago, he who was born before all nature, both the nature which is perceived by the senses and that which is discerned by the mind.* We translate *Νοητήν* as "spiritual" or "intellectually perceived," with the most learned Billius in a similar passage of Gregory Nazianzen concerning the Nativity, where he calls man *προσκυνητὴν μικτὸν, ἐπόπτην τῆς ὁρατῆς κτίσεως, μύστην τῆς νοουμένης* — a mixed worshiper, an *Epoptes* (beholder) of visible nature, a *Mystes* (initiate) of the intellectually perceived one; for Tertullian secured the word *Epoptes* for the Latin language, and the learned men of Tertullian’s time in the chapter *Adversus Valentinianos*: "Since they institute *Epoptæ* five years in advance, so that they may build up an opinion by the suspension of knowledge." And again a little later, "But the whole divinity is in the mysteries, all the sighs of the *Epoptæ*, the whole seal of the tongue."
Col. 582 C. *To the body which.* The interpreter had changed the sense; for while two manuscripts agree with the vulgate text, he had written: "And also what is applied to the baptism, adds a blessing to the body which is baptized." A similar sentiment is found at col. 584 B, *Τὸ ὕδωρ ἀνακαινίζει τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῆς ἄνωθεν χάριτος εὐλογούσης αὐτό*.
Col. 582 C. *It is and is called.* We had advised in the Greek that this should be emended, as the manuscript M. suggests, *γίνεται τε καὶ λέγεται*, not as the Augustan edition and the Cantabrigian manuscript have it, *λέγεται τε καὶ γίνεται*; yet both readings favor the Catholic teaching concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist more fully than what Sifanus had edited, ("the body of Christ it is called and is"): for *τὸ γίνεσθαι* here has the same value as *μεταποιεῖσθαι* in the *Catechetical Oration*, ch. 37, *εὐθὺς πρὸς τὸ σῶμα διὰ τοῦ λόγου μεταποιούμενος*. Furthermore, we have added from three manuscripts *οὕτως τὸ μυστικὸν ἔλαιον*, which was omitted by the interpreter, or certainly by the printer: for it followed, "since they are things of little value."
Col. 586 C. *And our mind.* We have added "providing assent," both from the Augustan and two manuscripts, which, although missing from the Cantabrigian copy, is not inconsistent for the purpose of completing the sense.
Col. 594 C. *The strong God.* Sifanus had edited, "to the living fountain God," but in the Augustan and three manuscripts it is *ἰσχυρὸς πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν τὸν ἰσχυρὸν, τὸν ζῶντα*, as in Psalm xli, 3, "to the strong, living God," just as it is also read in ancient manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, and was recently corrected at Rome: for *ἰσχυρὸς* cannot mean "fountain," however convenient a fountain may be for quenching thirst. There are those who think that this expression crept into the LXX text from the edition of Aquila, as they had written only *πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ζῶντα*, but they do not seem to have looked at the Hebrew truth, from which Pagninus renders word for word, "My soul thirsted for God, for the living God": and it is not probable that the Seventy confounded one word with the other, since Nyssenus here, together with Basil, Theodoret, Damascenus, and Euthymius, cites them in this way; and although Jerome observed that the Hebrew word *N* is translated by Aquila as "strong" and by the LXX as "God," we know that they also sometimes translated it as *ἰσχυρόν*, as in Psalm vii, 12, *Ὁ Θεὸς κριτὴς δίκαιος, καὶ ἰσχυρός* — "God is a righteous and strong judge," and Isa. ix, 5, *Θαυμαστὸς, Σύμβουλος, Θεὸς ἰσχυρός* — "Wonderful, Counsellor, the strong God."
Col. 598 C. *Lance of baptism.* We have emended the reading of the printed text and Canisius’s manuscript to *τῷ σειρομάστῃ*, instead of *σειρομάστη*, as it is in M.: for so it is written in Num. xxv, 7, *καὶ λαβὼν τὸν σειρομάστην ἐν τῇ χειρὶ εἰσῆλθεν* — which in the Plantinian edition is rendered in Latin, "and taking the dagger in his hand, he entered," as in the Latin Vulgate, "and having taken a dagger, he entered." In the Vatican Latin, the Greek word from the Greek is retained, "and taking a *siromasten* in his hand." Others defend the interpreter of Nyssenus who understand that a lance is signified by that word.
ON THE ORATION ON THE RESURRECTION
A Col. 602. *Immediately heaven.* The interpreter seems to have used a manuscript codex in which was *of the Spirit* for us, in the way which we also read in the Cant. manuscript; but in the M. codex [it is written] erroneously *from the Father*. But that clause "heaven," which Zinus interpreted as "immediately they adorned the Church as heaven," we have emended, and both the Greek text suggests and a similar passage in St. John Chrysostom, homily on Pentecost, confirms: "Today the earth has been made heaven for us, not by stars descending from heaven to earth, but by apostles ascending above the heavens, since the grace of the Spirit has been poured out." And in the homily *On the Adoration of the holy Cross*: "Today the Church of Christ is shown to be another paradise, putting forth the all-holy wood of the precious cross in its midst." Today the Church of Christ is shown to be another paradise, which sets forth the holy wood of the precious cross.
A Col. 604. *Before she travailed.* At Isa. LXVI, 7, it is read only, "Before the labor of pains came she brought forth"; but the Cant. and Mor. mss have "her pains," the labor of her childbearing. So also the Latin Vulgate from the Hebrew, *before her childbearing came*.
B Col. 606. *Firmament.* We added, *which is in Christ*; for he alludes to that of the Apostle to the Colossians II, 5, "and seeing your firmament of faith in Christ"; and seeing *his firmament*, which is in Christ, of your faith, when otherwise in Genesis I, 8, heaven is called by God "the firmament." As to the following passage, *What earth have we restored*, we have arranged it so that it refers to that which precedes it, said the Lord, as it is written in Luke VIII, 13: "Who in a good and honest heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience." A third place is touched upon: *For the earth often drinking the rain coming upon it*.
B Ibid. *In this creation.* It was previously read, *The light of the sun is the purity of life, the air is a clear and illustrious institution of living; the stars are virtues*: but the order demanded that it should descend from the sun to the stars, and thence to the air and the sea.
A Col. 605. *In the beginning is this.* An asterisk was placed below when we were editing these things, so that it might be indicated that something was missing here, which we now supply from a more complete book obtained from the library of the most Christian King and another from Theodorus Canterus. "The day which the Lord has made, is other than the days which were created in the beginning of creation, by which time is measured; of another creation is this, for in this does God work." The interpreter seems to have read *by which*, not *by those*, by which we measure the course of time.
B Col. 606. *Is not the world.* Canterus's manuscript codex [reads], "Is not a world becoming for you?" But the Royal [manuscript reads], "You see what kind of world it may be for you."
C Ibid. *Great mind.* The passage is from Isaiah X, 12, "And he will bring upon the great mind, upon the ruler of the Assyrians," and he will bring upon the great mind, upon the prince of the Assyrians, upon which passage St. Jerome writes: "According to the tropology, when they have sustained the Lord's wrath with Samaria and Jerusalem, then the great Assyrian mind will be destroyed, which has been inflated with such pride against the Lord, that it has thought all things would yield to its wisdom"; and a little later, "What is said, however, concerning the Assyrian can also be referred to the pride of heretics and to the devil"; and Cyril, book 2 on Isaiah: "It must be known that through the prince of the Assyrians, and through the prince of Babylon, and through the prince of Moab, holy Scripture reports what is said concerning the devil. He called him a great mind, instead of one having God-hated arrogance." It must be known, however, that through the prince of the Assyrians, and through the prince of Babylon, and through the prince of Moab, holy Scripture refers what is said to the devil; but he called him a great mind, because he is inflated with pride detestable to God.
C Ibid. *Since therefore.* The interpreter had edited, "Since therefore the mind is believed to dwell in the heart as a prince in his palace." The Latins translate the *hegemonikon* of the Greeks, according to Budaeus, as the *principatus* (principality) of the soul; Tertullian [calls it] the *principale* in the book *De anima*, ch. 14 and ch. 15: "And now for most Christians, who are led by God concerning both, and [believe] that the *principale* exists in the soul and is fixed in a certain recess of the body, neither concluded in the head according to Plato, nor presiding in the vertex according to Xenocrates, nor lying in the brain according to Hippocrates, nor in the membranes, as Strato, and [in] *De resurrectione carnis*, ch. 15: "But even if in the brain or in the middle of the ridge of the eyebrows, or where it pleases the philosophers, the principality of the senses is consecrated, which is called the *hegemonikon*, the flesh will be the thinking-place of the soul." Jerome, *Epist.* 128: "It is asked where the *principale* of the soul is; Plato [places it] in the brain, Christ shows it in the heart." The same in ch. XXI of Matthew. Philo the Jew also in the work *On that which is worse ensnares the better*, and Theodoret, book 1 *On Providence*.
A Col. 607. *What is this heart.* The interpreter [wrote] "what is this dragon in the heart of the earth"; but the words of the author sound only this, that we may understand the adversary of God himself to be called the *heart of the earth*, as he speaks subsequently, "that wicked heart took counsel against itself," and a little later, "in this loud-mouthed heart of the earth."
D Col. 606. *Celestial.* "Say you, celestial, which is in the bowels of the earth?" A corrupt reading; the truer reading of Henricus and Canterus is, "the dwelling-place of that wicked one," the evil domicile of that mind. Likewise, "as the prophecy says." The passage is Isaiah XLIV, 25, "turning the wise backward, and making their counsel foolish."
A Col. 608. *The Deiferous flesh.* The interpreter would have translated more aptly *Deiferam* (God-bearing) than *divinam* (divine) flesh, as we read in the work of Basil, the brother of this man, on Psalm XLV, "he calls the flesh *theophoron* (God-bearing) sanctified," and in the homily *On the generation of Christ*, "to constitute that *theophoron* flesh," to constitute that flesh as the container of God, concerning which passage see what we have annotated.
D Ibid. *Not through long.* Correct from [the manuscripts] II and C. "Not through a long period was it accomplished"; and the interpretation of Zinus requires it to be read so, and a little later
A 1209 lepra. — Ibid. D. *Diexienai ta thaumata*, et mox *lysis men esti mia*.
Col. 617 A. *Kata tauton*. Mss. *kata tauton energeitai*; utrumque autem eodem tempore perficitur, divinitate per utramque, etc. — Ibid. D. *Peri tou pascha*. Mss. *peri tou pascha nomō, tois Ioudaiois nenomothetēsthai para tou Mōuseōs tēn tessareskaidekatēn tou sēlēnaiou dromou periodon*. In the law regarding the Pasch, that the fourteenth circuit of the moon’s course was prescribed to the Jews by Moses to be celebrated thus. That term *apsin tōn pikrōn*, he translates as "bitter herbs," which name is too common; for the Greeks call *pikridas* the wild lettuce; whence also Dioscorides, lib. ii, cap. 166, says *tēn agrian thridaka pikran tē geusei*, that the wild lettuce is bitter to the taste. Gaza likewise, in Aristotle’s *Historia animalium*, lib. ix, cap. 6, interprets *pikrida* as wild lettuce. Pliny, lib. xxi, cap. 8, calls it *picris*: but the same Gaza elsewhere, in Aristotle and Theophrastus, translates *pikrida* as bitterness (*amaraginem*). The Vatican edition of Exodus xii renders these Greek words into Latin thus: *kai azuma epi pikridōn edontai*, and they shall eat unleavened bread upon bitter herbs. — Ibid. D. *Mē phobeisthai*. Mss. *mē phobeisthe*... *mē hēttasthe*, and a little later *di' oligōn epeleusometha*.
Col. 620 A. *Kata to proēgoumenon, ei katharheiē tēs emmichtheisēs.* — Ibid. B. *Tēs tou zumōtou brōseōs katharou, to de ainigma toiouton esti*. Mosque [mss.], *kakias mixis poiēseie*. — Ibid. D. *Kai mikron ti pros*. — Ibid. *Lampēdonas*. I. *lampēd. summixai*. C. *sumparamixai*.
Col. 621 A. *Tō hēliō; kai kata diametron tō idiō phōti katalampei to yp. kai p. prin panta ton kuklon*. — Ibid. B., *sumboulēn genesthai*. — Ibid., *hōs tō men dokein*. — Ibid., *einai to paraphulagma*. — Ibid. C., *ouk eipe ta kai ta peisetai*. — Ibid., *proagoreuōn to mellon, alla to anankaiōs*. But he teaches by word that what must necessarily happen for a certain hidden reason, so long as it is fitting. — Ibid., *hēmera egerthēnai*. — Col. seq. A., *katharōs tēn tōn ontōn alētheian, ei tessarsi probolais*.
Col. 623 A. *Per omnia*. This also was missing from the interpreter, to whom a similar expression is not far off (below C): *Su ei, phēsin, ho dia pantōn hēkōn*. You are, he says, who pass through all things. We have added two periods omitted by the interpreter from those words, where "openly to me," etc. A little later, the interpreter had written: "In this extreme part is your right hand, in that the left": as if he had read *en ekeinō aristera, pou en tō eterō hē dexia sou hodēgēsei*, which are taken from that verse 10 of Psalm cxxxviii, *Kai gar ekei hē cheir sou hodēgēsei me, kai kathexei me hē dexia sou*. For even there your hand shall guide me, and your right hand shall hold me.
Col. 624 B. *To huperkosmion*. It is thus in col. ead. D, *hē men gar huperkosmios lēxis*. — Ibid. B., *hōs automātōs*. Others read these things in H. and C., *hōs automatō tē dianoia sou tē peri tēs theias dunameōs to schēma*. — Ibid. C. Mss. *epi ta perata tōn ontōn enkarsiōs*. Mosque, *kai sundesmos pantōn ginomenos, kai panta*. — Ibid. D., *staurou*. Correct from mss., *tou Christou tēn proskunēsin*.
Col. 625 A. *Ou paradechetai*. Amend, from the mss., *ou parerchetai*, and a little later, *hou tēn ethonēn exaptousi*, from H.; for that is a truer reading than the Canterian *exaplousi*, which they explain as "unfold," and *keraian ek tou schēmatos onomazousi*, II. and C. — Ibid. *Hoti ekeino*. Mss., *hoti ekeinos estin, en hō ta panta, et hos tēn heautou*. — Ibid. B., *tois dioratikois Theos stauros Theos logos tēn pantodunamon*; but the received reading seems truer, with this meaning, that among the more perspicacious the cross should serve the office of a Theologian, while it proclaimed by its own figure the omnipotent power of Him who showed Himself in it, and who is all in all. The interpreter seems to have read *theophoros*, not *theologos*. — Ibid. *Arimathaias* [in two mss.], as in Matth. xxvii, 57.
VARIOUS NOTES.
1209 - 1210 vers. 9, is confirmed by Nyssen, below, col. 644-45, for he does not mean that the whole of that sixteenth chapter of Mark is missing, but that specific capitulum. For the ancients called those passages *κεφάλαια*, or *capitula* [chapters], into which they had divided the Gospels, and which they had arranged into certain canons—which you have prefixed to the Commentary of St. Jerome on Matthew, in the final Paris edition.
Isid. Correct *καθαρὰν περιτίθησιν αὐτῷ, οἱ ὁμοίως ποιεῖν καὶ βουλεύεσθαι* [he places purity upon him, they likewise to act and to deliberate]; let us also do the same and revolve it in our minds. — Ibid. D. "Orar araño. MSS., *ὅταν ἀναβήσωμαι, τότε σοι ἔξεστιν ἅπτεσθαί μου, τουτέστι μὴ τὴν σωματώδη καὶ δουλικὴν μορφὴν ἐν τῇ σεαυτοῦ πίστει ἀνατυπώσῃ, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὄντα, καὶ ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχοντα, καὶ Θεὸν ὄντα Λόγον τοῦτον, προσκύνει, μὴ τὴν τοῦ δούλου μορφήν. Ἀκούσωμεν τί ἡμῖν.* [When I shall have ascended, then it is permitted to you to touch me; that is, do not imprint the bodily and servile form in your own faith, but worship Him who is in the glory of the Father, and who exists in the form of God, and who is the Word of God, and not the form of the slave. Let us hear what [He says] to us.] — And col. seq. A., *ὃς ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς* [who among many brothers]. Ibid., *πᾶσαν τὴν φύσιν, ἧς* [all the nature, of which], *omnem naturam*. Ibid. B., *νόησον εἰς τί σοι ἡ πικρία τοῦ βίου μετασκευάζεται* [consider for what purpose the bitterness of life is being transformed for you].
Col. 632 A. *Φασὶ δὲ τῇ πρώτῃ.* A faulty punctuation along with an error causes the Greek and Latin to disagree; the Canter codex, being more corrected, reads: *οἱ εὐαγγελισταὶ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων φασί, Δέον τῇ πρώτῃ* [the evangelists say on the first of the sabbaths, it ought to be on the first]. Furthermore, that every ambiguity which could disturb the reader might be removed, render *ὀψὲ σαββάτων* "late on the sabbath," not "on the evening of the sabbath," or "on the evening of the sabbaths" as Sifanus does: seeing that shortly after, Gregory says the evangelist did not say *ἑσπέρα σαββάτου*, so that you might understand "the evening of the sabbath day," but *ὀψὲ σαββάτων*, "late on the sabbaths," so as to indicate the end of the week—which he confirms with examples regarding the meaning of the word *ὀψὲ*; which indeed St. Ambrose seems to have transferred into his own Commentary on Luke, ch. xxiv: "In short, the Greek said *sero* [late], which is *ὀψὲ*." Now *sero* signifies both the hour at the decline of the day, and for anything else, tardiness; just as if you were to say: *Sero mihi suggestum est*, that is, "it was suggested to me late." *Sero* is one who comes after the appointed time; and although he may have come in the morning, it is still *sero* [late], when the time for action has passed. And St. Jerome, Epistola 150, quaest. 4: "It seems to me that the evangelist Matthew, who wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, did not say 'in the evening' so much as 'late' [sero], although the interpreter, deceived by the ambiguity of the word, did not translate it as 'late' but as 'in the evening' [vespere]: although the custom of human speech maintains that *sero* does not signify the evening, but late. For we are accustomed to say, *Sero venisti*, that is, you came late." But as to what the same author reports in the same epistle, quaest. 3, that in certain Greek exemplars this chapter of Mark is not found, which begins: *Surgens autem mane prima sabbati* [Now when he was risen early the first day of the week], cap. xvi, […].
Col. 638 A. *Nam si lux* [For if the light]. A noted passage, Prov. XIII, 9.
Col. 643 C. *Sero sabbatorum.* Sifanus had written, *vespere sabbatorum illucescente in una sabbatorum conspectus* [in the evening of the sabbaths, as it was dawning into one of the sabbaths]. But the evangelist does not say that the evening or the dusk lightened, as Erasmus incorrectly renders in Matt. xxviii, 1, but *ὀψὲ σαββάτων τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων*, which, according to the opinion of Gregory explained above, ought to be rendered in Latin as we have edited it. For that *ἐπιφωσκούσῃ* [dawning] is to be joined with *ἡμέρᾳ* [day], which is understood elliptically in speaking. Thus in Herodotus in *Thalia*, *ἅμ᾽ ἡμέρᾳ διαφωσκούσῃ* [at the break of day].
Col. 648 C. *Atque illas quidem.* It should be corrected in the printed Greek, and in both the Cant. and Mor. hand-copied manuscripts: *καὶ τὰς μὲν, τὰς δὲ* [and some... others], as the other interpretation also demands, which was added in the margin, which we have also followed, having expunged that of Sifanus, and "that to them indeed two men stood by."
Col. 682 D. *Hoc est sapientiæ.* In the Augustan edition, page 214, one reads *ἐν ἡμέρᾳ εὐφροσύνης ἀμνηστία κακῶν* [in a day of gladness, forgetfulness of evils], and Ecclesiast. VII, v. 15 is annotated, where, however, we show only this: *Ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἀγαθωσύνης ζῆθι ἐν ἀγαθῷ* [In the day of good things, live in good]; but it is more likely that he was looking at the passage of Ecclesiasticus 11:26, *Ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἀγαθῶν ἀμνησία κακῶν* [In the day of good things, forgetfulness of evils], so that, as often happens with other Fathers also, Gregory appears to have cited Scripture *οὐ κατὰ τὸ ῥητὸν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν* [not according to the letter, but according to the meaning]; shortly after (col. seq. A), *nunc a vita mox deletur* [now from life soon it is deleted]; and the following clause we added from the Augustan edition: "for rightly is death to life, the wood is opposed to the end of life." Again, *ποτίζει* we translate not as "provides to drink," but "irrigates," as in Gen. ii, 6, that fountain *ἐπότιζε τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς*, "irrigated the face of the earth."
ON THE ORATION ON THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST.
Col. 691-92, at the beginning. We have changed the incorrectly translated period. "From which all [these things], he judges that it is necessary, first, that you should become well initiated as a sheep of the good Shepherd, and be led to the pastures and fountains of divine doctrine, and be buried with Him through baptism into death, which, however, is not death." *Κατήχησις* [Catechesis] is not sufficiently expressed by the word "initiation," but the word *catechizandi* [to catechize] has been gifted to the Latins by the Church, as in Augustine, lib. *De catechizandis rudibus*, and in the Vulgate at Gal. vi. Of the same mind is that of Clement of Alexandria, lib. 1, cap. 6, *Paedag.*: *Ἡ μὲν γὰρ κατήχησις εἰς πίστιν περιάγει· πίστις δὲ ἅμα βαπτίσματι, ἁγίῳ παιδεύεται Πνεύματι* [For catechesis leads to faith; faith, however, at the same time as baptism, is instructed by the Holy Spirit]; Catechesis, therefore, or the instruction which is received through hearing, leads to faith; but faith is taught together with baptism by the divine Spirit; and lib. III *Strom.*: *καθάπερ καὶ τῷ διὰ τῆς ἀληθοῦς κατηχήσεως γεννήσαντι κεῖταί τις μισθός* [just as there lies for him who has begotten through true catechesis a certain reward]; just as to him who has begotten through true catechesis, there is a certain reward proposed by God.
Col. 691 C. *Fundavit, et effecit.* [He founded, and he brought to pass.] The ambiguity of the word *διόδος* [path/way] led the interpreter away from the genuine sense of the author; for he wrote: "He founded, and prepared it over the rivers, so that it might have an opportune approach." Yet Gregory calls *διόδος* [path/way] here what the author of the Psalms calls *διέξοδον ὑδάτων* [watercourses], Psalm 1:5, *τὸ πεφυτευμένον παρὰ τὰς διεξόδους τῶν ὑδάτων* [that which is planted by the streams of waters], and to Philo the Jew, *διέξοδος* [stream/passage] is the same as *διόδος* [path/way]. Basil, homil. I *in Hexaem.*: *Κἂν γῆν κατὰ ἑαυτὴν εἶναι δῶμεν, κἂν ἐπὶ τοῦ ὕδατος αὐτὴν ἀποσαλεύειν εἴπωμεν, μηδαμοῦ ἀναχωρεῖν τῆς εὐσεβοῦς διανοίας, ἀλλὰ πάντα ὁμοῦ συγκρατεῖσθαι ὁμολογεῖν τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ κτίσαντος* [And even if we admit the earth to be by itself, and if we say it rests upon the water, let us in no way depart from pious thinking, but confess all things to be held together by the power of the Creator]. Quin etiam *sive per seipsam consistere, sive super aquas stabilitam dixerimus, non discedamus a pia sententia, sed simul omnia per ejus, qui condidit, contineri potestatem fateamur.* [Nay, even whether we say it stands by itself, or was established upon the waters, let us not depart from a pious sentiment, but confess that all things are held together by the power of Him who created them.] You have here an example of the verb *ἀποσαλεύειν* [to be set / rest / shake off] of the notion received, which is explained in the common Lexicons, such as the author of the *Thesaurus of the Greek Language* required. Shortly after, the same interpreter had edited "the reward is happiness itself," as if he had read not *εὐλογία* [blessing], but *εὐδαιμονία* [happiness]; but the author alludes to the words of Psalm xxiii, 5: "He shall receive a blessing from the Lord, and mercy from God his Savior."
VARIORUM NOTÆ.
IN ORATION ON ST. STEPHEN.
The Greek text of this oration is taken from the Augustan edition, written in the year 1587 by Michael Manger, which was preceded many years earlier by the Latin interpretation of Laurentius Sifanus. In the margin of that work, he had noted at that spot, col. 707 A, what was the case regarding the truth, namely, *tò paréchon* (the provider), asserting that in the copy he used it was *to parechon*, while in another it was *periechon* (that which contains). This latter reading can be tolerated—it is, as he says, easier—so that the sense would be: by omitting the truth which is in Stephen, you remove Stephen himself, who contains the truth as a vessel. However, this fits less well with the similitude that follows. I for my part believe the former reading should be retained, which the Augustan edition, the most famous manuscript codex of Theodore Canterus, and another highly learned one belonging to the royal professor Federicus Morellus all exhibit, and which agrees better with the preceding parts, where Stephen is called a vessel of the truth, especially since *to parechon* does not have *auton* or any other following case. Sifanus had written: "Why do you exercise malignancy regarding the instrument of truth? And by omitting that which urges and presses, you remove that which offers itself and is opportune for injury, as dogs sometimes do." Here one could refer to that fable of Gabrias about the donkey, who, carrying a silver image, thought the people were kneeling to adore him for the sake of his own honor, but shortly after, having been struck by the driver, he heard: *Hēkousen, O Theos su, ton Theon d' ageis*—"O fool, you are not God, but you carry God." Therefore, just as he would be inept who worshipped the beast of burden carrying mysteries, and not the mysteries themselves, so too is he who attacks the herald or bearer of the truth, and not the truth itself.
Col. 710 C, line 14. Sifanus had written: "the goat accustomed to be sacrificed for averting evils." Wherefore I had noted long ago that this goat was not sacrificed among the Jews, but sent away, and thus called *apopompaion*, a word which in the Vatican edition is translated as "emissarius" (scapegoat), and in the Latin Vulgate it is designated in no other way from the Hebrew. The typographic corrector therefore substituted the word *emissarius*, but did not remove the words *sacrificari solitus* (accustomed to be sacrificed). St. Jerome also used the word *emissarius* when translating the commentaries of the Greeks into the Latin language in chapter III of Zephaniah: "Aaron offers the scapegoat for the people, and it is living, and he prays over it all the sins of the people, and delivers it into the hands of a prepared man, and sends it into the desert." This deceived our interpreter, because for Hesychius *apopempein* is *to apokathērasthai* (to expiate), and *apopompaioi daimones* are the averters of evils and defenders against plagues and calamities among the pagans, who are also called *alexikakoi* and *apotropaioi* by Pollux. But this goat was so called, so that *exaposteilai eis tēn apopompēn, kai aphēsei auton eis erēmon*—"to send him away into the sending away, and he shall let him go into the wilderness." St. Augustine (Quest. 55) retained the Greek word, and Theodore (Quest. 22 on Leviticus) notes that Symmachus translated it *hōste pempein auton eis tēn apopompēn* (to send it into the sending away). Aquila, however, used *tragon apoluomenon eis erēmon* (a goat released into the wilderness). Therefore, the interpreter of Nyssen and Langus in *Dialogus* (p. 201) and Commelin are wrong to expound *apopompaion* as "averter of evils" or "averter of calamities," for he is simply the scapegoat.
Col. 715 D. *Who are captured.* Interpreter: "who have dull eyes." But it means not those who are dim-sighted, but those who are clearly blind. A little later in the Augustan edition there was a various reading in the margin, *diepetasen*, but in the text *diestyen*, "he separated."
Col. 717 A. *For what is.* The conjunction *gar* must be deleted, which was absent even from the most learned manuscript of Canterus, and from the other Augustan one; then a question mark should be placed at the end of the period. Although it was printed in Manger’s text: *opsometha phōs; ouk endechētai mē en tō phōti genesthai tēn tou phōtos theōrian; pōs gar estin apidein?* (Shall we see the light? It is not possible for the contemplation of light not to exist in the light; for how is it possible to look away?) But this reading fits less aptly with what precedes.
Col. 719 D. *Whatever in this.* The interpreter had noted in the margin that this place seemed corrupt in both manuscripts which he used, and that he had translated it swayed by conjecture; but we, in two other manuscripts of Canterus and Morellus, besides what the Augustan edition offers, have found nothing to offend, in which, however, that *en toutō* seems to be corrected to *en tautē* so that it might agree with *eikoni*: but understand the principal form as *to archetypon*, the exemplar from which the image is expressed, or what the image represents.
ON THE ORATION CONCERNING ST. THEODORE THE MARTYR.
The title was prefixed to this oration in the manuscript codex of King Henry I, adorned with insignia: *Enkōmion eis ton hagion megalomartyra tou Christou Theodoron ton Tyrōna*. It exists in Surius, volume VI, *The Martyrdom of the Holy and Glorious Martyr of Christ Theodore Tyro* from Simeon Metaphrastes: he is called Tyro because he served in the army in the Orient under the commander Brinca of the Marmaritae legion, and in this way is distinguished from Theodore the commander of soldiers, who was beheaded under the Emperor Licinius, and of whom the Greeks treat on the 7th of February. The same volume of Surius exhibits a homily of Nectarius in praise of this holy martyr, and another by Nyssen himself, from the interpretation of Petrus Franciscus Zinus Veronensis.
Col. 736 C. *chōrētikoi*. The Regius II codex has *kai chōrioi syrrheontes*. *Chōritēs* is the same as *agrōtēs* or *agroikos*, a rustic, whence *to chōritikon plēthos*, the rustic multitude, in Plutarch’s *Pericles*, and *chōritikōs*, in the manner of rustics. But the author of the *Thesaurus of the Greek Language* believes that what is read in Pollux as *chōrētikos* and *chōrētikōn* with an *ē* is written erroneously; but it is written more correctly in Suidas as *chōritikos*, for there is no reason why this word should have *ē* in the second syllable rather than *chōritēs*. There is also in use *chōrikos* or *chōrikōs* in Synesius in his *Epistles*, and thus perhaps it would be better written here as *kai chōrikos*. And in the following column, B, without doubt from the manuscripts it must be corrected to *kai gnōrisantes ton tēs eusebeias karpon*. There is also a various reading in the Regius: *kai zēlōsate ton houtō protimōmenon tē gnōmē*, and "imitate the counsel and purpose of him who is thus preferred above the rest."
Col. 737 B. It should be corrected *hōs kallistē kai meg.*, and soon after, C, *tēs physeōs on*, Zinus translates "although consisting of..." [alt-version omitted]
dem naturæ materia constet. A *Η καὶ ἀνεῳγότι* (Ms. H. *εἰ καὶ ἀνεῳγότι περιτυχὼν ἐκ τοῦ παραδόξου*, licet ex opinato, dum aperitur, in illud incurrat: sed conjectis oculis in deformitatem earum rerum, quæ illic sunt, magna oppletus modestia et humanæ naturæ, etc., in H. erat *ἐπιβαλὼν δὲ τῇ ὄψει*).
Col. 740 A. Δῶρον. Ms. H., *εἰς δῶρον ὁ χοῦς λαμβ*. — Ibid. C., *χαριτωθὲν οὕτως ἐστὶν ἐράσμιον καὶ ἡδὺ καὶ ἀναμφισβήτητον*, et ita legit uterque interpres. — Ibid. C. Ἐκ τῶν φαινομένων. Sifanus ita, *propter ea, quæ apparent*; at ms. H., *ἐκ τῶν ὁρωμένων, τοῖς ἀοράτοις*. Zinus, *Ex his ergo, quæ videmus, ea credimus, quæ non cernuntur*. — Col. 741 B. Τοῦ δεσπότου. H. *τοῦ βασιλέως*, et paulo post, *θεοὺς μὲν λέγων οὐκ οἶδα*. — Ibid. B. Μέλος τὸ σῶμα. H. *Μέλος τοῦ σώματος χρεωστῶ τῷ κτίσαντι*, *per singula enim membra corporis patientiam debeo creatori*. — Ibid. D. *σὺ δὲ, ὦ νηπιώδη, εἰ ὁμολογῶν Θεόν*. — Col. 744 B. Οὐδ᾽ ἐσπούδαστε. H. *οὐδ' ἐσπούδασε λαθεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔκδηλος ἦν*. — Ibid. D. Emendandum *ἐπαγγελιῶν καταπαύοιτε*. — Ibid. *Καὶ τὴν πενθή- B ρη*. H. *καὶ τὴν πορφύραν τὴν σκοτεινὴν αὐτοῖς καὶ πενθήρη ἐκεῖθεν*.
Col. 745 A. Κρεοπώλαι. H., *κρεοπωλαί τινες μολυνόμενοι, καὶ τοῖς ἑαυτῶν ἐρυθραινόμενοι αἷμασιν μετὰ ταῦτα*. Zinus sic expressit, *et sanguinis tabo tamquam laniones quidam inquinantur*. — Ibid. C. Ἤκμαζε. H., *ἤκμαζε μᾶλλον πρός*. Zinus agnoscit hanc lectionem, *in confessione religioneque magis ipse perstaret*. — Ibid. Emenda, *εὐθηνούμενον*, et paulo post, D, *ὑψηλῷ αἰθέρι ἐνδιαιτᾷ*.
Col. 748 A. Emend. *πολῖται δὲ καὶ ἀδελφοὶ καὶ συγγεν*. — Ibid. D. *λυσσῶν*, H. *λυσσώδης καὶ*. — Ibid. B. Μαρτύρων. Regius H. codex addebat *Κάλεσον τὸν συνώνυμον καὶ ὁμότροπον σοὶ Θεόδωρον, μετὰ πάντων*. *Advocat eum qui eodem nomine iisdemque moribus ornatus vixit Theodorum*. Quibus verbis indicare videtur S. Theodorum ductorem militum, de quo initio notarum in hanc orationem diximus. — Ibid. C, *θαυμαστὲ καὶ ὑπέρλαμπρε ἐν τοῖς μάρτυσι θάλλον ἀποδειχθείη*. Sifanus *πολίτευμα* perperam vertit *respublica Christianorum*; melius Zinus, *Christianorum vita, tamquam in frugifero solo præclaram et admirabilem ad finem usque segetem ferat*.
ON THE ORATION ON THE 40 MARTYRS.
Col. 755 A. Quorum tantum. Discessimus a verbis interpretis, quorum non solum audiuntur voces ipsis omni sermone clarius exponentibus miracula, et secuti sumus codicis Morel. lectionem, *λόγου παντὸς εὐτονώτερον διηγουμένου*, corrigentes ex conjectura *διηγούμεναι*; sed veriorem suppeditavit alter ms. Canteri, *παντὸς λόγου γεγωνότερον διηγουμένων τὰ θαύματα*, *miracula enarrantium*. Hoc est, quemadmodum cælos ait enarrare gloriam Dei David, et diem diei verbum eructare, sic et locus et dies, et solemnis hæc martyrum memoria tantum non edita voce proclamant eorum miracula. Illud enim *ἀστῶν* (leg. *τῶν*), ex Hebraismo *παρέλκεις*. Athanasius, *Contra Arianos* orat. III p. 201: *πάντα ὁμολογοῦντα δ' ἑαυτῶν ὡς ψάλλει Δαβίδ· Οἱ οὐρανοὶ διηγοῦνται δόξαν Θεοῦ, καθάπερ καὶ Ζοροβάβελ ὁ σοφὸς λέγει· Πᾶσα ἡ γῆ ἀλήθειαν καλεῖ*. Omnia suum Creatorem confitentur, ut canit David, *Cæli enarrant gloriam Dei*, quemadmodum et sapiens Zorobabel ait, « Omnis terra veritatem clamat, » aut ut Vulgata vertit, *invocat*.
Ibid. C. Et quoquo versus. Non ut antea et ubique ratam ac legitimam partem accipiunt. Decepit interpretem verbum *καταμερίζονται*, quasi valeret idem hic quod *μερίδα δέχεσθαι* cum potius hic intelligendum sit reliquias martyrum in diversa loca dividi, sic tamen ut qui unius vicesimi tantum martyris ossa recipit, reliquos etiam triginta novem recipiat, eademque ratione qui tricesimi; et, ut ait S. Basilius Nysseni frater, de his ipsis martyribus verba faciens: *Οὐχ ἑνὶ τόπῳ ἑαυτοὺς κατακλείσαντες, ἀλλὰ πολλοῖς ἤδη ἐπιξενωθέντες χωρίοις, καὶ πολλὰς πατρίας κατακοσμήσαντες· καὶ τὸ παράδοξον οὐ κατὰ ἕνα διαμερισθέντες τοῖς δεχομένοις ἐπιφοιτῶσιν, ἀλλ' ἀναμιχθέντες ἀλλήλοις ἡνωμένως χορεύουσιν*. Non uno loco se concluserunt, sed in multis hospitio recepti multorum patrias ornaverunt; quodque permirum est, non singulatim divisi, ad eos ventilant a quibus recipiuntur, sed inter se commisti conjunctim choreas agunt. Idem S. Joan. Chrysostomus scribit de reliquiis martyrum Ægyptiorum in varia loca dispersis tractatu in martyres Ægyptios: *Οἱ οὐ κατέκλεισαν ἐν τῇ πόλει τὸ μέγα τοῦτο τοῦ Θεοῦ δῶρον, ἀλλὰ πανταχοῦ τῆς γῆς ἐξέπεμψαν τοὺς τῶν ἀγαθῶν θησαυρούς*. Nequaquam ingens hoc Dei munus civitate sua concluserunt, sed in omnes terræ partes bonorum thesauros emiserunt.
Ibid. D. Fides optima. Legisse videtur interpres ut erat in Cant. ms. *ἀριστίνδην οἱ πάντες*, *ex optimis universi electi*, non ut erat in ms. Morel., *πίστιν ἀρίστην*; emendandum autem *πίστις ἀρίστη, οἱ πάντες ἐξειλεγμένοι*.
Col. 759 A. Genibus flexis. Exprimendum fuisse corporis gestum ac statum censuimus ab interprete omissum: nam et hunc morem fuisse Christianorum militum, cum publice orarent, ut genua flecterent, constat ex Justini *Apologia* II, ubi de impetrata simili pluvia Christianorum militum precibus agit: *Ρίψαντες γὰρ ἑαυτοὺς ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν οὐχ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ μόνον ἐδεήθησαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ παρόντος στρατεύματος*. *Nam projicientes se in terram non pro me tantum, sed et pro exercitu, qui ibi aderat, universo precati sunt*. Eusebius idem lib. v, c. 5, *Ἐν τῇ πρὸς τοὺς πολεμίους παρατάξει γόνυ θέντας ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, κατὰ τὸ οἰκεῖον ἡμῖν ἔθος, ἐπὶ τὰς πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἱκεσίας τραπέσθαι*. *In ipsa acie contra hostes instructa genibus humi positis, ut nobis, cum oramus, in more est, se ad preces Deo adhibendas convertisse dicuntur*.
Col. 762 B. Lampadarum. Interpres, *inter se coeuntium et quasi convolutarum*. Ezechielis 1, 15, non aliter legitur, *λαμπάδων συστρεφομένων ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ζώων*. Ubi vertit e Græco Hieron., *lampadarum discurrentium in medio animalium*; et in Commentar.: *Quomodo igitur crebris micat ignibus æther, et in ictu oculi atque momento discurrunt fulgura, et revertuntur*. Locus autem Sapientiæ XIII, 15, sic exhibetur a ms. Mor.: *Ἐκ μεγέθους καλλονῆς κτισμάτων καὶ τὸ ἐν κρυπτῷ κάλλος*, et ita vulgata Lat. *A magnitudine enim speciei et creaturæ cognoscibiliter poterit Creator horum videri*, et Vaticana editio Lat. e Græco: *A magnitudine enim speciei*: at in Complutensi et Plantiniana *ἐκ γὰρ μεγέθους καὶ καλλονῆς κτισμάτων*. Interpres Sifanus nactus erat codicem similem libro Canteri, in quo scriptum erat *ἐκ μεγέθους καὶ καλλονῆς κτισμάτ*
κτισμάτων*. A Ibid. C. "O most gloriously." I had admonished that in the Morellian manuscript it was written without any exclamation, "O how well to bodily things," and "O how well having translated," and consequently it must be translated: "They seemed to be excellent, who were exercised in bodily trophies, who transferred the skill of fighting into the battle-line against the devil." The printer, however, expressed the reading of the code at that place in Genesis in the commentary on the Lamentations of Jeremiah: "He saw that it was good for food, and beautiful to the eyes, and delightful to look upon." B Ibid. "One to them." Sifanus had published "one only, namely Christ (was in his heart)," they rejected everything, and had enclosed those two words in quotation marks, perhaps added from his own hand to supply the defect of the word which was missing from the "good," just as in the transcription the word "good" was missing, as in the Canter manuscript, but another Morellian book suggested it. C Ibid. "Cold, which even themselves." These things were added from the Morellian manuscript; for they were absent from the other, the Canter, and from the interpretation of Sifanus. Furthermore, the same people discuss the question of philosophers: whether hair and nails are animated, in which we sometimes perceive a sharp sense of pain, from which some contend that life is present in them. See the Commentaries of the Coimbrians on Aristotle’s *On Generation and Corruption*. D Col. 767 C. "Just as if they were then public." Sifanus’s interpretation was less suited to the truth of history, as he was occupied with public baths. Indeed, this bath would have been too cold, as King Jugurtha said to the Romans; but as they are said elsewhere to sit as if on flowering coals, and as if they were wandering in meadows, the martyrs exult in the midst of the torments of the tortures; thus here, not otherwise than if they were rushing to a public bath of hot springs, they are said to submerge themselves into that lake. Indeed, the conjunction *ὡσεί* was absent from the Morellian manuscript, though not from the Canter book. Col. 770 C. "If a victor." While the interpreter strives for variety of diction, he translates *νικητὴς καὶ τροπαιοφόρος*, "signifier and bearer of trophies"; but one who carries banners is called a "signifier," not one who reports victory, and those who are also called *tropaiouchoi* are "trophy-holders," and it was one of the epithets or titles of the Roman emperors. Chrysostom, *Sermon 1 on Anna*, page 957 of the edition of H. Stephanus: *οἱ τὰς δεήσεις γράφοντες τῷ βασιλεῖ οὐκ ἐντιθέασι ἓν ὄνομα μόνον, ἀλλὰ τὸν Τροπαιοῦχον, τὸν Αὔγουστον, τὸν Αὐτοκράτορα, καὶ πολλὰ ἕτερα προσθέντες*: "Those who write petitions to the king do not insert one name only, but the Trophy-holder, the Augustus, the Emperor, and having added many other things." In Evagrius, *Book II of History*, ch. 9: *Αὐτοκράτωρ Καῖσαρ Λέων Εὐσεβὴς Νικητὴς Τροπαιοῦχος Μέγιστος Ἀεισέβαστος*, "Imperator Caesar Leo, the Pious, Victor, Trophy-holder, Greatest, Ever-venerable." Justin, *Question 99 to the Orthodox*: *εἰς ἀπάντησιν αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ πολέμου τροπαιούχῳ ἐπανερχομένῳ*. He speaks of Jephthah, who, having gained the victory, was returning home triumphantly from the war. Col. 771 B. "Lord, remember." These things were added in the Morellian manuscript which were absent from the other, the Canter, and from the interpreter, taken from Luke xxiii, 42. Furthermore, in Genesis iii, 24, we read: *καὶ ἔταξε τὰ Χερουβὶμ καὶ τὴν φλογίνην ρομφαίαν τὴν στρεφομένην*: "And He placed the Cherubim and the flaming sword which was turning." And it is translated "flaming sword," for so the Vulgate Bible brings out that epithet from the Greek and from Jerome in II Zephaniah and epistle 155; but Ambrose in *Psalm cxviii*, octon. 3, with the Latin Vulgate, uses "versatilem" (versatile).
ON THE ORATION CONCERNING ST. MELETIUS
The Morellian manuscript gave this title to this funeral oration: *εἰς Μελέτιον ἐπίσκοπον Ἀντιοχείας ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει τελευτήσαντος*: "On Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, who departed from life in Constantinople." Socrates testifies to this in *Book V, chapter 9*, who also writes that this oration was delivered in the same city: *Τότε δὲ καὶ Μελέτιος ὁ τῆς Ἀντιοχείας ἐπίσκοπος ἀῤῥωστείᾳ περιπεσὼν ἐτελεύτησεν, ὅτε δὴ καὶ ἐπικήδειον ἐπ' αὐτῷ λόγον ὁ ἀδελφὸς Βασιλείου Γρηγόριος ἐπεξῆλθεν*: "At that time also Meletius, the Bishop of Antioch, having fallen into sickness, departed life, at which time indeed Gregory, the brother of Basil, delivered the funeral oration over him."
1217 VARIOUS NOTES. [1217] he recounted his death; the same also Sozomen, book VII, c. 10, and Nicephorus, book II, c. 29. Col. 855 B. *Neither the ear.* This segment was added by us from both manuscripts; but in the other, the Canterburian, it was written incorrectly a little later: *to revive the calamity*, just as in the one the interpreter used, translating *to resuscitate and restore the calamity*. The true reading of Morel is: *to lament the calamity*. In the same place, we wrote *of heavenly food* with Morel, not *of luxury* with Canter, from which Sifanus [wrote]: *full of heavenly delights*. David for this reason calls the bread of angels manna, Ps. LXXVII, 24, and it is said of the same in the Wisdom of Solomon, ch. XVI, 20: *You provided them bread from heaven without labor, having all delight in itself*. Col. 858 A. *Do not contend.* The interpreter had written: *lest you prevail and obtain, that you may be comforted*; we substituted the true interpretation of that passage of Isaiah in the LXX, ch. XXII, 4, *μὴ κατισχύσητε* (for so it was read also here in the Canterburian, not *κατισχύσηται* as in Morel), *to comfort me from the destruction of the daughter of my people*; which St. Jerome translates thus: *Do not contend to comfort me over the contrition of the daughter of my people*. The Latin Vulgate: *Do not strive to comfort me*. But that refers to Rachel, Jer. XXXI, 15. Ibid. B. *He saw the face.* Sifanus [wrote]: *face to the image of God*, omitting the verb and the adverb, which was expressed incorrectly in Morel, *ἁλιέως* (of a fisherman), whence we previously suspected it should be corrected to *ἱερέως* (of a priest), but the Canterburian provided the true reading, *ἀληθῶς ἐν εἰκόνι θεοῦ*, *he saw the face truly formed after the image of God*. Col. 859 C. *Hear from Jeremiah.* The interpreter had published: *You heard from Jeremiah*, expressing the reading of the Canterburian codex *ἠκούσατε*; but we had noted that in Morel it was *ἤκουσα*, *I heard the voices of Jeremiah*: but the typographical corrector substituted the third reading, as if it were *ἀκούσατε*: however, the passage seems to need restoration from Morel, as it better accords with what follows, *I know another of Jeremiah*.
1218 Ibid. D. *For truly.* I had warned that in Morel it was written *ὄντως γὰρ ἰτέα*, *for truly the willow is life*; but the typographer expressed the reading of the Canterburian, *ἐν ἰτέαις*, from which Sifanus [produced]: *for life consists entirely in willows*. But Gregory then says that we are made willows, and do not live among willows: the reading of the Morellian codex is therefore truer. Col. 862 B. *Rupture.* Sifanus [translated]: *it is a rupture of members*, translating, no doubt, from the codex that agreed with the Canterburian, but Morel more correctly reads *ῥῆξίς ἐστι δεσμῶν*, *a rupture of bonds*; whence it follows, *You have broken my bonds*. Ibid. C. *He left.* In Morel it was written, *τὴν Αἴγυπτον ὁ Μωσῆς, Μωσῆς τὸν ἰλυώδη βίον ἐπέρασεν*, *Moses left Egypt, Moses passed through the muddy life*, not *red*. Certainly, just as he previously called Meletius Simeon, so he could conveniently call him Moses in this place. Ibid. D. *Around the tabernacle.* The interpreter omitted, what was also missing in the Canterburian but not in the Morel, *καὶ ἐν χείλεσιν ἑτέροις*, *and with other lips*; namely, these are cited from the Apostle, 1 Cor. XIV, 21, and Isaiah XXVIII, v. 11. Furthermore, you may take *σκήνος* here for the body or corpse, or for the certain relics of the deceased saint Melitius; as even in Plato, in the *Axiochus*, the human body is called *σκήνος*, not only by Paul in 1 Cor. V.
Col. 863 A. *But to you.* In the Morel MS: *πρὸς ὑμᾶς δὲ τοῦτο λέγω τούς*: but in the Canterburian it is read more correctly: *πρὸς ὑμᾶς τοῦτο λέγων*. Wherefore the interpretation of Sifanus is to be restored: *wine is provided, to you who are workers of the vineyard*, saying this, and in the Greek [the word] *ὑμετέρων* is to be corrected. The passage is Prov. XXXI, 6. *Δότε μέθην τοῖς ἐν λύπαις, καὶ οἶνον πίνειν τοῖς ἐν ὀδύναις*. *Give strong drink to those who are in sorrows, and wine to drink to those who are in pains.* Furthermore, the clause of the sermon in both MSS was this, *by the grace of the Only-Begotten*, etc., not as in Sifanus, *Through Jesus Christ our Lord*.
ON THE ORATION ON PLACILLA. BY THE SAME. NOTES.
In this funeral oration he praises the Empress Placilla, the first wife of Theodosius the Elder, who died around the year of Christ 385. And the Morel MS displays this prefixed inscription: *Of the same, Funeral Oration for Queen Placilla*; but the Canterburian MS: *For Placilla*. Mention is made in Theodoret, book V, c. 18, Socrates, book V, c. 12, and Zosimus, book IV, of *Placilla the wife joined to him*: Placilla, who had previously been joined to him in marriage. Latin authors, however, to whom one should defer rather than to the Greeks in asserting the true name of the Western Empress, name her not Placilla, but Flaccilla, as does Ambrose in his *Laudation of Theodosius*, as the more corrected codices testify, which the most illustrious Cardinal Baronius mentions at the year of Christ 385, no. 36, which also Claudian confirms with the suffrage of the ancients and numismatics in *De laude Serenae*, and Faustinus the bishop, who sent his book *De fide* to the Empress Flaccilla.
*Of a rejoicing heart.* It is found here, not in Ecclesiastes VII, as some have annotated, but Proverbs XV, 13, which passage the interpreter translates more correctly than the Complutensian and Plantiniana edition: *With a rejoicing heart the face flourishes*, in the ablative absolute. The Vatican [edition]: *The face of a joyful heart flourishes*, and thus the interpreter of Origen, homily 4 on the Canticles, which Gregory also confirms with his own authority in this place, when he adds *τῆς δὲ ἐν λύπαις σκυθρωπάζει*, *he is sad regarding that which is the sorrow of grief*. Col. 883 A. *O unhappy estate.* It agrees with the interpreter's Canterburian MS, but the Morellian had only this: *τὸ δυστυχὲς ἔθνος*, *o unhappy nation*, with no mention of calamities, and what follows is to be referred to that place. Wherefore the word *χωρίον*, which is brought up later, would be interposed less conveniently: *The place in which the passion happened is perhaps named after the darkness because of the passion.* A village in which it happens, perhaps having taken its name from the dark night due to the calamity. For I hear that in their native tongue that place is called *Scotumen*. For the Morellian codex has *Σκοτούμην*, whose reading we have produced here, as the typographer expressed in the printed Canterburian book. Pliny, book V, c. 11, counts *Scotusa* among the cities of Thrace; but among the Greeks *σκοτομήνη* translates "dark Moon", in Psalm X, 2; for Suidas it is *νυκτὶ ἀσέληνος*, a moonless and dark night, whence, to the word *Scotumes*, the town of Thrace [is referred].
1219 VARIORUM NOTAE. Nyssenus alludes either to the fact that *skotoumene* signifies "darkened" or "shrouded in darkness," as in Job xxx, 30, *to derma mou eskotose megalos*, "my skin is become very dark." A Col. 885 A. *Ek podon*. The Morel ms. has *ek paidos*, "from a child," but this is to be considered a faulty reading compared to the other in Canticles, which signifies "from the footstep." We also translated *estenochorei*; it would appear too narrow if it were not, as before, constricted by a multitude. *Te stypsei*. The word *tou oinou*, which the Canticle provided, was missing in Morel; we have noted earlier that it would be fitting for this passage, both for the interpreter and for the testimony of Nicander, who attributes a constrictive power to bitter and acrid medicines; for this reason, wine is applied to wounds. Ambrose on Luke x: "He fosters with oil, [remitting] sin, just as he pricks with wine by the announcement of judgment." Gregory, *Moralia* lib. x, c. 8: "Hence it is that wine and oil are applied by the Samaritan, so that by the wine the wounds may be stung, and by the oil they may be fostered." Col. 887 A. *Arcana regni*. We followed the reading of the Morel codex, *tes basileias e parastasis*; but the interpreter had published, "in the hidden things of the kingdom a dwelling," which is favored by the copy of Canter, *tes basil. e oikesis*. I take *parastasin* in this passage as in I Macc. xv, 32: *Kai eide ten doxan Simonos kai kylikeion meta chrusomaton kai arguromaton kai parastasin hikanen*, "And he saw the glory of Simon, and the abacus with golden and silver vessels, and a rich apparatus." Unless one prefers that not "apparatus" be understood, but "appearance" and "bodyguard," since Gregory had said here *doruporoi*—a band of armigeri, or rather attendants, or a troop of satellites; for *parastasis* also signifies someone who stands at the side of another, and sounds like "side-stipator." Ibid. C. *Fenum habet*. We have added the word "hay," which is clearly necessary: for when it is said *osmes ergasterion* "flesh," then *osme* has the same value as when it is said elsewhere, *osmen echei*, "it smells badly, it stinks," and John xi, 36, *oeze*, "he stinketh." Shortly after, we read more correctly *phorologon* in Canticles than the *phthoropoion* in Morel, "a maker of corruption or of excrement," for *anankes* follows. Thus Basil in hom. 1 *De jejunio*: "At times even tax collectors permit those subject to them a little freedom." Verily, even tax gatherers grant some little liberty to those beholden to them.
1220 Recte Salomon. The passage is Prov. xxiii, 27, *pithos gar tetrimmenos estin allotrios oikos, kai phrear stenon allotrion*; in the Vatican it is read as here, *tetrimmenos*, "perforated," *Dolium fractum est aliena domus, et puteus angustus alienus*. Basil also in his oration *De jejunio* speaks thus to a man given to gluttony: *Apiston esti to tamieion, eis tetremmenon pithon antleis*; "This storage chamber is faithless; you draw into a perforated jar." For Erasmus wrongly translated *antles*, "draw." In the *Anthologia Epigrammatum*, lib. 1: *Phaulos aner pithos esti tetremmenos*; "An evil man is a perforated jar." Furthermore, let the reader note that Solomon is not saying that our life is a perforated jar, or, as it is in the Vulgate Latin, that a harlot is a "deep pit," and a strange [woman] is a "narrow well," from which Salonius of Vienna teaches that a strange woman is called a harlot because she is not a legitimate wife. We have added that member from both mss., and we do not know when we are ordered to move on. Col. 890 B. *Adulatio*. The Morel ms. has *kat' a churan*, "improbity has a place"; finally, at the end of the homily, the clause in Morel was a little longer: *kai to kratos kai he proskunesis sun to Patri kai to hagio Pneumati eis tous aionas ton aionon. Amen*; "whose is the glory and the empire and the adoration together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, unto ages of ages. Amen."
ON THE ORATION ON THE BIRTHDAY.
Col. 1127 B. *Veri tabernaculi*. The Augustana edition, the year 1587, and two mss. of Canter and Morel, *to tes alethines skenopegias musterion*, not as the interpreter seems to have read, *to tes alethines skenes*, "the mystery of the true tabernacle," for it follows, *en taute gar skenopegeitai to anthropinon skenoma*. Col. 1130 A. *Per condensationem*. *Puxasmos skenopegias tes kato ktiseos* properly sounds "the condensation of the construction of the tabernacle, of the lower creation," not as Zinus had translated, "the frequency of the lower tabernacle." Ps. cxvii, 27, we read in the LXX: *Sustesasthe heorten en tois pukazousin heos ton keraton tou thusiasteriou*; "Appoint a solemn feast in the thickets even to the horns of the altar." Since, therefore, the interpreter of Nyssen had previously translated that *en tois pukazousin* as "in the thickets," and afterwards *to pukazesthai* is equal to *to kosmeisthai he periballesthai*, "to be condensed" and "to be adorned" and "to be clothed" are the same: *puxasmon* here he seemed to have needed to interpret as "condensation," although *to pukazein* has the same value as "to pack together," and among Augustine and in the old Psalter it is translated, "Appoint a solemn feast in the crowded gatherings," which would have been read *pukasmasin*; for otherwise *pukazein* for Nyssen means to adorn, to clothe, as the scholiast notes in the edit. *Biblioth. Vaticanae*, *pukazousin, skiazousin, kaluptousin, kosmousin*, "overshadowing, covering, adorning," and with Hesychius Suidas, *pukazousi, stephanousi; pukazetai, kosmeitai, skepazetai*. Col. 1131 B. *Ut reparator*. Augustine and Canter agree to read *ou men oude tote te diorthote*, etc., as we have printed; but the Morel ms. reads *e kairon en te* [...] *Aiguption lego kakon katam*. The interpreter had published "it was," so that from this God might mix [himself] with life. It was necessary that "Israelites," etc. Col. 1134 B. *Confregit*. Zinus had written "contained." But what had been left of this beast in human life, and what [was left] regarding men by the machinations of vices. In two mss. and in the printed text, it was read as we have published. For the interpreter was in vain here when he annotated the passage of Gen. iii, 16, with the Augustan printer: certainly there it was only written *autos sou teresei kephalen*, "it will watch thy head," which in the Complutensian and Plantinian editions is rendered in Latin: *Ipse tuum conteret caput*, "He shall crush thy head," and in the Vatican, *autos sou teresei kephalen*, "he shall watch thy head": but it is more probable that Nyssen alluded to that of the prophet David, Ps. lxxiii, 14: *Su sunethlasas ten kephalen tou drakontos*, "Thou hast broken the head of the dragon." Col. 1135 B. *Transiens*. Not as Zinus [had printed] before, "I will go up, he says, and I will see the vision." The Augustana and two mss. [read]: *Diabas gar, phesin, opsomai to mega, et kinesis dia tes baseos August.*; but Canter and Morel [read]: *dia tes diabáseōs*. Therefore he did not say *anabas*, "going up," but *diabas*, "passing over." But the Septuagint of Exodus iii, 5: *Parelthon opsomai to horama, to mega touto*; which Cyprian interprets in *Testimonia*, 19: *Transiens videbo hoc grande visum*, "Passing over I will see this great sight." Ambrose in Ps. cxviii, octon. 15: *Transiens videbo hoc visum magnum*. And the same Jerome in Ps. xl. The Vulgate from the Hebrew: *Vadam, et videbo visionem hanc magnam*. Ibid. *Quod Deum*. The interpreter seems to have read *to Theodokon soma*, "the body that received God"; to which
the following reading is favorable: *dia ten tes hamartias paradochen*, "on account of the acceptance of sin." Likewise, that which was noted earlier in the Catechetical book (Vol. XLV of this Patrology, at the beginning): *Ex tou hmeterou phuratos he Theodochos sarx en*, "Of our own lump was the God-receiving flesh." And Dionysius, book *On the Divine Names*, chap. 3: *Epi ten thean tou zoarchikou, kai Theodochou somatos sunel eluthamen*, "We have come together for the contemplation of the life-originating and God-receiving body." A We had come together to behold that body, which had at one time contained the principle of life and God himself. Nonnus also calls her *Theodochos*, which Hesychius interprets as *Theodegmona*, "she who had received God." However, the Augustana edition and two manuscripts consistently read *to Theotokon soma*: whence the Virgin is called the Mother of God, *Theotokos*, in the Council of Ephesus, page 504 of the Roman edition. In the first anathematism of Cyril: *Ei tis ouch homologei Theon einai kata aletheian ton Emmanouel, kai dia touto Theotokon ten agian Parthenon*; "If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is truly God, and for this reason [does not confess] the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God."
Col. 1138 D. *I heard, therefore*. Thus, word for word, according to the Greek text which, along with the printed edition, two hand-written codices support. Zinus had written it, as I learned from a certain history of uncertain authorship. By this term "apocryphal," theBlessed Jerome has used in many places, as in epistle 7: "Let him beware of all apocrypha, and if at any time he should wish to read them, not for the truth of their dogmas, but out of respect for their signs, let him know that they are not by those whose names stand at their head." Others translate it as "secret and hidden history." Yet, this same history regarding the sterile parents of the Virgin Mother of God, and of her offering in the temple, is recounted by Epiphanius in *Heresy 79*, and by another Epiphanius—if perhaps it is not the same person—in his oration *On the Praises of the Blessed Virgin*, Vol. VII of the *Bibliotheca SS. Patrum*; by Nicephorus, citing Evodius, book II, chap. 3, of his *History*; and by Damascenus, book IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, chap. 15. The other account also, regarding the place in the temple assigned to the virgins and regarding the murder of Zacharias—which Jerome says is approved by the dreams of the apocryphal writers in his commentary on *Matthew* XXI—is reported and explained by Origen in his *Commentary on Matthew*, tract 20; by Basil in his homily *On the Human Generation of Christ*; by Peter of Alexandria, canon 3; and by Cyril of Alexandria, in *Against the Anthropomorphites*. B
Ibid. *To the Holy of Holies*. We have restored this passage, which was previously truncated in the interpreter, who only had "He approaches the Holy of Holies and prays as a suppliant to God." Nicephorus Callistus, book I, chap. 7, transcribed it and transferred it into his own *History*: "She also was a suppliant to God and was assiduously occupied in the temple, so that she would not fall short of the blessings of the law." A little later, the same interpreter of Nicephorus expressed better the phrase *dunamotheisa de neumati theio pros ten charan hen ethesen*: "For indeed, Anna, strengthened and fortified by a divine nod toward the grace which she had sought, as soon as the girl had emerged from the maternal womb, immediately named her Mary." And we read, indeed, in 1 Kings 1 regarding Anna, the wife of Elkanah, when Eli the priest was sitting before the doorposts of the house of the Lord, that she prayed, but did not enter into the Holy of Holies; nor does that agree with what Epiphanius says in the homily already cited, *On the Praises of the Blessed Virgin*, that Joachim prayed on a mountain and Anna his wife in her garden, when they petitioned for a daughter from God. But how could a woman be permitted entry into the Holy of Holies, when we can with great difficulty be persuaded to admit that history concerning the Blessed James, which Rufinus expressed from the Greek of Eusebius, book II, chap. 23: "It was permitted to him alone to enter into the holy place: for he did not wear a woolen garment, but a linen one. He alone entered into the temple." Yet in the Greek, it only reads: *touto mono exen eis ta hagia eisienai*, "to this one alone it was permitted to enter into the holy place," not "the Holy of Holies," as both Rufinus and Christophorson translated it. Truly, it is strange that Joseph Scaliger did not notice this, when he has criticized Eusebius and his interpreters so severely. C For it was permitted only to the high priest once a year to enter into the Holy of Holies, or the second tabernacle, Levit. XVI, 2, and Hebr. IX, 7; but into the first [tabernacle] the priests always entered, fulfilling the offices of the sacrifices: and this could have been permitted to James by a certain peculiar right, even though he was not of the Levitical lineage or of the family of Aaron. On account of this, Eusebius says that he was accustomed to enter *eis naon*, "into the temple." For the fact that it is read elsewhere—both in Jerome in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers* and in Epiphanius, *Heresy 29*—that he was introduced into the sanctuary itself seems no less incredible than if we were to say he had been high priest, as could be gathered from the words of Epiphanius, since he asserts that he exercised the priesthood, and therefore entered once a year into the Holy of Holies. Moreover, what is said here regarding the etymology of the name Mary—that it signifies *to Theodoton tes charitos*, "the God-given [gift] of grace"—does not correspond with the things that Jerome reports in his book *On Hebrew Names*: "Many estimate that Mary is interpreted as 'lighting me,' or 'illuminatrix,' or 'myrrh of the sea,' but it does not seem so to me at all. It is better, however, that we say it sounds like 'star of the sea,' or 'bitter sea': and it must be known that Mary in the Syriac tongue is called 'mistress.'" More recent writers, from the Syriac and Hebrew, wish for the compound name to mean "Mistress of the sea."
Col. 1139 B. *Tribe and family*. Not, as before, "tribe and fatherland," *phules kai patridos*. Jerome confirms the correction in his book *Against Helvidius*: "Furthermore, those are called brothers in relationship who are of one family, that is *patria*, which the Latins translate as 'paternity,' when a great crowd of kin spreads out from one root." D
Col. 1142 A. *O blessed*. Ms. Mor.: *O makarias sarkos ekeines, he di' hyperbolen katharotetos ta tes psuches*, "O blessed flesh, that which, by the excellence of its purity..." The received reading is *August.* and *Cant.* For the things that follow it also favor this, in which mention is made of a pure soul, so that you may understand purity to be noted in the womb or the flesh. We have added the word "purity" to the interpretation.
Col. 1146 D. *Who is an enemy*. It was read previously, "who is conquered into grace." The Augustana edition, page 127, had in the text *to ekpolemomenon katallassetai*, but in the margin *to ekpolemomenon eis katallagas agetai*, "who has been made an enemy, is brought into grace," or "who had been rendered an enemy." And the *Cant.* manuscript supports this reading. Furthermore, such is the distinction between *polemeisthai* and *polemesthai*, as Budaeus teaches on page 171 of his *Commentaries*, because *pepolemenos* is "one who has been advanced toward enmity, and become an enemy to someone," that is, one who begins to be of a hostile spirit: but indeed *pepolemenos* [i.e., *pepolememenos*] is also "those who have been forced and harmed by war," that is, one who has suffered violence in war and has been affected by injury. Furthermore, I cannot refer the place cited from Solomon a little earlier to anything other than that which is in Ecclesiasticus 1, 26: *En hemera agathon amnestia kakon*, "In a day of good things, an oblivion of evils." Jerome, in Isaias XLV, translates: "In the good day, an oblivion of evils," which supports the Greek vulgate reading against the opinion of those who think that *me* is missing in this place—"that there might not be an oblivion of evils."
Col. 1147 A. *These as of justice*. Zinus had published "these as of the testament," as if he had read *diathekes*, not as it is in the *August.* and *Canter.*, *tes dikaiosunes*, as he had said before that the gate of justice had been opened, which is accustomed to be opposed to sin, not a testament. Thus, in the same column: we have written "that you might be freed from calamity," not as Zinus, "that you might be freed from slavery," because it is read as *sumphoras*, not *douleias*; and later we added the word "benefactor," *to euergeten*, which both the printed edition and two manuscripts suggested. Lastly, in the following column, A and B, we preferred to write "he is not held, and was held by corruption" rather than "he is conquered or would be conquered," because he borrowed these locutions from the apostle Peter, Acts II, 24: *Ouk en dunaton krateisthai auton hyp' autou*, "It was impossible for him to be held by him."
VARIOUS NOTES ON THE EPISTLE REGARDING THOSE WHO GO TO JERUSALEM
NOTES BY GRETZER OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS Upon the notes of Peter Moulin, Calvinist minister.PREFACE
A Peter Moulin, a Calvinist minister, recently published in Greek and Latin, under the name of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, the epistle *Περὶ τῶν ἀπιόντων εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα* ("On those who go to Jerusalem"), with a new version, together with notes and a double treatise, the one *On Pilgrimages*, the other *On Altars*: as if that epistle had not long since been published in Greek and Latin, and indeed at Paris in the year 1551, by Morellius—unless Illyricus—who translated its total substance into his *Catalog of Witnesses to the Truth*, and the whole of it into his fourth *Century*, before this Calvinist Eurybates was born—is lying; certainly many years before he came out in public with his own barbaric interpretation. Nor did he have any other reason for forcing this epistle out again and contaminating it with inept and perverse glosses, than his hatred for sacred pilgrimages, especially the Jerusalem pilgrimage, which, since it seems to be discouraged and disapproved of by this epistle, is greedily snatched up by sectarians and praised with full cheeks, so that Joseph Burdo, a companion at Moulin’s Calvinist supper, calls it in one place a "golden little book." And perhaps Moulin was induced by this eulogy to dedicate this work of his, bestowed upon this epistle, to Burdo; from whom he might have received wonderful gratitude if he had addressed him with these Catullian verses: To whom this golden new little book, Just polished by the dry pumice stone? O Burdo, to you; for you were wont To think my trifles something.He ridiculously urges him to spend the rest of his life in treating theological arguments. Which wish, if Burdo is wise, he will interpret as coming not from a friend, but from an enemy. For if anyone wishes the greatest evil upon Burdo, let him wish that he might set his rash sickle to the theological harvest. Good God, what games will he provide for theologians? What mockeries will he deserve for his ignorance? For since he has been so bold and headlong in the critical, chronological, and mathematical field that he is beaten everywhere by critics, chronologists, and mathematicians; what shall we suppose will happen if he attempts to handle celestial mysteries with those unwashed hands?
B Moreover, this epistle so smiles upon the Calvinist palate that some Robert Stephanus (perhaps one of the nephews of that celebrated Robert Stephanus)—whom Moulin (what if a mule scratches a mule?) calls a man of polished wit and lover of the truth—also wished to translate it into the French language. The eulogy would have been more pleasing if he had named him a man of wit divorced from all truth. He calls Stephanus’s French version "convenient and elegant," and one which stung the Jesuits. What if here, too, hand washes hand? What antidote does Moulin expect, unless that Stephanus in return might call the Latin version "truly convenient and elegant," together with notes "truly convenient and elegant"? I depart as Alcaeus at his point: he at mine? Who, if not Callimachus?
And who are those Jesuits whom Stephanus’s version stung so much? Among many, he names one, Louis Richeome. "He insults Stephanus," says Moulin, "to a wonderful degree, and attempts to suppress the book by an allegation of falsehood, and to remove us from the case by an exception of a matter already judged." I have seen neither Stephanus’s version nor Richeome’s refutation. I do not doubt, however, that Stephanus furnished rich material for his translation and ridicule from that source from which most of Calvin’s disciples are accustomed—for they do not begrudge us that honest pleasure which we perceive from their ineptitudes. Nor does any doubt hold me that Stephanus was properly flayed by Richeome, so that perhaps he might not return to the arena so quickly, mindful of the blows received in the former engagement.
For what Moulin says, that Richeome drew all his weapons from his Bellarmine, even if it were true, what effect would it have upon the cause that Richeome was pleading? Whence did you, who chatter in your *Notes*, borrow—I will not say "read over"—if not from Illyricus, the Centuriators, Hospinianus, Danaeus, and other innovators who long before you hawked this epistle under the name of Gregory of Nyssa, and used it as a very powerful weapon to attack pilgrimages, though very insipidly, as will later be made clear.
C Furthermore, the reason that moved me to undertake the brief examination and discussion of this Calvinist's trifles is because the subject of sacred pilgrimages touches me somewhat more closely than some others, since I brought to light four books on pilgrimages two years ago, and discussed this very epistle most copiously in book one, chapter 10, and refuted almost everything that this new chatterer now sings. There is added the fact that this minister of the Lemanic gospel and cook of the Calvinist supper plants his teeth several times into the most illustrious Cardinal Bellarmine: since therefore I profess the defense of Bellarmine, and have asserted him in my work *On Pilgrimages* against the calumnies of Danaeus and Hospinianus, he is not to be abandoned in this place when he is attacked by this Calvin-worshipper who emerged the day before yesterday, of whom Bellarmine may rightly say what Achilles said of Agamemnon: . . . οὐδ' ἂν ἔμοιγε Τετλαίη, κύνεόσπερ ἐὼν, εἰς ὦπα ἰδέσθαι. Nor, even if he were very impudent, would he dare to look me in the face.
I also desired on this occasion to run through the notes of another Calvinist, but one by far more learned, on the epistle of the same Nyssen, as they say, to Eustathia, Ambrosia, and Basilissa, in which the Nyssen also discourses on the Jerusalem pilgrimage, if it is Nyssen; for it emerged recently, nor did anyone ever before hear of this monument of Nyssen, either through hearsay, or while waking, or while dreaming. And the scholiast annotates many things that need light, even dark ones, as we shall see. Now, may it turn out well, let us approach the matter itself.
D
CHAPTER ONE. Examination of Moulin's notes on the epistle regarding the Jerusalem pilgrimage.
The Calvinist begins thus: "Bellarmine, and he who plucked his feathers, Richeome, allege that this epistle is a forgery, as *ψευδεπίγραφον*, and they deny that it is of Gregory. *Μὴ ψεύδου*, says he in Homer." (Do not lie, when you can speak the truth.) "For Bellarmine does not absolutely deny that it is of Nyssen; but says, 'Perhaps it is not of Nyssen.' Nor does he say it does not exist in Greek, but 'perhaps it does not exist in Greek,' because no GreekA exemplar had seen. Why do you pass over that 'perhaps,' which restricts and limits the assertion? Perhaps you passed over this little word so that, at the very threshold of your notes, you might have the material ready at hand for lying. To this first lie of yours, lest it be solitary, you soon join a companion: namely, that Bellarmine and Richeome deny this on no other argument than that they think so. Is it no argument that it is not covered in Nyssen's works, that the interpreter is unknown, and that perhaps it is not even found in Greek? Did Bellarmine not bring forward and touch upon these three arguments? If you thought them false, why did you not refute them? If it is Nyssen's, why is it not received among his works, so often printed at Paris and elsewhere? A few years ago, various short works of Nyssen appeared from various libraries; they immediately found a station in the volume of Nyssen's works, published not so long ago in Paris. How is it that since the year of our Lord 1551, when this letter was printed in Paris, it has nowhere been donated a place among the works of Nyssen? If you say that those editions were Pontifical and belonged to Pontificals, who wished for this letter to be exterminated, I reply: If this is the legitimate cause why it does not appear in the editions of Catholic cities, why is it exiled from the Basle edition of the year 1562, published eleven years after the Morellian edition? For that it is exiled, the Epitome of the Gesnerian Library gives me faith, which wove a catalogue of all the works and minor pieces of that edition, and yet this letter is nowhere to be seen among them. What is the cause why neither heretical typographers nor booksellers gave this letter a place among the works of Nyssen? For they could not have been ignorant that it had been edited, since in the same year 1562 it was printed in Basle in the fourth Century of the Magdeburg scholars.
Furthermore, not all Pontificals adjudge it away from Nyssen. For I have no doubt that Morellius, the first editor, was a Pontifical. But Aloysius Lippomanus was also a Pontifical, and yet, if you write the truth, he wove this letter into the second volume of *The Lives of the Saints* under Nyssen's name. There was also the most illustrious writer of Annals, Baronius, a Pontifical, and that in the highest degree; yet he does not deny, in his fourth Annal, that this letter proceeded from Nyssen's workshop. How is it that, despite the judgments of these men, this letter has hitherto not found a place among the other lucubrations of Nyssen? Is not this an argument that, regarding this letter, the sense is much closer to what is true? And that this is the reason why, to this very day, it has been separated from his other works; although a few from among the orthodox, but all from the flock of sectarians, adjudicate it to Nyssen out of a hatred for pilgrimages.
As concerns the interpreter, neither the first editor Morellius, nor Illyricus in his Catalogue and fourth Century, could indicate what the name of that interpreter might be, nor can you. You will say: 'That the argument taken from the fact that the interpreter is unknown is not very firm.' For the interpreters of many of Saint Chrysostom's homilies are uncertain, and yet the certainty and genuineness of the homilies are not doubted because of the uncertainty of the interpreters. I reply that, while this may be so, some argument at least is drawn from an unknown interpreter, especially when it is clear to all concerning all other works of Nyssen, by whom they were rendered into Latin. And if any new ones have appeared not long ago, to which no name of an interpreter is ascribed, such as the little book *On Fate* or the oration *Against the Usurers*, it is nevertheless explored by me who translated both little works into Latin. Do you know who is the author of the Latin version that exists in the fourth Magdeburg Century?
The third argument of Bellarmine is that this letter perhaps is not found even in Greek. He does not affirm simply that it is not found, but says: 'Perhaps,' because Bellarmine had not seen the Morellian edition; nor could one unjustly suspect that the Greek composition itself is by a more recent craftsman, since it is scarcely found in libraries. In the Augustan and Bavarian libraries certainly, which contain most of Nyssen's works, it does not appear; just as it does not appear in the indices of other libraries, which Father Possevinus added to the end of his *Apparatus*: for as to what that Calvinist says, that it is found in the Royal library in Paris, and not at the end but inserted in the middle of the body, that does not thereby prove it to be of Gregory of Nyssen; for in a certain Bavarian codex, in which many works of Nyssen are contained, there stands an oration or homily *On Melchizedek*, which, whoever would contend is Nyssen's, is worthy to milk he-goats, while Moulin holds the sieve B. Nor does Moulin indicate whether that Royal codex contains only the orations of Nyssen, or this one alone under Nyssen's name, or many others. Nor did he himself see it, but reports it from the relation of another. Who would not marvel at the sloth of Moulin, who, contemplating commentaries on this new translation of the letter, did not approach the Royal library, since he lives in Paris, with most easy access by the favor of the librarian Casaubon, whom he here magnificently extols; perhaps for this reason, that he is of the flock of Moulin. But this letter is in the middle of the codex. What then? Can nothing spurious be inserted in the middle of a codex?
Moulin also urges the style, which harmonizes exactly with the style of Gregory. For what reason? Because it seems to dissuade from the Jerusalem pilgrimage, and some other things; this, forsooth, is the reason and origin of such consistency and such agreement. If this letter approved of pilgrimages so openly that no occasion for tergiversation and evasion were left to the sectarians, then the style would be by this very fact most unlike the Gregorian, nor would it savor of anything of Gregory. Now it is 'Gregorian,' because it seems to say something which these people desire to have been said and written by Gregory. Certainly this Calvinist minister is a fit censor of the Gregorian style: who, besides this letter ascribed to Gregory, does not seem to have read many of Gregory's works in Greek, since few exist in Greek, but he himself is so diligent an investigator of manuscript codices that he did not even inspect the Royal codex for this letter of his, to explore whether it were of old or new handwriting; and whether the matter was as he had understood from the librarian.
He urges, furthermore, the similarity of the doctrine. When, however, did Nyssen ever prohibit pilgrimages in his works, so that you can so boldly assert that in this letter, taken in your sense and understanding, there is such a similarity of doctrine with the rest of his works? So far is he from teaching in his other monuments that it is illicit to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, that he does not even affirm this simply in that letter, as has been copiously shown in the work *On Pilgrimages*.
But Gregory mentions, even in his letter to Olympius, his journey to Arabia, of which this letter also makes mention. As if, forsooth, the architect of this letter could not have adorned himself with borrowed feathers, and attributed to himself what Nyssen had written about himself. Did Nyssen alone make a journey to Arabia? The *Gospel of Nicodemus* not only mentions, but also describes the passion of Christ. Is it therefore not pseudepigraphal? Nor do Bellarmine or others object that this letter is not found in the common codices: but they say that it does not exist among the works of Nyssen, collected into one volume: for if it is Nyssen's, why is it not joined with the others, after so many years, after the works of Nyssen have been so often printed and reprinted together? This also is a marvel: that it is not found in the Greek manuscript codices of the most illustrious and well-stocked libraries: since his other works are not so infrequent in libraries. But you say: 'Before types were invented, it was easy for monks, the keepers of manuscripts, to erase what they pleased.' You lay, therefore, the blame for this rarity on the monks, who expunged it. Very thoughtlessly. For in the codi-
codices that remain, no trace of such an erasure or expunction appears. Furthermore, you perpetually accuse the monks of having been, before Luther and Calvin, so unlearned as not even to have understood the Latin language: how much less, then, would they have known Greek! Hence, you refer to the monks, above all others, the saying: A *It is Greek, it is not read.* If the monks were unable to read Greek, how could they have erased this Greek epistle from the codices written by hand, as you claim? For they could not—unless you are lying—have known, due to their crudeness, what sort of argument it was treating.
CHAPTER II. The second response of Bellarmine and other Catholics is defended.
B Suppose this is Nyssen’s epistle. What follows from that? He does not simply condemn pilgrimages undertaken by anyone at all, but only by anchorites and men or women leading a solitary life, whose profession it is to withdraw, to be hidden, and to avoid the throng and concourse of men. To which Du Moulin replies: *It is easy for us to blow these mists away.* As easy, indeed, as it is for a fox to eat a pear. Let us see with how easy a breath this Calvinist Æolus might shake this response. *Against this,* he says, *the whole epistle is so clear that it seems written by the ray of the sun, especially if one applies Calvinist spectacles; otherwise, it is hard to hope oneself would see such great light.*
Du Moulin says: *For whatever arguments he brings against pilgrimages, no one but a fool will deny that they also pertain to the people.* Therefore, with this breath or blast, Du Moulin dispels the response of the Catholics. Whoever forbids pilgrimages to be undertaken to the sepulchre or birthplace of Christ without the precept of Sacred Scripture, surely asserts C that the people ought not to make such a pilgrimage, unless Sacred Scripture commands the people to do so. But Gregory explicitly affirms this, and indeed contends that nothing of the sort is commanded in Sacred Scripture; he asserts, therefore, that the people ought not to make a pilgrimage there—unless perhaps our adversaries think that Gregory believed it permissible for the people to do something for the worship of God without the mandate of Sacred Scripture, while it was not permissible for ascetics and anchorites.
But that syllogism is entirely unformed and fanatical, not to say fantastical, and clearly fashioned according to the custom and the mouth of the preachers, who mix truths with falsehoods in their syllogisms so that, unless one pays careful attention, one can hardly detect the fraud. Therefore, with the major and minor premises conceded, the conclusion is denied because the form does not hold; for in the minor it should have been subsumed: *But Gregory forbids pilgrimages D to be undertaken to the sepulchre or birthplace of Christ without the precept of Sacred Scripture, that is, for the reason that this is not commanded in Sacred Scripture: therefore, Gregory asserts it is not for the people to make pilgrimage there.* But the minor, formed in this way—as it ought to be formed according to the law of reasoning—is abhorrent to all truth whatsoever; for even if Gregory says that a Jerusalem pilgrimage is not commanded in the Scriptures, he does not for that reason say it is illicit. For, as I said in the first book *De sacris Peregrinationibus*, he did not labor under that folly, which our Innovators have, of believing everything to be illicit that is not commanded in the sacred Letters.
Therefore, if someone institutes an argument in this manner: *Everything that is not commanded in Scripture is illicit; a Jerusalem pilgrimage is not commanded in Scripture; therefore, it is illicit:* the major is denied. If in this manner: *Gregory of Nyssa says that a Jerusalem pilgrimage is not commanded in the Scriptures, therefore he forbade it not only to monks but to men of any other condition whatever:* the conclusion is denied. For I myself admit that this pilgrimage is not commanded in the Scriptures, definitively and determinately, to be sure; yet I do not therefore affirm that it is not lawfully undertaken by any class of men. And if Nyssen considered a Jerusalem pilgrimage to be illicit because it was not commanded in Scripture, with what conscience did he himself make this pilgrimage? Nor did Nyssen say that a Jerusalem pilgrimage is not commanded in the Scriptures for any other end than to remove from monks and nuns an excessive desire for going to Jerusalem, as they supposed they would not attain to Christian perfection unless they had seen Jerusalem. To diminish, or rather, to utterly extinguish their cupidity, besides other arguments, he employed this one: that a Jerusalem pilgrimage is not commanded in the Sacred Letters, and therefore there is no cause why they should think that anything of Christian perfection will be wanting to them if they do not go to Jerusalem.
If you clothe the argument in this form: *He who says a Jerusalem pilgrimage is not commanded in Scripture simply denies that this pilgrimage ought to be undertaken by anyone: but Nyssen says a Jerusalem pilgrimage is not commanded in Scripture: therefore Nyssen simply denies that this pilgrimage ought to be undertaken by anyone.* I reply that the major is Calvinian—that is, devoid of any truth. But let us transcribe the very words of the epistle: Ἐπεὶ τοίνυν εἰσί τινες τῶν τὸν μονήρη καὶ ἰδιάζοντα βίον ἐπανῃρημένων, οἷς ἐν μέρει εὐσεβείας νενόμισται τὸ τοὺς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις τόποις ἰδεῖν, ἐν οἷς τὰ σύμβολα τῆς διὰ σαρκὸς ἐπιδημίας τοῦ Κυρίου ὁρᾶται, καλῶς ἂν ἔχοι πρὸς τὸν κανόνα βλέπειν. Καὶ εἰ ταῦτα βούλεται ἡ παρὰ τῶν ἐντολῶν χειραγωγία, ποιεῖν τὸ ἔργον, ὡς πρόσταγμα Κυρίου. Εἰ δὲ ἔξω ἐστὶ τῶν ἐντολῶν τοῦ Δεσπότου, οὐκ οἶδα τί ἐστι τὸ διατεταγμένον τι θέλειν ποιεῖν αὐτὸν ἑαυτοῦ τοῦ καλοῦ νόμον γινόμενον. Which words the interpreter, the fourth Magdeburg Century, translates thus: *Since, then, there are those who have chosen for themselves a solitary and private life (Du Moulin: since, therefore, some of them, who have chosen a life in seclusion: what is, a life in seclusion? How ready it would have been for either to translate βίον μονήρη as monastic life, had these people not hated monastic life worse than dogs and snakes), for whom it is counted as a part of piety to have seen the Jerusalem places, in which the tokens of the Lord’s appearance through the flesh are seen, it would be well to look to the rule itself, and if the guidance of the precepts (or manuduction) wishes us to do the work, as if it were a command of God, if it appears to have been introduced outside (Du Moulin, if outside) the Lord’s precepts, I do not know what it is to wish to do what someone commands, who has made himself his own law of what is good.* Du Moulin: *I do not know what this matters, for someone to wish to do what is not commanded, and thus to be his own law of what is honest.* Where Du Moulin boldly inserts the negation μή, *that which is not commanded*, because they want it, as he says, for the antecedents and consequents. Here again I am forced to regret the diligence of Du Moulin. Why did he not inspect the Royal codex to see if it exhibits this negation? Why did he not ask Casaubon, the light of letters and the storehouse of erudition, to inspect it, if he did not have enough leisure from cooking his Calvinist supper to go to the Royal library? Nor is it true that the antecedents and consequents demand this negation: for the sense stands without it, as the interpreter among the Centuriators saw and rendered. But grant it; let the negation be added. What will the Calvinist obtain? By right, nothing but this: That one must not think that this must necessarily be done, as if it were simply necessary for Christian perfection, that which is not commanded in divine Letters: for the monks, whom he dissuades from the Jerusalem pilgrimage, thought they could not attain Christian perfection unless they had worshipped in the places where the feet of the Lord had stood. To take this error from them, he says he does not know what this matters: to wish to do something not commanded (namely, as if it must be done as necessary) and thus to be his own law of what is honest. The second blast of Du Moulin, by which he shakes the Catholic response. Gregory adds, Christ, and when he invites…
us to the kingdom of heaven, Matt. xxv, v. 34, and when he declares who are the blessed, Matt. v, v. 3, he makes no mention of pilgrims. Is anyone of so hard a mouth as to say that Christ is speaking in those passages only of hermits or ascetics? Or did Gregory rather wish these words of Christ to pertain to all the pious?
From this breath of Du Moulin, I judge that these consequences can be wrung out: Among the works that Christ enumerates while inviting and introducing the elect to blessedness, a pilgrimage to Jerusalem is not placed: therefore it is not permitted to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Tell me, among those works, the taking of a wife is not enumerated, nor is a Calvinist supper: therefore it will not be permitted to take a wife or to partake of a Calvinist supper. Does this deduction please Du Moulin? As if indeed Christ, in that place, wished to enumerate all works consistent with a Christian, or intended to enumerate them at the final judgment. Among the beatitudes, a pilgrimage to Jerusalem is not numbered: therefore it is illicit. Just as if you were to say: Among the beatitudes, the writing of books is not numbered, therefore it is not permitted to write books. In the catalog of beatitudes, the administration of family affairs is not inscribed: therefore it is not permitted to administer family affairs.
Further, I wish the reader to note that I do not say these absurdities of consequences are gathered from Nyssen, or the author of this epistle, but from the discourses and ravings of Du Moulin and other preachers, which they ignorantly elicit from this epistle, or rather from their own imagination. For the author of the epistle intended nothing other than that one should not be grieved if one has neither seen Jerusalem nor is going to see it, since neither among the works that Christ, at the final judgment, will enumerate as having been rendered to him, nor among the beatitudes, is the pilgrimage to Jerusalem placed; but from this, you can infer nothing but most ineptly that it is therefore illicit or displeasing to God; otherwise, very many things, by the confession of all, both licit and pleasing to God, would be rendered illicit and displeasing to God.
Nor do we deny that these things can also be accommodated to laypeople and others who do not follow the monastic and solitary life (for if I were to see some layperson consumed by excessive grief because he had not gone to Jerusalem, as if without this pilgrimage he would not be a participant in Christian perfection, not unjustly would I console him with the words of this epistle, and try to free him from this persuasion), yet Gregory uttered these words only concerning monks and those who have professed the religious life, as is evidently manifest both from the very argument of the epistle and from these words: A *Since therefore there are some who have chosen the solitary and separate life*, etc. A little later, those to whom he writes he calls *the perfect, and those who have established for themselves an exact life, having chosen to live according to God*, and he names their institution *a life according to philosophy*, whose property is *the σωσυμοσύνη* (decorum), which way of living is situated *in a life apart and separate from the lives of others, so that their nature is unmixed and unconfused, neither that of women among men, nor that of men among women, in regard to those things in which they practice the σωσυμοσύνη*. All of which things are manifestly understood concerning the practitioners of the monastic life, both men and women; for in common life, men are not segregated from women, nor, vice-versa, are women from men, as the author of the epistle says it does in this institute of living.
The aforementioned words were rendered by the interpreter among the Centuriators thus: B *A holy and grave institution of life is proposed to all, both to men and women. Peculiar is the honesty and chastity of the philosophic life: which, in its life, is not mixed, and is accomplished separately, just as it is an unmixed and least confused nature; neither for women in the company of men, nor for men in that of women, striving to defend the offices of chastity and honesty.*
Du Moulin muddles everything even more in his version, so that the author of the epistle might not seem to speak of monks, but promiscuously of all Christians who institute their life according to the prescription of the Christian law. Hence he rendered the last part of this period thus: *Since neither women among men, nor men among women, strive to defend the offices of honesty.* And yet the sense of the epistle is this: That a life separated and secluded from the company of men consists in this, that neither men associate with women, nor these with those, but both parties live separately, and neither do women among men hasten, tend, and exert themselves toward the observation of honesty—that is, toward the perfection of the monastic and solitary life—but each party separately.
The author of the epistle adds: That in a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, this cannot be observed, C but necessarily men must be with women, and the latter with the former, in the journey and in the inns.
Although both the ancient interpreter of the fourth Century and Du Moulin interpret that *παρατετηρημένα* as offices, that is, observations, yet since *παρατηρῶ* is not only the same as to simply observe, but also to observe against what is right and just, or to neglect a due observation: this notion is altogether to be judged more fitting for this place. For he says: *Neither do men among women, nor these among men, rush toward the violation of σωσυμοσύνη*: for *τὸ παρατετηρημένον τῆς εὐσχημοσύνης* is a violation, or, if I may so speak, a non-observation of decorum, just as *τὸ παρατετηρημένον τῆς σωφροσύνης* is a violation and transgression of temperance: but especially *παρατηρεῖται*, is violated, it [the] *εὐσχημοσύνη*, honesty and gravity, which the *βίος μονήρης καὶ ἰδιάζων, καὶ τέλειος, καὶ ἀκριβής* demands, if men live with women, and women with them. Nor do the following words stand in the way of this meaning: *ἀλλὰ ἡ τῆς ὁδοιπορίας ἀνάγκη ἀεὶ τὴν ἐν τούτοις ἀκρίβειαν καὶ πρὸς ἀδιαφορίαν τῶν παρατετηρημένων ἄγει*. For *ἀδιαφορία* of things *παρατετηρημένων* is called in this place the neglect of a violated office, when someone considers *τὴν παρατήρησιν*, the violation and transgression of that which was to be observed, as a matter of indifference.
Here again, one may justly accuse the carelessness of Du Moulin, who did not inspect the Royal codex (in which this epistle is said to be found), in order to determine more certainly the reading of this period; for to Du Moulin it seems that something is missing, or the particle *καὶ* is superfluous. D Hence he thinks either this should be deleted, or with his friend that the word *ἀναιρεῖ* should be interposed after the word *ἀνάγκη*, so that the sense might be: *The necessity of the journey always takes away the exact observation of these*, etc. The manuscript codex perhaps would have approved either this or that correction. Meanwhile, while things are handled only by conjectures, I say the passage lacks no correction. For it says this: That the necessity of the journey leads the exact observation of these even to the indifference of a violated office: that is, that we hold such a violation as a matter of indifference, if indeed we wish to embrace here that notion of the word *παρατηρέω* which I mentioned.
If we follow that which appeals to Du Moulin and the ancient interpreter, not even then do we need any correction; for the sense will be: The necessity of the journey leads the exact observation of these even to the indifference of those things which are commanded; that is, that we hold the traditions commanded as a matter of indifference, which might be observed—or not observed—without damage.
But see the ignorance or the malice of Du Moulin, or both. He says that Nyssen wrote these things for the sake of certain anchorites, whom he nevertheless dissuades from pilgrimaging by reasons sought from the office of a Christian, not from the institute of a monk. Tell me, I ask, Calvinist, when the author of this epistle says among other things that the follower *τῆς ὑψηλῆς πολιτείας καὶ βίου ἰδιάζοντος* (of the lofty policy and the solitary life) should not undertake this pilgrimage, because men necessarily must be with women in the way and in inns, and they with men, is this reason taken from common life and from the common office of a Christian? Does the common reason of life forbid that a man be with a woman, or a fe-
female with a man, in such a way that it ignores the rules of decorum; nor that the nature of either, of women towards men, or men towards women, should strive toward those things required for decorum? Is this the common philosophy of Christians, that they should live outside the society of men and women, and that men should philosophize without women, and women without men, and lead a Christian life? To what depths of blindness and absurdity do these darkling men not descend in their hatred of monks and the monastic profession? B But Chrysostom calls the common life of Christians "philosophy," or "life according to philosophy." This is true. But does he always understand by "philosophy," or "life according to philosophy," only this common life, and never the monastic life? Let no one affirm this out of impudence or ignorance. For from his three books against the detractors of the monastic life, the contrary is most evidently clear, not to mention many other treatises of his in which he embraces by the name of philosophy this more exalted mode of living. I fear that Molineus and his followers might go so far as to say that those three books of St. Chrysostom against the detractors of the monastic life were written against the detractors of the common Christian life. And what sort of consequence is this? Chrysostom sometimes understands by "philosophy," or "life according to philosophy," the common life of Christians; therefore, Nyssenus, or whoever is the author of this epistle, also understands by "life according to philosophy" the common life of Christians, and not some more sublime life, which is commonly called monastic. An excellent consequence and Calvinistic, that is to say, truly worthy of an eagle's sight, especially when this author most clearly declares forthwith what he understands by "life according to philosophy," as we have already often seen. C Similar is this folly of Molineus: Gregory, in his book *On the Christian Name*, calls the way of pious life "the high tower-building of life," and in his book *On Perfection* he says that "high" is the name of a Christian: therefore the author of this epistle, at the very threshold, understands by "high politics" nothing else but the common life of Christians. Very ineptly, to explain myself briefly; for the reasons mentioned above, which do not openly persuade, but rather cry out and compel us to understand "high politics" as the monastic life. Now, the fact that common Christian life is also elsewhere called "high," "exalted," and "sublime" does not hinder us, because it is indeed exalted and sublime when compared with the institutions of life of others outside of Christianity, and truly renders them "perfect." But within Christianity itself there is another life which, because it raises itself above the common way of living, lays claim to the title of "high politics" *by way of eminence*: as also that of "philosophy," and "life instituted according to philosophy." Of the same quality is this inference of Molineus: Elsewhere Nyssenus calls all professors and followers of the Christian life "perfect": therefore, in this epistle, Nyssenus calls "perfect" whosoever professes the Christian religion, or adheres to it with more fervent zeal, or, as Molineus says, is endowed with piety beyond the rest. This inference belongs to a trifler, not a disputant. For that only the professors of the solitary and monastic life are called "perfect" here is liquid-clear from the preceding and subsequent context and from the entire scope of the epistle; for to this author these terms are synonymous: "high politics," "solitary and private life," "life according to philosophy," "unmixed," "unconfused," "perfect life." And the common life of Christians is also perfect. I do not deny it: but within the life of Christians itself is contained another life, which claims this name of perfection for itself by a special right. Wherefore these inferences of Molineus are entirely frivolous: that Gregory Nyssenus in his book *On the Perfection of a Christian Man* discusses that perfection which is also appropriate for laymen; and that saying of St. Paul in I Cor. ii: "We speak wisdom among the perfect," etc. D
1253 And that passage of Matthew v, "Be perfect," etc., concerns not only monks, but all Christians universally: therefore, Nyssen in this epistle does not understand by the name of "the perfect" [τῶν τελείων] only monks, nor does he accept "the perfect life" [τοῦ βίου τελείου] as implying a monastic profession.
Argue—as if the word "perfect" [τέλειος] could not, from that general breadth of its meaning, by which it extends to all Christians, be reduced and restricted to a few who pursue the Christian life and perfection through more perfect means and instruments, in whose number are counted the professors of the monastic life. Furthermore, that the general significance of the word "perfect" is restricted in this epistle to those who embrace a life "monastic and set apart" [μονήρη καὶ ἰδιάζουσαν], is taught by almost every single point in the epistle, and by those for whom it was primarily conceived and written.
Count it among the lies of the Calvinist to say that in the book *On the Perfection of the Christian Man*, not even a mention of monks appears: for Olympius, at whose request Nyssen wrote that book, was a monk, as the very title of the book holds; and throughout the entire book he instructs chiefly Olympius—that is to say, a monk—and whatever Nyssen discusses regarding perfection, this pertains to monks by excellence.
It is clever what he notes on those words, "But he who has understanding should consider" [ἀντί τινος σπουδάζεται, ὁ νοῦν ἔχων ἐπισκεψάσθω], that the interrogation mark should be removed after the word "sake" [σπουδάζεται]. This would find credence among us if he made his assertion faithful to the Royal Codex. Now, since he has neglected to consult that Codex, and relies solely on conjecture, and since the sense subsists very well with the added interrogation mark—and because the ancient translator rendered it as it is among the Centuriators—there is no reason he should expect his "dream" (which should have been called a conjecture) to be approved by us.
No less festive is that point—that the sentiment, "If he has an acquaintance who fulfills this service," etc., could not possibly be spoken of women whom they call Nuns or Vestals, for they do not use the familiar ministry of men, unless perhaps secretly. This is a manifest slander, not a secret one. For that the epistle speaks of nuns, or women religious, is evident from the fact that no blame is given to other women living a common life if they have helpers and servants on a journey, whether they be strangers and hired hands, or acquaintances and family. But it is held against nuns as an error that they have renounced all association and company of men by their very profession.
What the Calvinist says, that nuns or women religious have no "acquaintances" [γνωρίμους], is ridiculous. Can it not be that they have brothers, relatives, or kinsmen, inhabitants of the same city, with whom in the past there was familiarity, either for themselves or their ancestors, whose labor and service they might employ on the road? Or could there be no "acquaintance" left, unless it be one the Calvinist suspects? Away with these sordid things from the Calvinist sty!
CHAPTER III.
The remaining trifles of Moulin are refuted.Moulin repeats the dangers that the author of the epistle says threaten travelers from inns, tavern-keepers, and cities infected with the depravity of morals, by which it is quite difficult not to be contaminated. These dangers, he argues, pertain not only to monks and nuns, but to anyone at all from the populace; that all must preserve the integrity of their morals and avoid the contagion of evil examples: and that the weaker sex among the laity does not have more strength, nor face less danger, than the women whom the common superstition designates as nuns.
I reply that Nyssen—or whoever the author of this epistle is—does what those who wish to dissuade someone from a vehement and burning desire usually do: they amplify and exaggerate all the inconveniences conjoined with the execution of that desire; they seek out whatever might either diminish or entirely extinguish the craving. When, therefore, the author of the epistle noticed that monks and nuns were burning with an excessive desire to visit Jerusalem, he clearly explained and openly displayed before their eyes the inconveniences and dangers of the journey, lest anyone, by approaching too close to the pitch, be defiled—so that they, who had already embraced a life "monastic and set apart" [μονήρη καὶ ἰδιάζουσαν] and remote from all noise, and were content with solitude, should not cast themselves into these crowds. Otherwise, this author was not unaware that it is possible for both men and women to traverse these dangers and overcome them with an unpolluted foot; and indeed that many have lived among these stains without stain or blemish, and have not been touched by the surrounding flame.
For if anyone does not look to the end of the author, but with the "base Minerva" of Moulin and other heretics looks only at objects and raises objections, then it will not even be lawful to undertake journeys for the sake of business and trade, because everywhere one may see and reap an infinite harvest of vices. Everywhere, almost, inns, taverns, and cities have a license for evil and a promiscuous liberty, such that there is a danger that, for one passing through the smoke, the eyes may be stung by its acrimony, and the hearing, eye, and mind may be polluted by admitting foul things through the eyes and mind. Is it possible, then, to pass through infected places so that you are not affected? It is entirely possible, with the aid and protection of divine grace. But because of these dangers of the paths and the wickedness of the inhabitants through whose lands one must pass, are pilgrimages instituted for the sake of merchandise and business abandoned? If profane pilgrimages are not abandoned, why should sacred ones be, and among them the most holy of all, the Jerusalem pilgrimage?
Why, then, did the author of the epistle seek from these dangers an argument to deter one from the Jerusalem pilgrimage? It is so that he might keep monks and nuns in solitude, chosen of their own will, and a life separated from all tumult; and to keep them from wanderings. And although the same dangers threaten seculars, especially women, yet because they follow a common manner of life and have not professed a life withdrawn from the company of others, no one hinders them from committing themselves to this Ocean, provided that, as is right, they act and walk cautiously, and do not burn in the midst of the fire. That this can be done no one will deny, who knows that sin is not committed except voluntarily and freely. For as for what Moulin says, that to a woman traveling amidst so many dangers, the laws of temperance are violated even against her will—I will believe that when he demonstrates to me that sin can be admitted unwillingly.
By the same reasoning, what the author relates about the crimes usually committed in Jerusalem, and which the Calvinist objects, is said for the purpose of restraining monks and nuns in their solitary life. It does not deter others from the sacred Jerusalem pilgrimage any more than that infinite cesspool of crimes deters current merchants, even Calvinists, from traveling to Constantinople, Tripoli, Damascus, Alexandria, Cairo, and other places that are inundated with an entire deluge of vices. For just as one can be bad among the good, so too can one be good among the bad: since all these things depend on everyone's own judgment.
The Calvinist also sings the same tune, that the author says that God's grace is not more abundant in the places of Jerusalem than elsewhere, but more sparing, and that one does not draw closer to God by a change of place; that one should rather strive that God might dwell within us. To this objection I have already responded in the first book *On Pilgrimages*—namely, that this assertion by Nyssen (if indeed it is Nyssen) was made so that he might strip monks and nuns of that persuasion, with which they were imbued, that they thought men were sanctified by the very presence of sacred places, whatever their intent. If this were so, the author says, not so many criminals and flagitious men would dwell in those places. Otherwise, the inspection of the places, which our Redeemer consecrated and dedicated by the actions of His most holy life, [cont]
contributes greatly to the pursuit of piety, and to any man whose heart is not frozen, it naturally provides tremendous incentives for the amendment of his life and for stirring up divine love in his breast—a fact attested to by those who have experienced it, of whom I spoke in the first book *On Pilgrimages*. That pious and learned writer, Ludolph of Saxony, speaks beautifully on this very matter: "It is a delightful thing to sigh for the Holy Land, which all the Churches of Christ never cease to associate with night and day; the land which that good Jesus, by dwelling within it and illuminating it by His word and doctrine, consecrated with His most sacred blood. But it is more delightful to view it with the eyes of the body and to contemplate with the intellect of the mind how, in each individual place within it, the Lord worked our salvation." For who could sufficiently recount how the devout, traveling through each place, kiss the ground with vehement spirit and embrace the locations where they have heard that sweet Jesus either stood, or sat, or performed some deed? B Now they strike their breasts, now they weep, now they utter groans and sighs, pouring out tears through the gesture of their bodies and the devotion they show outwardly and undoubtedly possess within, often even moving the Saracens to tears. What shall I say of the patriarchs Jacob, Joseph, and his brothers, who—because they could not be in that land while living—chose it for their burial when dead? What more is there to say? The slothfulness of the Christians of our time is to be lamented, who, having so many examples, are slow to rescue from the hands of the enemy the land which Jesus Christ consecrated by His own blood.
"We are moved, I know not how," says Atticus in Cicero, "by the very places where the traces of those whom we love or admire are found." If this is true concerning the traces of anyone whom we love and respect, how much more true will it be concerning the monuments of Christ our Redeemer, to whom nothing should be dearer or more ancient? "I myself," the same Atticus says, "am not so much delighted by our very Athens with its magnificent works and the exquisite arts of the ancients, as I am by the memory of its greatest men, where each was wont to live, to sit, to converse, and I studiously contemplate their tombs." If Atticus did this in Athens, how much more properly will it be done by a Christian in Jerusalem and in Palestine, which our Savior and the prelates of the true religion consecrated and dedicated by their presence? C William of Baldensel in his *Itinerary to the Holy Land* says: "And what man could see this place without tears, the trembling of his heart, and deep, consoling compassion of mind? Where the Impassible suffered, where Life died, and where the supersubstantial Communicative Goodness was, for us sinners, reckoned among the wicked." The same William, in the same *Hodœporicon*, says: "It confers benefit upon a man beyond measure to see these most holy places; for devotion is excited, and it seems that the life of Christ and the apostles is in a way beheld by the eyes of the body; and from this, the foundation of faith is more firmly established in the heart."
Furthermore, as to the idea that one does not approach God by a mere change of place, who is unaware of this? Just as one must also strive that God may dwell in our breast. If anyone, after considering the scope and purpose of the entire epistle, were to deny that these and other things of this kind were said by the author of this letter only to the followers of the monastic life, that man would be a fungus; although we do not deny that such things may also be preached to the secular, for if they were to consider that by this pilgrimage alone they would approach and reach God, and were indifferent to other things that pertain to living well and blessedly, they would surely be deceiving themselves, even then, if they went on pilgrimage but did not strive to invite God into the dwelling-place of their own hearts.
A Calvinist objects: "If what Nyssen writes pertains only to monks and nuns, as adversaries contend, they destroy themselves with their own stings; for in our age, no one goes on pilgrimage more than they do." As to the frequency, let faith rest with Molinæus. I have read many Jerusalem *Hodœporica*, and I have always found more secular people than D monks or nuns, and absolutely more men than women. To the argument of Molinæus, I deny that we are pierced by our own weapons. For as I said in the work *On Pilgrimages*, the author of this letter is not to be thought to have simply and universally abrogated the Jerusalem pilgrimage, even for monks themselves; for Nyssen—if it is Nyssen—was not ignorant that countless monks, both in his own age and before it, had gone to visit and adore the holy places in Palestine with the greatest fruit: far be it from Nyssen to have struck them all with a single mark of condemnation! But he imitated skilled physicians; for as they, when a disease tends too much to one extreme, strive toward the other until they at last reach the mean and restore the sick person to his former health, so too did Nyssen; when he saw the followers of the solitary life tending too much toward the Jerusalem pilgrimage, he deflected them in the opposite direction and utterly dissuaded them from an undertaking of this kind, so that he might in this way reduce the matter to a certain mediocrity, which is in all respects to be praised and commended; and to bring this about, he graphically subjected to their eyes the wickedness and depravity of those regions through which they had to pass.
A Calvinist objects that Nyssen says the Jerusalem journey profited him nothing; that his faith was thereby neither increased nor diminished. "If, therefore, it brought no benefit to such a great man, much less will it be of profit to others." But the Calvinist does not see that Nyssen—if it is Nyssen—is doing what is customary for skilled physicians, who, in order to turn the sick more effectively away from some stubborn purpose, maintain that the very thing they seek has profited even them nothing, not by any lie, but by a dissimulation of the truth for the good of the one who is sick and desiring harmful things. Nyssen had the same aim in this dissimulation, if still, as I have often said, it was Nyssen. For who would deny that a man so holy and so abundantly illuminated by heavenly light was miraculously inflamed by the torches of divine love at the sight of the most holy places, and enriched by clear increments of faith?
The author of the epistle proclaims a multitude of altars in Cappadocia. The Calvinist objects that the use of the altar at that time was to offer praises and thanksgivings to God, but not truly to perform a sacrifice, or to offer to God a ransom for the redemption of souls, as is chanted today in the Mass. But the very word *thysiasterion*, which the author uses, stands against these; as if to say, "a place of sacrifice." For *thysiasterion* is not, except where there is a sacrifice; for they are relatives, and they mutually entail and posit one another.
The Calvinist minister declaims against the wickedness that once abounded in Jerusalem. But if the city of Jerusalem alone had brought forth harlots, mimes, and jesters, it might perhaps be avoided, and defamed as a place to be shunned. Now, since such is the nature—in any place that is frequently visited through the concurrence of various nations—that vices immigrate along with those who arrive, there is no reason why Jerusalem alone should be held in blame, especially since the holiest men have always lived their lives there, nor has any depravity of either foreigners or natives been able to obliterate the sanctity of the place. It is strange that these men scream about vices in order to deter people from sacred pilgrimages, and do not roar the same things to pull them away from profane pilgrimages. Not one of the merchants permits himself to be deterred by that most impure sink of humanity which dwells in Tripoli, Alexandria, Cairo, and elsewhere, from pilgrimaging to those places, hoping for gain, through so many dangers of land and sea; yet they will object against sacred pilgrims the vices which, as if they were bugbears, they use to remove and restrain them from pilgrimages, even though it is much more credible that one who undertakes a pilgrimage for the love of God and virtue will live holily and blamelessly among the wicked, than one who pilgrimages for the sake of gain. And if pilgrimages were to be discontinued on account of the sins of wicked men, almost every civil
societies perish, since even among such a great multitude and variety of mortals, wickedness is never absent. “I wrote to you in an epistle,” says St. Paul, “not to mingle with fornicators; not at all with the fornicators of this world, or with the greedy, or swindlers, or idolaters; otherwise, you would have had to depart from this world.” The same might be said here. If anyone wishes to happen upon no one stained by wickedness, it will be necessary that he either depart this world entirely and migrate to heaven, or, like Pauls, Antonys, and others of that kind, seclude himself in the desert.
You will say: If, on account of the vices of places or inhabitants, pilgrimages are not to be forsaken, why did the author of the epistle use this argument to deter those who profess the monastic life from the pilgrimage to Jerusalem? I answer that this was done so that those who had already bidden the world a final farewell and had separated themselves from all human company might be more effectively turned away from their purpose; for it did not seem just that those who had already renounced the world and had chosen the solitary life should again cast themselves into public crowds, especially with this persuasion that they would be compelled to remain destitute of Christian perfection unless they had seen Jerusalem. For Nyssenus wished to remove this persuasion above all from those monks: for, as I said above, he did not simply condemn the pilgrimage to Jerusalem even for monks; which is clear also from the example of the monk Olympius, to whom he wrote the commentary *On the Perfection of the Christian Man*, and the epistle *On the Life of St. Macrina His Sister*, who, when traveling to Jerusalem, happened upon Nyssenus in Antioch, and Nyssenus did not dissuade him from his undertaken journey, but later even wished to praise this pious and laudable institution in public literary monuments. “You ought not be entirely forgetful of that custom,” says Nyssenus, addressing Olympius, “when we met at the city of Antioch, at which time you were seeking Jerusalem, in order to visit the monuments of Christ’s sojourn while He was in the flesh,” etc.
Moreover, one is struck by what could have entered Molineus’s mind, that he should prefer to identify that synod, which the author of the epistle mentions and by whose dispatch he went to Arabia, rather with Baronius’s fourth Annal—the Synod of Antioch, concerning which Nyssenus writes in his epistle to Olympius about the death of his sister Macrina—than with his own Casaubon regarding the Ecumenical Synod of Constantinople under Theodosius the Great, which opinion he confirms with many arguments, in the preface to the notes on Nyssenus’s epistle inscribed to the three women, Eustathia, Ambrosia, and Basilissa, though the opinion of Baronius is refuted while yet suppressing the name of Baronius. Did Molineus think that that light of letters (as he calls him) had here grown dim, and had seen less than the most illustrious Baronius? As also in that, because of which `εὐσεβέστατον βασιλέα`, whom Nyssenus, or the author of the epistle, thus names—Casaubon wishes to be Theodosius the Great, Molineus, Gratian?
Molineus concludes his notes with this most illiberal lie: “Observe, reader, that Gregory places his entire religion in the sound faith concerning Christ,” etc. But today the primary argument for piety is to be subject to the Roman Pontiff and to be a member of the Roman Church, even if one is utterly ignorant of the dogmas of faith and, which is the head of all, the foundation of religion. One must be a very easy and well-disposed reader to Molineus for this pseudology and calumny to find credence.
A B C D
pastor, committed the Nyssenian flock to Gregory to be shepherded. These are things concerning the notes of Molineus.
CORRECTIONS TO THE NOTES OF CASAUBON
In the Epistle of Gregory to Eustathia, Ambrosia, and Basilissa (1).This epistle was edited first in Paris in the year of Christ 1606. Then in the following year it was reprinted in Germany at Hanover, with Isaac Casaubon as editor and translator—a learned man, but, alas, one campaigning in the Calvinist camp. He added notes that were as copious as they were erudite; yet some of these seemed to require annotation, lest they do harm and lead into error. I shall append, therefore, notes to these notes, especially to those which seem to touch upon or prick at the institution of pilgrimage. I shall not inquire whether this epistle is Nyssenus’s: let it be his. The exordium runs thus:
"The meeting of good people, beloved to me from the heart, and the monuments of that immense benevolence bestowed upon us by the Lord, which are shown there, were for me a cause of the greatest joy and pleasure. For I experienced what it was to keep holiday for God in both ways: when I saw the saving symbols of God, who gave us life; and I had happened upon such persons in whom that sign of the Lord’s grace is to be contemplated spiritually: so that it is permissible to believe that there is truly in the mind of one who has God within himself a Bethlehem, a Golgotha, an Olivet, and a Resurrection. For where, in someone, Christ has been formed through a good conscience, or someone, by divine fear, has fixed his flesh as if with nails, and has been fixed to the cross with Christ; and, having cast off the heavy stone of worldly fraud, has gone forth from a bodily tomb, and has begun to walk, as it were, in a new life; having left behind the lowly and earthbound life of mortals, he has ascended with sublime desire into the heavenly Republic, thinking on things above, where Christ is, not weighed down by the burden of the flesh, but made lighter by a purer life than himself, so that his own flesh, tending upward through the heights, may be able to accompany him like a cloud: this, in my judgment, truly deserves to be counted among those things of famous renown, in which the monuments of the kindness of our Lord toward the human race are seen. Since, therefore, I viewed the holy places with my senses, but viewed even more amply the expressed signs of such places in you, I was filled with such joy that no power of speech could narrate it."
Thus far the part of the epistle sent to Jerusalem; for those three women lived there. To those first words, Ἡ μὲν τῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ καταθυμίων συντυχία, etc., “the meeting of good men, etc.,” the scholiast notes: "At the beginning of this epistle, Gregory explains clearly for what end the ancients used to approach the holy places which were in Jerusalem and the neighboring parts of Palestine." He explains the end of this pilgrimage quite clearly, yet so that it needs a reader of good mind. For if anyone, Molineus or others from the school of Innovators, should happen upon this exordium, he will understand by that ἰδεῖν τὰ σωτήρια σύμβολα τοῦ ζωοποιήσαντος ἡμᾶς θεοῦ nothing other than the inspection or contemplation of those places, such as is customary for antiquarians who survey the monuments of the ancients, and indeed with pleasure and delight, even though Nyssenus does not understand by that ἰδεῖν (to see) just any kind of seeing, but a sacred, religious one, full of reverence and piety; which also attests to reverence and piety by external actions, genuflections, kisses, embraces, tears, sighs, ardent vows, and other gestures of that kind, which the internal flame of divine love is accustomed to express. For thus the ancients saw, approached, frequented, and surveyed the holy places, which is contrary to Molineus’s claim already mentioned, and more fully [treated] in my work *On Pilgrimages*: and it provides us with a clear example of seeing, and of the custom by which the holy places were seen and visited by the pious.
He adds: "Truly it is strange that Gregory, when being created bishop, did not ask for the diploma *ἐνθρονιστικόν* (commonly called letters of investiture) from the Roman bishop, nor bound himself by oath to obey him. Whence was it learned that the Calvinist Gregory did not ask for and obtain the *ἐνθρονιστικόν* from the Roman Pontiff?" Certainly, if he did not obtain it directly, he obtained it indirectly, through his metropolitan, who in the name of the first
A saint Jerome in the *Epitaph of Saint Paula*.
Now, since Nyssen testifies in this passage that he was suffused with an incredible delight from the sight of those monuments, and that a truly festive and joyful day dawned for him when he approached and visited the holy places in Jerusalem; it becomes manifest that we must understand what he says in his other letter—that the one fruit of his Jerusalem journey was to know by comparison B *that our own things are far holier than those outside*—in a manner accommodated to the persons he was addressing. It is not to be understood so precisely and, if I may say so, crudely, as if he meant that he had received no benefit whatever from the inspection of the Jerusalem monuments, as du Moulin and other sectarians maintain. For is it a small or contemptible fruit, that C *maximum joy and gladness* with which he writes he was suffused in those places? Nor does he speak of a vain and worldly joy, but of a heavenly and spiritual one. But why, if that other letter is his, he denied having received any other fruit has been explained above against du Moulin: he clearly wished to use restraint and minimization in order to quench the ardent desire of monks for pilgrimage.
The scholiast adds: It is evident that the Greek Fathers were accustomed to these spontaneous burdens and other similar inventions—D *exercises for virtue, practices for godliness*—and that the fervent zeal of Christians in the early Church devised many such things, or, if I may say so, incentives to piety. I see nothing here to displease. The things one notes are true; as witnessed by Nyssen, Nazianzen, Basil, and most others who in their own books hand down and depict with vivid colors wonderful and varied A *exercises for virtue and practices for godliness*. And what more could one ask?
Moreover, as for the greatness of the distance between the commands of God contained in his sacred volumes and these little inventions of the human mind, this same Gregory teaches us truly and excellently in his golden letter to those who were going to Jerusalem. I will not fight it. Let that letter be Nyssen’s. I deny that anything is written in it by him that is in the slightest degree contrary to the *exercises for virtue and practices for godliness* handed down by him elsewhere and received by use from the ancient Fathers, as was shown before against du Moulin, and more diffusely in the work *On Pilgrimages*. Nor were those exercises of the ancient Fathers mere human inventions; but instituted and undertaken by the impulse of the Holy Spirit, and derived from the fountains of Holy Scripture. Or does Nyssen, who in his letter *On those going to Jerusalem* praises the visiting and observing of holy places, here regard it as a human invention—breathing hot and cold from the same mouth, and writing with the same pen for himself and against himself? Far be such contradiction and opposition from that most holy and learned prelate Gregory! B It seems very strange to me, however, if the Jerusalem pilgrimage and other such exercises for piety were inventions of the human mind, how this was not noted by those most enlightened men, the pastors and chief doctors of the Church, who themselves were deeply engaged in these "human inventions," as they are called, and who strove with all their might to ensure that others might studiously engage in them. Did Nyssen, immediately upon his return to his own church, not yet know that what he had done in Jerusalem was a human invention, only to understand this some years later, when he was writing the letter *On those going to Jerusalem*—which the scholiast says was composed long after the former? How great a loss not only to the ignorant multitude, but also to the holiness and learning of the most excellent men, that the *Islebian and Lemanian* gospel dawned so late upon the world, which makes a C *festal day according to God* for its followers quite different from the one that Nyssen D obtained in Jerusalem from the inspection of the *marks, and signs, and symbols, and memorials of God who gave us life*.
Furthermore, when Nyssen says that a *festal day according to God* dawned for him *from both*, that is, from the inspection of the holy places and from the sight of the people who in their own bodies bore around and represented Christ crucified and all the monuments of our salvation spiritually, he clearly indicates that he sojourned in those places in such a way that he rendered due praises and thanks to God, surveyed each thing piously and reverently, and was set on fire by heavenly flames and rapt to things above: and therefore, that he behaved in those places not as a curious antiquary, but in the manner of a pious man who loves God. For we are accustomed to render praises and thanks to God especially on festal days.
The scholiast adds: Nyssen calls those holy places *salutary symbols* or *salutiferous signs*, that is, *of the Savior*, but not *productive of salvation*: "Away!" says the scholiast. But, whether you like it or not, those places are *salutiferous*, both because by the sight of them they not infrequently move hearts to repentance and saving tears, if one still wallows in the mire of sins (as is evident in the case of Saint Mary of Egypt); and because they also excite the just, who have already obtained the grace of God, to a sharper and more intense detestation of past evil deeds, and of all things committed or to be committed wickedly, whether by oneself or by others. Is that, therefore, which excites men to the flight and execration of sins, and to a singular study of piety and a fervent love of God, not *salutiferous*, that is, *productive of salvation*? Or is that which brings heat and which inflames not *productive of heat*? Whether effectively or objectively, as when one begins to grow warm through fear of a terrifying object, as is wont to happen in distress. What kind of stubbornness is it to quibble here, where there is no space for quibbling? For who with reason would deny that *salutiferous* is salutary or beneficial? What indeed is a *salutiferous* medicine? Is it not salutary? Gregory, says the scholiast, would not say this, for in that letter of which we have so often made mention, he does not even prove that our salvation is aided, much less prepared, by such exercises. But that in this letter Nyssen—if it is Nyssen’s—does not affirm this simply and absolutely, but structured his whole speech for the persons from whom he wished to remove their excessive desire for pilgrimage, has been proven above against du Moulin and in the work *On Pilgrimages*. It suffices for me that in this letter he calls those monuments of Christ *salutiferous signs*. Why should I obscure the clear passage of this letter through the obscure passage of another? Why rather should I not kindle a torch for the former by means of this one? Although, as has often been said, Nyssen—if he is Nyssen—does not deny in that former letter that those symbols and monuments are *salutiferous*, but adapts his speech to those for whose sake he had written that letter. For as for what the scholiast adds in the following: that he (Nyssen) also teaches elsewhere that *local displacement* and the visiting of any places whatsoever do not contribute any momentum even to the amendment of morals: it must be known that this is nowhere taught by Nyssen; not even in that letter which they always have in their mouths. By itself, indeed, a change of place is not required for the amendment of life; for in every place one can, if one wishes, return to a better life, through the intervention and assistance of divine grace; yet, through accident, a change of place contributes greatly to the amendment of morals, as is evident from daily experience and numberless examples of the ancients: nor was Nyssen so ignorant as to deny this. Moreover, it is most false that visits to holy places
A confer no momentum towards leading a more upright life. For how many, held fast by numberless disgraces and crimes, have turned back their course upon inspection of the holy places, and changed their life for the better? How many who previously lived commendably and in accordance with divine laws, upon approaching and traversing the monuments and symbols of our redemption, were so inflamed that they either bade a complete farewell to the world, or applied themselves to piety much more ardently than before?
It is likewise most alien to the truth that the sentiment of Jerome B was the same, or Augustine’s, or that of the entire ancient Church: namely, that visits to holy places confer no momentum towards the amendment of morals. The work *On Pilgrimages*, especially the first book, clearly refutes this falsehood; as does the epistle which St. Jerome wrote to Marcella in the name of Paula and Eustochium.
But observe what the Calvinist spirit attempts. So that it may not be forced to confess that the monuments of Christ are salutary—that is, life-bearing—it explains thus, σωτήρια symbols, that is, of the Savior, and that expression of Basil of Seleucia, "from David the *sōtērios* birth," as if to say, of the Savior. Does it allow the very birth of Christ itself to be called life-bearing? What new doctrine is this? If the birth of Christ was not *sōtērios*, that is, life-bearing, then neither was Christ’s passion, nor His resurrection, *sōtērios*, life-bearing; but merely "of the Savior." Who, endowed with a Christian mind, could bear this? Who would not reject it with their whole heart as profane and impious? Who would not turn from and detest it as contrary to the common sense and belief of Christians? But since heretics ascribe salvation to faith alone, and uniquely, and consequently consider only that to be *sōtērion*, that is, life-bearing, they are forced—if this word is found in the lucubrations of the Fathers attributed to other things—to twist it to another meaning. Whether justly or unjustly, aptly or ineptly, they care little.
How subtle, indeed, is the observation of a new meaning which the scholiast finds in the word *sōtēria*: for it signifies not only the sum of our salvation, but also every single one of Christ’s precepts by which men are instructed to live well, which tend toward salvation. In this sense, the saying frequent among the Fathers can be conveniently understood: "That many paths of salvation have been opened by Jesus Christ." How recondite is this notion, drawn from the deepest treasures of theology! Who until now has known that all the means both to the salvation of this life, which consists in the grace of God and justification, as well as to the salvation of eternal life, which is placed in heavenly glory, are termed *sōtēria*? Who knew that means not infrequently derive their name from the end, even in secular matters, such as "healthy medicine," "healthy food," "healthy air," from "health," which is in the animal?
"Each of Christ’s precepts," he says, "is named *sōtēria*, that is, salvation." Be it so; but not those alone: for also the counsels, and whatever is in agreement with Christ’s precepts, such as the state of religious life—all these bear the name of salvation because they lead to salvation. Nor are they of one mode and kind, but plainly of many, so that Basil of Seleucia correctly said in his sermon on Noah: "How many pretexts of salvation does the Divine C contrive, if He find anyone who wishes to be saved!" How many occasions for salvation does God think of, if He happens to find one who wishes to be saved! D By the word *sōtēria*, the scholiast says that repentance is meant: which, even if it is not the true cause of salvation, yet it and good works necessarily cohere with salvation. Do you not smell here the Calvinistic stench? Do you not notice that repentance is deprived of the name of salvation, because heresy considers faith alone to be the cause of salvation? If individual precepts are graced with the name of *sōtēria*, why not also the precept regarding repentance, or repentance itself? Does it not lead to salvation, and that most certainly and most securely? Why did Christ come to call sinners to repentance, if repentance is not a cause of salvation? Why did Christ utter those most weighty words concerning the necessity of repentance: "Unless you have repentance, you will all likewise perish?" Is it not a cause of salvation, without which there is no salvation, but a most present and inevitable destruction? Why did Saint Peter propose repentance to the Jews as if it were the first gate to salvation? "Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." Lo, through repentance and conversion sins are blotted out. Can the blotting out and obliteration of sins not be called *sōtēria*, salvation—that is, the effectress of salvation?
This is the sentiment of St. Chrysostom: "God gives us many paths of being saved; only let us not be negligent." God provides us with many reasons for salvation. Only let us not neglect them. Some are offended without cause by this and similar sayings, of which there are many in that Father, says the scholiast. And why are they offended? Because they think faith is the unique path, reason, and cause of salvation. Hence they knit their brows when they read in Chrysostom and others that there are many paths and reasons for salvation, since in their judgment they are not many, but one, namely, faith. The scholiast applies a poultice: for if any harshness is contained in these—and it is a hard thing to these people's ears, whatever does not rattle of faith alone—it is to be softened from other places of the same most blessed doctor. There is no need for any Calvinistic softening, or flabbiness. But behold the softest place with which the scholiast softens others that are harder: "Not from good works, nor from labors, nor from compensation, but from grace alone did God justify our race." But the scholiast ought to have noticed that Chrysostom speaks from the Apostle regarding the sum of salvation generally, which was brought to us through Christ, incarnate for us, crucified, dead, etc., and regarding reconciliation with God, so that God willed, as much as in Him lies, to confer grace and salvation upon us. For this benefit was conferred upon us through God’s grace alone, without any works or merits of ours; which is deservedly called justification, because it had been instituted for the grace of our justification.
Even here, similar places, whether of St. Chrysostom or other Fathers, can be understood concerning the first justification, which does not befall us from our own works, as if from merits, but from the grace of God alone, although not without the acts of faith, hope, charity, repentance, etc., as dispositions for receiving divine grace into the soul.
The scholiast says that, in Gregory’s judgment, it is enough if one contemplates Bethlehem, Golgotha, the Mount of Olives, and the place of the Resurrection in upright and holy men, just as he himself did in Jerusalem, as he testifies at the beginning of this epistle. But although it is enough—for you will not be less a saint, and dear to God, if you do not traverse the places of our Redemption—yet Gregory does not say this, as is evident from his words cited above; but only this: that the holy places of the Nativity, Crucifixion, Ascension into heaven, and Resurrection are exhibited to us for contemplation in the saints also in a spiritual way: which is true. For what does it matter that Nyssen makes mention of only these four places? Others, namely St. Jerome in the Epitaph of St. Paula, have made mention of more. From them, let what is missing here be supplied. It was enough for Nyssen to have set forth those primarily accustomed to being approached and traversed by pilgrims.
The scholiast again injects that Gregory wills that men distinguished by piety should be visited no less than those things which are called holy places. Nyssen neither wills nor says this, as anyone who has read Nyssen’s words with sincere eyes will admit.
I am pleased, however, that the scholiast admits that *hupsēlēn politeian* in Gregory is a code for a more austere and holier life, in a word, the ascetic or monastic one: to Latin writers, the "higher vocation": against the ignorance of Molina, who...
when he contends from the epistle *On those who go to Jerusalem*—ascribed to Nyssen—that Nyssen received no benefit from visiting and examining the holy places, is clearly refuted by the fact that he himself here testifies to the contrary regarding himself; wherefore we ought to interpret those more obscure words of the aforementioned epistle (if it is Nyssen’s) by these clearer ones, based on the subject matter.
Where I wish the scholiast and interpreter had not rendered those words A *I seen even in you, etc.*, but to look upon this *more* in you, etc. What does this "more" mean, which does not appear in the Greek text, unless it be better and preferable to see upright and holy men than to visit the sites of Jerusalem: which the scholia do not once profess? B The scholiast declaims loudly against the vices of the city of Jerusalem based on the epistle *On those who go to Jerusalem*. "If I do not consider," to use Nyssen’s own words, "that the Lord’s word is true which said that the whole world lies in wickedness, so that no part of the inhabited world is free from the portion of the worse kind. For if the place that received the holy footprint of the True Life is not pure from evil thorns, what must one think of other places where the participation of the Good has been sown only through hearing and preaching?" Not considering that it is true what the Lord said (through the Apostle), that the whole world is set in malignity, such that no part of the earth is devoid of that worse portion. For if the place itself, which received the holy footprint of true life, is not clean from evil briers, what are we to think of the rest, which have been sprinkled with the communion of that Good only by hearing and preaching?
The scholiast exerts himself greatly in explaining what Nyssen says, that the heavenly good was disseminated to other places outside Palestine C *by hearing and preaching alone*: while Jerusalem and the surrounding places received the treasure of divine doctrine even from the very presence and voice of the Savior and his apostles, and from the footprints impressed and left behind. "It seems," says the scholiast, "that Gregory in these words recognizes some other mode of receiving Christian doctrine that is much more certain and noble than through hearing and preaching: indeed, if you want to press the words maliciously, there is a place for the clearest calumny: as if the great Gregory did not value the preaching and hearing of evangelical doctrine: for the Greeks are accustomed, when they despise and elevate something, to speak in this way, etc."
I reply that a mode of receiving evangelical doctrine—accidentally, due to our own nature—that is more certain, noble, and richer than that which is through mere and naked hearing and preaching is devoid of all absurdity, nor does it inflict any injury upon the preaching of the divine word. For who would deny that, with respect to us, the perception of the word that is joined with the ocular inspection of monuments which Christ illustrated by use, by act, by deed, by passion, and by miracles, is more certain and noble than if it were separated from this inspection? For that poem is very true: "Things sent in through the ears stir the heart more slowly than those which are submitted to the faithful eyes." For just as for the apostles who lived and walked with Christ, and not only heard his preaching but also saw his miracles, there was available a mode of receiving faith that was (accidentally, with respect to them) more certain and noble than for us, who have neither seen nor heard Christ, nor beheld his miracles before our eyes, but have given our names to Christian discipline by the mere hearing and preaching of the word: so also for them, who are impelled and brought to faith simultaneously by the hearing of the preaching of heavenly doctrine and by the inspection of the monuments of Christ’s birth, passion, resurrection, and ascension, there is available a mode of receiving heavenly doctrine that is (accidentally, with respect to them) more certain than for others, who must be content with hearing alone. Nor does this detract anything from the certainty and excellence of receiving evangelical doctrine and faith from hearing, but rather increases and amplifies its excellence, by adding another thing, in which—with respect to us—the greatest moment is placed for embracing the faith.
Although for posterity, who, like the apostles and others, did not behold Christ present on earth, these very symbols of our salvation become known in no other way than by the tradition of the elders and by hearing. For whence is the place of Calvary known to us? says Damascenus. Whence the tomb of Life? Is it not because parents have taught their children these things in every age, not by writings, but by word of mouth? For that the Lord was crucified in the place of Calvary, and buried in the monument which Joseph had hewn in the rock, is written: but that these things which we now revere are indeed those, we have received by speech not written, but handed down by hand.
Nor is what the scholiast says true, that if one wished to press Nyssen’s words, there would be a place for the clearest calumny: as if he did not value the preaching and hearing of evangelical doctrine. For the word *ψιλῆς* (bare) does not always signify the disparagement and elevation of something with contempt: but the proposition of a thing with the exclusion of others; as if one should say: "This or that is a *bare* man," he does not speak contemptuously of him, but only indicates that he is not endowed with some more excellent nature. In which sense we are accustomed to deny that Christ was a *bare* man. Thus, whoever says that he ate *bare* bread, thinks nothing abject of the bread, but only excludes other victuals: for we rightly affirm the word even of the most excellent bread, if it is eaten alone, without any other food.
The scholiast says that an Arab geographer, enumerating the gates of Jerusalem, or Aelia (which name he himself also uses), lists one, quite differently from what Benjamin did later in his Itinerary, which he calls the "Gate of the Womb" or of "Mercy." For each of these words in Hebrew also signifies the same among the Arabs: but this author says that this gate remains perpetually closed, nor is it ever opened, unless on the day of the solemnity of the Olive. It seems by these words that he signifies that it was the custom that on a certain day the temple, built by Christians on the summit of the Mount of Olives, was approached with a solemn procession, with those who were in Jerusalem carrying olives, in imitation of the Jewish D *procession of palms*.
You are mistaken. This is what that author wishes to signify: that on Palm Sunday (for he understands this by the day of the solemnity of the Olive) the Christians from the Mount of Olives, bearing palm branches, instituted a procession into the city, in imitation of Christ and his disciples, and that through the gate which was accustomed to be opened only on this day, otherwise being perpetually closed, which has the name Golden: of which Breidenbachius writes thus in his *Itinerary*, or rather in the *Iconography* of the city of Jerusalem, which he added to his itinerary: "The Golden Gate, through which Christ, sitting on an ass, entered on Palm Sunday: which also, when the Emperor Heraclius was coming with imperial pomp, though at first closed miraculously, was later opened by his humbling of himself. And to this day it remains closed miraculously to the Saracens: so that they can in no way repair it by any ingenuity: for those attempting it die suddenly." Whence having of its
use in entering or leaving. So much for him. Adrichomius has similar things in his *Theatrum*.
Furthermore, that a solemn procession used even to be arranged into the city by the Fathers of the Order of Friars Minor of St. Francis, even while the Saracens were ruling in the Holy City, the *Hodoeporicon* of Baumgarten teaches (bk. 2, ch. 7): "Descending towards the Dead Sea, we surveyed Bethphage: in which place the guardian of Mount Sion (for so he who presides over that religious community is named) is wont every year on Palm Sunday with his brethren to mount little donkeys and enter Jerusalem, for the memory of the deed performed there by Christ." Although, regarding what is said about the donkeys, I am doubtful whether it is from the author or from the Preaching interpreter: for perhaps only the guardian rides on a donkey, while the others accompany him and follow, with hymns and canticles, after the rite of that first procession from the Mount of Olives. Furthermore, the *Hodoeporicon* of Baumgarten does not explain through which gate those praying entered under the Saracens on the feast of Palms. But that this sacred procession was introduced into the city through this gate while the Arab geographer was living and writing is not to be wondered at, since he seems to have lived and written while the Christians signed with the cross were in possession of affairs in Palestine.
Now the scholiast attempts to teach us how we ought to conduct ourselves in the reading of the holy Fathers. There is need, he says, of discernment in order to perceive their true mind. And so it must always be kept in memory that the Fathers speak in one way when they handle something B *didaktikōs* (doctrinally) and seriously: and in another way when they speak *obiter* (incidentally), and as they themselves are accustomed to say, *oikonomikōs* (economically). I recognize a distinction used by the Calvinist genius against Bellarmine; namely, that the Fathers did not write everything seriously and for the sake of teaching, but many things merely for the sake of speaking, and among these we shall count whatever has turned out less acceptable and pleasing to the Calvinist stomach.
Let us hear an example of such a species of economic writing, or locution, or assertion. "I could," says the scholiast, "bring forth many examples of it, and indeed very weighty ones." I do not doubt it, because I seem certain to myself that you would reckon all those three beautiful and divine books of the saintly Chrysostom against the detractors of the monastic life, and the comparison of the monk and the king, and the whole religious history of Theodoret, and whatever occurs of this kind, not as dogmatic writings and assertions, but as *economic* ones, which were conceived and published not seriously, but only incidentally and for the sake of play.
But the scholiast refrains from fetching examples from afar, since a far more illustrious one is at hand in this very epistle of Nyssen: "For Gregory, writing to the women who were in Jerusalem, where the traces of Christ's human conversation on earth were to be seen, speaks thus among them, as if there were some huge prerogative for those who had seen those places with the eyes of the body for believing the Christian doctrine, and even for living well." Thus, naked hearing is here opposed to that hearing which has been conjoined with the inspection of those places. It is so. This is what Nyssen wants, this is what he feels. What of you? These things are not simply spoken thus by Gregory, nor *didaktikōs*, but *oikonomikōs*, while he serves his own purpose. For his purpose, as he was writing this epistle, was to castigate the Jerusalemites sharply on account of the vices which he had perceived among them, and that thing which he called a "bad thorn" a little before: which reproof, in order that it might be received by them with equitable ears, he treats with them so kindly in this place, that he grants them some prerogative over all Christians.
Behold the Calvinist genius, so that he may elude what has happened to be most unpalatable to his own taste, he feigns that this was written and pronounced by Gregory not seriously, but only C *oikonomikōs*, so that the reproof to be instituted a little later might be received with more equitable minds: and he proves this from the epistle *On Those Going to Jerusalem*, where he seems to deny simply that there is any prerogative of the Jerusalemite places over others, or any force of piety aroused. And this, says the scholiast, is delivered by Nyssen *didaktikōs*. But if anyone should contend that all things which are argued in that epistle by Nyssen (if it is Nyssen's) are written and said not *didaktikōs*, but *oikonomikōs*—that is, accommodated to those who are not professors of the monastic life, whom he was dissuading from a Jerusalem pilgrimage—where will the scholiast betake himself? By what argument will he prove these are rather *economic* in this epistle, that is, written *obiter* and on the occasion of the persons, than those in the epistle *On Those Going to Jerusalem*, especially when it is established that, in the time of Nyssen, a Jerusalem pilgrimage had been disapproved of by none of the orthodox, from whom who in his right mind would persuade himself that Nyssen wished to dissent? Therefore, whatever he wrote in that epistle, he wrote *oikonomikōs*, that is, accommodated to the followers and female followers of the solitary and monastic life, with whose institute he thought, not without reason, that so long a pilgrimage harmonized less beautifully, especially when they were urging that pilgrimage as necessary for Christian perfection.
But because the Calvinist, spirit, possessing absolutely no virtue and efficacy to arouse faith and piety in the minds of those looking upon them, considers the Jerusalem pilgrimage itself among the lowest things, unless perhaps it be instituted politically, for the sake of investigating and surveying antiquities and the site of lands: hence, he hastens to envelop with the smoke of his own impiety what is clearly asserted here by Nyssen, and to snatch from us the sight of the most clear truth.
He dares something similar in St. Jerome: whom he says spoke *oikonomikōs*, and *obiter*, not seriously, when he praises and commends the Jerusalem pilgrimage and the holy places: but *didaktikōs*, when he seems to dissuade and reprove this pilgrimage and the visitation of the holy places. For which invention I have heard hardly anything vainer. See book 1 *On Pilgrimage*, especially ch. 44. St. Jerome, in his epistle to Desiderius: "Certainly, if our company has displeased you, to have worshiped where the feet of the Lord stood is A PART OF FAITH, and to have seen the fresh traces, as it were, of the birth, and the cross, and the passion." "You see," says the scholiast, "inspection of holy places is called a part of faith, whereas our D Gregory, who is equal to him, does not bear them, *ei eis hen merei eusebeias nenomistai to tous en Hierosolymois topois idein* (if it is considered in one part of piety to see the places in Jerusalem): the reason for the diversity is this: that Gregory wrote those things *didaktikōs*; Jerome *oikonomikōs*." Calvinistic fables. Forsooth, St. Jerome did not seriously and from his soul, but merely for the sake of speaking, invite so many men and women to the Jerusalem pilgrimage and to the viewing of the holy places, and incite them with all the arguments of his eloquence. Forsooth, merely for the sake of speaking, he himself not only undertook this pilgrimage, but also fixed a stable seat in Palestine, that he might enjoy the sight of the holy places perpetually. Forsooth, St. Jerome followed Paula, a most holy woman, who was traveling around each place most religiously, venerating and adoring, merely for the sake of speaking, and not seriously and from his heart, in the most elegant work with which he comprised the life of St. Paula. All these things that holy man did only *obiter*; not so that he might give an example to posterity, not so that he might teach us to do similar things.
Nor can the scholiast digest the fact that St. Jerome affirms that it is a part of piety to have adored where the feet of the Lord stood: he opposes the epistle to Paulinus, *On the Institution of a Monk*, where, as the scholiast speaks, he clearly overturns that "part of faith" of his with these words: "Whither, you will say, have these things been repeated from so long a beginning? Clearly, lest you think that anything is lacking to your faith because you have not visited Jerusalem: nor do we
A think that one should consider it better because we enjoy the habitation of this place. But the scholiast ought to have remembered that what St. Jerome writes in his Epistle to Paulinus the monk must be said *oikonomikōs*—that is, adapted to the person—and written according to the custom of the person to whom he was writing, rather than other works where he discusses the benefits of a Jerusalem pilgrimage *ex professo*. For St. Jerome thought it more fitting that Paulinus should remain hidden in his solitary life than be mixed in with crowds of pilgrims, perhaps led to this by certain circumstances or things peculiar to Paulinus himself. Nor did he speak without cause: "And do not think that anything is lacking to your faith, even if you have not seen Jerusalem," because faith can be entire and perfect without Jerusalem having been seen; as is evident from the examples of so many myriads of most holy men who were endowed with most ardent faith, and yet did not gaze upon the monuments of the birth and passion of Christ. And those very people who do make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem can freely profess along with the author of the epistle to those departing for Jerusalem that they believed, even before they saw Bethlehem, that Christ was born of a Virgin, crucified on Golgotha, rose again, and ascended into heaven.
Meanwhile, however, most rightly, and most consistently with this very assertion, St. Jerome affirms that it is a part of faith to have worshipped where the feet of the Lord stood. It is a part of faith, because such a pilgrimage is undertaken and performed only out of faith. It is a part of faith, because worship in holy places flows from nothing but faith. It is a part of faith, because a viewing and veneration of the holy places sharpens, intensifies, inflames, and increases faith, and accidentally perfects it in a marvelous way, although as far as essentials are concerned, faith can be so constituted even in one who has not seen Jerusalem that nothing is lacking for him, certainly regarding those things which are simply necessary.
The scholiast says that it is an *anantirrēton* [indisputable] theological axiom that no creature can be worshipped without abominable idolatry. I assent, if worship is taken strictly for divine worship, and as such, absolutely, without relation to anything else. But I deny it if, as is evident also from the usage of Scripture, it is taken for a certain inferior worship, even if it be religious, or even for divine worship but only analogically, and with a relation to the prototype attributed to someone. For thus we worship the human nature of Christ, and his relics, images, the cross, etc.
The scholiast shows how well he is inclined toward the dialectical and syllogistic method of disputing about theological matters. Because Nyssenus and others seem less to have approved of this method of discourse, they had their own reasons, just as theologians of a later age were led by very serious causes to embrace this compact and strict type of argumentation, which is hateful to all heretics, but for that very reason most urgent and to be employed in conflicts. But this has been treated copiously in the *Responsio ad theses Hunnianas*, and in the first *Antimonium*, and in the *Antistrena Polycarpica*.
The scholiast burdens the scholastic form of speaking and writing with the charge of sophistry. Clearly, sophistry is whatever so ensnares these people that they can never, or not without great effort, extricate themselves from it. That it is sufficient for the faithful and similarly believing to be saved by what is expressed in the Word of God is not the pronouncement of the orthodox, but the delirium of the heterodox, especially if they wish for all things necessary to be believed to be contained in Scripture proximately, immediately, and formally; as indeed they do wish, and not merely remotely, mediately, and implicitly. B
That Nyssenus contracted some flaws from the reading of the books of Origen is a calumny against a writer who was by far the most learned, from which he was long ago vindicated by the work of St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, in Photius, volume 233, who strove to clear the *Catechetical Oration*, and the *Disputation on the Soul* with his sister Macrina, and the book *On the Perfection of the Christian Life* from the Origenistic stain.
That is full of consolation for "Burdo." Warned by this example (of the heretics calling Catholics *chronitas* or "Temporaries") [the scholiast] and pious men today (Burdo sub-burdones, or the yoke-bearing foals of Burdo) and those burning with sincere zeal for God, whose one vow this is: that with all novelty removed (understand everything by antiphrasis), true antiquity might be restored (a Burdonian, not Christian one), and there might be one flock, one fold (a Burdonian stable)—when they see themselves called "Innovators" by some (Burdo saw himself called such by Serarius; Drusus also; this, of course, troubles the scholiast)—they ought to cease to wonder at the *allokoton* [strange nature] of an empty and ridiculous appellation, and they ought to change their most just indignation into compassion: as Burdo did, who, out of infinite compassion, and that befitting a stable-boy rather than a man of letters, spewed abuse and curses at Serarius because he had heard himself called an "Innovator" by him.
That the scholiast not obscurely takes *aduton* [inner sanctuary] to mean the sepulcher is not to be taken ill, because he received this from him whom he calls a very great man. Concerning whom, Bellarmine, book IV on Christ, ch. 10.
Furthermore, who those people were who at Jerusalem avoided the communion of Nyssenus, concerning which inhumanity he complains so gravely, is not sufficiently known; because it is not sufficiently certain in what year and under what Jerusalem bishop Nyssenus came into Palestine. Cyril, whose Catecheses are extant, was ejected from his see in the year of Christ 359, as Baronius teaches from Sozomen. With Cyril deposed, Herennius attained the episcopate, says Sozomen, to whom succeeded Heraclius, and to him in turn Hilarius, for we have received that these had ruled that church at that time up to the reign of Theodosius, in whose times Cyril returned to that seat of dignity, namely in the year of Christ 382, the fourth year of the Emperor Theodosius. If, therefore, the Jerusalem departure of Nyssenus happened immediately after the Council of Antioch, celebrated in the year 388, as Baronius thinks, it must be said that one of the aforementioned three successors of the living Cyril, who seem to have been Arians, since Cyril had been expelled by the Arians, held the Jerusalem chair, and it is no wonder that he abstained from the communion of Nyssenus, since he [the bishop] was an extremely bitter enemy and attacker of the Arian heresy.
But if, as others please, Nyssenus departed for Jerusalem after the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, celebrated in the year of salvation 381, the third year of the Emperor Theodosius, and the fifteenth of Pope Damasus, then it could have come to pass that Nyssenus had come to Jerusalem with Cyril already restored, since in the following year, that is 382, he received the see, by the decree of a certain particular council of Constantinople, concerning which Baronius, in his fourth *Annal*, for the year of Christ 382. That Cyril himself abstained from the communion of Nyssenus, no one, I suppose, would rightly affirm, since the orthodox mind and sentiment of Nyssenus could by no means have been unknown to him, since they were together in the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. It must be, therefore, that others from the clergy did this, infected with depraved opinions: as no one will wonder that such people lived in Jerusalem, who has considered that people from all nations, including an infinite crowd of clerics, were accustomed to flock there.
1249 ANALYTICAL INDEX 1250
ANALYTICAL INDEX OF REMARKABLE THINGS AND WORDS
Which are contained in the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa. - The Roman numeral indicates the volume, the Arabic numeral the column.Aaron, brother of Moses, I, 307, A; what he denotes mystically, I, 339, D; he is decorated with priestly honor, I, 322, C. Ablabius, a soldier of Christ, II, 115, A. Abnegation of the soul, what it is, III, 298, C. Abolition and dissolution, what they are, and how they differ, II, 34, D. Abortion, what it signifies in Scripture, I, 595, A, B. Abraham’s migration interpreted allegorically, II, 939, 942. His faith and sacrifice, III, 566, 567 and following. To flee from the face of Absalom, what it means, I, 546, C. Abyss in Scripture, what it is, I, 83, A. Habitation of demons, I, 475, A. Achilles’ errors, II, 1294, C, D. Battle lines drawn up, what they mean mystically, I, 1099, A, B. Actions of brute animals are everywhere consistent, those of men are not, II, 211, D. Goads, the impulses of vices, I, 747, C. Adam, Eve, and their children prefigured the Trinity, and how, I, 1330, C, D. Young women who love the beauty of the Spouse, I, 783, D. Adoration, what it is, II, 1331, B, C. Adultery, what kind of sin it is, II, 227, B. Air, what and whence it is termed, I, 1130, C. Advent of the Lord, from the Scriptures, III, 199 and following. To build oneself, what it signifies, I, 1318, C, D. Bright buildings and dark buildings, what they are, I, 707, A. Plagues of Egypt, I, 307, D; what they mystically signify, I, 550 and following; the army of the Egyptians absorbed by the waters of the Red Sea, II, 311, A, B. Equality among those in the underworld is great, III, 1003, C. Air, what it is and its character, I, 86 and following; black and dark air, what it is mystically for the Egyptians, I, 350, A, B, C. Various ages of man, III, 671, C, D. Eternal is that which is said not to be in time, II, 479, B. Aetius, who and of what character he was, II, 259, C; his life, 262 and following. Age (Aevum), what it is and what it signifies, I, 751, D. Affections are neither innate by principle nor by nature in men, but come to them by counsel, III, 370 and following; those that are produced by cold are more durable, III, 778, B. Immoderate affliction of the soul hinders perfection, III, 406, 407. Agathos (Good), what it is, II, 962, C, D. Hagar in the desert mystically prefigured baptism, III, 587, C, D. Agennetos (Unbegotten), what it is, and whether it is said of the Son as it is of the Father, II, 603 and following; 918 and following. Field, who it is, and what is the virtue and power of the field, and whether they differ from each other, I, 851, D, 855. Doorposts anointed with the blood of the lamb, what they signify, I, 334, C; the manner of eating the lamb, what it denotes, I, 353, B, C. Who is our husbandman, and whose husbandry we are, I, 703, D. Agriculture is nothing other than the apparatus and subsistence of life, II, 14, B; the effects of agriculture, I, 662, A, B. Wing in God, what it is, I, 1102, A. Alexander the philosopher and martyr, a follower of extreme poverty, III, 935, D. Nourishment of the soul, what it is, II, 190, C. Alleluia, inscription of a psalm, what notion it has, I, 511, D. Altar and censer of the tabernacle, what they are, I, 183, D. Amalthea, the fable, I, 974, D. Signs of madness, I, 646, D. A true friend and true friendship, I, 1043, B, C. Love, what it is, is defined, I, 734, B. To be loved, what it is, and what is the time for loving, I, 731 and following. The dart of love, what it is, and who hurls it, I, 851, A. The goad of love, faith, ibid. Exhorting Amphilochius to send him workers to finish the chapel, III, 1094 and following. Ananias’ sacrilege, what it is, III, 575, B. The name of angels, used by Scripture in both senses, what it is, I, 342, A; the guardianship of angels, I, 934, D. The soul, what it is, III, 30, C; the Eunomian definition of the soul, II, 203, D; the Mosaic and Platonic definitions, II, 206, A; various opinions and errors concerning its origin, I, 1331, D and following; the soul, what it is according to the various opinions of the philosophers, II, 187; it is neither matter nor body, II, 190; it is not blood, II, 191, A, B; nor air, C; how it is united to the body we are ignorant, II, 43, A; whether the soul or the body is capable of pain, II, 194; the soul’s separation from the body is death, ibid., C, D; the soul’s concord from the ape, ibid., D. The soul with the body is as a lyrist with a lyre, II, 195; yet it is not a harmony, ibid.; nor a temperament, 198; it moves while being immovable, 202, C; it is not a number, 203, C; it cannot be circumscribed by place, 218, D. The soul properly is, and is called, that which uses reason; to others, the name is only common with this, I, 175, C, D, 178, A, B. The human soul, how it expresses the image of the Trinity, I, 1335, C, D; how it expresses the government of God, 1343, A, B; the human soul’s covering, the sublime Gospel, I, 878, B; its medicine and cure, what they are, II, 35, D; the soul that is joined to God cannot be sated by the enjoyment of Him, I, 777, D; it extends itself freely throughout the whole of nature by the motions of thought and intelligence, II, 42, C. No one knows its operation, II, 947, D; it must remain perpetually, III, 18 and following. The appetites and impulses of the soul are designated by the good seeds of the Scriptures, III, 62, C, D. The soul not sealed by baptism is not recognized by the Lord, III, 423, B, C; the war of the soul, 491, B; what its death is, 615, B; it is not sin, but is capable of sin, II, 546, D. The soul lacking a mind is a beast of burden destitute of the faculty of thinking, II, 1238, B. An animal indicates pleasure by certain signs, I, 1230, A. Animals created for man’s use, I, 142, 143. Animals that do not drink, II, 191, A, B; those lacking lungs, ibid., C. How souls would have arisen if the first men had not stained themselves with any taint of sin, I, 187 and following. Souls do not exist before bodies, I, 230 and following. The distinction of souls, I, 146 and following. In what part the governing faculty of the soul is to be thought contained, I, 155 and following. The distinction between the motions of the soul and the body, I, 173, A, B. The soul and body have the same principle of existence, I, 234 and following. The soul is nourished by the virtues, I, 1093, A, B. The soul’s nest of questions, in which the weary mind rests, I, 63, A. Obesity of the body hinders the perfection of the soul as much as immoderate affliction, II, 51, B, C. The soul from the body, as a friend from a beloved, is subsisted, II, 218, C. The integrity of the soul and its freedom from all passions; before bodily cleanliness...