Caius presbyter Romanus, Fragmenta

(1) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 26

Τὰ τρόπαια τῶν Ἀποστ. Hieronymus in epistola ad Marcellum: Est quidem ibi sancta Ecclesia; sunt tropaea apostolorum et martyrum. VALES. in Addend.

"The trophies of the apostles." Jerome, in the letter to Marcellus [as printed]: "There indeed is the holy Church; there are the trophies of the apostles and martyrs." Valesius, in the Addenda.

(printed under page 19)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call in col 26

Ἐπὶ τὸν Βατικανόν. Mirum est in omnibus nostris codicibus uno consensu haberi Βασικανόν: nec aliter legitur in Chronico Georgii Syncelli. In sequentibus verbis ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν Ὠστίαν, omnes nostri codices Ὀστίαν habent. Verum in hoc dissentiunt, quod Mazarinus quidem et Medicaeus codex cum leni spiritu habent Ὠστίαν: Regius autem et Fuketianus asperum adhibent spiritum. Porro Vaticanus quidem ad B. Petrum referri debet, qui sepultus est in Vaticano. Ostiensis autem via Paulum denotat, qui sepultus est in via Ostiense.

"To the Vatican." It is remarkable that all our manuscripts agree in reading Βασικανόν, nor is it read otherwise in the Chronicle of George Syncellus. In the words that follow, "or on the road to Ostia", all our manuscripts have Ὀστίαν. But they differ in this: the Mazarin and the Medicean manuscripts have Ὠστίαν with the smooth breathing, while the Royal and the Fouquet manuscripts use the rough breathing. Further, the Vatican is to be referred to blessed Peter, who is buried on the Vatican; the Ostian Way denotes Paul, who is buried on the Ostian Way.

(printed under page 19)

(3) ‹anchor: θέλων πλανᾷν› · call in col 26

Θέλων σπλανᾷν. Sic in editione Rob. Stephani, nescio quo casu, excusum est: quem typographorum errorem secuti sunt postea Genevenses. Nos vero ex manuscriptis codicibus, et ex Nicephori libro veram hujus loci scripturam restituimus, θέλων πλανᾷν.

"Wishing to [σπλανᾷν]." So it was printed, by what accident I do not know, in Robert Estienne's edition, and the Geneva editors afterwards followed this printers' error. We, however, from the manuscripts and from Nicephorus's book, have restored the true reading of this place: θέλων πλανᾷν, "wishing to deceive."

(printed under page 19)

(4) ‹anchor: Μετὰ τοῦτο› · call in col 26

Μετὰ τοῦτο. Hic locus excerptus quidem est ex Caii disputatione; sed sunt Procli verba, a Caio litteris consignata. Sic enim Eusebius l. c.: «Praeterea in dialogo Caii, Proclus adversus quem instituta est disputatio, de Philippi ejusque filiarum exitu, sic ait: Quatuor posthaec, » etc.

"After this." This passage is indeed excerpted from Caius's disputation, but the words are those of Proclus, set down in writing by Caius. For Eusebius says in the place cited: "Moreover, in the dialogue of Caius, Proclus, against whom the disputation was held, speaks thus of the death of Philip and his daughters: 'Four after this…'", etc.

(printed under page 19)

(5) ‹anchor: Φασὶ γὰρ› · call in col 26

Φασὶ γάρ, κ. τ. λ. Nicephorus in lib. IV, cap. 21, hunc librum auctoris ignoti inscriptum esse dicit: Μικρὸν λαβύρινθον. Photius autem in- (continues)

"For they say," etc. Nicephorus, in book 4, chapter 21, says that this book by an unknown author was entitled "The Little Labyrinth." Photius, however, in- (continues)

(printed under page 19)

(6) ‹anchor: θεολογεῖται› · call in col 27

Θεολογεῖται. De vi ac notione verbi θεολογεῖν, Justino M. primitus usurpati, videsis nostrae hujus Bibliothecae tom. VI, in Indice Graeco. Aliorum veterum Patrum complura loca in eamdem sententiam profert Svicerus in Thes. eccl. tom. I, pag. 1355, § 2.

"He is spoken of as God." On the force and meaning of the verb θεολογεῖν, first used by Justin Martyr, see volume 6 of this Library of ours, in the Greek Index. Suicer, in the Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, volume 1, page 1355, § 2, cites a number of passages from other ancient Fathers in the same sense.

(printed under page 20)

(7) ‹anchor: ψαλμοὶ δὲ καὶ ᾠδαὶ› · call in col 27

Ψαλμοὶ δὲ καὶ ᾠδαὶ ἀδελφῶν ἀπαρχῆς ὑπὸ πιστῶν γραφεῖσαι. Scribendum est ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, ut habet codex Med., Fuk., Savil. et Nicephorus. Porro ex his verbis apparet morem fuisse antiquissimum in Ecclesia, hymnos et psalmos in honorem Christi componere. Certe Plinius in epistola ad Trajanum auctor est, Christianos in unum convenientes Christo hymnos canere consuevisse. De his psalmis et hymnis intelligendus videtur Hippolytus in oratione de consummatione mundi sub finem: Τὸ στόμα ἡμῶν πρὸς δοξολογίαν καὶ αἶνον καὶ ψαλμοὺς καὶ ᾠδὰς πνευματικὰς ηὐτρέπισα λαλεῖν. Hujusmodi hymnus in honorem Jesu Christi a Clemente Alexandrino compositus exstat ad finem ejus librorum, qui Paedagogi inscribuntur.

"Psalms and odes of the brethren, written by the faithful [ἀπαρχῆς, as printed]." One should write ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, "from the beginning," as the Medicean, Fouquet and Savile manuscripts and Nicephorus have it. Further, it is clear from these words that it was a most ancient custom in the Church to compose hymns and psalms in honour of Christ. Pliny, certainly, in his letter to Trajan, attests that the Christians, coming together, were accustomed to sing hymns to Christ. Hippolytus seems to be understood of these psalms and hymns in his oration on the end of the world, near its close: "I have made ready our mouth to speak for doxology and praise and psalms and spiritual odes." A hymn of this kind in honour of Jesus Christ, composed by Clement of Alexandria, survives at the end of his books entitled the Paedagogus.

(printed under page 20)

(8) ‹anchor: Νατάλιος ἦν τις› · call in col 27

Νατάλιος ἦν τις: Nescio, an hic sit Caecilius Natalis, qui disputatione Octavii Januarii coram Minutio Felice Romae habita, ad Christi fidem conversus est, ut scribitur in dialogo Minutii Felicis (cap. 16). Nomen certe convenit, et tempus atque professio.

"There was a certain Natalius." I do not know whether this may be Caecilius Natalis, who was converted to the faith of Christ by the disputation of Octavius Januarius held at Rome before Minucius Felix, as is written in the dialogue of Minucius Felix (ch. 16). The name certainly fits, and the time and the profession.

(printed under page 20)

(9) ‹anchor: ἐπὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων καιρῶν› · call in col 27

Ἐπὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων καιρῶν. Ad litteram Graecam, nostris temporibus; qua locutione se non rem praeteritam ex aliorum memoria narrare, sed recentem, quam ipse oculis perspectam habere potuerit, et quam proxime dixerat ἐφ' ἡμῶν γενόμενον, testari noster auctor significat. COUSTANT, Epistt. Rom. pontiff. pag. 109, ubi hujusmodi Caii fragmentum in medium profert.

"In our times." Literally from the Greek, "in our times"; by this expression our author means to attest that he is narrating not a past event from the memory of others, but a recent one, which he could himself have seen with his own eyes, and which he had just called "having happened in our day." COUSTANT, Letters of the Roman Pontiffs, page 109, where he brings forward this fragment of Caius.

(printed under page 20)

(10) ‹anchor: ἐπίσκοπος κληθῆναι› · call in col 30

Ἐπίσκοπος κληθῆναι. Ita scriptum praefert codex Regius, cui consentit Rufini interpretatio. Sed quatuor reliqui codices, Maz., Med., Fuk. et Savil. scriptum habent, κληρωθῆναι.

"To be called bishop." So the Royal manuscript presents it as written, and Rufinus's translation agrees with it. But the four other manuscripts, the Mazarin, Medicean, Fouquet and Savile, have it written κληρωθῆναι, "to be allotted [the office]."

(printed under page 21)

(11) ‹anchor: κληρωθῆναι› · call in col 30

Κληρωθῆναι. Non displicet, quod apud Rufinum, nominaretur; ex quo et liquet eum Graece legisse κληθῆναι. Neque vero obscurum est, Natali vanum episcopi sine re nomen indultum fuisse, cum non esset inter illos haereticos episcopus qui ei ordinationem conferre posset. Hinc non alicujus urbis, sed haeresis illius episcopus nuncupatus est. Quocirca et infra dicitur prima cathedra insignitus, non quia episcopis aliquibus, sed quia toti haeresi praesideret. COUSTANT.

"To be allotted [the office]." The reading in Rufinus, "he was named," is not unwelcome; from it it is also clear that he read κληθῆναι in the Greek. Nor is it obscure that Natalis was granted the empty name of bishop without the reality, since there was no bishop among those heretics who could confer ordination on him. Hence he was called bishop not of some city but of that heresy. For that reason it is also said below that he was distinguished with the first chair, not because he presided over certain bishops, but because he presided over the whole heresy. COUSTANT.

(printed under page 21)

(12) ‹anchor: δι' ὁραμάτων› · call in col 30

Δι' ὁραμάτων.... ἐνουθετεῖτο. Rufinus vertit, admonebatur in somniis. Valesius vero, corripiebatur in somnis; et infra, sed cum nocturnas ejusmodi visiones negligeret; quo in loco Rufinus non addidit nocturnas. In utroque loco placuit litterae Graecae adhaerere, in qua nihil est, unde somnianti ne an vigilanti haec visa ostensa sint, conjectemus. Imo Petrus Gillius in Lexico observat τὸ ὅραμα, quo constanter utitur noster auctor, de visis vigilantium proprie dici. ID. — De hujusmodi visis, ex probatissimis Ecclesiae monumentis antiquioribus complura profert exempla Dodwellus Dissert. 4, Cyprian., pag. 37 seqq.

"Through visions … he was admonished." Rufinus translated, "he was admonished in dreams"; Valesius, "he was rebuked in sleep," and below, "but since he disregarded such nocturnal visions," where Rufinus did not add "nocturnal." In both places we have chosen to keep to the letter of the Greek, in which there is nothing from which we might conjecture whether these sights were shown to him asleep or awake. Indeed Pierre Gilles in his Lexicon observes that τὸ ὅραμα, which our author uses consistently, is properly said of the visions of those who are awake. THE SAME. — Of visions of this kind Dodwell, Dissertationes Cyprianicae 4, page 37 and following, cites a number of examples from the most approved older records of the Church.

(printed under page 21)

(13) ‹anchor: θεός› · call in col 30

Θεός.... Ι. Χ. Nemo dixerit Dei nomen (a Caio qui Artemonis haeresim refutat) hic improprie Christo attribui: siquidem illum ab Artemone Deum negari non patitur, quem a majoribus, contra haeretici hujus mendacia, Deum assertum esse, Justini, Miltiadis, Tatiani, Clementis, Irenaei et Melitonis scriptis evincit. COUSTANT.

"God … J[esus] C[hrist]." No one could say that the name of God is here attributed to Christ improperly (by Caius, who is refuting the heresy of Artemon), since he does not allow Him to be denied as God by Artemon, and he proves from the writings of Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, Irenaeus and Melito that He was asserted to be God by our forefathers, against this heretic's lies. COUSTANT.

(printed under page 21)

(14) ‹anchor: μάρτυρα τῶν ἰδίων παθῶν› · call in col 30

Μάρτυρα τῶν ἰδίων παθῶν. Apud Rufinum, martyrem suum qui sibi in multis passionibus exstiterat. ID.

"A witness of his own sufferings." In Rufinus: "his martyr, who had stood forth for Him in many sufferings." THE SAME.

(printed under page 21)

(15) ‹anchor: μώλωπας ὧν εἰλήφει πληγῶν› · call in col 30

Μώλωπας ὧν εἰλήφει πληγῶν. Valesius post Rufinum addidit, pro Christi confessione. Et hic haerendum Graeco duximus: maxime cum flagellorum quibus Natalis a sanctis angelis caesus est, proxima mentio, plagas pro Christi desertione potius, quam pro Christi confessione acceptas, hic intelligi postulet. ID.

"The weals of the blows he had received." Valesius, following Rufinus, added "for the confession of Christ." Here too we have thought it right to keep to the Greek, especially since the mention just afterwards of the scourges with which Natalis was beaten by the holy angels requires that blows received for deserting Christ, rather than for confessing Christ, be understood here. THE SAME.

(printed under page 21)

(16) ‹anchor: μόλις κοινωνηθῆναι› · call in col 30

Μόλις κοινωνηθῆναι. Hujusmodi indulgentia non solum iis qui a catholica fide abscesserant et ad eam postmodum redierant, sed et moechis poenitentibus impertita, Tertulliano valde displicuit. Eam ob causam in lib. De pudicit., n. 13, episcopum cujus nomen reticet, sic sugillat: Et tu quidem poenitentiam moechi ad exorandam fraternitatem in ecclesiam inducens, conciliciatum et concineratum, cum dedecore et horrore compositum, prosternis in medium ante viduas, ante presbyteros, omnium lacinias invadentem, omnium vestigia lambentem, omnium genua detinentem; inque eum hominis exitum, quantis potes misericordiae illecebris, bonus pastor et benedictus papa concionaris, et in parabola ovis capras tuas quaeris, tua ovis ne rursus de grege exsiliat. Quae verba hic describere visum est non tantum ob consensionem illorum cum iis quae (a Caio) proxime relata sunt, aut ut ea quae tunc temporis circa poenitentes vigeret disciplina, exemplo altero firmaretur: sed et maxime quia nonnulli, nominatimque Paschasius Quesnellus Dissert. 1 de vita et gestis Leonis, cap. 12, n. 6, papam illum de quo haec Tertullianus eloquitur, Zephyrinum interpretantur. De ipso quoque Baronius ad annum 216, n. 4, dictum intelligit illud ejusdem lib. I, cap. 1: Audio etiam edictum esse propositum, et quidem peremptorium: pontifex scilicet maximus quod est episcopus episcoporum, edicit: Ego et moechiae et fornicationis delicta, poenitentia functis dimitto. Neque ambiguum est, quin si denotetur Zephyrinus his cap. 1 verbis, idem quoque superioribus cap. 13 carpatur. Non desunt tamen qui utrumque locum ad episcopum Carthaginiensem referant; adeo ut is per exaggerationem Tertulliano non insolentem, pontifex maximus dictus sit et episcopus episcoporum. Verum sive is, sive quivis alius intelligatur, (continues)

"Scarcely to be admitted to communion." Indulgence of this kind, granted not only to those who had fallen away from the Catholic faith and afterwards returned to it, but also to penitent adulterers, greatly displeased Tertullian. For that reason, in the book On Modesty, no. 13, he taunts a bishop whose name he withholds, thus: "And you, bringing the adulterer's penitence into the church to win over the brotherhood, clad in haircloth and covered with ashes, composed in disgrace and dread, you lay him prostrate in the midst before the widows, before the presbyters, clutching at everyone's hems, licking everyone's footprints, holding fast everyone's knees; and over the man's plight you harangue, with all the enticements of mercy you can, a good shepherd and blessed pope, and in the parable of the sheep you go looking for your goats, lest your sheep leap out of the flock again." It seemed good to copy these words here, not only because they agree with what has just been related (by Caius), or so that the discipline then in force regarding penitents might be confirmed by a second example, but chiefly because some, and Paschasius Quesnel by name, Dissertation 1 on the life and deeds of Leo, ch. 12, no. 6, interpret the pope of whom Tertullian says this as Zephyrinus. Baronius too, at the year 216, no. 4, understands of him that saying from the same book, ch. 1: "I hear that an edict has even been published, and a peremptory one: the supreme pontiff, that is, the bishop of bishops, proclaims: I remit the sins of adultery and fornication to those who have done penance." Nor is there any doubt that if Zephyrinus is meant by these words of ch. 1, the same man is also attacked in the earlier words of ch. 13. There are some, however, who refer both passages to the bishop of Carthage, so that he would have been called supreme pontiff and bishop of bishops by an exaggeration not unusual for Tertullian. But whether he or anyone else is meant, (continues)

(printed under page 21)

(17) ‹anchor: πότερον συνημμένον ἢ διεζευγμένον› · call in col 31

Πότερον συνημμένον ἢ διεζευγμένον. Quid sit συνημμένον, et quid διεζευγμένον, docent dialectici. Pronuntiata quae Stoici ἀξιώματα vocant, alia sunt simplicia, ut illud: dies est; alia non simplicia. Ex his quae non sunt simplicia, alia sunt συνημμένα, id est connexa, quae constant ex duobus diversis pronuntiatis, ut illud, Si dies est, lux est. Alia διεζευγμένα, seu disjuncta, ut illud, Aut dies est, aut nox est. Vide Diogenem Laertium in Zenone. Sextus Empiricus τὸ συνημμένον definit, τὸ συνεστὼς ἐξ ἀξιώματος διαφορουμένου, ἢ ἐξ ἀξιωμάτων διαφερόντων, διὰ τοῦ εἰ ἢ εἴπερ συνδέσμου. Et exemplum connexi quod fit ex pronuntiato διαφορουμένῳ hoc affert: Si dies est, dies est. Ex quo corrigendus est Diogenes Laertius in Zenone hoc modo, ἐξ ἀξιώματος μετὰ διαφορουμένου, οἷον, Εἰ ἡμέρα ἐστίν, ἡμέρα ἐστίν. Porro tam apud Sextum, quam apud Laertium mallem scribere διφορουμένου, quemadmodum legitur apud Alexandrum Aphrodisiensem in priora Analytica. Nam διφορούμενον, idem est quod δὶς λαμβανόμενον. Et haec quidem de harum vocum interpretatione dicta sufficiant. Quod vero spectat ad hujus loci interpunctionem, scripti codices inter se dissentiunt. Nam Regius quidem codex quem secutus est Robertus Stephanus, post vocem διεζευγμένον, virgulam habet appositam; ut scias, voces illas συνημμένον καὶ διεζευγμένον, referendas esse ad τὸ ῥητὸν quod praecessit: non autem ad σχῆμα συλλογισμοῦ quod proxime sequitur. Sed reliqui codices, Maz. et Med. cum Fuk. et Saviliano, post vocem διεζευγμένον, nullam adhibent distinctionem, sed tantum post vocem συνημμένον. Quam distinctionem secutus Rufinus et reliqui interpretes, connexum ac disjunctum, duo syllogismorum genera esse existimarunt. Mihi prior distinctio magis placet.

"Whether conjoined or disjoined." What a συνημμένον is, and what a διεζευγμένον, the logicians teach. Of the propositions which the Stoics call ἀξιώματα, some are simple, as "it is day"; others not simple. Of those which are not simple, some are συνημμένα, that is, "conjoined," which consist of two different propositions, as "If it is day, it is light." Others are διεζευγμένα, or "disjoined," as "Either it is day, or it is night." See Diogenes Laertius on Zeno. Sextus Empiricus defines the συνημμένον as "that which consists of a proposition taken [διαφορουμένου], or of differing propositions, by means of the conjunction 'if' or 'if indeed'." And as an example of a conjoined proposition formed from a proposition taken [διαφορουμένῳ] he offers this: "If it is day, it is day." From this Diogenes Laertius on Zeno should be corrected in this way: "from a proposition with [one] taken [μετὰ διαφορουμένου], for example, If it is day, it is day." Further, both in Sextus and in Laertius I would rather write διφορουμένου, "taken twice," as it is read in Alexander of Aphrodisias on the Prior Analytics. For διφορούμενον is the same as "taken twice." Let this suffice on the meaning of these words. As for the punctuation of this place, the manuscripts disagree. The Royal manuscript, which Robert Estienne followed, has a comma placed after the word διεζευγμένον, so that you may know that the words "conjoined and disjoined" are to be referred to the text [τὸ ῥητόν] that preceded, not to the "figure of syllogism" that immediately follows. But the remaining manuscripts, the Mazarin and Medicean together with the Fouquet and the Savile, put no stop after the word διεζευγμένον, but only after the word συνημμένον. Following this punctuation, Rufinus and the other translators took "conjoined" and "disjoined" to be two kinds of syllogism. I prefer the former punctuation.

(printed under page 22)

(18) ‹anchor: τὸν ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενον› · call in col 31

Τὸν ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενον. Christophorsonus vertit: Christum qui de coelo venturus est, penitus ignorant. Quam interpretationem equidem non damno. Sic enim loqui solent sancti Patres de supremo adventu Christi, quo mundum judicaturus est; non quasi de futuro, sed tanquam de praesenti: ἔρχεται κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. Ita Hegesippus in martyrio sancti Jacobi, et alii passim ab Eusebio citati. Possunt tamen haec verba etiam de primo Christi adventu intelligi, quomodo accepit Rufinus.

"Him who comes from above." Christopherson translated: "they are wholly ignorant of Christ, who is to come from heaven." I, for one, do not condemn this rendering. For so the holy Fathers are accustomed to speak of Christ's final coming, in which He will judge the world, not as of something future but as of something present: "He comes to judge the living and the dead." So Hegesippus in the martyrdom of Saint James, and others cited here and there by Eusebius. These words can, however, also be understood of Christ's first coming, as Rufinus took them.

(printed under page 22)

(19) ‹anchor: Γαληνὸς γὰρ ἴσως› · call in col 31

Γαληνὸς γὰρ ἴσως ὑπό τινων καὶ προσκυνεῖται. Galenus enim de figuris syllogismorum et de tota philosophia libros conscripserat, ut ex librorum ejus indice cognoscimus. Est autem illustre hoc testimonium de Galeno, quippe quod auctoris sit antiquissimi, et Galeni temporibus pene aequalis. Nec vero ex hoc tantum scriptore, verum etiam ex aliis quampluribus idem colligere licet, qui Galenum Aristoteli ac Theophrasto, ipsique adeo Platoni aequare non dubitarunt. Certe Alexander Aphrodisiensis, in librum octavum Topicorum non procul ab initio, satis indicat, ita omnes de Galeno existimasse. Postquam enim docuit, problematum alia ἔνδοξα esse, alia ἄδοξα, et ἔνδοξα quidem in duplici esse differentia, alia enim esse ἁπλῶς, alia ὡρισμένως, haec subjunxit: ὡρισμένως δ' ἔνδοξα, τὰ τῷδέ τινι τῶν ἐνδόξων ἑπόμενα· οἷον, Πλάτωνι, ἢ Ἀριστοτέλει, ἢ Γαληνῷ.

"For Galen is perhaps even worshipped by some." For Galen had written books on the figures of syllogisms and on the whole of philosophy, as we learn from the catalogue of his books. And this is a notable testimony about Galen, since it comes from a very ancient author, almost contemporary with Galen. Nor can the same be gathered from this writer alone, but from a great many others as well, who did not hesitate to set Galen equal to Aristotle and Theophrastus, and even to Plato himself. Certainly Alexander of Aphrodisias, on the eighth book of the Topics, not far from the beginning, shows clearly enough that everyone thought so of Galen. For after teaching that some problems are "reputable" and others "disreputable," and that reputable ones fall under a twofold distinction, some being reputable simply and others in a determinate way, he added: "reputable in a determinate way are those that follow this or that man of repute, for example Plato, or Aristotle, or Galen."

(printed under page 22)

(20) ‹anchor: Ἀσκληπιάδου› · call in col 31

Τὰ Ἀσκληπιάδου. Apud Nicephorum scribitur Ἀσκληπιοδότου, quomodo etiam legit Rufinus. Paulo post, ubi legitur τὰ γὰρ Ἀπολλωνίου, restituendum est Ἀπολλωνίδου ex Theodoreto in libro II Haeretic. fabularum, cap. 5, et ex Nicephoro ac Rufino.

"Those of Asclepiades." In Nicephorus it is written Ἀσκληπιοδότου, "of Asclepiodotus," which is also how Rufinus read it. A little after, where we read "for those of Apollonius," Ἀπολλωνίδου, "of Apollonides," should be restored, from Theodoret in book 2 of the Heretical Fables, chapter 5, and from Nicephorus and Rufinus.

(printed under page 22)

(21) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image (Caius fragment above)› · call in col 34

Ὑπ' αὐτῶν κατασκευασθέντα. Christophorsonus legit ὑπ' αὐτοῦ· quomodo etiam Savilius ad oram sui codicis emendavit. Nostri tamen codices nihil mutant; et vulgata lectio confirmatur tum ex sequentibus, tum ex Theodoreto. Nam Theodoretus in libro II Haereticarum fabularum, cap. 5, hujus loci sensum ita expressit: Καὶ οὐδὲ τοῦτο συμφώνως αὐτοὺς δεδρακέναι λέγει. Ἀλλὰ ἄλλως μὲν τὸν Θεόδοτον, ἑτέρως δὲ τὸν Ἀσκληπιάδην, καὶ Ἑρμόφιλον ἄλλως, καὶ τὸν Ἀπολλωνίδην ἑτέρως· καὶ τούτων δὲ ἕκαστον ἐπιδιορθώσεις τῶν οἰκείων ποιήσασθαι. Ex quibus apparet, Theodoretum hic legisse in plurali numero, τὰ πρότερον ὑπ' αὐτῶν κατασκευασθέντα. Ipsa tamen orationis consequentia poscere videtur, ut ὑπ' αὐτοῦ potius scribatur. De solo enim Apollonide id affirmat Caius, seu quis alius auctor fuit Parvi labyrinthi: illum scilicet duas editiones composuisse sacrorum librorum, quarum posterior multum a priore differret.

"Prepared by them." Christopherson reads ὑπ' αὐτοῦ, "by him," and Savile too corrected it so in the margin of his manuscript. Our manuscripts, however, change nothing, and the received reading is confirmed both by what follows and by Theodoret. For Theodoret, in book 2 of the Compendium of Heretical Fables, chapter 5, expressed the sense of this place thus: "And he says that they did not do even this in agreement: Theodotus in one way, Asclepiades in another, Hermophilus in another, and Apollonides in yet another; and that each of them made corrections of his own." From which it appears that Theodoret read here in the plural, "the things previously prepared by them." Yet the very sequence of the discourse seems to require that "by him" be written instead. For Caius, or whoever else was the author of the Little Labyrinth, affirms this of Apollonides alone: namely, that he produced two editions of the sacred books, the later of which differed greatly from the former.

(printed under page 23)

(22) ‹anchor: καὶ παρ' ὧν κατηχήθησαν› · call in col 34

Καὶ παρ' ὧν κατηχήθησαν. Tota haec pericope usque ad verba illa μὴ ἔχωσι, deest in codice Regio, nec admodum necessaria mihi videtur: habetur tamen in vetustissimo codice Maz., Med. ac Fuk., et in interpretatione Rufini.

"And from whom they were instructed." This whole passage, up to the words "they do not have," is missing in the Royal manuscript, and it does not seem to me very necessary; it is, however, found in the very ancient Mazarin manuscript, in the Medicean and the Fouquet, and in Rufinus's translation.

(printed under page 23)

(23) ‹anchor: ἀνόμου καὶ ἀθέου διδασκαλίας› · call in col 34

Ἀνόμου καὶ ἀθέου διδασκαλίας. Subaudiendum videtur ἕνεκα, vel διὰ τῆς ἀνόμου καὶ ἀθέου διδασκαλίας. Ita fere Langus et Musculus hunc locum interpretati sunt, melius profecto quam Christophorsonus. Male etiam Rufinus vertit: et obtentu impiae hujus assertionis, quasi Graeca sic construenda sint, ἀνόμου καὶ ἀθέου διδασκαλίας προφάσει. Atqui προφάσει χάριτος dixit Eusebius. Quippe haeretici illi, obtentu gratiae quae per Evangelium donata est, legem ac prophetas repudiabant. Unde eorum doctrina merito ἄνομος et ἄθεος dicitur: ἄνομος, eo quod legem rejicerent; ἄθεος, eo quod prophetas unius ac veri Dei nuntios repudiarent.

"Of a lawless and godless teaching." It seems that "for the sake of" should be understood, or "through the lawless and godless teaching." Langus and Musculus interpreted this place more or less so, certainly better than Christopherson. Rufinus too translated badly, "and under pretext of this impious assertion," as if the Greek were to be construed "under pretext of a lawless and godless teaching." But Eusebius said "under pretext of grace." For those heretics, under pretext of the grace given through the Gospel, rejected the Law and the prophets. Hence their doctrine is rightly called lawless and godless: lawless because they rejected the Law; godless because they rejected the prophets, the messengers of the one true God.

(printed under page 23)

(24) ‹anchor: de Canone sacrarum Scripturarum (title)› · call in col 34

Fragmentum istud proferimus e vetustissimo codice Ambrosiano decerptum, atque illud eruditorum omnium examini subjicimus, nullum demendo ex erroribus quibus librariorum imperitia scripturam saturavit atque foedavit; quanquam nihil ii obstent, quominus pretium rei intelligamus. MURATOR. l. c.

We present this fragment, taken from a very ancient Ambrosian manuscript, and submit it to the examination of all the learned, removing none of the errors with which the copyists' ignorance has filled and disfigured the text; although these do not prevent us from understanding the worth of the thing. MURATORI, in the place cited.

(printed under page 23)