PG 11 · cols. 107–112

C. Delarue, O.S.B., In libros Περὶ ἀρχῶν admonitio

Editors' preface

IN LIBROS ΠΕΡΙ ΑΡΧΩΝ

On the Books On First Principles,

ADMONITIO.

Admonition.

1. Eusebius lib. VI Hist. eccles., cap. 24, recensens quaenam Alexandriae opera composuerit Origenes, libros Περὶ ἀρχῶν inter alios enumerat his verbis : Οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ Περὶ ἀρχῶν πρὸ τῆς ἀπ' Ἀλεξανδρείας μεταναστάσεως γράφει. « Libros item De principiis, antequam ab urbe Alexandria migraret, composuit. » Id unum ergo scimus, scriptos fuisse ante annum Christi 231, quo Alexandria excessit, ut Caesaream Palaestinae se reciperet. Jamdudum Graecus illorum contextus periit, et pauca admodum Graece supersunt fragmenta quae infra suis locis Rufini interpretationi reperies adjuncta. Photius, cui quatuor hosce libros Graece legere adhuc contigit, breviter cod. VIII Bibliothecae suae, quid continerent, explicat his verbis : Ἀνεγνώσθη Ὠριγένους τὸ Περὶ ἀρχῶν λόγοι δ'· ὧν ὁ μὲν πρῶτος περὶ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος· ἐν ᾧ πλεῖστα βλασφημεῖ, τὸν μὲν Υἱὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς πεποιῆσθαι λέγων, τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα ὑπὸ τοῦ Υἱοῦ· καὶ διήκειν μὲν τὸν Πατέρα διὰ πάντων τῶν ὄντων, τὸν δὲ Υἱὸν μέχρι τῶν λογικῶν μόνον, τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα μέχρι μόνον τῶν σεσωσμένων. Λέγει δὲ καὶ ἄλλα παραλογώτατα καὶ δυσσεβείας πλήρη· μετεμψυχώσεις τε γὰρ ληρωδεῖ, καὶ ἐμψύχους τοὺς ἀστέρας, καὶ ἕτερα τούτοις παραπλήσια. Ἔστι δὲ ὁ μὲν πρῶτος μυθολογούμενος λόγος περὶ Πατρὸς, καὶ, ὡς ἐκεῖνός φησι, περὶ Χριστοῦ καὶ περὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος· ἔτι καὶ περὶ λογικῶν φύσεων. Ὁ δὲ δεύτερος περὶ κόσμου καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ κτισμάτων· καὶ ἔτι, ὅτι εἷς Θεὸς νόμου καὶ προφητῶν· καὶ ὅτι ὁ αὐτὸς παλαιᾶς καὶ καινῆς Διαθήκης Θεός· καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐνανθρωπήσεως· καὶ ὅτι τὸ αὐτὸ Πνεῦμα ἐν Μωσεῖ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις προφήταις καὶ ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις· ἔτι περὶ ψυχῆς, περὶ ἀναστάσεως, περὶ κολάσεως, περὶ ἐπαγγελιῶν. Ὁ δὲ τρίτος περὶ αὐτεξουσίου· πῶς ὁ διάβολος καὶ αἱ ἀντικείμεναι δυνάμεις κατὰ τὰς Γραφὰς στρατεύονται τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ γένει· ὅτι γενητὸς ὁ κόσμος καὶ φθαρτὸς ἀπὸ χρόνου ἀρξάμενος· ὁ δὲ τέταρτος, περὶ τέλους· ὅτι θεῖαι αἱ Γραφαί· τέλος, ὅπως δεῖ ἀναγινώσκειν καὶ νοεῖν τὰς Γραφάς. « Lecti sunt Origenis De principiis libri quatuor. Horum primus de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu sancto agit. Quo in libro plurima blaspheme scribit, ut, Filium a Patre factum, Spiritum a Filio ; et Patrem quidem per omnia quae exsistunt, pervadere ; Filium vero per ea duntaxat quae ratione praedita sunt ; Spiritum autem per ea tantum, quae salva facta sunt. Tradit et alia absurdissima impietatisque plena : animarum migrationes, et animata sidera, pluraque id genus nugatur. Primo itaque libro fabulose disserit de Patre, et, ut ipse appellat, de Christo, et de sancto Spiritu, insuper et de naturis ratione praeditis. Secundo vero, de mundo rebusque in eo conditis ; praeterea unum eumdemque esse Deum legis et prophetarum ; unum item esse veteris et novi Testamenti Deum ; de Salvatoris incarnatione ; eumdem Spiritum in Moyse et aliis prophetis sanctisque apostolis fuisse ; ad haec de anima, de resurrectione, de poenis et praemiis. Tertio libro, de arbitrii libertate ; qua ratione diabolus contrariaeque potestates juxta Scripturarum doctrinam adversus humanum genus pugnent ; mundum item ortum habere, et corruptioni obnoxium a tempore initium sumpsisse. Quarto libro, de fine ; divinas esse Scripturas ; denique quomodo legendae et intelligendae sint. »

1. Eusebius, in Book VI of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 24, reckoning up what works Origen composed at Alexandria, enumerates the books On First Principles among others in these words: "Moreover, he also writes the books On First Principles before his removal from Alexandria." "He likewise composed the books On First Principles before he departed from the city of Alexandria." This one thing therefore we know, that they were written before the year of Christ 231, in which he left Alexandria to betake himself to Caesarea in Palestine. Their Greek text has long since perished, and very few fragments survive in Greek, which you will find subjoined below in their proper places to the translation of Rufinus. Photius, to whom it still fell to read these four books in Greek, briefly explains in codex 8 of his Bibliotheca what they contained, in these words: "There were read of Origen On First Principles four books; of which the first is concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; wherein he writes very many things blasphemously, saying that the Son was made by the Father, and the Spirit by the Son; and that the Father pervades all things that exist, whereas the Son reaches only to rational beings, and the Spirit only to those who are saved. And he says also other things most absurd and full of impiety: for he prates foolishly of transmigrations of souls, and that the stars are animate, and other things akin to these. Now the first book of his mythical discourse is concerning the Father, and, as he says, concerning Christ and concerning the Holy Spirit; and further concerning rational natures. The second is concerning the world and the creatures in it; and further, that there is one God of the law and the prophets, and that the God of the Old and of the New Testament is the same; and concerning the incarnation of the Saviour; and that the same Spirit was in Moses and the other prophets and the holy apostles; further concerning the soul, concerning the resurrection, concerning punishment, concerning promises. The third is concerning free will; how the devil and the opposing powers according to the Scriptures wage war against the human race; that the world is originated and corruptible, having begun from time. And the fourth is concerning the end; that the Scriptures are divine; finally, how one ought to read and understand the Scriptures." "There were read four books of Origen On First Principles. Of these the first treats of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In which book he writes very many things blasphemously, as that the Son was made by the Father, the Spirit by the Son; and that the Father indeed pervades all things that exist, the Son however only those things that are endowed with reason, and the Spirit only those that are saved. He delivers also other things most absurd and full of impiety: he trifles about migrations of souls, and animate stars, and many things of that sort. In the first book, therefore, he fabulously discourses of the Father, and, as he himself calls Him, of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, and moreover of natures endowed with reason. In the second, of the world and the things created in it; besides, that the God of the law and of the prophets is one and the same; likewise that the God of the Old and of the New Testament is one; of the incarnation of the Saviour; that the same Spirit was in Moses and the other prophets and the holy apostles; in addition to these, of the soul, of the resurrection, of punishments and rewards. In the third book, of the freedom of the will; in what way the devil and the opposing powers according to the teaching of the Scriptures fight against the human race; likewise that the world had an origin, and, subject to corruption, took its beginning from time. In the fourth book, of the end; that the Scriptures are divine; finally, how they are to be read and understood."

2. Ex omnibus porro Origenis operibus nullum fuisse quod majorem ei criminum invidiam concitarit, quam istud Περὶ ἀρχῶν, ut non constaret vel ex hoc Photii testimonio, aperte fatetur Pamphilus martyr in Apologia sua pro Origene, ubi ait : « Incipientes igitur indiciis scriptorum suorum ostendere quid de singulis senserit, ex his praecipue libris testimonia congregabimus quos accusatores ejus quam maxime criminantur, id est, quos per spatium et quietem in secreto conscripsit : hos enim asserunt maxime a praedicatione ecclesiastica discrepare : ex his praecipue libris, quos Περὶ ἀρχῶν attitulavit, in quibus quamplurima a calumniatoribus incusantur. » Marcello Ancyrano quantum displicuerit hoc opus, docet Eusebius libro primo contra eumdem Marcellum, cap. 4, ubi ejus verba haec affert : Καί τοι, εἰ δεῖ τ' ἀληθὲς περὶ Ὠριγένους εἰπεῖν, τοῦτο προσήκει λέγειν, ὅτι ἄρτι τῶν κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν ἀποστὰς μαθημάτων, καὶ τοῖς θείοις ὁμιλῆσαι προελόμενος λόγοις, πρὸ τῆς ἀκριβοῦς τῶν Γραφῶν καταλήψεως, διὰ τὸ πολὺ καὶ φιλότιμον τῆς ἔξωθεν παιδεύσεως, θᾶττον τοῦ δέοντος ἀρξάμενος ὑπογράφειν, ὑπὸ τῶν τῆς φιλοσοφίας παρήχθη λόγων, καί τινα δι' αὐτοὺς οὐ καλῶς γέγραφε. Δῆλον δέ· ἔτι γὰρ τῶν τοῦ Πλάτωνος μεμνημένος δογμάτων, καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀρχῶν παρ' αὐτῷ διαφορᾶς, Περὶ ἀρχῶν γέγραφε βιβλίον, καὶ ταύτην τῷ συγγράμματι τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν ἔθετο. Δεῖγμα δὲ τοῦτο μέγιστον τὸ, μηδὲ ἄλλοθέν ποθεν τὴν ἀρχὴν τῶν λέξεων αὐτὸν ἢ τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν τοῦ βιβλίου ποιήσασθαι, ἀλλ' ἀπὸ τῶν τῷ Πλάτωνι ῥηθέντων ῥημάτων. Γέγραφε γὰρ ἀρχόμενος οὕτως· Οἱ πεπιστευκότες καὶ πεπιστευμένοι. Τοῦτο τὸ ῥητὸν οὕτως εἰρημένον εὕροις ἂν ἐν τῷ Γοργίᾳ Πλάτωνος. « Quod si verum de Origene fatendum est, illud dicendum, cum vix a philosophicis scholis divertisset, et divinis litteris vacare vellet, priusquam illarum sensum diligenter fuisset assecutus, eo quod esset saecularibus disciplinis cumulatissime instructus, citius quam par erat, accessisse ad scribendum : unde per philosophiam seductus quaedam minus recte scripsit. Exempli gratia : Platonis dogmatum et variorum ejus principiorum memor, librum quemdam inscripsit De principiis. Quae quidem inscriptio argumento est non vulgari, non aliunde eam quam a Platone ea omnia mutuatum. Exorditur autem librum ad hunc modum : Qui credunt, et quibus creditur. Quod ita dictum in Gorgia Platonis reperitur. » At vero iniquum esse hocce Marcelli judicium contendit Eusebius his verbis : Οὔτ' εἰ ἐφέρετο, ἤνεγκεν ἂν διαβολὴν Ὠριγένει φάντι, Οἱ πεπιστευκότες ἢ καὶ πεπιστευμένοι, καὶ συνάψαντι ἑξῆς, τὴν χάριν καὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν δι' Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ γεγονέναι, καὶ Χριστὸν εἶναι τὴν ἀλήθειαν, κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον ὑπ' αὐτοῦ· « Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀλήθεια. » Ποία γὰρ πρὸς ταῦτα κοινωνία γένοιτ' ἄν ποτε Πλάτωνι ; οὐδὲν Πλάτωνος

2. Moreover, that of all the works of Origen there was none which aroused against him a greater odium of charges than this On First Principles, even if it were not established from this testimony of Photius, the martyr Pamphilus openly confesses in his Apology for Origen, where he says: "Beginning therefore to show by the evidence of his own writings what he thought concerning each matter, we shall gather testimonies chiefly from those books which his accusers most of all traduce, that is, those which he wrote at leisure and in quiet in secret: for they assert that these differ most from the ecclesiastical preaching; chiefly from those books which he entitled On First Principles, in which very many things are impugned by calumniators." How greatly this work displeased Marcellus of Ancyra, Eusebius teaches in the first book Against the same Marcellus, chapter 4, where he cites these words of his: "And yet, if one must speak the truth concerning Origen, this is fitting to say: that having just departed from the studies of philosophy, and having chosen to converse with the divine words, before an accurate grasp of the Scriptures, because of the abundance and ambition of his secular education, having begun to write sooner than he ought, he was led astray by the discourses of philosophy, and on account of them wrote certain things not well. And this is clear: for while still mindful of the dogmas of Plato, and of the difference among principles in him, he wrote a book On First Principles, and gave this title to the treatise. And the greatest proof of this is that he made neither the beginning of his words nor the title of the book from anywhere else than from the words spoken by Plato. For in beginning he wrote thus: 'Those who have believed and have been believed.' This saying thus spoken you may find in the Gorgias of Plato." "Now if the truth must be confessed concerning Origen, this must be said: that when he had scarcely turned aside from the philosophical schools, and wished to devote himself to the divine letters, before he had diligently attained their sense, because he was most abundantly furnished with secular disciplines, he set about writing sooner than was fitting; whence, seduced through philosophy, he wrote certain things less rightly. For example: mindful of the dogmas of Plato and of his various principles, he entitled a certain book On First Principles. Which title indeed is no ordinary proof that he borrowed both it and all those things from nowhere else than from Plato. Moreover, he begins the book in this manner: 'Those who believe, and to whom credit is given.' Which is found thus said in the Gorgias of Plato." Yet Eusebius contends that this judgement of Marcellus is unjust, in these words: "Nor, even if it were so cited, would it have brought any calumny upon Origen when he said, 'Those who have believed or also have been believed,' and immediately subjoined that grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17), and that Christ is the truth, according to what was said by Him: 'I am the truth' (John 14:6). For what fellowship with these things could Plato ever have? No book of Plato

Editors' notes and page, col. 107

Page

other: col 108 is the right-hand number of a full-width page, set whole under col 107 (corpus full_width rule); nothing of its own: pointer only

PG 11:109

Περὶ ἀρχῶν μνημονεύεται βιβλίον, οὐδὲ Ὠριγένης ὁμοίως περὶ ἀρχῶν ἐδόξασε Πλάτωνι, ὁ μίαν μόνην τὴν ἀγέννητον, καὶ ἄναρχον, καὶ ἐπέκεινα τῶν ὅλων εἰδὼς ἀρχὴν, ταύτην τε εἶναι Πατέρα ἑνὸς μονογενοῦς Υἱοῦ, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα γέγονε. « Id quod ut ita esse concedatur, calumniam Origeni non inferret, cum statim his verbis : Qui credunt, et quibus creditur, subjunxerit, gratiam et veritatem per Jesum Christum advenisse, et esse Christum veritatem, secundum id quod ab eo dictum est : « Ego sum veritas. » Quaenam vero cum istis Platoni communio esse queat? Nullus liber a Platone De principiis scriptus memoratur. Nec ut Plato de principiis Origenes sentiebat, qui principium unicum, ingeneratum, sine principio, super omnia cum agnoscat, ipsum statuit esse Patrem unius unigeniti Filii, per quem omnia facta sunt. » Vide insuper quid in his libris arguat Marcellus, et quid reponat Eusebius ibidem pag. 21. Longior sim si enumerem quotquot in his etiam errores videre se clamitaverint Methodius, Eustathius, Theophilus, Epiphanius, Hieronymus, aliique. Hieronymi praesertim operae pretium est legere epistolam 38, alias 61, epistolam 40, alias 64, libros tres adversus Rufinum, et epistolam 94, alias 69, ad Avitum, quem docet quid cavendum sit in libris Περὶ ἀρχῶν ; item Justiniani imperatoris epistolam ad Menam patriarcham Constantinopolitanum. Econtrario Didymus commentariolis seu brevibus in hosce libros editis scholiis catholice ubique et diverse ab Arianis sentire Origenem propugnabat, teste Hieronymo epist. 41, alias 65, et sub finem libri II adversus Rufinum. Hanc vero excusandi et defendendi Origenis methodum deseruit Rufinus qui plurima quidem in libris Περὶ ἀρχῶν catholicae de Trinitate fidei adversari non negabat, sed ea ab haereticis et malevolis hominibus inserta fuisse contendebat. Sed vide quemadmodum in notis ad libellum ejus De adulteratione librorum Origenis confutetur, perinde ac vetus auctor Apologiae de qua Photius cod. 117.

On First Principles is mentioned, nor did Origen hold opinions concerning first principles in the same way as Plato—he who knew one sole unbegotten and unoriginated principle beyond all things, and that this is the Father of one only-begotten Son, through Whom all things were made (John 1:3)." "Which, even if it be granted to be so, would bring no calumny upon Origen, since immediately to these words: 'Those who believe, and to whom credit is given,' he subjoined that grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, and that Christ is the truth, according to what was said by Him: 'I am the truth.' Now what communion can Plato have with those things? No book written by Plato On First Principles is mentioned. Nor did Origen think concerning first principles as Plato did, seeing that, acknowledging one sole principle, unbegotten, without beginning, above all things, he establishes that He Himself is the Father of one only-begotten Son, through Whom all things were made." See moreover what Marcellus censures in these books, and what Eusebius replies in the same place, page 21. I should be too long were I to enumerate all who loudly proclaimed that they saw errors in these books as well: Methodius, Eustathius, Theophilus, Epiphanius, Jerome, and others. Of Jerome especially it is worthwhile to read Epistle 38, otherwise 61, Epistle 40, otherwise 64, the three books Against Rufinus, and Epistle 94, otherwise 59, to Avitus, whom he teaches what is to be guarded against in the books On First Principles; likewise the epistle of the Emperor Justinian to Menas, patriarch of Constantinople. On the contrary, Didymus, in brief commentaries or short scholia published on these books, maintained that Origen everywhere thought catholically and differently from the Arians, as Jerome testifies in Epistle 41, otherwise 65, and towards the end of Book II Against Rufinus. This method of excusing and defending Origen, however, was abandoned by Rufinus, who did not deny that very many things in the books On First Principles were opposed to the Catholic faith concerning the Trinity, but contended that they had been inserted by heretics and malicious men. But see how he is refuted in the notes to his treatise On the Adulteration of the Books of Origen, just like the ancient author of the Apology of which Photius speaks in codex 117.

3. Anno Christi 398 Rufinus, Macarii nobilis Romani hortatu, cujus precibus jam anno superiore apologeticum Pamphili martyris pro Origene librum Latine verterat, hos quoque Περὶ ἀρχῶν libros interpretari aggressus est, tantoque ardore in id operis incubuit, ut, elapsis Quadragesimae diebus, duos jam priores libros absolvisset, urgente nimirum Macario qui tum in ejus vicinia manebat. At cum paucis post Pascha diebus mutato domicilio in extrema urbis parte habitaret Macarius, et inde rarior exactor accederet, lentius reliquo operi vacavit Rufinus, adeo ut sub hujus anni finem nondum ei ultimam manum admovisset. Absoluti tandem operis fronti hanc praefixit praefationem quae etiamnum superest, et unde seminarium discordiae, et ingens eum inter et Hieronymum natum est incendium, de quo fuse agitur Origenianorum lib. III, cap. 4, sect. 1. Id potissimum nunc in hac praefatione observari velim, asserere Rufinum : 1° se sicubi in hisce libris aliquid contra id invenit quod ab Origene caeteris locis pie de Trinitate fuerat definitum, velut adulteratum hoc et alienum aut praetermisisse, aut secundum eam regulam protulisse quam ab ipso frequenter invenerat affirmatam, id est, ad catholicum sensum quibusdam detractis, quibusdam aliunde additis revocasse ; 2° se, ubi Origenes obscurius quaedam protulerat, ea quae in aliis ejus libris apertius legerat, adjecisse ut manifestior fieret locus ; nihil tamen suum dixisse, sed licet in aliis locis dicta, sua tamen Origeni reddidisse. Hinc satis patet nec fidelem nec accuratam esse Rufini interpretationem. « Addidit, inquit Hieronymus lib I adversus Rufinum, quae non erant, asserens ab eodem Origene in locis aliis disputata. Quod, nisi ipsa loca monstraverit, unde transtulisse se dicit, probare non poterit. » Praetorea cum istius translationis exemplaria legisset Hieronymus, et contulisset cum Graeco, illico, ut monet eodem libro, « animadvertit quae Origenes de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto impie dixerat, et quae Romanae aures ferre non poterant, in meliorem partem ab interprete commutata ; caetera autem dogmata de angelorum ruina ; de animarum lapsu ; de resurrectionis praestigiis ; de mundo vel intermundis Epicuri ; de restitutione omnium in aequalem statum, et multo his deteriora, quae longum esset retexere, vel ita vertisse, ut in Graeco invenerat ; vel de commentariolis Didymi, qui Origenis apertissimus propugnator est, exaggerata et firmiora posuisse. » Fallit ergo Rufinus, asserens se nihil suum vertendo dixisse, sed « licet in aliis locis dicta, sua tamen Origeni reddidisse, » cum testetur Hieronymus multa illum de commentariolis Didymi versioni suae inseruisse. Idem Hieronymus lib. II adversus Rufinum ait : « In primo libro Περὶ ἀρχῶν, ubi Origenes lingua sacrilega blasphemavit quod Filius Patrem non videat, tu etiam causas reddis quasi ex persona ejus qui scripsit, et Didymi interpretaris σχόλιον, in quo ille casso labore conatur alienum laborem defendere, quod Origenes quidem bene dixerit, sed nos simplices homines et cicures Enniani, nec illius sapientiam, nec tuam qui interpretaris, intelligere possumus. »

3. In the year of Christ 398 Rufinus, at the exhortation of Macarius, a noble Roman, at whose entreaties he had already in the preceding year translated into Latin the apologetic book of the martyr Pamphilus for Origen, undertook to translate these books On First Principles also, and applied himself to that work with so great ardour that, when the days of Lent had elapsed, he had already finished the first two books, urged on, to be sure, by Macarius, who was then staying in his neighbourhood. But when a few days after Easter Macarius changed his residence and dwelt in the furthest part of the city, and thence came more rarely to exact the work, Rufinus devoted himself more slowly to the rest of the work, so that towards the end of this year he had not yet put the final hand to it. To the front of the work, when at length completed, he prefixed this preface which still survives, and from which arose a seedbed of discord and a huge conflagration between him and Jerome, which is treated at length in Book III of the Origeniana, chapter 4, section 1. This above all I should wish now to be observed in this preface, that Rufinus asserts: 1. that wherever he found anything in these books contrary to what had been piously defined by Origen in other places concerning the Trinity, he either passed it over as adulterated and foreign, or set it forth according to that rule which he had frequently found affirmed by him, that is, recalled it to the Catholic sense by removing some things and adding others from elsewhere; 2. that where Origen had put forward certain things more obscurely, he added what he had read more clearly in his other books, so that the passage might become plainer; yet that he said nothing of his own, but restored to Origen his own words, even though spoken in other places. Hence it is sufficiently clear that the translation of Rufinus is neither faithful nor accurate. "He added," says Jerome in Book I Against Rufinus, "things which were not there, asserting that they were disputed by the same Origen in other places. Which, unless he points out the very places whence he says he transferred them, he will not be able to prove." Moreover, when Jerome had read copies of that translation and compared them with the Greek, forthwith, as he warns in the same book, "he noticed that the things which Origen had impiously said concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and which Roman ears could not bear, had been changed for the better by the translator; whereas the remaining dogmas concerning the fall of the angels, concerning the lapse of souls, concerning the illusions of the resurrection, concerning the world or the interworlds of Epicurus, concerning the restitution of all things to an equal state, and things much worse than these, which it would be long to recount, he either translated just as he had found them in the Greek, or set them down exaggerated and strengthened from the brief commentaries of Didymus, who is the most open champion of Origen." Rufinus therefore deceives when he asserts that in translating he said nothing of his own, but "restored to Origen his own words, even though spoken in other places," since Jerome testifies that he inserted many things from the brief commentaries of Didymus into his translation. The same Jerome in Book II Against Rufinus says: "In the first book On First Principles, where Origen with sacrilegious tongue blasphemed that the Son does not see the Father, you even render reasons as if in the person of him who wrote, and translate a scholion of Didymus, in which with vain labour he tries to defend another's labour, claiming that Origen indeed spoke well, whereas we simple men and tame creatures of Ennius can understand neither his wisdom nor yours who translate."

4. Anno Christi 399 Hieronymus, tum amicorum Pammachii et Oceani litteris, tum propriis oculis certior factus libros Περὶ ἀρχῶν fraudulenter fuisse a Rufino translatos, nec satis praemonitum fuisse lectorem quid potissimum in illis cavere deberet, veritus aliunde ne ob fictas laudes quibus in praefatione Rufini exornatus fuerat, Origenis erroribus favere existimaretur, aliam hujus operis versionem ad Graeci contextus fidem aggressus est. « Ego autem, inquit lib. I adversus Rufinum, in libris Περὶ ἀρχῶν quod in Graeco habebatur expressi : non ut crederet lector his quae interpretabar, sed ne crederet illis quae tu ante transtuleras. Duplex in meo opere utilitas fuit, dum et haereticus auctor proditur, et non verus interpres arguitur. Ac ne quis me putaret his consentire quae verteram, interpretationis necessitatem praefatione munivi, et docui quibus lector non deberet credere. Prior translatio laudem auctoris continet ; secunda vituperationem. Illa lectorem provocat ad credendum ; ista ad non credendum movet. Ibi et ego invitus laudator Origenis assumor ; hic in tantum non laudo quem transfero, ut cogar accusare laudantem. Eadem res non eadem mente perfecta est ; imo unum iter diversos exitus habuit. » Ubi primum absoluta est haec interpretatio et ad Pammachium missa, quaenam fuerit illius conditio narrat ipse sanctus doctor in epistola 94, alias 59, ad Avitum scripta anno 409. « Ante annos, inquit, circiter decem, sanctus vir Pammachius ad me cujusdam schedulas misit, quae Origenis Περὶ ἀρχῶν interpretata volumina continerent, imo vitiata ; hoc magnopere postulans, ut Graecam veritatem Latina servaret translatio ; et in utramque partem seu bene seu male dixisset, ille qui scripsit, absque interpretis patrocinio Romana lingua cognosceret. Feci ut voluit, misique ei libros : quos cum legisset, exhorruit ; et reclusit scrinio, ne prolati in vulgus multorum animos vulnerarent. A quodam fratre qui habebat zelum Dei, sed non secundum scientiam, rogatus ut traderet ad legendum, quasi statim reddituro, propter angustiam temporis, fraudem non potuit suspicari. Qui acceperat legendos, adhibitis notariis opus omne descripsit, et multo celerius quam promiserat, codicem reddidit, eademque temeritate, et, levius dicam, ineptia, quod male subripuerat, pejus alii credidit. Et quia difficile grandes libri de rebus mysticis disputantes, notarum possunt servare compendia, praesertim qui furtim celeriterque dictantur, ita in illis confusa sunt omnia, ut et ordine in plerisque et sensu careant. » Quamobrem ipsum ad Avitum exemplar direxit quod a se olim translatum, et nulli alii traditum, a supradicto fratre perverse fuerat editum, sed

4. In the year of Christ 399 Jerome, informed both by the letters of his friends Pammachius and Oceanus and by his own eyes that the books On First Principles had been fraudulently translated by Rufinus, and that the reader had not been sufficiently forewarned what above all he ought to guard against in them, and fearing on the other hand lest on account of the feigned praises wherewith he had been decked out in Rufinus's preface he might be thought to favour the errors of Origen, undertook another version of this work faithful to the Greek text. "Now I," he says in Book I Against Rufinus, "expressed in the books On First Principles what was contained in the Greek: not that the reader might believe the things which I translated, but that he might not believe those which you had previously translated. There was a twofold usefulness in my work, while both the heretical author is exposed and the untruthful translator is convicted. And lest anyone should think that I consented to the things which I had translated, I fortified the necessity of the translation with a preface, and taught what things the reader ought not to believe. The former translation contains praise of the author; the second, censure. That one invites the reader to believe; this one moves him not to believe. There I too against my will am taken up as a praiser of Origen; here I so far refrain from praising him whom I translate that I am compelled to accuse his praiser. The same task was not accomplished with the same mind; nay, one road had opposite outcomes." As soon as this translation was finished and sent to Pammachius, what its fate was the holy doctor himself relates in Epistle 94, otherwise 59, written to Avitus in the year 409. "About ten years ago," he says, "the holy man Pammachius sent to me the sheets of a certain person which contained the volumes of Origen On First Principles translated, or rather corrupted; earnestly demanding this, that a Latin translation should preserve the Greek truth, and that on either side, whether he who wrote had spoken well or ill, the Roman tongue might know it without the patronage of a translator. I did as he wished, and sent him the books; which when he had read, he shuddered, and locked them up in his desk, lest if brought forth to the public they should wound the minds of many. Asked by a certain brother who had a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge (Rom. 10:2), to hand them over to be read, as though he would return them immediately, because of the shortness of the time he could not suspect a fraud. He who had received them to read employed shorthand writers and copied out the whole work, and returned the codex much more quickly than he had promised, and with the same rashness and, to speak mildly, folly, what he had dishonestly pilfered he still more dishonestly entrusted to another. And because large books disputing about mystical matters can with difficulty preserve the abbreviations of shorthand notes, especially those which are dictated stealthily and rapidly, all things in them were so confused that in most places they lack both order and sense." Wherefore he directed to Avitus himself the copy which, translated by himself of old and handed over to no one else, had been perversely published by the aforesaid brother, but

Editors' notes and page, col. 109

Page

other: col 110 is the right-hand number of a full-width page, set whole under col 109 (corpus full_width rule); nothing of its own: pointer only

PG 11:111

Avitum praemonet quid potissimum in hisce libris cavendum sit, « ut scias, inquit, detestanda tibi in eis esse quamplurima, et juxta sermonem Domini inter scorpiones incedendum. » Mox e singulis libris loca profert quae maxime reprehensioni erant obnoxia. Ea suis quaeque locis Rufini interpretationi reperies adjuncta. Integra porro Hieronymi interpretatio jamdudum injuria temporum intercidit.

warns Avitus what above all is to be guarded against in these books: "so that you may know," he says, "that very many things in them are to be detested, and that, according to the word of the Lord, one must walk among scorpions." Then from each book he brings forward the passages that were most open to censure. You will find them attached, each in its own place, to Rufinus's translation. Jerome's complete translation, moreover, has long since perished through the injury of time.

Editors' notes and page, col. 111

Footnotes

(¹) ‹anchor: in cubiculum suum› · call in col 111 Cant. II, 4.

Song of Songs 2:4.

(printed under page 60)

(32) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 111

Ex hac praefatione Rufini ejusque quatuor Περὶ ἀρχῶν librrorum interpretatione Latina seminarium discordiae et ingens incendium natum est eum inter et Hieronymum; de quo vide Huetium Origenianorum libro secundo, capitis quarti sectione prima, num. 16, 17 et seqq. Interim moneo nos hunc prologum et sequentem quatuor Περὶ ἀρχῶν librorum interpretationem contulisse cum sex codicibus manuscriptis, uno Virodunensi noni saeculi; altero Corbeiensi, noni pariter saeculi; tertio Colbertino; quarto Sorbonico; quinto monasterii de Monte Sancti Michaelis in Periculo maris; sexto monasterii Sancti Remigii Rhemensis. Denique cum hanc praefationem paulo accuratius quam Merlinus et Genebrardus ediderit dominus Joannes Martianaeus tom. IV parte secunda suae editionis Operum Hieronymi, p. 339, placuit etiam inde varias lectiones excerpere.

From this preface of Rufinus and his Latin translation of the four books Περὶ ἀρχῶν (On First Principles) sprang the seed-bed of discord and the great conflagration between him and Jerome; on which see Huet, Origeniana, book two, chapter four, section one, nos. 16, 17 and following. Meanwhile we advise that we have collated this prologue and the following translation of the four books Περὶ ἀρχῶν with six manuscripts: one of Verdun, of the ninth century; a second of Corbie, likewise of the ninth century; a third, Colbert's; a fourth of the Sorbonne; a fifth of the monastery of Mont-Saint-Michel in peril of the sea; a sixth of the monastery of Saint-Remi at Reims. Lastly, since Dom Jean Martianay published this preface somewhat more accurately than Merlin and Génébrard, in tome IV, part two, of his edition of the Works of Jerome, p. 339, we have thought good to take variant readings from there as well.

(printed under page 60)

(33) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 111

Inter quos etiam frater et collega noster. Sic omnes codd. mss. praeter Remigianum ubi legitur, « in quo, » etc., quam lectionem sequitur etiam Martianaeus. Perperam vero Merlinus et Genebrardus: « Inter quos etiam frater Hieronymus, sed et collega. » Tacuerat enim Rufinus Hieronymi nomen, ut testantur Pammachius et Oceanus epist. 40, alias 64, ad Hieronymum. « Sane subtiliter, inquiunt, in praefatione operis sui mentionem tacito nomine tuae sanctitatis expressit. »

"Among whom also our brother and colleague." So all the manuscripts except that of Saint-Remi, where one reads "in whom," etc., a reading Martianay also follows. But Merlin and Génébrard wrongly: "Among whom also brother Jerome, and colleague as well." For Rufinus had kept silent the name of Jerome, as Pammachius and Oceanus testify in letter 40, otherwise 64, to Jerome: "Very subtly indeed," they say, "in the preface of his work he made mention of your holiness without giving the name."

(printed under page 60)

(34) ‹anchor: quia introduxit› · call in col 111

Quia introduxit, etc. Vox « quia » deest in omnibus libris antea editis, quamvis reperiatur in omnibus mss. Ibid. omnes mss. et Martianaeus, « asserens eum quod cum .... etiam ipse se vicerit. » Merl. et Genebr., « asserens quod cum .... ipse se vincit, » Paulo post codd. Corb., Remig. et Colbert., « merito comprobat. » Merlinus, Martianaeus et codex monasterii de Monte Sancti Michaelis, « merito comprobavit. » Ibidem omnes mss. et Martianaeus, « quod ego saepe considerans reticebam, nec deprecantibus me .... annuebam. » Merlinus et Genebr., « quod ego saepius considerans reticebam, et deprecantibus me .... non annuebam. »

"That he brought in," etc. The word "that" is missing in all the books previously printed, though it is found in all the manuscripts. In the same place all the manuscripts and Martianay read "asserting of him that whereas .... he even surpassed himself"; Merlin and Génébrard, "asserting that whereas .... he surpasses himself." A little after, the Corbie, Saint-Remi and Colbert manuscripts read "rightly approves"; Merlin, Martianay and the manuscript of the monastery of Mont-Saint-Michel, "rightly approved." In the same place all the manuscripts and Martianay read "which I, often considering, kept silent about, nor .... assented to those entreating me"; Merlin and Génébrard, "which I, considering it more often, kept silent about, and .... did not assent to those entreating me."

(printed under page 60)

Page

running head: 111 IN LIBROS ΠΕΡΙ Α… (right part not visible in the column crops)
marginal letters: A, B, C (between the columns)
other: four full-width lines of the ADMONITIO at the head of page 111/112, above the rule; not set (Q2: crops show only their left half)
running head: 111 IN LIBROS ΠΕΡΙ ΑΡΧΩΝ 112
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the full-width lines at the head of page 60 (cols 111-112), above the rule, end the admonition at "intercidit."; the word printed jam- in the crop is whole on the page as "jamdudum". In "« ut scias" the u is faint on the scan (reads like "nt"); set as ut, UNSURE whether damaged type or misprint.

PG 11:112

Editors' notes and page, col. 112

Footnotes

(35) ‹anchor: contra propositum› · call in col 112

Contra propositum. Ita omnes mss. et Martianaeus. At Merlinus et Genebr., « citra propositum. » Mox omnes mss. et Martianaeus, « ea tamen lege atque eo ordine, ut quantum fieri potest, interpretando sequar regulam praecessorum. » Merlinus et Genebr., « ea tamen lege atque ordine, in quantum fieri potest, interpretando sequor regulam praedecessorum. »

"Against my purpose." So all the manuscripts and Martianay. But Merlin and Génébrard read "short of my purpose." Shortly after, all the manuscripts and Martianay read "yet on this condition and in this order, that so far as can be done, in translating I may follow the rule of my predecessors"; Merlin and Génébrard, "yet on this condition and order, so far as can be done, in translating I follow the rule of my forerunners."

(printed under page 60)

(36) ‹anchor: quos homileticos› · call in col 112

Homileticos. Ita Martianaeus. In omnibus mss. legitur « omeliticos, » corrupte pro « homileticos, » vel « homiliticos. » Merlin. et Geneb., « homiliaticos, » male.

"Homiletic." So Martianay. In all the manuscripts one reads "omeliticos," a corruption of "homileticos" or "homiliticos." Merlin and Génébrard have "homiliaticos," wrongly.

(printed under page 60)

(37) ‹anchor: disciplinae tamen regulis› · call in col 112

Disciplinae tamen regulis. Sic recte omnes mss. et Martianaeus. Perperam Merlinus et Genebr., « discipulum tamen regulis. » Mox Merlinus (continues)

"Yet by the rules of discipline." So rightly all the manuscripts and Martianay. Wrongly Merlin and Génébrard: "yet the disciple by the rules." Shortly after, Merlin (continues)

(printed under page 60)