PG 5 · cols. 1021–1024

Dissertatio de fine epistolae S. Polycarpi et de subsequentibus fragmentis (title only partly read; editor not named in the digest)

Editors' preface

MONITUM IN SUBSEQUENTIA FRAGMENTA.

NOTICE ON THE FRAGMENTS THAT FOLLOW.

(Galland., Vet. Patr. Biblioth., I, Proleg., p. LXV.)

(Gallandi, Library of the Ancient Fathers, I, Prolegomena, p. LXV.)

I. Exstant fragmenta V Responsionum Capitulorum S. Polycarpi Smyrnensis episcopi, quae circa saeculi VI medium Victor Capuanus e Graeco Latine reddita, Catenae in IV Evangelia intexuit. Ea primus edidit Parisiis 1575 Franciscus Feuardentius in calce Adnotationum ad Irenaei lib. III, cap. 3, ex ms. codice Virduni reperto ac vetustissimis characteribus exarato, ut ipsemet testatur. Eadem deinceps evulgarunt Halloixius, Usserius aliique.

I. There survive five fragments of the Answers to Chapters of St Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, which Victor of Capua, about the middle of the sixth century, rendered from Greek into Latin and wove into his Catena on the four Gospels. Francis Feuardent first published them at Paris in 1575, at the end of his Annotations on Book III, chapter 3 of Irenaeus, from a manuscript codex found at Verdun and written in very ancient characters, as he himself attests. Afterwards Halloix, Ussher and others made them public.

De horum fragmentorum sinceritate, varia circumfertur virorum eruditorum sententia. Tanquam legitima videtur agnoscere Grotius, dum excitans Polycarpum interprete Victore Capuano, integrum fragmentum V exscribit. Neque aliter illustris Huetius : siquidem inter antiqua monumenta

On the genuineness of these fragments, the opinion of learned men that goes about is varied. Grotius seems to acknowledge them as genuine, since, citing Polycarp in the translation of Victor of Capua, he copies out the fifth fragment entire. Nor does the illustrious Huet think otherwise: for among the ancient monuments

Editors' notes and page, col. 1021

Footnotes

(12) ‹anchor: Halloixius› · call in col 1021 · printed under col 1022

Halloix., Vit. PP. orient., tom. I, p. 522.

Halloix, Lives of the Eastern Fathers, vol. I, p. 522.

(13) ‹anchor: Usserius› · call in col 1021 · printed under col 1022

Usser. in Append. Ignat., post Smyrn. epist.

Ussher, in the Appendix to Ignatius, after the Letter to the Smyrnaeans.

(14) ‹anchor: Grotius› · call in col 1021 · printed under col 1022

Grot. in Joan. XVII, 4. Critic. sacr. tom. VI, col. 289.

Grotius on John 17:4. Critici sacri, vol. VI, col. 289.

(15) ‹anchor: Huetius› · call in col 1021 · printed under col 1022

Huet. De interpr. lib. II, cap. 7, § 2, p. 195.

Huet, On Translation, book II, ch. 7, § 2, p. 195.

Page

running head: 1021 EPISTOLA AD PHILIPPENSES. 1022 (across the page)
marginal letters: A ‹Exstant fragmenta V Responsionum Capitulo-› (beside the first line of the Monitum, between the columns); B ‹stris Huetius (15) : siquidem inter antiqua monu-›; C (in the footnotes, beside the end of note (8), not in this text); D (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
signature: none
other: The head of the page (the Antiqua versio of chapter XIII and the Greek Apud Eusebium in four narrow sub-columns, closing with the full-width line « Et de ipso Ignatio (11), etc., ut supra in fine epistolae. ») and footnotes (8)–(11) belong to PG005/polycarp_philippians, not to this unit; the volunteers' flagged line '...ine epistolae.' is that line's end, the letter's end-mark, not part of this unit's title.
other: Below a rule, this unit's title band, printed full width: MONITUM IN SUBSEQUENTIA FRAGMENTA. and the source line (GALLAND., Vet. Patr. Biblioth., I, …); the rest of the source line lies beyond the column crop and was not seen in the Q2 check.
other: Footnote (16) (Bull.), printed under col 1022, is called in col 1022, not in this column.
other: A word hyphenated across the column break (monu-|menta) is set whole at the end of this column.

PG 5:1022

quorum maximam partem vetustas consumpsit, recenset etiam Responsionum Polycarpi librum, unde quinque illa fragmenta quae a Feuardentio edita sunt, Latine reposuit Victor Capuanus. Ita quoque Georgius Bullus, qui ex aliis Polycarpi Epistolis Irenaeo memoratis quae interciderunt, esse desumpta ejusmodi fragmenta non aspernanda, omnino verisimile arbitratur : adeo ut ex eorum tertio, velut Polycarpiano, de Filii τῷ ὁμοουσίῳ argumentum depromat.

the greater part of which age has consumed, he also lists a book of Polycarp's Answers, from which Victor of Capua set down in Latin those five fragments that were published by Feuardent. So too George Bull, who judges it altogether likely that fragments of this kind, not to be despised, were taken from other Epistles of Polycarp mentioned by Irenaeus which have perished; so much so that from the third of them, as being Polycarp's, he draws an argument for the Son's being consubstantial.

II. Dubitant vero alii, quos inter Halloixius et Usserius. Et ille quidem nonnulla forte iis fragmentis assuta existimat ; cujusmodi est illud, quod sub finem secundi occurrit : Legitur et in dolio ferventis olei, pro nomine Christi, beatus Joannes fuisse demersus. « Neque enim, inquit, Polycarpus,

II. Others, however, have doubts, among them Halloix and Ussher. The former indeed thinks that some things have perhaps been stitched on to these fragments; of which kind is the passage that occurs towards the end of the second: "It is read also that blessed John was plunged into a jar of boiling oil for the name of Christ." "For neither," he says, "did Polycarp,

Editors' notes and page, col. 1022

Footnotes

(8) (continued) · call in col 1022

sebii exemplar ib. legitur ἡμῶν, quod et Rufinus secutus fuisse videtur, cum reddidit, « deferat litteras ad vos, » et Polycarpi vetus interpres eum vertit: « Deferat litteras meas, quas fecero ad vos; » ita enim illud, ὅπερ ποιήσω, exprimere volebat: quod non animadvertens Jacobus Faber, « quas et dedero ad vos, » hic substituit; contra manuscriptorum fidem. Ubi tamen et nostrum hunc Polycarpi et Eusebii interpretem Rufinum deceptum fuisse apparet, de litteris ad Philippenses deferendis ista accipientem, cum ad Antiochenos dandæ litteræ intelligantur; vel ab ipsis Philippensibus, si παρ' ὑμῶν, vel a Polycarpo et Smyrnæis suis, si παρ' ἡμῶν hic legendum fuerit; quod posterius ex Ignatii verbis illis, in Epistola ad Smyrnæos, firmamentum accipit: Ὃ ἐφάνη μοι ἄξιον, τοῦτό ἐστιν, ὥστε πέμψαι τινὰ τῶν ὑμετέρων μετ' ἐπιστολῆς, ἵνα συνδοξάσῃ τὴν κατὰ Θεὸν αὐτοῖς γενομένην εὐδίαν. « Quod mihi dignum factu est visum, hoc est: ut aliquem vestrum mittatis cum Epistola (ad Antiochenos videlicet in Syria), ut una cum illis glorificet Deum de tranquillitate, quam in Deo consecuti sunt. » USSER.

…[in the copy of Eu]sebius there, ἡμῶν ("from us") is read, which Rufinus too seems to have followed when he rendered, "let him carry letters to you," and the old interpreter of Polycarp translated it: "Let him carry my letters, which I shall have made to you"; for that is how he meant to express the phrase ὅπερ ποιήσω ("which I shall do"). Jacques Lefèvre (Faber), not noticing this, substituted here "which I shall also have given to you," against the witness of the manuscripts. Yet here it appears that both our old interpreter of Polycarp and Rufinus, Eusebius's interpreter, were misled, taking these words of letters to be carried to the Philippians, when letters to be given to the Antiochenes are meant: either from the Philippians themselves, if παρ' ὑμῶν is to be read here, or from Polycarp and his Smyrnaeans, if παρ' ἡμῶν. The latter finds support in those words of Ignatius in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans: "What seemed fitting to me is this: that you send one of your own with a letter, so that he may join in glorifying the calm that has come to them in God." "What has seemed to me worth doing is this: that you send one of yours with a letter (that is, to the Antiochenes in Syria), so that together with them he may glorify God for the tranquillity they have obtained in God." USSHER.

(printed under page 517)

(9) · call in col 1022

Τὰς ἐπιστολὰς Ἰγνατίου τὰς πεμφθείσας ἡμῖν ὑπ' αὐτοῦ. Ita locum hunc citant Eusebius, Nicephorus, et Græcus Actorum Ignatii scriptor anonymus: quam legitimam esse lectionem, agnoscit etiam Baronius, pro qua vetus Latinus Polycarpi interpres hic habet: « Epistolas Ignatii, quæ transmissæ sunt vobis ab eo, » ubi illud, « ab eo » (Græco ὑπ' αὐτοῦ respondens) ex Magdalenensis collegii exemplari restituimus; quod alii codices in « habeo » transmutarunt. ID.

"The letters of Ignatius sent to us by him." So this passage is quoted by Eusebius, Nicephorus, and the anonymous Greek writer of the Acts of Ignatius; Baronius too acknowledges this to be the genuine reading. In its place the old Latin interpreter of Polycarp has here: "the letters of Ignatius, which were sent to you by him," where we have restored "ab eo" ("by him," answering to the Greek ὑπ' αὐτοῦ) from the copy of Magdalen College, which other manuscripts changed into "habeo" ("I have"). The same [Ussher].

(printed under page 517)

(10) · call in col 1022

Καὶ ἄλλας ὅσας εἴχομεν παρ' ἡμῖν. Vide nostram de Ignatii et Polycarpi scriptis dissertationem, cap. 2. In eo vero quod sequitur: Ἐξ ὧν μεγάλα ὠφεληθῆναι δυνήσεσθε, anonymus martyrii B. Ignatii descriptor legit ὠφεληθήσεσθε, quomodo et vetus Polycarpi interpres reddidit: « Ex quibus magnus vobis erit profectus. » ID.

"And the others, as many as we had with us." See our dissertation on the writings of Ignatius and Polycarp, chapter 2. In what follows, "from which you will be able to be greatly benefited," the anonymous narrator of the martyrdom of blessed Ignatius reads ὠφεληθήσεσθε ("you will be benefited"), and so too the old interpreter of Polycarp rendered it: "from which there will be great profit for you." The same [Ussher].

(printed under page 517)

(11) · call in col 1022

Et de ipso Ignatio, etc. Hujus ita in Bibliotheca sua, de Polycarpi hac ad Philippenses Epistola agens, meminit Photius: Λέγει καὶ τὰς ἐπιστολὰς αὐτοῖς Ἰγνατίου τοῦ Θεοφόρου ἀπεσταλκέναι, καὶ αἰτεῖται ἀναδιδαχθῆναι παρ' αὐτῶν, εἴ τι περὶ ἐκείνου διακούσαιεν. « Dicit et epistolas Ignatii Theophori ad eos se misisse; petitque ab illis, si quid de eo inaudierint, edoceri. » In Halloixii tamen editione verba ista sunt omissa: quæ docent circa annum Dom. 106, eodem videlicet tempore, quo a Syria ad martyrium Romam abductus est Ignatius, scriptam a Polycarpo istam fuisse epistolam, « in qua, inquit idem Halloixius, cum color et lineamenta, quibus eam Irenæus, Eusebius, et Photius describunt, reperiantur; quin ipsius martyris germana sit, dubitari non potest. Nam et forma fidei ejus, atque prædicatio veritatis (quam Irenæus inde posse addisci admonet), clare in ea elucet; et testimonia, quæ illic citari e priore Petri Epistola Eusebius docet, multa comparent: et frequentes commonitiones cum perspicuitate sermonis atque simplicitate, juxta ecclesiasticam interpretandi formam (quibus eam abundare Photius profitetur), passim sese offerunt atque ostentant: ita ut ad perfectam ejus recognitionem vix desiderari amplius quidquam possit. » Hæc ille. In Latino vero codice D. Alexandri Petavii, tota Epistola ita concluditur: « Incolumes estote in Domino Jesu Christo, et gratia ipsius cum omnibus vobis. » ID.

"And about Ignatius himself," etc. Photius mentions this in his Bibliotheca when treating of this Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians: "He says that he has also sent them the letters of Ignatius the God-bearer, and asks to be informed by them if they have heard anything about him." "He says he has sent them the letters of Ignatius Theophorus, and asks them to tell him if they have heard anything of him." In Halloix's edition, however, these words are omitted. They show that this letter was written by Polycarp about the year of the Lord 106, at the very time when Ignatius was being led from Syria to Rome for martyrdom. "In this letter," says the same Halloix, "since the colour and features with which Irenaeus, Eusebius and Photius describe it are found, there can be no doubt that it is the martyr's own genuine work. For the form of his faith and the preaching of the truth (which Irenaeus advises can be learned from it) shine out clearly in it; many testimonies appear which, Eusebius tells us, are quoted there from the First Epistle of Peter; and frequent admonitions, with clarity and simplicity of speech after the Church's manner of interpretation (in which Photius declares it abounds), present and show themselves throughout: so that hardly anything more could be wanted for its full recognition." So he. But in the Latin manuscript of Master Alexandre Petau, the whole Epistle ends thus: "Be safe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and His grace be with you all." The same [Ussher].

(printed under page 517)

(12) · call in col 1022

Halloix., Vit. PP. orient., tom. I, p. 522.

Halloix, Lives of the Eastern Fathers, vol. I, p. 522.

(printed under page 517)

(13) · call in col 1022

Usser. in Append. Ignat., post Smyrn. epist.

Ussher, in the Appendix to Ignatius, after the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans.

(printed under page 517)

(14) ‹anchor: agnoscere Grotius› · call in col 1022

Grot. in Joan. XVII, 4. Critic. sacr. tom. VI, col. 289.

Grotius, on John 17:4. Critici sacri, vol. VI, col. 289.

(printed under page 517)

(15) ‹anchor: illustris Huetius› · call in col 1022

Huet. De interpr. lib. II, cap. 7, § 2, p. 195.

Huet, De interpretatione, book II, ch. 7, § 2, p. 195.

(printed under page 517)

(16) · call in col 1022

Bull. Defens. fid. Nic., sect. II, cap. 3, § 7, p. 52.

Bull, Defensio fidei Nicaenae, section II, ch. 3, § 7, p. 52.

(printed under page 517)

Page

running head: LA AD PHILIPPENSES. 1022
marginal letters: A menta quorum maximam; B fuisse demersus. « Neque; C monia, quæ illic citari
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: begins with fragment σι of εἰσι from col. 1021; facing Latin sub-column (tinent enim fidem...) at top right left out; full-width lines ine epistolae., UBSEQUENTIA FRAGMENTA., and Patr. Biblioth., I, Proleg., p. LXV.) cut off at left edge, not set; editors' matter: menta quorum maximam (begins with fragment menta of monumenta from col. 1021, Latin only)
other: the column opens with the end of the previous work (another unit); not set here: the unit begins at menta quorum maximam partem vetustas
other (Q1): on the page the italic line ending "ine epistolæ." stands ABOVE the horizontal rule, directly under the letter's text, so it closes the letter (previous unit) and is not part of this work's title; the title band lies below the rule ("...UBSEQUENTIA FRAGMENTA." then the source line "(... Patr. Biblioth., I, Proleg., p. LXV.)"); left halves not visible in the column images. Footnote calls (12)–(15) stand in col. 1021's text, not 1022 (the notes are printed under page 517 and filed here).
running head: 1021 EPISTOLA AD PHILIPPENSES. 1022
marginal letters: A ‹menta quorum maximam partem vetustas consum-› (between the columns, first line of the Monitum); B ‹fuisse demersus. « Neque enim, inquit, Polycarpus,›; C (in the footnotes, not in this text); D (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PG 5:1023

qui omnia a B. Joanne acta, tanquam ejus discipulus, vel videbat ipse, vel ex eo audiebat, vel ex comitibus addiscebat, scripsisset, legitur, quasi scilicet, id non aliunde quam ex libris sciret ; sed potius simpliciter atque absolute dixisset : Idem Joannes in dolio ferventis olei, Christi nomine demersus fuit : quod longe majorem vim haberet, quam istud legitur. Est enim haec vox de rebus ante nostra tempora praeteritis, non vero de iis quae nostra memoria, nobisque viventibus et fere videntibus, circa amicos nostros et magistros accidunt. » Haec Halloixius. Et recte sane. Hinc locus ille vel ex Tertulliano, vel ex Hieronymo qui ab hoc scriptore Africano eam narrationem accepit, videtur adjectus. Quid vero si membrum illud, ab aliena manu orae codicis Graeci quo usus est Victor additum, interpres exinde aliud agens in suam versionem intulerit ? Quid si librarius, Catenam a Victore Latine redditam exscribens, atque idem membrum quod aliquis eruditus margini adjecerit, pertinere ad suum textum existimans, in suum exemplar conjiciendum putarit ?

who as his disciple either saw himself all the things done by blessed John, or heard them from him, or learned them from his companions, have written, it is read, as though, forsooth, he knew it from no other source than from books; but rather he would have said simply and absolutely: The same John was plunged into a vat of boiling oil in the name of Christ: which would have far greater force than that expression it is read. For this word is used of things past before our times, not of those which happen in our own memory, while we are living and almost seeing them, concerning our friends and teachers." Thus far Halloix. And rightly indeed. Hence that passage seems to have been added either from Tertullian, or from Jerome, who received that narrative from this African writer. What, however, if that clause, added by another hand to the margin of the Greek codex which Victor used, was thence brought by the translator into his version while minding other things? What if a copyist, transcribing the Catena rendered into Latin by Victor, and thinking that the same clause which some learned man had added to the margin belonged to his text, thought fit to cast it into his exemplar?

Aliud insuper censura notandum in his fragmentis detexisse sibi videtur Usserius, eorumque auctorem ἀκυρολογεῖν pronuntiat, dum in quinto Christum crucis vexillum conscendisse scribit. « Nam, ait, gestari quidem vexillum crucis non semel audivimus ; sed conscensum a Christo fuisse vexillum illud, nullibi adhuc invenimus. » At hoc demum tanti non est, ut ea de causa fragmenta illa penitus rejicienda quis jure definiat. Nullam certe ἀκυρολογίαν ibidem advertit Grotius vir summus. Quid porro si Graece scripserit σημεῖον Polycarpus, crucem intelligens, atque huic voci verbum consentaneum aptarit ? Sic sane locutus est Barnabas in Epist. cap. 12. Sic item Ignatius in Epist. ad Smyrn. cap. 1, ubi phrasin αἴρειν σύσσημον usurpat S. Martyr : σύσσημον, inquam, quod Hesychio et Suidae est σημεῖον. Hoc itaque fortasse imitatus sanctus Smyrnensis antistes, pari loquendi ratione usus fuerit, quam minus apposite reddiderit vetus interpres.

Moreover, Ussher seems to himself to have detected another thing worthy of censure in these fragments, and pronounces that their author uses improper language when in the fifth he writes that Christ ascended the standard of the cross. "For," says he, "that the standard of the cross is borne we have heard more than once; but that that standard was ascended by Christ we have hitherto found nowhere." Yet this after all is not of such moment that on that account anyone could rightly determine that those fragments are to be wholly rejected. Certainly that greatest of men, Grotius, noticed no impropriety of language there. What furthermore if Polycarp wrote in Greek σημεῖον, understanding the cross, and fitted a consonant verb to this word? Thus indeed spoke Barnabas in his Epistle, ch. 12. Thus likewise Ignatius in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 1, where the holy Martyr uses the phrase αἴρειν σύσσημον: σύσσημον, I say, which in Hesychius and Suidas is σημεῖον. Imitating this, therefore, perhaps the holy bishop of Smyrna used a like manner of speaking, which the ancient translator rendered less aptly.

Verum, his missis, ad illud potius, et quidem

But, leaving these things aside, let us come rather to that point, and indeed

Editors' notes and page, col. 1023

Footnotes

(17) · call in col 1023

Tertull. De Praescript., cap. 36.

Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum, ch. 36.

(printed under page 518)

(18) · call in col 1023

Hieron. adv. Jovin., lib. I, cap. 26.

Jerome, Against Jovinian, book I, ch. 26.

(printed under page 518)

(19) · call not in col 1023's text (called in the following column); printed under col 1023

Tillem. Mém. eccl., tom. II, p. 635, not. 4.

Tillemont, Mémoires ecclésiastiques, vol. II, p. 635, note 4.

(printed under page 518)

(20) · call not in col 1023's text (called in the following column); printed under col 1023

Pind. Nem. od. X, 59.

Pindar, Nemean Ode 10, line 59.

(printed under page 518)

Page

running head: 1023 S. POLYCARPI MART
marginal letters: A qui omnia a B. Joanne; B aliena manu oræ codicis; C rejicienda quis jure; D Verum, his missis
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin prose with Greek words (ἀκυρολογεῖν, ἀκυρολογίαν, σημεῖον, αἴρειν σύσσημον); editors' matter: qui omnia a B. Joanne

PG 5:1024

gravius, accedamus, quod in fragmento secundo notat Tillemontius ; ubi fertur Jacobus Joannis frater, novissimus martyrio sublatus ; qui tamen primus inter apostolos pro Christo sanguinem fudisse perhibetur : ut proinde sententia ejusmodi Polycarpo prorsus indigna videatur. Verum ne ista quidem objectio negotium ullum facessere comperitur. Agesis, fac demum, in suo textu ἔσχατον legisse interpretem ; quam quidem vocem obvio sensu acceptam, novissimum Latine reddendam duxerit : an ideo statim erroris arguendus Fragmentorum auctor ? Imo vero ille rectissime scripserit, Jacobum ἔσχατον martyrio consumptum, eaque vox vertenda fuerit primum, non autem novissimum. Vadem ultro hic sese mihi offert Hesychius : Ἔσχατον = πρῶτον. Glossam Hesychianam confirmaturus eruditus Abreschius in Miscell. Pindarum excitat sic loquentem :

a weightier one, which Tillemont notes in the second fragment; where James the brother of John is said to have been the last taken off by martyrdom; who nevertheless is related to have shed his blood for Christ first among the apostles: so that accordingly a statement of this sort seems altogether unworthy of Polycarp. Yet not even that objection is found to cause any difficulty. Come now, suppose after all that the translator read ἔσχατον in his text; and taking that word in its obvious sense, thought it should be rendered in Latin novissimum: is the author of the Fragments therefore immediately to be convicted of error? Nay, rather, he may most rightly have written that James was consummated by martyrdom ἔσχατον, and that word should have been translated first, not last. Of his own accord Hesychius offers himself to me here as surety: Ἔσχατον = πρῶτον. To confirm the Hesychian gloss, the learned Abresch in his Miscellanea cites Pindar speaking thus:

ἀμιλλᾶται περὶ Ἐσχάτων ἀέθλων κορυφαῖς.

he contends for the summits of the highest prizes.

Videsis praestantem Hesychii editionem, a cl. Joanne Alberti adornatam. Ex quibus liquet, horum fragmentorum auctoritati parum aut nihil officere quae objiciuntur ; eaque demum ut vim haberent aliquam, e Graeco potius textu quam ex versione essent definienda.

See the excellent edition of Hesychius prepared by the renowned Johannes Alberti. From which it is clear that the objections raised do little or no harm to the authority of these fragments; and that for them to have any force at all, they would have to be determined from the Greek text rather than from the version.

Caeterum si quid adhuc animadvertere liceat, putaverim equidem fragmenta illa esse Responsionum excerpta, ut fert quidem inscriptio, quas Polycarpus, a suis interrogatus, sive praesentibus sive absentibus, edere consueverat ; quaeque proinde ab aliquo vel auditorum vel eorum quibus ejus epistolae inscribebantur, deinceps exceptae fuerint ac litteris traditae. Siquidem beatus ille antistes plerumque sedens disserebat, atque ad populum sermones habebat : Καθεζόμενος διελέγετο, καὶ τὰς διαλέξεις ἐποιεῖτο πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος, ut nos edocet Irenaeus αὐτόπτης ; qui et ipsum ad quosdam ex fratribus epistolas missitasse ibidem refert. Accedit, fragmenta illa saeculi apostolici genium exprimere, eamque simplicitatem sapere quam ipsamet Polycarpi Epistola spirare dignoscitur.

For the rest, if it be permitted to make one further observation, I for my part should think that those fragments are excerpts from the Responses, as indeed the title bears, which Polycarp, when questioned by his own, whether present or absent, was accustomed to give forth; and which accordingly were afterwards taken down and committed to writing by someone either of his hearers or of those to whom his epistles were addressed. Since indeed that blessed bishop for the most part discoursed sitting, and held addresses to the people: He discoursed sitting, and made his addresses to the multitude, as Irenaeus, an eyewitness, teaches us; who also relates in the same place that he frequently sent epistles to certain of the brethren. Moreover, those fragments express the spirit of the apostolic age, and savour of that simplicity which the Epistle of Polycarp itself is recognized to breathe.

Editors' notes and page, col. 1024

Footnotes

(21) · call in col 1024

Hesych. edit. Alb. tom. I, col. 1475, not. 1.

Hesychius, Alberti's edition, vol. I, col. 1475, note 1.

(printed under page 518)

(22) ‹anchor: Irenæus αὐτόπτης› · call in col 1024

Iren. epist. ad Florin., apud Euseb., H. E., lib. V, cap. 20.

Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book V, ch. 20.

(printed under page 518)