Migne Reading Room
PG 1 · cols. 1157–1204
Prefaces to the Recognitions: Veterum testimonia, Le Nourry's Dissertatio (Art. I-VIII), Cotelier, Gallandi, Gersdorf
Editors' preface
RECOGNITIONES S. CLEMENTIS.
THE RECOGNITIONS OF SAINT CLEMENT.
VETERUM TESTIMONIA
TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS
DE RECOGNITIONIBUS CLEMENTINIS.
CONCERNING THE CLEMENTINE RECOGNITIONS.
(GALLAND., Vet. Patr. Biblioth., I, 211.)
(Gallandi, Bibliotheca veterum Patrum, I, 211.)
I. ORIGENES, tomo III Commentariorum in Genesim, in Philocaliae cap. 22.
I. ORIGEN, in tome III of the Commentaries on Genesis, in chapter 22 of the Philocalia.
Καὶ Κλήμης δὲ ὁ Ῥωμαῖος, Πέτρου ἀποστόλου μαθητὴς, συνῳδὰ τούτοις ἐν τῷ παρόντι προβλήματι, πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα, ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ εἰπὼν ἐν ταῖς Περιόδοις, ἀναγκαιότατόν τι ἐπὶ τέλει τῶν τοιούτων λόγων φησὶ, περὶ τῶν τῆς γενέσεως δοκούντων ἐμβεβηκέναι, λόγῳ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτῳ· Καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ, κ. τ. λ.
And Clement the Roman also, a disciple of the apostle Peter, having spoken in harmony with these things on the present problem, to his father, at Laodicea, in the Circuits, says at the end of such discourses something most necessary concerning the things that seem to have come to pass from nativity, in the fourteenth discourse: And the father, etc.
IDEM, ad Matthaei XXVI, 6, etc,
THE SAME, on Matthew 26:6, etc.,
Tale aliquid dicit et Petrus ad Clementem; quoniam opera bona quae fiunt ab infidelibus, in hoc saeculo eis prosunt; non et in illo, ad consequendam vitam aeternam. Et convenienter; quia nec illi propter Deum faciunt, sed propter ipsam naturam humanam.
Peter also says something of this kind to Clement: that the good works which are done by unbelievers profit them in this world, but not also in that one, for the obtaining of eternal life. And fittingly; because neither do they do them for the sake of God, but for the sake of human nature itself.
II. EUSEBIUS, Histor. eccl. lib. III, cap. 3.
II. EUSEBIUS, Ecclesiastical History, book III, chapter 3.
Τὸ μὲν τῶν ἐπικεκλημένων αὐτοῦ Πράξεων, καὶ τὸ κατ' αὐτὸν ὠνομασμένον Εὐαγγέλιον, τό τε λεγόμενον αὐτοῦ Κήρυγμα, καὶ τὴν καλουμένην Ἀποκάλυψιν, οὐδ' ὅλως ἐν καθολικοῖς ἴσμεν παραδεδομένα· ὅτι μήτε ἀρχαίων, μήτε τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς τις ἐκκλησιαστικὸς συγγραφεὺς, ταῖς ἐξ αὐτῶν συνεχρήσατο μαρτυρίαις.
As for the book of the Acts called his, and the Gospel named after him, and what is termed his Preaching, and the so-called Apocalypse, we know that they have not been handed down at all among the catholic writings; because no ecclesiastical writer, either of the ancients or of those of our own time, has made use of testimonies drawn from them.
De his Actibus Petri, in quibus contenti videntur libri Recognitionum, item de aliis ejusdem nominis, consuli debent: Hieronymus, infra, Isidorus Pelusiota, lib. II. epist. 99; Philastrius, De haeresibus, cap. 40; Innocentius papa, epist. 3, cap. 7; Gelasius, in concilio Romano; Photius, cum infra tum cod. CXIV, et Sigebertus, De viris illustribus, cap. 1.
Concerning these Acts of Peter, in which the books of the Recognitions seem to be contained, and likewise concerning others of the same name, there ought to be consulted: Jerome, below; Isidore of Pelusium, book II, epistle 99; Philastrius, On Heresies, chapter 40; Pope Innocent, epistle 3, chapter 7; Gelasius, in the Roman council; Photius, both below and in codex CXIV; and Sigebert, On Illustrious Men, chapter 1.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1157
Footnotes
(2) ‹anchor: δοκούντων ἐμβεβηκέναι› · call in col 1157 (printed in the Greek only; the facing Latin, col 1158, reads "videntur evenisse")
Ἐμβεβηκέναι. Forte ἐκβεβηκέναι
Ἐμβεβηκέναι ["to have entered upon"]. Perhaps ἐκβεβηκέναι ["to have come to pass"].
(printed under page 576)
Page
- running head: RECOGNITIONES.— PROOEMIA.
- marginal letters: A ‹Καὶ Κλήμης δὲ ὁ Ῥωμαῖος›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width. Page of cols 1157-1158 is printed in mixed layout and the column crops cut it; captions and the Eusebius Greek were completed from the c1158 images. Layout: titles and captions full width; Origen Greek (left) with facing Latin (right, not set, see c1158); the Latin of Origen on Matthew runs as one paragraph across both columns, split here at the column break (hu-|manam, set whole here; remainder in c1158); Eusebius in THREE columns: modern Latin version at left (Librum vero qui Actus Petri dicitur..., facing version, not set), Greek in the middle (set here), Rufinus's version at right (set in c1158); the closing remark De his Actibus Petri is full width, set once here. Foot note (2) on ἐμβεβηκέναι (call removed from text): 'Ἐμβεβηκέναι. Forte ἐκβεβηκέναι'. The whole column is editors' matter (testimonia collected by Gallandi). UNSURE: accents of μαθητής, φησί, Πατήρ before comma read as acute; Philocaliae is blurred (looks like Philcealiae) and may be a misprint; Τὸ μὲν τῶν as printed.
Qui autem propter Deum faciunt, id est fideles; non solum in hoc saeculo proficit eis, sed et in illo; magis autem in illo. Recogn. lib. VII, cap. 38.
But those who do them for the sake of God, that is, the faithful: it profits them not only in this world, but also in that one; and more in that one. Recognitions, book VII, chapter 38.
Ex versione Rufini.
From the version of Rufinus.
Ille vero libellus qui dicitur Actus Petri, et quod nomine ejus Evangelium nuncupatur, sed et qui dicitur ejus Praedicatio vel Revelatio, in Scripturis prorsus canonicis non habentur. Sed ne aliquis quidem scriptorum veterum, uti eorum testimoniis invenitur. Lege Nicephorum, lib. II, cap. 46.
But that little book which is called the Acts of Peter, and the Gospel which is styled by his name, and also what is called his Preaching or Revelation, are not held at all among the canonical Scriptures. Nor indeed is any one of the ancient writers found to use their testimonies. Read Nicephorus, book II, chapter 46.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1158
Page
- running head: RECOGNITIONES.— PROOEMIA.
- marginal letters: A ‹Et vero Clemens Romanus›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width. Mixed-layout page (see c1157). The column opens with the full-width titles and captions, set once in c1157. The facing Latin version of the Origen Greek (Et vero Clemens Romanus ... Et Pater, etc. Recognit. lib. X, cap. 10.) is NOT set; its closing reference 'Recognit. lib. X, cap. 10.' is the editor's and appears only in the Latin. The first paragraph here continues the Latin of Origen on Matthew from c1157; the word hu-manam is split at the column break and is set whole in c1157, so this column's printed first syllables 'manam.' are not repeated here. Rufinus's version of Eusebius (third column of the three-column block) is set here as an ancient version in its own right, with its italic caption; the modern facing Latin at the left of the page is not set. Whole column is editors' matter.
Idem EUSEBIUS, lib. III, cap 38.
The same EUSEBIUS, book III, chapter 38.
Ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἕτερα πολυεπῆ καὶ μακρὰ συγγράμματα, ὡς τοῦ αὐτοῦ, χθὲς καὶ πρώην τινὲς προήγαγον, Πέτρου δὴ καὶ Ἀπίωνος διαλόγους περιέχοντα· ὧν οὐδ' ὅλως μνήμη τις παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς φέρεται. Οὐδὲ γὰρ καθαρὸν τῆς ἀποστολικῆς ὀρθοδοξίας ἀποσώζει τὸν χαρακτῆρα.
And now certain persons have, only yesterday and the day before, brought forward other wordy and lengthy writings as being his, containing dialogues of Peter and Apion; of which no mention whatever is current among the ancients. For they do not even preserve pure the stamp of apostolic orthodoxy.
De Disputatione Petri et Apionis, quae videtur fuisse vel pars vel appendix Clementis Recognitionum et Actuum Petri vide infra in Hieronymo, Photio et Honorio Augustodunensi.
Concerning the Disputation of Peter and Apion, which seems to have been either a part of, or an appendix to, Clement's Recognitions and the Acts of Peter, see below in Jerome, Photius and Honorius of Autun.
V. S. HIERONYMUS, De vir. illustr., cap. 1.
V. SAINT JEROME, On Illustrious Men, chapter 1.
Libri autem, e quibus unus Actorum ejus (Petri) inscribitur, alius Evangelii, tertius Praedicationis, quartus Apocalypseos, quintus Judicii, inter apocryphas scripturas reputantur. Lege †Frecullfum, tom. II, lib. I, cap. 20, et Honorium August., cap. 1.
But the books, of which one is entitled his (Peter's) Acts, another his Gospel, a third his Preaching, a fourth his Apocalypse, a fifth his Judgment, are reckoned among the apocryphal writings. Read Freculf, tome II, book I, chapter 20, and Honorius of Autun, chapter 1.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1159
Footnotes
(3) ‹anchor: scripturas reputantur› · call in col 1159
Reputantur. Al. repudiantur.
Reputantur ["are reckoned"]. Elsewhere repudiantur ["are rejected"].
(printed under page 577)
Page
- running head: S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA.
- marginal letters: A ‹Iterum libri Novi Testamenti quibus contradici-›; B ‹sanctis ecclesiis leguntur. Quia alium habet chara-›; C ‹(above) Libri autem, e quibus unus Actorum ejus›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width. Mixed-layout page (cols 1159-1160), cut by the column crops; captions and the Eusebius Greek completed from the c1160 images. On this page the LATIN stands on the left and the GREEK on the right. Eusebius III, 38 is in three columns: modern Latin at left (Quidam porro alia etiam opera ... Lege Maximi Prologum in Opera Dionysii., facing version, not set; its last sentence is the editor's pointer), Greek in the middle (set here), Rufinus at right (set in c1160). The remark De Disputatione Petri et Apionis is full width, set once here. Under III (Athanasius) and IV (Epiphanius) this column holds only the facing Latin, not set; their captions and Greek are set in c1160. The Epiphanius Latin closes with the editor's pointer, found only in the Latin: 'Lege Recognit. lib. IV, cap. 3; lib. V, cap. 36; lib. VII, cap. 6, et lib. VIII, cap. 1 et 2.' Under V the Latin is Jerome's own text and is set here with the full-width caption; the Greek 'antiqua versio' beside it is set in c1160. So caption V stands in this file ahead of captions III and IV in c1160: reading order by page is Eusebius, III, IV, V. Foot note (3) on reputantur (call removed): 'Reputantur. Al. repudiantur.' UNSURE: Frecullfum, letters blurred (Freculfum or Freculphum intended). 'cap 38' printed without the point. Whole column is editors' matter.
Ex interpr. Rufini.
From the translation of Rufinus.
Sed et alia ejus opuscula non minima a nonnullis haberi perhibentur; velut Petri et Apionis disputatio; quae in usu a veteribus habita minime reperimus; quia nec pura in eis et incorrupta apostolicae fidei regula mansisse deprehenditur. Lege Niceph. lib. III, cap. 18.
But other works of his also, not of the smallest size, are said to be held by some; such as the disputation of Peter and Apion; which we by no means find to have been in use among the ancients; because neither is the rule of apostolic faith discovered to have remained pure and uncorrupted in them. Read Nicephorus, book III, chapter 18.
III. S. ATHANASIUS, in Synopsi sacrae Scripturae.
III. SAINT ATHANASIUS, in the Synopsis of Sacred Scripture.
Τῆς Νέας πάλιν Διαθήκης ἀντιλεγόμενα ταῦτα Περίοδοι Πέτρου, etc. Ἐξ ὧν μετεφράσθησαν ἐκλεγέντα τὰ ἀληθέστερα καὶ θεόπνευστα. Ταῦτα τὰ ἀναγινωσκόμενα, etc.
Again, the disputed books of the New Testament are these: the Circuits of Peter, etc. From which the truer and divinely inspired parts were selected and translated. These are the books that are read, etc.
IV. S. EPIPHANIUS, haeresi XXX, Ebionaeorum, num. 15.
IV. SAINT EPIPHANIUS, in heresy XXX, of the Ebionites, number 15.
Χρῶνται δὲ καὶ ἄλλαις τισὶ βίβλοις, δῆθεν ταῖς Περιόδοις καλουμέναις Πέτρου, ταῖς διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφείσαις· νοθεύσαντες μὲν τὰ ἐν αὐταῖς, ὀλίγα δὲ ἀληθινὰ ἐάσαντες· ὡς αὐτὸς Κλήμης αὐτοὺς κατὰ πάντα ἐλέγχει, ἀφ' ὧν ἔγραψεν Ἐπιστολῶν ἐγκυκλίων τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἁγίαις ἐκκλησίαις ἀναγινωσκομένων· ὅτι ἄλλον ἔχει χαρακτῆρα ἡ ἑαυτοῦ πίστις καὶ ὁ λόγος, παρὰ τὰ ὑπὸ τούτων εἰς ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν ταῖς Περιόδοις νενοθευμένα. Αὐτὸς γὰρ παρθενίαν διδάσκει, καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐ δέχονται. Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐγκωμιάζει Ἡλίαν, καὶ Δαβὶδ, καὶ Σαμψὼν, καὶ πάντας τοὺς προφήτας, οὓς οὗτοι βδελύττονται. Ἐν ταῖς οὖν Περιόδοις τὸ πᾶν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς μετήνεγκαν, καταψευσάμενοι Πέτρου κατὰ πολλοὺς τρόπους· ὡς αὐτοῦ καθ' ἡμέραν βαπτιζομένου ἁγνισμοῦ ἕνεκεν, καθάπερ καὶ οὗτοι. Ἐμψύχων τε τὸν αὐτὸν ἀπέχεσθαι καὶ κρεῶν, ὡς καὶ οὗτοι, καὶ πάσης ἄλλης ἐδωδῆς τῆς ἀπὸ σαρκῶν πεποιημένης λέγουσιν, ἐπειδήπερ καὶ αὐτὸς Ἐβίων καὶ Ἐβιωνῖται παντελῶς ἀπέχονται τούτων.
They use certain other books also, namely the so-called Circuits of Peter, those written through Clement; having falsified what is in them, while leaving a few true things; as Clement himself refutes them in every respect, from the encyclical Epistles which he wrote and which are read in the holy churches; because his own faith and discourse have a different stamp from the things falsified by these men under his name in the Circuits. For he teaches virginity, and they do not accept it. For he praises Elijah, and David, and Samson, and all the prophets, whom these men abominate. In the Circuits, then, they have transferred everything to themselves, telling lies against Peter in many ways: as that he was baptized daily for the sake of purification, just as these men also are. And they say that the same man abstained from living creatures and from meats, as these also do, and from every other food made from flesh, since both Ebion himself and the Ebionites abstain from these altogether.
Ex antiqua versione.
From the ancient version.
Τὰ δὲ συγγράμματα, τοῦτ' ἔστι πρῶτον, ὃ ἐπιγέγραπται, Πράξεις αὐτοῦ· δεύτερον, Εὐαγγέλιον· τρίτον, Κήρυγμα· τέταρτον, Ἀποκάλυψις· πέμπτον, Κρίσις· ὡς ἀπόκρυφα ὄντα ἀποδοκιμάζεται.
But the writings, that is, first, the one that is entitled his Acts; second, the Gospel; third, the Preaching; fourth, the Apocalypse; fifth, the Judgment, are rejected as being apocryphal.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1160
Page
- running head: S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA.
- marginal letters: A ‹Τῆς Νέας πάλιν Διαθήκης›; B ‹λον ἔχει χαρακτῆρα›; C ‹(above) Ex antiqua versione.›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width. Mixed-layout page (see c1159): Greek on the RIGHT here, Latin on the left. Rufinus's version of Eusebius III, 38 (third column of the three-column block) set here with its italic caption; its last sentence (Lege Niceph. ...) is the editor's pointer. Captions III and IV are printed full width and are set here, with their Greek; caption V is set in c1159 with Jerome's Latin, and the Greek 'antiqua versio' of Jerome is set here. The marginal letters A B C stand between the two columns and serve both. 'etc.' twice in the Athanasius Greek is the editor's Latin abbreviation, as printed. Whole column is editors' matter.
IDEM ibid., cap. 15.
THE SAME, in the same work, chapter 15.
Καὶ Διάλογος Πέτρου καὶ Ἀπίωνος μακρῷ λόγῳ συνταγεῖσα, ἥν τινα Εὐσέβιος εὐθύνει, ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας τεύχει.
And a Dialogue of Peter and Apion, composed in a long discourse, which Eusebius censures in the third volume of the Ecclesiastical History.
IDEM lib. I adversus Jovinianum, cap. 14.
THE SAME, book I against Jovinian, chapter 14.
Possumus autem de Petro dicere, quod habuerit socrum eo tempore quo credidit, et uxorem jam non habuerit: quanquam legatur in Περιόδοις, et uxor ejus, et filia. Sed nunc nobis de canone omne
But we can say of Peter that he had a mother-in-law at the time when he believed, and no longer had a wife: although in the Circuits both his wife and his daughter are read of. But now for us the whole
IDEM lib. I Commentariorum in Epistolam ad Galatas, I, 18.
THE SAME, book I of the Commentaries on the Epistle to the Galatians, 1:18.
Non ut oculos, genas vultumque ejus (Petri Paulus) aspiceret: utrum macilentus, an pinguis, adunco naso esset, an recto: et utrum frontem vestiret
Not that he (Paul) might look upon his (Peter's) eyes, cheeks and countenance: whether he was lean or fat, whether he had a hooked nose or a straight one; and whether hair clothed his forehead
VI. RUFINUS, De adulteratione librorum Origenis.
VI. RUFINUS, On the Adulteration of the Books of Origen.
Clemens, apostolorum discipulus, qui Romanae Ecclesiae post apostolos, et episcopus et martyr praefuit, libros edidit qui Graece appellantur ἀναγνωρισμὸς, id est Recognitio: in quibus, cum ex persona Petri apostoli doctrina quasi vere apostolica in quamplurimis exponatur, in aliquibus ita Eunomii dogma scribitur ut nihil aliud quam ipse Eunomius disputare credatur, Filium Dei creatum ex nullis exstantibus asseverans. Tum deinde etiam illud adulterii inseritur genus, ut naturam diaboli, caeterorumque daemonum, non propositi voluntatisque malitia, sed excepta ac separata creaturae produxerit qualitas; qui utique in caeteris omnem rationabilem creaturam docuerat liberi arbitrii facultate donatam. Sunt etiam alia nonnulla libris ejus
Clement, a disciple of the apostles, who presided over the Roman Church after the apostles as both bishop and martyr, published books which in Greek are called ἀναγνωρισμός, that is, Recognition: in which, although in very many places a doctrine as truly apostolic is set forth in the person of the apostle Peter, in some places the dogma of Eunomius is so written that one would believe it is none other than Eunomius himself who is arguing, asserting that the Son of God was created out of things not existing. Then, further, that kind of adulteration is also inserted, that the nature of the devil and of the other demons was produced not by malice of purpose and will, but by an exceptional and separate quality of creation; he who assuredly had taught elsewhere that every rational creature was endowed with the faculty of free will. There are also some other things in his books
IDEM, in peroratione translationis suae Explanationum Origenis in Epistolam ad Romanos.
THE SAME, in the peroration of his translation of Origen's Expositions on the Epistle to the Romans.
(Ex noviss. Origenis Opp. edit., tom. IV, pag. 689.)
(From the most recent edition of the Works of Origen, tome IV, page 689.)
Post hoc sane vocat nos opus, quod olim quidem injunctum est, sed nunc a beato Gaudentio episcopo vehementius perurgetur; Clementis, scilicet, Romani episcopi, apostolorum comitis ac successoris, de Recognitione libri, ut in Latinum vertantur. In quo
After this, indeed, a work calls us which was enjoined long ago, to be sure, but is now pressed more vehemently by the blessed bishop Gaudentius: namely, that the books of Clement, bishop of Rome, companion and successor of the apostles, on the Recognition, be turned into Latin. In which
VII. S. PAULINUS NOLANUS epistola 46 ad Rufinum, num. 2.
VII. SAINT PAULINUS OF NOLA, in epistle 46 to Rufinus, number 2.
Sane quod admonere dignaris affectu illo quo nos sicut te diligis, ut studium in Graecas litteras attentius sumam, libenter accipio; sed implere non valeo: nisi forte desideria mea adjuvat Dominus, ut diutius consortio tuo perfruar. Nam quo modo profectum capere potero sermonis ignoti, si desit a
Truly, as to what you deign to advise, with that affection by which you love us as yourself, that I should take up the study of Greek letters more attentively, I receive it gladly; but I am not able to fulfil it: unless perhaps the Lord aids my desires, so that I may enjoy your company longer. For how shall I be able to make progress in an unknown language, if there is lacking one from
Editors' notes and page, col. 1161
Footnotes
(4) ‹anchor: dogma scribitur› · call in col 1161
Scribitur. Al. inseritur.
Scribitur ["is written"]. Elsewhere inseritur ["is inserted"].
(printed under page 578)
Page
- running head: RECOGNITIONES.— PROOEMIA.
- marginal letters: A ‹Καὶ Διάλογος Πέτρου καὶ Ἀπίωνος μακρῷ λόγῳ›; B ‹unco naso esset, an recto›; C ‹caeterorumque daemonum, non propositi voluntatis-›; D ‹Sane quod admonere dignaris›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width. Mixed-layout page (cols 1161-1162), cut by the column crops; captions completed from the c1162 images. Under 'IDEM ibid., cap. 15' the Greek (ancient version of Jerome) stands on the left and is set here; Jerome's own Latin on the right is set in c1162. All the other pieces are Latin paragraphs running across the two columns; each is split at the column break, the left half here and the right half in c1162, so six English lines here end mid-sentence. 'vesti-ret' is split at the break and set whole here. Captions are full width, set once here. Foot note (4) on scribitur (call removed): 'Scribitur. Al. inseritur.' Printer's signature at the foot: PATROL. GR. I. Whole column is editors' matter (testimonia).
Et Disputatio Petri et Apionis longo sermone conscripta, quam Eusebius in tertio Historiae ecclesiasticae volumine coarguit. Lege Freculfum, tom. II, lib. II, cap. 10.
And a Disputation of Peter and Apion, written out in a long discourse, which Eusebius refutes in the third volume of the Ecclesiastical History. Read Freculf, tome II, book II, chapter 10.
certamen est. In Recognitionibus, uxor Petri memoratur lib. VII, cap. 25, 26, et lib. IX, cap. 38; filia vero, nusquam.
contest is about the canon. In the Recognitions, Peter's wife is mentioned in book VII, chapters 25, 26, and book IX, chapter 38; but his daughter, nowhere.
coma; an, ut Clemens in Periodis ejus refert, calvitiem haberet in capite. Hoc nunc in Recognitionibus non invenitur.
or whether, as Clement relates in his Circuits, he had baldness on his head. This is not now found in the Recognitions.
inserta quae ecclesiastica Regula omnino non recipit. Quid, quaeso, de his sentiendum est? quod apostolicus vir, imo pene apostolus, non ea scribit quae apostoli dicunt; cui Paulus apostolus testimonium dedit, dicens: Cum Clemente et adjutoribus meis caeteris, quorum nomina sunt in libro vitae; et scribat hoc quod libris vitae contrarium est? An id potius credendum est, quod supra diximus; quod perversi homines, ad assertionem dogmatum suorum, sub virorum sanctorum nomine, tanquam facilius credenda inseruerunt ea quae illi nec sensisse, nec scripsisse credendi sunt. Lege Hieronymum, Apologiae adversus Rufinum lib. II, cap. 4; et Praefationem Rufini ad hos Recognitionum libros. Lege etiam Recognit., lib. III, cap. 8.
inserted which the ecclesiastical Rule does not receive at all. What, I ask, is to be thought of these things? That an apostolic man, nay almost an apostle, does not write the things which the apostles say; he to whom the apostle Paul bore witness, saying: With Clement and my other helpers, whose names are in the book of life; and that he should write what is contrary to the books of life? Or is that rather to be believed which we said above: that perverse men, for the assertion of their own dogmas, inserted under the name of holy men, as things that would be more readily believed, what those men are to be believed neither to have thought nor to have written. Read Jerome, Apology against Rufinus, book II, chapter 4; and the Preface of Rufinus to these books of the Recognitions. Read also the Recognitions, book III, chapter 8.
opere bene novi, quod laborem labor multiplicat, si sortem suscipiat. Satisfaciam sane in eo amicis meis; dabo titulo nomen meum, auctoris nihilominus vocabulo permanente. Nam Rufini Clemens scribetur.
work I know well that labour multiplies labour, if it should take up its lot. I shall indeed satisfy my friends in it; I shall give my name to the title, the author's name nevertheless remaining. For it will be written: the Clement of Rufinus.
quo ignorata condiscam? Credo enim in translatione sancti Clementis, praeter alias ingenii mei defectiones hanc te potissimum imperitiae meae penuriam considerasse, quod aliqua in quibus intelligere vel exprimere verba non potui, sensu potius apprehenso, vel (ut verius dicam) opinata transtulerim.
whom I may learn the things I do not know? For I believe that in the translation of Saint Clement, besides other failings of my ability, you have observed above all this poverty of my unskilfulness, that some things, in which I could not understand or express the words, I have translated rather by the sense I grasped, or (to speak more truly) by what I supposed.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1162
Footnotes
(44) ‹anchor: in libro vitae› · call in col 1162 (superior numeral, small and blurred; read as 44, the second digit uncertain)
Philipp. IV, 3.
Philippians 4:3.
(printed under page 578)
Page
- running head: RECOGNITIONES.— PROOEMIA.
- marginal letters: A ‹Et Disputatio Petri et Apionis longo sermone›; B ‹nibus non invenitur.›; C ‹sub virorum sanctorum nomine / credenda inseruerunt›; D ‹quo ignorata condiscam?›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width. Mixed-layout page (see c1161); the full-width captions are set once in c1161. First paragraph is Jerome's own Latin (De vir. illustr. 15), whose Greek ancient version is set in c1161; its last sentence (Lege Freculfum ...) is the editor's pointer, as are the italic closing remarks of the next three paragraphs. The remaining five paragraphs are the right-hand halves of paragraphs begun in c1161, so their English begins mid-sentence. 'scri bat': the line-end hyphen has dropped out; set scribat and recorded above. Foot note call 43 after 'libro vitae' removed; the foot note reads 'Philipp. IV, 3.' The last word is split at the column break (transtule-|rim): completed from the first line of c1163 and set whole here with its point. Printer's signature at the foot: 37. Whole column is editors' matter.
Quo magis egeo misericordia Dei, ut pleniorem mihi tui copiam tribuat; quia pro divitiis erit pauperi, ut micas a divitis mensa cadentes, avido
Wherefore I need the mercy of God all the more, that He may grant me a fuller enjoyment of you; because it will be as riches to a poor man to gather the crumbs falling from the rich man's table with the eager
VIII. Auctor Operis imperfecti in Matthaeum, hom. 27, ad Matth. X, 41.
VIII. The author of the Incomplete Work on Matthew, homily 27, on Matthew 10:41.
(Inter Opp. S. Joan. Chrysost., tom. VI, pag. 115 edit. BB.)
(Among the Works of Saint John Chrysostom, tome VI, page 115 of the Benedictine edition.)
Sed audi mysterium, quod Petrus apud Clementem exposuit. Si fidelis fecerit opus bonum; et heic ei prodest, liberans eum a malis; et in illo saeculo, ad percipiendum regnum coeleste: magis autem ibi, quam heic. Si autem infidelis fecerit opus bonum; heic ei prodest opus ipsius: et heic ei reddit Deus bona pro opere suo. In illo autem
But hear the mystery which Peter set forth in Clement. If a believer has done a good work, it profits him both here, delivering him from evils, and in that world, for the receiving of the heavenly kingdom: but more there than here. But if an unbeliever has done a good work, his work profits him here, and here God renders him good things for his work. But in that
ID. ad Matthaei XXIV, 15,
THE SAME, on Matthew 24:15,
Fuit enim exercitus alienigenarum et Romani imperatoris stans circa Hierusalem, quae usque tunc fuerat sancta. Hoc et Petrus apud Clementem
For it was the army of foreigners and of the Roman emperor standing around Jerusalem, which until then had been holy. This Peter also in Clement
ID. ad ejusdem capitis versum 16.
THE SAME, on verse 16 of the same chapter.
Sicut autem Petrus apud Clementem exponit, Antichristo etiam plenorum signorum faciendorum
But as Peter sets forth in Clement, to Antichrist also the power of working full signs
ID. ad versum 24.
THE SAME, on verse 24.
Signa magna. Non inutilia, neque vana, quae ministri diaboli facere solent; sed magna, id est utilia et plena, quae sancti facere solebant. Nam in tempore quidem apostolorum, et postmodum, ministri quidem Christi, utilia et plena signa faciebant ex parte dextra; qualia sunt, caecos illuminare, et alia hujusmodi facere; ministri autem diaboli, inutilia faciebant et vana, ex parte sinistra; quae admirationem quidem videntibus excitarent, ad utilitatem autem nullius proficerent. Et erat
Great signs. Not useless ones, nor empty, such as the ministers of the devil are wont to work; but great, that is, useful and full, such as the saints used to work. For in the time of the apostles, and afterwards, the ministers of Christ worked useful and full signs, on the right-hand side; such as to give light to the blind, and to do other things of this kind; but the ministers of the devil worked useless and empty ones, on the left-hand side; which indeed aroused wonder in those who saw them, but availed for no one's benefit. And it was possible
ID. ad versum 42.
THE SAME, on verse 42.
Unde et sapienter Petrus dicit apud Clementem, quomodo debet quis incessanter quae Dei sunt cogitare et loqui; quoniam si mens fuerit in his occupata,
Whence also Peter wisely says in Clement how a man ought unceasingly to think and speak the things that are of God; since, if the mind is occupied in these,
IX. GENNADIUS, libro De viris illustribus, cap. 17.
IX. GENNADIUS, in the book On Illustrious Men, chapter 17.
Rufinus, Aquileiensis ecclesiae presbyter, non minima pars fuit doctorum Ecclesiae; et in transferendo de Graeco in Latinum, elegans ingenium habuit. Denique maxima parte Graecorum bibliothecam Latinis exhibuit: Basilii, scilicet, Caesariensis Cappadociae episcopi, Gregorii Nazianzeni eloquentissimi
Rufinus, a presbyter of the church of Aquileia, was not the least part of the teachers of the Church; and in translating from Greek into Latin he had an elegant talent. In short, he presented to the Latins the library of the Greeks in its greatest part: namely, of Basil, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, of Gregory of Nazianzus, a most eloquent
X. Concilium Romanum, sub Gelasio.
X. The Roman Council, under Gelasius.
Itinerarium nomine Petri apostoli, quod appellatur sancti Clementis libri decem, apocryphum.
The Itinerary under the name of the apostle Peter, which is called the ten books of Saint Clement, apocryphal.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1163
Page
- running head: S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA.
- marginal letters: A ‹rim. Quo magis egeo misericordia Dei›; B ‹ei reddit Deus bona pro opere suo. In illo autem›; C ‹Signa magna. Non inutilia, neque vana, quae›; D ‹Rufinus, Aquileiensis ecclesiae presbyter, non›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width. Mixed-layout page (cols 1163-1164), cut by the column crops; captions and the last line completed from the c1164 images. The column opens with 'rim.', the tail of transtule-rim, set whole in c1162 and not repeated here. All pieces are Latin paragraphs running across both columns, split at the column break: left halves here (English ends mid-sentence), right halves in c1164. Words split at the break and set whole here: oc-cupata (with its comma), eloquen-tissimi. Captions are full width, set once here; the closing line under X (Itinerarium ... apocryphum.) is full width, set once here. 'heic' three times, as printed. Caption 'ID. ad Matthaei XXIV, 15,' ends with a comma as printed. Foot note (5) on decem (call removed): 'Decem. Al. octo, vel novem. Male.' Whole column is editors' matter.
famelici cordis ore colligere. Hunc locum Heribertus Rosweydus de Recognitionibus explicat.
mouth of a famished heart. Heribert Rosweyde explains this passage of the Recognitions.
saeculo nihil ei prodest opus ipsius: nec enim collocatur inter caeteros fideles propter opus suum: et juste; quia naturali bono motus, fecit bonum, non propter Deum: ideo in corpus suum recipit mercedem operis sui, non in anima sua. Recognit. lib. VII, cap. 38.
world his work profits him nothing: for neither is he placed among the other faithful on account of his work; and justly; because he did the good moved by a natural good, not for the sake of God: therefore he receives the reward of his work in his body, not in his soul. Recognitions, book VII, chapter 38.
exponit. Lege Recognit. lib. I, cap. 39, 45; Clementina, hom. 3, num. 15; Lactantium, Divin. instit. lib. IV, cap. 21.
sets forth. Read the Recognitions, book I, chapters 39, 45; the Clementines, homily 3, number 15; Lactantius, Divine Institutes, book IV, chapter 21.
est danda potestas. Recognit., lib. III, cap. 60.
is to be given. Recognitions, book III, chapter 60.
inter ministros Christi, et ministros diaboli, ex hoc judicare, qui inutilia et qui utilia facerent signa. In fine autem temporis concedenda est potestas diabolo (sicut in Historia Clementis Petrus exponit) ut faciant signa utilia, et ex ea parte qua prius facere consueverant sancti; ut jam ministros Christi non per hoc cognoscamus, quia utilia faciunt signa, sed quia omnia non haec faciunt signa. Recognit. lib. III, cap. 59, 60.
to judge between the ministers of Christ and the ministers of the devil from this: who worked useless signs and who useful ones. But at the end of time power is to be granted to the devil (as Peter sets forth in the History of Clement) that they may work useful signs, and on that side on which the saints had formerly been accustomed to work them; so that we may now recognize the ministers of Christ not by this, that they work useful signs, but because they do not work all these signs. Recognitions, book III, chapters 59, 60.
Malus non invenit locum ad mentem. Recognit., lib. III, cap. 31.
the Evil One does not find a place of access to the mind. Recognitions, book III, chapter 31.
hominis, Clementis Romani Recognitionum libros, etc. Horum omnium quaecunque praemissis Prologis a Latinis leguntur, a Rufino interpretata sunt: quae sunt sine Prologo, ab alio translata sunt qui Prologum facere noluit, etc. Lege Honorium Augustodun.
man, the books of the Recognitions of Clement of Rome, etc. Of all these, whatever are read by the Latins with Prologues prefixed were translated by Rufinus; those which are without a Prologue were translated by another, who did not wish to make a Prologue, etc. Read Honorius of Autun.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1164
Footnotes
(5) ‹anchor: libri decem› · call in col 1164 (in a line set across the full page width, right half)
Decem. Al. octo, vel novem. Male.
Decem ["ten"]. Elsewhere octo ["eight"], or novem ["nine"]. Wrongly.
(printed under page 579)
Page
- running head: S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA.
- marginal letters: A ‹famelici cordis ore colligere.›; B ‹(blank line below) lib. VII, cap. 38.›; C ‹inter ministros Christi, et ministros diaboli›; D ‹tissimi hominis, Clementis Romani›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width. Mixed-layout page (see c1163); the full-width captions (VIII, ID. ..., IX, X) and the closing full-width line under X are set once in c1163. Every paragraph here is the right-hand half of a paragraph begun in c1163, so the English begins mid-sentence. Words split at the break and set whole in c1163, not repeated here: 'cupata,' (oc-cupata) and 'tissimi' (eloquen-tissimi). The closing references (Recognit. ..., Lege ..., Hunc locum ...) are the editor's pointers, as printed. The marginal letters stand between the two columns and serve both. Whole column is editors' matter.
XI. Chronicum dictum Alexandrinum, editionis Raderi, pag. 50.
XI. The Chronicle called Alexandrian, in Rader's edition, page 50.
Ὅθεν καὶ Πέτρος ὁ ἀπόστολος ἀφηγεῖται Κλημίῳ, λέγων· Ἔν τινι δικαίῳ μετὰ τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ, Νῶε, σὺν τοῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ [f. καὶ ταῖς αὐτῶν] ἐν λάρνακι διασώζεσθαι προανήγγειλεν· ἵνα πάντων τῶν ἀκαίρων ὀλοθρευθέντων, ὁ κόσμος καθαρισθῇ, ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ λάρνακι διασωθεὶς εἰς δευτέραν περιουσίαν, καθαρῶς †ἀποθῇ. Ὅμως καὶ τούτων γενομένων, οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἤρξαντο ἀσεβεῖν.
Whence also Peter the apostle relates to Clement, saying: To a certain righteous man together with those sprung from him, Noah, with those sprung from him [perhaps: and their wives], He announced beforehand that he should be preserved in an ark; in order that, when all the unseasonable had been destroyed, the world might be cleansed, [and] he who was preserved in the ark itself for a second existence might be set apart in purity. Nevertheless, even after these things had come to pass, men began to act impiously.
Ibid., pag. 62, de Mesraimo seu Zoroastre.
In the same work, page 62, concerning Mesraim or Zoroaster.
Τοῦτον ᾐνίξατο Πέτρος, εἰπὼν, ὅτι μετὰ τὸν κατακλυσμὸν, πάλιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἀσεβεῖν ἤρξαντο.
To this man Peter alluded, when he said that after the flood men again began to act impiously.
Ibid., pag. 64.
In the same work, page 64.
Λέγει δὲ περὶ τούτου Πέτρος ὁ ἀπόστολος εἰς τὰ Κλημέντια, πῶς ἦρξεν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ κληρωθείς. Φησὶ γὰρ Πέτρος· Οὗτος ὁ Νεβρὼδ μετοικήσας ἀπὸ Αἰγύπτου εἰς Ἀσσυρίους εἰς Νίνον πόλιν, ἣν ἔκτισεν Ἀσσοὺρ, καὶ κτίσας τὴν πόλιν, ἥτις ἦν Βαβυλῶνος, πρὸς τὸ ὄνομα τῆς πόλεως ἐκάλεσεν. Αὐτὸν Νίνον τὸν Νεβρὼδ οἱ Ἀσσύριοι προσηγόρευσαν. Οὗτος διδάσκει Ἀσσυρίους σέβειν τὸ πῦρ. Ἔνθεν καὶ πρῶτον αὐτὸν βασιλέα μετὰ τὸν κατακλυσμὸν ἐποίησαν οἱ Ἀσσύριοι τοῦτον, ὃν μετωνόμασαν Νίνον. Ταῦτα Πέτρος περὶ τούτου.
And Peter the apostle speaks about this man in the Clementines, how he ruled at Babylon, having received his lot in Egypt. For Peter says: This Nimrod, having migrated from Egypt to the Assyrians, to the city of Ninus, which Asshur founded, and having founded the city which belonged to Babylon, named it after the name of the city. This Nimrod the Assyrians called Ninus. He teaches the Assyrians to worship fire. Hence also the Assyrians made him the first king after the flood, this man whom they renamed Ninus. These things Peter says about him.
XII. ALDHELMUS, De laudibus virginitatis, cap. 12.
XII. ALDHELM, On the Praises of Virginity, chapter 12.
Clemens coelestis clavicularii primus successor, et secundus Romanae Ecclesiae dispensator, (quanquam nonnulli Linum et Cletum in pontificatus regimine, nequidquam sine causa, praeferant) quod caelibatus castimoniam, etiam antequam salutifero lavacro baptismi mersus, ab originali piaculo purgaretur, medullitus dilexerit, ipse propriis litterarum apicibus propalam testatur, dicens: Ego Clemens in urbe Roma natus, a prima aetate pudicitiae studium gessi. Ergo si quod praestantissimum esse constat in cunctis virtutum gradibus, et mortalium naturae difficillimum, nondum regeneratus, sibi usurpans tantopere taxaverat, quanto magis
Clement, the first successor of the heavenly key-bearer and the second steward of the Roman Church (although some, in vain and without cause, set Linus and Cletus before him in the government of the pontificate), himself openly testifies in his own written characters that he loved the chastity of celibacy from his inmost marrow, even before, plunged in the saving laver of baptism, he was cleansed from the original guilt, saying: I, Clement, born in the city of Rome, from my earliest age pursued the study of chastity. Therefore, if, not yet regenerated, he had so highly valued, claiming it for himself, that which is agreed to be most excellent among all the degrees of the virtues and most difficult for the nature of mortals, how much more
XIII. BEDA, in Hexaemeron, sive, ut alii falso inscribunt, JUNILIUS, in priora Geneseos: ad Gen. I, 6, 7, 8.
XIII. BEDE, on the Hexaemeron, or, as others falsely entitle it, JUNILIUS, on the first parts of Genesis: on Genesis 1:6, 7, 8.
De his sane quae hactenus exposita sunt, id etiam de creatione diei primi et secundi in Historia sancti
Concerning those things, indeed, which have been set forth thus far, this also concerning the creation of the first and second day, in the History of Saint
Editors' notes and page, col. 1165
Footnotes
(6) ‹anchor: Κλημίῳ› · call in col 1165 (Greek)
Κλημίῳ. Forte Κλήμεντι.
Κλημίῳ. Perhaps Κλήμεντι ["Clement", dative].
(printed under page 580)
(7) ‹anchor: Ἔν τινι› · call in col 1165 (Greek)
Ἔν. Leg. ἑνί τινι.
Ἔν. Read ἑνί τινι ["to a certain one"].
(printed under page 580)
(8) ‹anchor: ἐν αὐτῇ› · call in col 1165 (Greek)
Ἐν αὐτῇ. Praepone καί.
Ἐν αὐτῇ ["in it"]. Put καί ["and"] before it.
(printed under page 580)
(9) ‹anchor: καθαρῶς› · call in col 1165 (Greek)
Καθαρῶς. Forte καθαρός.
Καθαρῶς ["purely"]. Perhaps καθαρός ["pure"].
(printed under page 580)
(10) ‹anchor: οἱ ἄνθρωποι› · call in col 1165 (Greek)
Οἱ ἄνθρωποι. Forte praemittendum πάλιν.
Οἱ ἄνθρωποι ["men"]. Perhaps πάλιν ["again"] should be placed before it.
(printed under page 580)
(11) ‹anchor: Clemens› · call in col 1165
Hoc Aldhelmi testimonium quod mendis scatet in editis, Grabius in Spicil. PP. tom. I, p. 280, egregie restituit ex ms. cod. biblioth. Bodl. quem proinde secuti sumus.
This testimony of Aldhelm, which swarms with errors in the printed editions, Grabe has excellently restored in the Spicilegium Patrum, vol. I, p. 280, from a manuscript codex of the Bodleian Library, which we have accordingly followed.
(printed under page 580)
Page
- running head: RECOGNITIONES.— PROOEMIA.
- marginal letters: A ‹Ὅθεν καὶ Πέτρος ὁ ἀπόστολος ἀφηγεῖται Κλη-›; B ‹Λέγει δὲ περὶ τούτου Πέτρος ὁ ἀπόστολος εἰς τὰ›; C ‹Clemens coelestis clavicularii primus suc-›; D ‹De his sane quae hactenus exposita sunt, id etiam›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width. Mixed-layout page (cols 1165-1166), cut by the column crops; captions completed from the c1166 images. Under XI the Greek stands on the left (set here) with its facing Latin on the right (c1166, not set). Under XII and XIII the Latin runs as one paragraph across both columns: left halves here (English ends mid-sentence), right halves in c1166. 'san-cti' is split at the break and set whole here. Captions full width, set once here. Bracketed [f. καὶ ταῖς αὐτῶν] is the editor's inline conjecture, kept as printed. Foot note calls (6)-(11) removed; the notes read: (6) Κλημίῳ. Forte Κλήμεντι. (7) Ἔν. Leg. ἑνί τινι. (8) Ἐν αὐτῇ. Praepone καί. (9) Καθαρῶς. Forte καθαρός. (10) Οἱ ἄνθρωποι. Forte praemittendum πάλιν. Note (11), on Clemens, is printed under c1166. English follows the text as printed, not the notes' conjectures, except that 'and' is supplied in brackets before 'he who was preserved'. UNSURE: ἀποθῇ (read so; sense uncertain, rendered loosely); ᾐνίξατο (breathing and iota subscript small); 'id etiam' as printed; accents before commas (εἰπὼν, κατακλυσμὸν, Ἀσσοὺρ) read as grave. 'caelibatus' is printed with ae (æ), 'coelestis' with oe (œ). Whole column is editors' matter.
credere fas est eum post accepta fidei rudimenta, spreto gentilium ritu, dum per provincias Petrum sequeretur, divini verbi semina serentem, et propagines evangelicae vitis credentium scrobibus pastinantem, atque Simonicae lethiferas necromantiae labruscas radicitus exstirpantem; plenius ac perfectius servavisse: qui deinceps Itinerarium Petri, decem voluminibus digestum, luce clarius elimavit, Rufino in Latinum ex Graecorum bibliothecis vertente. Lege Recogn., lib. I, cap. 1. Adeundum ejusdem carmen De laude virginum, eo loco in quo de Clemente agit.
is it right to believe that, after he had received the rudiments of the faith and spurned the rite of the gentiles, while he followed Peter through the provinces as he sowed the seeds of the divine word, and set the shoots of the gospel vine in the trenches of believers, and tore up by the roots the deadly wild vines of Simon's necromancy, he kept it more fully and more perfectly: he who afterwards polished, more clearly than light, the Itinerary of Peter, arranged in ten volumes, Rufinus turning it into Latin from the libraries of the Greeks. Read the Recognitions, book I, chapter 1. The same author's poem On the Praise of Virgins should be consulted, at the place in which he treats of Clement.
Clementis ita refertur dixisse apostolum Petrum: In principio, cum fecisset, etc., inferior vero
Clement the apostle Peter is reported to have spoken thus: In the beginning, when He had made, etc., but the lower
Editors' notes and page, col. 1166
Footnotes
(12) ‹anchor: ita refertur› · call in col 1166
Refertur. Al. referunt.
Refertur ["is reported"]. Elsewhere referunt ["they report"].
(printed under page 580)
Page
- running head: RECOGNITIONES.— PROOEMIA.
- marginal letters: A ‹Unde et Petrus apostolus exponit Clementi›; B ‹Dicit autem de hoc (Nembrodo) Petrus apostolus›; C ‹credere fas est eum post accepta fidei rudimenta›; D ‹cti Clementis ita refertur›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width. Mixed-layout page (see c1165); the full-width captions are set once in c1165. Under XI this column holds the facing Latin version of the three Chronicle extracts (Unde et Petrus apostolus ...; Hunc innuit Petrus ...; Dicit autem de hoc (Nembrodo) ...): NOT set. The editor's pointers printed only at the ends of those Latin paragraphs are: 'Leg. Recognit., lib. IV, cap. 12, 15; Clementina, hom. 8, num. 17.' / 'Recogn. lib. IV, cap. 13.' / 'Lege Recognit., lib. I, cap. 30; lib. IV, cap 29; Clementina, homil. 9, num. 4, etc.' The two paragraphs set here are the right-hand halves of the Aldhelm and Bede paragraphs begun in c1165, so the English begins mid-sentence; the column's printed 'cti' (san-cti) is set whole in c1165 and not repeated. The last paragraph runs on into c1167 with no word split. Foot note call (12) after refertur removed. Foot notes under this column: (11) Hoc Aldhelmi testimonium quod mendis scatet in editis, Grabius in Spicil. PP. tom. I, p. 280, egregie restituit ex ms. cod. biblioth. Bodl. quem proinde secuti sumus. (12) Refertur. Al. referunt. Whole column is editors' matter.
praeberet hominibus. Haec nostro operi paucis inserere libuit, ut quantum hoc Patrum sensui concordet
might afford to men. It has pleased us to insert these things briefly into our work, so that how far this agrees with the mind of the Fathers
Idem BEDA, in Actorum V, 34.
The same BEDE, on Acts 5:34.
Hic Gamaliel, ut Clemens indicat, apostolorum erat in fide socius, sed eorum consilio permanens
This Gamaliel, as Clement indicates, was a companion of the apostles in the faith, but by their counsel remaining
IDEM in Retractatione in Acta, ad eumdem locum.
THE SAME in the Retractation on Acts, on the same place.
De hoc Gamaliele et in libro sancti Clementis legimus, quia discipulus apostolorum occulte fuerit; sed eorum consilio inter Judaeos, ad mitigandum eorum furorem, ubi necessitas ingruerit, sit manere praeceptus. Sed hoc ita esse veraciter gestum, certissime hodie per revelationem reliquiarum beatissimi protomartyris Stephani cunctis late Christi Ecclesiis innotuit, quae per eumdem virum divina dispositione
Of this Gamaliel we read also in the book of Saint Clement that he was secretly a disciple of the apostles; but that by their counsel he was bidden to remain among the Jews, to soften their fury whenever necessity should press. But that this was truly so done has today become most certainly known far and wide to all the Churches of Christ through the revelation of the relics of the most blessed protomartyr Stephen, which through the same man by divine disposition
IDEM lib. De ratione temporum, cap. 3.
THE SAME, in the book On the Reckoning of Times, chapter 3.
Denique sanctus Clemens apostolorum discipulus, et Romanae Ecclesiae tertius post Petrum episcopus
Lastly Saint Clement, a disciple of the apostles and third bishop of the Roman Church after Peter
XIV. NICEPHORUS CP., in fine Chronographiae.
XIV. NICEPHORUS of Constantinople, at the end of the Chronography.
Ex versione Anastasii Bibliothecarii.
From the version of Anastasius the Librarian.
Et quae Novi (Testamenti) sunt apocrypha: Itinerarium Petri, versus MMDCC, etc.
And the apocrypha that belong to the New (Testament): the Itinerary of Peter, 2,700 lines, etc.
XV. AGOBARDUS libro De Judaicis superstitionibus, cap. 16 edit. Baluz., tom. I, pag. 85.
XV. AGOBARD, in the book On the Superstitions of the Jews, chapter 16, in the edition of Baluze, vol. I, p. 85.
Sed et in libris Clementis, Ecclesiae Romanae pontificis, inveniuntur aliqua a supra memorato apostolo (Petro) de hujus rei observatione dicta, quae in his inserere non incongruum existimavimus. Nam, licet iidem libri judicentur apocryphi; pleraque tamen ex his testimonia inveniuntur a doctoribus usurpata. Introducit ergo Clemens, cum necdum esset baptismi gratia purificatus, et ob hoc a mensa Petri cum caeteris similibus sequestratus, eumdem apostolum loquentem sibi his verbis: Non pro superbia, o Clemens, convivium non ago cum his qui nondum purificati sunt; sed vereor, ne forte mihi quidem noceam, ipsis autem nihil prosim. Et paulo
But in the books of Clement also, pontiff of the Roman Church, there are found certain things said by the above-mentioned apostle (Peter) about the observance of this matter, which we have judged it not unfitting to insert here. For although the same books are judged apocryphal, yet very many testimonies from them are found employed by the doctors. Clement, then, when he was not yet purified by the grace of baptism and on that account was kept apart, with the others like him, from Peter's table, introduces the same apostle speaking to him in these words: It is not out of pride, O Clement, that I do not hold a meal with those who are not yet purified; but I fear lest perhaps I should harm myself indeed, and profit them nothing. And a little
XVI. FRECULFUS, tom. II, lib. II, cap. 10 Chronicorum.
XVI. FRECULF, vol. II, book II, chapter 10 of the Chronicles.
Idem namque beatissimus Clemens suis refert scriptis, qualiter ad fidem perveniret Christi, et discipulus Petri ac individuus comes haeret. Ait
For the same most blessed Clement relates in his own writings how he came to the faith of Christ, and cleaves as Peter's disciple and inseparable companion. He says
XVII. PHOTIUS, Bibliothecae codd. CXII, CXIII.
XVII. PHOTIUS, Bibliotheca, codices CXII, CXIII.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1167
Footnotes
(15) ‹anchor: comes haeret› · call in col 1167
Haeret. Forte haereret.
Haeret ["clings"]. Perhaps haereret ["clung", subjunctive].
(printed under page 581)
Page
- running head: 1167 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 1168
- marginal letters: A ‹praeberet hominibus. Haec nostro›; B ‹tissime hodie per revelationem›; C ‹Et quae Novi (Testamenti)›; D ‹pro superbia, o Clemens›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width (page of cols 1167-1168). Each testimony is printed as a short two-column block under a caption running the full page width; the left half of each block is set here and its continuation in c1168. Captions cut by the crop were completed from the c1168 images and are set once, here. Words split across the two halves (concor-det, dis-positione, epi-scopus) are set whole here and c1168 begins after them.
- other: XIV: the Latin of Anastasius (an ancient version, with its own caption) stands on the left and is set; its Greek stands on the right, in c1168. XVII: the left half holds the modern facing Latin version of Photius (begins 'Lecta sunt Clementis Romani duo volumina', breaks off at 'dedicatio-'): facing Latin version, not set; the Greek is in c1168.
lector agnoscat. Recognitionum lib. I, cap. 27.
the reader may recognize. Recognitions, book I, chapter 27.
apud Judaeos, ut eorum in tali turbine posset sedare furorem.
among the Jews, so that in such a storm he might be able to calm their fury.
facta est. Apparuit namque in visione sancto Dei famulo et presbytero Luciano, ut idem Lucianus presbyter postmodum omnibus Ecclesiis scripsit; et ubi sanctus Stephanus esset tumulatus, simul et Nicodemus, qui Dominum cum Joseph sepelivit, necnon et ipse Gamaliel cum filio suo Abiban, suavissima ostensione perdocuit. Recognit. lib. I, cap. 56, etc.
was brought about. For he appeared in a vision to the holy servant of God and presbyter Lucian, as the same presbyter Lucian afterwards wrote to all the Churches; and where Saint Stephen was entombed, and together with him Nicodemus, who buried the Lord with Joseph, and also Gamaliel himself with his son Abiban, he fully taught by a most sweet showing. Recognitions, book I, chapter 56, etc.
in sexto Historiarum suarum libro ita scribit: In principio fecit Deus, etc. Recogn., lib. VI.
writes thus in the sixth book of his Histories: In the beginning God made, etc. Recognitions, book VI.
Καὶ ὅσα τῆς Νέας εἰσὶν ἀπόκρυφα. Περίοδος Πέτρου, στίχοι ͵βψʹ.
And the apocrypha that belong to the New: the Circuit of Peter, 2,700 lines.
post: Nemo ergo vestrum contristetur, ait, a convivio nostro separatus. Parvo enim tempore sequestratur, qui cito voluerit baptizari; multo autem, qui tardius. Et ideo in vobis est, quando velitis, ad nostram convenire mensam; et non in nobis, quibus permissum non est sumere cum aliquo cibum, nisi prius fuerit baptizatus. Haec de scriptis Clementis necessario a nobis prolata sint; volentibus evidenter ostendere, ab apostolis traditam hujus rei antiquissimam observationem. Vera enim et ista ducenda sunt; et eo maxime, quo ab apostolicis Actibus in nullo videntur discrepare. Leg. Recogn., lib. II, cap. 71, 72.
after: Let none of you therefore be saddened, he says, at being separated from our meal. For he is kept apart a short time who wishes to be baptized quickly, but a long time who wishes it later. And therefore it lies with you, whenever you wish, to come together to our table; and not with us, to whom it is not permitted to take food with anyone unless he has first been baptized. Let these things from the writings of Clement be taken as brought forward by us of necessity, since we wish to show plainly that the most ancient observance of this matter was handed down by the apostles. For these things too are to be held true, and the more so in that they are seen to differ in nothing from the Acts of the Apostles. Read Recognitions, book II, chapters 71, 72.
enim inter caetera: Dum esset mihi comes optima, immortalitatis cupido, etc. Recognit., lib. I, capp. 2, 6, 7, 12, etc.
indeed, among other things: While I had as my best companion the desire of immortality, etc. Recognitions, book I, chapters 2, 6, 7, 12, etc.
Ἀνεγνώσθη Κλήμεντος τοῦ Ῥώμης τεύχη βιβλίων δύο· ὧν τὸ μὲν, etc., τὸ δὲ τὴν προσφώνησιν, ὡς ἐν
There were read two volumes of books of Clement of Rome; of which the one, etc., while the other [has] its dedication, as in
Editors' notes and page, col. 1168
Footnotes
(13) ‹anchor: ἀπόκρυφα. Περίοδος› · call in col 1168 (printed in the Greek only; the facing Latin, col 1167, reads "Itinerarium Petri")
Περίοδος. Al. περίοδοι.
Περίοδος ["Circuit", singular]. Elsewhere περίοδοι ["Circuits", plural].
(printed under page 581)
(14) ‹anchor: στίχοι ͵βψʹ› · call in col 1168 (printed in the Greek only; the facing Latin, col 1167, reads "versus MMDCC")
͵Βψʹ. Al. ͵βψνʹ.
͵Βψʹ [2,700]. Elsewhere ͵βψνʹ [2,750]. [The last letter of the variant numeral is small and blurred in the scan; ν is the likeliest reading, η is possible.]
(printed under page 581)
Page
- running head: 1167 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 1168
- marginal letters: A ‹det, lector agnoscat›; B ‹pelivit, necnon et ipse Gamaliel›; C ‹Καὶ ὅσα τῆς Νέας›; D ‹servationem. Vera enim et ista›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width (page of cols 1167-1168). This file holds the right-hand halves of the two-column blocks; every caption (Bede three times, XIV Nicephorus, XV Agobard, XVI Freculf, XVII Photius) runs the full page width and is set once in c1167. The split words concor-det, dis-positione, epi-scopus are set whole in c1167, so the first, third and fourth paragraphs here begin after them.
- other: the 'etc.' inside the Photius Greek is the editors' Latin abbreviation, as printed. The Greek breaks off at ὡς ἐν and continues on the next page.
- other: foot note on this half: (15) Haeret. Forte haereret. (called in c1167 at 'comes haeret'). Notes (13) and (14), called here at Περίοδος and ͵βψʹ, stand under the left half: see c1167.
ἐπιστολῆς εἴδει, πρὸς Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφόθεον ποιεῖται. Ἐν ᾧ αἵ τε λεγόμεναι τοῦ ἀποστόλου Πέτρου Πράξεις, καὶ αἱ πρὸς Σίμωνα τὸν Μάγον διαλέξεις, καὶ ἔτι ὁ Ἀναγνωρισμὸς Κλήμεντος, καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀδελφῶν. Διὸ καὶ ἔν τισι τῶν βιβλίων ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ, Κλήμεντος τοῦ Ῥωμαίου Ἀναγνωρισμὸς, ἐπιγράφεται. Ἔν τισι δὲ, ὡς ἔφημεν, Ἐπιστολὴ προτάττεται, ὡς πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφόθεον Ἰάκωβον. Καὶ αὕτη δὲ, οὐχ ἡ αὐτὴ, οὐδὲ ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ προσώπου προενηνεγμένη· ἀλλ' ἐπὶ μέν τινων βιβλίων, ὡς ἀπὸ Πέτρου τοῦ ἀποστόλου πρὸς Ἰάκωβον ἐπεσταλμένη· ἐφ' ἑτέρων δὲ, ὡς ἀπὸ Κλήμεντος πρὸς Ἰάκωβον· ἄλλη καὶ ἄλλη, καθὼς προείπομεν. Καὶ ἡ μὲν δηλοῖ, Πέτρον τὰς οἰκείας συγγράψαι πράξεις, καὶ πρὸς Ἰάκωβον αἰτησάμενον ταύτας ἀποστεῖλαι· ἡ δὲ διαλαμβάνει, ὡς Κλήμης ταύτας κατὰ πρόσταγμα Πέτρου συγγράψειε, κἀκείνου πρὸς τὴν ἀγήρω μεταστάντος, ἀποστεῖλοι Κλήμης πρὸς Ἰάκωβον. Ἔστιν οὖν εἰκασμῷ διαλαβεῖν, ὡς δύο μὲν εἴησαν τῶν Πέτρου Πράξεων ἐκδόσεις γεγενημέναι· τῷ δὲ χρόνῳ τῆς ἑτέρας διαῤῥυείσης, ἐπεκράτησεν ἡ τοῦ Κλήμεντος. Ἐν πᾶσι γὰρ τοῖς βιβλίοις ἃ εἴδομεν, καί τοι οὐκ ὀλίγων ὄντων, μετὰ τὰς διαφόρους ἐκείνας Ἐπιστολὰς καὶ ἐπιγραφὰς, τὴν αὐτὴν εὕρομεν ἀπαραλλάκτως πραγματείαν, ἀρχομένην· Ἐγὼ Κλήμης· καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἐνταττόμενα. Μυρίων δὲ ἀτοπημάτων ἡ πραγματεία γέμει αὕτη, καὶ τῆς εἰς τὸν Υἱὸν βλασφημίας κατὰ τὴν Ἀρείου δόξαν ἐστὶν ἀνάπλεως. Paucis deinde circa Constitutiones apostolicas interjectis, subdit: Ἡ μέντοιγε τῶν τοῦ Πέτρου Πράξεων βίβλος, τῷ τε λαμπρῷ καὶ τῇ σεμνότητι, καὶ ἔτι τῷ καθαρῷ καὶ συντόνῳ, καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ ἀρετῇ τοῦ λόγου, καὶ πολυμαθείᾳ, τοσοῦτο ἔχει πρὸς τὰς διαταγὰς τὸ παραλλάττον, ὡς μηδὲ συγκρίσει τῇ κατὰ τοὺς λόγους πρὸς ἀλλήλας παραβάλλεσθαι τὰς βίβλους. Et infra: Ἡ δὲ λεγομένη δευτέρα πρὸς τοὺς αὐτοὺς, ὡς νόθος ἀποδοκιμάζεται· ὥσπερ ἐπιγραφόμενος ἐπ' ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ Πέτρου καὶ Ἀπίωνος πολύστιχος διάλογος.
the form of a letter, it makes to James the brother of God. In it are both the so-called Acts of the apostle Peter, and the disputations with Simon the Magus, and further the Recognition of Clement, and of his father, and of his other brothers. Hence also in some of the copies the title is inscribed, The Recognition of Clement the Roman. But in some, as we said, a Letter is set in front, as to James the brother of God. And this too is not the same, nor brought forward as from the same person; but in some copies it is as sent from Peter the apostle to James, and in others as from Clement to James: one and then another, as we said before. And the one shows that Peter wrote up his own acts and sent them to James, who had asked for them; while the other states that Clement wrote them up at Peter's command, and that, when Peter had passed over to the ageless [life], Clement sent them to James. One may therefore gather by conjecture that two editions of the Acts of Peter had been made; and that, the one having perished with time, that of Clement prevailed. For in all the copies that we have seen, though they are not few, after those differing Letters and titles we found the same treatise without variation, beginning: I, Clement; and what is set in order after that. But this treatise is full of countless absurdities, and is filled with the blasphemy against the Son according to the opinion of Arius. Then, after a few things inserted about the Apostolic Constitutions, he adds: The book of the Acts of Peter, however, in brilliance and in dignity, and further in purity and intensity, and in the other excellence of its style, and in breadth of learning, differs so greatly from the Constitutions that the books are not even to be set beside one another in a comparison as regards style. And below: But the so-called second [letter] to the same people is rejected as spurious; as is the dialogue of many lines inscribed with the name of Peter himself and of Apion.
XVIII. HINCMARUS. De divortio Lotharii et Tetbergae, cap. 9.
XVIII. HINCMAR, On the Divorce of Lothar and Tetberga, chapter 9.
Et in Petri Itinerario, de Clementis patre legitur; quod ut a fidelibus interficeretur, a Simone Mago quem deseruerat, unguento perunctus, ejusdem Simonis imaginem omnium oculis referebat; solus
And in the Itinerary of Peter it is read of Clement's father that, in order that he might be killed by the faithful, having been smeared with an ointment by Simon the Magus, whom he had forsaken, he presented to the eyes of all the likeness of that same Simon; alone
XIX. HUMBERTUS, episcopus Sylvae Candidae, in Responsione ad Nicetae librum.
XIX. HUMBERT, bishop of Silva Candida, in the Reply to the Book of Nicetas.
Nam Clementis liber, id est Itinerarium Petri apostoli, et Canones apostolorum numerantur inter
For the book of Clement, that is, the Itinerary of Peter the apostle, and the Canons of the Apostles are numbered among
Editors' notes and page, col. 1169
Footnotes
(16) ‹anchor: ἐνταττόμενα. Μυρίων› · call in col 1169 (printed in the Greek only; the facing Latin, col 1170, reads "Refertum autem est hoc Opus innumeris absurde dictis")
Μυρίων ἀτοπημάτων γέμει. Al. Ἀλλ' ἐπανωρθωκὼς ταύτην ὁ μεταφραστής, πλοῦτον καὶ ταυτότητα τῇ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀπέθετο. Sic ad marginem cod. Maximi Margunii. Hoesch.
Μυρίων ἀτοπημάτων γέμει ["it is full of countless absurdities"]. Elsewhere: "But the Metaphrast, having corrected it, laid it up as a treasure and [ταυτότητα, 'sameness', as printed; the word is small in the scan and its sense here is doubtful] for the Church of God." So in the margin of the codex of Maximus Margunius. Hoeschel.
(printed under page 582)
Page
- running head: 1169 RECOGNITIONES.— PROOEMIA. 1170
- marginal letters: A ‹ἐπιστολῆς εἴδει, πρὸς Ἰάκωβον›; B ‹στεῖλαι· ἡ δὲ διαλαμβάνει›; C ‹licas interjectis, subdit: Ἡ μέντοιγε›; D ‹Et in Petri Itinerario›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the Greek of Photius (testimony XVII, begun on the previous page) stands on the LEFT of this page, with the editors' two Latin connecting phrases (Paucis deinde ... subdit; Et infra) printed inside it; its facing Latin is in c1170. The head prints RECOGN.TIONES with the I damaged.
- other: UNSURE: ἀποστεῖλοι (accent read as circumflex; ἀποστείλοι possible); iota subscript of ἄλλῃ not certain at this resolution.
- other: settle: full_width for the lower part of the page: XVIII and XIX are two-column blocks under full-width captions; left halves set here, continuations in c1170; captions completed from the c1170 images and set once, here.
- other: foot note (16), called at Μυρίων, runs across both halves of the foot: Μυρίων ἀτοπημάτων γέμει. Al. Ἀλλ' ἐπανωρθωκὼς ταύτην ὁ μεταφραστὴς, πλοῦτον καὶ ταυτότητα† τῇ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀπέθετο. Sic ad marginem cod. Maximi Margunii. HOESCH.
Petrus eum qui erat intuebatur: et orans, discipulos ad eorum oculos revocavit; et deluso phantasmate, intuentium obtutibus speciem propriam reddidit. Recognit. lib. X, cap. 53, etc.
Peter beheld him as the man he was; and praying, he called the disciples back to their own eyes; and, the phantasm being foiled, he restored his proper appearance to the gaze of those who looked on. Recognitions, book X, chapter 53, etc.
apocrypha. Vide Decreti primam partem, dist. 16, cap. 3.
the apocrypha. See the first part of the Decretum, distinction 16, chapter 3.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1170
Page
- running head: 1169 RECOGNITIONES.— PROOEMIA. 1170
- marginal letters: A ‹nem et allocutionem, velut in forma›; B ‹refert, Clementem eadem gesta›; C ‹ad haec puritate et vehementia›; D ‹Petrus eum qui erat intuebatur›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: facing Latin version, not set: the upper two thirds of this column (from 'nem et allocutionem, velut in forma Epistolae' to 'beati Petri et Apionis nomen praeferens.') is the Latin version facing the Greek of Photius in c1169.
- other: settle: full_width for the lower part of the page: the two paragraphs set here are the right-hand halves of testimonies XVIII (Hincmar) and XIX (Humbert), whose captions and left halves are in c1169. The right half of foot note (16) is recorded in c1169.
XX. Georgius Cedrenus, in Compendio Historiarum, edit. Basil., p. 170.
XX. George Cedrenus, in the Compendium of Histories, Basel edition, p. 170.
Καὶ μέν τοι καὶ ἄλλα σημεῖα ἐποίησαν πολλὰ οὐ μόνον ἐν Ῥώμῃ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν Συρίᾳ πρότερον· ἅ τινα Κλήμης ὁ Ῥωμαῖος καὶ πάνσοφος μαθητὴς Πέτρου καὶ συνέκδημος διηγήσατο· ἀφ' ὧν ὀλίγα συντάξομεν ἐνταῦθα. Quibus interpositis, subjungit, pag. 173: Ταῦτα μέντοι καὶ ἕτερα τοιαῦτα γεγράφηκεν, ὡς ἔφη, Κλήμης λεχθῆναι καὶ πραχθῆναι ἐν Συρίᾳ. Lege Anastasium, quaest. 20, Nicephorum, Histor. eccl., lib. II, cap. 27; pseudo-Abdiam, lib. I.
And indeed they worked many other signs also, not only in Rome, but earlier in Syria as well; which Clement the Roman, the all-wise disciple and travelling companion of Peter, has related; out of which we shall set down a few here. After inserting these, he adds, p. 173: These things, however, and others of the same kind Clement has written, as he said, were spoken and done in Syria. Read Anastasius, question 20; Nicephorus, Ecclesiastical History, book II, chapter 27; pseudo-Abdias, book I.
Lege Recognit. lib. II, cap. 37, etc.; lib. III, cap. 47; lib. X, cap. 53; Clement., hom. 3, n. 38, etc.
Read the Recognitions, book II, chapter 37, etc.; book III, chapter 47; book X, chapter 53; the Clementines, homily 3, no. 38, etc.
XXI. Honorius Augustodunensis, lib. De luminaribus Ecclesiae, cap. 15.
XXI. Honorius of Autun, in the book On the Luminaries of the Church, chapter 15.
Clemens scripsit epistolam ad Corinthiorum Ecclesiam, valde utilem; et Itinerarium Petri, et Disputationem Petri et Apionis; et multa alia, quae inter apocrypha numerantur. Adi Vitam Clementis, in Pontificali libro.
Clement wrote a letter to the Church of the Corinthians, a very useful one; and the Itinerary of Peter, and the Disputation of Peter and Apion; and many other things, which are reckoned among the apocrypha. Consult the Life of Clement, in the Pontifical book.
DISSERTATIO
DISSERTATION
De decem libris Recognitionum S. Clementis, ad Jacobum fratrem Domini, a Rufino presbytero Aquileiensi in Latinum versis.
On the ten books of the Recognitions of St Clement, to James the brother of the Lord, translated into Latin by Rufinus, presbyter of Aquileia.
(Dom. Le Nourry, Apparatus ad Bibliothecam max. Vet. Patr., p. 211; Paris., 1703, in-fol.)
(Dom Le Nourry, Apparatus to the Bibliotheca maxima of the Ancient Fathers, p. 211; Paris, 1703, in folio.)
ARTICULUS PRIMUS.
ARTICLE THE FIRST.
Analysis horum librorum.
Analysis of these books.
Auctor hujus operis ab ipso libri primi exordio sibi nomen Clementi, Romam vero patriam fuisse dicit: narratque quo ipse modo, et a quibus in Christi cognitionem sit adductus. Ait autem se cum frustra philosophorum scholas, ut de immortalitate animae, mundique creatione et duratione doceretur, frequentasset, ad Barnabam Christi discipulum, qui tunc Romam advenerat, sese contulisse. Hunc porro ut ipse fatur, publicos ad populum sermones habentem offendit, eumque adversus philosophos, rudem et impolitum illius dicendi morem irridentes, tuitus est, ac in domum suam postea deduxit. Inde illum in Judaeam, magni Judaeorum festi celebrandi causa, revertentem quindecim post diebus secutus, Caesareae Stratonis consecutus est. Barnabas vero eum confestim ducit ad Petrum, a quo benignissime excipitur, jubeturque sermones et disputationes omnes, quas deinceps, donec Romam pervenerint, habiturus erat, attente audiat. Spondet Clemens, rogatque Petrum, ut animae nostrae in Christi judicium post mortem adducendae immortalitatem, ac mundum finem aliquando accepturum esse sibi demonstret. Quae quidem derepente Petrus
The author of this work, from the very opening of the first book, says that his name was Clement and that Rome was his native city; and he relates in what manner, and by whom, he himself was brought to the knowledge of Christ. He says, moreover, that after he had in vain frequented the schools of the philosophers, in order to be taught about the immortality of the soul and the creation and duration of the world, he betook himself to Barnabas, a disciple of Christ, who had then arrived in Rome. Him, further, as he himself declares, he came upon delivering public discourses to the people, and he defended him against the philosophers, who were mocking his rude and unpolished manner of speaking, and afterwards brought him to his own house. Then, having followed him fifteen days later as he was returning to Judaea in order to celebrate the great feast of the Jews, he overtook him at Caesarea Stratonis. Barnabas, for his part, at once leads him to Peter, by whom he is most kindly received, and he is bidden to listen attentively to all the discourses and disputations which he was thereafter going to hold, until they should reach Rome. Clement promises, and asks Peter to demonstrate to him the immortality of our soul, which is to be brought after death to the judgment of Christ, and that the world will one day receive an end. These things indeed Peter on the spot
Editors' notes and page, col. 1171
Footnotes
(17) ‹anchor: ὡς ἔφη› · call in col 1172 (Greek of XX, set in c1171)
Ἔφη. Leg. ἔφην.
Ἔφη ["he said"]. Read ἔφην ["I said"].
(printed in mid-page under the left half of the testimonies, above the rule and the title of the Dissertatio, page 583; read from the c1171 middle image, where the whole line shows. No other note stands in that band, left or right half.) (none at the page foot)
Page
- running head: 1171 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 1172
- marginal letters: A ‹Alia quoque miracula (Petrus et Simon Magus)›; B ‹Clemens scripsit epistolam ad Corinthiorum›; C ‹(none on this half; stands between the columns beside ARTICULUS PRIMUS)›; D ‹Caesareae Stratonis consecutus est›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: XX: on this page the LEFT half holds the Latin version of Cedrenus (begins 'Alia quoque miracula (Petrus et Simon Magus) ediderunt', with the editors' italic link 'Quibus prolatis addit:'): facing Latin version, not set; its Greek is on the right, in c1172. Only the editors' closing reference printed at the end of that Latin block (Lege Recognit. ...) is set here, as the unit's own text.
- other: settle: full_width for the upper part of the page: the captions of XX and XXI, the title DISSERTATIO, its sub-title and the Le Nourry reference run the full page width; they were completed from the c1172 images and are set once, here. XXI is a two-column block: left half here, continuation in c1172. Below the title the page is in true columns.
- other: the column ends with the word Pe-trus split across the break; set whole here from the first line of c1172, which therefore begins after it. 'nomen Clementi' is set as printed.
- other: foot note under the testimonies, left half: (17) Ἔφη. Leg. ἔφην. (called in the Greek of c1172).
- running head: 1171 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 1172
- marginal letters: A ‹Alia quoque miracula | Καὶ μέν τοι καὶ ἄλλα›; B ‹clesiam, valde utilem | inter apocrypha numerantur›; D ‹causa, revertentem quindecim›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
tam dilucide probavit, ac insuper tanta claritate quis esset verus Propheta, ostendit; ut Clemens, Christianam fidem amplexatus, librum De vero Propheta, quem Hierosolymam misit ad Jacobum, statim composuerit.
proved so lucidly, and moreover showed with such clarity who the true Prophet was, that Clement, having embraced the Christian faith, at once composed the book On the True Prophet, which he sent to Jerusalem to James.
Die sequenti, nuntiis acceptis Simonem Magum indictam a se cum Petro disputationem post septem dies distulisse, Clemens, rogante Petro, quidquid hesterna die ab eo audierat, memoriter reddidit. Tum Petrus, laudata ejus memoriae tenacitate, ipsi quaecunque notatu digniora a creatione mundi ad extrema usque veri Prophetae tempora evenerant, narravit, planumque fecit qua ratione primus et secundus Christi adventus praenuntiatus fuerit, et quem in locum animae hominum post eorum mortem sint congregandae.
On the following day, when word had been received that Simon Magus had put off for seven days the disputation with Peter which he himself had appointed, Clement, at Peter's request, repeated from memory whatever he had heard from him the day before. Then Peter, having praised the tenacity of his memory, related to him whatever more noteworthy things had happened from the creation of the world down to the last times of the true Prophet, and made plain in what way the first and the second coming of Christ had been foretold, and into what place the souls of men are to be gathered after their death.
Longam post haec disputationem, quam omnes et singuli quique apostoli in Hierosolymitano templo per octo dies cum Judaeis inierant, integram totamque exponit, declaratque quomodo in fine illius, seditione orta, ipsi Hiericho secesserint. Inde autem Jacobus Petrum, ut Simonem, qui se Christum et summam excelsi Dei virtutem esse jactabat, confutaret, Caesaream direxit. Ad extremum Clemens de his omnibus quae a Petro acceperat
After this he sets out, whole and entire, the long disputation which all the apostles, and each one of them, had entered upon with the Jews in the temple at Jerusalem over eight days, and he declares how at its end, a tumult having arisen, they withdrew to Jericho. From there, moreover, James sent Peter to Caesarea, to refute Simon, who was boasting that he was the Christ and the supreme power of the most high God. Finally Clement, for all these things which he had received from Peter,
Editors' notes and page, col. 1172
Page
- running head: 1171 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 1172
- marginal letters: A ‹Καὶ μέν τοι καὶ ἄλλα σημεῖα›; B ‹inter apocrypha numerantur›; C ‹trus tam dilucide probavit›; D ‹rum mortem sint congregandae›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width. Mixed-layout page 583 (cols 1171-1172). The upper right of the page holds the Greek of Cedrenus (testimony XX), printed on the RIGHT, with the editors' Latin link (Quibus interpositis, subjungit, pag. 173:) and closing references inside it, and below it the right half of XXI (Honorius: inter apocrypha numerantur. Adi Vitam Clementis, in Pontificali libro.). Both are set in c1171_a, together with the full-width captions of XX and XXI and the title and sub-title of the Dissertatio; they are NOT repeated in this file. Marginal letters A and B stand beside that upper matter.
- other: the editors' foot note (17), under the left half above the rule of the Dissertatio, proposes ἔφην for ἔφη; it belongs with the Cedrenus Greek and is not set here.
- other: this file holds the lower right column only (the Dissertatio from 'tam dilucide'). The column begins with 'trus', the end of Pe-|trus, set whole in c1171_a. It ends with ac-|ceperat split across the break; set whole here from the first line of c1173. In the last line 'Petro' has a damaged final letter (prints like 'Petr)'), read as Petro.
- other: QA Q3: the two earlier, contradictory apparatus sets (one saying the Greek and the Honorius half are set here, the other saying the last word could not be completed) are merged into the one above, which agrees with the files as they stand.
actis gratiis, primum hunc librum absolvit.
having given thanks, brings this first book to a close.
In SECUNDO autem LIBRO narrat quomodo, stata disputationis Petri adversus Simonem die, ipse apostolus, primis gallorum cantibus e lecto surgens, et pauca quaedam de vi consuetudinis maturius surgendi praefatus, ab Aquila et Niceta, quondam Simonis discipulis, tunc autem ad fidem Christianam conversis, quis ille magus, et quibus moribus et actibus esset, certior fieri voluerit. Sic itaque Petrus ad disputationem instructus, ad atrium domus, in quo erat multitudo cum Simone congregata, progreditur. Ibi apostolus, post brevem de pace a Christo in mundum allata disputationem, Deum coeli et terrae creatorem esse invictis probavit argumentis; atque omnes Simonis objectiones, cum ex Scriptura sacra, tum ex ratione petitas diluit et evertit. His autem illud adjecit, quod immensae lucis aeternitas ex lege possit ostendi. Tunc Simon apostolo respondit magna eum polliceri, spoponditque fore ut si die crastina et factum mundum et animas immortales esse demonstrare voluerit, ad disputationem ipse esset reversurus. His dictis, Simon cum populi, qui secum venerat, tertia tantum parte abiit: caeteri omnes Petrum, qui plurimos mirabiliter sanavit, ultro secuti sunt.
In the SECOND BOOK, then, he relates how, on the day fixed for Peter's disputation against Simon, the apostle himself, rising from bed at the first cockcrow, and having first said a few things about the force of the habit of rising earlier, wished to be informed by Aquila and Nicetas, once disciples of Simon but by then converted to the Christian faith, who that magician was, and of what character and deeds he was. Thus equipped for the disputation, then, Peter goes forth to the court of the house, in which a multitude was gathered with Simon. There the apostle, after a short discussion of the peace brought into the world by Christ, proved by unconquerable arguments that God is the creator of heaven and earth; and all Simon's objections, drawn both from sacred Scripture and from reason, he dissolves and overturns. To these he added this, that the eternity of the boundless light can be shown from the law. Then Simon answered the apostle that he was promising great things, and pledged that, if on the morrow he should be willing to demonstrate both that the world was made and that souls are immortal, he himself would return to the disputation. Having said this, Simon went away with only a third part of the people who had come with him; all the rest of their own accord followed Peter, who wonderfully healed very many.
TERTIUS LIBER secundam et tertiam Petri cum Simone disceptationem exhibet. Sed antequam ad earum priorem aggrederetur, summo mane de maximis coram confusa plebis multitudine disputandi difficultatibus, et de tribus sanctissimae Trinitatis personis apud suos breviter disseruit. Orta luce, in eumdem hesternae disputationis locum se contulit, ibique Simon postquam apostolo magicas artes, queis tot populorum animos tam cito sibi conciliaverat, frustra exprobrasset, ab ipso petiit ut fidem, qua de immensitate lucis aeternae acturum se esse promiserat, jam liberaret.
The THIRD BOOK presents the second and third debates of Peter with Simon. But before he approached the former of them, very early in the morning he discoursed briefly among his own on the very great difficulties of disputing before a mixed multitude of common people, and on the three persons of the most holy Trinity. When day had risen, he betook himself to the same place as the previous day's disputation, and there Simon, after he had vainly reproached the apostle with the magic arts by which he had so quickly won over the minds of so many peoples, asked of him that he should now make good the pledge by which he had promised that he would treat of the immensity of the eternal light.
Sed ad aliam quaestionem continuo digressus, postulat ab eo, cum Deus fecerit omnia, ut ipse aiebat, unde sit malum. Quod quidem cum Petrus contra rectum disputationis ordinem postulari demonstravisset, tunc Simon unumquemque fato, sicut ei decernitur, pertrahi quibusdam rationum momentis probare nisus est. Contra vero Petrus liberum hominis arbitrium certissimis argumentis asseruit. Post haec ab ipso Simon quaesivit, si visibile istud coelum resolvetur, cur ab initio factum est. Et rursus ab eodem paulo post rogavit cur ille Deum, quem Scriptura a nullo videri posse dicit, a justis tamen post eorum mortem, videndum fore affirmaret. Quibus clare a Petro explicatis, iterum petit Magus utrum immortalis esset anima. Sed, hujus quaestionis examine in diem crastinum dilato, populus projecit se ad pedes Petri, qui plures cum aegrotos, tum obsessos a daemone, sanos remisit et incolumes.
But turning aside at once to another question, he demands of him, since God made all things, as he himself was saying, whence evil comes. And when Peter had shown that this was being demanded against the right order of disputation, Simon then strove to prove by certain weights of argument that each man is dragged along by fate, as it is decreed for him. Peter, on the contrary, asserted man's free choice by most certain arguments. After this Simon asked of him why, if this visible heaven is to be dissolved, it was made in the beginning. And again a little later he asked of the same why he affirmed that God, Whom Scripture says can be seen by no one, would nevertheless be seen by the just after their death. These things having been clearly explained by Peter, the Magus again asks whether the soul is immortal. But, the examination of this question being put off to the morrow, the people threw themselves at the feet of Peter, who sent away sound and unharmed many both of the sick and of those possessed by a demon.
Sequenti igitur die, cum Petrus ea quae pridie disputata fuerant, comitibus suis recitasset, ad
On the following day, therefore, when Peter had rehearsed to his companions the things that had been disputed the day before, to
Editors' notes and page, col. 1173
Page
- running head: 1173 RECOGNITIONES.— PROOEMIA. 1174
- marginal letters: A ‹ceperat, actis gratiis›; B ‹gumentis; atque omnes Simonis›; C ‹cultatibus, et de tribus›; D ‹momentis probare nisus est›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the column begins with 'ceperat,', the end of ac-ceperat, which is set whole in c1172; this file begins after it. The ligature in 'coeli'/'coelum' is read as oe.
consuetum disputationis locum accessit. Ibi autem salutato populo, et paucis de ordine in disceptationibus tenendo praemissis, immortalitatem animae ex iis quae Deus unicuique homini post mortem redditurus est, primum demonstravit. Dehinc Simoni, nonnulla variis argutiis contra objicienti, confestim respondit illum de hac animae immortalitate ex pueri violenter necati imagine, quam in interiori suo cubiculo asservabat, posse fieri certiorem. His dictis Simon, conscientia percussus, veniam a Petro, quem istud prophetico spiritu didicisse credebat, supplex poposcit. Sed ubi Petrus id ab iis qui cum eo vixerant se accepisse palam professus fuisset, tunc Simon, ira percitus, et variis contumeliis vexans apostolum: Fortunae, inquit, non veritatis est ista victoria. Petrus vero ex iis quae imprudens confessus erat, illum magum esse plane convicit. Quibus Simon commotior factus, repetitis conviciis seditionem frustra excitare tentavit. Nam ab astante plebe ejectus, et derelictus ab omnibus, unum tantummodo habuit suae fugae comitem. Post haec Petrus brevi sermone docuit et irrogatas ab hominibus injurias, et ipsos pravos homines patienter esse tolerandos. Denique, pro populo precatus, omnes ut maturius die sequenti convenirent, admonuit.
the accustomed place of disputation he came. There, having greeted the people and said a few things beforehand about the order to be kept in debates, he first demonstrated the immortality of the soul from the things that God will render to each man after death. Then to Simon, who was objecting some things against this with various subtleties, he at once replied that he could be made certain of this immortality of the soul from the image of the boy violently slain, which he kept in his inner chamber. At these words Simon, struck in conscience, humbly begged pardon of Peter, whom he believed to have learned that by a prophetic spirit. But when Peter had openly declared that he had got it from those who had lived with him, then Simon, stirred with anger and harassing the apostle with various insults, said: That victory belongs to fortune, not to truth. Peter, however, from what he had unwarily confessed, plainly convicted him of being a magician. Made more agitated by this, Simon tried in vain, with repeated abuse, to stir up a riot. For, cast out by the people standing by and abandoned by all, he had only one companion of his flight. After this Peter taught in a short discourse that both the wrongs inflicted by men and the wicked men themselves are to be borne patiently. Finally, having prayed for the people, he admonished all to assemble earlier on the following day.
Ille vero ante lucem ortam, ut Nicetae petitioni faceret satis, quid inter falsa et vera miracula esset discriminis, fuse ostendit. Primo autem diluculo Simonem navim, ut Romam peteret, conscendisse, et omnia magiae suae secreta in mare projecisse, certo accepit nuntio. Haec populo jam coacto ille actutum nuntiat, additque se, quamvis fugientem Magum, ne hominum mentes depravaret, insequi cogeretur; apud eos tamen donec in fidei doctrina essent confirmati, commoraturum
He, for his part, before daybreak, in order to satisfy the request of Nicetas, showed at length what difference there is between false and true miracles. And at first dawn he received by sure report that Simon had boarded a ship to make for Rome, and had thrown all the secrets of his magic into the sea. These things he at once announces to the people, now gathered, and adds that, although he was compelled to pursue the fleeing Magus, lest he should corrupt men's minds, he would nevertheless stay with them until they were confirmed in the doctrine of the faith
Per hoc itaque temporis spatium, sermones ad eos consolandos, et fidei doctrina morumque pietate imbuendos, singulis quibusque diebus habuit; Zachaeum episcopum, duodecim presbyteros, quatuorque creavit diaconos; duodecim sociis suis tres alios adjunxit; atque ex iis omnibus duodecim ad praedicandam Christi fidem, Simonemque debellandum praemisit, ac supra duodecim hominum millia sacris regeneravit baptismi aquis. Tribus demum elapsis mensibus, Clemens, eodem Petro jubente, sermones quos ab eo concionante Caesareae exceperat, decem redegit in libros, eosque misit ad Jacobum. Petrus vero Tripolim, ubi hiemaret, profectus est.
Throughout this space of time, therefore, he held discourses every single day to console them and to imbue them with the doctrine of the faith and with piety of morals; he appointed Zacchaeus bishop, twelve presbyters, and four deacons; to his twelve companions he joined three others; and out of all these he sent twelve ahead to preach the faith of Christ and to vanquish Simon, and he regenerated more than twelve thousand people in the sacred waters of baptism. At length, three months having passed, Clement, at the bidding of the same Peter, reduced to ten books the discourses which he had taken down from him as he preached at Caesarea, and sent them to James. Peter, for his part, set out for Tripolis, to winter there.
QUARTI LIBRI initio narrat idem Clemens quo itinere Petrus Tripolim venerit, quos, in urbibus per quas transivit, adduxerit ad Christi fidem, qua denique pompa Tripoli exceptus sit. Ibi, altera post adventum suum die, Petrus, praemissis, uti diximus, sociis suis, quaecunque post eorum discessum egerat, ante lucem ortam retulit, ab iisque ea omnia didicit quae a Simone Tripoli fuerant patrata. Prima autem luce, nuntiatur Petro eumdem Magum, de
At the beginning of the FOURTH BOOK the same Clement relates by what route Peter came to Tripolis, whom he brought to the faith of Christ in the cities through which he passed, and lastly with what procession he was received at Tripolis. There, on the day after his arrival, Peter recounted before daybreak to his companions, who had been sent ahead, as we said, whatever he had done after their departure, and learned from them all the things that had been done by Simon at Tripolis. And at first light it is announced to Peter that the same Magus, of
Editors' notes and page, col. 1174
Page
- running head: 1173 RECOGNITIONES.— PROOEMIA. 1174
- marginal letters: A ‹consuetum disputationis locum›; B ‹quit, non veritatis est ista victoria›; C ‹luculo Simonem navim›; D ‹millia sacris regeneravit›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the second paragraph ends at 'commoraturum' with no full stop visible in the type (the stop has failed to print); none is supplied. The column ends at 'Magum, de' at a word boundary.
adventu ejus certiorem factum, in Syriam tendentem aufugisse; et populum frequentem ad januam, ut sermones ejus audiret, ipsi avidissime praestolari.
his arrival having been informed, had fled, making for Syria; and that the people, in great numbers at the door, were most eagerly waiting for him, in order to hear his discourses.
Quamobrem opportunum ille nactus locum, atque ex iis quos ab corporis aegritudinibus vel a daemonis possessione liberaverat, argumentum ducens, planum omnibus fecit aegrotationes morbosque hominum, iisdem quibus a vero Dei cultu recesserant, ad eos accessisse gradibus; ac tandem eo cultu penitus derelicto, atque idololatria, cujus sicuti et magiae originem pandit, introducta, datam daemonibus animas eorum possidendi facultatem. Subinde se suosque ad verum summi Dei cultum restituendum missos esse suis annuntiavit auditoribus, ipsisque quid inter falsas verasque prophetias et visiones, inter sanationem vero aut falso miraculo redditam intersit discriminis, patefecit. Denique illos ad veram religionem amplexandam, apostolis Christi gerendum morem, vitamque pure et religiose instituendam, adhortatus, ut die sequenti ad eumdem locum maturius se conferrent, admonuit.
Wherefore he, having found a fitting occasion, and drawing his argument from those whom he had freed from sicknesses of the body or from possession by a demon, made it plain to all that the ailments and diseases of men had come upon them by the same steps by which they had withdrawn from the true worship of God; and that at last, that worship having been utterly abandoned and idolatry introduced, the origin of which, as also of magic, he lays open, the power of possessing their souls was given to the demons. Thereupon he announced to his hearers that he and his own had been sent to restore the true worship of the most high God, and disclosed to them what difference there is between false and true prophecies and visions, and between a healing granted by a true miracle and one by a false. Finally, having exhorted them to embrace the true religion, to comply with the apostles of Christ, and to order their life purely and religiously, he admonished them to betake themselves earlier to the same place on the following day.
Exorta igitur die, idem ipse Petrus, praemissa mentali oratione, aliam quae LIBRO QUINTO exhibetur, ad populum habuit concionem. In ea ob omnium oculos ponit hominem, ad imaginem Dei factum, tandiu in res terrenas habuisse dominatum, quandiu ipse justitiae legibus obtemperavit; ubi vero ab iis discessit, continuo fragilitati, animi perturbationibus, tentationibus, vexationibus daemonum, miseriisque omnibus obnoxium factum esse. Monet tamen parvo fidei grano morbos omnes posse sanari. Hanc igitur fidem ab omnibus suscipiendam esse concludit, et vero Prophetae, quem, sicuti praenuntiatum fuerat, jam adventasse noverant, unice serviendum. Deinde docet non audiendas esse, quas ille singulatim recenset, suggestas a daemone tentationes. Dimissis porro omnibus, ad sua ipse revertitur, ubi sociis suis concedit quodcunque libuisset, sciscitandi facultatem, et continuo ad singula quaeque respondit eorum interrogata. Clemens vero cuncta quae ab eo pronuntiata fuerant, in librum, quem misit ad Jacobum, accuratissime redegit.
When day had risen, therefore, the same Peter himself, after first making mental prayer, held before the people another discourse, which is presented in the FIFTH BOOK. In it he sets before the eyes of all that man, made in the image of God, held dominion over earthly things for as long as he himself obeyed the laws of justice; but that when he departed from them, he at once became subject to frailty, to disturbances of mind, to temptations, to the harassments of demons, and to all miseries. Yet he advises that all diseases can be healed by a small grain of faith. He concludes, therefore, that this faith is to be taken up by all, and that the true Prophet, Whom they knew to have already come, just as had been foretold, is alone to be served. Then he teaches that the temptations suggested by the demon, which he reviews one by one, are not to be listened to. All having then been dismissed, he himself returns to his lodging, where he grants his companions leave to inquire about whatever they pleased, and at once answered each of their questions. Clement, for his part, most carefully reduced all that had been pronounced by him into a book, which he sent to James.
SEXTUS LIBER aliam quoque Petri concionem continet. Is cum tardius solito ob noctium brevitatem surrexisset, ad consuetum concionis locum perrexit. Atque ibi primo explicuit quomodo homines possint falsas opiniones deponere, et in veritatis verique Dei pervenire notitiam. Manifestum deinde fecit illos haud difficulter scire potuisse non quidem quid sit Deus, sed quod non sit, ac proinde illum in idolis, humana arte fabricatis, non includi. At vero quia omnia gignuntur ex aqua, quae creata est ab initio per Unigenitum, per quem pervenitur ad Patrem, exinde intulit genitalibus baptismi, cujus necessitatem utilitatemque demonstrare conatus est, nos aquis renasci debere.
The SIXTH BOOK also contains another discourse of Peter. He, having risen later than usual because of the shortness of the nights, went on to the accustomed place of discourse. And there he first explained how men can lay aside false opinions and arrive at the knowledge of the truth and of the true God. Then he made it manifest that they could without difficulty have known, not indeed what God is, but what He is not, and accordingly that He is not enclosed in idols fashioned by human art. But since all things are begotten from water, which was created in the beginning through the Only-begotten, through Whom one comes to the Father, he inferred from this that we ought to be born again in the generative waters of baptism, the necessity and usefulness of which he endeavoured to demonstrate.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1175
Page
- running head: 1175 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 1176
- marginal letters: A ‹adventu ejus certiorem factum›; B ‹ribus, ipsisque quid inter falsas› (the letter prints like a C); C ‹ubi vero ab iis discessit, continuo fragilitati, animi›; D ‹accuratissime redegit.›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the column begins mid-sentence (continuing 'eumdem Magum, de' of c1174). It ends with de-bere split across the break; set whole here, with its full stop, from the first line of c1176, which therefore begins at 'Illos autem'.
Illos autem qui hoc regenerationis sacramento initiati erant, commonefecit, ipsis non solum omnia opera bona quae hactenus egerant continuo esse facienda, sed ad sublimiores perfectioris virtutis gradus semper esse ascendendum. Haec et his similia, inquit Clemens, cum dixisset Petrus, dimisit turbas. Per tres autem integros menses apud Tripolitanos, quorum plurimos adduxit ad fidem, eodem modo concionatus est. Post haec, Clemente aliisque pluribus sacro baptismate ablutis, Tripoli Maronem episcopum, et duodecim presbyteros, ac quosdam diaconos creavit, atque, inde tandem egressus, venit Antiochiam.
Those, moreover, who had been initiated by this sacrament of regeneration he reminded that they must not only go on continually doing all the good works that they had done until then, but must always be ascending to the loftier degrees of a more perfect virtue. When Peter had said these things and things like them, says Clement, he dismissed the crowds. And for three whole months he preached in the same manner among the people of Tripolis, very many of whom he brought to the faith. After this, Clement and many others having been washed in holy baptism, he appointed at Tripolis Maro as bishop, and twelve presbyters, and certain deacons, and, at last departing from there, came to Antioch.
SEPTIMI LIBRI initio narratur Petrum, cum Tripoli Antaradum accessisset, socios suos, quorum major creverat numerus, duas, quae ipsum praecederent, divisisse in turmas; atque uni Nicetam, Aquilam alteri praefecisse. Clemens vero, gratiis Petro, quia eum apud se retinuerat, actis, ipsi poscenti quomodo patrem, et matrem, ac fratres amisisset, confestim declaravit. Die subsequenti, Petrus in insulam Aradum, viteas immensae magnitudinis columnas videndi gratia, se contulit, ibique Clemens agnovit matrem suam Mathidiam illuc naufragio expulsam, atque eleemosynis victum quaerentem. Illa vero cum uxore Petri caeterisque omnibus Laodiceam ducitur, qua in urbe a duobus aliis filiis suis, quibuscum naufragium fecerat, agnita quoque est. Hi autem narraverunt se post naufragium Caesaream delatos, et cuidam viduae, cui nomen Justae erat, venditos, ejus postea cura litteris et philosophiae cum Simone Mago operam dedisse, illiusque imbibisse errores; sed, Zachaei ope, fide Christi suscepta, se Petro tandem fuisse oblatos. Quibus auditis, Petrus Mathidiam, baptismi gratia donari postulantem, post unius diei jejunium eo regenerationis sacramento in mari initiavit.
At the beginning of the SEVENTH BOOK it is related that Peter, when he had come from Tripolis to Antaradus, divided his companions, whose number had grown greater, into two troops, which were to go before him; and that he set Nicetas over the one and Aquila over the other. Clement, for his part, having thanked Peter for keeping him with himself, at once declared to him, when he asked, how he had lost his father and mother and brothers. On the day after, Peter betook himself to the island of Aradus in order to see columns of vine-wood of immense size, and there Clement recognized his mother Mathidia, cast up there by shipwreck and seeking her living by alms. She is then led with Peter's wife and all the rest to Laodicea, in which city she was also recognized by her two other sons, with whom she had suffered shipwreck. These related that after the shipwreck they were carried to Caesarea and sold to a certain widow whose name was Justa; that afterwards by her care they applied themselves to letters and philosophy together with Simon Magus, and drank in his errors; but that, by the help of Zacchaeus, having received the faith of Christ, they were at last presented to Peter. Having heard this, Peter initiated Mathidia, who was asking to be given the grace of baptism, after a fast of one day, by that sacrament of regeneration in the sea.
Die subsequenti, ut in LIBRO OCTAVO auctor narrat, Petrus, Clemente duobusque aliis fratribus suis comitibus, lavat in mari, atque in secretum locum ad orationem secedit. Inde illi egredienti occurrit senex quidam pauper, ex habitu operarius, qui preces ad Deum perperam fundi, et mundum non secundum Dei providentiam gubernari..... sed genesin esse quae omnia agit et continet, audacter asseruit. Fit interim magnus populi concursus, et Nicetas, data a Petro, qui seni respondere volebat, dicendi facultate, docuit mundum a Deo factum, et ab ipso quandoque solvendum, nec ex individuis corpusculis seu atomis, ut ferebat Epicuri sententia, quaelibet corpora, mentesque intelligentia praeditas, fieri. Variis deinde argumentis probavit mundum ab ipsa sapientia et ratione, quando ipsi placuit, fuisse conditum.
On the day after, as the author relates in the EIGHTH BOOK, Peter, with Clement and his two other brothers as companions, bathes in the sea, and withdraws to a secluded place for prayer. As he is coming away from there, a certain poor old man meets him, a workman by his dress, who boldly asserted that prayers are poured out to God to no purpose, and that the world is not governed according to the providence of God..... but that it is nativity which drives and holds all things together. Meanwhile a great concourse of people gathers, and Nicetas, leave to speak having been given by Peter, who was wishing to answer the old man, taught that the world was made by God and is one day to be dissolved by Him, and that bodies of whatever kind, and minds endowed with understanding, do not come to be from indivisible little bodies or atoms, as the opinion of Epicurus held. Then he proved by various arguments that the world was founded by wisdom and reason itself, when it pleased it.
Postridie, coetu in primarii cujusdam civis domum coacto, senex ea quae Nicetas dixerat summatim repetit, atque, adversus illa disputans, contendit quaedam injuste et inordinate facta esse; ex
On the next day, an assembly having been gathered at the house of a certain leading citizen, the old man repeats in summary what Nicetas had said, and, disputing against it, contends that certain things have been done unjustly and without order; from
Editors' notes and page, col. 1176
Page
- running head: 1175 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 1176
- marginal letters: A ‹bere. Illos autem qui hoc regenerationis›; B ‹major creverat numerus› (the letter prints like a C); C ‹se post naufragium Caesaream delatos›; D ‹non secundum Dei providentiam›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the column begins with 'bere.', the end of de-bere, set whole in c1175; this file begins after it. The row of dots after 'gubernari' is the author's own mark of omission inside the quotation, set as printed. The column ends at 'ex' at a word boundary.
iis autem quae juxta ordinem fiunt, quaedam ab alio quam ab ulla mente fuisse creata. Contra vero Aquila ex iis quae secundum ordinem fieri senex concesserat, agnoscendam esse Dei providentiam demonstravit. Porro ex iis quae inordinate fiunt, luculenter ostendit, ab origine mundi nihil eorum fuisse, sed ex impietate hominum suum mala sumpsisse initium. Denique cum omnibus quae sibi objiciebantur, fuse respondisset, ultimam senis objectionem qua omnia ex necessitate genesis sibi accidisse dicebat, fratri suo Clementi, postero die solvendam reliquit. His dictis, Petrus nulli hominum, nisi soli vero prophetae, quae a Deo vel fieri vel non fieri non possint, comperta esse dixit; nec quemquam ab illo propheta hac de re, nisi, variis philosophorum subtilitatibus missis, sincero veritatis amore ducatur, fore unquam docendum. Caeterum ad investigandam veritatem id tantummodo requiri, ut homines num propheta ille vera semper praedixerit, diligenter inquirant.
but that of the things which happen according to order, some were created by something other than by any mind. Against this, however, Aquila demonstrated, from the things which the old man had conceded to happen according to order, that the providence of God must be acknowledged. Moreover, concerning the things which happen without order, he showed clearly that none of them existed from the origin of the world, but that evils took their beginning from the impiety of men. Finally, when he had answered at length all the things that were objected to him, he left the old man's last objection, by which he said that all things had befallen him from the necessity of his nativity, to be resolved on the following day by his brother Clement. When these things had been said, Peter declared that to no man, save to the true prophet alone, are the things known which can or cannot be done by God; and that no one will ever be taught by that prophet about this matter unless, having dismissed the various subtleties of the philosophers, he is led by a sincere love of truth. For the rest, that for the investigation of truth this only is required, that men diligently inquire whether that prophet has always foretold true things.
Libri noni initio traditur sequenti die more solito disputatum fuisse, utrum nihil extra genesin fieret. Quamobrem Clemens variis rationum momentis demonstravit hominem libero voluntatis arbitrio, quo quidlibet agere potest vel non agere, esse praeditum. Senex vero arguit ex constellationibus variisque astrorum aspectibus, quos accurate recensuit, homines vel bonos fieri, vel malos. Contra Clemens longa inductione, qua variae nationes easdem semper leges et consuetudines quantumcunque aspectus siderum varii fuerint, inviolate servaverunt, id falsum esse convicit. Summam argumenti illius vim et pondus agnovit senex. Quapropter ut id experientia sua falsum esse magis magisque persuaderet, sibi nomen esse Faustiniano confessus est, et quaecunque sibi acciderant, breviter narravit. Ab uxore itaque sua Mathidia filiisque suis agnitus est, iique, dimisso populo, una cum Petro, in eadem, ubi disceptatum fuerat, domo remanserunt.
At the beginning of the ninth book it is related that on the following day, in the accustomed manner, it was disputed whether nothing happens apart from nativity. Wherefore Clement demonstrated by various weighty reasons that man is endowed with the free choice of the will, by which he is able to do or not to do anything whatever. The old man, however, argued from the constellations and the various aspects of the stars, which he carefully enumerated, that men become either good or bad. Against this Clement, by a long induction, in which various nations have always inviolably kept the same laws and customs however various the aspects of the stars may have been, proved that to be false. The old man acknowledged the supreme force and weight of that argument. Wherefore, that he might persuade them more and more by his own experience that it was false, he confessed that his name was Faustinianus, and briefly narrated whatever had befallen him. And so he was recognized by his wife Mathidia and by his sons, and they, the people having been dismissed, remained together with Peter in the same house where the discussion had been held.
Decimus liber docet quomodo Petrus, exorto sole, Faustinianoque adhuc dormiente, Clementem fratresque ejus de ineunda cum illo disputatione erudierit, statueritque eidem Faustiniano, ut ad amplexandam religionem Christianam sese compararet, dandum esse unius anni spatium. Cum autem Faustinianus e lecto surrexisset, ab iis quaesivit an sit in substantia et actibus bonum et malum. Huic quaestioni respondit Clemens, atque expositis de bono et malo stellarum aspectu principiis, probavit nullam inde hominibus imponi posse necessitatem. Porro autem cum haec utrinque disceptarentur, Petrus, coactum videns populum, deinceps de idololatria falsisque deorum numinibus jussit disputari. Quocirca Clemens originem idololatriae evolvit, dixitque vera falsorum deorum crimina, in primisque Jovis stupra et adulteria omnibus esse notissima, ac tandem etiamnum stare plura filiorum ejus, hominum utique nequissimorum
The tenth book teaches how Peter, when the sun had risen and Faustinianus was still sleeping, instructed Clement and his brothers about entering upon a disputation with him, and determined that the space of one year should be given to the same Faustinianus, that he might prepare himself to embrace the Christian religion. But when Faustinianus had risen from his bed, he asked them whether there is good and evil in substance and in acts. To this question Clement replied, and, having set forth the principles concerning the good and evil aspect of the stars, he proved that no necessity can be imposed on men from that source. Moreover, while these things were being debated on both sides, Peter, seeing the people gathered, ordered that the disputation should thereafter be about idolatry and the false divinities of the gods. Accordingly Clement unfolded the origin of idolatry, and said that the real crimes of the false gods, and above all the debaucheries and adulteries of Jupiter, are very well known to all, and finally that there still stand even now many of his sons', men assuredly most wicked,
Editors' notes and page, col. 1177
Page
- running head: 1177 RECOGNITIONES. — PR[…] (cut by the column crop)
- marginal letters: A ‹iis autem quae juxta ordinem›; B ‹losophorum subtilitatibus missis›; C ‹que aspectus siderum varii›; D ‹amplexandam religionem Christianam›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose (Le Nourry's Dissertatio, summary of Recognitions books VIII–X), set as this unit's text. Column begins mid-sentence. Last word hyphenated across the column break (nequissimo-|rum); completed from the first syllable of col. 1178 visible at the crop edge. "Libri noni" and "Decimus liber" printed in small capitals.
sepulcra. Ad haec Aquila respondit illas deorum fabulas a philosophis aliisque viris sapientibus allegorice fuisse explicatas. Contra autem Nicetas illi continuo ostendit haec deorum crimina a pictoribus, sculptoribus et poetis non allegorice, sed reapse et ad litteram poni ante omnium oculos. Nicetas tamen has allegoricas fabularum expositiones, rogante Clemente, est prosecutus. Tum Petrus Scripturam sacram non eo sensu allegorico, sed alia, quam ipse docuit, methodo explicandam esse demonstravit. Deinde ad Faustinianum conversus, ipsum ad profitendam religionem Christianam, quae nihil nisi sanctum et honestum praecipit, summopere adhortatus est. Denique, reddita aegrotis atque a daemone obsessis sanitate, populum gaudentem laetumque dimisit.
tombs. To these things Aquila replied that those fables of the gods had been explained allegorically by philosophers and other wise men. Against this, however, Nicetas at once showed him that these crimes of the gods are set before the eyes of all by painters, sculptors and poets not allegorically, but in reality and to the letter. Nicetas nevertheless, at Clement's request, went through these allegorical expositions of the fables. Then Peter demonstrated that sacred Scripture is to be explained not in that allegorical sense, but by another method, which he himself taught. Then, turning to Faustinianus, he most earnestly exhorted him to profess the Christian religion, which enjoins nothing but what is holy and honourable. Finally, health having been restored to the sick and to those possessed by a demon, he dismissed the people rejoicing and glad.
Post haec autem inter prandii apparatus Faustinianus, annuente Petro, Appionem et Anubionem, qui Antiochia Laodiceam cum Simone venerant, invisit. Tum Simon, ut ministri Caesaris, qui eum ad necem quaerebant, Faustinianum in locum suum morti traderent, ipsi magicis artibus faciem vultumque suum imposuit. Tam stupenda vero Faustiniani transformatione uxore filiisque ejus obstupefactis, promisit Petrus se Faustiniano, postquam Simonis vultu ad errores ejus destruendos usus esset, pristinam faciem redditurum. Quamobrem eumdem Faustinianum Antiochiam misit, quo turbas omnes a Mago adversum se calumniis acerbissimis concitatas, simulata ejusdem veri Simonis poenitentia sedaret. Quod quidem Faustinianus variis fictionibus et mendaciis praestitit, ac postea vultus pristinus a Petro illi omnino restitutus est. Dehinc Petrus creatis Laodiceae episcopo et presbyteris, ac reddita aegris obsessisque sanitate, Antiochiam, qua Simon pulsus fuerat, contendit, atque illi urbem ingredienti omnis populus, et omnes majores natu, ac nobiles poenitentiam agentes, iverunt obviam. Ipse vero de tot hominum conversione gratias Deo retulit, omnes aegrotos sanavit, atque intra septem dies duodecim millia hominum sacro abluit baptismate. Hos inter Theophilus, vir populi primarius, domus suae ingentem basilicam ecclesiae nomine consecravit, in qua Petro apostolo constituta est ab omni populo cathedra. Denique Faustinianum baptismo initiari postulantem, Petrus, indicto plebi jejunio, baptizavit, et quaecunque hactenus ei contigerant, omni populo exposuit.
After these things, however, during the preparations for the midday meal, Faustinianus, with Peter's assent, visited Appion and Anubion, who had come from Antioch to Laodicea with Simon. Then Simon, in order that the officers of Caesar, who were seeking him to put him to death, might deliver Faustinianus to death in his place, by magic arts put his own face and countenance upon him. But when his wife and his sons were struck dumb at so astounding a transformation of Faustinianus, Peter promised that he would restore to Faustinianus his former face, after he had made use of Simon's countenance to destroy Simon's errors. Wherefore he sent the same Faustinianus to Antioch, that he might calm all the crowds stirred up against himself by the Magician with most bitter calumnies, by a feigned repentance of that same true Simon. This indeed Faustinianus accomplished by various fictions and lies, and afterwards his former countenance was wholly restored to him by Peter. Thereupon Peter, having appointed a bishop and presbyters for Laodicea, and having restored health to the sick and the possessed, hastened to Antioch, from which Simon had been driven, and as he entered the city all the people, and all the elders, and the nobles, doing penance, went to meet him. He himself gave thanks to God for the conversion of so many men, healed all the sick, and within seven days washed twelve thousand men in sacred baptism. Among these Theophilus, a leading man of the people, consecrated the vast basilica of his house under the name of a church, in which a chair was set up for the apostle Peter by all the people. Finally, when Faustinianus asked to be initiated by baptism, Peter, having proclaimed a fast for the people, baptized him, and set forth to all the people whatever had happened to him until then.
ARTICULUS II.
ARTICLE II.
Quid veteres de his libris senserint.
What the ancients thought of these books.
Auctori hujusce operis si fides habeatur, Romanus ille fuit, e Caesaris familia, nomine Clemens, cui pater Faustinianus, mater Mathidia, fratres Nicetas et Aquila, ipse praecipuus charissimusque Petri discipulus; qui plures ejusdem apostolici conciones disputationesque scriptis tradidit, variosque redegit in libros. Haec ille tanta fiducia tantaque asseveratione affirmat, ut multi scriptores
If credence is given to the author of this work, he was a Roman, of the family of Caesar, by name Clement, whose father was Faustinianus, his mother Mathidia, his brothers Nicetas and Aquila, he himself the foremost and dearest disciple of Peter; who committed to writing many discourses and disputations of that same apostolic man, and arranged them into various books. These things he affirms with such great confidence and such great assurance that many writers
Editors' notes and page, col. 1178
Page
- running head: [RECOG]NITIONES. — PROOEMIA. 1178
- marginal letters: A ‹rum sepulcra. Ad haec Aquila›; B ‹dentem laetumque dimisit›; C ‹veri Simonis poenitentia›; D ‹qua Petro apostolo constituta›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose (Le Nourry's Dissertatio, end of Art. I and opening of Art. II), set as this unit's text. The column's first printed syllable "rum" completes "nequissimorum", set whole at the end of col. 1177, so this file begins at "sepulcra". Column ends mid-sentence.
varias ejusdem operis sententias ipsius nomine absque ullo scrupulo citare non dubitaverint. Primus inter eos nobis occurrit Origenes, qui hos libros sic laudat: Tale aliquid dicit et Petrus apud Clementem, quoniam bona opera quae fiunt a fidelibus in hoc saeculo eis prosunt, etc. Alibi vero aliud fragmentum, superiore longe prolixius, in haec exscripsit verba: Et Clemens Romanus, Petri apostoli discipulus, in hanc quaestionem et sententiam cum patre Laodiceae in Circuitionibus, ἐν ταῖς Περιόδοις locutus, etc. Ab auctore autem Operis imperfecti in Matthaeum idem titulus his libris praefigitur: Petrus apud Clementem, vel: Sicut in Historia Clementis Petrus exponit. His adjungi possunt Aldhelmus, Venerabilis Beda, auctor Chronici Alexandrini, Freculfus, Nicephorus, Georgius Cedrenus, et alii nonnulli, a quibus hoc opus eodem nomine insignitum est.
have not hesitated to cite various statements of the same work under his name without any scruple. First among them there meets us Origen, who cites these books thus: Some such thing Peter also says in Clement, since the good works which are done by the faithful in this age profit them, etc. Elsewhere, however, he copied out another fragment, far longer than the former, in these words: And Clement the Roman, the disciple of the apostle Peter, having spoken to this question and opinion with his father at Laodicea in the Circuits, in the Periodoi, etc. By the author of the Unfinished Work on Matthew, moreover, the same title is prefixed to these books: Peter in Clement, or: As Peter expounds in the History of Clement. To these may be added Aldhelm, the Venerable Bede, the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle, Freculf, Nicephorus, George Cedrenus, and some others, by whom this work has been marked with the same name.
Alii vero illud inter apocrypha rejiciunt. Ita enim de eo Patres concilii Romani sub Gelasio statuunt: Itinerarium nomine Petri apostoli, quod appellatur sancti Clementis libri octo, apocryphum. Pro octo critici scriptores putant legendum esse decem. Auctor vero Stichometriae, post Nicephori Constantinopolitani Chronographiam additae: Et quae Novi, scilicet Testamenti, sunt apocrypha: Itinerarium Petri versus 2700. Agobardus quoque: Licet iidem libri, inquit, sint apocryphi; pleraque tamen ex iis testimonia inveniuntur a doctoribus usurpata. Humbertus etiam episcopus Sylvae Candidae: Clementis liber, id est Itinerarium Petri apostoli et Canones apostolorum numerantur inter apocrypha. His accedit Honorius Augustodunensis: Clemens scripsit... Itinerarium Petri et disputationem Petri, et Apionis, et multa alic, quae inter apocrypha numerantur. Ante eos vero Athanasius dixisse fertur. Iterum libri Novi Testamenti, quibus contradicitur, sunt Circuitus Petri, etc.
Others, however, reject it among the apocrypha. For thus do the Fathers of the Roman council under Gelasius decree concerning it: The Itinerary under the name of the apostle Peter, which is called the eight books of Saint Clement, apocryphal. For eight, critical writers think that ten should be read. And the author of the Stichometry added after the Chronography of Nicephorus of Constantinople: And those of the New, namely Testament, which are apocryphal: the Itinerary of Peter, 2700 lines. Agobard also: Although the same books, he says, are apocryphal; yet very many testimonies from them are found employed by the doctors. Humbert also, bishop of Silva Candida: The book of Clement, that is the Itinerary of the apostle Peter, and the Canons of the apostles are numbered among the apocrypha. To these is added Honorius of Autun: Clement wrote... the Itinerary of Peter and the disputation of Peter and of Apion, and many other things, which are numbered among the apocrypha. Before them, however, Athanasius is reported to have said. Again, the books of the New Testament which are spoken against are the Circuits of Peter, etc.
ARTICULUS III.
ARTICLE III.
Quid Eusebius, Hieronymus, et Epiphanius de his libris senserint.
What Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius thought of these books.
Arbitrantur nonnulli Hieronymum eamdem de his libris tulisse sententiam, ubi dixit: Libri autem e quibus unus Actorum ejus inscribitur, alius Evangelii, tertius Praedicationis... inter apocryphas scripturas reputantur. Rursus vero ubi de ipsomet Clemente disserit: Et disputatio Petri et Apionis, inquit, quam Eusebius in tertio Historiae ecclesiasticae volumine coarguit. Et re quidem ipsa Eusebius in eodem, quem Hieronymus citat, libro haec habet: Quidam porro alia etiam opera prolixa sub ejus nomine heri ac nudiustertius in lumen protulerunt, puta Petri et Apionis disputationes, quarum apud antiquos nulla omnino exstat mentio. Neque enim sincera rectae fidei, ab apostolis traditae,
Some think that Jerome passed the same judgment on these books, where he said: But the books of which one is entitled of his Acts, another of the Gospel, a third of the Preaching... are reckoned among the apocryphal writings. And again where he treats of Clement himself: And the disputation of Peter and Apion, he says, which Eusebius refutes in the third volume of the Ecclesiastical History. And in very fact Eusebius, in the same book which Jerome cites, has these words: Certain persons, moreover, have yesterday and the day before brought to light other lengthy works also under his name, for instance the disputations of Peter and Apion, of which no mention at all exists among the ancients. For of the right faith, handed down by the apostles, no pure
Editors' notes and page, col. 1179
Footnotes
[The notes on this page are reference notes with superior numerals, set as one run across the page foot. The numerals are very small in the scan; they are read as the sequence 44–58, fixed by order and by the calls visible in the text.] (printed under page 587)
(44) ‹anchor: eis prosunt› · call in col 1179
Tractat. 35 in Matth. post init.
Tractate 35 on Matthew, after the beginning.
(printed under page 587)
(45) ‹anchor: exscripsit verba› · call in col 1179
Philocal. c. 22, in fine.
Philocalia, ch. 22, at the end.
(printed under page 587)
(46) ‹anchor: his libris praefigitur› · call in col 1179
Cap. 10-24.
Chapters 10–24.
(printed under page 587)
(47) ‹anchor: Agobardus quoque› · call in col 1179
Lib. De Judaic. superstit., cap. 16.
The book On the Superstitions of the Jews, ch. 16.
(printed under page 587)
(48) ‹anchor: episcopus Sylvae Candidae› · call in col 1179
In Respons. ad Nicet. lib.
In the Reply to the book of Nicetas.
(printed under page 587)
(49) ‹anchor: Honorius Augustodunensis› · call in col 1179
Lib. De lumine Eccles., cap. 15.
The book On the Luminaries of the Church, ch. 15.
(printed under page 587)
(50) ‹anchor: dixisse fertur› · call in col 1179
In Synopsi.
In the Synopsis.
(printed under page 587)
(51) ‹anchor: ubi dixit› · call in col 1179
Lib. De script. eccles.
The book On Ecclesiastical Writers.
(printed under page 587)
(52) ‹anchor: Clemente disserit› · call in col 1179
Eod. lib.
In the same book.
(printed under page 587)
(53) ‹anchor: libro haec habet› · call in col 1179
Lib. III Hist., cap. 38.
Book III of the History, ch. 38.
(printed under page 587)
Page
- running head: 1179 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. […] (cut by the column crop)
- marginal letters: A ‹varias ejusdem operis sententias›; B ‹drini, Freculfus, Nicephorus›; C ‹usurpata. Humbertus etiam episcopus›; D ‹gelii, tertius Praedicationis›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose (Le Nourry's Dissertatio, Art. II end, Art. III opening), set as this unit's text. Foot-note calls 44–53 removed from the text; the foot notes (44–58) are printed full width across the page foot and are cut by the column crop (settle: full_width); 44–53, called in this column, are set above from the two foot images, 54–58 are called in col. 1180. "alic" may be damaged type for "alia" rather than a true misprint: UNSURE. "dixisse fertur." has a full point as printed where a colon is expected. Column begins and ends mid-sentence; the English ends on "no pure", anticipating the noun that follows in col. 1180 — revise when that column is read.
nota in illis expressa reperitur. Et Clementis quidem quae genuina, et omnium consensu recepta sint scripta jam satis liquet. Unde Valesius his verbis Petri et Apionis disputationes libros Recognitionum ab Eusebio designatos opinatur. Quod si dixeris in iis non inveniri quas Eusebius dicit Petri et Apionis disputationes, respondet Rufinum, hujus operis interpretem, alia penes se habuisse eorumdem librorum exemplaria in quibus plura, quae in nostris occurrunt, non repraesentabantur.
mark is found expressed in them. And indeed which writings of Clement are genuine and received by the consent of all is already sufficiently clear. Hence Valesius is of the opinion that by these words, the disputations of Peter and Apion, the books of the Recognitions are designated by Eusebius. But if you say that what Eusebius calls the disputations of Peter and Apion are not found in them, he replies that Rufinus, the translator of this work, had by him other copies of the same books, in which many things that occur in ours were not presented.
Verumtamen quandiu non exstabunt illa exemplaria, a nostris tantopere discrepantia, tandiu incertum erit utrum in eis vel in aliis ejusdem scriptoris libris hae disputationes contineantur, aut tandem illae solae speciale aliquod volumen constituerint. Ut ut sit, nonnullis forsitan idem Eusebius libros Recognitionum nomine Actus Petri appellasse videbitur, cum scripsit: Librum vero, qui Actus Petri dicitur, et Evangelium ejus nomine inscriptum, Praedicationis quoque et Revelationis ejusdem libros pro catholicis scriptis nunquam habitos esse constat. Nec vetustiorum siquidem, nec recentiorum Ecclesiae scriptorum quisquam, desumpto ex iis libris testimonio usus unquam fuisse legitur. Non sumus quidem nescii, eos de quibus Eusebius disputat libros, ab antiquis, ut paulo ante vidimus, scriptoribus fuisse citatos. Attamen non inde continuo inferri debet, illum, non de Clementis, sed de alterius cujusdam libris locutum esse. Nam, ut prudenter observat Valesius, ibi erravit, et memoria lapsus est Eusebius; quippe qui eamdem Apocalypsin, seu Revelationem Petri, quam hic ab antiquis citatam negat, alibi a Clemente laudari testatur: Clemens in libris Hypotyposeon Petri Apocalypsin laudat. Certum est praeterea librum, qui Praedicatio Petri inscribitur, ab Origene et aliis nonnullis fuisse citatum. Potuit ergo Eusebius et in aliis duobus libris, quos commemorat, similiter decipi. His tamen opponi potest, illum de libris a Petro, non autem a Clemente scriptis ibi disputare. Caeterum si Eusebius in allatis locis libros Recognitionum Clementis laudat, illos genuinum Clementis opus esse penitus inficiatur. Si vero eorum non meminit, idem ex ejus silentio ducitur argumentum. Neque enim ille tam longas lucubrationes, quas a Clemente profectas esse novisset, tam alto potuit unquam praeterire silentio.
Nevertheless, as long as those copies, so greatly differing from ours, are not extant, so long will it be uncertain whether these disputations are contained in them or in other books of the same writer, or whether, after all, they alone made up some special volume. However that may be, to some perhaps the same Eusebius will seem to have called the books of the Recognitions by the name Acts of Peter, when he wrote: But the book which is called the Acts of Peter, and the Gospel inscribed with his name, and also the books of his Preaching and Revelation, it is agreed were never held as catholic writings. For neither is any of the older nor of the more recent writers of the Church read ever to have used a testimony taken from those books. We are not indeed unaware that those books of which Eusebius treats were cited by ancient writers, as we saw a little before. Yet it ought not at once to be inferred from this that he was speaking not of Clement's books but of those of some other person. For, as Valesius prudently observes, Eusebius erred there and suffered a lapse of memory; inasmuch as he testifies elsewhere that the same Apocalypse, or Revelation of Peter, which he here denies to have been cited by the ancients, is cited by Clement: Clement in the books of the Hypotyposes cites the Apocalypse of Peter. It is certain, besides, that the book which is entitled the Preaching of Peter was cited by Origen and some others. Eusebius could therefore have been similarly deceived also in the other two books which he mentions. To these things, however, it can be objected that he is there treating of books written by Peter, and not by Clement. For the rest, if Eusebius in the passages adduced is citing the books of the Recognitions of Clement, he utterly denies that they are a genuine work of Clement. But if he does not mention them, the same argument is drawn from his silence. For he could never have passed over in so deep a silence such long compositions, had he known them to have proceeded from Clement.
Quibus autem accuratiori diligentia hoc Clementis opus examinare licuit, ii certiorem de illo sententiam ferunt. Hos inter Epiphanius memoriae prodidit Clementem nostrum de Petri Circuitibus aliquid revera scriptis tradidisse, sed ejus scripta ab Ebionitis haereticis adeo fuisse corrupta, ut paucis veris relictis, caetera ipsi falso supposuerint: Sunt et alii libri, inquit, quibus utuntur, velut Petri Circuitus
Those, however, to whom it was granted to examine this work of Clement with more exact diligence pass a surer judgment upon it. Among these Epiphanius has recorded that our Clement did in truth commit something to writing about the Circuits of Peter, but that his writings were so corrupted by the Ebionite heretics that, a few true things being left, they themselves falsely substituted the rest: There are also other books, he says, which they use, such as the Circuits of Peter
Editors' notes and page, col. 1180
Footnotes
(54) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1180 (presumably; above the part of the page shown)
In eumd. Eus. locum.
On the same passage of Eusebius.
(printed under page 587)
(55) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1180 (presumably; above the part of the page shown)
Lib. III Hist., cap. 3.
Book III of the History, ch. 3.
(printed under page 587)
(56) ‹anchor: laudari testatur› · call in col 1180
Lib. VI Hist., cap. 14.
Book VI of the History, ch. 14.
(printed under page 587)
(57) ‹anchor: ab Origene› · call in col 1180
Tom. XIII, Exposit. in Evang. Joann.
Tome XIII of the Exposition of the Gospel of John.
(printed under page 587)
(58) ‹anchor: falso supposuerint› · call in col 1180
Haeres. 30, § 15.
Heresy 30, § 15.
(printed under page 587)
Page
- running head: [S. CLEMENT]IS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 1180
- marginal letters: A ‹nota in illis expressa reperitur›; B ‹tuerint. Ut ut sit, nonnullis›; C ‹prudenter observat Valesius›; D ‹argumentum. Neque enim ille›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose (Le Nourry's Dissertatio, Art. III), set as this unit's text. Foot-note calls 54–58 removed; the foot notes are printed full width across the page foot and are cut by the column crop (settle: full_width, page of cols 1179–1180) — not set here. Column begins mid-sentence ("nota" is the noun awaited at the end of col. 1179). Last word hyphenated across the column break (Cir-|cuitus), completed from the first line of col. 1181.
a Clemente conscripti, Περιόδοι καλούμεναι Πέτρου. Quo in libro, paucis veris relictis, caetera supposuerant; quemadmodum Clemens ipse omnibus illos modis redarguit iis epistolis circularibus, quae ab eo scriptae, in sacrosanctis Ecclesiis leguntur. Ex quibus constat longe ab iis, quae in Circuitibus illis sub ejus nomine adulterina exstant, illius fidem ac sermonem abhorruisse. Etenim virginitatem Clemens docuit, isti repudiant: ille Eliam, Davidem et Samsonem, omnesque prophetas commendat, Ebionitae detestantur. Quare in Circuitibus istis suum ad institutum accommodarunt omnia, ac de Petro plurima mendacia confinxerunt. Cujusmodi est inter caetera illum castimoniae causa lavisse, quod isti facere consueverunt. Tum ab animatis omnibus, et carnibus reliquoque omni, quod carne constet, abstinuisse; quoniam ab iis tam Ebion olim quam hodie Ebionitae omnes abhorrent. Re autem vera, in his libris diligenter observatur Petrum mane lavisse. In his etiam Petrus dixisse fertur: Panis mihi solus cum olivis, et raro etiam cum oleribus in usu est. In his denique Christus solus ubique verus Propheta fuisse asseritur. Porro si Epiphanius nonnulla, quae in his libris minime occurrunt, retulisse videatur, ille profecto in diversos ab iis, quibus Rufinus suam edidit versionem, codices incidisse dicendus est.
written by Clement, called the Periodoi of Peter. In which book, a few true things being left, they had substituted the rest; just as Clement himself refutes them in every way by those circular epistles which, written by him, are read in the most holy Churches. From which it is evident that his faith and speech were far removed from those spurious things which are extant under his name in those Circuits. For Clement taught virginity, these men repudiate it: he commends Elijah, David and Samson, and all the prophets, the Ebionites detest them. Wherefore in those Circuits they adapted everything to their own purpose, and fabricated very many lies about Peter. Of which kind is, among the rest, that he bathed for the sake of purity, which these men are accustomed to do. Then that he abstained from all living things, and from flesh and everything else that consists of flesh; since from these both Ebion formerly and all the Ebionites today shrink. And in very truth, in these books it is carefully noted that Peter bathed in the morning. In these also Peter is reported to have said: Bread alone with olives, and rarely also with vegetables, is my fare. In these, finally, Christ alone is everywhere asserted to have been the true Prophet. Moreover, if Epiphanius seems to have reported some things which do not occur at all in these books, he must surely be said to have lighted upon codices different from those from which Rufinus produced his version.
ARTICULUS IV.
ARTICLE IV.
Sententia Rufini et Photii de his libris.
The judgment of Rufinus and of Photius on these books.
Opinio ejusdem quoque Rufini est, hos libros a Clemente Romano pontifice exaratos, eosque depravatos fuisse ab haereticis; sed plura quam putat Epiphanius, integra, et ab ipso Clemente vere profecta, in iis suo tempore occurrisse testatur. Ejus verba, licet paulo prolixiora, quia ad rem nostram non parum faciunt, hic transcribenda esse putavimus: Clemens, inquit, apostolorum discipulus, qui Romanae Ecclesiae post apostolos et episcopus et martyr praefuit, libros edidit, qui Graece appellantur Ἀναγνωρισμὸς, id est Recognitio; in quibus cum ex persona Petri apostoli doctrina quasi vere apostolica in quam plurimis exponatur, in aliquibus ita Eunomii dogma scribitur, ut nihil aliud quam ipse Eunomius disputare credatur, Filium Dei creaturam ex nullis exstantibus asseverans. Tum deinde etiam illud adulterii genus inseritur, ut naturam diaboli caeterorumque daemonum non propositi voluntatisque malitia, sed excepta ac separata creaturae produxerit qualitas, qui utique in caeteris omnem rationabilem docuerat liberi arbitrii facultate donatam. Sunt etiam nonnulla libris ejus inserta, quae ecclesiastica regula omnino non recipit. Quid, quaeso, apostolicus vir, imo pene apostolus non ea scribit quae apostoli dicunt; cui Paulus apostolus testimonium dedit dicens: « Cum Clemente et adjutoribus meis caeteris, quorum nomina sunt in libro vitae; » et scribat hoc quod libris vitae contrarium est? An ia potius credendum est, quod supra diximus, quod perversi
It is the opinion of the same Rufinus also that these books were composed by Clement the Roman pontiff, and that they were corrupted by heretics; but he testifies that more things than Epiphanius supposes, intact and truly proceeding from Clement himself, were found in them in his own time. His words, though somewhat lengthy, we have thought should be transcribed here, because they bear not a little on our subject: Clement, he says, the disciple of the apostles, who presided over the Roman Church after the apostles as both bishop and martyr, published books which are called in Greek Anagnorismos, that is Recognition; in which, while in very many places a teaching is set forth in the person of the apostle Peter as truly apostolic, in some the doctrine of Eunomius is so written that one would believe none other than Eunomius himself to be arguing, asserting that the Son of God is a creature from things not existing. Then, next, there is inserted also that kind of adulteration, that the nature of the devil and of the other demons was produced not by malice of purpose and will, but by an excepted and separate quality of creation, he who assuredly in the other places had taught that every rational [creature] is endowed with the faculty of free choice. There are also some things inserted in his books which the ecclesiastical rule does not receive at all. What, I ask, does an apostolic man, nay almost an apostle, not write the things which the apostles say; he to whom the apostle Paul gave testimony, saying: "With Clement and the rest of my helpers, whose names are in the book of life;" and should he write this which is contrary to the books of life? Or is that rather to be believed, which we said above, that perverse
Editors' notes and page, col. 1181
Footnotes
[Reference notes with superior numerals, set as one run across the page foot; the numerals are very small in the scan and are read as 59–61 by sequence with the page before.] (printed under page 588)
(59) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1181 (above the part of the page shown)
Lib. VII Recog.
Book VII of the Recognitions.
(printed under page 588)
(60) ‹anchor: transcribenda esse putavimus› · call in col 1181
Lib. De adult. lib. Origen.
The book On the Falsification of the Books of Origen.
(printed under page 588)
Page
- running head: 1181 RECOGNITIONES. — P[…] (cut by the column crop)
- marginal letters: A ‹cuitus a Clemente conscripti›; B ‹reliquoque omni, quod carne›; C ‹Opinio ejusdem quoque Rufini / a Clemente Romano pontifice›; D ‹nullis exstantibus asseverans›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose (Le Nourry's Dissertatio, Art. III end, Art. IV opening), set as this unit's text. The column's first printed syllables "cuitus" complete "Circuitus", set whole at the end of col. 1180, so this file begins at "a Clemente". Foot-note calls 59, 60 removed; foot notes printed full width at the page foot, cut by the column crop (settle: full_width) — not set here. Greek "Περιόδοι" set with the accent as it appears printed (regular form Περίοδοι): UNSURE of the accent position at this resolution. "supposuerant" as printed (col. 1180 has "supposuerint"). "omnem rationabilem" is printed without a noun (creaturam understood; supplied in brackets in the English). Column ends mid-sentence.
homines ad assertionem dogmatum suorum, sub virorum sanctorum nomine tanquam facilius credenda inseruerunt ea, quae illi nec sensisse nec scripsisse censendi sunt. In praefatione vero suae eorumdem librorum interpretationis haec habet: Sunt et quaedam de ingenito Deo genitoque disserta, et de aliis nonnullis, quae, ut nihil amplius dicam, excesserunt intelligentiam nostram. Haec ergo tanquam supra vires meas essent, aliis reservare malui, quam minus plena proferre. Quibus ille posterioribus verbis non obscure innuit, haec omnia a se omissa, nec Latine reddita. Varios insuper ille habuit manuscriptos codices, a se invicem longe diversos, atque in quibusdam nonnulla, ac ea praesertim quae de transformatione vultus Faustiniani dicuntur, non occurrisse observat: Puto, inquit, quod te non lateat Clementis hujus in Graeco ejusdem operis Ἀναγνώσεων, hoc est Recognitionum, duas editiones haberi, et duo corpora esse librorum, in aliquantis quidem diversa, in multis tamen ejusdem narrationis: denique pars ultima hujus operis, in qua de transformatione Simonis refertur, in uno corpore habetur, in alio non habetur. Monet denique epistolam Clementis ad Jacobum fratrem Domini, quae huic operi praefixa erat, a se fuisse praetermissam: Epistolam sane in qua idem Clemens, ad Jacobum fratrem Domini scribens.... ideo huic operi non praemisi.... quia et tempore posterior est, et olim a me interpretata atque edita.
men, for the assertion of their own doctrines, inserted under the name of holy men, as things more readily to be believed, what those men must be judged neither to have thought nor to have written. In the preface of his translation of the same books, moreover, he has these words: There are also certain things discussed concerning the unbegotten God and the begotten, and concerning some other matters, which, to say nothing more, exceeded our understanding. These therefore, as being beyond my powers, I preferred to reserve for others rather than to bring them forth less than complete. By which latter words he intimates not obscurely that all these things were omitted by him and not rendered into Latin. Furthermore, he had various manuscript codices, differing widely from one another, and he observes that in some of them certain things, and especially those which are said of the transformation of the countenance of Faustinianus, did not occur: I think, he says, that it does not escape you that of this Clement's same work in Greek, the Anagnoseis, that is the Recognitions, there are two editions, and that there are two bodies of books, differing indeed in some things, yet in many of the same narrative: thus the last part of this work, in which the transformation of Simon is related, is found in one body, and is not found in the other. He notes, finally, that the epistle of Clement to James the brother of the Lord, which was prefixed to this work, was passed over by him: The epistle indeed in which the same Clement, writing to James the brother of the Lord.... I have for this reason not placed before this work.... because it is both later in time, and was long ago translated and published by me.
Photius vero, qui plures etiam habuerat hujus operis codices manu exaratos, de eo sic definit: Epistola praefigitur tanquam ad Jacobum fratrem Domini, et haec neque eadem, neque ut ab eodem profecta, sed in libris nonnullis veluti a Petro apostolo ad Jacobum missa: in aliis rursus tanquam a Clemente ad Jacobum ... harum prior ostendit ipsummet Petrum res a se gestas conscripsisse, et Jacobo eas postulanti misisse: altera vero refert Clementem Petri jussu easdem res gestas litteris proditas, postquam ille jam ad immortalem commigrasset vitam, Jacobo transmisisse. Ex quo conjectura capitur fuisse res gestas S. Petri editas; at cum temporis longinquitate periisset altera, illam Clementis solam perdurasse. In omnibus enim libris, quos quidem mihi videre contigit (non paucos illos certe), post diversas illas epistolas, atque inscriptiones idem omnino sine variatione hoc operis initium reperi: « Ego Clemens, » et quae ordine deinceps sequuntur. Refertum est autem hoc opus absurdis nugis non sine plurimis ex Arii opinione in Filium blasphemiis..... liber tamen Actorum Petri perspicuitate ac gravitate, adhuc puritate et vehementia aliisque orationis dotibus, rerum item variarum doctrina tantum Constitutiones superat, nulla ut hos inter comparatio, ad sermonem quod attinet, fieri debeat..... Hunc Clementem alterum a Petro urbis Romae episcopum fuisse quidam autumant, alii vero quartum; Linum enim et Anacletum inter utrumque pontifices exstitisse,
Photius, however, who had also had several handwritten codices of this work, pronounces upon it thus: An epistle is prefixed as though to James the brother of the Lord, and this neither the same, nor as proceeding from the same person, but in some books as sent by the apostle Peter to James: in others again as from Clement to James ... the former of these shows that Peter himself wrote down the things done by him, and sent them to James who asked for them: the other relates that Clement, at Peter's command, transmitted to James the same deeds set down in writing, after he had already passed over to the immortal life. From which the conjecture is drawn that the deeds of St Peter were published; but that, when the one had perished through length of time, that of Clement alone endured. For in all the books which it has befallen me to see (and they are certainly not few), after those differing epistles and inscriptions I have found altogether the same beginning of the work, without variation: "I Clement," and what follows next in order. This work is, however, crammed with absurd trifles, not without very many blasphemies against the Son according to the opinion of Arius..... yet the book of the Acts of Peter so far surpasses the Constitutions in clearness and gravity, and further in purity and vehemence and the other gifts of style, as well as in learning on various subjects, that no comparison ought to be made between them, as far as style is concerned..... Some assert that this Clement was the second bishop of the city of Rome from Peter, but others the fourth; for that Linus and Anacletus were pontiffs between the two,
Editors' notes and page, col. 1182
Footnotes
(61) ‹anchor: sic definit› · call in col 1182
Biblioth. cod. CXII.
Bibliotheca, codex 112.
(printed under page 588)
Page
- running head: [RECOG]NITIONES. — PROOEMIA. 1182
- marginal letters: A ‹homines ad assertionem dogmatum›; B ‹dicuntur, non occurrisse observat›; C ‹Photius vero, qui plures / operis codices manu exaratos›; D ‹mihi videre contigit›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose (Le Nourry's Dissertatio, Art. IV), set as this unit's text. Foot-note call 61 removed. The foot-note line runs full width across the page foot (notes 59–61 on one line; settle: full_width, page of cols 1181–1182): note 61, called in this column, is legible in the foot image and is set above; notes 59–60 are called in col. 1181 and are not set here. "dogmatum": the d prints damaged (looks like "aogmatum"). Greek Ἀναγνώσεων set as printed. Ellipsis points within the quotations are Le Nourry's own, as printed. Column begins mid-sentence; last word hyphenated across the column break (exsti-|tisse,), completed from the first line of col. 1183.
ac tertio demum Trajani anno vitam finisse. Hinc colligas in omnibus Photii codicibus idem ac in editis nostris fuisse operis hujus initium. Porro autem nullus, uti opinamur, sibi facile persuadebit hoc idem opus ab eruditissimo illo viro fuisse Clementi adjudicatum; ut pote qui illud ipsum absurdis nugis et Arianorum blasphemiis oppletum esse testetur.
and that he ended his life at length in the third year of Trajan. Hence you may gather that in all the codices of Photius the beginning of this work was the same as in our printed editions. Moreover no one, as we think, will easily persuade himself that this same work was adjudged to Clement by that most learned man; inasmuch as he testifies that this very work is filled with absurd trifles and the blasphemies of the Arians.
ARTICULUS V.
ARTICLE V.
Sententiae recentiorum auctorum de his libris, et quid de iisdem sit sentiendum.
The judgments of more recent authors on these books, and what is to be thought of the same.
Neque vero scriptorum recentiorum sententiae minus quam antiquiorum a se invicem dissident secumque discordant. Quidam enim a Rufini opinione non longe abeunt, ut Lambertus Gruterus Venradius, qui de his libris sic sentit: Quantum ad Recognitionum Clementinarum libros attinet, eos vere Clementi nostro ascribo, tametsi corruptos esse agnoscam, ut dicetur infra. Et certe quasdam ille notat corruptiones, quibus ea omnia subjungit quae de Faustiniani vultus transformatione ibidem leguntur. Quidam autem cum Bellarmino ad Epiphanii sententiam magis inclinant; atque hos libros ab haereticis foede corruptos esse asserunt. Sed communior aliorum hujusce temporis criticorum opinio Clementem librorum illorum auctorem esse negat, affirmatque illos ab aliquo secundi saeculi scriptore fuisse depravatos, eosque repletos esse fabulis, nugis, somniis, mendaciis, atque sermonibus disputationibusque ineptis, absurdis et ridiculis; ac denique in iis reperiri fragmentum ex libro Bardesanis Syri, adversus Abydam astronomum edito, totidem verbis transcriptum. Fragmentum autem illud ab his verbis incipit: Denique primi Seres, qui initio orbis terrae, etc.
Nor indeed do the judgments of the more recent writers differ from one another and disagree among themselves less than those of the more ancient. For some do not depart far from the opinion of Rufinus, as Lambertus Gruterus Venradius, who thinks thus of these books: As regards the books of the Clementine Recognitions, I truly ascribe them to our Clement, although I acknowledge them to be corrupted, as will be said below. And certainly he notes certain corruptions, to which he subjoins all those things which are read there about the transformation of the countenance of Faustinianus. Some, however, with Bellarmine incline rather to the judgment of Epiphanius; and they assert that these books were foully corrupted by heretics. But the more common opinion of the other critics of this time denies that Clement is the author of those books, and affirms that they were corrupted by some writer of the second century, and that they are filled with fables, trifles, dreams, lies, and discourses and disputations that are inept, absurd and ridiculous; and finally that there is found in them a fragment from the book of Bardesanes the Syrian, published against Abydas the astronomer, transcribed word for word. And that fragment begins from these words: Lastly the Seres first, who at the beginning of the earth, etc.
Jam vero de his libris quid sentiendum, vel cui opinioni adhaerendum sit, si rogetur, dicemus illos eo modo, quo nunc, et a tot saeculis repraesentantur, ab Clemente Romano profectos non esse. Constat enim quaecunque de mutatione vultus Faustiniani, et postea ibi narrantur, omnino fictitia esse, et aperte falsa. Et vero vel sola mendacia quae Petro apostolorum principi ibidem tribuuntur, id invictissime demonstrant. Neque etiam caetera omnia, quae in reliquo opere legimus, magis Clementi adjudicanda nobis videntur. Nam iter Mathidiae, illiusque cum filiis suis Niceta et Aquila naufragium, illi tandem fortuiti occursus, quibus sese invicem ac patrem suum Faustinianum ipsumque Clementem agnovisse feruntur, plane fabulosa et gratis ficta sunt. Fac tamen ea esse verissima; quid autem magis a verisimilitudine abhorret, quam verba et sermones quos Petrus ad suos et ad populum habuisse perhibetur? Quam multae enim, Deus bone, ibi occurrunt nugae, ineptiae, fabulae! quam multa puerilia, perridicula et insulsa! quam multi errores atque mendacia? quam belle
Now if it is asked what is to be thought of these books, or to which opinion one should adhere, we shall say that, in the form in which they are presented now and have been for so many centuries, they did not proceed from Clement the Roman. For it is certain that whatever things are narrated there about the change of the countenance of Faustinianus, and afterwards, are altogether fictitious and plainly false. And indeed the lies alone which are there attributed to Peter, the prince of the apostles, demonstrate this most invincibly. Nor do all the other things which we read in the rest of the work seem to us any more to be adjudged to Clement. For the journey of Mathidia, and her shipwreck with her sons Nicetas and Aquila, and finally those chance meetings by which they are said to have recognized one another and their father Faustinianus and Clement himself, are plainly fabulous and gratuitously invented. Suppose, however, that these are most true; yet what is more remote from likelihood than the words and discourses which Peter is said to have delivered to his own and to the people? For how many trifles, good God, how many ineptitudes and fables occur there! how many things childish, utterly ridiculous and insipid! how many errors and lies? how finely
Editors' notes and page, col. 1183
Footnotes
[Reference note with a superior numeral; the numeral is very small in the scan and is read as 62 by sequence with the page before.] (printed under page 589)
(62) ‹anchor: his verbis incipit› · call in col 1183
Apud Euseb. lib. VI Praep. evangel.
In Eusebius, Book VI of the Preparation for the Gospel.
(printed under page 589)
Page
- running head: 1183 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. […] (cut by the column crop)
- marginal letters: A ‹tisse, ac tertio demum Trajani›; B ‹nione non longe abeunt›; C ‹fabulis, nugis, somniis / bus disputationibusque ineptis›; D ‹id invictissime demonstrant›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose (Le Nourry's Dissertatio, Art. IV end, Art. V), set as this unit's text. The column's first printed syllables "tisse," complete "exstitisse,", set whole at the end of col. 1182, so this file begins at "ac tertio". Foot-note call 62 removed; the foot note at the page foot not set here. "illud" (before "ab his verbis") prints with a damaged d. Column ends mid-sentence.
Petrus dialecticum sophistamque ibi agit, ipso Simone Mago longe subtiliorem? Quid vero de ejus ratione vivendi, mane surgendi, disputationes instituendi et ordinandi, in urbes ingrediendi, atque ab iis qui baptizati non erant, sese separandi, dici potest? Nonne haec omnia operis hujus suppositionem evidenter arguunt? Quid adhuc magis fabulosum quam ea disputatio qua singuli apostoli, suo quique ordine, contra Caipham, Samaritanos, Scribas, aliosque Judaeos decertasse finguntur? Denique in toto illo opere nullas deprehendimus, ejus cui ascribitur, nimirum Clementis Romani pontificis, apostolorum discipuli, notas nullosque characteres. Quod quidem ex sola quam dedimus hujus operis analysi cuilibet aequo rerum aestimatori facile probabitur.
does Peter there play the dialectician and sophist, far more subtle than Simon Magus himself? And what can be said of his manner of living, of rising in the morning, of setting up and arranging disputations, of entering into cities, and of separating himself from those who had not been baptized? Do not all these things evidently prove the spuriousness of this work? What, further, is more fabulous than that disputation in which the several apostles, each in his own order, are feigned to have contended against Caiaphas, the Samaritans, the Scribes, and other Jews? Finally, in that whole work we detect no marks and no characteristics of him to whom it is ascribed, namely Clement the Roman pontiff, the disciple of the apostles. Which indeed will easily be proved to any fair judge of things from the mere analysis of this work which we have given.
ARTICULUS VI.
ARTICLE VI.
Num aliquid a Clemente profectum his in libris supersit; et quis eorum auctor, ac quo tempore sint scripti.
Whether anything proceeding from Clement survives in these books; and who is their author, and at what time they were written.
Verum, inquies, nihilne quod ab ipso Clemente profectum sit, toto in opere reliquum est amplius? Ut huic quaestioni fiat satis, animadvertas velim ex iis quae protulimus rationum momentis colligi, eos a vero longe aberrare qui maximam hujus operis partem, iisque tantum quae haereticorum pravitate adjecta sunt, exceptis, Clementi nostro adjudicandam esse arbitrantur.
But, you will say, is there nothing any longer left in the whole work which proceeded from Clement himself? That this question may be satisfied, I would have you observe that it is gathered from the weighty reasons which we have brought forward that those stray far from the truth who think that the greatest part of this work, with the exception only of those things which were added by the depravity of heretics, is to be adjudged to our Clement.
De Epiphanii autem sententia, quae haereticos pauca his in libris, a Clemente scriptis, intacta reliquisse pronuntiat, certi aliquid definire difficile est. Cum enim epistolae quibus Clemens de sui operis facta ab haereticis corruptione conquerebatur, ad nos pervenerint, divinare utique non possumus quae sint illa pauca quae haeretici integra reliquerunt. Quapropter nisi ea pauca clare sigillatimque demonstrentur, nobis facilius persuadebitur nihil in toto opere sanum, sed omnia corrupta esse et depravata. Caeterum si Epiphanius pauca quaedam suo tempore sincera et genuina compererit, ille in alios, ab iis, qui nunc supersunt, codices manuscriptos incidisse haud immerito videtur.
Concerning the judgment of Epiphanius, however, which pronounces that the heretics left a few things untouched in these books written by Clement, it is difficult to determine anything certain. For since the epistles in which Clement complained of the corruption of his work wrought by heretics have come down to us, we assuredly cannot divine what those few things are which the heretics left intact. Wherefore, unless those few things are clearly and severally pointed out, we shall more easily be persuaded that nothing in the whole work is sound, but that all is corrupted and depraved. For the rest, if Epiphanius found some few things pure and genuine in his own time, he seems not without reason to have lighted upon manuscript codices other than those which now survive.
Porro autem quamvis auctoris, a quo opus illud corruptum prodiit, nomen hactenus incognitum atque incompertum fuerit, quia tamen illud Graece primum composuit, eum Graecum quemdam hominem fuisse vero certe est perquam simillimum. Is porro dialecticus fuit disputatorque acerrimus, qui varias philosophorum opiniones, astrologiam, mythologiam, omnes paganorum fabulas allegoricasque earum interpretationes, ac varias tandem variorum populorum leges, mores, consuetudinesque apprime callebat. Sed ille haereticorum ac praecipue Ebionitarum erroribus omnino addictus erat, atque eos in suis lucubrationibus facilius ut propinaret, easdem ementito Clementis, apostolorum discipuli, magno nomine inscribi voluit.
Moreover, although the name of the author from whom that corrupted work issued has until now been unknown and undiscovered, yet because he first composed it in Greek, it is certainly most highly probable that he was some Greek man. He was, further, a dialectician and a very keen disputant, who was thoroughly versed in the various opinions of the philosophers, astrology, mythology, all the fables of the pagans and their allegorical interpretations, and lastly the various laws, manners and customs of various peoples. But he was wholly devoted to the errors of the heretics and especially of the Ebionites, and that he might the more easily serve them up in his compositions, he wished these to be inscribed with the falsely assumed great name of Clement, the disciple of the apostles.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1184
Page
- running head: [S. CLEMENT]IS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 1184
- marginal letters: A ‹Petrus dialecticum sophistamque›; B ‹hujus operis analysi / tori facile probabitur›; C ‹pauca his in libris / liquisse pronuntiat›; D ‹corruptum prodiit, nomen hactenus›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose (Le Nourry's Dissertatio, Art. V end, Art. VI), set as this unit's text. Column begins mid-sentence (continues "quam belle" of col. 1183). "ad nos pervenerint" is set and translated as printed; the sense seems to require a negative (non pervenerint): UNSURE whether a word has dropped out in the printing. The column ends with a complete paragraph, with blank space beneath; no foot notes under this column.
Denique quo tempore eosdem illos libros in lucem ipse emiserit, paulo proclivius est definire. Verum enimvero cum Origenes non solum illos citaverit, sed longum etiam ex iis transcripserit fragmentum, constat eosdem Origene ipso esse antiquiores. Non temere igitur illi secundo Ecclesiae saeculo in vulgus prodiisse dicuntur. Quod quidem inde rursus confirmari potest, quod Bardesanes Syrus aliud quoque, uti diximus, fragmentum non minus prolixum, in suum adversus Marcionem librum transtulit. Nam Bardesanes ille hunc eumdem librum sub Soteris pontificatu, paulo post secundum saeculum medium Antonio imperatori nuncupavit. Jam ergo pervulgati erant illi Recognitionum Clementinarum libri.
Finally, at what time he himself sent those same books forth into the light is somewhat easier to determine. For indeed, since Origen not only cited them but also transcribed a long fragment from them, it is certain that they are older than Origen himself. Not rashly, therefore, are they said to have come out among the public in the second century of the Church. Which indeed can be confirmed again from this, that Bardesanes the Syrian also transferred another fragment, as we have said, no less lengthy, into his book against Marcion. For that Bardesanes dedicated this same book to the emperor Antonius under the pontificate of Soter, a little after the middle of the second century. Already, therefore, those books of the Clementine Recognitions were widely published.
ARTICULUS VII.
ARTICLE VII.
Num hi libri ad nos, quales ab auctore prodierunt pervenerint; ac de eorum utilitate, titulis et editionibus.
Whether these books have come down to us such as they issued from the author; and of their usefulness, titles and editions.
Caeterum hi libri, quamtumvis adulterini fuerint et corrupti, ad nos tamen quales ab auctore suo scripti fuerant non pervenere. Nulli siquidem nunc occurrunt eorum Graeci codices manuscripti, quos suo tempore frequentes fuisse Rufinus Photiusque testantur: solam habemus hujus operis Latinam versionem Rufini, qui plures, ut monuimus, locos se omisisse, nec Latine reddere voluisse ingenue confessus est. Et re quidem vera Cotelerius in sua horum librorum editione ex tribus mss. Sorbonico, Thuaneo, et Candeleriano restituit fragmentum, quod illud ipsum esse putat, quo auctor noster, teste Rufino, de ingenito Deo genitoque disseruit; atque ideo quod Arianis faveret, ab eodem Rufino de industria fuerat praetermissum. Praeterea si eidem Rufino Photioque fides habeatur, hi libri ab Eunomianis et Arianis, primigenio illorum auctore longe posterioribus, depravati sunt et adulterati.
For the rest, these books, however spurious and corrupted they were, have nevertheless not come down to us such as they had been written by their author. For no Greek manuscript codices of them are now met with, which Rufinus and Photius testify were numerous in their time: we have only the Latin version of this work by Rufinus, who candidly confessed, as we have noted, that he omitted several passages and was unwilling to render them into Latin. And in very truth Cotelier, in his edition of these books, restored from three manuscripts, the Sorbonne, the Thuanean, and the Candelerian, a fragment which he thinks to be that very one in which our author, as Rufinus witnesses, discoursed of the unbegotten God and the begotten; and which, because it favoured the Arians, had been purposely passed over by the same Rufinus. Besides, if credence is given to the same Rufinus and to Photius, these books were depraved and adulterated by Eunomians and Arians, far later than their original author.
Quapropter quamvis iidem libri maximae sint antiquitatis, cautis tamen prudentibusque oculis legendi sunt, quippe qui ab iis qui errores suos quoquo tandem modo disseminare tentabant, variis temporibus nequiter corrupti fuerint. Possunt tamen aliquibus, non omnino imprudentibus, nonnihil utilitatis idcirco adferre, quod Christianae religionis apologia sint et defensio, qua fabulae paganorum, idololatria, cultusque falsorum numinum, atque eorum qui astris influentibus fatalem homini necessitatem imponi dicunt, errores impugnantur et destruuntur. Nec etiam inutiles omnino iis esse poterunt qui varias philosophorum opiniones, varios diversorum populorum mores consuetudinesque atque allegoricas fabularum explicationes voluerint addiscere.
Wherefore, although the same books are of the greatest antiquity, they are nevertheless to be read with cautious and prudent eyes, inasmuch as they were wickedly corrupted at various times by those who were trying to disseminate their errors in whatever way they could. Yet they can bring some usefulness to certain readers, not altogether imprudent, for this reason, that they are an apology and defence of the Christian religion, in which the fables of the pagans, idolatry, and the worship of false divinities, and the errors of those who say that a fatal necessity is imposed on man by the influence of the stars, are attacked and destroyed. Nor will they be able to be altogether useless to those who wish to learn the various opinions of the philosophers, the various manners and customs of different peoples, and the allegorical explanations of the fables.
His libris et in manuscriptis codicibus, et ab
To these books, both in the manuscript codices and by
Editors' notes and page, col. 1185
Footnotes
[Reference note with a superior numeral; the numeral is very small in the scan and is read as 63 by sequence with the page before.] (printed under page 590)
(63) ‹anchor: Photiusque testantur› · call in col 1185
In Biblioth. cod. 112 et 113.
In the Bibliotheca, codices 112 and 113.
(printed under page 590)
Page
- running head: 1185 RECOGNITIONES. — PR[…] (cut by the column crop)
- marginal letters: A ‹Denique quo tempore eosdem›; B ‹ARTICULUS VII. (beside the caption)›; C ‹quod illud ipsum esse putat›; D ‹religionis apologia / ganorum, idololatria›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose (Le Nourry's Dissertatio, Art. VI end, Art. VII), set as this unit's text. Foot-note call 63 removed; the foot note at the page foot not set here. "Thuaneo" prints with a damaged a. Column ends mid-sentence.
iis qui illos citarunt, varii tituli praefiguntur. Aliquando enim Clementis Recognitio, vel Recognitiones, Clementis Itinerarium, liber Itinerarius Praedicationis Petri, Clementis gesta, vel Historia, aut Chronica, vel Narratio, aliquando vero Petri Periodi, vel Circuitus, vel Itinerarium, vel Actus appellantur. Ii porro ex duobus mss. cum variis summorum quorumdam pontificum epistolis, curante Joanne Sichardo, anno 1526 typis editi sunt. Postea Lambertus Gruterus Venradius eosdem rursus typis excudit, atque in eis quaedam se emendasse affirmat. Verum cum ille has emendationes non ex manuscriptis se hausisse dixerit, eas suis duntaxat conjecturis videtur fuisse assecutus. Ex hac tamen editione in Bibliotheca Lugdunensi hi libri rursus emissi sunt in lucem. Cotelerius autem illos cum operibus Patrum, qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt, publicari voluit, hancque editionem ope sex mss. codicum, Sorbonae nimirum, Thuaneo, Petri Candelerii, Regis, Petri Petiti, et Carmelitarum Discalceatorum se adornasse testificatur. Alium praeterea codicem, ante annos quadringentos exaratum, ex bibliotheca Colbertina penes nos habuimus.
those who have cited them, various titles are prefixed. For sometimes they are called the Recognition of Clement, or the Recognitions, the Itinerary of Clement, the Itinerary book of the Preaching of Peter, the deeds of Clement, or the History, or the Chronicle, or the Narrative, and sometimes the Periodi of Peter, or the Circuits, or the Itinerary, or the Acts. They were, moreover, published in print from two manuscripts, together with various epistles of certain supreme pontiffs, under the care of Johannes Sichardus, in the year 1526. Afterwards Lambertus Gruterus Venradius printed the same again, and he affirms that he emended certain things in them. But since he did not say that he drew these emendations from manuscripts, he seems to have arrived at them by his own conjectures only. From this edition, nevertheless, these books were again sent forth into the light in the Bibliotheca of Lyons. Cotelier, however, wished them to be published with the works of the Fathers who flourished in apostolic times, and he testifies that he prepared this edition with the help of six manuscript codices, namely that of the Sorbonne, the Thuanean, that of Petrus Candelerius, the King's, that of Petrus Petitus, and that of the Discalced Carmelites. We have had by us, besides, another codex from the Colbertine library, written four hundred years ago.
ARTICULUS VIII.
ARTICLE VIII.
De variis in hos libros notis et observationibus, et de aliis libris ab eodem auctore editis.
Of the various notes and observations on these books, and of other books published by the same author.
Gruterus quaedam in hos libros edidit scholia, quae nec magni sunt momenti, nec multae utilitatis. At Cotelerius doctiores utilioresque in hos libros scripsit notas et observationes, quibus auctoris textus corrigitur et enodatur. Monet tamen majorem Recognitionum partem, quod ad humanas potius disciplinas spectent, quam ad theologiam, notis illustratum se non ivisse. Non paucas tamen in res philosophicas edidit animadversiones. Neque forsan alia plura ab eo observata lectoribus minus essent jucunda et utilia, si a proposito auctoris textu rarius digrederetur.
Gruterus published certain scholia on these books, which are neither of great moment nor of much usefulness. But Cotelier wrote more learned and more useful notes and observations on these books, by which the author's text is corrected and unravelled. He notes, however, that he did not set about illustrating with notes the greater part of the Recognitions, because they look rather to human branches of learning than to theology. Yet he published not a few remarks on philosophical matters. Nor perhaps would many other things observed by him be less pleasing and useful to readers, if he digressed more rarely from the author's text before him.
Unum his omnibus addendum, nempe auctorem nostrum, si fidem aliquam mereatur, plures alios ex iis quae a Petro audierat libros confecisse. Hos autem ille accurate enumerat (lib. I, III, V), librum De vero Propheta, librum De praefinitione Dei, et decem alios ab editis, Recognitionum libros, quorum singula promit argumenta: alios autem libellos ex Petri ad discipulorum suorum interrogata responsis compositos. Utrum tamen hi libri in lucem aliquando emissi fuerint vel vana tantummodo mendacis scriptoris ostentatione ficte fallaciterque venditentur, in dubium merito revocari potest. At si aliquando prodierunt in publicum, hi non minus quam illi de quibus hactenus disputavimus, suppositi sunt et adulterini.
One thing is to be added to all these, namely that our author, if he deserves any credence, composed several other books from the things which he had heard from Peter. These he carefully enumerates (books I, III, V): a book On the true Prophet, a book On the predetermination of God, and ten other books of Recognitions, different from the published ones, of which he sets out the several arguments: and other little books composed from Peter's answers to the questions of his disciples. Whether, however, these books were ever sent forth into the light, or are only feignedly and deceitfully vaunted by the empty ostentation of a lying writer, can deservedly be called in doubt. But if they did at some time come out in public, they, no less than those of which we have been treating until now, are supposititious and spurious.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1186
Page
- running head: [RECOG]NITIONES. — PROOEMIA. 1186
- marginal letters: A ‹iis qui illos citarunt›; B ‹emissi sunt in lucem. Cotelerius›; C ‹scripsit notas et observationes›; D ‹decem alios ab editis›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: editors' prose (Le Nourry's Dissertatio, Art. VII end, Art. VIII to its close), set as this unit's text. Column begins mid-sentence (continues "et ab" of col. 1185). "ope" (before "sex mss.") and "floruerunt" print with damaged first letters; read from context: UNSURE of "ope". The reference "(lib. I, III, V)" is printed in the text in parentheses and kept. The column ends with the close of Art. VIII and blank space; a short rule is printed below, between the columns. No foot notes under this column.
J. B. COTELERII JUDICIUM
THE JUDGMENT OF J. B. COTELIER
DE LIBRIS RECOGNITIONUM.
ON THE BOOKS OF THE RECOGNITIONS.
(Patres apostolici, t. I, p. 490, ed. Amstaelod. 1724, in-fol.)
(Patres apostolici, vol. I, p. 490, Amsterdam edition, 1724, in folio.)
Quantum ex re ipsa, veterum testimoniis, ac recentiorum judiciis colligere licet, libri isti pseudepigraphi sunt et apocryphi, secundo saeculo compositi a viro docto quidem juxta ac diserto, sed philosopho magis et philologo quam theologo, in excogitandis autem connectendisque fictis narrationibus plane rudi. Isque videtur plerorumque aut saltem quorumdam apocryphorum parens, quae nomen Petri vel Clementis praeferebant: qualia etiam Actus Petri, Doctrina Petri, Judicium Petri, Apocalypsis seu Revelatio Petri, Praedicatio Petri, Evangelium Petri, Clementina, atque Disputatio Petri et Apionis. Quibus nunc adde ex conspectu Operum R. P. Joannis Michaelis Vanslebii ord. Praedicatorum, Epistolam Petri ad Clementem lingua Aethiopica. Inscribitur opus ex toto et ex partibus, idque vel a Clemente, vel a Petro. A Clemente vocatur, Clementis Recognitiones et Recognitio; Clementis Itinerarium, Gesta, Historia, Historiae, Chronica; et Clemens. A Petro, Petri Periodi et Itinerarium; Petri Actus, per Clementem scilicet, alii ab Actibus Petri quasi Petro actore; et Disputatio Petri cum Apione, recte enim putatur pars esse operis. Codex Oxoniensis: B. Clementis Romani Itinerarium ad Jacobum fratrem Domini. Carmelitarum discalceatorum in hac urbe: Itinerarium Clementis. Bibliothecae Thuaneae: Liber Itinerarius Praedicationis Petri. Ms. V. cl. Petri Candelerii: Gesta Clementis. Regis Christianissimi, et Sorbonae nostrae, atque Petri Petiti typographi regii: Historia Clementis. Liber Monachensis bibliothecae: S. Martyris Clementis episcopi Romae S. Petri discipuli Narratio missa ad Jacobum fratrem Domini, episcopum Hierosolymorum. Joannes Antiochenus in Appendice concilii Basileensis, in
So far as may be gathered from the matter itself, from the testimonies of the ancients and from the judgments of more recent writers, these books are pseudepigraphal and apocryphal, composed in the second century by a man who was indeed as learned as he was eloquent, but more a philosopher and philologist than a theologian, and plainly unskilled in devising and connecting fictitious narratives. And he seems to be the parent of most, or at least of some, of the apocrypha that bore the name of Peter or of Clement on their front: such as also the Acts of Peter, the Teaching of Peter, the Judgment of Peter, the Apocalypse or Revelation of Peter, the Preaching of Peter, the Gospel of Peter, the Clementines, and the Disputation of Peter and Apion. To these now add, from the conspectus of the Works of the Rev. Father Johann Michael Wansleben of the Order of Preachers, the Epistle of Peter to Clement in the Ethiopic tongue. The work is entitled both from the whole and from its parts, and that either from Clement or from Peter. From Clement it is called the Recognitions and the Recognition of Clement; the Itinerary, the Deeds, the History, the Histories, the Chronicles of Clement; and Clement. From Peter, the Periodi and Itinerary of Peter; the Acts of Peter, namely through Clement, different from the Acts of Peter in which Peter is, as it were, the doer; and the Disputation of Peter with Apion, for it is rightly thought to be a part of the work. The Oxford codex: The Itinerary of Blessed Clement of Rome to James the brother of the Lord. That of the Discalced Carmelites in this city: The Itinerary of Clement. That of the Thuanean library: The Itinerary Book of the Preaching of Peter. The manuscript of the most distinguished Pierre Candelier: The Deeds of Clement. Those of the Most Christian King, and of our Sorbonne, and of Pierre Petit, the king's printer: The History of Clement. The book of the Munich library: The Narrative of the holy Martyr Clement, bishop of Rome, disciple of Saint Peter, sent to James the brother of the Lord, bishop of Jerusalem. John of Antioch, in the Appendix to the Council of Basel, in
Editors' notes and page, col. 1187
Page
- running head: 1187 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 1188
- marginal letters: A ‹Quantum ex re ipsa, veterum›; B ‹lingua Aethiopica. Inscribitur opus›; C ‹et Sorbonae nostrae, atque Petri Petiti typographi› (the letters stand between the columns and serve col. 1188 as well)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width — page 591 (cols 1187–1188): the Cotelier caption (three lines) is printed across both columns and is set once here, completed from the col. 1188 crop. The Gallandi caption and Synopsis at the foot of the page are also full width and are set once in c1188_a.md, where that piece begins in reading order. Column ends mid-sentence ("in" → "Chronicis Clementis" in col. 1188).
Chronicis Clementis. Rufinus vero perorans ad translationem suam Commentariorum Origenis in Epistolam ad Romanos non quidem juxta editiones, verum ex optimo ms. bibliothecae Thuanae, sic loquitur: Post hoc sane vocat nos opus, quod olim quidem injunctum est, sed nunc a beato Gaudentio episcopo vehementius perurgetur, Clementis scilicet Romani episcopi, aposto⟨lici⟩ comitis ac successoris, de Recognitione libri, ⟨ut in⟩ Latinum vertantur. In quo opere, bene novi quod laborem labor multiplicata sorte suscipiet. Satisfaciam sane in eo amicis meis. Dabo titulo nomen meum, auctoris nihilominus vocabulo permanente. Nam Rufini Clemens inscribetur. Accedit ad nominis varietatem, multo majoris momenti diversitas textus ac perversio: varie quippe et miseris modis distractus, divisus, interpolatus, auctus, minutus, atque in compendium redactus fuit, nec non per haereticos corruptus, insertis multis erroribus; quorum partem tollere labor exstitit cum Rufini interpretis, tum illius qui Epitomen fecit.
the Chronicles of Clement. Rufinus, moreover, in the peroration to his translation of Origen's Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, speaks thus, not indeed according to the printed editions, but from an excellent manuscript of the Thuanean library: After this, to be sure, a work calls us which was indeed enjoined long ago, but is now more vehemently pressed by the blessed bishop Gaudentius, namely that the books On the Recognition of Clement, bishop of Rome, companion and successor of the apostles, be turned into Latin. In which work I know well that labour will take up labour with its lot multiplied. I shall certainly satisfy my friends in it. I shall give my own name to the title, the author's name nonetheless remaining. For it will be inscribed The Clement of Rufinus. To the variety of the name there is added a diversity and perversion of the text of much greater moment: for it was in various and wretched ways torn apart, divided, interpolated, enlarged, diminished and reduced to an abridgement, and also corrupted by heretics, with many errors inserted; to remove a part of which was the labour both of Rufinus the translator and of him who made the Epitome.
Rufini Torani, sive, ut alii appellant, Turanii, Torannii, Turranii, Tyrannii, esse praefationem cum sequenti versione stylus clamat, ostenduntque Gennadius, Adhelmus, Anastasius Bibliothecarius, atque ipse Rufinus: itemque Excalceatorum Carmelitarum liber, qui sic incipit: Rufini presbyteri praefatio ad Gaudentium pontificem in Itinerarium Clementis, ab eo ex Graeco in Latinum conversum. Et post praefationem, Clementisque ad Jacobum epistolam, scriptum habet: Itinerarii Clementis Petri apostoli successoris liber primus incipit a Rufino traductus. Quod si quis objecerit epistolam Paulini 47, is responsum feret nec illam esse indubiae auctoritatis, nec in ea mentionem fieri Recognitionum.
That the preface, with the version that follows, is the work of Rufinus Toranus, or, as others call him, Turanius, Torannius, Turranius, Tyrannius, the style cries aloud, and Gennadius, Aldhelm, Anastasius the Librarian and Rufinus himself show it; and likewise the book of the Discalced Carmelites, which begins thus: The preface of Rufinus the presbyter to the pontiff Gaudentius on the Itinerary of Clement, turned by him from Greek into Latin. And after the preface, and the letter of Clement to James, it has written: Here begins the first book of the Itinerary of Clement, successor of the apostle Peter, translated by Rufinus. But if anyone should object the forty-seventh letter of Paulinus, he will receive the answer that neither is that letter of undoubted authority, nor is mention made in it of the Recognitions.
DE AUCTORE ANONYMO RECOGNITIONUM CLEMENTINARUM.
ON THE ANONYMOUS AUTHOR OF THE CLEMENTINE RECOGNITIONS.
(GALLAND., Vet. Patr. II, XXXII, ex Historia Litteraria Aquileiensi V. C. Justi Fontanini, lib. V, cap. 10.)
(Gallandi, Veterum Patrum II, XXXII, from the Historia Litteraria Aquileiensis of the distinguished Giusto Fontanini, book V, chapter 10.)
SYNOPSIS CAPITUM.
SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTERS.
I. Auctor Recognitionum inquiritur.
I. The author of the Recognitions is inquired into.
II. Ejusdem aetas statuitur. Cur opus titulo Recognitionum inscriptum.
II. His age is determined. Why the work was inscribed with the title of Recognitions.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1188
Page
- running head: 1187 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 1188
- marginal letters: A Chronicis Clementis. Rufinus vero; B versio: varie quippe et miseris; C post praefationem, Clementisque
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width — page 591: the Gallandi/Fontanini caption, its source line, SYNOPSIS CAPITUM and the two synopsis items are printed across both columns at the foot of the page; set once here, read from the col. 1187 and col. 1188 crops together. An ink blot covers parts of two lines: "aposto⟨lici⟩" and "⟨ut in⟩" are supplied in angle brackets (letters hidden, not seen); "novi" beside the blot is legible. "Turanii": the a is damaged type, read from its outline. "Adhelmus" as printed. Column begins mid-sentence (continues col. 1187). The Cotelier caption at the head of the page is set in c1187_a.md.
III. Censura Gelasii papae de Recognitionibus. Operis pretium. Auctor catholicus. Aliquot recentiorum judicium.
III. The censure of Pope Gelasius on the Recognitions. The worth of the work. The author a Catholic. The judgment of some more recent writers.
IV. Recognitiones Graecas post earum translationem, a Paulino Nolano frustra tentatam, Rufinus Latine convertit.
IV. Rufinus turns the Greek Recognitions into Latin, after their translation had been attempted in vain by Paulinus of Nola.
V. Rogatu sanctae Salviae, Rufini praefecti praetorio sororis, opus aggreditur, quod Gaudentio Brixiano episcopo nuncupat.
V. At the request of the holy Salvia, sister of Rufinus the praetorian prefect, he undertakes the work, which he dedicates to Gaudentius, bishop of Brescia.
VI. Verus praefationis auctor, et Recognitionum interpres, Rufinus.
VI. The true author of the preface, and translator of the Recognitions, is Rufinus.
VII. Bellarmini locus circa Clementis Recognitiones expenditur.
VII. A passage of Bellarmine concerning the Recognitions of Clement is weighed.
VIII. De epistola Recognitionum libris adnexa. Operis editio quomodo adornata.
VIII. On the letter attached to the books of the Recognitions. How the edition of the work has been prepared.
I. Libri Recognitionum alium plane a sancto Clemente, post Petrum tertio vel quarto Romanae Ecclesiae pontifice, architectum habuerunt. Ad ejus aetatem quod attinet, eum ante Origenem floruisse in comperto est. Origenes enim, qui sub Elagabalo florere coepit, primus omnium testimonia ex illo, tanquam scriptore jam noto, et Clementis nomine quidem distincto, semel atque iterum promit. Quamobrem Clementini operis artifex Origene junior dici non potest, sed paulo senior; quod nimirum ad tempus scriptionis pertinet. Ante Origenem, seu tertium Christi Domini saeculum, nemo unquam Recognitiones laudavit, nemo Clementinorum mentionem fecit. Libri auctorem tertio demum Christi saeculo vixisse, duo produnt. Unum, quod ex Bardesanis Syri dialogo De fato contra Abidam astrologum, laciniam bene longam suffuratus, suam fecit. Alterum, quod de civitate Romana, universo orbi dominata, non obscure loquatur. Atqui Bardesanes sub M. Aurelio Augusto floruit circa annum 171, cui Dialogum suum nuncupavit. Caracalla vero circa annum 215, gentes Romano imperio subjectas, propriisque antea legibus usas, in Urbis rerum dominae jura, constitutione edita, primus omnium transire jussit. Ex his perspicimus quantopere fallantur, qui Clementini scriptoris aetatem saeculo II praefinire voluerunt. Horum agmen ducit Blondellus, cui accesserunt Cotelerius et Grabius. Cunctis tamen ad hanc eamdem sententiam praeiverat Sixtus Senensis.
I. The books of the Recognitions had an architect plainly other than Saint Clement, the third or fourth pontiff of the Roman Church after Peter. As regards his age, it is established that he flourished before Origen. For Origen, who began to flourish under Elagabalus, is the first of all to bring forward testimonies from him, once and again, as from a writer already known, and indeed marked out by the name of Clement. Wherefore the maker of the Clementine work cannot be called younger than Origen, but a little older; which, of course, bears on the time of the writing. Before Origen, that is, before the third century of Christ the Lord, no one ever cited the Recognitions, no one made mention of the Clementines. That the author of the book lived only in the third century of Christ, two things betray. One, that having pilfered a good long piece from the dialogue On Fate of Bardesanes the Syrian against Abidas the astrologer, he made it his own. The other, that he speaks not obscurely of the Roman citizenship as having dominion over the whole world. Now Bardesanes flourished about the year 171 under Marcus Aurelius Augustus, to whom he dedicated his Dialogue. But Caracalla, about the year 215, by a constitution which he issued, was the first of all to order that the nations subject to the Roman empire, which had before used their own laws, should pass into the rights of the City that is mistress of the world. From these things we see how greatly they are mistaken who have wished to fix the age of the Clementine writer in the second century. Blondel leads their column, and Cotelier and Grabe have joined him. Yet Sixtus of Siena had gone before them all to this same opinion.
II. Dodwellus compactas censet Recognitiones inter ann. aerae vulgaris 218 et 231. Verius dixisset inter ann. 211 et 217. Etenim anno 211 solus imperare coepit Caracalla, novae, quam dixi, constitutionis auctor, in Recognitionum libris laudatae. Mox eodem anno 217, Caracalla occiditur. His repellitur maximus Petri Allixii lapsus, aientis, pseudo-Clementem vixisse non diu ante Sulpicium, ante quem tamen CC annos vixit. Origenes, primus Recognitionum praeco, Caracallae iram fugiens, Alexandria in Palaestinam primo secessit. Bis autem
II. Dodwell judges that the Recognitions were put together between the years 218 and 231 of the common era. He would have said more truly between the years 211 and 217. For in the year 211 Caracalla began to reign alone, the author of the new constitution of which I have spoken, which is cited in the books of the Recognitions. Then in that same year 217 Caracalla is slain. By these things is refuted the very great slip of Pierre Allix, who says that the pseudo-Clement lived not long before Sulpicius, whereas he lived two hundred years before him. Origen, the first herald of the Recognitions, fleeing the wrath of Caracalla, first withdrew from Alexandria into Palestine. But twice
Editors' notes and page, col. 1189
Footnotes
(18) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1189 (above the part of the page shown)
Origen., tom. III Comment. in Genes., ad cap. I, 14; in Philocal. cap. 22, et in Comment. ad Matth. XXVI, 6.
Origen, tome III of the Commentary on Genesis, on ch. 1:14; in the Philocalia, ch. 22; and in the Commentary on Matthew 26:6.
(printed under page 592)
(19) ‹anchor: ducit Blondellus› · call in col 1189
Blondell., Prolegom. ad pseudo-Isidor., pag. 59, et Censur. Epist. 1 Clem., pag. 28.
Blondel, Prolegomena to pseudo-Isidore, p. 59, and Censure of the First Epistle of Clement, p. 28.
(printed under page 592)
(20) ‹anchor: accesserunt Cotelerius› · call in col 1189
Coteler. Judic. de libr. Recognit., pag. 484.
Cotelier, Judgment on the books of the Recognitions, p. 484.
(printed under page 592)
(21) ‹anchor: et Grabius› · call in col 1189
Grab. Spicil. tom. I, pag. 277-279.
Grabe, Spicilegium, vol. I, pp. 277–279.
(printed under page 592)
(22) ‹anchor: Sixtus Senensis› · call in col 1189
Sixt. Sen., Bibl. lib. II.
Sixtus of Siena, Bibliotheca, Book II.
(printed under page 592)
(23) ‹anchor: censet Recognitiones› · call in col 1189
Dodw., Dissert. VI in Iren., § XI, pag. 443.
Dodwell, Dissertation VI on Irenaeus, § 11, p. 443.
(printed under page 592)
(24) ‹anchor: lapsus, aientis› · call in col 1189
Allix., Diatr. de ann. et mens. natal. Dom., pag. 8.
Allix, Diatribe on the Year and Month of the Lord's Birth, p. 8.
(printed under page 592)
Page
- running head: 1189 RECOGNITIONES. — PROOEMIA. 1190
- marginal letters: (none in this column; the letters A B C D stand between the columns beside col. 1190)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: settle: full_width — page 592 (cols 1189–1190): synopsis items III–VIII at the head of the page are printed across both columns; set once here, read from the col. 1189 and col. 1190 crops together. Foot-note calls (18)–(23) [text] and (24) removed; foot notes 18–22 stand at the foot of this column (not set here). The last word "autem" is split at the column break (au- | tem) and is set whole here; c1190_a.md begins at "illuc".
illuc eum convolasse animadvertit Huetius. Prius Origenis iter in Palaestinam, ubi Caesareae pedem fixit, sanctoque Alexandro Hierosolymorum episcopo innotuit, ab Huetio illigatur anno Domini 215. Ex hoc itinere, post caesum Caracallam anno 217, Origenes Hierosolymis Alexandriam redux, secum Recognitiones tulisse dicendus est, unde ipse illarum sententias suis Commentariis admiscuit; quorum octo priores tomos in Genesim Eusebius ex tomo eorum nono ostendit Alexandriae fuisse conscriptos, et quidem post Origenis iter illud primum in Palaestinam. Recognitiones vero in Palaestina concinnatas, cum Blondello facile credimus, quandoquidem in illis thronus Hierosolymitanae Ecclesiae supra caeteros extollitur.
Huet observes that he hastened thither. Origen's earlier journey into Palestine, when he settled at Caesarea and became known to Saint Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, is tied by Huet to the year of the Lord 215. From this journey, after Caracalla was slain in the year 217, Origen, returning from Jerusalem to Alexandria, must be said to have brought the Recognitions with him, whence he himself mingled their sentences into his own Commentaries; the first eight tomes of which, on Genesis, Eusebius shows from their ninth tome to have been written at Alexandria, and indeed after that first journey of Origen into Palestine. And that the Recognitions were composed in Palestine we readily believe with Blondel, since in them the throne of the Church of Jerusalem is exalted above the rest.
Caeterum operi ex argumento vox Recognitionum adhaesit. Recognitio enim, sive Agnitio, ex Aristotele in Arte poetica, oritur, cum homines olim inter se conjunctissimi, tandem multos post casus in tragoediis et comoediis se mutuo nec opinato agnoscunt. Ita plane in hac pseudo-Clementis commentatione Faustiniano, Mathidiae ac filiis, Clementi, Fausto et Faustino contingit. Itaque cum inscriptione, formam etiam poeticam opus accepisse, vero perquam simile fit Dodwello.
For the rest, the word Recognitions has attached itself to the work from its subject. For a Recognition, or Discovery, according to Aristotle in the Art of Poetry, arises when persons once most closely bound to one another at length, after many chances, recognize each other unexpectedly in tragedies and comedies. So plainly it happens in this composition of the pseudo-Clement to Faustinianus, to Mathidia and to the sons, Clement, Faustus and Faustinus. And so it seems very likely to Dodwell that the work received, together with its title, a poetic form as well.
III. Gelasius pontifex in Decreto genuino, ex veterrimo codice Vaticano, olim a me edito, hanc censuram de Recognitionibus a Rufino conversis pronuntiavit: Itinerarium, nomine Petri apostoli, quod appellatur sancti Clementis, apocryphum. Nullus hic, ut in caeteris editionibus, librorum numerus explicatur, quia is pendebat ex arbitrio librariorum. Gelasius, sancti Clementis opus quidem appellari, non esse, dixit; eique publicam lectionem et canonicam auctoritatem vocabulo apocryphi abjudicavit. Gelasium in concilio Romano LXX episcoporum sic definientem, Clementinas Recognitiones a Rufino translatas sub nomine Itinerarii indicasse, haud dubitandum. Non ideo tamen privata auctoritas apud plurimos Ecclesiae Latinae scriptores illis defuit. De Graecis
III. Pope Gelasius, in the genuine Decree which I once published from a very ancient Vatican codex, pronounced this censure on the Recognitions translated by Rufinus: The Itinerary, under the name of the apostle Peter, which is called Saint Clement's, apocryphal. Here, unlike in the other editions, no number of books is set out, because that depended on the will of the copyists. Gelasius said that the work is indeed called Saint Clement's, not that it is his; and by the word apocryphal he denied it public reading and canonical authority. It is not to be doubted that Gelasius, so defining in the Roman council of LXX bishops, pointed under the name of the Itinerary to the Clementine Recognitions translated by Rufinus. Yet they did not on that account lack private authority among very many writers of the Latin Church. Of the Greeks
Editors' notes and page, col. 1190
Footnotes
(25) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1190 (presumably; above the part of the page shown)
Huet. Origenian. lib. I, capit. 2, 4, § VI, pag. 10.
Huet, Origeniana, Book I, chapters 2, 4, § 6, p. 10.
(printed under page 592)
(26) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1190 (presumably; above the part of the page shown)
Euseb., Hist. eccl., lib. VI, cap. 19.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, ch. 19.
(printed under page 592)
(27) ‹anchor: fit Dodwello› · call in col 1190
Dodw., l. c., pag. 444.
Dodwell, in the place cited, p. 444.
(printed under page 592)
(28) ‹anchor: a me edito› · call in col 1190
Fontan. Antiqq. Hort., pagg. 317-331.
Fontanini, Antiquities of Horta, pp. 317–331.
(printed under page 592)
Page
- running head: 1189 RECOGNITIONES. — PROOEMIA. 1190
- marginal letters: A illuc eum convolasse (line begins "tem illuc"); B tollitur.; C apostoli, quod appellatur; D (23) Dodw., Dissert. [beside the first foot note]
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Column begins with "tem", the end of "autem" split at the break; that word is set whole in c1189_a.md, so this file begins at "illuc". Foot-note calls (25)–(28) removed; foot notes 23–28 stand at the foot of this column (not set here). The synopsis lines at the head of the page are full width and set in c1189_a.md. Column ends mid-sentence ("De Graecis").
non loquor. (Verum hac de re mox agendum § VI, ubi de Rufini versione Latina.) Caeterum hos libros, quanquam apocryphos, id est publicae auctoritatis expertes, cum sint maximae antiquitatis, non parum fructus idcirco adferre posse, cum Nourryo sentimus. Nam Christianae religionis Apologia sunt; et gentilium fabulae, cultusque ethnici, fatique assertorum errores, in eis refutantur. Neque inutile opus iis esse poterit, qui philosophorum opiniones, gentium mores, consuetudines allegoricasque fabularum explicationes scire voluerint. Nec sane facile esset plurima Latinorum loca intelligere, si his Recognitionibus careremus. Hoc etiam fatetur auctor praefationis ad novam Cotelerii editionem, qui alias de more suo non pauca perperam dicit. Librorum analysi pertexenda supersedemus, cum id praestiterit laudatus Nourryus (vide supra).
I do not speak. (But this matter is to be treated presently in § VI, where the Latin version of Rufinus is discussed.) For the rest, we hold with Le Nourry that these books, although apocryphal, that is, devoid of public authority, can on that account bring no small fruit, since they are of the greatest antiquity. For they are an Apology for the Christian religion; and the fables of the gentiles, and heathen worship, and the errors of the upholders of fate are refuted in them. Nor can the work be useless to those who wish to know the opinions of the philosophers, the manners and customs of the nations, and the allegorical explanations of the fables. Nor indeed would it be easy to understand very many passages of the Latin writers, if we lacked these Recognitions. This is admitted even by the author of the preface to the new edition of Cotelier, who elsewhere, after his manner, says not a few things wrongly. We forbear to work through an analysis of the books, since the aforesaid Le Nourry has done this (see above).
Quamvis autem genuinum et primarium Recognitionum artificem, doctrina rerumque varietate et copia abundare non diffiteamur; philosophum tamen se prodere, nemo non videt: at catholicum certe, quamvis philologum magis quam theologum. Cotelerii verba non praeteribo, totius commentationis argumenta complexi in suae editionis praefatione, ubi vocat syntagma theologicis, historicis, philosophicis et astrologicis rebus refertum. Accedat etiam Barthius, qui libros ait antiquos esse, et bonarum rerum plenos. Eosdem saepenumero illustrat, et acri etiam censura perstringit, vetus fragmentum appellans, et Latine conversum, cum nondum genus dicendi barbarismis admodum inquinatum esset, nec mistam olim Gothorum aut talium illuviem oleat, etsi suis etiam naevis non careat. Rem concludit, bonorum monitorum gratia se talia libenter perlegere: tam, inquit, de eorum veritate securi, quam si Apuleium, aut Apollonium aliquem, vel Philostratum volveremus. Recte quidem ita censet Barthius de veritate historica, si hanc interdum spectes. Non ita de dogmate, de quo aliter Lambertus Gruterus: Nusquam non, inquit, in hoc libro defenditur liberum hominis arbitrium, baptismi et eucharistiae vis, necessitas ac dignitas. Praeterea trinitas personarum unius Dei, providentiaque astruuntur. Docetur item non contemnenda esse miracula ad martyrum sepulcra edita. Sed sunt hic tamen loci quidam, veluti naevi, quos pium lectorem vel caute legere, vel suspectos habere oportet. Ne
But although we do not deny that the genuine and principal maker of the Recognitions abounds in learning and in variety and plenty of matter, yet no one fails to see that he betrays himself a philosopher: but certainly a Catholic, although more a philologist than a theologian. I shall not pass over the words of Cotelier, who embraced the arguments of the whole composition in the preface to his edition, where he calls it a compilation crammed with theological, historical, philosophical and astrological matters. Let Barth also be added, who says that the books are ancient, and full of good things. He often illustrates them, and also touches them with sharp censure, calling the work an old fragment, and turned into Latin when the manner of speaking had not yet been greatly defiled by barbarisms, nor does it smell of the filth of the Goths or of such as were once mingled in, although it is not without blemishes of its own. He concludes the matter by saying that he gladly reads such things through for the sake of the good admonitions: as unconcerned, he says, about their truth as if we were turning over Apuleius, or some Apollonius, or Philostratus. Rightly indeed does Barth so judge of the historical truth, if you look now and then to this. Not so of the doctrine, of which Lambert Gruter speaks otherwise: Everywhere, he says, in this book the free will of man is defended, and the power, necessity and dignity of baptism and of the eucharist. Moreover the trinity of persons of the one God, and providence, are established. It is likewise taught that the miracles wrought at the tombs of the martyrs are not to be despised. Yet there are here certain passages, like blemishes, which the pious reader ought either to read cautiously or to hold suspect. Lest
Editors' notes and page, col. 1191
Footnotes
(29) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1191 (above the part of the page shown)
Nourr., Appar. ad Bibl. PP., tom. I, Dissert. XI, art. 7, pag. 223.
Le Nourry, Apparatus to the Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. I, Dissertation XI, art. 7, p. 223.
(printed under page 593)
(30) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1191 (above the part of the page shown)
Nourr., l. c., pag. 211.
Le Nourry, in the place cited, p. 211.
(printed under page 593)
(31) ‹anchor: libros ait› · call in col 1191
Barth., Advers. lib. XLV, cap. 5.
Barth, Adversaria, Book XLV, ch. 5.
(printed under page 593)
(32) ‹anchor: Lambertus Gruterus› · call in col 1191
Gruter., Praefat. ad Clement. edit. Colon. Agripp. 1569.
Gruter, Preface to Clement, Cologne edition of 1569.
(printed under page 593)
Page
- running head: 1191 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 1192
- marginal letters: (none in this column; the letters A B C D stand between the columns beside col. 1192)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Column begins mid-sentence (continues "De Graecis" of col. 1190) and ends mid-sentence at "Ne". Foot-note calls (29)–(32) removed; foot notes 29–36 stand at the foot of this column (not set here); note 33 is signed EDIT. (Migne's own). The parenthesis "(vide supra)" is kept as printed; it is probably Migne's cross-reference rather than Gallandi's. Head partly read from the col. 1192 side of the page (not yet seen when this file was written: "OPERA DUBIA. 1192" inferred from the matching head of page 591) — UNSURE until confirmed.
quis fallatur, ejusmodi haec sunt numeris notata suis locis, ut quis observare possit. Hi naevi a Grutero explicati, sex numero sunt, qui apud ipsum videri possunt. (In eamdem Gruteri sententiam videsis quae inferius ex Marano viro doctissimo sunt adnotata, ubi sermo de Clementinis. Postremo loco adjungamus Hugonis Grotii de his libris judicium: Recognitionum, ait, qui dicuntur libri, eatenus apud me valent, quatenus aliorum dictis congruunt. Caeteroquin probo cardinalis Baronii de iis judicium, qui ex Epiphanio, Rufino aliisque, dicit, illis libris plurima fuisse assuta, et inter ea omnes illas fabulas de iis, quae Caesareae fecisse dicitur Petrus contra Simonem.
anyone be deceived, these of this kind have been marked with numbers in their places, so that one may observe them. These blemishes, set out by Gruter, are six in number, and may be seen in his work. (To the same opinion of Gruter, see, if you please, what is noted below from the most learned Maran, where the Clementines are discussed. In the last place let us add the judgment of Hugo Grotius on these books: The books of the Recognitions, as they are called, he says, have weight with me so far as they agree with the statements of others. For the rest, I approve the judgment of Cardinal Baronius about them, who says, on the authority of Epiphanius, Rufinus and others, that very many things were stitched on to those books, and among them all those fables about the things which Peter is said to have done at Caesarea against Simon.
Caeterum omnium ferme ordinum catholicorum scriptores Clementi Romano Recognitiones abjudicant.
For the rest, Catholic writers of almost every order deny the Recognitions to Clement of Rome.
Primo ex cardinalium senatu Baronius, prudentia et gravitate admirandus. Baronium subsequitur Bellarminus.
First, from the senate of the cardinals, Baronius, admirable for prudence and gravity. Bellarmine follows Baronius.
Ex ordine episcoporum Carolus Bovius Ostunensis antistes.
From the order of bishops, Carlo Bovio, bishop of Ostuni.
Ex ordine Praedicatorum Franciscus Victoria.
From the Order of Preachers, Francisco de Vitoria.
Ex presbyteris Societatis Jesu Benedictus Pererius, Joannes Lorinus, Nicolaus Serarius, Antonius Possevinus.
From the priests of the Society of Jesus, Benedict Pereira, Jean Lorin, Nicolaus Serarius, Antonio Possevino.
Ex Academia Lovaniensi Joannes Driedo.
From the University of Louvain, John Driedo.
Ex Academia Parisiensi Natalis Beda.
From the University of Paris, Noël Beda.
IV. Nunc vero de Latina Recognitionum versione agendum. Paulinus Nolanus Rufinum ex coenobio Pineti Romam iturum, per litteras humanissime salutavit, gratiis amico habitis, quod se de Graecis litteris attentius perdiscendis commonuisset, postquam Latinam Operum sancti Clementis ab se adornatam editionem, ad eumdem Rufinum transmiserat. Vir sanctus et modestissimus imperitiae suae tribuit, quod alicubi sensum magis quam verba, quippe ab se non intellecta, converterit. Sed Paulinum ipsum loquentem audiamus: Sane inquit, quod admonere dignaris affectu illo, quo nos sicut te diligis, ut studium in Graecis litteris attentius sumam, libenter accipio; sed implere non valeo; nisi forte desideria mea adjuvat Dominus, ut diutius consortio tuo perfruar. Nam quomodo profectum capere potero sermonis ignoti, si desit a quo ignorata condiscam? Credo enim in translatione sancti Clementis, praeter alias ingenii mei defectiones,
IV. But now the Latin version of the Recognitions must be treated. Paulinus of Nola most courteously greeted Rufinus by letter, when he was about to go to Rome from the monastery of Pinetum, giving thanks to his friend for having admonished him to learn Greek letters more attentively, after he had sent to the same Rufinus the Latin edition of the Works of Saint Clement which he had prepared. The holy and most modest man attributes it to his own want of skill that in some places he rendered the sense rather than the words, since he had not understood them. But let us hear Paulinus himself speaking: Indeed, he says, what you deign to urge, with that affection by which you love us as yourself, that I should take up the study of Greek letters more attentively, I gladly accept; but I am not able to fulfil it; unless perhaps the Lord helps my desires, so that I may enjoy your company longer. For how shall I be able to make progress in an unknown tongue, if there is lacking one from whom I may learn what I do not know? For I believe that in the translation of Saint Clement, besides the other failings of my ability,
Editors' notes and page, col. 1192
Footnotes
(33) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1192 (presumably; above the part of the page shown)
In Prooemiis ad Clementina, hujusce Patr. t. II, initio, Edit.
In the Prefaces to the Clementines, at the beginning of vol. II of this Patrologia. — Editor.
(printed under page 593)
(34) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1192 (presumably; above the part of the page shown)
Grot., Opp. tom. III, pag. 488.
Grotius, Works, vol. III, p. 488.
(printed under page 593)
(35) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1192 (presumably; above the part of the page shown)
Baron., ad ann. 34, § CCLXXX et CCXCI; ann. 41, § X, ann. 44, § XXXVI; ann. 51, § LIII; ann. 102, § XXII.
Baronius, at the year 34, §§ 280 and 291; year 41, § 10; year 44, § 36; year 51, § 53; year 102, § 22.
(printed under page 593)
(36) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1192 (presumably; above the part of the page shown)
Bellarm., De script. eccl., pag. 52, et lib. II De Rom. pont., cap. 2.
Bellarmine, On Ecclesiastical Writers, p. 52, and Book II On the Roman Pontiff, ch. 2.
(printed under page 593)
(37) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1192 (presumably; above the part of the page shown)
Bov., Praefat. ad Const. apost.
Bovius, Preface to the Apostolic Constitutions.
(printed under page 593)
(38) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1192 (presumably; above the part of the page shown)
Victor., tom. II, Relect. XII, De art. magic., § XXXV.
Vitoria, vol. II, Relectio XII, On the Magic Art, § 35.
(printed under page 593)
(39) ‹anchor: Benedictus Pererius› · call in col 1192 (the call itself is hidden under a blot in the scan; placed by sequence)
Perer., in Genes., lib. II, quaest. 1, pag. 40 edit. 1 Rom.
Pererius, On Genesis, Book II, question 1, p. 40 of the first Roman edition.
(printed under page 593)
(40) ‹anchor: Joannes Lorinus› · call in col 1192
Lorin., in Act. apost. cap. XIX, § IX.
Lorinus, On the Acts of the Apostles, ch. 19, § 9.
(printed under page 593)
(41) ‹anchor: Nicolaus Serarius› · call in col 1192
Serar., tom. I, opusc. de apost., § I, pag. 27, edit. Mogunt. 1611.
Serarius, vol. I, the little work On the Apostles, § 1, p. 27, Mainz edition of 1611.
(printed under page 593)
(42) ‹anchor: Antonius Possevinus› · call in col 1192
Possev., in Apparat.
Possevino, in the Apparatus.
(printed under page 593)
(43) ‹anchor: Joannes Driedo› · call in col 1192
Dried., tom. I De eccl. dogm., part. V, lib. IV, cap. 5, fol. A, edit. Lovan. 1572.
Driedo, vol. I, On the Dogmas of the Church, part V, Book IV, ch. 5, leaf A, Louvain edition of 1572.
(printed under page 593)
(44) ‹anchor: Natalis Beda› · call in col 1192
Beda, contr. Jac. Fabr., propos. 103.
Beda, Against Jacques Lefèvre, proposition 103.
(printed under page 593)
(45) ‹anchor: humanissime salutavit› · call in col 1192
Paulin., Epist. 46, al. 47, num. 2.
Paulinus, Letter 46, otherwise 47, no. 2.
(printed under page 593)
Page
- running head: 1191 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 1192
- marginal letters: A quis fallatur, ejusmodi haec; B scriptores Clementi Romano; C agendum. Paulinus Nolanus; D tius consortio tuo perfruar [between this line and the next, "ctum capere"]
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Column begins mid-sentence (continues "Ne" of col. 1191). Foot-note calls (33)–(45) removed; foot notes 37–45 stand at the foot of this column, 33–36 under col. 1191 (not set here). "Postremo": the final o is a damaged or turned sort, read as o. "Sane inquit" without comma after Sane, as printed. The last word "defectiones" is split at the column break (defectio- | nes,) and is set whole here with its comma, read from the top of col. 1193; c1193_a.md begins at "hanc". This crop confirms the page head left UNSURE in c1191_a.md.
hanc te potissimum imperitiae meae penuriam considerasse, quod aliqua in quibus intelligere vel exprimere verba non potui, sensu potius apprehenso, vel ut verius dicam, opinata transtulerim: quo magis egeo misericordia Dei, ut pleniorem mihi tui copiam tribuat; quia pro divitiis erit pauperi, ut micas a divitis mensa cadentes, arido famelici cordis ore colligere. De Clemente Romano Paulinum hic loqui non est cur quisquam dubitet cum Heriberto Rosweydo. Suo enim is nomine ab Alexandrino aliisque, apud veteres antonomastice se distinguebat. Rufinus, qui Clementinas Recognitiones in libros X distinctas una cum aliis bene multis Graecorum codicibus ex Oriente secum attulerat, in Italiam redux, Paulino hospiti interpretandas commodaverat. Sed Paulinus interpretationem aggressus, ultimam ei manum nequaquam imposuit, quod Rufinus ex specimine ad se misso, eam minus accurate confectam deprehendisset, sanctum virum ut majus studium in Graecis litteris poneret, benevole hortatus. Haec omnia nobis prodit Paulinus. Rosweydus monet in notis, Rufinum vel Paulinum interpretationem interpolasse, vel de novo Clementinos illos vertisse. Vir doctus in re clara haerere non debuit. Hoc enim posterius certissimum est. Neque Rufinus alienam interpretationem, et ab se non probatam, sibi usurpasset. Hanc Rosweydi dubitationem illud satis convellit, quod Paulinus, aliqua in quibus intelligere verba non potuit, sensu potius apprehenso se vertisse dicat. Rufinus vero, non solum a sententiis, sed nec a sermonibus quidem satis elocutionibusque, se discessisse profitetur: quae res, inquit, quamvis minus ornatum, magis tamen fidele narrationis reddit eloquium.
you have above all taken note of this poverty of my want of skill, that some things, in which I could not understand or express the words, I have translated by grasping the sense rather, or, to speak more truly, by conjecture: wherefore I the more need the mercy of God, that He may grant me a fuller enjoyment of you; because it will be as riches to a poor man to gather, with the parched mouth of a famished heart, the crumbs falling from the rich man's table. There is no reason why anyone should doubt, with Heribert Rosweyde, that Paulinus is here speaking of Clement of Rome. For among the ancients he was distinguished by his own name, by antonomasia, from the Alexandrian and from others. Rufinus, who had brought with him from the East the Clementine Recognitions divided into X books, together with a good many other codices of the Greeks, on his return to Italy had lent them to Paulinus, his host, to be translated. But Paulinus, having set about the translation, by no means put the last hand to it, because Rufinus, from a specimen sent to him, had found it less accurately done, and had kindly exhorted the holy man to apply greater study to Greek letters. All these things Paulinus discloses to us. Rosweyde remarks in his notes that Rufinus either interpolated Paulinus's translation, or translated those Clementine books anew. The learned man ought not to have hesitated in a clear matter. For this latter is most certain. Nor would Rufinus have appropriated to himself another's translation, and one not approved by himself. This doubt of Rosweyde is sufficiently overthrown by the fact that Paulinus says that some things, in which he could not understand the words, he translated by grasping the sense rather. But Rufinus professes that he has departed not only not from the thoughts, but not even far from the words and turns of expression: which thing, he says, renders the style of the narrative, although less ornate, yet more faithful.
V. Rufinus hunc suae Clementinae translationis laborem susceperat, rogatus olim a sancta Silvia virgine, quam Paulinus laudat scribens ad Severum, eam testatus, multorum ex Oriente martyrum reliquias in Italiam convexisse. De illa Rufinus in prologo operis Clementini ad Gaudentium Brixianum episcopum: Nos, inquit, quos et ingenii tenuitas minus promptos, et senecta jam tardos reddit ac segnes, opus quod olim venerandae memoriae Silvia injunxerat, ut Clementem nostrae linguae redderemus, et tu deinceps jure haereditario poscebas, licet multas post moras, tamen aliquando restituimus. Praedam non parvam, Graecorum bibliothecis ereptam, nostrorum usibus et utilitatibus convertamus, ut quos propriis non possumus, peregrinis nutriamus alimentis. Nam et solent suaviora videri peregrina, interdum et utiliora. Ait Rufinus, Gaudentium haereditario jure ab se poposcisse hanc translationem, propterea quod sancta Silvia virgo,
V. Rufinus had undertaken this labour of his Clementine translation at the request, long before, of the holy virgin Silvia, whom Paulinus praises when writing to Severus, testifying that she had conveyed into Italy the relics of many martyrs from the East. Of her Rufinus says in the prologue of the Clementine work to Gaudentius, bishop of Brescia: We, he says, whom both slenderness of ability makes less ready, and old age now makes slow and sluggish, have at last, though after many delays, delivered the work which Silvia of venerable memory had once enjoined, that we should render Clement into our tongue, and which you thereafter were demanding by hereditary right. Let us turn no small booty, snatched from the libraries of the Greeks, to the uses and advantages of our own people, so that those whom we cannot nourish with our own food we may nourish with foreign. For foreign things are wont to seem sweeter, and sometimes more useful too. Rufinus says that Gaudentius had demanded this translation of him by hereditary right, because the holy virgin Silvia,
Editors' notes and page, col. 1193
Footnotes
(46) ‹anchor: scribens ad Severum› · call in col 1193
Paul., epist. 31, al. 11.
Paulinus, Letter 31, otherwise 11.
(printed under page 594)
Page
- running head: 1193 RECOGNITIONES. — PROOEMIA. 1194
- marginal letters: (none in this column; the letters A B C D stand between the columns beside col. 1194)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Column begins with "nes," (end of "defectiones," split at the break, set whole in c1192_a.md); this file begins at "hanc". Ends mid-sentence at "virgo,". Foot-note call (46) removed; foot notes 46–50 stand at the foot of this column: 46 is set above, 47–50 have no call in this column and are not set here. Printer's signature "PATROL. GR. I." at the foot, not set. UNSURE: "Rufinum vel Paulinum interpretationem interpolasse" is set as it reads on the page; the sense asks "Paulini" (so translated), a possible misprint not entered as one. "Silvia" here against "Salviae" in the synopsis (col. 1189), both as printed. Right half of the page head ("PROOEMIA. 1194") is outside this crop and is given from the matching head of page 592; confirm from col. 1194.
cui eamdem ipse spoponderat, Brixiae in sede Gaudentii diem obiisset, ubi ejus corpus quiescit in aede Sancti Laurentii, recoliturque memoria die 15 Decembris. Palladius, qui in Historia Lausiaca se cum Silvia LX annos agente Aegyptum petiisse testatur, Salviam, alias Silvaniam, et Rufini ex-praefecti sororem vocat. In veteri tamen ejusdem Historiae suae versione, quae Paradisus Heraclidis inscribitur, non Silvaniam aut Salviam, sed Silviam dicit. Uterque vero, Palladius et Heraclides, initio capitis subsequentis ll. cc. auctor est, sanctam Olympiadem ecclesiae CP. diaconissam, Silviae egregias virtutes sibi imitandas proposuisse. Tanta nimirum Silviae fuit claritudo et fama sanctitatis, ut aliis in exemplum daretur! Vocabulum ex-praefecti, Graece τοῦ ἀπὸ ἐπάρχων, non est cur Tillemontius ad tempus itineris Palladii cum Silvia in Aegyptum, sive ad annum 388, referendum dicat, cum vere ad annum 420, quo scribebat Palladius, referri debeat. Rufinus enim, Silviae frater, et praefectus praetorio in Oriente sub Arcadio Augusto, affectatae tyrannidis poenas luit Constantinopoli, V Kal. Decembris, a. d. 395, adeoque post annum 388, ex Philostorgio et ex Socrate. Rufino fratre sublato, Silvia soror in Italiam trajecit, ubi aderat anno 398, ex Paulino. Hoc enim anno post festum Sanctorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli, ut diximus Paulinus Victorem in Aquitaniam ad Severum dimisit cum citata epistola 31, cui pro consecratione novae basilicae addidit particulam sanctissimae crucis, ex Melania impetratam. Sed non ita addidit sacros cineres a Severo expetitos, quibus carere se dixit. Victorem tamen ait, spem ejusdem gratiae copiosam habere a sancta Silvia, quae illi de multorum in Oriente martyrum reliquiis spopondisset. Ergo Silvia ex Oriente in Italiam ad illud tempus reverterat. Hac vero circa finem saeculi IV Brixiae demortua, Gaudentius urbis episcopus jure haereditario Clementinas Recognitiones poposcit, quas Rufinus noster Silviae viventi pridem spoponderat. Idem Rufinus sub finem perorationis commentariorum Origenis in Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos, his verbis fidem suam Gaudentio obligaverat: Post hoc sane vocat nos opus, quod olim quidem injunctum est (a Silvia). Sed nunc (post Silviae mortem) a beato Gaudentio episcopo vehementius perurgetur, Clementis scilicet Romani episcopi, apostolorum comitis: quorum ut successoribus darem cognitionem, libri a nobis in Latinum vertuntur.
to whom he himself had promised it, had died at Brescia, in the see of Gaudentius, where her body rests in the church of Saint Lawrence, and her memory is kept on the 15th day of December. Palladius, who testifies in the Lausiac History that he made for Egypt with Silvia when she was in her sixtieth year, calls her Salvia, otherwise Silvania, and the sister of Rufinus the ex-prefect. Yet in the old version of that same History of his, which is entitled the Paradise of Heraclides, he says not Silvania or Salvia, but Silvia. And both, Palladius and Heraclides, at the beginning of the following chapter in the places cited, are authority that Saint Olympias, deaconess of the church of Constantinople, set before herself the outstanding virtues of Silvia to be imitated. So great, plainly, was Silvia's renown and repute for holiness, that she was given to others as an example! There is no reason why Tillemont should say that the term ex-prefect, in Greek τοῦ ἀπὸ ἐπάρχων, is to be referred to the time of Palladius's journey with Silvia into Egypt, that is, to the year 388, since in truth it ought to be referred to the year 420, when Palladius was writing. For Rufinus, Silvia's brother, and praetorian prefect in the East under Arcadius Augustus, paid the penalty for aiming at tyranny at Constantinople, on the fifth day before the Kalends of December, A.D. 395, and so after the year 388, according to Philostorgius and according to Socrates. Her brother Rufinus having been removed, his sister Silvia crossed into Italy, where she was present in the year 398, according to Paulinus. For in this year, after the feast of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, as we have said, Paulinus sent Victor off into Aquitaine to Severus with the letter 31 already cited, to which, for the consecration of the new basilica, he added a particle of the most holy cross, obtained from Melania. But he did not likewise add the sacred ashes sought by Severus, which he said he lacked. Yet he says that Victor has abundant hope of the same favour from the holy Silvia, who had made him a promise concerning the relics of many martyrs in the East. Therefore Silvia had returned from the East into Italy by that time. But when she had died at Brescia about the end of the fourth century, Gaudentius, bishop of the city, demanded by hereditary right the Clementine Recognitions, which our Rufinus had long before promised to Silvia while she lived. The same Rufinus, towards the end of the peroration to Origen's commentaries on Paul's Epistle to the Romans, had pledged his word to Gaudentius in these words: After this, to be sure, a work calls us which was indeed enjoined long ago (by Silvia). But now (after Silvia's death) it is more vehemently pressed by the blessed bishop Gaudentius, namely that of Clement, bishop of Rome, companion of the apostles: that I might give knowledge of whom to their successors, the books are being turned by us into Latin.
Rosweydus in notis ad Paulini epistolam 47, quae in nova editione est 46, postque eum Cotelerius ad Recognitiones, aeque ancipites sunt, Gaudentio
Rosweyde, in his notes on the letter 47 of Paulinus, which in the new edition is 46, and after him Cotelier on the Recognitions, are equally in doubt whether it was to Gaudentius,
Editors' notes and page, col. 1194
Footnotes
(47) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1194 (presumably; above the part of the page shown)
Bolland., Act. SS. April., tom. III, pag. 495, § 3.
The Bollandists, Acta Sanctorum for April, vol. III, p. 495, § 3.
(printed under page 594)
(48) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1194 (presumably; above the part of the page shown)
Pallad., Hist. Laus., cap. 142.
Palladius, Lausiac History, ch. 142.
(printed under page 594)
(49) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1194 (presumably; above the part of the page shown)
Parad. Heracl., cap. 42, pag. 977, edit. 2, Rosweyd.
The Paradise of Heraclides, ch. 42, p. 977, second edition, Rosweyde.
(printed under page 594)
(50) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1194 (presumably; above the part of the page shown)
Tillem., Mem. eccl., tom. XI, pag. 639.
Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, vol. XI, p. 639.
(printed under page 594)
(51) ‹anchor: ex Philostorgio› · call in col 1194
Philostorg., lib. IX, cap. 3, edit. Gothofr.
Philostorgius, Book IX, ch. 3, Godefroy's edition.
(printed under page 594)
(52) ‹anchor: ex Socrate› · call in col 1194
Socrat., lib. V, cap. 1.
Socrates, Book V, ch. 1.
(printed under page 594)
(53) ‹anchor: ex Paulino› · call in col 1194
Paulin., Epist. 31, al. 11.
Paulinus, Letter 31, otherwise 11.
(printed under page 594)
(54) ‹anchor: ut diximus› · call in col 1194
Fontan., Hist. Litter. Aquil., lib. IV, cap. 5, § III, pag. 194.
Fontanini, Literary History of Aquileia, Book IV, ch. 5, § 3, p. 194.
(printed under page 594)
Page
- running head: 1193 RECOGNITIONES. — PROOEMIA. 1194
- marginal letters: A cui eamdem ipse spoponderat; B Vocabulum ex-praefecti, Graece; C citata epistola 31, cui pro; D sane vocat nos opus, quod
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Column begins mid-sentence (continues "virgo," of col. 1193). Foot-note calls (47)–(54) removed; foot notes 51–54 stand at the foot of this column, 46–50 under col. 1193 (not set here). Printer's signature "38" at the foot, not set. Greek phrase read through a vertical scratch across the last word; ἐπάρχων secure from the letter shapes. No comma after "ut diximus", as printed. The last word "Gaudentio" is split at the column break (Gau- | dentio) and set whole here, read from the top of col. 1195; c1195_a.md begins at "Brixiano". This crop confirms the page head given in c1193_a.md.
Brixiano episcopo, an Novariensi Rufinus illud opus inscripserit. Alio abiit primus libri vulgator Jacobus Faber Stapulensis, Gaudentium gloriosum Christi martyrem pariter et Ariminensem episcopum prae oculis habens: qui tamen sub Constantio Augusto, tanto ante, pro Christo sanguinem fuderat. Varie variis hoc pacto serram ducentibus, quanto melius David Blondellus de Brixiensi omnino intellexit! Rufinum in praefatione ad Gaudentium hoc diserte comprobantem audiamus: Tibi quidem Gaudenti, nostrorum decus insigne doctorum, tantus ingenii vigor, imo tanta spiritus gratia est, ut si quid a te etiam quotidiani eloquii more dicitur; si quid in ecclesia declamatur, id in libris haberi, et ad instructionem tradi posteris debeat. Infra vero: Aequum est sane tibi, qui haec etiam Graece legeris (ne forte in aliquibus a nobis servatum translationis ordinem putes), interpretationis nostrae indicare consilium. Haec elogia in Gaudentium episcopum a Rufino congesta, uni Brixiano aptari possunt; praeterea nemini. Is enim fuit doctor vel tractator insignis. Ita enim qui verbum Dei sacrasque litteras vel voce vel scripto exponerent ac docerent, ab ecclesiasticis scriptoribus passim dici, adnotavit Franciscus Bernardinus Ferrarius, ex Gaudentio Brixiano exemplum etiam adducens, a quo Sermones sui, in ecclesia declamati, ut Rufinus loqui amat, tractatus dicuntur in praefatione ad Benivolum. Idem eximius antistes se comperisse ait, a notariis latenter appositis, tractatus suos ex ore loquentis collectos. Hoc idem inquit Rufinus his verbis: Si quid a te, etiam quotidiani eloquii more dicitur, si quid in ecclesia declamatur, et ad instructionem tradi videmus: ab iis nimirum qui notarios, ea omnia clam excepturos, submittebant. Gaudentius, teste Rufino, Graecas litteras calluit. Quidni vero, qui sacras peregrinationes per Orientem se suscepisse testatur, ubi eousque fama ejus virtutum pervenit, ut Orientalium praesulum suasu episcopali oneri, post Philastrii obitum, a suis per legationem eo missam sibi denuntiato, humeros supposuerit? Ibidem Joanni Chrysostomo nondum episcopo stricta necessitudine adhaesit; proque eo, postmodum episcopatu dejecto, legatus Ecclesiae Romanae Constantinopolim missus est. Ad ejusdem Gaudentii sermonem 16, Chrysostomi epistolam 184, Palladii Dialogum, cap. 4, et Nicephorum Callistum lib. XIII, cap. 22. Itaque nulla
bishop of Brescia, or to the bishop of Novara, that Rufinus inscribed that work. The first publisher of the book, Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples, went off in another direction, having before his eyes Gaudentius, the glorious martyr of Christ and likewise bishop of Rimini: who, however, had shed his blood for Christ under Constantius Augustus, so long before. While different men thus draw the saw in different ways, how much better did David Blondel understand it altogether of the bishop of Brescia! Let us hear Rufinus expressly confirming this in the preface to Gaudentius: You indeed, Gaudentius, signal ornament of our teachers, have such vigour of mind, nay such grace of the Spirit, that if anything is said by you even in the manner of daily speech, if anything is declaimed in the church, it ought to be kept in books and handed down to posterity for instruction. And further on: It is certainly fair to make known the plan of our translation to you, who have read these things in Greek also (lest perhaps you should think the order of the translation kept by us in some places). These praises heaped by Rufinus upon the bishop Gaudentius can be fitted to the one of Brescia alone; to no one besides. For he was a distinguished teacher or expositor. For that those who expounded and taught the word of God and the sacred letters, whether by voice or in writing, are everywhere so called by ecclesiastical writers, Francesco Bernardino Ferrari has noted, adducing an example also from Gaudentius of Brescia, by whom his own Sermons, declaimed in the church, as Rufinus likes to say, are called tractates in the preface to Benivolus. The same excellent bishop says that he found out that his tractates had been gathered from his mouth as he spoke, by notaries secretly posted. Rufinus says this same thing in these words: If anything is said by you, even in the manner of daily speech, if anything is declaimed in the church, we also see it handed down for instruction: namely by those who used to send in notaries to take all those things down secretly. Gaudentius, on the witness of Rufinus, was skilled in Greek letters. And why not, since he testifies that he undertook sacred pilgrimages through the East, where the fame of his virtues spread so far that, at the persuasion of the Eastern prelates, he put his shoulders under the episcopal burden which, after the death of Philastrius, had been announced to him by his own people through an embassy sent thither? In the same place he attached himself in close friendship to John Chrysostom, not yet a bishop; and on his behalf, when he was afterwards cast out of his episcopate, he was sent to Constantinople as legate of the Roman Church. [See] sermon 16 of the same Gaudentius, letter 184 of Chrysostom, the Dialogue of Palladius, chapter 4, and Nicephorus Callistus, book XIII, chapter 22. And so no
Editors' notes and page, col. 1195
Footnotes
(55) ‹anchor: omnino intellexit› · call in col 1195
Blondell., Pseudo-Isidor., pag. 28.
Blondel, Pseudo-Isidore, p. 28.
(printed under page 595)
(56) ‹anchor: Bernardinus Ferrarius› · call in col 1195
Ferrar., De rit. sacrar. conc., lib. I, cap. 2.
Ferrari, On the Rite of Sacred Sermons, Book I, ch. 2.
(printed under page 595)
Page
- running head: 1195 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 1196
- marginal letters: A ‹Brixiano episcopo, an Novariensi›; B ‹debeat. Infra vero: Aequum est›; C ‹ait, a notariis latenter appositis›; D ‹Ecclesiae Romanae Constantinopolim missus est› (the letters stand between the columns and serve col. 1196 as well)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Column begins with "dentio" (end of "Gaudentio", set whole in c1194_a.md); this file begins at "Brixiano". Ends mid-sentence at "nulla". Foot-note calls (55), (56) removed; foot notes 55–63 stand at the foot of this column: 55 and 56, called here, are set above; 57–63, called in col. 1196, are not set here (note 63 runs over to the foot of col. 1196). "Benivolum": a mark like a circumflex stands over the u in the print; set without it. The parenthesis "(ne forte … putes)" is translated as printed, without the negative the sense seems to ask. "consilium" read through a smudge.
superest dubitatio quin Gaudentius episcopus cui Rufinus Clementem suum nuncupavit, fuerit Brixianus, non alius.
doubt remains that the bishop Gaudentius to whom Rufinus dedicated his Clement was the one of Brescia, and no other.
VI. Haec fusius prosecutus sum propter doctissimos viros, Sixtum Senensem et Robertum Bellarminum venerabilem cardinalem, qui Rufini praefationem ad Gaudentium pro commentitia nimis propere habuerunt. Bellarmini proferam verba ob glossam quam Labbeus illis adnectit: Sicut ipsae Recognitiones falso fortasse tribuuntur Clementi, ita etiam non est incredibile falso illis adjunctam fuisse praefationem Rufini quasi interpretis. Ad haec sic scribit Labbeus: Verum imposturam non agnovit Gennadius, nec ejus sequaces Honorius et Trithemius. Post Joannem Rainoldum, nostrorum exscriptorem, in Censura apocryphorum, eodem ac Sixtus et Bellarminus spectavit Gerardus Joannes Vossius, Rufini vel alterius sub ejus nomine praefationem appellans. Imo infra nedum praefationem prorsus fictitiam, sed et libros ipsos Recognitionum ab alio quam a Rufino translatos, se credere malle significat. Vossio ad errorem praeiverat Gaspar Barthius his verbis: Recognitionum Clementis titulo inscripti libri, Clementem ne auctorem et Rufinum interpretem habeant, non est facile decidere. Viris litteratura excultissimis nollem haec excidissent. Nunquid difficile est decidere, quod spissa et locuples veterum monumentorum auctoritas comprobat? Nihili ergo est Rufinus ipse in peroratione Commentariorum Origenis in Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos, ubi, Gaudentio episcopo perurgente, se operam dare ait, ut Clementem Latinum faciat? Nihili Gennadius, Clementis Romani Recognitionum libros a Rufino Latine redditos narrans? Longum fit iter conficiendum, si alios deinde rem eamdem testantes percurrere velim. At indictos abire non patiar nonnullos. Anastasius Bibliothecarius in epistola ad Joannem Diaconum: Clementem, ait, quem Rufinus nostrae linguae redditum, restitutum et redeuntem, ad Gaudentium scribens, innuit. De versione item Rufini agens sanctus Isidorus, Hispalensis episcopus, ex ea testimonium adducit. Sanctus Aldhelmus laudat Itinerarium Petri (sunt Clementis Recognitiones), Rufino in Latinum ex Graecorum bibliothecis vertente. Ad haec Beda Recognitionibus utitur. Item Agobardus, Freculfus, Hincmarus et Honorius. Tam disertis testibus consonant Recognitionum codices mss. plane omnes, Rufini interpretis nomen praeferentes. Quo
VI. I have pursued these things at greater length on account of most learned men, Sixtus of Siena and Robert Bellarmine, the venerable cardinal, who too hastily held the preface of Rufinus to Gaudentius for a fabrication. I shall bring forward Bellarmine's words on account of the gloss which Labbe attaches to them: Just as the Recognitions themselves are perhaps falsely attributed to Clement, so also it is not incredible that the preface of Rufinus, as though of the translator, was falsely joined to them. To this Labbe writes thus: But Gennadius did not recognize an imposture, nor his followers Honorius and Trithemius. After John Rainolds, the copier of our writers, in his Censure of the Apocryphal Books, Gerhard Johann Vossius looked the same way as Sixtus and Bellarmine, calling it the preface of Rufinus or of another under his name. Indeed further on he signifies that he prefers to believe not only that the preface is wholly fictitious, but also that the books of the Recognitions themselves were translated by another than Rufinus. Caspar Barth had led the way for Vossius into error with these words: Whether the books inscribed with the title of the Recognitions of Clement have Clement for author and Rufinus for translator is not easy to decide. I could wish that these things had not escaped men most highly cultivated in letters. Is it difficult to decide what the dense and rich authority of the ancient monuments confirms? Is Rufinus himself, then, of no account, in the peroration of Origen's Commentaries on Paul's Epistle to the Romans, where he says that, at the pressing of the bishop Gaudentius, he is giving his efforts to making Clement Latin? Is Gennadius of no account, relating that the books of the Recognitions of Clement of Rome were rendered into Latin by Rufinus? The road to be travelled becomes long, if I should then wish to run through the others who attest the same thing. But some I shall not allow to go unmentioned. Anastasius the Librarian, in the letter to John the Deacon: Clement, he says, whom Rufinus, writing to Gaudentius, intimates to have been rendered, restored and returning to our tongue. Likewise Saint Isidore, bishop of Seville, treating of the version of Rufinus, adduces a testimony from it. Saint Aldhelm cites the Itinerary of Peter (these are the Recognitions of Clement), Rufinus turning it into Latin from the libraries of the Greeks. Besides these, Bede makes use of the Recognitions. Likewise Agobard, Freculf, Hincmar and Honorius. With such express witnesses agree plainly all the manuscript codices of the Recognitions, bearing on their front the name of Rufinus as translator. That
Editors' notes and page, col. 1196
Footnotes
(57) ‹anchor: Sixtum Senensem› · call in col 1196
Sixt. Sen., Bibl. lib. II, pag. 83, ubi de Clement. Recognit.
Sixtus of Siena, Bibliotheca, Book II, p. 83, where he treats of Clement's Recognitions.
(printed under page 595)
(58) ‹anchor: Robertum Bellarminum› · call in col 1196
Bellarm., Catal., ad ann. 390, pag. 155, ubi de Rufino.
Bellarmine, Catalogue, at the year 390, p. 155, where he treats of Rufinus.
(printed under page 595)
(59) ‹anchor: scribit Labbeus› · call in col 1196
Lab., Dissert. philol. de script. eccl., tom. II, pag. 309.
Labbe, Philological Dissertation on Ecclesiastical Writers, vol. II, p. 309.
(printed under page 595)
(60) ‹anchor: praefationem appellans› · call in col 1196
Voss., De Hist. Gr., lib. II, cap. 9.
Vossius, On the Greek Historians, Book II, ch. 9.
(printed under page 595)
(61) ‹anchor: his verbis› · call in col 1196
Barth., Advers., lib. XLV, cap. 5.
Barth, Adversaria, Book XLV, ch. 5.
(printed under page 595)
(62) ‹anchor: Nihili Gennadius› · call in col 1196
Gennad., De script. eccl., cap. 17.
Gennadius, On Ecclesiastical Writers, ch. 17.
(printed under page 595)
(63) ‹anchor: Joannem Diaconum› · call in col 1196
Anast., inter Opp. Sirmond., tom. III, pag. 472.
Anastasius, among the Works of Sirmond, vol. III, p. 472.
(printed under page 595)
(64) ‹anchor: testimonium adducit› · call in col 1196
Isidor., De nat. rer., capp. 17 et 31, et Origin. lib. III, cap. 1.
Isidore, On the Nature of Things, chs. 17 and 31, and Origins, Book III, ch. 1.
(printed under page 595)
(65) ‹anchor: Aldhelmus laudat› · call in col 1196
Aldhelm., De laud. Virgin., pag. 316 edit. Lond. Warthon.
Aldhelm, On the Praises of Virginity, p. 316 of Wharton's London edition.
(printed under page 595)
(66) ‹anchor: Recognitionibus utitur› · call in col 1196
Bed., In Hexaem., ad capp. 1, 6, 7, 8, Gen.; in Act. apost. V, § 34; Retract. ad eumd. loc. et De rat. temp., cap. 3.
Bede, On the Hexaemeron, on Genesis chs. 1, 6, 7, 8; on the Acts of the Apostles 5:34; the Retractation on the same passage; and On the Reckoning of Time, ch. 3.
(printed under page 595)
(67) ‹anchor: Item Agobardus› · call in col 1196
Agobard., De Judaic. superst., cap. 16.
Agobard, On the Superstitions of the Jews, ch. 16.
(printed under page 595)
(68) ‹anchor: Freculfus› · call in col 1196
Freculfi Chron. tom. II, lib. II, cap. 10.
Freculf's Chronicle, vol. II, Book II, ch. 10.
(printed under page 595)
(69) ‹anchor: Hincmarus› · call in col 1196
Hincmar., De divort. Lothar. et Tetberg., cap. 9.
Hincmar, On the Divorce of Lothar and Theutberga, ch. 9.
(printed under page 595)
(70) ‹anchor: et Honorius› · call in col 1196
Honor., De lumin. Eccles., cap. 15.
Honorius, On the Luminaries of the Church, ch. 15.
(printed under page 595)
Page
- running head: 1195 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 1196
- marginal letters: A superest dubitatio quin; B in Censura apocryphorum; C ubi, Gaudentio episcopo perurgente; D utitur. Item Agobardus
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: Column begins mid-sentence (continues "Itaque nulla" of col. 1195) and ends mid-sentence at "Quo" (rendered provisionally; its construction depends on col. 1197). Foot-note calls (57)–(70) removed; foot notes 64–70 and the tail of 63 stand at the foot of this column, 57–63 under col. 1195; all are called in this column and set above. Damaged or smudged type read from outline: "episcopus" (u), "imposturam" (first letter), "conficiendum" (blot over -ci-), "ubi" (first letter), "Commentariorum" (a). "Recognitiones" inside Bellarmine's quotation is printed roman within italic.
minus ergo viros insigniter doctos, ad alia properantes haec fugerint, non est ambigendum: alias rem certam pro commento non habuissent. E junioribus Cotelerius, Rufini esse praefationem ad Gaudentium juxta ac versionem totius operis, ex stylo etiam probari ait: et codicum vetustiorum praesidio utramque Rufino vindicat. Unus enim quem laudat, sic incipit: Rufini presbyteri praefatio ad Gaudentium pontificem in Itinerarium Clementis; ab eo ex Graeco in Latinum conversum. Et post praefationem, Clementisque ad Jacobum epistolam, ita habet: Itinerarii Clementis, Petri apostoli successoris, liber primus incipit, a Rufino traductus. Caeterum Bellarminus agnovit, Clementinas Recognitiones a Rufino conversas: nam, Baronio judice, nemo est qui dubitare debeat, cum Gennadius hoc ipsum de Rufino testetur. Et tamen Dupinium audire nobis contingit, omnino aliam sententiam Bellarmino tribuentem, eam scilicet quam refutavimus. Nec minus spisso errore tanto ante irretitum deprehendimus Anastasium Bibliothecarium in epistola modo adducta, cumque illo e junioribus Petrum Danielem Huetium, quando haec verba, quibus Rufinus praefationem suam ad Gaudentium auspicatur, ut Clementem nostrae linguae redderemus, ita acceperunt, quasi Recognitiones ipsae Latine scriptae primum fuissent, postmodum deperditae, et demum a Rufino e Graecia in Latium restitutae, non e Graeco translatae. At plane aliud, non hoc scripsit Rufinus, apud quem viri docti primis tantum voculis, uti fit, raptim perlectis in errorem adducti sunt.
these things, therefore, escaped men of outstanding learning who were hastening on to other matters, is not to be doubted: otherwise they would not have taken a certain fact for a fiction. Among the more recent writers Cotelier says that the preface to Gaudentius, as well as the version of the whole work, is shown to be Rufinus's by the style also; and with the support of the older manuscripts he claims both for Rufinus. For one which he cites begins thus: "The preface of Rufinus the presbyter to Gaudentius the bishop, to the Itinerary of Clement; turned by him from Greek into Latin." And after the preface, and the letter of Clement to James, it has as follows: "The first book of the Itinerary of Clement, successor of the apostle Peter, begins, translated by Rufinus." For the rest, Bellarmine acknowledged that the Clementine Recognitions were translated by Rufinus: for, in Baronius's judgment, "there is no one who ought to doubt it, since Gennadius attests this very thing of Rufinus." And yet it befalls us to hear Dupin attributing to Bellarmine an altogether different opinion, namely that which we have refuted. And we find entangled in a no less gross error, so long before, Anastasius the Librarian in the letter just adduced, and with him, among the more recent writers, Pierre-Daniel Huet, when they took these words, with which Rufinus opens his preface to Gaudentius, "that we might restore Clement to our tongue," as though the Recognitions themselves had first been written in Latin, afterwards lost, and at last restored by Rufinus from Greece to Latium, not translated from the Greek. But Rufinus wrote something plainly different, not this; in whose case the learned men were led into error by having hastily read through, as happens, only the first few words.
VII. Nec penitus nobis praetereundus est alter Bellarmini locus, ubi haec de Clementinis Recognitionibus scribit: Teste Epiphanio, haer⟨es.⟩ XXX, Clemens ipse testatur Circuitus Petri, a se conscriptos, ab haereticis depravatos fuisse. Vir purpuratus haec hausit e magnis Annalibus. Verum Lucas Holstenius non hoc dicere Epiphanium detexit, sed ex encyclicis epistolis beati Clementis quae in ecclesiis leguntur, Periodos istas falsitatis convinci. Neque enim congruere cum stylo sancti Clementis, neque cum ejus docendi modo. Verba sunt Holstenii in notis mss. ad Bellarmini Catalogum, in Museo nostro servatum. Lapsum tanti viri indicavi, ne ulli amplius ob dicentis auctoritatem sit causa offensionis, ut nuper fuit alteri viro docto, quem corrigens nominare non debeo, ne amicitiam quae mihi cum eo intercedit, laedere videar. Idem Epiphanius Clementinos libros fuisse ab Ebionitis corruptos testatur. Photius etiam vocat refertum opus absurdis nugis, non sine pluribus ex Arii opinione in Filium blasphemiis. Haec suaserunt magni nominis
VII. Nor must we altogether pass over another place of Bellarmine, where he writes this about the Clementine Recognitions: "On the testimony of Epiphanius, heresy XXX, Clement himself attests that the Circuits of Peter, composed by himself, were corrupted by heretics." The cardinal drew this from the great Annals. But Lucas Holstenius discovered that Epiphanius does not say this, but that "from the encyclical letters of blessed Clement which are read in the churches, those Periodoi are convicted of falsity. For they agree neither with the style of Saint Clement nor with his manner of teaching." The words are Holstenius's, in his manuscript notes on Bellarmine's Catalogue, preserved in our Museum. I have pointed out the slip of so great a man, lest it be any longer a cause of stumbling to anyone on account of the authority of the speaker, as it lately was to another learned man, whom, in correcting him, I ought not to name, lest I seem to wound the friendship that exists between me and him. The same Epiphanius attests that the Clementine books were corrupted by the Ebionites. Photius also calls it "a work stuffed with absurd trifles, not without many blasphemies against the Son from the opinion of Arius." These things persuaded a renowned
Editors' notes and page, col. 1197
Footnotes
(71) ‹anchor: probari ait› · call in col 1197
Cotel., in Judic. de libris Recognit., pag. 484 edit. nov.
Cotelier, in his Judgment on the books of the Recognitions, p. 484 of the new edition.
(printed under page 596)
(72) ‹anchor: Baronio judice› · call in col 1197
Baron., ad ann. 102. § XXII.
Baronius, at the year 102, § 22.
(printed under page 596)
(73) ‹anchor: nobis contingit› · call in col 1197
Dupin., tom. III Biblioth.
Dupin, vol. III of the Bibliotheca.
(printed under page 596)
(74) ‹anchor: Petrum Danielem Huetium› · call in col 1197
Huet., De clar. interpr., pag. 151.
Huet, De claris interpretibus (On Famous Translators), p. 151.
(printed under page 596)
(75) ‹anchor: Recognitionibus scribit› · call in col 1197
Bellarm., De script. eccles., ad ann. 92.
Bellarmine, De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis (On Ecclesiastical Writers), at the year 92.
(printed under page 596)
(76) ‹anchor: e magnis Annalibus› · call in col 1197
Baron., ad ann. 41, § X, et ad ann. 102, § XXI.
Baronius, at the year 41, § 10, and at the year 102, § 21.
(printed under page 596)
(77) ‹anchor: corruptos testatur› · call in col 1197
Epiph., Haer. XXX, § XV.
Epiphanius, Heresy 30, § 15.
(printed under page 596)
(78) ‹anchor: Photius etiam vocat› · call in col 1197
Phot., Bibl. cod. CXIII.
Photius, Bibliotheca, codex 113.
(printed under page 596)
Page
- running head: 1197 RECOGNITIONES. — PR… (rest of the running head lies outside the column crop)
- marginal letters: A minus ergo viros insigniter doctos; B ronio judice; C mis tantum voculis; D servatum. Lapsum tanti viri
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: column opens with "minus", which continues "Quo", the last word of col. 1196: no hyphen is printed after "Quo" there, so the two stand as separate words (Quo minus) and each is set in its own column; the English of col. 1196 ends on "That" and this column's English continues it. "haer⟨es.⟩ XXX": the letters under an ink blot; the numeral is printed in small capitals. "modo" (docendi modo) and "Museo" have damaged type, read with confidence. Ends mid-sentence at "magni nominis"; the English ends on "a renowned", left open for the noun in col. 1198. Foot notes (71)–(75) stand at the foot of this column, (76)–(78) under col. 1198; all are called in this column and set above, calls removed from the text. Note (76): the year is read "41"; the second digit is small in the scan and "44" cannot be excluded: UNSURE. Editors' prose (Gallandi's prooemium), set as this unit's text.
theologo Dionysio Petavio, Photianos codices magis fuisse depravatos, quam sit interpretatio Rufini qui ea sustulerit, quae ab haereticis, praesertim Eunomianis, ingesta, idem Rufinus monuerat in opusculo De adulteratione librorum Origenis, quippe quae, eodem Rufino teste, ecclesiastica regula omnino non recipiat. Sed memoria repetendum est, binas Recognitionum veteres editiones a Rufino indicari in praefatione ad Gaudentium : Puto, inquit, quod non te (Gaudenti) lateat, Clementis hujus in Graeco ejusdem operis Ἀναγνώσεων, hoc est Recognitionum, DUAS EDITIONES haberi, in aliquantis quidem diversas; in multis tamen, ejusdem narrationis. Denique pars ultima hujus operis, in qua de transformatione Simonis refertur, in UNO CORPORE habetur. Sunt autem et quaedam in UTROQUE CORPORE de ingenito Deo genitoque disserta, et de aliis nonnullis, quae, ut nihil amplius dicam, excesserunt intelligentiam nostram. Jam dispice, quamnam Clementini operis editionem Epiphanius et Photius censura perstrinxerint. Non certe quam Rufinus Latine convertit. Haec enim ab haereticorum depravationibus vacat; eamdemque etiam Graece scriptam vacasse, nos credere jubent viri sancti Paulinus et Gaudentius, qui eam per amicum Latio donandam studuerunt.
theologian, Denis Pétau, that Photius's manuscripts were more corrupted than is the translation of Rufinus, who removed those things which, as the same Rufinus had warned in his little work On the Adulteration of the Books of Origen, had been thrust in by heretics, especially the Eunomians, as being things which, on the same Rufinus's testimony, "the ecclesiastical rule altogether does not admit." But it must be recalled to memory that two ancient editions of the Recognitions are indicated by Rufinus in the preface to Gaudentius: "I think," he says, "that it does not escape you (Gaudentius) that of this Clement there are in Greek TWO EDITIONS of the same work, the Ἀναγνώσεις, that is, the Recognitions, differing indeed in a number of things, yet in many of the same narrative. Thus the last part of this work, in which the transformation of Simon is related, is contained in ONE CORPUS. There are also certain things in BOTH CORPORA discussed concerning the unbegotten God and the begotten, and concerning some other matters, which, to say nothing more, have exceeded our understanding." Now consider which edition of the Clementine work Epiphanius and Photius struck with their censure. Certainly not the one which Rufinus turned into Latin. For this is free from the corruptions of the heretics; and that the same, as written in Greek also, was free of them, we are bidden to believe by the holy men Paulinus and Gaudentius, who took pains to have it bestowed on Latium through their friend.
Caeterum Jacobus Faber in margine praefationis Rufini ad Gaudentium, ubi de ingenito genitoque Deo agitur, haec verba adnotavit : Pars illa de ingenito genitoque Deo, cognoscitur ab Eunomio aut ab aliis qui Eunomii sequebantur errores, vitiata; ut et epistola Pauli ad Corinthios a Marcione corrupta fuerat. Merito igitur illud Eunomii interpretandum non fuit, ut neque Marcion in Paulo. Istud scholion in caeteris editionibus, et in ipsa Coteleriana, desideratur; etiamsi in Coloniensi anni 1547 scholion persimile ad oram legeretur his verbis : Corrupta haec fuisse suspicor ab Eunomio, quemadmodum epistola Pauli ad Corinthios a Marcione. Haec tamen quae in Clemente suo, ut ab haereticis corrupta, praetermisit Rufinus, reliquae ejus versioni inserta reperit Cotelerius in tribus codicibus, Candeleriano, Sorbonico et Thuano : suntque decem capita inter primum et duodecimum clausa, de quibus ait : Nescio quis igitur, quod a Rufino praetermissum fuerat, sibi sumpsit, ut interpretaretur. Hoc assumentum prodit, ni fallor, versionem Rufini antiquitus ad Graeca exemplaria recognitam et collatam.
For the rest, Jacques Lefèvre, in the margin of Rufinus's preface to Gaudentius, where the unbegotten and begotten God is treated, noted these words: "That part concerning the unbegotten and begotten God is recognized as vitiated by Eunomius or by others who followed the errors of Eunomius; as the letter of Paul to the Corinthians also had been corrupted by Marcion. Rightly therefore that matter of Eunomius was not to be translated, as neither was Marcion in Paul." That scholion is wanting in the other editions, and in Cotelier's itself; although in the Cologne edition of the year 1547 a very similar scholion was to be read in the margin in these words: "I suspect that these things were corrupted by Eunomius, just as the letter of Paul to the Corinthians was by Marcion." Yet these things which Rufinus passed over in his Clement, as corrupted by heretics, Cotelier found inserted into the rest of his version in three manuscripts, the Candelerian, the Sorbonne and de Thou's: and they are ten chapters enclosed between the first and the twelfth, of which he says: "Someone or other, therefore, took upon himself to translate what had been passed over by Rufinus." This patch betrays, if I am not mistaken, that Rufinus's version was in antiquity revised and collated against Greek copies.
VIII. Nunc ad epistolam Recognitionum libris subjectam deveniamus. Romae ex aedibus Populi Romani, anno 1591, prodierunt epistolae summorum pontificum, tribus tomis distinctae : in quorum primo ante omnes alias exstat quae dicitur Clementina ad Jacobum fratrem Domini Rufino interprete.
VIII. Now let us come to the letter appended to the books of the Recognitions. At Rome, from the house of the Roman People, in the year 1591, there came forth the letters of the supreme pontiffs, divided into three volumes: in the first of which, before all the others, stands that which is called the Clementine letter to James the brother of the Lord, in Rufinus's translation.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1198
Footnotes
(79) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1198 (call above the image; column inferred from print order)
Petav., Dogm. Theol., lib. I De Trin., cap. 3, § ult.
Petavius, Dogmata theologica, book I On the Trinity, ch. 3, last section.
(printed under page 596)
Page
- running head: …NITIONES. — PROOEMIA. 1198 (page head: RECOGNITIONES. — PROOEMIA.)
- marginal letters: A theologo Dionysio Petavio; B tem et quaedam in UTROQUE CORPORE; C epistola Pauli ad Corinthios; D sibi sumpsit, ut interpretaretur
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: opens mid-sentence (continues "magni nominis" of col. 1197). Damaged type read with confidence: "Photianos" (n broken), "ingenito", "ut ni-hil", "nostram", "praefationis", "Haec tamen" (H broken). Whether the paragraph VIII ends at "interprete." or runs on into col. 1199 is not visible here. Foot notes (76)–(79) at the column foot (Baronius, Epiphanius, Photius, Petavius references) not set; call (79) removed. Editors' prose (Gallandi's prooemium), set as this unit's text.
Huic pag. 7 adnectitur spuria appendix cum epigraphe ad oram : Compendiolum fidei Christianae. Labbeus, qui tomo I Conciliorum, pag. 89, illam inseruit, de additamento ita scribit : Hic desinit epistola in quibusdam codicibus : caetera sunt vice appendicis addita circa annum 800, ut videtur. Idem ferme ait Mabillonius. Petrus Crabbe assumento conjunctam epistolam inseruerat tomo I Conciliorum, pag. 14 edit. Colon. 1538. At Sichardus in prima sua Recognitionum editione anni 1526 quartae ex epistolis Clementis, appendicem ita inscriptam subjecerat : Compendium fidei. Quae in altera ejus editione anni 1536 ipsi epistolae conjungitur. Gruterus quoque, Sichardum secutus, conjunxit post Constitutiones apostolicas, pag. 345, quam tamen Faber ante disjunxerat. Theodorus Bibliander libro inscripto, Christiana et catholica doctrina, Basileae per Jacobum Parcum 1550, pag. 221, eamdem epistolam Rufino interprete inseruit, sed ablata appendice. Ea tamen sine nomine interpretis, et sine appendice dudum inserta fuerat pag. 7 alterius libri, sic praenotati : Epistolae aliquot illustres, graves et eruditae, extra bibliorum canonem licet, apostolicae tamen et piae. Augustae Vindelicorum, per Alexandrum Weyssenhorm 1529, in 8°.
To this, at page 7, a spurious appendix is attached, with the title in the margin: "A little compendium of the Christian faith." Labbe, who inserted it in volume I of the Councils, page 89, writes thus of the addition: "Here the letter ends in certain manuscripts: the rest was added by way of appendix about the year 800, as it seems." Mabillon says nearly the same. Peter Crabbe had inserted the letter, joined to the patch, in volume I of the Councils, page 14 of the Cologne edition of 1538. But Sichard, in his first edition of the Recognitions, of the year 1526, had appended to the fourth of the letters of Clement an appendix inscribed thus: "Compendium of the faith." Which in his second edition, of the year 1536, is joined to the letter itself. Gruter also, following Sichard, joined it, after the Apostolic Constitutions, page 345, though Lefèvre had earlier separated it. Theodor Bibliander, in the book entitled "Christian and Catholic Doctrine," Basel, by Jacobus Parcus, 1550, page 221, inserted the same letter in Rufinus's translation, but with the appendix removed. Yet it had long before been inserted, without the translator's name and without the appendix, at page 7 of another book, headed thus: "Some illustrious, weighty and learned letters, outside the canon of the Bible indeed, yet apostolic and pious. Augsburg, by Alexander Weyssenhorn, 1529, in octavo."
Primam inter epistolas pseudo-Isidori temere statuit, qui eam virulentis notis de more configit, Blondellus. Quanti eam fecerit Franciscus Turrianus, inde constat quod eam et pro vera tueatur, et Latinae versioni roborandae, ex codice Vaticano Graecum ejus contextum non semel advocet. At Rufinum versionis auctorem esse, cum careat prologo, non admittit. Quis vero ignorat, Rufinum longioribus tantum Graecorum scriptis, non brevi ac simplici epistolae, ex Gennadii sententia, prologos dare debuisse ? Epistolae antiquitatem astruit testimonium Rufini, ab se olim interpretatam, atque editam asseverantis in praefatione ad Gaudentium; Recognitionibus non praemissam, quia tempore posterior est, nempe Recognitionibus a Clemente, ut putabatur, antea conscriptis. Istud Rufini consilium Cotelerius secutus, eam et ipse operi Clementino postposuit, licet codici Carmelitico insertam inter praefationem et Recognitiones reperisset. Ita sane etiam codices quibus usus fuit Stapulensis, insertam habuerunt : et Photius quoque aperte ait, in
Blondel, who in his usual way transfixes it with virulent notes, rashly sets it first among the letters of pseudo-Isidore. How highly Francisco Torres valued it is evident from this, that he both defends it as genuine and, to strengthen the Latin version, more than once calls in its Greek text from a Vatican manuscript. But that Rufinus is the author of the version he does not admit, since it lacks a "prologue." Yet who does not know that Rufinus, according to Gennadius's statement, was bound to give "prologues" only to the longer writings of the Greeks, not to a short and simple letter? The antiquity of the letter is established by the testimony of Rufinus, who asserts in the preface to Gaudentius that it was "formerly translated and published" by him; not prefixed to the Recognitions, because "it is later in time," namely since the Recognitions had been composed earlier by Clement, as was supposed. Following this plan of Rufinus, Cotelier too placed it after the Clementine work, although he had found it inserted in the Carmelite manuscript between the preface and the Recognitions. So indeed the manuscripts also which the man of Étaples used had it inserted: and Photius too says openly, in
Editors' notes and page, col. 1199
Footnotes
(80) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1199 (call above the image; column inferred from print order)
Mabill., Analect. tom. I, pag. 142.
Mabillon, Analecta, vol. I, p. 142.
(printed under page 597)
(81) ‹anchor: non semel advocet› · call in col 1199
Turrian., lib. II, capp. 3 et 13, pro Canon. apost.
Turrianus, book II, chs. 3 and 13, Pro canonibus apostolorum (In Defence of the Apostolic Canons).
(printed under page 597)
(82) ‹anchor: prologo, non admittit› · call in col 1199
Id. ibid., lib. IV, cap. 24.
The same, in the same work, book IV, ch. 24.
(printed under page 597)
(83) ‹anchor: aperte ait› · call in col 1199
Phot., cod. CXIII.
Photius, codex 113.
(printed under page 597)
Page
- running head: 1199 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. … (rest of the running head lies outside the column crop)
- marginal letters: A Huic pag. 7 adnectitur (set beside lines 1–2); B quam tamen Faber ante disjunxerat; C Graecum ejus contextum; D buerunt : et Photius quoque (set at the foot of the column)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: the column opens continuing paragraph VIII of col. 1198 (no indent), set here as its own paragraph. Damaged type read with confidence: "eamdem" (d broken), "sic praenotati", "nempe", "reperisset", "Ita sane". Ends mid-sentence at "aperte ait, in". Foot notes (80)–(87) at the column foot (Mabillon, Torres, Photius, Bellarmine, Labbe, Capitularia references) not set; calls (80)–(83) removed. Editors' prose (Gallandi's prooemium), set as this unit's text.
exemplaribus Graecis eam libris Recognitionum praeponi solitam. Postponitur tamen in codice Palatino sine spuria appendice. Epistolae ipsi additur in collectionibus Vaticanis Isidori cod. 629, fol. 127, et cod. 630, fol. 6.
the Greek copies it was usually placed before the books of the Recognitions. Yet it is placed after them in the Palatine manuscript, without the spurious appendix. It is added to the letter itself in the Vatican collections of Isidore, manuscript 629, folio 127, and manuscript 630, folio 6.
Quin ergo Clementis epistola ad Jacobum quam Rufinus Latinam fecit, ea sit pura puta quae omnium manibus teritur, jure ambigi nequit; nec sane dubitat Bellarminus. Ipsemet Blondellus hoc idem satis evincit, quamvis suae sectae virus censurae immisceat. Cotelerius cum post Recognitiones eamdem epistolam Graece et Latine sine ullo additamento edidisset, mox Rufini interpretationem subjecit, ad veteres editiones et codices mss. de more collatam, et in capita 20 distinctam : quorum duodevicesimum citari observavit in concilio I Vasensi, anno 442 celebrato, can. 6, in Capitularibus regum Francorum, inque concilio Metensi can. 12. Citatur quoque a Nicolao I, epist. 49, a Joanne VIII, epist. 234, et a Gregorio VII, lib. VIII, epist. 21. Ad ejus epigraphen tanto ante allusit Sidonius lib. VI, epist. 1, eamdemque Bibliothecarius in Clemente laudavit. Antiquissima esse creditur perinde ac sunt libri Recognitionum. At Clementi ante Blondellum, quinque insignes S. R. E. cardinales abjudicaverant : Turrecremata, Cusanus, Baronius, Bellarminus et Perronius. Ex antiquioribus idem sanxerant Petrus Comestor, ac postea Marsilius Patavinus, et Gobelinus Persona. De epistola 3 Clementina, cujus interpretatio Rufino etiam tribuitur, nihil dicam, cum liqueat eam ad Isidori merces de toto spectare.
It cannot therefore rightly be doubted that the letter of Clement to James which Rufinus put into Latin is purely and simply the one that is worn by everyone's hands; nor indeed does Bellarmine doubt it. Blondel himself sufficiently proves this same thing, although he mixes the poison of his sect into his censure. Cotelier, when after the Recognitions he had published the same letter in Greek and Latin without any addition, straightway appended Rufinus's translation, collated in his usual way against the old editions and manuscripts, and divided into 20 chapters: of which he observed that the eighteenth is cited in the first Council of Vaison, held in the year 442, canon 6, in the Capitularies of the kings of the Franks, and in the Council of Metz, canon 12. It is cited also by Nicholas I, letter 49, by John VIII, letter 234, and by Gregory VII, book VIII, letter 21. To its title Sidonius alluded so long before, book VI, letter 1, and the Librarian cited the same in his Clement. It is believed to be very ancient, just as the books of the Recognitions are. But before Blondel five eminent cardinals of the Holy Roman Church had denied it to Clement: Torquemada, Cusanus, Baronius, Bellarmine and Du Perron. Among older writers Peter Comestor had ruled the same, and afterwards Marsilius of Padua, and Gobelinus Persona. Of the third Clementine letter, whose translation is also attributed to Rufinus, I shall say nothing, since it is clear that it belongs wholly to Isidore's wares.
Hactenus eruditissimus Fontaninus : ex cujus tamen opere illa tantum excerpsimus, quae ad rem nostram potissimum pertinebant, eaque pro instituti nostri ratione digessimus. Porro ad Recognitionum editionem nostram quod attinet, exemplar Cotelerianum, omnium praestantissimum, typis excudendum tradidimus. Lectiones variantes potiores margini appositas, suis locis restituimus. Editoris observationes textui subdidimus. Quae autem suis notis intexuit V. C. vetera monumenta, ne operis lectio nimis impediretur, in Appendicem Recognitionibus subjectam rejecimus.
Thus far the most learned Fontanini: from whose work, however, we have excerpted only those things which chiefly pertained to our matter, and have arranged them according to the plan of our undertaking. Further, as regards our edition of the Recognitions, we have handed over Cotelier's text, the most excellent of all, to be printed. The more important variant readings, set in the margin, we have restored to their places. The editor's observations we have placed beneath the text. But the ancient documents which that most distinguished man wove into his notes we have relegated, lest the reading of the work be too much hindered, to an Appendix placed after the Recognitions.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1200
Footnotes
(84) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1200 (call above the image; column inferred from print order)
Bellarm., De Rom. pontif., lib. II, cap. 14, post init.
Bellarmine, De Romano pontifice (On the Roman Pontiff), book II, ch. 14, after the beginning.
(printed under page 597)
(85) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1200 (call above the image; column inferred from print order)
Apud Labb., tom. III, pag. 1458.
In Labbe, vol. III, p. 1458.
(printed under page 597)
(86) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1200 (call above the image; column inferred from print order)
Capitul. reg. Franc., tom. II, pag. 1127.
Capitularia regum Francorum (Capitularies of the Kings of the Franks), vol. II, p. 1127. [The third digit of the page number is damaged in the print; 1127 is the likely reading.]
(printed under page 597)
(87) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1200 (call above the image; column inferred from print order)
Apud Labb., tom. IX, pag. 416.
In Labbe, vol. IX, p. 416.
(printed under page 597)
(88) ‹anchor: Turrecremata› · call in col 1200
Turrecr., Summ. Eccl., lib. II, cap. 101.
Turrecremata (Torquemada), Summa de Ecclesia, book II, ch. 101.
(printed under page 597)
(89) ‹anchor: Cusanus› · call in col 1200
Cusan., Concord. cathol., lib. III, cap. 2.
Cusanus (Nicholas of Cusa), De concordantia catholica, book III, ch. 2.
(printed under page 597)
(90) ‹anchor: Baronius› · call in col 1200
Baron., ad ann. 69, § XIV.
Baronius, at the year 69, § 14.
(printed under page 597)
(91) ‹anchor: Bellarminus› · call in col 1200
Bellarm., De script. eccl., ad ann. 92, pag. 51.
Bellarmine, De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis (On Ecclesiastical Writers), at the year 92, p. 51.
(printed under page 597)
(92) ‹anchor: et Perronius› · call in col 1200
Perron., in iterat. Respons. ad reg. Britann., cap. 31, pag. 159.
Du Perron, in the repeated Reply to the King of Britain, ch. 31, p. 159.
(printed under page 597)
(93) ‹anchor: Petrus Comestor› · call in col 1200
Comest., Hist. Act. apost., cap. 101.
Comestor, History of the Acts of the Apostles, ch. 101.
(printed under page 597)
(94) ‹anchor: Marsilius Patavinus› · call in col 1200
Marsil., Patav. Defensor. pac., part. II, cap. 27.
Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis (Defender of the Peace), part II, ch. 27.
(printed under page 597)
(95) ‹anchor: Gobelinus Persona› · call in col 1200
Gobel., Cosmord., aetat. VI, cap. 7.
Gobelinus, Cosmodromium [printed "Cosmord."], sixth age, ch. 7.
(printed under page 597)
Page
- running head: …S I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 1200 (page head: S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA.)
- marginal letters: A exemplaribus Graecis eam libris (set beside lines 1–2); B devicesimum citari observavit; C cujus interpretatio Rufino; D (below the last line of text, beside blank space)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: opens mid-sentence (continues "aperte ait, in" of col. 1199). The column's text ends at "rejecimus." (end of Gallandi's prooemium); a short rule follows below the foot notes. "Metensi" has a damaged e, read with confidence. Foot notes (88)–(95) at the column foot (Torquemada, Cusanus, Baronius, Bellarmine, Du Perron, Comestor, Marsilius, Gobelinus references) not set; calls (84)–(95) removed. Editors' prose (Gallandi's prooemium, quoting Fontanini), set as this unit's text.
S. CLEMENTIS ROMANI RECOGNITIONES RUFINO AQUILEIENSI PRESB. INTERPRETE AD LIBRORUM MSS. ET ED. FIDEM EXPRESSAE, CURANTE E. G. GERSDORF
THE RECOGNITIONS OF SAINT CLEMENT OF ROME, IN THE TRANSLATION OF RUFINUS, PRESBYTER OF AQUILEIA, PRINTED ACCORDING TO THE MANUSCRIPT AND PRINTED BOOKS, UNDER THE CARE OF E. G. GERSDORF
Ph. D. AA. M. Bibliothecae Univ. Litt. Lips. Praef. prim., etc.
Doctor of Philosophy, Master of Arts, First Prefect of the Library of the University of Leipzig, etc.
(Lipsiae, sumptibus Bernh. Tauchnitz jun., 1838, in-8.)
(Leipzig, at the expense of Bernhard Tauchnitz the younger, 1838, octavo.)
E. G. GERSDORF PRAEFATIO
PREFACE OF E. G. GERSDORF
(Bibliotheca Patrum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum selecta, ad optimorum librorum fidem edita, curante E. G. GERSDORF. — vol. I. S. Clementis Romani Recognitiones. Lipsiae, 1838, in-8°.)
(A Select Library of the Latin Ecclesiastical Fathers, edited according to the best books, under the care of E. G. GERSDORF. — Vol. I. The Recognitions of Saint Clement of Rome. Leipzig, 1838, octavo.)
Recognitiones, quae S. Clementis Romani nomine circumferuntur, cum inter se maxime diversa de iis olim pronuntiata essent judicia, S. V. Moshemio auctore inter praestantissima veteris aevi monumenta a plerisque viris antiquitatis et scriptorum veterum Christianorum litterate peritis relatae sunt. Nam etsi Clementem, qui saeculo primo exeunte episcopi loco Romanae praefuit Ecclesiae Petri apostoli discipulus, auctorem horum librorum fuisse nulla possit ratione comprobari, imo saeculo secundo extremo aut tertio ineunte demum compositos eos esse multis ex causis et verisimile et probabile videatur, a viro tamen docto et librorum sacrorum studiis et philosophorum Graecorum disciplinis liberaliter erudito editos, et tum ad consuetudines institutaque Christianorum, qui saeculo secundo vixerunt pernoscenda, tum ad aevi illius rationes et haereticorum commenta intelligenda cum maxime eos idoneos esse veteres et recentiores consentiunt omnes. Ad impugnandas enim et evertendas illius aevi falsas de numine divino opiniones fabulam ingeniose excogitavit auctor, qua Petrus apostolus inter peregrinandum socio sibi ascito Clemente cive Romano, viro doctrina atque optimarum artium studiis a prima aetate erudito, Simonis Magi haereticorum principis commenta scelerateque facta convincit, et ex ipsa Clementis historia, qui parentes charissimos et fratres duos uterinos sorte iniqua jam multis abhinc annis sibi ereptos et inter se sejunctos salvos paulatim recipit et recognoscit, fati diram necessitatem non esse ab hominibus conquerendam, consuli a Deo rebus humanis et fiduciam Christi, evulsis ex mentibus hominum vanis istis atque perversis opinionibus vere salutarem argumentis comprobat gravissimis. Cum vero adversarii, quotquot tum aut simulacrorum cultum, aut philosophorum opiniones, aut Judaeorum decreta, aut haereticorum denique commenta amplexi sacris Christianis infensi erant, subtili hac disputatione et uno volumine castigarentur omnes, narrationis autem genus quo usus est auctor novum plane atque inusitatum haud displiceret legentibus, jam saeculo tertio exstiterunt, qui in sectatorum gratiam sive augerent sive diminuerent sive alia quavis ratione interpolatos corrumperent hos libros haeretici, νοθεύσαντες μὲν τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς, ὀλίγα δὲ ἀληθινὰ ἐάσαντες, ut ait Epiphanius, haeres. 30, 15. (Vol. I, p. 139 ed. Petav.) Pluribus inde iisque maxime diversis veteres Ecclesiae scriptores usi sunt horum librorum editionibus, quarum tres ad nostra pervenerunt tempora I. Recognitiones, quae Graece Περίοδοι τοῦ Πέτρου, s. τοῦ Κλήμεντος, πρὸς Σίμωνα τὸν Μάγον διαλέξεις, πράξεις, ἀναγνώσεις, ἀναγνωρισμός dicebantur, et a Rufino Aquileiensis Ecclesiae presbytero sub finem saeculi quarti in Latinam linguam conversae diversis modis in codd. inscribuntur, v. c. Clementis Itinerarium ad Jacobum fratrem Domini, Liber itinerarius praedicationis Petri, Gesta s. Historia Clementis, Clem. libri de disputatione Petri cum Simone Mago, etc.; II. Clementina (τὰ Κλημέντια s. Κλήμεντος τῶν Πέτρου ἐπιδημιῶν κηρυγμάτων ἐπιτομή), quorum homilias duodeviginti priores et undevigesimam altera parte mutilam primus ex cod. Paris. Graece edidit Cotelerius; III, Clementina epitome de gestis Petri (Κλήμεντος περὶ τῶν πράξεων ἐπιδημιῶν τε καὶ κηρυγμάτων τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ κορυφαίου τῶν ἀποστόλων Πέτρου ἐπιτομὴ, κ. τ. λ.), cujus ab Adr. Turnebo primum typis descriptae tres teste Cotelerio recensiones inter se haud parum diversae in bibliotheca regia Parisina asservantur. Jam vero Recognitionum libros si †eum Clementinis istis et Epitome curiose conferuntur, utrisque antiquiorem Περιόδων τοῦ Πέτρου editionem exhibere probabili ratione dicitur, quamvis nec ipsos ab omni vitio et errore vacuos atque
The Recognitions, which circulate under the name of Saint Clement of Rome, although judgments differing very widely from one another had formerly been pronounced on them, have, on the authority of the most venerable Mosheim, been counted by most men learnedly versed in antiquity and in the old Christian writers among the most excellent monuments of the ancient age. For although it can in no way be proved that Clement, who at the close of the first century presided as bishop over the Roman Church, a disciple of the apostle Peter, was the author of these books, nay rather it seems for many reasons both likely and probable that they were composed only at the end of the second century or the beginning of the third, yet that they were published by a learned man, liberally trained in the study of the sacred books and in the disciplines of the Greek philosophers, and that they are in the highest degree suited both for thoroughly learning the customs and institutions of the Christians who lived in the second century and for understanding the conditions of that age and the fictions of the heretics, all, ancient and more recent alike, agree. For in order to attack and overthrow that age's false opinions about the divine being, the author ingeniously devised a story in which the apostle Peter, in the course of his travels, having taken to himself as companion Clement, a Roman citizen, a man trained from his earliest age in learning and in the study of the best arts, refutes the fictions and wicked deeds of Simon Magus, the chief of the heretics, and from the very history of Clement, who little by little receives back safe and recognizes his dearest parents and his two brothers born of the same mother, snatched from him by an unkind lot many years before and separated from one another, proves by the weightiest arguments that the dire necessity of fate is not to be complained of by men, that human affairs are cared for by God, and that trust in Christ, once those vain and perverse opinions have been plucked from the minds of men, is truly saving. But since the adversaries, as many as then, having embraced either the worship of images, or the opinions of the philosophers, or the tenets of the Jews, or lastly the fictions of the heretics, were hostile to the Christian religion, were all chastised by this subtle disputation and in a single volume, while the kind of narrative which the author used, plainly new and unusual, was by no means displeasing to readers, already in the third century there arose heretics who, to please their followers, corrupted these books by interpolating them, whether by adding or by taking away or in any other manner, "having falsified the things in them, but left a few true things," as Epiphanius says, heresy 30, 15 (vol. I, p. 139, Petavius's edition). Hence the old writers of the Church used several, and those very different, editions of these books, of which three have come down to our times: I. the Recognitions, which in Greek were called the Circuits of Peter, or of Clement, Discourses against Simon the Magician, Acts, Readings, Recognition, and which, turned into the Latin tongue by Rufinus, presbyter of the Church of Aquileia, towards the end of the fourth century, are entitled in various ways in the manuscripts, for example Clement's Itinerary to James the brother of the Lord, The Itinerary Book of the Preaching of Peter, The Acts or History of Clement, Clement's books on the disputation of Peter with Simon Magus, etc.; II. the Clementines (the Clementia, or Clement's Epitome of the Preachings of Peter on his Sojourns), of which Cotelier first published in Greek, from a Paris manuscript, the first eighteen homilies and the nineteenth, mutilated in its latter part; III. the Clementine epitome of the acts of Peter (Clement's Epitome concerning the Acts and Sojourns and Preachings of the holy Peter, chief of the apostles, etc.), of which, first put into type by Adrien Turnèbe, three recensions differing not a little from one another are, on Cotelier's testimony, kept in the royal library at Paris. Now the books of the Recognitions, if they are carefully compared with those Clementines and the Epitome, are with probable reason said to exhibit an edition of the Circuits of Peter older than both, although that even these are free from every fault and error and
Editors' notes and page, col. 1201
Footnotes
(96) ‹anchor: ed. Petav.)› · call in col 1201-1202 (text and note are set across the full page width)
Cf. Rufin. in praef. ad Gaudentium, et Id. De adulter. libr. Origenis, Photius in Biblioth. cod 113 all.
Compare Rufinus in the preface to Gaudentius, and the same author's De adulteratione librorum Origenis (On the Falsification of Origen's Books), Photius in the Bibliotheca, codex 113, and others.
(printed under page 598)
Page
- running head: 1201 RECOGNITIONES. — PROOEMIA. 1202
- marginal letters: (none)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: FULL WIDTH (settle: full_width): scan page 598 (cols 1201–1202) is printed across the whole page, title and preface in long lines; the column crops cut every line. The two crops overlap by several letters on every line, so the whole page is set here once, joined line by line from the c1201 and c1202 images; c1202 is rail-only. UNSURE: "si †eum Clementinis" (the type looks like eum; cum is expected; English follows cum); "erudito editos" (a broken sort between the words); "non esse ab" (words run together); the Greek is in a small italic face and its accents are read with less certainty than the Latin (ἐάσαντες, ἀληθινὰ, ἀναγνωρισμός, Κλημέντια). "III," with comma as printed. Ends mid-sentence at "vacuos atque". Foot note (96) at the page foot (Rufinus, Photius references) is set above under Footnotes; its call removed from the text. Editors' prose (Gersdorf's title and preface), set as this unit's text.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1202
Page
- other: full-width page (scan page 598, cols 1201–1202): the text runs across both columns and is set once, whole, under PG 1:1201; nothing set here
integros quisquam sine omni dubitatione confirmabit. Incertum sane in hac tanta rerum obscuritate et perdita antiquissima eaque illibata librorum Clementinorum editione judicium, neque singulas VV. DD. de iis sententias nunc proferre ac dijudicare instituti nostri permittit ratio. Auctor, natione Judaeus, disciplina Alexandrinus philosophus, ut perhibet Moshemius, cum ad Christiana sacra appelleret animum, partem quidem rejiciebat dogmatum quae a philosophis acceperat, sed servabat sibi etiam plurima, quae ita quidem aptabat Christianae religionis praeceptis, ut novum quoddam idque philosophicum religionis genus inde prodiret, quod Clementina Clementisque Recognitiones exhibent. At de Rufino ipso ejusque Graecos auctores interpretandi ratione dubia fides, et quae ille de suis addiderit quaeve omiserit (vid. ejus praefat.) ignoratur. Quid vero, si in Latinam Rufini interpretationem iterum illata essent vana insipientis cujusdam hominis commenta? Etenim libri scripti multis in locis adeo inter se discrepant (v. c. libr. III, c. 2-12, 51-63 et saepius), ut de eo opinor, quin Rufini aetate omnino recentiora et aliunde eorum nonnulla invecta sint, quae in hoc illove veteri libro addita leguntur, in alio desiderantur, dubitari nequeat. — Lectione autem horum librorum haud injucunda medio aevo delectatos esse multos testem habemus haud exiguum codicum mss. numerum, qui in bibliothecis servantur Parisiensibus, Bodleiana, Oxoniensi, Basileensi, Bernensi, Lipsiensi Paulina et in aliis pluribus. Parisinos codices, Regium, Thuaneum, Sorbonicum, P. Petiti et Carmelitarum adhibuit in editione sua Cotelerius, vir de omni antiquitate Christiana egregie meritus, in emendando autem Clemente tam timidus et religiosus, ut persaepe ne manifestissimas quidem scripturae corruptelas optimorum librorum auctoritate ausus sit corrigere. Libros Oxonienses descripsit Grabius l. l.; duorum Bernensium, quos Sinnerus in Catalogo I, p. 51, recensuit, accuratam notitiam singulari humanitati debeo Rettigii, litt. antiquarum in illa urbe professoris celeberrimi, qui auctore Sauppio, V. cl., apud Turicenses prof. et bibliothecae praefecto meritissimo, eos in usum meum evolvit. De quibus, cum plerumque inter se consentiant et optimae notae libris annumerentur, hoc unum addo, quod qui in cod. num. 164 signato, saec. X, locus libri III, c. 2-12, deest, in altero num. 66, saec. XI, legitur. Sed maximo mihi in curando hoc opere adjumento fuerunt libri duo Lipsienses bibliothecae Paulinae, membranacei, quorum alter, catal. num. 90, olim Pegaviensis, saeculo XI, alter num. 91, anno Chr. 1218 in Sereno monte scriptus est. Rufini manum ut restituerem, haud ignorans commentarios hos singulari quodam corruptelae genere locis pene innumeris depravatos esse, lectiones tum librorum scriptorum, tum editorum, Sichardi Basileensis 1526, Parisinarum 1541 et 1568, Cotelerii, et Clerici (SS. Patrum apostoll. opp. Vol. I, Amstael. 1726), Gallandii denique (Biblioth. vett. Patrum tom. II, Venet. 1766) diligenti cura adhibendas esse censui. Quibus praesidiis ubi sim usus, cum quaevis fere pagina emendatione indigeret et etiamnunc restent aliqui loci, quos codicum mss. ope destitutos intactos relinquere quam temere mutare malui, hic pro instituta ratione non vacat exponere, et qualis in tanta labe et corruptela scripturae singulis allata sit locis medela, magis est aliorum existimare quam meum profiteri. Neque vero quin magna codicibus mss. Lipsiensibus in emendandis atque conformandis Recognitionum libris tribuenda sit auctoritas, unquam dubitavi, cum optimis codicibus eos consentire viderem; in eo autem, quid de iis statuendum sit locis, qui passim in codd. Lipss. desunt, neque a librario negligente praetermissi neque ad orationis seriem sententiarumque concinnitatem omnino necessarii, incertus haereo. Quaerentibus quae hujus rei probabilis ratio reddi possit, tria maxime respicienda videntur, nempe eorum, quae in antiquissimis quibusdam libris desunt, alia ab haereticis aut insulsis hominibus Rufini aetate recentioribus temere illata, alia a fidei orthodoxae cultoribus strenuis deleta, alia denique ut visum est brevitatis quodam studio contracta esse in epitomen, ut v. c. libr. I, c. 23-53, et l. VIII, c. 5-62. Etenim hoc altero in loco sic legitur in codd. Lipsiensibus : — « Quae ignorantur inveniet. Tum Niceta aperte et dilucide illi, et quia Deus est et quia mundus ejus providentia regitur, exponere coepit. (c. 41.) Cui succedens Aquila si quid a fratre semiplene dictum fuerat, firmissimis assertionibus approbavit, ita ut senex diceret, tam prudenter et fortiter eos prosecutos, ut melius de hujus rei inquisitione dici non possit. Sed de hac re solummodo sibi scrupulum moveri, quia extra genesim fieri aliquid non putaret, dicens omnia sibi necessitate genesis accidisse. (c. 57.) Si, inquit Aquila, ex ipsa disciplina — scientiam mathesis attigit. (c. 58.) Cum haec Aquila dixisset et, ego Clemens, crastino, inquam, dices pater — (c. 62.) Petrus surrexit et turbas dimisit, etc. » In tanta igitur rerum obscuritate et dubitatione cum ante hos decem annos in majori librorum Clementinorum editione occupatus, Arabicam Recognitionum interpretationem in bibliotheca regia Parisiensi inveniri ex catalogo Biblioth. Reg. I, p. 106, cognoverim, Fleischero, viri egregii Silv. de Sacy illo tempore auditori dilectissimo, nunc linguarum orientalium in nostra litterarum universitate professori praeclare merito, facile persuasi, ut libro isto perlustrato accuratam ejus mecum communicaret notitiam. Sed spes quam in versione Arabica collocaveram, me frustrata est. Codex ms. Parisinus, qui inter orientales num. 70 signatur, et inscribitur Testamentum Christi Domini ad Petrum et omnia mysteria quae ei revelavit, auctore S. Clemente Romano, etc. XCI sectionibus haud pauca quidem continet, quae ex Recognitionibus excerpta esse videntur, sed confusa ea cum ineptiis variisque hallucinationibus ac permista conquestionibus de injuriis et malis, quibus affligebantur saeculo post Chr. natum decimo quinto Christiani in Oriente degentes a Muhamedanis.
intact no one will affirm without any hesitation. Judgment is indeed uncertain in so great an obscurity of things, and with the most ancient and unimpaired edition of the Clementine books lost, nor does the plan of our undertaking allow us now to set forth and adjudicate the several opinions of learned men about them. The author, a Jew by nation, by training an Alexandrian philosopher, as Mosheim maintains, when he turned his mind to the Christian religion, rejected indeed a part of the doctrines which he had received from the philosophers, but also kept for himself very many, which he so fitted to the precepts of the Christian religion that a certain new, and that a philosophical, kind of religion came forth from it, which the Clementines and Clement's Recognitions exhibit. But about Rufinus himself and his manner of translating Greek authors confidence is doubtful, and what he added of his own or what he omitted (see his preface) is not known. And what if the empty fictions of some foolish man had been brought a second time into Rufinus's Latin translation? For the manuscript books differ from one another in many places to such a degree (for example book III, ch. 2–12, 51–63, and often) that, I think, it cannot be doubted that some of those things were brought in altogether later than the age of Rufinus and from elsewhere, which are read as added in this or that old book and are wanting in another. — Now that many in the Middle Ages took delight in the by no means unpleasant reading of these books we have as witness the not small number of manuscripts which are kept in the libraries of Paris, the Bodleian, that of Oxford, of Basel, of Bern, the Pauline of Leipzig, and in several others. The Paris manuscripts, the Royal, de Thou's, the Sorbonne's, P. Petit's and that of the Carmelites, were used in his edition by Cotelier, a man who deserved excellently of all Christian antiquity, but in emending Clement so timid and scrupulous that very often he did not dare to correct even the most manifest corruptions of the text on the authority of the best books. The Oxford books were described by Grabe in the place cited; for an accurate account of the two Bern ones, which Sinner reviewed in his Catalogue I, p. 51, I am indebted to the singular kindness of Rettig, the most celebrated professor of ancient literature in that city, who, at the prompting of the most distinguished Sauppe, professor at Zürich and most deserving prefect of the library, examined them for my use. Of these, since they for the most part agree with each other and are counted among books of the best stamp, I add this one thing, that the passage of book III, ch. 2–12, which is wanting in the manuscript marked number 164, of the tenth century, is read in the other, number 66, of the eleventh century. But of the greatest help to me in preparing this work were the two Leipzig books of the Pauline library, on parchment, of which the one, catalogue number 90, formerly of Pegau, was written in the eleventh century, the other, number 91, in the year of Christ 1218 at Mons Serenus. In order to restore the hand of Rufinus, not being unaware that these commentaries have been corrupted in almost innumerable places by a certain singular kind of corruption, I judged that the readings both of the manuscript books and of the printed ones, Sichard's of Basel 1526, the Paris ones of 1541 and 1568, Cotelier's, and Le Clerc's (Works of the Holy Apostolic Fathers, vol. I, Amsterdam 1726), and finally Gallandi's (Library of the Ancient Fathers, vol. II, Venice 1766), must be applied with diligent care. Where I have used these aids, since nearly every page needed emendation and there still remain some places which, being destitute of the help of manuscripts, I preferred to leave untouched rather than rashly to change, there is no leisure, in keeping with the plan adopted, to set forth here; and what kind of remedy has been brought to the several places amid so great a blemish and corruption of the text, it is rather for others to judge than for me to declare. Nor indeed did I ever doubt that great authority is to be assigned to the Leipzig manuscripts in emending and shaping the books of the Recognitions, since I saw that they agree with the best manuscripts; but on this point, what is to be determined about those passages which are here and there wanting in the Leipzig manuscripts, neither passed over by a negligent copyist nor altogether necessary to the sequence of the discourse and the harmony of the thoughts, I remain uncertain. To those asking what probable account of this matter can be given, three things seem chiefly to be regarded, namely that, of those things which are wanting in certain very ancient books, some were rashly brought in by heretics or by tasteless men later than the age of Rufinus, others were deleted by strenuous devotees of the orthodox faith, and others finally, as it seems, were contracted into an epitome from a certain desire for brevity, as for example book I, ch. 23–53, and book VIII, ch. 5–62. For in this latter place it reads thus in the Leipzig manuscripts: — "He will find the things that are unknown. Then Niceta began to set forth to him openly and clearly both that God is and that the world is ruled by His providence. (ch. 41.) Aquila, succeeding him, confirmed by the firmest assertions whatever had been said incompletely by his brother, so that the old man said that they had followed it up so prudently and stoutly that nothing better could be said in the inquiry into this matter. But that on this point only was a scruple raised in him, because he did not think that anything happened outside of genesis, saying that all things had befallen him by the necessity of genesis. (ch. 57.) If, says Aquila, from the discipline itself — he attained the science of astrology. (ch. 58.) When Aquila had said these things, I Clement also said, Tomorrow you will speak, father — (ch. 62.) Peter rose and dismissed the crowds, etc." In so great an obscurity and doubtfulness of things, therefore, when ten years ago, being occupied on a larger edition of the Clementine books, I had learnt from the catalogue of the Royal Library, I, p. 106, that an Arabic translation of the Recognitions was to be found in the royal library at Paris, I easily persuaded Fleischer, at that time a most beloved pupil of the eminent Silvestre de Sacy, now the excellently deserving professor of oriental languages in our university, to examine that book and communicate to me an accurate account of it. But the hope which I had placed in the Arabic version disappointed me. The Paris manuscript, which is marked number 70 among the oriental ones, and is entitled The Testament of Christ the Lord to Peter and all the mysteries which He revealed to him, by Saint Clement of Rome, etc., contains indeed in its XCI sections not a few things which seem to be excerpted from the Recognitions, but these confused with absurdities and various delusions and mingled with complaints about the injuries and evils with which, in the fifteenth century after the birth of Christ, the Christians living in the East were afflicted by the Muhammadans.
Haec de Recognitionibus dicta sunto. Plura vero alia in aliud tempus differenda esse video. Cum enim Bernhardus Tauchnitius, Caroli Tauchnitii ex fratre filius, vir honestissimus, iterum ac saepius a me petisset, ut selectam Patrum ecclesiasticorum bibliothecam quam primum edendam curarem, quae contextu diligenter recognito, modico empturis pretio parabilis esset, quanquam me non praeteribat quam arduum hoc esset et difficile negotium, roganti tamen librario operam meam quantulamcunque non putavi diutius esse recusandam. Socios in hoc opere perficiendo mihi adjunxi viros litteris et antiquitatis Christianae studiis eruditissimos, quorum opera Cyprianus, Lactantius et Tertulliani quaedam scripta anno proximo typis expressa perpetuis prodibunt. Et vero, ni omnia me fallunt, haec ipsa selecta veterum Patrum ecclesiasticorum Bibliotheca exoptata multis, haud parum commodis inserviet hominum theologiae operam dantium, qui veterem librorum sacrorum interpretationem, veteris Ecclesiae dogmata, disciplinae veteris ecclesiasticae formam, rituum denique ortus resque gestas veterum Christianorum probe perspicere et intelligere sui muneris esse existimant.
Let this be said about the Recognitions. But I see that many other things must be deferred to another time. For when Bernhard Tauchnitz, the nephew of Karl Tauchnitz by his brother, a most honourable man, had asked me again and again to see to the publishing as soon as possible of a select library of the ecclesiastical Fathers, which, with the text diligently revised, might be obtainable by buyers at a moderate price, although it did not escape me how arduous and difficult a business this was, yet I did not think that my help, however small, should any longer be refused to the bookseller who asked. As associates in completing this work I have joined to myself men most learned in letters and in the study of Christian antiquity, by whose labour Cyprian, Lactantius and certain writings of Tertullian will come forth next year, printed in stereotype. And indeed, unless everything deceives me, this very select Library of the ancient ecclesiastical Fathers, longed for by many, will serve not a little the convenience of men devoting themselves to theology, who consider it part of their duty rightly to perceive and understand the ancient interpretation of the sacred books, the dogmas of the ancient Church, the form of the ancient ecclesiastical discipline, and lastly the origins of the rites and the deeds of the ancient Christians.
Scr. Lipsiae d. S. Martini A. C. CIↃIↃCCCXXXVII.
Written at Leipzig on Saint Martin's day, in the year of Christ 1837.
E. G. GERSDORF.
E. G. GERSDORF.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1203
Footnotes
(97) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 1203-1204 (text and note are set across the full page width; call above the image)
Cff. Le Nourry Appar. ad bibl. max. PP., I, p. 398 — 425. Grabii Spicil. PP. I. p. 270 — 302. Germon De vett. haer. eccl. codd. corruptoribus p. 238 — 52. Lardner credibility of the gospel-history II, p. 769—817. Moshemii Diss. ad hist. eccl. pertt. I, p. 174—192. Fogginii De Romano Petri itin. exercitt. p. 14—18. Rosenmüller Hist. interpret. libr. sacr. I, p. 73—114. Neander Genet. Entwickel. d. gnost. Systeme, p. 361—421. Tzschirner Fall d. Heidenth. herausgeg. von Niedner, p. 381 sq. — Kestner Agape p 26 sqq. Oudinus, Caveus, all.
Compare Le Nourry, Apparatus ad bibliothecam maximam Patrum, I, pp. 398–425. Grabe, Spicilegium Patrum, I, pp. 270–302. Germon, De veteribus haereticis ecclesiasticorum codicum corruptoribus (On the Ancient Heretics, Corrupters of the Church's Manuscripts), pp. 238–52. Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel History, II, pp. 769–817. Mosheim, Dissertationes ad historiam ecclesiasticam pertinentes (Dissertations Pertaining to Church History), I, pp. 174–192. Foggini, De Romano Petri itinere exercitationes (Essays on Peter's Journey to Rome), pp. 14–18. Rosenmüller, Historia interpretationis librorum sacrorum (History of the Interpretation of the Sacred Books), I, pp. 73–114. Neander, Genetische Entwickelung der gnostischen Systeme (Genetic Development of the Gnostic Systems), pp. 361–421. Tzschirner, Fall des Heidenthums (Fall of Paganism), edited by Niedner, p. 381 f. — Kestner, Agape, p. 26 ff. Oudin, Cave, and others.
(printed under page 599)
Page
- running head: 1203 S. CLEMENTIS I ROM. PONT. OPERA DUBIA. 1204
- marginal letters: (none)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- other: FULL WIDTH (settle: full_width): scan page 599 (cols 1203–1204) is printed across the whole page in long lines; the column crops cut every line. The two crops overlap by several letters on every line, so the whole page is set here once, joined line by line from the c1203 and c1204 images; c1204 is rail-only. Opens mid-sentence (continues "vacuos atque" of the previous page). "ut de eo opinor," punctuated as printed. "dixisset et, ego Clemens" as printed. Damaged type read with confidence: "eruditissimos", "Ecclesiae", "resque". Foot note (97) at the page foot (Le Nourry, Grabe, Germon, Lardner, Mosheim, Foggini, Rosenmüller, Neander, Tzschirner, Kestner etc.) is set above under Footnotes; its call removed from the text. Editors' prose (Gersdorf's preface, to its end and signature), set as this unit's text.
Editors' notes and page, col. 1204
Page
- other: full-width page (scan page 599, cols 1203–1204): the text runs across both columns and is set once, whole, under PG 1:1203; nothing set here